No. I've already stated what my criteria is. I judge each shot based on the level of difficulty in executing the shot and the importance of the point.
The importance of the point is relative to the player, for example, Paire will most likely never play a Wimbledon final, so it's unfair to him to judge another shot as superior based on such. However, this is irrelevant here because I don't believe the 1st round of a 250 event, where he is playing a lowly ranked player is a momentous occasion for the man.
To me, the two points Roger Federer played against Andy Murray at the second set of the Wimbledon final last year were amongst the finest of the year and points that rank up there amongst the best ever played. I'm not one to say "this is the greatest shot of all time", it's an impossibility to do so, but Federer played those points perfectly out of nowhere and in the context of the stage he was at in his career and this match, they were truly magnificent. They are much more difficult to execute technically and the amount of pressure on these shots was immense. Of course, I can then use examples of lower ranked opponents which would just be as relevant, but Paire's shot does not fit either criteria.
I don't say your criteria is wrong, there's no such thing when we talk about personal preferences.
I respect your opinion, i like such shots as well.
According to ATP though (and the most popular criteria as from hundreds of polls about last year's best shot of the year) people prefer the kinds of shots of Dimitrov, which is quintessentially the same in what concerns conditions, moment, stage, etc. as this one.
I prefer those and i'm entitled to do so, just as probably half the tennis fans, or a third or whatever.
I don't see the problem.