If you're landing with no obstacles to clear, I would agree that flying as close to stall speed as the wind conditions will allow, and using power to control the last few feet of descent may well produce the shortest landing roll. Steve Henry's recent video for the National STOL competition shows this pretty clearly. You can see him "hovering" along for maybe 30-50 feet, tweaking the throttle to remain airborne. Then, as he arrives at the line, he dumps the power and the plane immediately lands with a VERY short rollout. Thankfully, he's got long-stroke gear to handle the somewhat "stout" landing.
But with more "normal" airplanes, and more "typical" pilot skill (Steve is way more skilled than I), and in a more "typical" short-field situation with obstacles in the approach path, that technique would have me spending a LOT of time in what we helicopter pilots refer to as the "deadman's curve" airspeed/altitude profile. Since I'd be already right at the stalling speed, if the engine quit while I was above the trees, wires, or other obstacles, I'd have no remaining options... I definitely would be going to hit an obstacle, and the odds of damaging the plane (and/or myself) are pretty much 100%.
The so-called "dive dirty" technique is NOT, in my opinion, the "other" true alternative to the "nose high and slow" approach in real-world short-field situations. I've seen a few pilots at some of the STOL competitions try the "dive dirty" technique in the "over a 50-foot obstacle" competitions. They approach just barely above the obstacle height with full flaps. As soon as they clear the obstacle, they drop the nose (dive) to lose that altitude. Every time I've seen it used, it resulted in the airplane accelerating just enough to go floating down the runway in ground effect, with correspondingly increased landing distances. I've never seen a competitive short landing result from that technique. And if it doesn't work in those highly controlled "contest" circumstances, in airplanes typically optimized for STOL contests, flown by some of the most skilled STOL pilots on the planet, what would lead me to think it would work in my airplane out in the "real world"? For me, the "dive dirty" approach is a non-starter.
By contrast, the folks who establish a stabilized descent angle that clears the obstacle at the steepest angle they can maintain to the landing point (flaps, slip, or some combination of the two) have more options available once the clear the obstacle. They could lower the nose, but that will likely increase their landing distance (see above). They are more likely to be already using power to maintain their descent profile, so that they are still flying just above the stall speed as they cross the line, so there is less floating down the runway, and they wind up with shorter landing distances as a result.
For as for me, I'm way more of an "ordinary" (mere mortal) pilot, flying a pretty capable but more "ordinary" airplane – nothing like the specially prepared Carbon Cubs, Huskies, and "one-off" special-purpose STOL contest aircraft. The airplane is probably more capable than I am, if I'm honest with myself. And the main reason I would choose to use the "stabilized descent angle" comes down to preserving more options. If the engine quits, I'm still going to clear the obstacle(s) on my chosen glide path, so an engine failure carries a lower risk. And if it does quit, I have the option to use some of my "zoom reserve" to clear that last tree, then lower the nose to restore the energy for flaring, knowing that it's better to "roll" into an obstacle at the end of my landing (where I'd be going pretty slow) than to hit something while at flying speed.
Just one (average) man's thoughts on the subject...
