I prefer to use the same landing technique for an 8,000 ft runway as for a 600 ft dirt strip.
I see the situation differently. If I have 8000 feet of good runway available, I'll make a darned good job of a nice landing, knowing that I have less control over the touchdown point than I would have had with power available. If I have 600 feet of dirt, I know that I can get it on the ground, but it may be messy. I would allow myself the knowledge that it could be damaging to the aircraft with either an undershoot, or overshoot. My insurer would be happy if my 600 foot dirt strip runway in non injurious, or causes third party liability. They'll accept some damage to the plane if my 600 foot dirt strip landing were imperfect. OTOH, the insurer is going to think poorly of me if I err, and damage a plane by poor spot landing technique, when there was 8000 feet of runway available, and I obviously had the speed height to make it. A real emergency is not the time to fuss up the main task, trying to be perfect about it, just be as safe and non damaging as possible.
My first forced landing (of five over the years) was a gliding approach from a wide downwind (though a landing had not been intended at that airport, until it coincidentally quit then). The runway was Toronto Island Airport, and there is water at the very end of that runway. My aim point was not the end of the runway, it was about one third along, in case I undershot. I was not embarrassed to roll out long in a 182 on a 3000 foot runway. I was safely down with no splash. When I land there with power from time to time, I pride myself on not tying up traffic, I clear at the intended taxiway neatly each time, with no protracted time on the runway.