You could listen to the sim instructors, the examiners, and me...
Or you could go to my Citation manual. which states that TRs weren't included in the landing data.....and probably your flight manual as well, and might talk about how the breaking distances were derived..
Your aircraft could be different...and how it was certified could be different...maybe working reverse is required on that aircraft...you didn't state which type..
The theory is that braking technique is pretty standard, levers back, apply brakes...but trying to define how much one pilot adds in TRs and revers prop is harder to quantify when it comes to hard landing distances. With reverse props...going from a McCualy 4 blade to a three blade, changes things..but the book numbers stay the same....And also many models of Citations and Lears for instance didn't have TRs, then aftermarket ones came out...they ddin't recertify landing distances with TRs added..
I mean some Lears had parachutes...anyone got any landing distance numbers with a parachute vs without (As I open up my lear book)
This conversation could follow to adnauseam where brake mods, Vortex Generators, Ram engine upgrades, ect installed on the aircraft are there to help but many times you don't get a piece of paper that says you can fly faster, heaver, land shorter ect....
Guppy...you may have hit something there..he may be trying to get into a field that is shorter then his landing distances allow by using his reverse...