Pace, all good points (bar a couple
) I hope both backpacker and I have made it clear that IF we're taking the bigger bank angles, it is done with extra knots in the bank - thereby covering the reduced margin. It's not a recommendation that everyone should do it. Unfortunately I was more reacting to someone's implication that banking >15degrees in the circuit made one a bad pilot. Silly of me.
As for speed and profile control every approach needs it, however, horses for courses - The average jet requires a stabilised approach, particularly because of the response of jet engines. Your average bugsmasher is not so constrained. If I ever fly jets I'm sure I'll use a stabilised approach as per SOP. That's no reason to fly one in a warrior.
Having done most of my flying with old school instructors - my circuits are close, so I can turn in at any point if it goes quiet, and I rarely take much, if any flap until I'm sure I can make it without the noise up the front (aka the glide approach, and very much out of fashion). By modern standards I'm too high. Flying at an urban airfield I'll take that any day over the off field landing alternatives, and before anyone screams 'shock cooling', I'll have cooled the engine quite adequately on descent.
None of that is to say I'm not giving thought to margins (e.g. having an extra few knots in the tighter turns), or planning where/when I'm going to hit my 'profile'. But at a fairly busy mixed airfield it's a fluid environment - a rigid numbers circuit holds everyone up, and serves little purpose. You'll quite likely get a request to maintain speed, cos there's a twin about to chew your tail off, or similar.
All of which is a very long winded way of trying to make the point there is no 'perfect' circuit (even if there are an awful lot of imperfect ones!)
And yes, I score every one of mine, critically and aim to improve. The good ones are very satisfying. For some bizarre reason my more unconventional approaches usually work out better than the more conventional ones - who knows why!