My tuppence.....the basic difference between the two approaches you describe in your initial post can be described as the US Army method compared to the US FAA method.
The Army taught a constant angle, decreasing speed approach beginning at about 300 feet AGL...and an airspeed of about 60 mph/knots and an approach angle of about 6-9 degrees (as best as I cann remember) for the "normal" approach....and 12-15 degrees for the "steep" approach.
The FAA used the same entry point but maintained airspeed at or above Vtoss until 30-50 feet....then a deceleration to the hover at 3-5 feet AGL. The goal was to carry a bit of airspeed in case of an engine failure or tail rotor failure....one to allow for a bit of Rotor RPM if an engine failure or to provide streamlining should the tail rotor fail. The profile is not aggressive....just holds a bit more airspeed and uses a deceleration at the end of the approach rather than a more gradual constant rate of deceleration all along the approach.
Either method works.
Neither are hard to do or learn.
Neither are unsafe.
If you are flying with two instructors and they are telling you one of the methods is the better and the other is not good....get the two of them together and the three of you settle upon how you should be taught so that you are not fighting opposing viewpoints. Practice both....learn both....use both...but the instructors must agree on what you are being taught.
Better yet....perhaps a CAA check pilot can offer you guidance on how the maneuver should be flown on a license check ride....that is what matters most.....once you get the license...then use whatever method fits the occasion.
Another thought.....High and Slow.....watch out below! Low and Fast....bust yer Ass! Airspeed can be traded for Rotor RPM....height is always traded for rate of descent.....groundspeed at touchdown can trip you up! Look for the happy medium between height and speed and you cannot go too far wrong.