Yes,it is 'horses for courses'. Having in the past been an enthusiastic exponent of point and power I am not so sure anymore. I agree the amount of inertia/weight of your particular steed probably determines the best method to use. I have seen drawbacks to both methods when applied to light aircraft.
The average student struggling to maintain a constant glidepath (why do we call it that ?) using the 'old method' is often reluctant to change his approach path in the last 100ft and goes where the aircraft takes him -usually to the middle of the runway where he feels pressurised into completing his landing before he runs out of runway. For this problem I have introduced point and power in the 'last 100ft'
The reason I no longer advocate 'point and power' earlier (higher) is that our average (non RAF selected) student seems to cope better with the old method. It also gets him out of trouble when he hits the wrong side of the drag curve and and elevators will restore the speed by reducing induced drag faster than the power input he is likely to make'
It is also better in the strong wind gradient situation.
It also makes sense when teaching to maintain two reds and two whites -PAPIs.
However, remember, that you cannot, in a light aircraft, expect to make any change to pitch without a corresponding change to power and vice versa - all other things being equal. A experienced pilot is seamlessly using the two together.
If you teach the 'old method' a competent student is in fact using point and power in the latter part of the approach to bring his speed back to the Vat - and he is doing this without realising it has a name.
Sorry to preach. I only have 14,000 hours but something like 25,000 approaches and landings - not to count the bounces !