I watched a pilot three point a 172, and very shortly after saw the elevator droop so as to suggest that the pilot had entirely released the controls. That pilot did not land the airplane for very long.
That pilot didn't 'land' the aeroplane at all. He flew it onto the ground. Why are PPLs today (they were where did my PPL) told, nay have it hammered into them, that nose legs are NOT designed to take landing loads and they WILL break if you behave are lazy when landing.
Look at the number of collapsed noselegs in the monthly AAIB reports. Each one of those will entail an expensive airframe repair and engine rebuild (shock loaded) and and probably a new prop. The 'pilots' (I hesitate to call them that) may walk away from such aeroplane damage, but everyone who flies pays for their ham fistedness through their insurance premiums. Insurance is there to cover the unforeseeable, but here it is paying for entirely predictable 'pilot' induced damage.
Why were the tailwheel pilots displaying more skill? Because tailwheel aeroplanes don't let you get away with sloppy technique as trikes do.