If you look at old enough Army training films,the "proper" 1911 hold is the "cup and saucer",resting the mag floorplate on the palm of the weak hand.
To still be doing what was done 50 years ago is OK,if t works for you,but that does not mean no one learned anything about doing it better over 50 years.
The Weaver stance was all the rage for a while.Some might say "I used the Weaver 40 yrs ago,it worked then and.... OK. Mikulek breaks it down and explains what is wrong with the Weaver in his training vid. You can still use the Weaver. Those who come in first don't.
Its hard to "unlearn" what is familiar.
But the OP was asking about the best method to learn. Clean slate.
If Miculek,Leatham,Koenig,Gunsight,Wison Combat,etc or what might be called "The Winners" pretty much agree on what works best,why steer a shooter who wants to learn toward techniques that have been abandoned by the winners,such as push-pull and the Weaver? Or cup and saucer?
Does anyone seriously believe 1940's Army 1911 technique is superior to what gets done with a 1911 by top shooters today?
Can you outshoot Julie Golob? Until you can,you aren't going to convince me that what you learned in the Army basic 40 or 50 yrs ago is better than what champion combat shooters use today. The modern SOCOM handgun training is different than what the Army taught in WW2.(No,I have not shot with SOCOM)
Having said that, the Old Army Bullseye shooters can shoot. I shot in a league with a 72 yr old guy who had hand tremors and coke bottle glasses .He used to shoot at Camp Perry. I recall his scores for slow,timed,rapid. Like a 297 with a lot of X's.