To me this sounds like good reporting of what I'd guess often happens when
someone tries using longer poles without having trained regularly with them.

It feels awkward and less effective. Because it _is_ less effective -- and
could cause injury if not done carefully: Forcing muscles and joints to
work in a larger range of motion than what they're currently trained for.

But there's some other critical questions:

-- Which length of poles is more effective _after_ months (or at least
weeks) of careful progressive training with them?

-- Which length is better for different situations? hilly versus flat,
slow snow versus fast, sprint versus distance

-- Which pole length makes you go faster as _measured_ on a controlled
time-trial course? (versus which _feels_ like "more powerful" or "less
energy needed"?

Fortunately I can reveal the answers in advance:
(1) it's tricky to sort out.
(2) it depends.

Ken