Wright flyer.

And while yes, you can do math to get an approximate stall speed vs AOB, why do public math? Especially in the pattern.

Also remember, stall speed is predicated off of a slow decel rate as well.. You whip it over to 60 and pull, and it's going to stall at a higher speed, even without an abrupt pullup.

Of course, do this with an AOA gauge, and you can see the transient high AOA before speed and AOA come back to jiving with each other.

In dynamic flying, I trust my ass more than airspeed, and I trust AOA more than both of those combined.

Airliners and most GA never get all that close to stall speed in normal operation. I think (don't have proof) that the 1.3 Vso = Approach speed came from all the safety factors they have to put into making sure approach speed stays well above stall, with all possible airspeed and aircraft weight/cg computation errors, plus allowances for gust and turns.

I'd be comfortable flying at around 1.1 Vso with an AOA gauge on approach. I used to do it somewhat regularly. In a big plane. To a moving target.

Speed is energy. Energy dissipates from planes in three main ways.
Aerodynamic Drag (friction)
Brakes (more friction, with a bonus of heat retained on the airframe and possible fire if bad enough)
Reverse Thrust

Any kinetic energy not absorbed by one of the above tends to get arrested by the ground, which is technically a form of braking, oftentimes called a crash.

Landing slower, but above stall is generally safer and easier on the equipment. Hence why we normally land and takeoff into the wind.

I have no problem taking King Airs with AOA systems into absurdly short fields. (granted, VMCa usually becomes my limiting factor before AOA, but yeah, slower is better when landing rough and short)