Obviously the tail configuration varies on a continuum, the extreme being the canard where the “tail” provides nearly all the lift. There are also the “Flying Flea” and the Delane Duo-Monoplane of the 50’s where the wing and tail share the lift somewhat equally. All can be brought into balance with an acceptable degree of stability. Free flight models like you mentioned not only have long tail moments but rather large tail surfaces, which allow a more rearward cg (even to the trailing edge) with positive stability. The free flight designer has the luxury of designing to only two flight conditions, climb under full power and glide at minimum sink rate.

For airplanes of more conventional configuration, and proportion, the normal force on the tail whether positive or negative should be held to a minimum consistent with the stability desired. This is not only more efficient but makes an aerobatic ship respond more nearly the same upright and inverted.

Again, what you have said is merely that trainers balloon because they are more stable in pitch and pattern ships do not because they are much less so.