One of the best books, in my opinion, is the sports illustrated figure skating book by John Misha Petkevich.
I just looked at this book again, on spins.
I think the book is mostly very well written. But it has a minor issue that will only be a problem for physics geeks. The author uses physics terms, like "center of gravity" and "angular momentum", a lot. But he doesn't use the conventional physics definitions.
It is quite common for textbook to define its own definitions - even the most common physics textbooks have some variation of terms and conventions, but the terms he uses are pretty well standardized.
He was a great skater, and his way of thinking must have worked for him, and might work for you. But if you have, you may find it easiest to internally remap the physics terms to other terms.
For example, he says that while you are doing a well centered spin, your "center of gravity" is on the ice, and you have no "angular momentum".
In conventional physics definitions, if you conceptually divide your body into tiny pieces of equal weight, their average position would be your center of gravity - so your center of gravity is somewhere in the middle of your body, and is not on the ice.
So, you could remap his "center of gravity" to something physically undefined, like "support point", to avoid a conflict between definitions.
Likewise, he effectively defines "angular momentum" as the sideways force from the ice on your blade created as you skate on edge, which is more properly known as the "centripetal force". So when he says that you have no angular momentum while doing a well centered spin, he means that the blade follows a circle because you are spinning, not because of the force of the blade from the ice - i.e., he doesn't press sideways against his blade while in such a spin.
But in conventional physics, angular momentum is a complicated measure of your amount of spin, which means you do have angular momentum while in a well centered spin.
So, if you correctly remap his "angular momentum" to "centripetal force" or to a physically undefined term like "side force", there will be no confusion.
(BTW, centripetal force from your blade is the force that creates your angular momentum. And you can have net spin without net angular momentum, if one part of your body turns one way while another part turns the opposite way - like the motion cats use to right themselves while falling - but not while you are holding a rigid pose.)
Like I already said, physics term definition issues are only significant for physics geeks, and need not concern the rest of you.