Person A trains everyday and quits after five years.
Person B trains 2 times sometimes once a week for the rest of his/her life.
Who is the more committed?
This is where I see the problem...
Let's posit that this is all done under the same teacher and that teacher is very high level. I would say that almost certainly A) was better when he quit than B) ever achieved.
So, that's always been at the heart of my doubts... is there some inherent value in being mediocre in Aikido, just because it's Aikido or is there some theoretical baseline below which it is just too shallow to really be worth much at all and is perhaps something of a waste of time?
A) May have walked away... but the lessons from the intensive experience are far deeper and more based in some reality than those derived from the half-hearted and inconsistent experience of B). So, A) walked away with something of substantial value from the experience. While B) stays in the art and dabbles for years and years.
Unfortunately, B) will be precisely the person Saotome Sensei would be referring to when he chides the folks at camp. "I see you people every year for ten years... each year your Aikido is the same. Your practice, what meaning?"
So, personally, I am coming down on the side of A) is being the more committed. He trained harder and went deeper when he trained. The other fellow has been pretending to train for a long time.