There are many different "flavors" of thru-hiking, each with its own trade-offs. It depends on what kind of an experience you want. I do not think there is a "right" or "wrong" just an "appropriate for your goals". Regardless of how you choose, I do think we all have to be honest about what we did. If a designation has certain "requirements" and I do not do all of them, then I cannot claim to have that particular designation. A defined thru-hike in its purest form, is an accomplishment, but doing variations is just a different accomplishment. Most of the PCT journals I read last year were very honest about what they were doing.

So here is another question. Does a through-hike have to be on a designated trail with a starting point "A" and ending point "B"? What about 2 months of wandering up the spine of a mountain range?

Is hiking over roads across the country, continously, yet slopping over into two years, a thru-hike?

I plan to do a thru-hike of sorts this summer- 35 days through the Wind River Mountains, 95% off trail, packer resupplies so that I never come out to civilization until finished. I doubt there are any PCT, CDT or ACT hikers who have gone 35 days away from any form of civilization. Does not make my trip any better or worse- just a different experience. I am going to plod along at about 6 miles a day, not near like the 25 miles a day trail through-hikers do.

I am not sure the "name" assigned has much to do with the experience. If one does the PCT in three seasons, one state at a time they still have the experience, even though they do not have the "thru-hike" label. However, if the athletic accomplishment of doing the entire trail on one season is what motivates you and is important to you, then by all means go for it. It IS a unique accomplishment.

And I do agree with BrianLee-- most fanatical "purists" are armchair athletes. What are you going to do- walk right through a forest fire and die a purist?