Hill pretty much invented the running streak. I think that gives him the right to decide whether his streak is alive or not. What reason would there be for you rather than Ron to get to decide if a run on crutches counts as a run or not? And that sort of ties in with my "weak" point about your accomplishments versus Hill's.
It's not uncommon here for people to post stuff like "If Jim Ryun (or Ron Clarke or Gerry Lindgren, etc.) had trained properly he'd have had at least one Olympic gold medal." Or "If Lydiard really understood physiology his runners would have been even better." The implied message being that the poster, despite the absence of any tangible accomplishments, knows better than world class coaches or athletes do.
When someone has been more successful at something than you've been you're almost always going to be better off trying to learn from how those people managed to do as well as they did rather than seizing on what they didn't accomplish and using it as a pretense to claim that you're superior to them. Hill acknowledges that there were things he could have done better but not having his streak isn't one of them. He saw it as instrumental to the successes he had but of course YOU know that he's wrong there and naturally because you've got Internet access that must mean he's wrong and you're right. It's just such a big headed presentation that I can only imagine your motive is to annoy people and you have, so congratulations there.
It was around the time Hill was winning Boston, etc, that he started getting interviewed about his training and he mentioned that he'd run every day since Dec. 20, 1964. Naturally, that got a lot of attention and as the years passed by and he maintained a visible presence in the running world, which was his livelihood by then, he was constantly asked about whether his streak was still intact. There really was no way he could not tell people that his streak was still going on. And he probably was smart to make sure people heard that it was alive because it did keep his name and legend alive and if nothing else that was good for his business.
I don't know how old you are or how long you've been running or even if you do or ever did. But if you live long enough you're going to find that you cannot do the things you once did. You keep talking about "proper training." I haven't really trained in 11 years. But I've run each day, sometimes twice each day, for over 27 years including that last 11. Now it's because I like doing it. Every day for me is better when I've gotten my run in. There's never a day when I don't want to run so why would I not run? Every now and again the urge to enter a race comes along and if I enter one I run it as hard as I can but whatever happens is just a by product of the running that I like to do. I don't have any real goals or ambitions anymore other than to keep going.
Of course what I can do now isn't anything close to what I could do 30 years ago and maybe the me from then wouldn't consider what the me of right now does as running. But it's faster than I walk. What else would I call it?
If someone convinced me that taking a day off every week or two was going to make me the best 60 year old in the northeast I'd do it but I doubt off days would make me faster and if they did it would be too marginal improvement to make take them. I suspect the same is more or less true for Hill. He's not really interested in complying with with what you'd define as proper training at this stage and is just enjoying the ride right now and hoping it goes on for a good while and I'm glad to see that he's getting appreciation for a life spent in our sport.