Motion clarity-resolution call it what you will. Fact is sample and hold display systems (OLED and LCD) are limited to about 300 lines motion resolution natively because thats how the human eye perceives motion with sample and hold. Impulse drive as used in Plasma allows the eye to perceive much higher native motion resolution. You know all this so why bother arguing?
For me the visible difference is quite noticeable on suitable content like sport, which is shot at relatively high shutter speeds at 50/60 frames per second and therefore has lower motion blur to begin with, however for movies which are shot at 24fps with low shutter speeds motion is so blurred 300 lines is not a noticeable limitation.
I actually PREFER sample and hold display for movies because the added motion blur reduces the visibly of low frame rate jitter without the need for strong motion interpolation. Late model 3D capable Plasma's use phosphors with fast decay times which gives them extremely high motion resolution BUT has the down side of making frame transitions at 24fps very noticeable resulting in intolerable jitter without motion interpolation enabled. The older non 3D Plasma's with slower phosphor decay times where a better compromise IMHO, clear motion and no real need for motion interpolation.
For people who watch sport of game on a TV motion resolution most certainly can be an important issue, but since I dont do either its a non issue to me, or you to by the sounds of it.
Some TV manufactures obviously feel there is a need for better native motion resolution with their sample and hold displays and include BFI in an attempt to mimic Plasma's pulse drive. LG haven't done that yet with OLED, the loss of brightness that would result is obviously considered to great a drawback in a brightness obsessed TV market.