I think that, disregarding minority extremes, the term 'elitist' referred to the average competitive battler is not incorrect. It's a little exaggerated, since the word has some negative connotations with it, negative connotations that are not fully shared by the average competitive battler, but, to an extent, that is what they are.
Since a player starts off almost always as a casual player, going through the game sometimes with only a rudimentary grasp of strategy. Later on, after a few years of owning the game, it's natural for the person to develop better skills for the more tough challenges, and see themselves as better than they once were.
This pattern continues for when they decide to test their skills against real people. They see themselves face people of equal and greater skills, and soon see their current tactics to be insufficient for the challenge. Thus, as they had done when facing, say, the Battle Frontier, they improve their strategy. And, as with the Battle Frontier, they end up considering themselves better players because of it.
Just as we tend to look upon trainers who beat the game with an overleveled Charizard and see ourselves as better, with our more balanced and effective teams, with pity for their ignorance and a little condescension for us being 'better', so such competitive battlers tend to look upon those who build their teams with sweepers and don't use ultra-complex strategies with pity and condescension. While in this case there is something to be said for playing both styles, I can't begrudge the competitive battlers for feeling the way they do, seeing as we feel the same way towards another simpler style of playing.
Also note that when I say 'we', I use it for the fanbase as a whole and I recognize that exceptions do exist, so there's no reason to speak up if, on those grounds, you feel differently from what I've stated.
