Book 7: Who is more praiseworthy?

After reading Book 7 I couldn’t help but wonder whether it was more worthy of praise to possess great virtue or to possess great self-restraint. It seems initially that the most natural answer would be virtue, but I want to know exactly why before I jump to this conclusion. I’m aware that the relevance of this question is debatable and is not very significant in our overall discussion of ethics since it has been firmly established that virtue is superior to self-restraint, however I’m still curious.
If two men are running a marathon and one is a gifted athlete while the other has a prosthetic leg, and the gifted runner finishes much sooner than the handicapped runner, why is that we would perhaps give the handicapped runner more praise or at least as much praise as the gifted runner for completing the marathon? The gifted runner is obviously more virtuous in the physical category of running since he is naturally inclined to excel, while the handicapped runner has a huge obstacle to overcome just to achieve such a feat. We give them both praise, but it is two different kinds of praise. The gifted runner is praised for being virtuous and talented, while the handicapped runner is praised for possessing a grand determination and self-discipline. Also, completing the marathon is a much different accomplishment for each of the runners. I believe this can be paralleled to a contrast between someone who was given the proper upbringing and naturally develops virtuous qualities while young versus someone who experienced a poor upbringing and naturally developed vices while young. The “finish line” in this circumstance would be that both subjects attain an impressive level of goodness, one through virtue and the other through self-restraint. It seems that the naturally virtuous character has an easier time of things because he only has to follow his natural tendencies which guide towards whatever he takes pleasure in, which is goodness. The character with vices has to develop restraint through reasoning and genuine realization that good will serve him better. Also, he does not necessarily take pleasure in his restrained actions. The vice-stricken subject is certainly handicapped in this sort of race.
I must conclude that both subjects are worthy of accolades and one cannot hoist one above the other. This is due to the fact that I tend to discredit people who are naturally virtuous because it seems like they don’t have to put forth any effort for their virtue. However, if I observe the case of the stereotypical “preacher’s kid”, which I would define as someone who is brought up in a good home with virtuous role models as parents, these kids who on paper should grow up to be virtuous people are very often stricken with vices. I know several literal “preacher’s kids” and some of them are virtuous and some of them are incredible opposites of their parents. It is because of this example that I must give naturally virtuous people praise for retaining their virtues, because this is indeed a challenge, especially with all of the temptations our society has to offer.