The Question: Is it acceptable to use a nominalized participle as an adjective?
A participle is a verb form used as an adjective; examples include the running man and the caught ball, as well as (sorry for the self-reference) a verb form used as an adjective.
A nominalized adjective is an adjective that functions as a noun. One example of such is in the classic garden-path sentence: The old man the boat. These are often formed by the elision of people immediately following the adjective in question.
Finally, a noun adjunct is a noun that is used as would be an adjective: The tennis player. The chicken soup. The beer drinker.
If one were to nominalize a participle, it would result in something along the lines of the running are the most fit. Though this looks awkward (and, quite frankly, wrong), my gut tells me that this is a valid construction. If I am wrong about this, then the rest of my question can be ignored, so please inform me.
Now to adjuncts. A gerund (a verb used as a noun) can certainly be used in this way: The gaming addicts. I can conceive no reason why nominalized participles would not also be usable like this (unless I am wrong about the existence of nominalized participles); a word used so would be a verb used as an adjective used as a noun used as an adjective. However, after several hours of thought, I have been unable to form an example that does not sound incorrect nearly comprehension.
The Question, again: Can participles be nominalized? If so, can the nominalized participle then be used to describe a noun? Finally, assuming affirmation of the previous two questions, what is a way (if one exists) to use a verb in this way without it sounding completely incorrect?