I was also musing about the style of this the other day.
If Caldwell wasn't the golden boy and it was the Huber brothers up there, would there be more questions over style?
Those tactics are no longer used because the objectives they achieve are no longer cutting edge.
albeit on ones that are at a much lower technical level.
You've got e.g. the Belgians pushing big wall climbing standards using traditional tactics e.g. Asgard Jamming.
...the history of climbing is also full of inspirational difficult first ascents done in good style and these stories endure and inspire.
Wouldn't bolting ground up on hooks just mean shit loads of bolts all over the wall on pitches that are dead ends?
Who knows what the history of climbing is really full of? Bullshit, hyperbole and tall tales of daring-do make up a good part of it, but we'll never really know how much. Especially where free climbing is concerned: sneaky rest points, tension and outright frigging on otherwise 'free' ascents. Making shit up is also undoubtedly common.At least the style here is fully transparent.
Wouldn't bolting ground up on hooks just mean shit loads of bolts all over the wall on pitches that are dead ends? Sounds shit style to me!
1. Drop the ridiculous 'Himalayan seige-style' sherpa support teams. i.e. be self-contained as a team.'Team', remember that idea? A self-contained team of four climbers sharing leads is a more sensible way to approach this sort of challenge then trying to go as 2 individuals both desiring the glory of having climbed every pitch clean and thus requiring massive outside support to achieve this individual ambiton. It appears to me that self-gloryfication of two people has trumped the good sense of tackling the challenge in the manner that most fits the challenge, as a self-contained team ascent of three, four or five people. That to me would have been a far more aspirational style.
Pete, for clarification, by this do you mean one person lead and the others jug that pitch, then change who leads?