In reply to Damo:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> I know what you mean, have done for a while. But as one who has been accused countless times of unjustifiable hair-splitting and narrow minded subjectivity ... I think you've outdone even me on this one, Robert.
I don't think it is hair splitting at all.
> His speed, as a result of his own skill, judgement, experience and the conditions, is an improvement on yours.
Yes, his speed is obviously an "improvement" on mine, but speed in itself is not, I think, the same as style. Mybe you think otherwise.
And in terms of risk/safety, I hear the Eiger NF is a dangerous place, so the less time spent on it the better, so in that regard I do consider Steck's climb 'better' than yours. Was his climb fast but dangerously risky? Yes, maybe, but he might think you exposed yourself to danger for too long. You two can work that one out ...
I suspect that having the skill to go a lot faster than me and the prudence to go slower than Steck would be a happy medium in terms of safety - but is that the same as style?
> The Gilmore-Mahoney vs. Backes-House-Twight ascents of the Slovak route on Denali in 2000 is a good example of that.
It is exactly this route that I have had in mind while thinking about the speed/style thing, though comparing the Backes-House-Twight ultra light single push with the recent Bullock-Houseman ascent carrying a tent and presumably more food and fuel. I don't see the style (alpine in both cases) as being different, just the tactics (trading off speed for security) adopted to achieve that style. No doubt you will accuse me of splitting hairs again, but how much security we trade for the advantages of speed is a decision everyone takes on virtually every route from a hill-walk in Snowdonia to state of the art superalpine stuff in the greater ranges.