Maybe, but I think this is a somewhat valuable thread for this forum, as there is a great diversity of climbing styles in SoYo (Higgin's notion of coexistence), which isn't necesarily as prevalent in other regions (though I'm far from an authority on that matter, just speculating a bit.)
FWIW, this was a nice articulation of the different approaches to climbing by Rich Goldstone from a thread on MP. Thought it might want to dwell here as well:
"I guessing I'm an even older and fartier fart than Crackhack. One has to remember that climbing has evolved, and with that evolution come people whose interests and goals are not quite the same as the interests and goals of earlier generations. One way of viewing the evolution is from the perspective of the trad/sport dichotomy, and there is little doubt that sport climbing has driven most of the changes in climbing in, say, the last thirty years. But whatever the original sources of ferment, I think one might understand modern rock climbing better using a different framework.
What I have in mind might be called the tension between adventure climbing and performance climbing. The fundamental ingredient in adventure climbing is uncertainty---that's where the adventure comes from. The fundamental ingredient in performance climbing is...performance. These are different perspectives on what can often be the same activity, and the way climbers treat their goals and projects (and evaluate others' successes and failures) depends on which genre they are embracing at the moment, (It is important to understand that the terms describe approaches to climbing and not climbers, who may or may not embrace just one approach.)
If climbing is a sport, then I think the adventure genre is something of an anomaly, belonging to the vanishing realm of exploration as much or more than performance. The performance genre of climbing is much closer to other sporting endeavors; gymnastics especially seems to be an appropriate analogy. The gymnast tries to learn routines of great difficulty (for the person in question) on various apparatuses. In doing so, they employ every possible resource: hand spotting, overhead mechanics, videotaping, breaking the routine into small bits, all the beta available from experienced coaches, etc, and even with all this the outcome in a meet is far from guaranteed, because the difficulty level is high.
I see performance climbing in the same light. The rock is, for the performance climber, an apparatus supplying a routine to be mastered, and it would be bizarre and counterproductive to deny oneself important information as part of the mastery process.
Gym climbing is performance climbing. Most sport climbing is performance climbing. Trad climbing can really be treated either as adventure or performance climbing, so I think it is in the trad realm that adventure vs. performance emerges most clearly.
To the extent that adventure and performance climbing are simply different individual perspectives, it would seem to me that everyone ought to be able to keep their undies untwisted. Live and let live. When real problems occur is when folks embracing one genre want to physically alter the "apparatus" in order to conform to their view of the activity, with the presence and use of bolts being one of the issues around which the controversies crystallize.
For me, beta is a non-issue, because it doesn't involve physical alterations. If you are a climber in performance mode, then you want all the beta you can possible acquire. If you are in adventure mode, you want only some minimal amount to point you in the right direction, and maybe none.
Mountain Project's raison d’ętre is beta. That's what it is here for, but no one reading the forums is obliged to consult the performance threads if it is adventure they are after."
SoYo has certainly delivered much in the way of adventure for me over the years.
