How about replace the word "cheating " with style.
All the answers become self apparent.
Style would be more appropriate a word than cheating because it allows for a sliding scale of ethics and more accurately reflects the evolution of style and it's growing importance in climbing ethics debates.
Just my two cents.
BTW, Ueli rules!!!!!
Prodigious lung capacity with the weight of a feather enable great feats.
Do great feats... sanction lordliness over others expression and method of progress in the mountains ?
I share his opinions and my feats are... pretty pathetic.
Where did that lung capacity and lean frame come from? Decades of harder training than anyone I've ever met. When he does a fast ascent, it isn't a one-off - its a culmination of a life time of dedication to the realities of alpinism.
I don't think Ueli would, in his older years, go at those peaks with supplimental oxygen. Maybe he would? Veisturs did on a scientific or research attempt on the peak, because he was there not for the sake of DOING the climb but to help his sponsors and the expedition get its goal... i forget what exactly it was, but I respect the hell outta Ed. Again, nothing wrong with just the fact that you use O's, or that you used fixed lines - it's when they ruin the landscape...
29,029 foot mountain
some random peak in China that likely has less ascents than posts on this
Climbing is different for everyone, but one of those... I don't want to be part of.
I said 'almost' in my statement about expeditions and tourism vs. alpinism. I wouldn't necessarily cast the Russian's capsule-style, high-altitude wall exploits in that light.
But let's be clear, Haebler and Messner - on both Everest and the numerous climbs they did to acclimatize in the run up to it - showed exactly what was possible going light and fast without expeditions. Their various exploits over the couple of years before and after their '78 go on Everest set the bar defining the leading edge of alpisim. Since then, with few exceptions, my own opinion has been that high-altitude porters, oxygen, fixed lines, and porter-staged base camps are very much the hallmarks of commercial, high altitude tourism - not alpinism.
And, like on the chipping thread, attempts to comparatively justify and rationalize the continued [commercial] prevalence of expeditions as anything but tourism and economic development are weak and entirely out of touch with the possible.
OMG this topic been beat to death lately....nothing will change. As long as wealthy (and some not so wealthy) people will have the desire to stand on 'top of the' planet earth and are going to be willing to pay big $ to do so, the sh#t show will continue. Sherpa community benefits from this sh#t show too. Imagine how many jobs will be lost if it was to stop.
IMO climbing with O2 is like using enhancement drugs. BUT as long as you do not lie about what you do, do not trash the environment (take all your sh#t back down with you etc), and do your best to prepare for your challenge, you deserve the right to be there. Maybe super alpinists of today should take a different route from the fixed lines if they want to summit without O2 so much. There are numerous other routes with NOBODY on them.