The American climbing community has always placed technical success far above success at extreme altitude. The similarities and differences of these two aspects of climbing deserves some comment.
By technical success, I mean the ability to climb steeper and more difficult sections of rock, snow, or ice. You can walk up the stairs (technically easy) or try to walk up the banister (way hard). What does it take to climb difficult terrain? You need to have the right combination of anatomical and physiological traits, you need to train properly, and you need to have the proper mental state.
What does it take to be successful at extreme altitude, say by climbing Everest without supplemental oxygen? You need to have the right combination of anatomical and physiological traits, you need to train properly, and you need to have the proper mental state.
It’s possible to practice your technical abilities on small rock or ice cliffs, which may be easily accessible even in the flatlands. In contrast, it’s only possible to ‘practice’ your altitude abilities at extreme altitudes.
A much wider range of skills are needed to be successful at altitude. The mental challenges are much more diverse at altitude and you spent a lot of psychic energy just forcing yourself to eat, get dressed, and do the tasks of daily life. The mental challenges of technical climbing are different; gravity is an ever-present force waiting to whisk you to injury (or worse), so the mental challenges tend to be very immediate and focused on the mechanics of movement.
So in most ways, these two aspects of climbing really aren’t all that different. Since anyone can go to an indoor climbing facility and ‘go climbing,’ the industry and media focus on this type of climbing isn’t surprising.
But those who excel at technical climbing aren’t better than those who excel at extreme altitude; they just have a different skill set. The truly great climbers are those who climb hard at extreme altitude.