I agree that you cant definitely say "comp climber is the best climber", but Honnold is not the best sport climber either. Its hard, as its different elements, so how do you compare? Greatest is perhaps a better word, or something he could be, but not best in the overall sense. Best free soloist, but skill, strength and technically he isnt near being at the pinnacle in anything climbing wise, a part from free soloing large walls. But he hasnt free soloed the hardest routes, for the grade, either. Im not a hater of Honnold, but I dont think Coloradoclimber was trashing Honnold.
You have your climbing types mixed up. Sport climbing and bouldering are the highest in technical difficulty, so of course Honnold isn't the best sport climber.
I talked about the heart of the sport as adventure climbing, meaning big walls and difficult alpine routes. Historically, think of John Muir, the climber/mountaineer, explorer and conservationist famous as being the "Father of National Parks". There's the exploration aspect as in new places and mountains and walls and also new lines on walls and mountains. The beauty of the line also matters to climbers. Historically, climbers trained to get better at technically difficult climbing to support adventure climbing objectives. Bouldering, sport climbing, comp climbing disciplines became important for their own sake later. Honnold was the best in his niche of free soloing long, big, difficult walls, but that's a niche that's very much aligned with the original climbing aesthetic. Muir did lots of incredible and sketchy stuff in the mountains solo without modern climbing equipment in the 1800s, for example.
Free soloing a free climbing (meaning not aid climbing) route on El Cap is worthy of all the praise he's gotton. No, he's not going to do anything that impressive again with a wife and kids, but so what?
There is no mixup, you wrote:
comp climbing is definitely not the pinnacle of the sport. Sport climbing is right up there, but I'd argue that adventure/outdoor climbing including the alpinsts doing big routes are the heart of the sport.
Nobody is saying comp climbing is the pinnacle, but it, a long with grades outside on bouldering/sport/trad determines the skillevel of a climber. Obviously, what makes climbing so great is the numerous type of ways one can be skilled. Like Honnold and say Whittaker, which excels in in other forms than the "normal" ways to measure climbers.
Heart is something else, hard to quantify. I guess it all depends on one self. Honnold is up there, but also many people are like him but not getting the same attention, obviously, so apart from the solo-ing he is not outstanding in big wall or alpine climbing. Neither in creating new lines. As you mention regarding niche. Well put, however, free soloing is not the original climbing aesthetic any more than climbing with a rope...
No, he's not going to do anything that impressive again with a wife and kids, but so what?
So what? Has anybody claimed that as an argument? The first pages of this thread is non-climbers gushing over Honnold and downvoting the guy giving some insights. Had this been running we would all laugh of people thinking runner x was the pinnacle of the sport.
Marc-Andre was not more proficient technically. He was just willing to take on more risk. To me he was both inspiring, and for obvious reasons tragic. Cutting edge alpinists like Marc-Andre tend to have a short shelf life.
Of course he was more proficient technically as a total, you have to remember he ice climbed, Honnold is not proficient there. On stone Honnold was a grade above,
Unless you're getting into the steeply overhanging sport mixed routes, ice climbing can be quickly picked up by any decent rock climber fairly quickly. The foot work fundamentals are a bit different and you have to master an efficient swing with your wrists, but even vertical ice is no more physically strenuous than a low 5.11, if that.