[takk309]

Can this really be put in the same league as what a free solo climber is doing? Most man-made structures are designed to be climbable, with safety gear, for people to maintenance. Rock climbing, on the other hand, forces one to sort out a way to make the climb.

As far as having a "head" for heights, I would agree that free solo climbing and climbing buildings is similar. I wonder how well this guy would do on real rock?

On a personal note, heights above which I will die from the fall are all the same. 100 feet or 1000 feet are all the same. Now between 20 and about 50 feet, that is where it is scary. That is if I don't have a reasonable backup such as deep water or a rope.

[majos]

You are right that climbing buildings is not directly comparable to free soloing rock. Each has things that make it easier or harder.

Rock isn't "meant" to be climbed, but the vast majority of free solo climbs occur after extensive roped rehearsals. Some people do "onsight"/climb without practicing with ropes first, but this is rare, and is essentially only done when the route in question is known to be easy.

Buildings are more predictable and regular, but these guys seem to be onsighting everything they do, which is mentally very different.

[takk309]

I agree for sure. There is only one red point free soloist that I can think of.

https://www.climbing.com/news/decking-while-soloing/

[goldenkey]

Perhaps not for this Russian climber as he says he specifically avoids doing any "one-arm pullups" and "superman-like stunts." However, the other daredevils like now-deceased Wu -- died doing a pullup from a building ledge -- he couldn't pull himself back up and then fell and died. So yes, buildings can be considerably safer if one avoids doing the ridiculous stunts.