Opus 10 no 2 is hard, but it's not that hard. Most pianists have done op10no2 at an early age, it's one of those pieces. I mean my teacher made me do scales using 345, and other stuff for those fingers, so when I did op10 no2, I didn't have much trouble with the speed. I think if you start this etude with difficutly in "raw finger dexterity" and endurance, your technique aint up to it. The difficlty is trying to get it to sound like a piece of music. My teacher tells me, if you have technical trouble with the etudes, your not ready for them. Why should they be hard?
You obviously havn't done op25 no11, or if you have, you've had a hard time, because to be honest, it's not that hard. It fits amazingly well under the fingers, you just change position and move the fingers, it floatrs along nicely. It's not really rare figuration at all.
You talk so much about the techncal side of piano, athletic side, and speed and raw power etc... Don't you think it's a bit silly? I mean if you talk like that, you clearly don't have that facility, becasue if you did you'd be talking about music, which is what people play and listen to piano music for. Why should I be impressed by a fast op10no2? I could play it just as fast if I wanted, but why bother? It just turns piano into I can play faster than you game. Look at the pianists with the great techniques, Hamelin for example, his playing is effortless. Have you ever seen an interview with him? He talks about MUSIC making. Do you think he's playing everything he plays as fast as he can? Jack Gibbons' Alkan symphony is faster, does that mean it's better? Does he make it harder by playing it faster?
Virtuosity is not just speed. It's the whole package of technique and musicality. Anyone can play fast, which is why it's not impressive. I'd rather hear good music making.