Pushing the boundaries

I was checking several pages for auditions today and found a variety of companies defining themselves as “ground breaking” and “pushing the boundaries”. Now, I understand how important defining what we do is, there is this pressure to categorise and fit yourself into one of the drawers of the contemporary dance cupboard. I don’t necessary agree with it but I understand the need.
What is the point, however, of defining every single company (specially the newest and with young founders) as ground breaking? Is it true that every work being made now is pushing the boundaries of performance? I don’t think so… So maybe “ground breaking” is now just another of the categories, and doesn’t actually mean anything other than “in the manner of the most recent fashion”.
I’m wondering if someone could explore exactly the opposite. A company that will return to the very first boundaries, to find “pure” classical (not in the sense of balletic but of classicism) dance, to limit what dance is and how it’s made.
Obviously, at least to one point, this can only be done as a philosophical debate, but I still think it could be very interesting.
The ground breaking moments (and artists) of the past, studied carefully, could help us understand more what we do and advance the field.
I’m thinking Forsythe here, there must be a reason for that 😉
But I’m also thinking of lots of things that have been done before, and yet people present them today as new. (I have to find clear examples of these, right now it’s only a vague idea).
Maybe I should take my own advice!