Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Wild, Wild Western Pinnacles (aka Orange Rocks)
Routes Sorted
L to R R to L Alpha
Gold Rush/High Noon S,TR 
Harlot's Slot / Pete's 5:12b S 
Mid-Life Crisis S,TR 
Poker TR 

Harlot's Slot / Pete's 5:12b 

YDS: 5.11 French: 6c+ Ewbanks: 23 UIAA: VIII- ZA: 23 British: E4 5c

   
Type:  Sport, 1 pitch, 40'
Consensus:  YDS: 5.10d French: 6b+ Ewbanks: 21 UIAA: VII+ ZA: 21 British: E3 5b [details]
FA: FTR Pete Gulyash and Ed Keefe, 1990.
Page Views: 736
Submitted By: Scott Bullock on Jan 1, 2005

You & This Route  |  Other Opinions (7)
Your todo list:
Your stars:
Your rating: -none- [change]
Your ticklist: [add new tick]
Your opinion of this PAGE:    [0 people like this page.]
BETA PHOTO: small pin at the belay

Description 

Start around the corner from Gold Rush on a narrow belay ledge. There are three start variations the 11a is directly up the middle of the start boulder. Stemming to the left you can bring the grade down a couple of grades. Go to the right for a 10a start.

After the first bolt you can place a small cam or nut in the horizontal crack/ledge. Mantle up on this feature to make the second clip. Stay to the left of the next two bolts while climbing on interesting sloping ledges.

Protection 

4 bolts plus optional tcu and a two bolt anchor with rap rings


Comments on Harlot's Slot / Pete's 5:12b Add Comment
Show which comments
Comments displayed oldest to newestSkip Ahead to the Most Recent Dated Mar 10, 2013
By Scott Bullock
Feb 13, 2004

The name has obvious sarcastic overtones. Pete (Gulyash?) described this route in his guidebook as a 5.12b, this was back when it was a top rope only. In the same guide the first ascensionist of this route was criticized for removing a chock stone from Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Hand Jam, (the rock was loose). So now all these years latter we have tit for tat. The old name for the route was Harlot's Slot. After being bolted and led it got the new name
By Kristin McNamara
From: SLO, CA
Mar 9, 2004

Seems to me that the ethics wouldn't allow for bolting = renaming. Just me, though.
By John Knight
Mar 10, 2004

An interesting ethical question. What if the person that first top roped a climb was the one that went back and bolted it? Or was able to get permission to bolt it from the 1st Ascensionist? It's hard to say who actually did the 1st Ascent. These climbs have been here for awhile and I bet that someone top roped it prior to Pete Gulyash in 1990 (as credited in Kevin Steele's book). The question is: Does the first person to lead it have more right to the climb than the 1st person to top rope it? It's generally seen as "better style" to lead a climb than top rope it. Other peripheral question include: At what point does the climb belong to the larger climbing community and not the original 1st Ascensionist? Modifications would be subject to a broader discussion among community members. For example, if we call up Ed Sampson and he says, "sure add as many bolts as you want to Thin Man", is that OK? Most people would say, "No". At a certain point it belongs to everyone and not the 1st guy to top rope it or lead it...
By Jon Hanlon
From: SLO
Mar 10, 2004

To my way of thinking, barring any major deception or lie, once a climb is published, the name and the FA (first TR in this case) stands. A documented climb is like a patent. It's not what you say you did, it's what you prove you did, and the best proof we have is that Pete Gulyash and Ed Keefe were the First Ascentionists. Otherwise, we would have to believe that Al Gore invented the internet.

Regarding retrobolting existing TRs: Some climbs are intentionally put up as TRs for legitimate reasons (eg they are close to existing lines, or the rock is fragile, or close to hiking trails, etc).There is no "better style" that erases the FA, it is just a different type of FA.

At the very least, a climb shouldn't get renamed fourteen years after the FA, no matter who does it.Maybe the First "Lead" Ascentionists (if there is such a coveted title) should be added to the record in subsequent guidebooks, but this climb was and should always be called Harlot's Slot.
By John Knight
Mar 11, 2004

I think Jon makes some good comments & would generally agree with him. However, I also know that guidebooks can be wrong. In some cases they rename climbs and in other cases they credit the wrong FA or leave it as anonymous. The Gulyash guide is guilty of both of these. One of the problems with a FA as a top rope is that it's hard to say whether they were really there first. They just happened to be the guy that wrote the guidebook or convinced the guidebook author that they were first. I bet boot rubber has touched nearly all the rock on Bishops. Some were recoreded and some weren't.
By Jon Hanlon
From: SLO
Mar 12, 2004

That was my point exactly....it's hard to know who was there first, so we have to go with the best information available. It IS possible for a guidebook to credit the wrong guy (incidentally, it is not even listed in the Gulyash book). However, "Possibly" doesn't mean "Likely". Should we change a name that's been known and documented for ten years based on a possibility?

If so, I did the first TR of "I Love a Mystery". I am renaming it "Mike's 5.10". It's gonna go all sport at 5.9.

By Jody Langford
Mar 13, 2004

I think waaaaaay too much emphasis is put on FA's. If the guy that put it up wanted the "fame and glory" they should have made it clear to the climbing community when and where they put up the route. I really don't understand the fixation with FA's. When I do a FA, I don't tell anybody. That way I get a good chuckle when someone comes along years later and claims a FA on my route. I free-soloed a couple routes at the when I was 11-12 years old(didn't know I could get killed then). The guide book comes out and, lo and behold, someone else claims the route 10 years after I had climbed it. Got a good laugh out of it.
By John Knight
Mar 13, 2004

OK, here's my thoughts after thinking about this issue for a few days. If a climb is done as an aid climb, then goes free, the free climber has the right to change the name. If a climb is a top rope, then is led, the leader has the right to change the name. It happens all the time. Just look at all the routes in Yosemite that were renamed when they went free. All that said, even if the new "1st Ascensionist" has the right to change the climb, it's probably easier on everyone just to leave the old name.
By Dave Bevan
Mar 15, 2004

I've seeen my name appear on FA's where I don't think it belongs. I've even asked to have it removed with no success. Oh well.

I think it's silly to change the name of a documented route whether it's a TR that was led or an aid line that was done free. Unless the new line is significantly different from the original, in which case I guess it would just be a new route.

Without heated discussions regarding FA's, FFA's, route names, retro-bolting, ethics, etc. what would we do with our time when we're not climbing? I think it's all good fun. Well, that is until people start adding bolts to existing climbs and then I get all fired up. Unless that someone was me, and then I'm sure I've got all kinds of excuses.
By Jody Langford
Mar 15, 2004

"Well, that is until people start adding bolts to existing climbs and then I get all fired up. Unless that someone was me, and then I'm sure I've got all kinds of excuses. "

Now THAT was hilarious!
By M.Morley
Administrator
From: Sacramento, CA
Jan 26, 2006
rating: 5.11a 6c 22 VII+ 22 E3 5c

A TCU between the first and second bolts makes this one an enjoyable, safe sport climb (something of a rarity at Bishops).
By Ryan Nevius
From: The Range of Light
Mar 10, 2013

The start of this route is weird. Either (1) start in the bush/oak and go straight up the middle or (2) climb out left (seems more natural?) and do a couple moves to the horizontal crack. If done, option (1) is significantly harder than the rest of the route, which is significantly easier and more straightforward than Gold Rush.