[Hide Comment] I agree with John and with Andrew...we should find out who added the bolt and why, so we can get on with removing it.In 1986 there were 4 bolts, when I lead it in 1994 there were four bolts, and when I TR'd it a couple months ago there were four bolts.

So....who did it and why? May 25, 2004

[Hide Comment] I agree it would be good to find out who added the fifth bolt, but I think it's more important to remove it ASAP. At this point I don't think it really matters if someone got "approval" from the first assencionist (sp?) or any other circumstance. The route has had 4 bolts since it was put up and has been a classic at Bishop's for many, many years.

Removing the bolt is the best way to announce to the climbing community that altering established climbs is unacceptable! Swift action may help prevent other climbs from suffering the same fate. I would help, but I no longer live in the area. May 26, 2004

[Hide Comment] Why is it so important to remove the bolt? I think Kristin's comment on re-naming climbs says a lot and can be applied here(although she used the comment in a different context).

"It's rather silly we name everything when you think about it. It's a rock. "

You could also say, "It's rather silly to get so worked up when you think about it. It's a rock."

May 26, 2004

[Hide Comment] Bad analogy. Kristin's comment on renaming climbs cant be used to justify retrobolting a historical, classic line.

1) Dave B. just gave several excellent examples of why it is important to remove the bolt

2) Renaming doesn't really affect the rest of the climbing community, damage the rock, or jeopardize everyone's access through indiscriminate bolting...Yeah, renaming is pathetic and annoying, but relatively harmless.

3) I reiterate my earlier post about the importance of our local areas. To some of us, it is more than a bunch of rocks.

If you think these issues (not to mention ethics) are silly and unimportant, then stay away. Shit in your own backyard, we're all full up here. May 27, 2004

[Hide Comment] Please don't use my comments out of context.

Adding/removing bolts is changing the nature of the rock, not the name. Thin Man could be up for renaming since the character of the line has changed now. I suggest, "Cowardly Man."

Just kidding.

The point, however, is that the problem with bolts is their permanence. There's nothing INHERENTLY wrong with bolting a crack, but there's something to be said for leaving a rock as virginal as possible while still enjoying it. Rocks are aesthetic and, as we climbers have found, they are fun! They are not fun when they become an eyesore or people take ownership of a route too far and change it according to tastes, which is what has happened here.

I'm a fairly bold trad climber for my grade, but I have yet to climb Shadow. Would I like a bolt further down? Yeah, but adding it changes the nature of the climb. And it's not my place to do that, I don't own the route, the FA'st does. May 27, 2004

[Hide Comment] Jon, I wasn't making an analogy to Kristin's comment. I was merely using her words, "...It's rather silly...it's just a rock".

Kristin, I don't think the FA'ist "owns" the route. The public does. I think the FA'ist has too much say in what is done with a piece of public property. That being said, I have never retro-bolted a route and never plan to. I just wish FA'ists would leave their ego at the door and think about people that might follow them on the route. Don't get me wrong, I don't theink things should be grid-bolted 6' apart.,..I just think common sense should prevail once in a while. May 27, 2004

[Hide Comment] Mike, well put. I agree that not all routes should be tried by ALL people. However, in a place like SLO, where the climbing choices aren't that extensive, I think people putting up routes shouldn't overdo the R or X factor. If someone had come along way back when and free-soloed all the possible routes on Bishop's, does that mean that those of us who don't free-solo can't climb the routes? In my prior post I kind of went to the extreme but I just felt that there needed to be a little balance on the issue. May 27, 2004

[Hide Comment] Mike's right about the sand castle comment.

I think that those developing the area right now would be wise to listen in . . .

What happened in the past DOES set a precedent, but for new routes going up, it certainly does make sense to consider the day and age when putting up NEW routes.

All I'm asking is for a little respect to the FA'sts no matter when it goes up - that route had time, money, and energy put into it, and the style it went up was right for the time that it was created. We're fortunate that the area is trad bolted - I know I feel pretty confident most other areas that I visit with a training ground as bold at SLO can be. May 28, 2004

[Hide Comment] He's right about the sandle castle analogy except for one important point...the sand castle is temporary and the route is permanent. May 29, 2004

[Hide Comment] I was climbing Thin Man last week and there were only 4 bolts. I would appear as if the matter has been resolved. Its nice to see that respect for tradition is alive and well. Jun 7, 2004

[Hide Comment] You make a good point John, and I think it is of equally good style to do any and all bolting activities on lead! Jun 8, 2004

[Hide Comment] Climbing community take note: The idea that Thin Man should have another bolt is not a new one. Every climber visiting Shadow Wall I have ever met since I first moved here in 2000 has had an opinion on this matter. One guy went so far as to say he didn't care about the local ehics because the ones with their panties in a bunch will die pretty soon or be unable to get to the wall to check out the route. Pretty harsh but something to think about. If enough people agree that for future climbers safety another bolt on Thin Man is needed, then it will happen. The question is do we make a huge issue out of it hoping to leave a lasting impression, but possibly dividing a small group with an even smaller voice, like in Eldorado Canyon and crags in Washington?Do we accept that eventually changes like this may happen, but blindly hope retro and over bolting doesn't take hold on our crag? Hypothetically a climber could put a route less than six inches to the left or right Inner Sanctum and place a more comfortable amount of bolts in the rock, call it something catchy, and create a "new route".Is this a new route?Is it retrobolting? Is Tobin Sorenson doing back-flips in his grave right now? Ethics when it comes to altering rock is one area to be looked at. Ethics when it comes to altering a route is another.Ethics considering future climbers safety is a whole new ball game.

I say to remove the possibility of this happening on new lines, bolt in a safe and sane manner taking in the considerations of other climbers abilities. Gone are the days when depressed antisocials constantly put them selves in near death situations so they could bang their chest at the local bar and compare penis size. Climbing is precision, grace, power, and art. Lets leave the egos at home and climb for the pure joy of moving over stone. At one time we all had a hard time with 5.5, just because you can lead 5.13 doesn't mean you should put a 80 ft runout on a 5.7 Jun 21, 2004

[Hide Comment] Well, anonymous climber obviously doesn't want to be identified...I will identify myself and say that I agree wholeheartedly with his post...especially this, "...just because you can lead 5.13 doesn't mean you should put a 80 ft runout on a 5.7." Jun 21, 2004

[Hide Comment] Times must sure have changed on Shadow wall within the past decade if everyone up there thinks there should be an additional bolt on Thin Man. I moved to SLO in 1990 and climbed at Bishop's extensively for seven years and I never heard anyone suggest the possibility of adding a bolt. Yes, there was talk about it being a bold lead because of the runout climbing at the top, but that was just part of the character of the climb. The climbing at the top is significantly easier and therefore should have fewer bolts. You are well above the ground at that point and should be in no danger of decking. I've never heard of anyone coming off on the top half of that climb.

Safe climbing is not just about how many bolts are placed on a route. I've had a bolt clipped at my waist and still fell ten feet stopping just short of hitting a ledge due to poor belay techniques. I've also had good belayers reduce the length of falls and provide dynamic belays to prevent slamming into protruding features. Rock climbing is inherently a dangerous activity. It was pioneered by individuals who set out to do what others perceived as impossible. Now that has become a mainstream sport, does that mean that all climbs should be made accessible to all users? I say no. If a 5.13 climber puts up a 5.7 climb with an 80 foot runout is that selfish? An extreme example, but sure. At the other end of the spectrum, if that same route was put up by novice climber with a bolt every foot isn't that selfish as well?

Have the people who agree that Thin Man is adequately bolted started to die off or become crippled? That route has been climbed safely for decades, why is it only now coming under attack for being dangerous? I suggest that maybe it's the climbers and not the climbs that are more dangerous now.

I totally agree that climbing is "precision, grace, power, and art", but for some such as myself, it's also more. You can get all of that in a gym or even toproping. Climbing is as much mental as it is physical and lead climbing is where the mental piece become critical. Shouldn't there be climbs that push those mental limits for those who are interested?

Just try and respect the history of this sport and your local area. If a climb seems too dangerous then don't lead it, but don't assume that it's too dangerous for everyone else. Jun 22, 2004

[Hide Comment] Some people might want an extra bolt on Thin Man, but definitely not everyone. The majority of contributors to this site so far are against it.

Climbing is not only about moving around on rocks in ideally protected circumstances, and in many ways the early hardmen at Bishop Peak HAVE provided for future climbers...For example, Thin Man has provided me with a great sense of pride and accomplishment, and Inner Sanctum has provided me with inspiration and admiration. I wouldn't trade that for a few clip-ups on Shadow Wall.

Times haven't changed that much around here, as evidenced by the nearly instantaneous removal of the added bolt on Thin Man. As for getting up to the wall... with any luck I plan on being able to hobble up there in my panties (or diapers) for 25 more years or so. Jun 23, 2004

[Hide Comment] I'm Anonymous Climber in the post below, I requested that the post be deleted. But I was told it could not be done.
A mysterious 5th bolt was supposedly added and then disappeared from this climb.
A rather lengthy debate started in this comments section.
I jumped in and expressed my views about ethical bolting for future routes. Obviously the wrong place to do that.
No bolts should be added to this climb or any other unless the first ascentionist wishes it to be done.
This route is fantastic to lead, nuff said. May 23, 2005

[Hide Comment] i did this route post removal of the 5th bolt and i'm very glad it wasn't there to clip . the climbing in that long runout is ass easy and that fact that you could potentially take a 60+ foot fall will do wonders to sharpen your climbing ability and footwork . do this route and then go tell somebody about it..... Sep 11, 2005

[Hide Comment] Led Thin Man (for the first time) yesterday. I'd followed it once or twice several years ago but never got around to leading it due to it's reputation about it being seriously runout. Yeah, it's definitely runout but only on 5.7 ground (which quickly eases back to 5.6). If you made the (well protected), friction, crux moves down low, you won't have any problem on the runout.

For me the crux was right at bolt 3. A few feet above bolt 3 and the terrain eases quickly and larger holds appear when you need them. After bolt 3, follow the obvious line (often the holds are chalked) and you won't miss bolt 4.

If you can climb 5.9 friction, you shouldn't have any problem with Thin Man.

Happy Climbing!

John Jul 16, 2009

[Hide Comment] Top-roped it after leading THC 5.10a and thought it was just as hard if not harder, and harder than 5.9 slab in Yosemite (e.g., Marginal). I wish it had a few more bolts. Mar 22, 2010

[Hide Comment] Climb Thin Man again yesterday and realized my previous comment isnt very helpful. Yes there is a big fall potential on the route, but the runout ground is very straight forward.

I would not recommend this for a new 5.9 leader. Only a focused and confident leader should attempt this route. I think the runout on Shadow compares quite well. Not hard or demanding, but also not a joke

That aside, this is an amazing route with great movement. it flows so nicely Feb 2, 2012

[Hide Comment] With all the argument over a fifth bolt being added up high, I'd just like to point out that as a solid and confident 5.9 leader, I pitched just before clipping bolt 3 and it was a big fall! This route is intense, and I have no problem with how it is bolted. It's just not for me :) Feb 28, 2013

[Hide Comment] Went for the lead on Thin Man yesterday. Sick!! Crux for me was between 2nd an 3rd bolt. After that it was smooth sailing, and run the hell out. Turns 5.6 really quickly though. A bishop peak classic no doubt. Could be my favorite on the mountain. If you want to top rope, consider leading up fat man or middle man, and bring your partner up. Then lower them to the base and top belay. May 20, 2014

[Hide Comment] This climb is mega sick!!!!! The crux for me might have been the approach to the base, but that was before the new road was cut in. Does any body know when there going to poor the side walk? Jul 7, 2014

[Hide Comment] Super fun, cruxes well protected. the first 3 bolts of climbing are delicate and thoughtful. 1 or 2 5.9 moves.. the rest is hard 5.8 slabby dancing. Maybe the best 5.9 at bishop peak. Aug 5, 2015

[Hide Comment] yes, yes, classic, runnout, and 5.9. Note with a single 70 meter rope one can lead Thin Man and lower off to the base of the route Fat Man (but not all the way back to the start of Thin Man). Dec 8, 2020

[Hide Comment] I am not shy to admit my perception may have been warped in the moment, but on my ascent I found the moves in the run out between the third and fourth bolts to be less relenting in difficulty than previous commenters have suggested. Think hard before you push past the third bolt. Nov 6, 2021

[Hide Comment] Well there is a lot of good discussion on this route, but I want to add my 2 cents that will hopefully guide readers' decisions if they are on the edge.

I can confidently climb 5.11 and occasionally 5.12. I am not intimidated leading at a 5.10/5.11 grade so this route was well within my ability. However, R and X rated routes mess with my mental game. After reading the comment thread, I debated leading this route for probably an hour. Finally, our group decided to lead middleman in order to set up a TR anchor for Thin Man. I am VERY glad that I did.
Please don't underestimate the mental aspect of this route. When they say it is runout, it is a looonnnnng way to the 4th bolt. As I was TRing it, I questioned if someone clipping the fourth bolt took a whipper would hit the deck. On top of that, it is about equally as far from the 4th bolt to the anchor. The climbing from the 4th bolt onward is significantly easier though.

All of that being said, I gave the route 4 stars. I absolutely loved the moves and would do it again, just not on lead. There are a lot of people in this thread that can climb well above my ability and in my opinion underplay the seriousness of this route. please think carefully before doing it because I would hate to see someone get hurt. Jan 18, 2022

[Hide Comment] Really honestly not bad after bolt 3 and p chill before then. If you think it’s hard it’s bc you are gripped and that’s okay I was too, angle is dummy low tho. If ur feeling froggy go for it it’s sick! Sep 22, 2023