Devil's Lake Grade Conversion

Well, no...it doesn't work that way, as that would be a 4 grade spread (letters count). So if you're comfortable on a 10a at the lake, you'll probably feel comfortable leading 10c or d elsewhere. The sandbagging is definitely more pronounced in the lower grades, and the harder climbs I've done have definitely felt more reasonable, but those were also on TR.

I still don't get the argument that friction doesn't play a role in grading. Ever try using a sloper at Devil's Lake? Or a smear? Both of these moves would be significantly easier on sandstone or coarse granite, so why would the rating be the same?

Boots Ylectric wrote:Some routes are sandbagged at the lake, but I think mostly the issue is the lack of friction on many routes. It's not that the climbs are horribly sandbagged or that much harder; so much as that the climbs reward good technical climbing moves and shut down sloppy thrashing. It's great practice for longer, harder, more committing climbs that do have friction, but I'm certainly not going to assume I can onsite a 12 somewhere else just because I can climb a 10 at the lake.

Agree. If you think the lake is THAT sandbagged then maybe you're doing it wrong.

I will agree the lake is harder than other sport climbing areas and gyms but that's a pointless comparison. The lake however is pretty consistent with other trad areas.

Joel Allen wrote: Agree. If you think the lake is THAT sandbagged then maybe you're doing it wrong. I will agree the lake is harder than other sport climbing areas and gyms but that's a pointless comparison. The lake however is pretty consistent with other trad areas.

i agree trad is harder than sport. end of thread.

I'd like to add a little historical context here. I (sadly) haven't climbed at The Lake in decades, so am unfamiliar with the current situation concerning grades, but during the '60s and '70s--when there were only trad areas, Devil's Lake definitely earned it's reputation for stiff grading--Brinton's at 5.5 (or F5 in the books, though we called them 5.whatever) The End, Sometimes and Congratulations 5.9, etc., etc.

But these grades were not the result of big egos and deliberate sandbagging (at least not at first) but were more the product of just the opposite. In the mid-'60s--my time at The Lake, modern grading systems such as the YDS were just being adapted across the country. Previously climbs either weren't formally graded--some just being considered harder than others (the situation at Devil's Lake as I understood it)or there were a variety of local grading systems developed for individual areas (some areas had competing systems)--some in the Gunks used a letter system--a-h, as an example. So when the YDS and the "F" grades were introduced across the country (an effort of a committee of the AAC in the early '60s, who created and disseminated a graded chart of sample routes of similar difficulty from areas across the country), folks in different areas had their own interpretations of what such numbers actually represented in terms of difficulty. Climbers in general were not as well travelled then as they have now become, so climbers often graded routes based upon their own parochial experiences.

So, at a place such as Devil's Lake---a small area, with a small active climbing community (there were only a score or so regulars back then), largely isolated from the mainstream climbing areas, it is no surprise that grades were interpreted a bit differently there than in other areas. The view was clearly that we are "hick" punters compared to the real climbers out in Yosemite, so if the hardest climbs there were graded 5.10, well folks here surely can't be climbing that hard, so the effective top of the scale became 5.9, and easier routes were graded accordingly. Even though we knew that Gill had put up many of the hardest routes and how good he was, his routes, even then unrepeated ones such as Gill's Crack were called 5.9. This phenomenon was seen in many other areas as well--the infamous North Conway 5.9+s resulted from similar attitudes a few years later. Once such grades became established they became very difficult to change even as more Devil's Lake climbers began to travel widely. It became a point of pride to have the grades at The Lake to be considered so hard by visitors---it somehow became an 'equalizer'--a way to make up for what Devil's Lake climbs lacked in size. Hence a reputation--and tradition started!!!! Maybe things have changed today, I sort of hope they haven't too much.

Alan Rubin wrote:I'd like to add a little historical context here. I (sadly) haven't climbed at The Lake in decades, so am unfamiliar with the current situation concerning grades, but during the '60s and '70s--when there were only trad areas, Devil's Lake definitely earned it's reputation for stiff grading--Brinton's at 5.5 (or F5 in the books, though we called them 5.whatever) The End, Sometimes and Congratulations 5.9, etc., etc. But these grades were not the result of big egos and deliberate sandbagging (at least not at first) but were more the product of just the opposite. In the mid-'60s--my time at The Lake, modern grading systems such as the YDS were just being adapted across the country. Previously climbs either weren't formally graded--some just being considered harder than others (the situation at Devil's Lake as I understood it)or there were a variety of local grading systems developed for individual areas (some areas had competing systems)--some in the Gunks used a letter system--a-h, as an example. So when the YDS and the "F" grades were introduced across the country (an effort of a committee of the AAC in the early '60s, who created and disseminated a graded chart of sample routes of similar difficulty from areas across the country), folks in different areas had their own interpretations of what such numbers actually represented in terms of difficulty. Climbers in general were not as well travelled then as they have now become, so climbers often graded routes based upon their own parochial experiences. So, at a place such as Devil's Lake---a small area, with a small active climbing community (there were only a score or so regulars back then), largely isolated from the mainstream climbing areas, it is no surprise that grades were interpreted a bit differently there than in other areas. The view was clearly that we are "hick" punters compared to the real climbers out in Yosemite, so if the hardest climbs there were graded 5.10, well folks here surely can't be climbing that hard, so the effective top of the scale became 5.9, and easier routes were graded accordingly. Even though we knew that Gill had put up many of the hardest routes and how good he was, his routes, even then unrepeated ones such as Gill's Crack were called 5.9. This phenomenon was seen in many other areas as well--then infamous North Conway 5.9+s resulted from similar attitudes a few years later. Once such grades became established they became very difficult to change even as more Devil's Lake climbers began to travel widely. It became a point of pride to have the grades at The Lake to be considered so hard by visitors. Hence a reputation--and tradition started!!!! Maybe things have changed today, I sort of hope they haven't too much.

Interesting history Alan, Thanks! I would say it has changed though. All the routes you listed have came up a grade, or more. I will say I get a little nervous when I come across a 5.9+ at the lake, you never know what you're in for!

Haha...immediately made me think of Breakfast of Champions, Joel.

Those climbs have gone up a grade, but the ratings overall are still pretty stiff compared to most other places I've been. Maybe it's because a lot of the older moderates are still graded on a 10 pt scale? Boosting a 5.5/10 to 5.6/15 is not 1 number grade. :p

BOC is given 5.9+, I gave it 5.10. And these ratings are so subjective. I think Peters Project(5.7) is easier than Brinton's(5.6). I think Agnostic(5.7) is harder than Peters and Coatamundi. I think condolences(5.7) is easier than Brinton's. I thought Lower D was much harder than upper D.

This idea of a grade conversion is pointless, it might work for some routes and be totally shit for other routes. Better off just telling people the lake is stiff and let them go from there. Because in all honestly, as others have said, the lake is consistent with other trad crags.

Colin R wrote:Adirondack grades are the hardest grades I have encountered personally. Poke-O and Spiders Web readily come to mind. I remember climbing at Devil's Lake on TR once and felt the routes there were pretty sandbagged but within the range of old school trade grades elsewhere. I haven't been to Seneca Rocks though and I've heard that place is heinous sandbagged...

I found Seneca climbs hard for the grade... but that's what I found just about everywhere new I ever climbed. Still searching for the area with soft grades!

Yo punters, I don't usually subject myself to ratings discussions let alone offer up my 2 cents on something so subjective but..... During my tenure at Devils Lake we ( DLFA) had two ways of looking at ratings. 1) Either you could do the climb or you couldn't !!! And 2) If "you" could send the climb it probably wasn't that hard to begin with . And certainly if "we" could do it the thing it was way lite!
As for the comparison to other areas I can assure you that DL ratings and Eldo ratings are about as close as it gets in ratings.
Also for those of you who think that cause you can lead 5.10a at DL you should be comfortable leading 5.10d at other areas....I have some 5.10s in Eldo, Indian creek, Yosemite, and Squamish that will give you a run Fer yer money.
On a side note any climb that Leo could get his ass up was scheduled for down rating, pronto!
Sorry for the rant . Now puke. Steve S

Steve Sangdahl wrote:Yo punters, I don't usually subject myself to ratings discussions let alone offer up my 2 cents on something so subjective but..... During my tenure at Devils Lake we ( DLFA) had two ways of looking at ratings. 1) Either you could do the climb or you couldn't !!! And 2) If "you" could send the climb it probably wasn't that hard to begin with . And certainly if "we" could do it the thing it was way lite! As for the comparison to other areas I can assure you that DL ratings and Eldo ratings are about as close as it gets in ratings. Also for those of you who think that cause you can lead 5.10a at DL you should be comfortable leading 5.10d at other areas....I have some 5.10s in Eldo, Indian creek, Yosemite, and Squamish that will give you a run Fer yer money. On a side note any climb that Leo could get his ass up was scheduled for down rating, pronto! Sorry for the rant . Now puke. Steve S

+1

I also love your comments Steve, don't apologize! :)

Steve Sangdahl wrote:Yo punters, I don't usually subject myself to ratings discussions let alone offer up my 2 cents on something so subjective but..... During my tenure at Devils Lake we ( DLFA) had two ways of looking at ratings. 1) Either you could do the climb or you couldn't !!! And 2) If "you" could send the climb it probably wasn't that hard to begin with . And certainly if "we" could do it the thing it was way lite! As for the comparison to other areas I can assure you that DL ratings and Eldo ratings are about as close as it gets in ratings. Also for those of you who think that cause you can lead 5.10a at DL you should be comfortable leading 5.10d at other areas....I have some 5.10s in Eldo, Indian creek, Yosemite, and Squamish that will give you a run Fer yer money. On a side note any climb that Leo could get his ass up was scheduled for down rating, pronto! Sorry for the rant . Now puke. Steve S

'Word. Says it all. Now back to some ales and more puking.

Lol. I think some people took this thread a little too seriously (or perhaps not enough). I will say that I generally feel pretty strong (relatively, of course ;) ) when I travel elsewhere and am more willing to jump on higher grades, but perhaps this is all just in my head.