Top rope with trees at D-Lake

Ted Pinson wrote:

...but a beginner setting their first topropes will be in for a world of pain if they expect to climb anything near their gym, or even sport grade at the Lake.

Absolutely true, but two points:

1. This could be said for almost any old school trad area (read - areas where the ratings were first developed and therefore ought to be considered the standard).
2. Just because some folks find it hard, does not mean that DL is systematically underrated.

Further, and perhaps more interesting, you might be confusing "sandbagged rating" with "good for sandbagging" - the latter of which is true of the Lake. Yes, Birch Tree, when climbed using the best possible sequence is no harder than 5.8. However, navigating that sequence first go (or even 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. goes) is difficult. If you put a visiting 5.10 leader on Birch Tree, it's likely he or she will struggle, but that doesn't change the fact that it's possible to climb it at a 5.8 rating, and therefore is 5.8. Nor does you not having figured out how to climb it at 5.8 mean the route is harder. I use BT as a convenient example, but this applies to almost all "notorious sandbags" be it a specific route or broader area.

James, I don't think we're as far off on this as you seem to think.  My point is simply that a 5.6 will FEEL like a 5.10 in the gym to a newcomer to Devil's Lake; I'm not suggesting that it should be rated any differently than it is.

Alright, let's settle this old-school. Let's schedule a weekend climbing together at the lake. We can all share beta and/or insult each other in person. If at the end of the trip, we're no closer to agreement, there's always bare-knuckle boxing in the CCC parking lot, winner-takes-all.

Ted Pinson wrote:

James, I don't think we're as far off on this as you seem to think.  My point is simply that a 5.6 will FEEL like a 5.10 in the gym to a newcomer to Devil's Lake; I'm not suggesting that it should be rated any differently than it is.

Saying it will feel super hard for a beginner (which is probably true) is not the same as saying the lake is sandbagged, which you say A LOT.  

Steve Sangdahl wrote:

As much as I dislike splitting hairs of grades of individual routes , the discussion comparing one areas grades to another is somewhat interesting .........after a few beers of course. I learned to climb at DL, spent 11 years pulling down with some oddball group known as the DLFA. Pete C. was right there along with us telling us all these climbs are much easier now. I moved to Boulder , more specifically Eldo to expand my climbing skills. I have been fortunate enough to have lived ( 5 minute walk to Bastille from my casa) and climbed in Eldo for almost 34 years now. I can assure who ever may be wondering that the grades between DL and Eldo are within a letter grade or so , if not even spot on in the majority of cases. DL may feel sandbagged due to the criptic nature of the climbing which requires precision footwork. Congratulations crack would be 5.10a in Eldo . Birch tree crack would check in at 5.8 in Eldo. Having climbed in both areas for years and having soloed congrats and birch tree barefoot multiple times I feel I have a pretty good grip on the ratings. 

Ted, just what climbs did you find so "soft" in Eldo? Stuff under 5.8 ? If Eldo is so soft how is it that I know of multiple fully qualified 5.11+ DL leaders who have been bouted by the Naked Edge here in Eldo? How is it that I know of quite a few friends of mine who have swung by the lake on their way to other areas and sent plenty of hard DL climbs, even sending Bagatelle after a couple of tries and declaring it lite? 

Some of my best days climbing have been going to a new cliff somewhere with no guide book or idea what to expect and picking out the best looking routes that I think I might be able to do and heading on up "not" knowing the grade. Probably the most satisfying on sights I have ever done. Which ultimately means " grades don't mean sh#t, it's who you are pulling down with" .     Let's be careful out there. Now puke!  Steve s.

Fucking rad response Steve.  Wanna go climbing sometime in Eldo?  I'd love a ropegun on the Edge!

Joel Allen wrote:

Saying it will feel super hard for a beginner (which is probably true) is not the same as saying the lake is sandbagged, which you say A LOT.  

Joel,

Not sure where this is coming from, but I'm sorry if I've offended or annoyed you.

Saying that climbing at the Lake can be "surprisingly difficult" (or surprisingly fun or surprisingly sustained or surprisingly heads up) is very different than saying the Lake is heavily "sandbagged".  The former says something about the lack of experience and casual attitudes many people bring here, while the latter implies that we are conspiring to shame all newcomers.  

It is also utterly different to say that certain climbs are sandbagged versus saying a whole area is sandbagged.  The former says we have a long history.  The latter would imply that we are insular to the point of inbreeding.

I still can't get past the claim that there are FOUR number grades difference between the Lake and the new standard!  In my experience, most newcomers don't need such a strongly deceptive warning that the climbing here is different than on other media - most gym and sport climbers can look around and see for themselves that they are no longer in black-and-white Kansas, but in a full-color Oz.

Sunken Pillar, Death and Disfiguration, Kenosis/Dippy Diagonal, Primak's Surprise?

Old Sandstone has a ton of trees and easy top access. ;)

Doug, I'd say 4 grades is fair for a new outdoor climber used to the softer ratings common at newer gyms.  At least here, ratings start at 5.8 and 5.9 is considered a new climber grade, while many people are climbing "5.10a" within a few months; that doesn't mean they're ready for Congratulations.  Whether that makes Devil's Lake sandbagged or gyms soft is a matter of perspective and rather irrelevant, though obviously DL grades are more in line with other outdoor areas than any gym.  Seth is absolutely right that climbing on plastic is very different than climbing on quartzite, but it's still climbing, and I was simply trying to provide a frame of reference.

Ted Pinson wrote:

James, I don't think we're as far off on this as you seem to think.  My point is simply that a 5.6 will FEEL like a 5.10 in the gym to a newcomer to Devil's Lake; I'm not suggesting that it should be rated any differently than it is.

Is it possible that the gym is wrong? Is it possible that gyms, especially in competitive markets, are economically incentivized to "featherbag" their ratings? Is it possible that having a trail of obvious holds sticking out of the wall makes route finding easier and therefore climbing a route onsight in the gym at it's given rating takes considerably less effort/endurance than climbing a similar route on real stone?

The fact is gym climbing and outdoor climbing aredifferent and no one should expect the ratings to translate. Steve is right, stop worrying about the ratings and start worrying about the broader experience of people, place, and route. Spend less time talking about climbing and more time actually climbing - that's how you'll develop some authenticity for the advice and commentary you share on the internet. Stone builds a stronger mind and stronger fingers than a keyboard ever will.

I gotta defend Ted a bit here. Ever since I started climbing, I have heard that the Lake is "sandbagged". I remember not knowing what that word meant when I first heard it at the CCC parkinglot. So, I've always sort of looked at DL through that lens. Does that make DL objectively harder than other areas? Definitely not. But the idea that DL is sandbaggy is part of DL's unique mythology. 

Of course the gym is wrong, James!  Grade inflation is a real thing and often an intentional strategy to make people feel good climbing at their gym.  You guys seem to be convinced that I'm arguing for changing DL ratings or that the ratings were intentionally set low to sandbag people.  I'm simply saying that the ratings are different and that one should check one's expectations before climbing at the Lake.

Emphasis added:

Ted Pinson wrote:

Just a fair warning: grades are a bit of a joke at the lake, so add about two full number grades to any ratings you see there (a 5.6 will feel like a 5.8 anywhere else), and 4 number grades to your typical gym rating (same route will feel like about a 10a).  Not joking.

I think I see where this thread got off track.

I hadn't realized Chicagoland gyms were so out of touch with climbing.

Doug, that's a national trend.  When Chris Sharma and Ethan Pringle visited my gym, they both said our ratings were stiff!  "Anywhere" is probably hyperbolic, so I'm sorry if my imprecise language caused this thread drift; I didn't realize people would take this so seriously.  The Lake's reputation for sandbagging is somewhat of a badge of honor and/or running joke for many people, especially when you get to introduce somebody new.  I was being glib when I said the ratings were a joke, but also trying to warn the TS not to expect to climb as hard as they normally do.  Certainly didn't mean to hit a nerve on an apparently sore subject among Lake vets.

Ted Pinson wrote:

When Chris Sharma and Ethan Pringle visited my gym, they both said our ratings were stiff!

Imagine if they'd come to the Lake!

Ted Pinson wrote:

Letters count.  So 5.9 + 4 grades would be approximately 10c/d in the gym.  You're right, my phrasing was off; I meant this more specifically in the low grades, where a/b/c/d notations don't factor in.  I should have said "4 grades."  The grades get closer in the high ranges; while Son of Great Chimney might still feel stiff for 11a, it does feel like "an 11."  On no planet, however, is Coatamundi crack a 5.6.

This reminds me of people who argue that Open Book at Tahquitz is sandbagged for a 5.9. Which it is, compared to a gym 5.9 or some things outside that have been called 5.9 since. But as it is the ORIGINAL 5.9 it's hard to say that it was sandbagged or some sort of practical joke.  The discrepancy is in the way the subsequent climbs were rated. Similarly, Devil's Lake has a history of climbing going pretty far back, if not as far as places like Tahquitz or Yosemite. But weren't most of the "classics" there put up in the 1960s?

Outdoor grades and gym grades have very little correlation. I can climb 5.12s all day long at the gym. I only DREAM of climbing 5.12s outside.

Technical climbing (what we today just call "climbing") at the Lake goes back to the late 1920s.  It is one of the originals.