Rich just nailed it perfectly.
His explanation is spot on.
Grade compression and inbred,untravelled locals account for what today's climbers call mid-western sandbags.
It is not that the climbers of thirty years ago, and more, decided to intentionally under rate routes.

Thx for the insight Rich and for the bit of climbing history.

In Widule & Swartling, there were 76 routes rated "F7", and 62 routes rated "F8". In the second edition, there are 123 routes rated 5.7 and 139 routes rated 5.8.

Frequency           5.7     5.8     5.9    Total
(not in W&S)         52      78       0     130
F6                    3       0       0       3
F7                   68       3       1      76
F8                    0      58       3      62
Total               123     139       4     271

Well I'd say that means if you can climb 5.7 or 5.8 at DL you can climb it anywhere...

Hey Rich,

I agree whole heartedly. I think sandbags are a product of the environment they are found in for the most part. Though, I also think that the definition of "sandbag" has evolved throughout the years a bit. I think many folks recognize that they are a product of their times, and not intentional misleads or undergrading, with certain exceptions. At least this is how I have alway accepted them (though I was born and raised in Wisconsin, started climbing there at 15 years of age, and then basically moved to northern AZ where I have spent the last ten years; in both places the grades for traditional routes are simply the real deal- no discounts).

I think sandbags are what they are, and should remain for generations to come as a reminder of days past. Even if it does entail a few bruised egos along the way. I think a greater level of humility among the climbing community in general, certainly wouldn't hurt us.

Now, who wants to talk about sport ratings??? Just f-ing kidding... I have, not the time.

JJ