Does overhanging 5.6 exist?

In reply to Ricky, as stated by several posters above, there are many such moves in the Gunks 5.6 and easier, lots elsewhere as well, but the Gunks is the jackpot for such moves.

In response to Matt H, it has been quite a while since I’ve done Madame G. but my recollection is that the top of the pitch does overhang the start-and the profile of the buttress also suggests that it overhangs. But, putting that climb aside, I’m pretty sure that the top face ( above the overhang) on High E. is overhanging, if only slightly, for most of the pitch.

MattHwrote:

I think the answer to the OP is almost certainly no, at least in the strict 'drop a plumb line' sense. Some gunks routes may _have_ an overhang, but they're all slab interspersed with a brief overhang. Even Madame G's, isn't overhung, it's just continuously near-vertical with blocky protrusions that put your weight on your arms. It would be overhanging if the horizontals were truly horizontal but it's definitely a little sub-vertical once you factor in the tilt of the cliff.

Allow me to present the route Gargoyle at Skytop (Gunks) as a rebuttal.

Admittedly, I could have worded the title better. I told someone this right after I posted, in fact. I didn't like the black and white manner of the question, the does it it exist or not part; but at the same time, that was included in the statement that sparked the question, so I went with it. But sure, maybe we can leave out the does it exist part and move to, should it exist? Should overhanging routes ever be considered 5.6? Are overhanging routes just too hard and physical to be considered 5.6? Something that is normally an easy joy ride, even for new climbers, once it goes overhanging, is it no longer easy climbing?

Definitely not talking about bulges; those might be uncomfortable and precarious, but not hard in the same way as overhanging. Although, do bulges still fall under the overhanging category or sub-category? Are they just on the easier end of it? Where as do Roofs fall on the other harder end of that spectrum, but this depending on the feet, if you have to let them go, among other things?

I assume the Gunks 5.6s are rated based on everything at the Gunks and nowhere else? "That felt easier than that Gunks 5.7, which felt easier than that Gunks 5.8, which felt easier than...everything else at the Gunks" so on and so forth. And when all said and done, the 5.6 is sandbagged, because everything there is overhanging to begin with (or at least super exposed and vertical.)

If we leave out the uniqueness of the Gunks, we have, what, 3 or 4 routes so far?

Nathan Doylewrote:

Admittedly, I could have worded the title better. I told someone this right after I posted, in fact. I didn't like the black and white manner of the question, the does it it exist or not part; but at the same time, that was included in the statement that sparked the question, so I went with it. But sure, maybe we can leave out the does it exist part and move to, should it exist? Should overhanging routes ever be considered 5.6? Are overhanging routes just too hard and physical to be considered 5.6? Something that is normally an easy joy ride, even for new climbers, once it goes overhanging, is it no longer easy climbing?

Definitely not talking about bulges; those might be uncomfortable and precarious, but not hard in the same way as overhanging. Although, do bulges still fall under the overhanging category or sub-category? Are they just on the easier end of it? Where as do Roofs fall on the other harder end of that spectrum, but this depending on the feet, if you have to let them go, among other things?

I assume the Gunks 5.6s are rated based on everything at the Gunks and nowhere else? "That felt easier than that Gunks 5.7, which felt easier than that Gunks 5.8, which felt easier than...everything else at the Gunks" so on and so forth. And when all said and done, the 5.6 is sandbagged, because everything there is overhanging to begin with (or at least super exposed and vertical.)

If we leave out the uniqueness of the Gunks, we have, what, 3 or 4 routes so far?

Dang dude. 9 question marks in one clarification post. That should definitely clear things up a bit…

A great question to think about how useful gyms are. Could you set an overhanging 5.6 in a gym, I don’t think you could if you consider how hard an average 5.6 at some crag in America.

What angle would a via ferrata allowed to be, to make a 5.6? Like 5 degrees overhanging?

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

A great question to think about how useful gyms are. Could you set an overhanging 5.6 in a gym, I don’t think you could if you consider how hard an average 5.6 at some crag in America.

What angle would a via ferrata allowed to be, to make a 5.6? Like 5 degrees overhanging?

What does via ferrata have to do with this?!

Curmudgeon Donwrote:

Dang dude. 9 question marks in one clarification post. That should definitely clear things up a bit…

Don't be an a-hole over the Internet, Don. It's unbecoming.

@JT I hit my post limit. Curmudgeons need a bit of curmudgeoning now and than too. It's all in good fun.

Nathan Doyle wrote:
Don't be an a-hole over the Internet, Don. It's unbecoming.

Ahhhh, yes because saying someone is unbecoming is the epitome of kindness   

Curmudgeon Don wrote:

Dang dude. 9 question marks in one clarification post. That should definitely clear things up a bit…

I think you're doing great, Don!

Are there any overhanging 5.7’s?

Jim Twrote:

Are there any overhanging 5.7’s?

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/105868530/west-pole

NC quartzite, in particular Moore's Wall has a lot of steep and easy terrain. 

But maybe i am fibbing.

There could easily be 5.6 all overhanging, as long as it's all super positive jugs. 

The Gunks are mentioned here not because of how it's rated (the ratings there seem pretty equivalent to say Yosemite once you get used to the nature of the climbing, that is it will seem hard at first like Yosemite slab or crack climbing seem hard at first but once you get used to it, it seems correctly rated) but because of the nature of the climbing. Lots of overhangs and lots of jugs (due to the horizontal cracks).

Dyurrite Mt Arapiles as well has several examples (and it's often compared to the Gunks, both the style of the rock, and the sandbagging of the lower grades)

https://www.mountainproject.com/route/106853261/the-bard

I think it would be possible to set overhanging 5.6 in a gym, but very expensive and time consuming, because you need massive volumes and 3D features to create an overhanging corner or chimney.

MattHwrote:

I think the answer to the OP is almost certainly no, at least in the strict 'drop a plumb line' sense. Some gunks routes may _have_ an overhang, but they're all slab interspersed with a brief overhang. Even Madame G's, isn't overhung, it's just continuously near-vertical with blocky protrusions that put your weight on your arms. It would be overhanging if the horizontals were truly horizontal but it's definitely a little sub-vertical once you factor in the tilt of the cliff.

If you look at the “drop a plumb line,” most of those routes would still be overhanging. Yes, the gunks is mostly slabs to roofs, but even the slabs are pretty steep. Also, just because the holds are good Doesn’t Make it any less steep.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

A great question to think about how useful gyms are. Could you set an overhanging 5.6 in a gym, I don’t think you could if you consider how hard an average 5.6 at some crag in America.

What angle would a via ferrata allowed to be, to make a 5.6? Like 5 degrees overhanging?

An overhanging 5.6 in a gym wouldn’t be consistent with their vanity grading. 

Colorful's Crack. The one everybody walks under in the Gunks. 5.6 and steep!

Ezra Hendersonwrote:

If you look at the “drop a plumb line,” most of those routes would still be overhanging. Yes, the gunks is mostly slabs to roofs, but even the slabs are pretty steep. Also, just because the holds are good Doesn’t Make it any less steep.

No way! There's not a chance that something like the Ceiling is net overhanging, and I'm pretty sure even p3 on Madame G's isn't either. Look at any climb in the gunks from profile and you'll realize the gunks' 'horizontal' blocks are actually tipped back about 10 degrees, so the 'overhung' terrain is mostly just moving the route closer to vertical (the 5.2 to the right is what it'd be like with no 'overhanging' blocks). Looking in profile makes this more obvious (on Madame G's you don't actually climb that overhang at the top of the skyline, you skirt around it to the left and top out about 5-10' back from the lip of the overhang):

The finish face of High E is probably the closest to vertical of any full length 5.6 pitch in the Trapps, but even that face is sub-vertical in a plumb-line sense (there's some little bulges that put your weight on your arms but there's no way the top is 'behind' the bottom in a z axis sense).

Even [edit: the roof pitch on] Son of Easy O isn't net overhanging - the slab 'travel' outweighs the roof travel - how else could you rap straight down off p2 to the base of the pitch?

Edit: to the reply below, your photo is of Madame G's p2, not p3, and it's still not even vertical. That pitch is the lower half of the skyline in the top photo in this post. 

MattHwrote:

No way! There's not a chance that something like the Ceiling is net overhanging, and Madame G's isn't either. Look at any climb in the gunks from profile and you'll realize the gunks' 'horizontal' blocks are actually tipped back about 10 degrees, so the 'overhung' terrain is mostly just moving the route closer to vertical (the 5.2 to the right is what it'd be like with no 'overhanging' blocks). Looking in profile makes this more obvious (you don't actually climb that overhang at the top of the skyline, you skirt around it to the left and top out about 5-10' back from the lip of the overhang):

This is the last pitch of Madam G’s

https://mountainproject.com/assets/photos/climb/117032879_large_1559002109.jpg?cache=1595856664

The finish face of High E is probably the closest 

to vertical of any full length pitch in the Trapps, but even that is sub-vertical in a plumb-line sense. 

Even Son of Easy O isn't net overhanging - the slab 'travel' outweighs the roof travel - how else could you rap straight down off p2?

I think that this is just about singular pitches, not about the whole climb. 

It's fascinating to me that the rock which is being used to demonstrate that overhanging 5.6 exists is either quartzite or rock which is compared as similar to quartzite in how it climbs. I had a buddy tell me very adamantly that overhanging 5.6 doesn't exist after climbing a new route of mine... On quartzite. 

Apparently both the Gunks and Arapiles are fairly sandbagged though? I wonder if those 5.6 routes there would be graded higher using standard Sierra grades which I think are somewhat stiff but not nearly as stiff as Yosemite itself. 

https://www.mountainproject.com/photo/112138933/at-kaufmanntaylor-climbing-the-final-moves-of-the-second-pitch-photo-by-at-alpin

This image of Madam G appears to make it look more overhung than a slab with a roof.... 

Probably just tricky camera work though...

Taylor K sure thinks the Gunks have overhanging 5.6....