U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Which one?
Mt. Elbert, Colorado 11 39.29%
Mt. Whitney, California 17 60.71%
Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-11-2011, 06:03 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,693 posts, read 18,024,668 times
Reputation: 11862
Default Mount Elbert vs Mount Whitney

mount elbert - Google Search

mount whitney - Google Search

The highest peak in the lower 48 or the highest peak in the Rockies?

To me Whitney seems far more spectacular and jagged, and it rises much higher from it's base than Mt. Elbert which is already pretty high. I think it rivals the Matterhorn in impact and height.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2011, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
26,989 posts, read 13,367,681 times
Reputation: 8573
This doesn't belong in city vs. city. But a fun thread.

Mt. Elbert base is very high up, so it doesn't give much impact. And has nothing on it that is real rock climbing. A couple of mountains in New England have a bigger base to summit gain than Elbert.

Though Whitney is really jagged, it still has a hiking trail up it. Matterhorn is more exposed and require rock climbing equipment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2011, 05:16 PM
 
2,671 posts, read 5,578,395 times
Reputation: 1394
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
This doesn't belong in city vs. city. But a fun thread.

Mt. Elbert base is very high up, so it doesn't give much impact. And has nothing on it that is real rock climbing. A couple of mountains in New England have a bigger base to summit gain than Elbert.

Though Whitney is really jagged, it still has a hiking trail up it. Matterhorn is more exposed and require rock climbing equipment.
I was thinking the same thing. Mt. Whiney's jagged look makes it look interesting and beautiful. Mt. Elbert is wide and round, and looks too plain. I also agree with the base to summit rise that makes a mountain look high, not the elevation above sea level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 03:19 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,693 posts, read 18,024,668 times
Reputation: 11862
Why so little interest in mountains? lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 03:20 AM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,693 posts, read 18,024,668 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAandATL View Post
I was thinking the same thing. Mt. Whiney's jagged look makes it look interesting and beautiful. Mt. Elbert is wide and round, and looks too plain. I also agree with the base to summit rise that makes a mountain look high, not the elevation above sea level.
Yes, the same reason why McKinley is more spectacular than Everest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 07:15 AM
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
26,989 posts, read 13,367,681 times
Reputation: 8573
Elbert is one of the less jagged Colorado peaks, although most Colorado peaks are rather rounded and have low base to summit differences compared to most peaks as high.

These Colorado peaks look more spectacular.

pyramid peak colorado - Google Search

longs peak colorado - Google Search

I think Mt. Whitney still looks larger and more jagged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 09:46 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,395 posts, read 14,280,068 times
Reputation: 5312
this is city vs city, not mountain vs mountain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 11:46 AM
 
Location: yeah
5,627 posts, read 9,983,039 times
Reputation: 2583
Yeah, the Rockies could use another candidate here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 05:50 PM
 
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,693 posts, read 18,024,668 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
this is city vs city, not mountain vs mountain.
Well I notice state vs state and other comparisons so why not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2011, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Wilmington, DE
257 posts, read 72,400 times
Reputation: 78
Never heard of them
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top