Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I'm a Coloradan, therefore biased, but this is what I have to say:
Mount Whitney is nothing but a rocky outcrop. Yes, it is quite beautiful and impressive, but it doesn't look like a mountain. It really has no peak... It looks way more like a cool landmark than a legitimate mountain.
Mount Elbert, on the other hand, is quite the impressive mountain especially when viewed from nearby Leadville and retains its snow-cap longer than most of Colorado's mountains due to its height.
If this were something like "Mt. Shasta vs. Mt. Elbert" then I would give it to Shasta, for anybody who needs clarification on what exactly I'm judging these mountains on.
Mount Whitney and Mount Elbert are both great peaks. Mount Whitney does rise higher off the ground, but it is still not a technical climb whatsoever. Mount Elbert rises about 5,000 feet offf the ground, and Mount Whitney rises about 8,000 feet. I think Mount Whitney is more of a huge jagged cliff, and not as beautiful as Mount Elbert as I prefer more colors on a mountain. Also no peak in New England or east of the Mississippi River rises more than 4500 feet off the ground. Yes I know what I'm talking about. Mount Washington in New hampshire rises about 4200 feet from the lowest point, and Mount Adams also in New Hampsire rises about 4500 feet. Besides these are only two mountains in the entire Appalachain chain. Mount Mitchell is already high above sea level in North Carolina, and the lowest point within 5 miles is 3300 feet above sea level. I'll never understand why people think any Appalachain Peak looks higher than any peak of the west. I've seen all the mountains I've listed, and if you don't believe me use any tool you want to see that I'm right. Anyway I think Mount Elbert is far from looking like a big round bump. I'll never understand why west coasters think just because a mountain is pointier that means it's higher. Mount Whitney is a spectacular peak, but it's not that much more impressive than any other peak of considerable stats. Also there is a fee to climb Mount Whitney, and it is sooooooooo over crowded. If you think Mount Elbert is not impressive that's fine, but I'll never understand why people think that all Colorado peaks are nothing more than big bumps. It's not like all of California is the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Yes the Sawatch range in Colorado is not very jagged, but that's got nothing to do with height. Why do people on the west coast think that all the peaks rise to 14,000 feet and descend down to 0 feet all over the three states that comprise this coast. California, Oregon, and Washington all have many peaks that are not jagged at all. Yes absolute height is more impressive than height above sea level, but very few peaks in the lower 48 rise more than 8,000 feet from the ground, and Colorado includes a few of these. Also the previous poster who said he is biased because he is from Colorado shouldn't feel that way. All people from every state are biased about their home state. Anyway I just felt like I'd join in and share some logical information. Please feel free to get mad and yell about my post anyone if you must. Also Mount Shasta is a Volcano, as is Mount Rainier, Mount Hood, etc. These formed in a completely different way than Mount Elbert, or Mount Whitney. I therfore don't think they should be considered in this category
Both great mountains, but Whitney has a wow factor that's hard to top. Sitting in the bottom of the Owens valley at Lone Pine (elevation 3,727 feet), there are 14,000 foot peaks on either side of you. It's one of the deepest valleys in the country, and pretty amazing. It used to be called the "Switzerland of California" (before it was turned into a desert). It still has a stark, dramatic beauty, however, and the impressive elevation change in such a short distance is tough to match in the Rockies.
I agree with some folks here that say that Whitney is a less well defined mountain. That's true. The High Sierra by Lone Pine are a sheer wall that stand on the West side of the valley. Whitney is the highest part of the wall, but it's only marginally taller than the surrounding peaks. Mount Tom (elevation 13,658 feet) is actually more impressive looking from the East, and many mistake it for Whitney.
Mt. Whitney bay Faaarrrrrr! Although I can appreciate older rounded mountains and find them beautiful, I'm a bigger sucker for dynamic, growing mountians with cliffs and dramatic jagged edges.
Mt. Whitney bay Faaarrrrrr! Although I can appreciate older rounded mountains and find them beautiful, I'm a bigger sucker for dynamic mountians with cliffs and dramatic jagged edges.
There are plenty of Jagged Mountains in places other than the west coast. See my next post if you need proof. Colorado has plenty, as does Wyoming, Utah, and Montana, etc. Even New York does!!!!!!. Also The Rockies and Sierra Nevada are not that far apart in terms of age. Also California has plenty of rounded peaks. Just go near L.A., San Francisco, Sand Diego or San Jose. I'm a big fan of the Sierra Nevada, but I think all of America thinking CA, OR, and WA are the only places with tall jagged mountains is strange. I wouldn't care so much if there weren't 1,000,000,000 posts on here by West coasters constantly bringing up these types of topics. I even saw one with a California resident wondering why so many people are moving out of California. The topic starter said why would people leave mountains, oceans, and vineyards behind? First of all those aren't the only reasons people live in certain places, and other states have those too. But most of all why do people in California care. It's not like they have to move. Why do you take it as an insult if people move from CA. By the way west coasters constantly accuse other states of being biased, stuck up, or rude. Ummmm you are the same way West Coasters
Both great mountains, but Whitney has a wow factor that's hard to top. Sitting in the bottom of the Owens valley at Lone Pine (elevation 3,727 feet), there are 14,000 foot peaks on either side of you. It's one of the deepest valleys in the country, and pretty amazing. It used to be called the "Switzerland of California" (before it was turned into a desert). It still has a stark, dramatic beauty, however, and the impressive elevation change in such a short distance is tough to match in the Rockies.
I agree with some folks here that say that Whitney is a less well defined mountain. That's true. The High Sierra by Lone Pine are a sheer wall that stand on the West side of the valley. Whitney is the highest part of the wall, but it's only marginally taller than the surrounding peaks. Mount Tom (elevation 13,658 feet) is actually more impressive looking from the East, and many mistake it for Whitney.
Good thread.
The San Juan, Teton, Wind River, and Elk Mountains of the Rockies are every bit as impressive as the Sierra Nevada. Look them up if you don't believe me. You can still have your opinion, but don't say nothing can match the Sierra Nevada in a factual way. Plus if youre basing all your knowledge on just Mount Elbert or the front range, try looking at the many other ranges of the Rocky Mountains.
People are going to vote for Mt. Whitney simply because its in Cali...Im sure some of the people who voted haven't even seen both mountain...However, Mt. Whitney is more appealing to me. Pikes Peak or Uncompahgre Peak in Colorado would be a better comparison though.
Well I notice state vs state and other comparisons so why not?
Yeah, we've seen parks compared, bodies of water compared, the quality of beaches compared and so on. LOL. Even comparisons of humidity to arid climate zones.
Anyhow,
50 Tallest Mountains in the Lower 48 States
1 Mt Whitney, California 14,505 ft
2 Mt Elbert, Colorado 14,440 ft
3 Mt Massive, Colorado 14,428 ft
4 Mt Harvard, Colorado 14,427 ft
5 Mt Rainier, Washington 14,417 ft
6 Mt Williamson, California 14,389 ft
7 La Plata Peak, Colorado 14,368 ft
8 Blanka Peak, Colorado 14,351 ft
9 Uncompahgre Peak, Colorado 14,321 ft
10 Crestone Peak, Colorado 14,300 ft
11 Mt Lincoln, Colorado 14,293 ft
12 Castle Peak, Colorado 14,279 ft
13 Grays Peak, Colorado 14,278 ft
14 Mt Antero, Colorado 14,276 ft
15 Mt Evans, Colorado 14,265 ft
16 Longs Peak, Colorado 14,259 ft
17 Mt Wilson, Colorado 14,252 ft
18 White Mountain Peak, California 14,252 ft
19 North Palisade, California 14,248 ft
20 Mt Princeton, Colorado 14,204 ft
21 Mt Yale, Colorado 14,202 ft
22 Mt Shasta, California 14,179 ft
23 Maroon Peak, Colorado 14,163 ft
24 Mt Sneffels, Colorado 14,158 ft
25 Capitol Peak, Colorado 14,137 ft
26 Pikes Peak, Colorado 14,115 ft
27 Mt Eolus, Colorado 14,089 ft
28 Handies Peak, Colorado 14,058 ft
29 Culebra Peak, Colorado 14,053 ft
30 Mount of the Holy Cross, Colorado 14,011 ft
31 Grizzly Peak, Colorado 13,995 ft
32 Mt Humphreys, California 13,992 ft
33 Mt Keith, California 13,982 ft
34 Mt Ouray, Colorado 13,962 ft
35 Vermilion Peak, Colorado 13,900 ft
36 Mt Darwin, California 13,837 ft
37 Mt Silverheels, Colorado 13,829 ft
38 Rio Grande Pyramid, Colorado 13,827 ft
39 Gannett Peak, Wyoming 13,809 ft
40 Mt Kaweah, California 13,807 ft
41 Mauna Kea, Hawaii 13,803 ft
42 Grand Teton, Wyoming 13,775 ft
43 Mt Morgan, California 13,758 ft
44 Mt Gabb, California 13,747 ft
45 Bald Mountain, Colorado 13,690 ft
46 Mt Oso, Colorado 13,690 ft
47 Mauna Loa, Hawaii 13,679 ft
48 Mt Jackson, Colorado 13,676 ft
49 Mt Tom, California 13,658 ft
50 Bard Peak, Colorado 13,631 ft
There are plenty of Jagged Mountains in places other than the west coast. See my next post if you need proof. Colorado has plenty, as does Wyoming, Utah, and Montana, etc. Even New York does!!!!!!. Also The Rockies and Sierra Nevada are not that far apart in terms of age. Also California has plenty of rounded peaks. Just go near L.A., San Francisco, Sand Diego or San Jose. I'm a big fan of the Sierra Nevada, but I think all of America thinking CA, OR, and WA are the only places with tall jagged mountains is strange. I wouldn't care so much if there weren't 1,000,000,000 posts on here by West coasters constantly bringing up these types of topics. I even saw one with a California resident wondering why so many people are moving out of California. The topic starter said why would people leave mountains, oceans, and vineyards behind? First of all those aren't the only reasons people live in certain places, and other states have those too. But most of all why do people in California care. It's not like they have to move. Why do you take it as an insult if people move from CA. By the way west coasters constantly accuse other states of being biased, stuck up, or rude. Ummmm you are the same way West Coasters
90% of this has nothing to do with the post you responded to. Rhymes with Best Coast simply stated his preference to what kind of mountain he likes and you appear to be off on a tangent about people leaving CA and whatnot. Totally unrelated.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
