Big Mountains

I was doing some reading on the world's highest/tallest/biggest mountains. It turns out there are a few definitions. You'll get one answer based on highest elevation, a different based on total height, and another based on total height starting from the Earth's core. Click here to see a nice summary of what I'm talking about. However, one definition that makes a lot of sense to me that seems to have no official standing, is the continuous rise in elevation that you would essentially have to climb in order to reach the summit. Or more simply, the Valley To Summit elevation, or what I'm going to call "VTS".

A couple of examples:

• Mount Everest in Nepal has the highest elevation at 29,029 ft (8,848 m) above sea level. As Everest's base sits on the Tibetan Plateau at about 17,000 ft (5,200 m), the VTS elevation is only about 12,000 ft (3,658 m). 
• Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain (when measuring from the sea floor) at over 30,000 ft (9,144 m). But again, the VTS elevation (in this case sea level because it's an island) is only 13,803 ft (4,207 m).

So what is the mountain with the largest Valley To Summit elevation you ask? Well, to be sure, I don't know. As mentioned above, there is no official list that I could find. However, here are the two biggest that I could locate:

• Mount McKinley has the biggest change. At 20,320 ft (6,194 m) above sea level, the VTS ends up being over 18,000 ft (5,500 m) as the valley floor sits at only 2,000 ft (610 m). That's 1.5 times larger than Mount Everest. Now that's a mountain!
• Mount Kilimanjaro comes in second at 19,341 ft (5,895 m) above sea level. It has a VTS elevation of approximately 15,100 ft (4,600 m) from the surrounding valley.

The Valley To Summit measurement makes the most sense to me because it essentially tells you the minimum amount of mountain you would have to climb to get to the top; if you were standing at what the average person would consider the "bottom". To me, it shows the "real" vertical rise. Think about it, if you are looking at a trail that goes to the top of a mountain, what's one of the first things you consider? The vertical change.

Now, I'm sure some smarty-pants out there will say, "What about a peak's prominence? Isn't that what you are talking about?" You would be close, but not exactly right. I thought topographic prominence was what I pictured VTS being equal to. But it's not. In my opinion, the geography geeks got too nerdy and messed up the definition when they made it. I mean, does it really matter how Mount McKinley relates to a taller peak in Argentina? Maybe. But not to the average Joe Shmoe, or even the average hiker. Oh well, maybe VTS will start catching on as an official stat. I can only hope.