<photo: views from the summits of Mount Kinabalu and Mount Rinjani>
mount rinjani and mount kinabalu are popular peaks amongst beginner climbers. in discussions on these two mountains, the conversations would invariably drift towards the topic of which is a better mountain to climb.
the higher the mountain, the better it is! - a common remark by those who haven't climbed either one. mount rinjani is 3726m high, whereas mount kinabalu measures 4096m. if higher is better, surely kinabalu must be better. one point to Kinabalu.
the more dangerous it is, the better it must be! - another remark, albeit a foolish one, by beginners. mount rinjani is an active volcano and mount kinabalu is not even a volcano. one point to Rinjani!
how long does it take to reach the summit? it takes about the same time for both mountains. half point each.
one and a half points each to Kinabalu and Rinjani so far.
let's compare the views at the summits. Is the view more spectacular from the peak of Rinjani, where you can see the peak of Mount Agung in the distance on the island of Bali (Rinjani is on the island of Lombok)? surely the views from the new Ranau Trail built after the earthquake at Kinabalu is more awesome?
how about accomodation? you stay in tents for Rinjani but sleep in a proper bed for Kinabalu. toilets - flushing toilets for Kinabalu, a hole in the ground for Rinjani. how about a lake? Rinjani has a huge cater lake with spectacular views, Kinabalu has no lakes at all.
so which is better? Rinjani or Kinabalu? if you go on comparing, you will get analysis paralysis and end up not climbing any mountains. you will end up not going anywhere in life. stop comparing and start climbing. no matter what mountain, the view at the summit can only be seen when you start climbing and get to the top. #bcc
related posts - the paradox of choice