Welcome, fellow amateur topography fan! Indeed, what's visually striking about a mountain isn't its absolute height but its relative height above the base elevation surrounding it and its slope. Topographers define something called prominence with a technical definition that is not quite the same as this casual, more visual definition I use.
To your observation: Mt. Wakefield's peak is at 6,752' and the flood plain below it is at about 2,400'. So there's an elevation rise of over 4,000' over a short distance. Aoraki's 12,217' summit is about 9,000' above the foot of the Hooker Glacier that descends from it. And I agree, it's these dramatic rises that make these mountains so striking. There are few places in the US where to see such verticality.
no subject
To your observation: Mt. Wakefield's peak is at 6,752' and the flood plain below it is at about 2,400'. So there's an elevation rise of over 4,000' over a short distance. Aoraki's 12,217' summit is about 9,000' above the foot of the Hooker Glacier that descends from it. And I agree, it's these dramatic rises that make these mountains so striking. There are few places in the US where to see such verticality.