An Attempt at a Numerical Comparison of the Worlds Dive Destinations ...

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

Ok so since a lot of people (including myself) have been posting about Fiji vs Palau and this place VS that place, I thought we could all benefit from an objective comparison of the worlds tropical dive sites. I went about looking for some way in which we could compare one dive site with another based on numerical data rather than personal opinions or who had a better time where. Please keep in mind that this list is not an attempt to prove once and for all that Indonesia is better than Phillipines or PNG is better than Australia etc. There are so many variables that go into making a dive memorable (and those variables change so drastically from person to person) that a conclusive comparison is just not possible. What I have been able to obtain are only two factors that go into making a dive great for a lot of folks. These two factors are: (1) Number of coral species (2) number of fish species. The first number is the number of different coral species in that area and the second is the number of fish species in that area. So here we go :- Australia - Coral 460 Fish 1489
PNG - 517 / 858
Solomon Islands - 494 /1019
Fiji - 398/355
Belize - 57 / 195
Mexico - 81 / 225
Honduras - 57/225
Egypt 318/224
East Africa 277/322
Maldives 244/489
Thailand 705/308
Indonesia 602/4080
Malaysia 350/368
Phillipines 577/952
Micronesia 388/534 Source: Diving the World - Footprint

 

[robint]

Better is so much of a personal thing, it is impossible to really rate in numbers. Everyone's wants and needs are different. NO rating system in any book or magazine is without slant according the writer. Sometimes these polls are done and people rate places as the "best" when it is the only place they have ever been! Of course it is the best, to them, with their limited experience.
I really don't like these types of surveys/polls.... they mean nothing to me. I like to read personal trip reports and evaluated how it applies to ME, similarities in interests, experience level, etc.

case and point: Some of the "best" diving I have ever done was in California Channel Islands. Most people would hate it - water is cold, vis can be 10-50' at best, and no real coral. That is their opinion. I find the place magical, with its kelp, light twinkling through, weird fish laying on the rocks rather than swimming around, octopus and lobster under every rock, sea lions playing hide and seek with you... nudibranchs, don't even get me started on the number of different tiny colorful nudies you can find there. But as I said.. to most people, Calif diving is not good.

Just my 2 cents.
robin

 

[fisheater]

Wow.

You probably worked out a "black book" rating system in high school, too. Now admit it!

 

[cbm32]

Unfortunately, number of different species says little about the total abundance of life in the waters.

 

[smokey braden]

cap't,
you left out the cayman islands.
smokey,

 

[mala]

2 other important factors.

wrecks
dive buddies.

 

[ScubaSteve]

My local diving would blow them all away (compare as follows):

0/2 (and I mean fish, not species )

. Yet I dive at every opportunity and surface from every dive exhilarated and just in awe of how much I Love to dive.

 

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

cap't,
you left out the cayman islands.
smokey,

I didnt leave them. They were not in the source that I used which is a book called "Diving the World - Footprint"

 

[mala]

I didnt leave them. They were not in the source that I used which is a book called "Diving the World - Footprint"

the caymans would be in the top 100 i guess-just.

its a big world.

 

[CAPTAIN SINBAD]

Better is so much of a personal thing, it is impossible to really rate in numbers. Everyone's wants and needs are different. NO rating system in any book or magazine is without slant according the writer. Sometimes these polls are done and people rate places as the "best" when it is the only place they have ever been! Of course it is the best, to them, with their limited experience.
I really don't like these types of surveys/polls.... they mean nothing to me. I like to read personal trip reports and evaluated how it applies to ME, similarities in interests, experience level, etc.

Just my 2 cents.
robin

Just to clarify to everyone this is not a survey or a poll. Polls are subjective and opinion based. The book that I am quoting from presents this as an actual, true to life count of fish and coral species present. Example: With a rating of 81 corals for Mexico this means that you can spend your whole life diving Mexico and those dives may be very pleasurable to you for a whole list of personal reasons but the total number of coral species you would have seen can never exceed 81. Compare that to Indonesia where you have the potential of coming across 602 coral species! Any Coral photographer would look at that list and know where he should be heading.


I would prefer British Columbia to most places in that list because my photographic interest is marine life in colder waters. The list that would have meaning to me would be a list that counts cold water mammals in BC, Norway, Alaska and such places.