Ginger or Maryann?
The debate can go on forever, and much for the same reasons.
It's good to consider the commonality shared by all South side diving (versus being lost in the West/West North debate).
Overall, South side diving is "advanced diving". No, not swirling currents and deep overhead environments. It is "advanced" in that intermediate experience divers can do the South side and depart quite disappointed. Noob divers love it because it's shallow, no current, and brightly washed in Sunlight (no small thing, but hard to conceptualize as a difference).
Advanced divers, those who have progressed beyond being amazed by (and shooting dozens of pix of) Lobsters and Parrotfish, yes, they will likely enjoy the South side as well. If a diver has developed close-in observational skills (one that always carries a magnifying glass and flashlight), one with great buoyancy skills... the South side's macro/micro nursery beckons. If you can not yet see that kind of critter, you will need to see larger more identifiable creatures- like fish and rocks... the day-dive ops and those that cater to cruise ship divers fill that niche.
Geographically, Roatan's destiny is written quite literally in stone, but confuses many. The island is always pictured lying straight E to W. But, in fact, it is angled SW to NE. Since prevailing winds blow up from the ESE, this has shaped the historical use of the island as well as the earth itself. All the nasty storms come from the North. This pushes the soil over to the Southern slopes. Harborages are thus on the Southern shores. Land that is nearby to harborages and historically safer from storm damage is prized nearby. Southern exposure land is not cheap. Very few dive operations of any kind are located on the South side for this specific reason. In terms of recent history (1970+), dive resorts began on the South side but due to limited roads and cheaper opportunities, this growth quickly shifted to West End day dive ops where the explosive expansion then occurred.
In terms of reef health along the South side, and the variations seen West to East- I find that most perceptions are roughly correct, but the actual and correct reasons for these differences are very shortsighted and either misinformed or outright distortions. It is most important for the local promoters to understand the why of the differences. Reef degradation is all about siltation and run-off from terrestrial development. Not the total number of divers on the reef. To claim otherwise is pure silliness and can quickly devolve into a misguided marketing tool (as in above quotes from RHR DMs). To you and me, this might be irrelevant, we want what we want, and how it is different is of no concern. Yet- short sighted, nonetheless.
The further one goes to the East along the Southern shore, there is less siltation because (wait for it) there is less development on land. Combine that though with the fact that any sedimentation produced along the Southern shore is only gently swept to the West, along the reef structure. (what little North shore sedimentation that exists is swept seaward because of the North's steep reef structures and currents)
In the CCV zone, the reef structure is close in-shore, and the vertical wall breaks straight down from 15' of depth to 90'. This zone is well protected from wind and wave. Thus, it may be very lush, but at the same time very delicate- and subject to sedimentation from the East.
In the RHR area, the reef presents as a gently sloping structure, coral heads spread out, the actual wall is beyond many shore diver's range. The area is well washed by wind and wave, causing what very little sedimentation to be washed away, and thus a bit more spartan.
The distinctions between localized diving of CCV and RHR are for most, quite subjective. I and a few others have been diving both areas quite a bit (versus here or there and way back when). It can vary widely depending on the day of the week.
The biggest distinction here between the areas for diving is the resorts themselves. One (CCV) is a well oiled diving machine, superb boats, great shore dive with wrecks, all that stuff that people rave about. The other (RHR) is something more etherial. The management at RHR didn't like it when I said it was a "throwback to the 1970's" (no less than the dislike of CCV management when we would call it "Dive Camp"). What conjures up one image for you, might not be what was intended by the speaker. Both terms are that of endearment, at least for me.
RHR was one of the first on Roatan, and it retains that attitude and vibe. It is what one would imagine would become of it if a bunch of free spirited hippies ran the place (Oh no, here I go again, what with the multi-imaged allusions!). CCV was started in the same time frame, but on a larger piece of land, by a master engineer, a man with a plan. But, RHR was conceived in the same way everybody else thought of dive resorts in that day... small, and very bed-and-breakfast-ish.
They both work quite well, for what they are, if you understand what you are buying when you plunk down the money. Very few really do. Unfortunately, the nature of humans and the internet inspires to great adulations for the selected choice that we just made, we paid our money for, it is distinctly an affirmation of our purchasing decision. (As in, "We just got back from Sandals and it was the bestest dive operation we've ever seen"... Inarguably correct, right?)
For me, I see that the reef structure in the vicinity of CCV is absolutely unique in the Caribbean. It is super shallow, vertical walls, always in Sunlight. I enjoy the 5x a day schedule, the actual dive-ability of the sheltered shore dive. If I were young and looking for a honeymoon diving getaway, I would instead be at RHR in a heartbeat.
No one place can be all things to all people.