Are rook pawns strong?

I’m wondering if rook pawns are strong or weak in relation to other pawns. If you have the  choice of saving either a rook pawn or a bishop pawn, which should you choose?

If I didn't have those pesty pawns in front of my rooks then I can control the board so much easier.  Of course, I am only a 1100 to 1200 player.

If youre talking about strictly King and Pawn endings?  

Rook pawns are great to have if youre trying to draw, and bad to have if youre trying to win.  Given the choice, id take the bishop pawn, though they have there own "issues"

Bent Larsen loved them.

Larsen was basically an all-round player but had some quirks, including a certain preference for knights over bishops and, more importantly, a fondness for advancing rook pawns, which he claimed to have done more than any other top GM. And certainly a2-a4-a5 is now a familiar idea for White in the King's Indian and Pirc, witness Magnus Carlsen's use of it in his web match against the world last week, while experts automatically examine h7-h5-h4 against a castled king or a g3 knight.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2010/sep/17/leonard-barden-chess

A bishop’s pawn attacks 2 squares. A rook’s pawn attacks 1 square. If that fact is relevant to the position it favors the bishop’s pawn. 

Rook pawns are strong if you have them on both sides and there are pieces still left on the board.  Rook pawns are weak if you just have one and there are no pieces left (or the wrong bishop, the one which can't cover the queening square).  Rook pawns are also good to hold the draw with when the other side queens first.

The point is that certain material situations will make certain pawns more valuable, and so it is important to understand what material situations to seek out based upon which pawns you and your opponent have left.  There are more situations where rook pawns are weaker than central pawns than vice versa, but in the contrary cases, the advantage of a rook pawn is often decisive.

In the middlegame it's often about clearing lines or squares for your pieces. For example I might want to give up my rook pawn if I could use that open file later.

In the endgame it's often about which pawn is more valuable as a passed pawn or which is more vulnerable to attack. If it's a king and pawn endgame a rook pawn is usually a valuable passer. In other endgames, maybe my rook pawn is easier for my opponent to attack, so I'd want to give it up if I had to choose.

Oh yeah, good point. Once the material becomes really reduced, a rook pawn can often make the win a lot harder (or impossible) in the endgame.

(and I see others said good stuff too... don't mind me... I posted before reading what everyone else said )

Rook pawns are the arch-enemy of Knights they are notoriously bad at stopping them from promoting-so it depends on the situation 

These pawns are really powerful in open games with wrong colored bishops. Otherwise, they aren't as strong in king-pawn endgames- or at least from what i have seen

rook pawns are excellent in the early endgame, as deflection devices. But that's the key. As long as it is the diversion, it is great. If it is the pawn you want to actually promote, then that's another issue. There is an old adage "rook pawns never promote." 

never?

They can be very useful as outside passed pawns. They can be used as a decoy to send the black king to the other wing. Then, your king will devour the enemy pawns on the other wing. But don't leave yourself with a rook pawn at the end. It has very low chances of promotion by itself. 

ah depends where the king is in a K vs P ending the farer away the better 

hm. Depends because knights (and maybe bishops) are worse at fighting rook pawns than other pawns, and rooks are better at fighting rook pawns. Queen vs Pawn has a nice save with a rook pawn and bishop pawn too. My answer to your original question is: Sacrifice both of them for something better since they are too far apart to do much.