|
Tim says on 18/Nov/09
6'6.5'' is his width, his height is 6'6.25'' out of bed
Clay says on 14/Nov/09
The Starks pic is enough for me to prove that BDV was 6'6.5-6'6.75. Shock says on 1/Oct/09
I do remember the verbal 6'10" bill as well for Viscera, it was probably around the same time he had the written 6'6" bill.
What is your definition of "strong" when it comes to height? To me, strong means probably at or above the half inch mark of their height, and weak means anywhere from the flat height probably not quite up to the middle of the inch.
So, "a strong 6'6" to me sounds like 6'6.5"-.75", but here you also put Taker at 6'7.5" and that to me is impossible, as there's plenty of evidence that he's over 6'8" to this day. If you want to go for a generic height for him 6'8" is the way to go, as he's taller than Kane by at least .5" and taller than Sid by more than 1", no matter how many people think otherwise, and plenty of people seem to believe they are taller than they actually are. Basically if you made Sid Kane and Taker's head's all the same size, they'd all be the exact same height.
Other examples, Crush was a weak 6'6", Vis is a strong 6'6", Taker is a weak 6'8", Matt Morgan is a strong 6'8", Sid is a weak 6'7" (maybe) or very strong 6'6", Kane is a mid 6'7". Danimal says on 29/Sep/09
Mabel/viscera was also once give a 6'10" billing by JR. I remember this distinctively. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the year. I still say he's a stong 6'6" barefeet, seeing 6'7.5" Taker at the time (1999) had about 1.5" on him. Shock says on 29/Sep/09
Josh, starting in 1993, Mabel, while he was a face in M.O.M., was religiously billed 6'9" 495 lbs, and then eventually right before he turned heel they slightly upped his weight around the same time they upped Yoko's weight bill.
During his heel run as King Mabel, he was occasionally billed 6'8" and always 568 lbs, and for some unknown reason during a future run with the Ministry of Darkness he was billed 6'6". Strangely enough this was around the same time Dennis Knight was billed 6'3" as Mideon, who should be billed 6'7" and for the most part was.
After that Mabel's bill as the Love Machine had more varying weight but I believe he was billed 6'8", and then as Big Daddy V, once again 6'9", 485 lbs.
Nelson Frazier's bottom line bill is 6'9". The wording on this page bugs me because it's more mysterious that his bill shrunk 3", it wasn't like he was always a 6'6" bill and then suddenly went up to 6'9". It implies disparity, but it was always supposed to be 6'9" and probably someone unqualified made it 6'6" at some point. Shock says on 28/Sep/09
BDV is clearly not the same height as Taker, and is closer to height with Kane than Taker. There's about .75" between them respectively. BDV is at least 1" shorter than Taker with a 2 layer minimum boot advantage in 1995, and Kane only comes out about .5" taller in 2007/8. I think BDV could have a layer advantage on Kane in footwear at most, however BDV did wear different boots here and there which made him come out varying heights.
Barefoot and boot heights in 2008:
Undertaker: 6'8.25" - 6'9.5"
Kane: 6'7.5" - 6'9"
Big Daddy V: 6'6.75" - 6'8.5"
Late 90s in boot heights:
Undertaker: 6'8.75 - 9"
Kane: 6'9.75"
BDV: 6'8.25" josh says on 24/Aug/09
Viscera in his days as Mabel etc was billed at 6'6 but when he was Big Daddy V more recently he was billed at about 6'9 and once said he was 6'8 tall.
I would say he is 6'8 or 6'9 in boots he wears but 6'6 without boots. Anonymous says on 29/Jul/09
Kane- 6'7.5",
Taker- 6'6.75"
BDV- 6'6.5" Electric says on 28/Jul/09
Kane is about 6'7.5". Viscera is just under an inch shorter. They wore virtually identical boots.
Kane- 6'7.5", 320 (has been as light as 290 and as heavy as 350)
Taker- 6'8", 285 (has been as heavy as 330-340).
BDV- 6'6.5", 500 (Probably 550 at his heaviest. he is actually only about 400 now in the indys. I'll try to find a pic for you guys. He's lost like 100 lbs.) Clay says on 23/Jul/09
Kane - 6'8 310 ibs (peak 320)
Undertaker - 6'7.5 (peak 6'8) 285 (peak 330)
BDV - 6'7 500....god knows how many pounds Danimal says on 26/May/09
6'6" Anonymous says on 26/May/09
BDV he's a real fattie. Kane isn't 6'9. He is the same height as Taker. They are all 6'6.5. Kane maybe 6'7. BDV weighs about the same as Taker and Kane put together. BDV over 500, Taker 260 Kane 275 my guess. Taker is still tall but thin. Jake says on 18/May/09
I think he's a huge man...about 6'6.5" without lifts, and about 6'8" with lifts. BDV was gigantic!! He looked about 1 inch shorter than Kane in his big boots, so Kane is around the 6'9" mark. James S says on 28/Mar/09
Compared to 7 footers like Big Show and Khali he looks about 6 ft 5 or maybe 6, i'd say 6 ft 4 barefoot. Shock of Electric says on 24/Mar/09
nick I mentioned that staredown recently. Both men wearing pretty hefty boots, possibly the biggest Nelson's ever had and essentially the same as Kane's here.
This is more evidence that Taker comes out, at the minimum, the same height as Kane in his current boots, which are thicker than Taker's. BDV would have to be as tall, or taller than Taker for Taker and Kane to be the same height, or for Kane to be taller. I have not been able to find a video showing any good comparison's of BDV and Taker from last year. Just judging by the 1995 comparison, Taker was unquestionably taller then, than Kane is today. Shock of Electric says on 21/Mar/09
I don't think I've ever seen that Fake Diesel Taker, match but it'd be interesting. Also rereading what I posted, in the comment about Taker/Big Show, I mean the 1999 boots were .25"-.5" less in 99 than they are now. tuga says on 21/Mar/09
Shock of Electric says on 21/Mar/09
OK that didn't take as long as I thought:
Great work, I agree with you, at least 1, 1´25, maybe 1 1/2, just look at 7 seconds the size of mabel´s boot´s, he has at least half an inch advantage over taker there.
Also you´re right on taker´s posture, its not the best, if he stood tall like he did with khali he would have a clean 1 1/2 over mable. Again, I´ll even dismiss camera advantage for mable...
Overall 1´75 absolute minimum just looking at difference in height and footware, but most likely full 2 inches all things considered.
Do you have fake diesel vs taker on tape? I know I recorded it back in the day but can´t tell where I have it. Shock of Electric says on 21/Mar/09
Kane as of last year was not as much taller than BDV with even footwear, as Taker was than Mabel in uneven footwear in 1995. I think the only person who's really lost any significant height of those three is Kane, as I believe they were nearly, if not identical height to Taker in 1995. Taker has lost no more than 1/4" if any height at all. Is there a single example of Taker compared with two people over the course of the last 18 years where he comes out shorter than he did earlier? I think he comes out taller in every instance I can think of.
In the early 90s, Taker came out about .75" taller than Sid, and that was in uneven and even suspect footwear on Sid's part, it was probably more than that barefoot. At WM13 and other close up shots from late RAWs, in even footwear but Sid with some kind of internal lifts if you look at the height of his heel, is still definitely 1" shorter which leads me to believe Sid is as much as 1.25" shorter. So there's 5 years of time where it's unlikely Taker lost any height, he comes out as much taller as he should with the even boots.
Taker compared to Big Show today is closer in height partially because Taker's boots are .25"-.5" in 1999, but Big Show still has an advantage in footwear regardless. I see their barefoot height difference currently at no more than 3"-3.25". In 1999 it looks like 4.5" but Big Show's boots were double the thickness of Taker's, breaking that down to more like 3.75".
In any event, Taker is still coming up to the first 1/4" of his forehead essentially. Kane in 99/2000 is about .5" taller compared to Big Show than last year. Kane in .5" smaller footwear, both men I think safe to assume, have lost height being posture, surgery, excess weight, what have you. Big Show nearly 7' in '99, maybe 6'11.25-0.5" now.
Taker compared to Hogan in 1991 and 2002...no contest, at least 2" more taller, and he's just as much taller than Shawn Michaels as he was in 97-98 as we've seen recently.
The staredown with JBL from SD I posted on the other page, who I really feel cannot be any shorter than 6'5.5" (claims 6'6.25") shows Taker clearly still around 6'8". The same angle is used in a pic with Taker and Big Show, and I was once told on here it made the height difference look like *less* than it was. I never go by pics' direct visual difference when there are angle issues, but more an approximation of where they come up to on someone, and how much above that point there is based on their given size, and logically how big their head can be and previous knowledge. So Taker coming up to the top of Big Show's eyebrows means he's about 4.5" taller since Big Show has a normally proportioned forehead but is much larger than most people with a foot tall skull approximately. When you knock off the boot advantage it's more like 3.75", not the 5" some people claim. Big Show would have a 14" tall head if that was the case.
I wanted to clarify it since that would mean Taker's even more taller than JBL than it looks, and to dismiss anyone claiming that the angle in fact somehow has the opposite affect when Taker would not benefit. Taker I will say possibly .25" boot advantage because JBL's are still smaller than today's standard. Taker's mouth, nose, eyes are 2" above JBL's and Taker's forehead gives him a big more as well. The reason why Taker comes out so well is because he's looking at the IC belt, and not slouching like he usually does with shorter people. He reclaims all the height many people suggest he's lost simply by "standing up straight." If anything, he looks more taller than JBL today...than he did in 1996, which is possible since JBL has had surgeries that can cause some height loss.
So in the end, I don't see how there's any less difference between BDV and Taker then and now, except where the boots changed here and there. I think, based on Max Starks at 6'7.1", 6'6.75" no less for BDV, and up to 6'8.25" Undertaker, but no less than 6'8" even. It's not 2" but it's more than 1" without compensating for boots. I also think 6'7.75" is possible for Kane since he is slightly less than 1" taller than Starks if you line them up with Big Ben. I don't know how much Kane can make up for with better posture today. People will obviously think the 6'8.25" is ludicrously high for Taker based on some misguided evidence, but really, he almost always has his head gimmick-tilted down, and his wrestling stance is extremely low. These things always seem to be ignored. Shock of Electric says on 21/Mar/09
OK that didn't take as long as I thought:
Click Here - 11.3 meg, 12 second avi file using a standard mp43 compressor.
I'd say there's a 1" - 1.25" difference during the zoom to the frame before Mabel begins to tilt his head, and on the frame before the camera flash to the right of Mabel at 7 seconds, he is about the same neck posture as Taker. Then you have to consider the boot advantage, and Taker is leaning into his face, and has a wider stance. The real barefoot difference could be as high as 1.75" Shock of Electric says on 20/Mar/09
I have the match on tape, but of course my video grabbing software doesn't work and I think it's because of XP SP3. I will see what I can do. tuga says on 20/Mar/09
Da Man says on 18/Mar/09
You knew after the BDV/Kane staredown I would never see more than an inch? Get off it, tuga!
Sorry, but if you only see one inch there...
The often referenced pic from around 4:42-4:43, Taker is heavily, HEAVILY favored by camera perspective AND posture and the difference still only looks a bit more than 2"! No way does Taker have 2" on Mabel at 4:37-4:38 in that video.
What? Look again...at 4:42 its about 3 inches...taker has at around 1 1/2 before and footware, posture and camera disavantage, EASY, EASY 2 inches.
Besides, if Taker legitimately had 2" on Mabel, that would indicate Taker is closing in on a legit 6'9", and there is absolutely NO case for that. None at all.
You´re assuming a 6'7 mabel, do we have proof of that?? Before viscera staredown with kane and photo with that football player mabel was estimated by most at 6'6 and taker 6'8, maybe they are/were half an inch above that, so what´s the problem??
Funny, 1 inch, 1 inch...and IGNORING footware, taker´s wider stance and camera disavantage, only refering mabel head down...what´s wrong with you, you normally do good analysis of ALL factors...remember the backstage video of kane and goldust???
Also taker was still taller than bdv, he is even not at his peak anymore and with bdv with HUGE footware, if a peak taker was only 1 inch taller tell me Da Man, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?? Da Man says on 20/Mar/09
Actually, it isn't obvious at all, and they aren't "excuses", this is how we analyze evidence.
Once again, is there a better quality version of this match anywhere? I want to see a clear shot of 4:36-4:38 of that video. 4:40 is useless for comparison, 4:42-4:43 is even more useless for comparison. From what I can actually see of the legit face-off at 4:38, they look to be within 1" before Mabel begins slumping. Shock of Electric says on 19/Mar/09
Ya know, I've looked at that comparison so many times and it's baffling, mostly because of how much people deny the height difference. At KotR 95, Undertaker has a solid 2" on Mabel. Mabel has some fairly large footwear on for the time, his head is leaning but then he straightens up. Yes the camera angle is in Taker's favor, but how much is it going to change really? That's a LOT of height difference to compensate for simply by sliding the camera and not tilting it. The height difference as is looks like at least 3". If you compensate for Mabel's head lean, then you have to compensate for the faithful "shoulder width apart" stance Taker has, which closes the gap some, but then widens it a bit again, and the boot difference which is 0.5"ish. I mean, it's really truly clear in that match that Taker is significantly taller than Mabel. Big Daddy Lifts comes close, but not flat boots Mabel. As of last year, in equal footwear (being 1.5" lifts), Kane and BDV are within an inch in height, with Kane being taller. Taker is definitely more taller than V with a boot disadvantage there, than Kane is in even footwear as of last year. I know I'm going to hear "No no camera angle favors Taker, his boots are just as big if not bigger" and all kinds of excuses, but it's right there. It's obvious. Da Man says on 18/Mar/09
You knew after the BDV/Kane staredown I would never see more than an inch? Get off it, tuga!
Please explain to me HOW you see 2" at 4:40? Posture is not even remotely comparable (in Taker's advantage) and there still isn't a 2" difference there.
The often referenced pic from around 4:42-4:43, Taker is heavily, HEAVILY favored by camera perspective AND posture and the difference still only looks a bit more than 2"! No way does Taker have 2" on Mabel at 4:37-4:38 in that video.
Besides, if Taker legitimately had 2" on Mabel, that would indicate Taker is closing in on a legit 6'9", and there is absolutely NO case for that. None at all. tuga says on 18/Mar/09
Da Man, there´s no way taker has less than 1 and 1/2 inches there.
I won´t even go perpective of camera, footware is clearly bigger from Mabel and taker has a wider stance so forget about camera, add just half an inch and you´ve got easy 2 inches.
I knew after the Bdv kane staredown you would never see over 1 inch there between mabel and taker... Da Man says on 17/Mar/09
Click Here
At around 4:40 in the youtube video when the camera gets close enough to begin telling anything at all, Mabel/Vis has already begun slumping. It's plainly obvious most are being severely fooled by posture. After 4:40 Vis/Mabel sags even lower. When the over the shoulder shot occurs at around 4:42, the camera HEAVILY favors Taker, as does Vis's posture, as the camera is at their shoulder level and Mabel is much further from the camera. The high perspective ring tilt advantage is gone in this frame.
Is there a higher quality vid of this encounter? At around 4:36 there looks to be a decent face-off. Yes Mabel had the camera and perspective advantage, but not enough of one to throw the comparison off by an entire inch! If that's the case, then Yankem looked over an inch taller than Taker in their staredown.
I'm pretty close to positive Taker had Mabel by 1" tops in that video. tuga says on 17/Mar/09
Da Man says on 16/Mar/09
Only after he drooped his shoulders and begin hanging his head. Taker was never 2" taller than Vis. That's flat out wishful thinking.
No wishful thinking, people mentioned 2 inches that until they saw viscera taller than 6´6, just one staredown doesn´t give his definite height but he is 2 inches taller there.
Da Man, you normally make full analysis, can you honestly tell me viscera has not footware, posture and camera advantage?
Even if you just add half an inch to compensate that to the minimum 1 and 1/2 taker has already advantage it goes 2 full inches.
When they close up on them and viscera lowers his head the difference is even bigger naturally... Da Man says on 16/Mar/09
"Actually it was a good 2 inches."
Only after he drooped his shoulders and begin hanging his head. Taker was never 2" taller than Vis. That's flat out wishful thinking. tuga says on 16/Mar/09
Da Man says on 15/Mar/09
Who said Vis is as tall as or taller than Taker? Vis was a good 1" shorter than a peak Taker but probably within 0.5" of Taker today.
Actually it was a good 2 inches.
He may me within half an inch from taker today, but only wearing his BDV boots.
I agree that BDV is near 6'7, at least he is not shorter than 6'6 1/2 imo. Shock of Electric says on 16/Mar/09
Someone without a given name said he was as tall or taller. Another annoymous posted asked who is taller. He's still as much shorter than Taker as he was over 10 years ago.
Why would Taker lose height and not Vis? That makes very little sense as Taker hasn't reached age related height loss, and if anything Vis carrying double his ideal body weight is more probable cause for him to lose height since 1995. In lifts V is still about 1" shorter than Taker today.
By my estimation, V is basically 6'6.8" compared to Starks, Kane is approximately 1" taller than V in even lifts. Comparing Kane's pic with Ben and Ben with Starks, Kane seemed to touch the top of Stark's cap putting him at a little less than 1" taller than Starks, basically 6'7.8". I don't think we know the footwear situation for anyone, or if Kane and V were in their typical wrestling footwear for the time or casual but their approximate height difference seems accurate since they wear the same lifts and they come out about 1" apart with that. Is it safe to assume Ben and Max are in some kind of standard sneakers? Da Man says on 15/Mar/09
Who said Vis is as tall as or taller than Taker? Vis was a good 1" shorter than a peak Taker but probably within 0.5" of Taker today.
Vis is clearly; however, extremely close in height to barefoot measured and confirmed 6'7.1" Max Starks. There is undoubtedly LESS than 1/2" between these two.
Vis at 6'6.75" is actually very believable. Shock of Electric says on 15/Mar/09
The only time V comes within 1" of Taker is when he's rocking the lifts. He is absolutely in no way shape or form as tall or taller than Taker. V is more than likely 6'6.75" which he has stated himself and it agrees with many comparisons. Da Man says on 12/Mar/09
Jake, the only way Vis looks 6'6" next to confirmed 6'7.1" Max Starks is if you think he had a 1" footwear advantage. says on 11/Mar/09
Big Daddy V is 6'7 tall, same as Taker or just taller. The difference is that Big Daddy V is also 6'7 wide so most of the WWE roster give him a wide berth. Jake says on 10/Mar/09
When he was in his Big Daddy V gimmick, he wore 3 inch heel lifts, and he looked 6'8"- 6'9", almost eye level with Kane who is 6'9" in his boots.
I think without the boots he's a legit 6'6" as confirmed standing next to Ben Roethlisberger and Max Starks. Da Man says on 27/Feb/09
Click Here
Viscera (pre-Big Daddy V) next to confirmed 6'7.1" Max Starks and confirmed 6'4.8" "Big" Ben Roethlisberger.
I think a flat 6'7" is feasible, if not just a shade under. Da Man says on 27/Feb/09
Click Here
Viscera (pre-Big Daddy V) next to confirmed 6'7.1" Max Starks and confirmed 6'4.8" "Big" Ben Roethlisberger.
I think a flat 6'7" is feasible, if not just a shade under. Danimal says on 24/Feb/09
Just to update ROB'S description on the top of the page, J.R. called Viscera 6'10" at one point as well, so he jumped from 6'6" and eventually reached 6'10".
The man's 6'6". Taker WAS taller than him in 1999. Anonymous says on 23/Feb/09
Who is taller these days... Undertaker or Big Daddy V ? Jake says on 17/Feb/09
Big Daddy V aka Viscera was wearing shoe lifts in his last run in WWE. I saw him stand toe to toe with a legit 6'2" Boogeyman, and he was a good 7 inches taller. So he's 6'9" wearing the lifts, but 6'6" is his real height. Haze says on 15/Feb/09
but mybe gamma is right and hes really 6'2 that would make triple h a stout 5'9 or 10. that would make big show 6'7.and mysterio 4'11 eeeeee haha.
that guy is obviously not crazy ;) Haze says on 15/Feb/09
actually in the line up i think that holly and show are the only ones in proportion. kane, taker and vis have all been blown up.
but after seeing the pics im guessing vis is 6'6 flat. his shoes are helpin him out. and hes super fat. Drexyl says on 19/Oct/08
They've obviously all been photoshopped into that height chart. It's not even a proper chart. If you measure how tall a foot appears to be on it, the ground would be off the bottom of the page and not where they are standing.
I'm also fairly sure Holly wouldn't look quite that small next to all those guys. KingNick says on 11/Oct/08
dicksock, that's MiveV10's page, he has the most awesome photos. I have that photo from the actual magazine. I think the height chart is exaggerated and I think they were all photoshopped in as opposed to lining up together for the pic. It's hard to see but if you look closely, Big Show's head is pointed down as if he were trying to fit in the picture. Shock of Electric says on 11/Oct/08
I always thought that stare down with Taker from King of the Ring '95 was interesting because of the obvious height difference that was later never really present. He also didn't wear lifts in the mid '90s but did as of the Big Daddy V gimmick which is why he looks closer in height to him and Kane. He is however inarguably a minimum of 2" shorter there compensating for his head lean, as it appears he is 3" shorter in the pic itself. This poses a problem, because I believe there is no way BDV is under 6'6.5" but clearly there's gotta be about a 2" legit difference between him and Taker, thus meaning Taker is definitely taller than his listed height here. Mabel's very first bill was 6'9" 495 lbs in M.o.M. with the occasional 6'8" from commentators, and then inexpcliably down to 6'6" during his singles run as Viscera, back up to 6'9" as BDV.
As for that pic with the guys and the height chart, all those pics were take at different times and pasted in later. None of those height comparisons are true to life, just billed adjusted. His random height bill range is weird, similar to John Tenta's was all over the place from 6'4 - 6'8", and he was right smack in the middle. dicksock says on 11/Oct/08
KingNick you are the man. How on earth did you find that? I wonder if that is a real height chart or do Kane and Taker just have big boots on. dicksock says on 11/Oct/08
KingNick you are the man. How on earth did you find that? I wonder if that is a real height chart or do Kane and Taker just have big boots on. KingNick says on 5/Oct/08
dicksock, is this it?
Click Here
Here's UT/Viscera staredown (I think well before Vis had big boots):
Click Here dicksock says on 4/Oct/08
Vicera is 6'8 in boots. I used to have a WWF magizine where they had a police line up photo with all the tallest people in the WWF and he was about 6'8 in boots. Besides he was about the same height as the undertaker in a match I saw on youtube. I'd give him a max of 6'8 and min of 6'7.5. He was also weighed on TV about 8 years ago. He weighed 480 lbs legit. I wish I could find the magizine because I'd post it. M.o.r.g says on 2/Oct/08
Mattiew_- says on 30/Apr/08
IF you really think he wasn't much bigger than King Kong Bundy you should rewatch the Survivor Series where they were each in opposite teams ...
Btw it is funny how half of the posters here are 6'6+ 250 ---> Is the whole WWE posting on the Viscera page ???
LOL yeah theyre all "big hard men" on this site.They must all be like 6'10 at least XD Clay says on 22/Aug/08
He was released 2 weeks ago. Alex2 says on 15/Aug/08
Viscera is 6'7" no more no less, havnt sene him on WWE in ages. Anonymous says on 30/Apr/08
Danimal says on 30/Apr/08
I never said it does.
True, billed weights does not mean 100% accuracy. Danimal says on 30/Apr/08
Ghost says on 17/Apr/08
Danimal,
V being billed as 568 lbs doesn't make it a fact.
I never said it does. Mattiew_- says on 30/Apr/08
IF you really think he wasn't much bigger than King Kong Bundy you should rewatch the Survivor Series where they were each in opposite teams ...
Btw it is funny how half of the posters here are 6'6+ 250 ---> Is the whole WWE posting on the Viscera page ??? Paul Roadman says on 6/Mar/08
6'6.5" 250 lbs. here , Viscera needs to lose at least 200 lbs. he is obese! I peaked at 328 in 2001. And I agree with 6'6 1/2" I saw Viscera, same height as me but about twice my current weight vinnie beere says on 18/Feb/08
im 6'5 340lbs in real life i guess that makes me the next big show by wrestling inflation huh by average they jack up the height about 2 inches and the weight by 40 lbs for bigger guys so im 6'7 almost 400lbs and im a bodybuilder/powerlifter so jeeze im a monster in the WWE Paul Roadman says on 26/Dec/07
well i'll be damned, me, Tommy Tune and Big V , we're the same height, six-six and a half Danimal says on 20/Dec/07
Gamma_2008 is called both a "gimmick" account and/or a "troll". Those people are bored (like us) and wants to cause controversy for the sake of bothering me. brother_h says on 20/Dec/07
wow...6'2....so i guess if i became a wrestler ill be 6'8 =O! and then put down as 6'6 =O!! but im really 6'5.5 =O!!! and then we find out im really 6'1 =O!!!!
weird....hold me mummy Anonymous says on 26/Nov/07
Gamma, I think you need some glasses urgently. There´s no way that Frazier is only 6´2" and Jacobs 6´3.5". How tall do you think Hornswoggle is ? Non existing ? elliot says on 16/Nov/07
well kane is about 6'8 to 6'9 and viscera next to him is about 2 to 3 inches less not much of a difference so vis is bout 6'5 to 6'6 maybe at most almost 6'7 no more than at Gamma_2008 says on 2/Nov/07
Big Daddy V is around a good 6'2 barefoot. Kane (6'3.5) edges him, possible Big daddy V wore lifts to give him more of monster heel stance against his opponents. Mattiew_^ says on 14/Oct/07
Viscera is 6'7 at least .
Remember late John Tenta (RIP) was 6'6 .
Nelson is taller . He has bad posture and if you ask could very well have been 6'8 in his prime .
He doesn't seem that tall because of his bulk and the weight he is carrying (around 480 at least if you ask me) .
It's like Big Show , both are suffering from weight and bad posture , but i'm sure if he was 150 pounds lighter he would look every bit of 6'7"1/2 / 6'8" Red says on 27/Jul/07
mike m where are the 2inches? Stop the vid at 8.00-8.02, UT is max 0.5"-1" taller. justin says on 28/Jun/07
viscera is 6ft6 no more, kane is 6 ft 8, undertaker 6ft7, big show 6ft10.5, the imposter kane 6ft6-6ft7 Gollum says on 6/Jun/07
Viscera is 6'7 by my estimations around 480 pounds. mike m says on 30/May/07
imo i see at least a 2 inch difference,taker looks about 6'8",Viscera looks 6'6". Paul says on 28/May/07
How do Taker and Big Viz compare ?
Click Here Alex says on 11/May/07
Viscera I say is 6'6 and 475lbs. Viscera Fan says on 24/Mar/07
Viscera is 6'6 no taller. I met him at Halloween Horror Nights in Orlando in 2001. I chatted with him for about 5 mins. No one really knew who he was but I was shocked to see him in line infront of me and my now ex-girlfriend. He did seem so much taller than I thought. But he confirmed for me that he is almost 6'7 but 6'6 is his real height. GORO says on 18/Mar/07
There was a Royal Rumble were VIS towered of Rakishi by about 5 inches or more when they faced off. Does anyone know what I'm talking about or have a picture of it to post up. (I believe it was the Royal Rumble where the Rock won with Big Show lasting at the end with him) Big Vis 6'6-7 barefoot no less. hry7 says on 2/Mar/07
I give him a strong peak of 6'7.5 bare feet, 6'9 shoes. Danimal says on 16/Feb/07
I give him 6'6" Viper. Nash didn't tower over Viscera at the 1995 Survivor Series. Viscera (Mabel at the time), stood his ground next to Nash and was only 1-2" shorter than Taker in the mid to late 90's. BGKing says on 13/Feb/07
I think Viscera is closer to 6'8. mike says on 1/Feb/07
big vis looks 6'7" around 2 inches taller than ben. Alex says on 4/Jan/07
Viscera is 6'6-6'6.5. I think thats the most accurate that most will agree on here. Warlord says on 26/Dec/06
I'd definitely give Viscera 6 foot 7 and 1/2. He compares well to the 6 foot 8 -1/2 Undertaker and also certainly looks taller than this 6 foot 7 Starks character and this Starks character is definitely a solid 2 inches taller than the 6 foot 5 Rothleisberger.
Alex, why pick on JR. The announcer's are told to say crazy things. I've seen JR even differ a lot with the announced weight when a wrestler walks out. He isn't the WWE official source. Jesse Venture always used to say wacky stuff too when he was an announcer. Warlord says on 26/Dec/06
Danimal,
I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but did you say (Oct 9/06) that HHH is shorter than Vince McMahon? If so, you're not as smart as I thought you were. That's is ridiculous. If I have misunderstood you then I apologize. Alex says on 18/Dec/06
There was a good picture of Starks and Viscera but not sure where I can find it now. Its a photo section of him backstage at Raw. Starks is 340lbs and Viscera would have 100lbs or more on him because Starks has more muscle than Viscera so Viscera could easily have more weight on him than you think because muscle weighs more than fat. Viscera looks at least 450lbs to me too. Comparing him to 415lb Big Black has me give Viscera 450-460lbs. Jason says on 15/Dec/06
It's impossible to tell from that pic, man. Starks' measured height is 6'7.1''. Don't think Viscera would have 110lbs on him ... that's an astronomically enormous weight difference. JT says on 15/Dec/06
WWE has another photo of Viscera with Big Ben and Max Starks where Viscera looks at least as tall as the 6'7" or 6'8" Starks, even considering the angle. ( Click Here) Hard to tell what Viscera weighs with the baggy clothing. He has to be at least 450 lbs. Alex says on 13/Dec/06
On Raw this week JR was like Viscera is 6'9-6'10. JR blows things out of proportions a lot. I remember once he said Albert was 6'10. Alex says on 12/Dec/06
Here are pics of Big and Rob, tough to find many of them but found a few here at the bottom of this page.
Click Here Alex says on 12/Dec/06
Well Big Black has around a foot, more likely a foot on Rob who is 5'6 I believe. Viscera could be 475lbs though. Big Black is actually athletic for guy who is 415lbs. Paul says on 10/Dec/06
Alex, I am not aware they are on MTV Europe. Vis could be 475lbs, plus or minus a few. Alex says on 3/Dec/06
Paul, maybe. Do you ever watch that new show on MTV Rob and Big. Well Big Black is 6'6 he claims and may be it, at least 6'5 though. He weighed in at 416lbs on a scale at the gas station and he is smaller then Viscera but may not be as much as you think. Viscera is at least 450lbs I'd say still, doesn't look 500bs if you compare him to Big Black. Paul says on 19/Nov/06
Alex, 475lbs ? Alex says on 16/Nov/06
What do you guys guess Viscera's weight is though? Alex says on 16/Nov/06
Jordan, Carlito looks 5'9.
I'd say Viscera is 6'6. Last year I believe it was, JR said Viscera was 7'0 and this is when Viscera was right in the ring with 6'3 Coach and only had Coach by 3 inches.
Would be funny is hockey listed their player's heights in skates. LOL Danimal says on 13/Oct/06
Hockey is also very accurate Vipe. Dkko says on 11/Oct/06
Danimal I know that TV cameras and magazine photographs don't always tell the truth on the physiques of famous people, in fact they lie 90% of the time in order to sell them to the audience, but I don't think they lie that much on athletes, I've been to many sports shows and the athletes always look the size they are billed, I have not seen Big Vis in action, but if you remember when he was on Men on a Mission with Mo, he made Mo look like a midget and Mo was no way
under 6 feet, you have to be a pretty big man in order to dwarf a 6-footer Danimal says on 9/Oct/06
I think Viscera could be 6'7" (or slightly under that).
DKKO, you really should think before you talk. Vince is still shorter that 6'3.5" Hogan. He's MAX 6'2". HHH is even shorter. Dkko says on 6/Oct/06
I think Jonathan Coachman could easily pass for a wrestler, he always seems to be taller than almost the entire RAW roster, I remember him interviewing Triple H about 3 years ago in the locker rooms and he certainly had an inch over him, so if HHH is 6'4, Coach easily is 6'5 and Vince Mcmahon is a legit 6'7, he was on Conan O Brien's show in July and was much taller than him, people claiming Vince is 6'3 are seriously insane and Big Vis is 6'8, no way 6'6 Paul says on 27/Aug/06
Well 6'6 (198cm) seems the minimum for this guy with 6'6.5 or 6'7 (200.6cm) more probable. Maybe a straight 200cm. Jordan says on 13/Jul/06
CArlito I heard was 5'9, so of course the WWe has him higher---and Yes I think Kane is 6'8 Jordan says on 8/Jul/06
triple H looks 6'2 1/2 KingNick says on 7/Jul/06
I'm sure everyone's seen these photos by now, but just in case, check out this link with the 6'5" Ben Click Here There's one there with Viscera. Ben's friend (you can tell from other pics too) looks to have about 2 inches on him, which would place him around 6'7". Vis is a little bigger than him in this pic, plus it looks like they're all pointing their heads up to look taller. I would place Vis at around 6'8" in this pic. Then again, you can't see their footwear, so that could come into effect. What you guys think? Alex says on 20/Jun/06
Viscera looks a solid 6'6. Can't see him under that nor over that. He looked 3 inches taller than the 6'3 Coach sometime ago. They billed him at 6'8-6'9 a lot and even 6'10 years ago and even said he was 7'0 TV once. D.J. says on 2/Jun/06
I can assure you Triple H is not 6'4" but he is definitely more than 6'1". I think he's around the 6'2"-6'2 1/2" mark. He's not much taller than Vince. Jason says on 1/Jun/06
Actually Warlord, I am willing to bet Triple H is closer to 6'1'' than 6'4''. So what constitutes inarguable and conclusive evidence one way or the other when it arrives or is found, and how much are you willing to put up? D.J. says on 1/Jun/06
I was watching the casket match against Undertaker at IYH:5 and they were eye to eye. Take away the boots and Big Vis is around 6'7". Warlord says on 31/May/06
Once again, I agree with Frank and Danimal. Viscera is definitely taller than 6 foot 7 and could easily be as much as 6 foot 8. 6 foot 7.5 is my estimation. Frank, I agree that the Undertaker stands 6 foot 8 and 1/2. It's possible he may have neared closer to 6 foot 9, but 6 foot 8.5 is a definite. I have a friend who met him at a gym in Colorado. Kane is actually shorter than the Taker. He wore shoes purposely designed to make him taller than Undertaker. Kane is more like 6 foot 7.5 to 6 foot 8. Taker has bewteen 1/2 and 1 inch on him. So you're right Kane and Taker are taller than Viscera. I don't even read what Jason says anymore. 6 foot 5 is such a friggin joke. Why would anybody even pay attention to someone who is so stupid. Jason, you still want to bet that HHH is 6 foot 1 like you claim. I'll bet anything he is far closer to 6 foot 4. Jordan says on 25/May/06
Ya'll see if you agree with these estimations and comparing Viscera to the 6'7 football palyer,VIS is an inch shorter ifyou look close
Undertaker 6'7, Deisel 6'8, Big Show 6'11, Kane 6'7, Viscera 6'6, Bradshaw 6'5.5, Giant Gonzales 7'5 Eric says on 10/May/06
i give big vis anywhere from 6ft6.5 to 6ft7 Alex says on 27/Apr/06
He looked only about 6'6 next to 6'3 Coach on Raw last week. Danimal says on 6/Mar/06
No way is he as short as 6'5" as Jason claims. I can believe that he is between 6'6"-6'7" today. If have downloased tons of live footage of him from 2000 onwards and in the last 4-5 years he has not been able to fully straighten out his back/neck. This can either be due to all of his injuries and surgeries, which I believe to be the case. Something about him just seems shorter. Hogan is in the same boat. I have no doubt he was close to 6'8" in his prime. He looked it up until 1999 when he tag teamed with the Big Show against Kane who wore HUGE stilts and X-Pac. Back then Undertaker still stood very tall next to the Big Show. He hasn't attained that type of height/posture since. Frank says on 6/Mar/06
Ok Damimal i can buy that but he is no way 6ft 5 like some people think Danimal says on 6/Mar/06
Frank, while I respect your steadfast conviction of UT being at least 6'8", you are basing this on when you met him over a dozen years ago. He has NOT appeared to be the same height since the early 90's. I do believe he was 6'8" at one point, but not any longer today. Frank says on 6/Mar/06
Taker & Kane are taller than Vicera ......The tallest Vicera could be is 6ft 7 KingNick says on 5/Mar/06
Personally speaking I think he's 6'8", the same height (in my opinion) as The Undertaker and Kane. My little essay on their heights can be found on The Undertaker section of this site. Vis is massive, he's so wide it's hard to tell his height. But it's feesable they exaggerate him to 6'9" or 6'10" if he's 6'8". I mean, how many people are 6'10"? I'd believe it. Danimal says on 5/Mar/06
Viscera has been billed as high as 6'10". Based on that pic, I give him over 6'6" legit. Frank says on 28/Feb/06
Come on guys who cares about Cena!!! This is a for Viscera tropical says on 16/Feb/06
big viz realli looks 199-200cm,and the guy really lookd over 400pounds,one big dude Goro says on 15/Feb/06
What about VISCERA towering over RIKISHI at one of the Royal Rumbles? Can any one find a picture of them toe to toe at this Rumble? They stood toe to toe before they went at it? wrestling says on 13/Feb/06
Yes Rob I Mentionned Nelsion Frazier Jr... Hes RAted As 6'6" And Looks To Be It , Tho When He Wrestles He Wears BLACK Boots With 2-3" WHITE heels To Look 6'8-6'9" ... Looks 6'8" On Pic With STARKS , But Hes Dressed Up In Wrestling Gear So Take 2" OFF hes 6'6" ... 197cm Minimum CoolJ says on 13/Feb/06
On the Cena front.. got a buddy who's 6'1.. met Cena.. said Cena was noticably shorter.. if that helps Alex says on 13/Feb/06
Cena doesn't wear lifts. His sneakers give 1-1.5 inches of height so say he's 6'1 then he's 6'2-6'2.5 in sneakers. Jason says on 13/Feb/06
I've seen John Cena close up in person twice and as I've said a few times, he looked 6'1'' both times. I doubt he wears lifts, at the most maybe his basketball shoes are the kind that give you more height rather than less. So, the shortest he could be is 6'0 1/2''.
I'm not suprised Mo looks taller in person, he had a very rotund build. Frank says on 13/Feb/06
Jason, Mo was about 5ft 11 but he looked shorter on TV.. Jon Smith says on 12/Feb/06
wow look at big ben dominate triple H J-Dog. says on 12/Feb/06
How tall does John Cena look to you guys, I can't beleieve people are throwing around that he is 5'11" et cetera...he DOES not wear lifts, some claim that "well he wears basketball shoes" sorry but I dont care if they give 1.5" advantage it doesn't qualify as lifts, hell unless you are wearing addias superstars, sandals or chuck taylors you are going to get a height advantage from shoes. Goro says on 12/Feb/06
He's 6'6 0r 6'6 and a 1/2 I met him at the mall in Albany And I'm 6'3 he was taller than me. Plus The coach definetly wears lifts. Why? Well he looked very short next to the 6'7-6'8 Max Starks but Viscera look to be as tall or a little shorter than Starks. Coach wears lifts when he knows he is going to be in the ring. Coach without lifts is 6'2 with he's probably 6'4 with lifts. Plus about 4 or 5 years ago Viscera went face to face with Rikishi and he was a head taller than him. It was at the Royal Rumble were The Rock won. So someone please find a picture of Vis and Rikishi at the Rumble Frank says on 12/Feb/06
Rob,Jason said that Vicera was 6ft 5 but as you can see Vicera & Max are very close in height.....Big Ben looks like he on his Tippy toes or something because he is jokeing around trying to look as tall as them....In the other Pictures Max is clearly Taller than Ben....Do you agree with me Rob ??
[Editor Rob: to me either 6ft 6 in that pic actually looks about the best mark, but it is unknown what Ben is doing] Jason says on 12/Feb/06
He only appeared similar in height because Starks is slightly further back.
Yeah, I remember Mo wasn't very tall. Frank says on 12/Feb/06
Jason i took a picture with Mo (MABLE'S TAG PARTNER MEN ON A MISSION)
I was alittle taller than him ....I wish Mable was there Frank says on 12/Feb/06
He was as tall as Max Starks so i dont know how you can say 6ft 5 Jason William Forrester says on 11/Feb/06
That's poop, he is well over 6'6''
[Editor Rob: worth posting this pic again on viscera's page:
Viscera and 6ft 7 footballer] Alex says on 11/Feb/06
Jason, also it was funny because Coach who is 6'3 was face to face with Viscera and it was about 3 inches apart and they still said 7'0 and they say Coach is 6'4 acting like if it were 8 inches apart, lol. Seaton says on 11/Feb/06
He's so massive it's hard to judge how tall me maybe. OOFatman says on 11/Feb/06
I'd say he looks a solid 6'6", certainly no less than that. I've seen him listed as 6'6" also, and I just don't think he's any less than that. Jason says on 11/Feb/06
I remember he was billed as 6'10'' when he first came into the WWE in 1993 as half of the tag team ''Men on a Mission''. Doesn't suprise me they've said he's 7'0'' on tv. Alex says on 11/Feb/06
I am going to go with 6'6. I've seen him listed 6'8 and 6'9. They've said on TV a few times he was 6'10 and even once 7'0 which is crazy. Jason says on 11/Feb/06
6'6 1/2''? They wouldn't have rounded down lol. Anything from 6'5''-6'6'' is feasible. My estimate is 6'5''. |
