|
Brad says on 20/Aug/10
He can't be 6ft 6.5 standing toe to toe with kane there seems to be only an inch difference lol
Vegas says on 25/Jun/10
bdvs footwear are as dodgy as kanes, even more so dicksock says on 25/Jun/10
As BDV he was the same height as Kane. Click Here There is no way Kane is an inch taller. Kane is a strong 6'7" and BDV is 6'7 as well. Kane might edge him out...maybe Hugh 190-192cm says on 29/Dec/09
6"6.25 might be possible Anonymous says on 30/Nov/09
I was going over videos of Viscera and Undertaker to try and find faceoffs. The only one I was able to come across is a match from 1995 back when he was going by the name of Mable. Interestingly Undertaker looks atleast 2 inches taller than Mable. The face off is around 4:35.
Click Here 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... |
