|
supermanfan380 says on 3/Jul/09
Again, in the wrestling ring, it is hard to get a real good height, or even for that matter the odd angles of cameras back stage. Too many variables. It just gives you a vauge idea. You can see Nash is taller than Jesse by a good margin, but other than that the best you can guess his height by is within a 2" margin of error. Then there are those people that will suprise you. You guess their height, based off of them in person, then get the measuring stick out, barefoot, and they are out of out 2" margin of error.
Nash has said numerous times he is 6'10", and is likely talking about in his youth. Can we get a peak height of 6'10" added for him?
Big Show says on 25/Jun/09
Click Here
Here's a arm wrestling match between Nash and Atlas. At the end there's a nice comparison of Nash and Jesse Ventura. Anonymous says on 20/Jun/09
Rob , you should add a peak height for Nash cause he was every bit of 6'10 in his younger days. Rika says on 20/Jun/09
Yeah he was billed at 7'1.
Perhaps his age has caught upto him and now he's lost some height? Joe says on 16/Jun/09
he's MASSIVE! I think Nash looks around 6'10. The Ben says on 16/Jun/09
LG69
I've seen wcw nash listed at 7'1 and wwf nash was often called 7ft... That seems pretty standard for how much they add on. LG69 says on 15/Jun/09
He was usually billed at 6'10", but I think 6'9" is right on the money. One thing with Kevin's height is, it never was ridiculously exaggerated like some wrestlers. Tom says on 15/Jun/09
You know, it's funny. WCW said Nash was 6 ft 11 back in the mid to late 90's... Did Kevin shrink two inches in ten years? LOL Rika says on 9/Jun/09
Hmmm his height seems to be shrinking everytime i log on here.
Last time he was 6'10. Mamun says on 8/Jun/09
Thank you T for telling the whole world the truth ! I know the truth can hurt
sometimes ! Yeah I loved that real picture !Nice job T !
Kind regards
Supermun T says on 5/Jun/09
haha, you like that Manum? T says on 4/Jun/09
Nash wore MASSIVE lifts, in this pic he looks no more than 5'9
Click Here T says on 4/Jun/09
his peak was 6'10, thats how people should be listed on here. Peak height. Mark D. says on 30/May/09
Danimal, I was being sarcastic, that's why I said 'ha ha'. What you're saying is exactly what I meant, 6'9 is still huge. If you read it again with scarcasim in mind you'll get the intended humor in it. The Ben says on 29/May/09
I met him in 1994 and he was the biggest man i recall ever seeing in my life. Clay says on 28/May/09
6'9 with a large build, is - in a word...massive. Danimal says on 28/May/09
Mark D. says on 28/May/09
Ha ha. Funny post there. "He was such a huge man at his peak", and "he was a
solid 6'10" in his youth". Yeah, he's not huge anymore, a not-so-solid 6'9".
6'9" isn't huge? Mark D. says on 28/May/09
Ha ha. Funny post there. "He was such a huge man at his peak", and "he was a
solid 6'10" in his youth". Yeah, he's not huge anymore, a not-so-solid 6'9". Jay says on 27/May/09
Holy cow Mamun says on 27/May/09
Nah !!!!!!!! That's only because he was wearing shoes and he has the camera
angle favour . I am taller than him ! I realy am !
Regards
Supermun James says on 27/May/09
Super man looks tiny beside Nash :) Danimal says on 21/May/09
He was at least 6'10" in his younger days. Annoyed says on 20/May/09
nice pic JT, he was just such a huge man at his peak. James S says on 20/May/09
When I saw Nash he was just under me, I'd make him 6ft 10 back then, 6ft 9 now. Alex5 says on 12/May/09
It's not the fact that they're getting older. It's just that if you're 6'7"+ you have a lot of body to deal with and are going to slouch constantly. I'm 6'7" and I've forgotten how to stand properly. It's just so second nature to hunch over like that. Annoyed says on 8/May/09
"In the 2nd reference, in the first he puts him at just under 7 feet. Tho he also puts Sid at 6'9 and Andre at 7'4:D"
If Brett hinks Sid is the same height as nash in the other reference or at ANY stage then we can discrad Brett's opinion lol lol. Halb says on 7/May/09
"TELLEM says on 21/Apr/09
in bret hart's bio he said nash was 6'9."
In the 2nd reference, in the first he puts him at just under 7 feet. Tho he also puts Sid at 6'9 and Andre at 7'4:D Annoyed says on 5/May/09
sid, I believe Kane and Taker are 6'8" ish and Nash is 6'9" 'ish so that all works out well. sid says on 5/May/09
Annoyed Kane had a relaxed posture to, now he hunches alot..nash hunches, they all do when they get older..Nash and kane theres only a inch between them I'd say when I saw them years ago in street cloth, as well as taker. they all got out of the same car right in front me, they backed in, they all went to the back of the trunkm to grab there gear. Kane edges taker, nash edged kane by a bit..this was years ago...2000 before his injury...full masked kane with the tank top era... Annoyed says on 2/May/09
nash was 6'10" morning barefoot and peak. 6'9.5" morning now and 6'9" resting height. one of the few true big men who always wore flats and drew lifts out fo the biggest and tallest stars. a true big man. holds up well to big show and surpasses taker, kane and sid with ease and relaxed posture. Great character aswell. Da Man says on 28/Apr/09
Shock, you continue to remain incorrect. No logical leaps, anatomical misinterpretations or mental gymnastics will change this.
An example of one the most ridiculous lines of reasoning I have ever seen on celebheights: "Mike Knox I would put as high as 6'5.5" based on comparison with Richards if they are in even footwear as I see 4.5" there and Richards as I said from my own personal experience, no shorter than 6'1". In comparison with Kane, Knox is approximately 2.75" shorter by the direct comparison, but we do know Kane also has a .5" boot advantage on him, making Kane closer to 2.25" taller which also agrees with the difference with Big Ben, making Kane 6'7.75". That extra .5" in boots agrees with Kane and Taker being essentially the same height with a slight boot difference.
Using a similar comparison, the bottom line after boots difference between Taker and JBL is no less than 3". JBL at 6'5" even would leave Taker at a minimum 6'8" and honestly I believe JBL is 6'5.25". Another thing to point out, Taker is slightly more taller than JBL than Kane is compared to Big Ben, and JBL is slightly taller than Big Ben since he is "verified" 195cm and we've seen JBL as at least 6'5". I'm seeing .5" for Taker over Kane in cross reference aside from that same .5" we've seen from them in alike footwear that often gets ignored due all kinds of ifs buts and camera advantages." Shock of Electric says on 28/Apr/09
Da Man, your "wrong on both counts" reply still shows that I'm right. Taker's rear foot being level with Glenn's front foot doesn't make them even plane, and Glenn's hair is about even with the top of Taker's head. supermanfan380 says on 21/Apr/09
Haven't checked the site in months, and sure enough not a "peak height" listing for Nash yet. I think he was a solid 6'10" in his youth. Danimal says on 21/Apr/09
Ola says on 21/Apr/09
MK, whatever. he have been calling me TROLL for some years now... i have more accurate heights than him ;)
You're nothing but a joke Ola and are only here to PISS people off and act like the victim when ganged up on. TELLEM says on 21/Apr/09
in bret hart's bio he said nash was 6'9. MK says on 20/Apr/09
Ola says on 18/Apr/09
no offense but i believe that danimal would believe that scott hall would have take down a peak alexander karelin
And its comments like that which back up his claim that you're a TROLL wirh obviously nothing better to do. On this basis i'd have to agree. Alex says on 19/Apr/09
I think Nash needs his peak height of 6'10 listed. 6'9 seems about right for him today as he could be a bit less too. Da Man says on 12/Apr/09
"Da Man, you posted pics of Glenn and Taker from the Fake Diesel match, Taker is on a slightly different plane as him but he still comes out taller"
Wrong on both counts: Click Here Shock of Electric says on 10/Apr/09
Da Man, you posted pics of Glenn and Taker from the Fake Diesel match, Taker is on a slightly different plane as him but he still comes out taller, I don't know how you can try and pass off the same thing as both advantage for Taker. I don't know if I've ever seen anyone say he was at any kind of disadvantage who was trying to prove against him being taller than someone.
The top of Taker's head above his eyes is nearly equal to below it. You can't go any lower. There are plenty of other pics that suggest 1" between Taker and Sid. What you see is what you get in that pic. Taker is approximately 1" taller than Sid, who was 1.5" taller than peak Hogan. Da Man says on 8/Apr/09
I agree with Red, Taker had roughly 1/2" on Sid.
SoE says,
"Undertaker is about 9 pixels taller than Sid and the picture is between 8 and 8.25 pixels to the inch for Undertaker so there is at least 1" difference in height. If you want me to give my exact estimate it's 1.1"."
2 problems with this:
1. Taker is on a higher plane
2. Taker's line is too generous Shock of Electric says on 8/Apr/09
Of course Taker's soles look thicker, seeing as his boot is closer to the camera! lol. Their soles are identical thickness. I'm sorry guys but come on. Sid any less than 1" shorter is straight up belligerent contradiction an example of the consistent underestimation. Look at his foto shape. Where are all the guys who draw foot outlines?
The old pic where you have no idea what is going on other than that one frame is totally irrelevant at this point, and clearly there IS something erroneous about it since Sid has never once since the late 80s been as tall or taller by direct or indirect comparisons with wrestlers who have had matches with them. The biggest issue is Sid's shoulders were never close to that much higher than Taker's, so there's definitely something going on we can't see. The only other explanation is, Sid shrunk 2" between 1988 and 1992.
Sid is either tip toeing in his boots are WM13 or has internal lifts and he's still at least 1" shorter. tuga says on 8/Apr/09
Red says on 7/Apr/09
tuga says on 5/Apr/09
More REAL facts:
HaHaHa, LoL, I would say more biased facts.
Oh really, sorry, but your comments are the biased ones, or else try to argument the things I stated, because "HaHaHa" is a VERY weak argument.
I never said sid wore lifts, but you sure wanted to point taker as having bigger footware using his much closer to the camera boot, the higher knee and it being "taker´s big day"...now that is being biased.
And the half an inch difference between the 2 has always been my estimate so don´t refer to that as if I was pointing out bigger differences. Red says on 7/Apr/09
tuga says on 5/Apr/09
More REAL facts:
HaHaHa, LoL, I would say more biased facts.
Look at all the old evidence and you see that:
Sid was not a Liftwearer and he was not more than 0.5" shorter than UT sidewalk says on 6/Apr/09
Let me show you something SHOCK Click Here
Now how is Sid taller than 'Taker in this old pic if Sid's boots at WM 13 boots give him a bigger lift? Have you ever seen the many different styles of wrestling boots? Like I said in another thread here you guys out-think yourselves often. Sid's WM 13 are standard fare -if anything Sid's old boots give him a lift. tuga says on 5/Apr/09
Red says on 4/Apr/09
More facts:
Takers soles are thicker, Takers knees are higher and it was Takers Big Day - so no lifts for Sid!
------------------------
More REAL facts:
Taker´s boot is closer to the camera, that´s the reason its soles looks a little bigger: fact and a QUITE NOTICEALE ONE unless you think taker has way much bigger feet...
Sid´s legs are bendend forward:fact. Could indicate internal lifts:possibility.
What´s the higher knee have anything to do?? People even of similar heights have diferent fisionomys: fact.
"it was Takers Big Day - so no lifts for Sid!"
Now that´s definitely NOT A FACT. Red says on 4/Apr/09
Shock of Electric says on 3/Apr/09
You´re wrong with your lines and you´re wrong with Sid´s boots.
In the WM13 Staredown pic, you can clearly see Sids foot is in his boot, there is no way this boots give him 1.5"!!
More facts:
Takers soles are thicker, Takers knees are higher and it was Takers Big Day - so no lifts for Sid! Shock of Electric says on 3/Apr/09
Compare the shape of Sid's WM13 boots with much older, formfitting boots here:
Click Here
You're telling me there's no difference in shape of the back of his heel?
All I do is present reasonable doubt and showing where he's being cheated in height. He's not the only person on this site I believe is underestimated either. It's abundantly clear that most people on here favor against Undertaker's actual height, are fooled by the head tilt character gimmick or ignore boot advantage, and anytime someone shows something that proves he isn't what they think he is, someone waves their finger and posts a controversial pic of him at some ignored disadvantage and says "Uh ah ah, you're wrong, look here." The comparison with JBL recently is a smoking gun, there's no doubt he is at least 3" taller than him and we know that JBL is at least 6'5".
Red, I didn't draw the lines in the pic with Taker and Sid, but it's the only copy I have of it offhand. All of your pics show a 1" difference except the last one which is relatively unusable. Sid's head would have to end at the top of his hair for there to be a .5" difference. When Sid doesn't tilt his head up, their eyes are even, and Undertaker easily has 1" more forehead than Sid. In your first pic, the top of Sid's head is just beneath Taker's hairline. Undertaker is about 9 pixels taller than Sid and the picture is between 8 and 8.25 pixels to the inch for Undertaker so there is at least 1" difference in height. If you want me to give my exact estimate it's 1.1".
Click Here
These lines cut off where the hair contrast is lighter which is a good indicator of the tops of the heads. It also puts 50 pixels below the middle of Taker's eyes, and 40 above which matches his head symmetry with very centered eyes. If that's .5" then Taker's head is between 5" and 6" tall.
There's no denying that Taker is 1" taller in the comparisons from around WM13, and there's also a very good chance Sid has internal lifts on top of that. The WM13 angle cannot make Taker look taller than he should be in comparison to the top of Sid's head because they taper to essentially the same XYZ plane even though Taker's left foot is closer to the camera, nor can it make the difference look like it's more than it actually is. Even though Taker's foot is closer, his head is not, so they become exponentially closer in ratio, the closer you get to the top of their heads.
The opposite argument was used *against* Undertaker in the Big Show pic from 1999, where people said it made him look closer in height to Big Show, thus meaning Taker benefits in both directions from the same angle. It cannot be both. Maybe his powers also make him bend light, and not just turn lights on and off.
These are some of my estimates for Peak/Current barefoot - (Peak/Current in boots) using the boots they wore/are wearing during the time frames given to make the approximate difference.
Khali - 2006/2009: 7'1"/same - (7'2.25"/same)
Big Show - 1995/2009: 7'/6'11.5" - (7'1.5"/7'1")
Nash - 1993/2008: 6'10.25"/6'9.75" - (6'11.5"/6'11")
Undertaker - 1991/2009: 6'8.5"/6'8.25" - (6'9.25"/6'9.25")
Kane - 1997/2009: 6'8.25"/6'7.75" - (over 6'10"/6'9.25")
Sid - 1992/1997: 6'7"/6'6.75" - (6'8"/6'8.25")
Hogan - 1980s/2006: 6'6"/6'4" - (6'6.5"/6'4.75")
JBL - 1996/2009: 6'6.25"/6'5.25" (6'7"/6'6") general93 says on 3/Apr/09
just take off 2" of the most used billing and thats about right nash 7ft 6'10".taker 6'10.5" 6'8.5" john studd 6'10" 6'8" mable 6'8" 6'6" hogan 6'8" 6'6" peak roughly right. aaron says on 1/Apr/09
i remember seeing a photo of a young mark callus( undertaker), standing next to big john studd, and they were the exact same height Shock of Electric says on 1/Apr/09
Compare the shape of Sid's WM13 boots with much older, formfitting boots here:
Click Here
You're telling me there's no difference in shape of the back of his heel?
All I do is present reasonable doubt and showing where he's being cheated in height. He's not the only person on this site I believe is underestimated either. It's abundantly clear that most people on here favor against Undertaker's actual height, are fooled by the head tilt character gimmick or ignore boot advantage, and anytime someone shows something that proves he isn't what they think he is, someone waves their finger and posts a controversial pic of him at some ignored disadvantage and says "Uh ah ah, you're wrong, look here." The comparison with JBL recently is a smoking gun, there's no doubt he is at least 3" taller than him and we know that JBL is at least 6'5".
Red, I didn't draw the lines in the pic with Taker and Sid, but it's the only copy I have of it offhand. All of your pics show a 1" difference except the last one which is relatively unusable. Sid's head would have to end at the top of his hair for there to be a .5" difference. When Sid doesn't tilt his head up, their eyes are even, and Undertaker easily has 1" more forehead than Sid. In your first pic, the top of Sid's head is just beneath Taker's hairline. Undertaker is about 9 pixels taller than Sid and the picture is between 8 and 8.25 pixels to the inch for Undertaker so there is at least 1" difference in height. If you want me to give my exact estimate it's 1.1".
Click Here
These lines cut off where the hair contrast is lighter which is a good indicator of the tops of the heads. It also puts 50 pixels below the middle of Taker's eyes, and 40 above which matches his head symmetry with very centered eyes. If that's .5" then Taker's head is between 5" and 6" tall.
There's no denying that Taker is 1" taller in the comparisons from around WM13, and there's also a very good chance Sid has internal lifts on top of that. The WM13 angle cannot make Taker look taller than he should be in comparison to the top of Sid's head because they taper to essentially the same XYZ plane even though Taker's left foot is closer to the camera, nor can it make the difference look like it's more than it actually is. Even though Taker's foot is closer, his head is not, so they become exponentially closer in ratio, the closer you get to the top of their heads.
The opposite argument was used *against* Undertaker in the Big Show pic from 1999, where people said it made him look closer in height to Big Show, thus meaning Taker benefits in both directions from the same angle. It cannot be both. Maybe his powers also make him bend light, and not just turn lights on and off.
These are some of my estimates for Peak/Current barefoot - (Peak/Current in boots) using the boots they wore/are wearing during the time frames given to make the approximate difference.
Khali - 2006/2009: 7'1"/same - (7'2.25"/same)
Big Show - 1995/2009: 7'/6'11.5" - (7'1.5"/7'1")
Nash - 1993/2008: 6'10.25"/6'9.75" - (6'11.5"/6'11")
Undertaker - 1991/2009: 6'8.5"/6'8.25" - (6'9.25"/6'9.25")
Kane - 1997/2009: 6'8.25"/6'7.75" - (over 6'10"/6'9.25")
Sid - 1992/1997: 6'7"/6'6.75" - (6'8"/6'8.25")
Hogan - 1980s/2006: 6'6"/6'4" - (6'6.5"/6'4.75")
JBL - 1996/2009: 6'6.25"/6'5.25" (6'7"/6'6") Danimal says on 1/Apr/09
Red says on 30/Mar/09
Shock, you can´t draw lines like that in the pic with UT and Sid.
-UT is closer to the camera, so he comes out taller.
-The Camera angle makes it impossible to compare the top of their heads.
Here´re pics with a higher camera level and the difference is max 0.5"
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
I say Sid was 6´7.5 peak and Taker 6´8"
I'd say 6'7" for Sid and 6'7.5" for Taker (PEAK). Red says on 30/Mar/09
Shock, you can´t draw lines like that in the pic with UT and Sid.
-UT is closer to the camera, so he comes out taller.
-The Camera angle makes it impossible to compare the top of their heads.
Here´re pics with a higher camera level and the difference is max 0.5"
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
I say Sid was 6´7.5 peak and Taker 6´8" fanboy says on 29/Mar/09
Shock of Electric, No it does not look like Sid has any internal lifts. You are just showing to much favoritism towards the Undertaker. Shock of Electric says on 27/Mar/09
Click Here Nash with Mabel(definite footwear advantage) and Nash with Sid(possible footwear advantage)
Click Here Taker with Sid. Does it look like Sid's got his heels stuffed? Regardless of that, that's about 7/8" right there, in fact the top of Taker's head could even be a pixel or 2 higher (I did not draw them) because his hair is extremely flat to his skull and there is some above the yellow line, so another 1/8" - 1/4". I'd Taker is exactly an inch taller or very slightly more by this comparison, however, Sid could have some internal lift there based on how tall the back of foot is. If that's .5" then Sid's head is only about 4.5" tall.
Click Here Nash with Taker, footwear is relatively even but Nash may have .25" advantage. I'd have to watch Nash's match from this PPV to be sure. The top of Nash's head may overlap the off screen by about .5" so I added an overlay from a similar pic, but I really see no more than 2" between Taker and Nash and about 3" between Nash and Sid/Mabel who both have or may have footwear advantage over Taker. Kiat says on 27/Mar/09
Jake the Snake: 6'5"
Hulk: 6'5.5"
Sid: 6'7.5"
Undertaker: 6'8"
Kevin Nash: 6'10" Danimal says on 26/Mar/09
Let me retract. Nash - 6'10", Taker - 6'7.5" and Sid - 6'7". Anonymous says on 25/Mar/09
taker wasn't 1 inch taller than sid Red says on 25/Mar/09
I agree with Danimal for Taker and Nash but I dont think Sid is a full inch shorter than Taker, Sid never looked a full inch shorter in clear face offs. Annoyed says on 25/Mar/09
Danimal says on 23/Mar/09
general93 says on 23/Mar/09
nash 6'10.5" taker 6'9" sid 6'8" at peak
6'10", 6'8" and 6'7".
I agree with Danimal for these peak heights. Danimal says on 23/Mar/09
general93 says on 23/Mar/09
nash 6'10.5" taker 6'9" sid 6'8" at peak
6'10", 6'8" and 6'7". general93 says on 23/Mar/09
nash 6'10.5" taker 6'9" sid 6'8" at peak JD says on 21/Mar/09
anything under 6-10 is ridiculous Danimal says on 20/Mar/09
Mabel was never tall than 6'6" seeing that's what he was billed at one point. Annoyed says on 20/Mar/09
tyn man says on 18/Mar/09
kevin nash is 6"10 at least. taker 6"8. mable 6"7.5
Id say, if you where talking PEAK , Morning and Barefoot, I'd definetly accept your first two as possible. I think Nash was a comfortable 6'10" peak guy, on all but one occasion he had Taker by a comfortable 2" back in their prime when he was Diesel. Mabel I'd peg around 6'6.5" - 6'7" barefoot peak, he has always had footwear over Nash ( who wears constant flats ) and sometimes Taker. I find it hard to believe Mabel was ever taller than 6'7" though.
And i DO think Taker gets a rough ride with people chopping him down, he was a genuinly big tall man ! tyn man says on 18/Mar/09
kevin nash is 6"10 at least. taker 6"8. mable 6"7.5 Annoyed says on 10/Mar/09
Ola says on 9/Mar/09
Nash 6'9 or 6'9 1/2 tops peak. still 6'9 today
could be right Ola, I think he was a genuine giant back in his prime though, im still thinking he was 6'10" peak first thing in the morning at least.
Now id say 6'9" flat morning. Da Man says on 9/Mar/09
"Taker has more height on him than kane does for sure, is that why you want to disregard this evidence?"
Nope, I think most are misinterpreting the evidence. Danimal says on 7/Mar/09
Red says on 7/Mar/09
Mabel 6´6.5", Taker 6´8" is what I see in that staredown.
6'6" and 6'7.5" is what I see. Red says on 7/Mar/09
Mabel 6´6.5", Taker 6´8" is what I see in that staredown. badeedee says on 6/Mar/09
Nash 6'11.5- NO QUESTION - PEAK
today, 6'10 flat ! Da Man says on 6/Mar/09
Anonymous says
"If you pause at right when it comes to 4:40 he has NOT his head lowered, that unless your´re watching another video."
Yes, he most definitely begins lowering his head before 4:40. There is not a legit 2" there. Anonymous says on 6/Mar/09
Da Man says on 4/Mar/09
At 4:40, Mabel has already begun to droop his head.
If you pause at right when it comes to 4:40 he has NOT his head lowered, that unless your´re watching another video.
Da Man, anyway you see it taker has around 2 inches, like I said, mabel has footware, camera and even stance advantage, there´s just no way around it.
Mabel could be closer to 6'7 after all, based on evidence, that I agree with you, but I hope you´re not thinking that because in similar footware as kane viscera looks almost as tall, I say this because at the same time you want to ignore that taker has more height on mabel than kane does in comparable footwear.
Taker has more height on him than kane does for sure, is that why you want to disregard this evidence? Danimal says on 5/Mar/09
Really? I could have sworn his neck appeared to be compressed in length a la Hogan and some other since 2001. He also had something funky going on in the back of his neck in 2001 (it looked like scar tissue from surgery). He just appeared taller up until 1999-2000. I could be wrong. Da Man says on 4/Mar/09
tuga says
"Why quite dubious? Pause at 4:40 for example"
Because by the time the camera is close enough to begin to estimate how they compare, Mabel starts lowering his head.
In the earlier frames they look much closer in height, seemingly within 1". At 4:40, Mabel has already begun to droop his head.
Click Here
4:40 with lowered head: Click Here
IMO, peak Taker was very near 6'8", Mabel a flat 6'7" or possibly a hair under. I see little evidence of a 6'6" Mabel, especially in light of the Max Starks photo were they are indeed too close to call. Big Show says on 4/Mar/09
Vegas says on 4/Mar/09
evidence i have found of undertaker injuries/surgeries since 1999
pectoral muscle, groin and gallbladder surgery Click Here
bicep Click Here
knee Click Here
taker actually had back surgery in 1994, right after the rumble when he took 7 months off before returning.
i haven't been able to find evidence of major neck or back surgeries for taker since 2001
I've been looking into that aswell. Taker was out for several months from 1999 til 2000 with a groin injury followed by a torn pectoral muscle.
In 2002 he was out for several months with a elbow injury.
In 2007 he was out for several months with a torn biceps
In 2008 he was out for several months with a knee injury.
No major back and especially neck surgeries (which would take him out for a year) since 1999. Vegas says on 4/Mar/09
evidence i have found of undertaker injuries/surgeries since 1999
pectoral muscle, groin and gallbladder surgery Click Here
bicep Click Here
knee Click Here
taker actually had back surgery in 1994, right after the rumble when he took 7 months off before returning.
i haven't been able to find evidence of major neck or back surgeries for taker since 2001 Danimal says on 3/Mar/09
tuga says on 3/Mar/09
Da Man says on 2/Mar/09
The old Taker/Mable evidence remains quite dubious, angles and postures are playing quite a large role there.
Click Here
That actually confirms to me that Undertaker WAS a 6'8" man at one point in time (PRE-2001). He didn't have THAT much height on 6'6" Albert in 2002 as he did on 6'6" Mabel in 1995 or 1999 for that matter. Taker WAS 6'8" and is probably struggling with a FULL 6'7" today. Since 2001 he has had MAJOR back, neck and knee surgeries. Clay says on 3/Mar/09
''Supposed'' to be a huge tall guy? Just look at the man! Annoyed says on 3/Mar/09
Mabel was 2" shorter than Nash in big massive shoes compared to Nash's flats, Nash usually seemed to have about 3" on Mabel . Maybe someone saw 4" but personally I havent myself. I think Mabel is 6'6.5" or thereabouts, not quite a full 6'7". Maybe a 6'6" flat guy but I think closer to the 6'7" mark than 6'6". he is a hard one to nail though, supposed to be a huge tall guy so its hard to say. Da Man says on 3/Mar/09
When did Mabel look 4" shorter than Nash? tuga says on 3/Mar/09
Da Man says on 2/Mar/09
The old Taker/Mable evidence remains quite dubious, angles and postures are playing quite a large role there.
Click Here
Why quite dubious? Pause at 4:40 for example, Taker has a wider stance, camera favors viscera, viscera even looks to have bigger footware, but forget all about that anyway and still taker is clearly taller.
After that camera is not the best but taker has a considerable advantage.
Just another proof of how footware plays a major role...seeing that staredown with kane, viscera with his "big daddy V" footware would be almost as tall as taker today.
But I´ll agree viscera is problaby closer to 6'7 than 6'6.
Big Ben and Kane:
Click Here Danimal says on 3/Mar/09
Kevin Nash was 6'10". Kane is 6'7" and Viscera is 6'6". I stand by that. Da Man says on 3/Mar/09
Mabel is only 6'6" if you count Starks' headsock/skull cap as part of his height. Da Man says on 2/Mar/09
Danimal says, "He's 6'6"."
Saying it over and over will not make it true.
Of course, he must really be only 6'5" seeing how he stacks next to 6'6" Kane in comparable footwear :)
Click Here
Seriously though, he looks to be almost exactly the same height as confirmed and measured 6'7.1" Max Starks.
The old Taker/Mable evidence remains quite dubious, angles and postures are playing quite a large role there. Vis is very much a flat 6'7" (or very, very, very near it) man. Danimal says on 2/Mar/09
Clay says on 27/Feb/09
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
Hahaha...
And you all might want to look at how Viscera is positioning his head there. If he stands straight you will see no difference what so ever.
Viscera is 6'7.
He's 6'6". Vegas says on 2/Mar/09
Ola says on 2/Mar/09
No way in hell this guy is 6'7
he is every bit of his measured 6'7.1 ola, every bit, about 6'8-6'8.5 in shoes, the guy in the red top is a measured 6'4.8 barefoot so he would stand about 6'6 in shoes
with flair Click Here
with hhh Click Here
here is a couple of kane/mabel staredowns from 2008
Click Here Click Here Da Man says on 2/Mar/09
There's better evidence for a roughly or very near 6'7" Viscera than a 6'6" Viscera.
Click Here Clay says on 27/Feb/09
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
Hahaha...
And you all might want to look at how Viscera is positioning his head there. If he stands straight you will see no difference what so ever.
Viscera is 6'7. Danimal says on 27/Feb/09
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
Your ignorance is LEGENDARY Ola and what makes it worse is that you act confident with things you know NOTHING about. MELTDOWN OLA. Vegas says on 27/Feb/09
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
we know everything about him ola, nfl listed at 6'8 Click Here his barefoot height is here number 78 Click Here Da Man says on 26/Feb/09
You two are assuming Starks has that skull cap pulled down tight as frog's bottom! I think it's pretty clear he doesn't.
You have to realize Starks' cap could be hiding this: Click Here
I can't see Starks being anything on the order of 0.75" taller than Vis, if anything at all we're talking a 1/4" at best.
Click Here Clay says on 26/Feb/09
Danimal says on 26/Feb/09
Da Man says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
REALLY. Draw a line to the TOP of Starks HEAD (including that black thing he's wearing and Starks edges him out.
So when the line is drawn between Khali/Shaq it means nothing, but here it proves Starks is taller??? Red says on 26/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 26/Feb/09
i doubt starks head goes to the top of the hat though, that would mean starks head is about 2 inches longer than visceras.......
Maybe its just 0.5" but Stark is taller, Starks head looks longer because Viscera has much more headtilt Danimal says on 26/Feb/09
Da Man says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
REALLY. Draw a line to the TOP of Starks HEAD (including that black thing he's wearing and Starks edges him out. tuga says on 26/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 26/Feb/09
i doubt starks head goes to the top of the hat though, that would mean starks head is about 2 inches longer than visceras.......
Good point, Viscera could and should be same height there. Anonymous says on 26/Feb/09
i doubt starks head goes to the top of the hat though, that would mean starks head is about 2 inches longer than visceras....... Red says on 26/Feb/09
Da Man says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
Really!! Click Here unless you count Visceras hair to his height, he looks about 0.75 inches shorter
Stark 6´7.1"
Viscera 6´6.5" Anonymous says on 26/Feb/09
taker 3 inches taller than mabel but only 1 inch taller than crush in 1993, something is wrong, mabel wasn't even 3 inches shorter than nash who has 2 inches to spare on taker sid says on 26/Feb/09
Danimal who's taller kane or max stark, Kane got to be taller, a inch differ Da Man says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here Clay says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says on 25/Feb/09
Clay says on 24/Feb/09
How exactly did Viscera look identical to 6'7.5 Max Starks then. Lifts backstage for a picture with a couple football players? Doubt it.
First of all, VISCERA was IN RING GEAR CLAY!! Furthermore, MAX Starks is 6'7.1", NOT 6'7.5" and LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough. Mabel was billed at 6'6" at times (When you were just a wee lad) and I DOUBT they would have billed him as low as 6'6" if he was over 6'7". Give it a rest.
So Max Starks decided to lurk around backstage at a WWE event barefoot? ;) Danimal says on 25/Feb/09
OLAAAAAAAA, I'm calling you out. Here is PROOF that Jesse Ventura was taller than 6'2". Here he is next to 6'2" Sting: Click Here Danimal says on 25/Feb/09
OLAAAAAAAA, I'm calling you out. Here is PROOF that Jesse Ventura was taller than 6'2". Here he is next to 6'2" Sting: Click Here Danimal says on 25/Feb/09
Clay says on 24/Feb/09
How exactly did Viscera look identical to 6'7.5 Max Starks then. Lifts backstage for a picture with a couple football players? Doubt it.
First of all, VISCERA was IN RING GEAR CLAY!! Furthermore, MAX Starks is 6'7.1", NOT 6'7.5" and LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough. Mabel was billed at 6'6" at times (When you were just a wee lad) and I DOUBT they would have billed him as low as 6'6" if he was over 6'7". Give it a rest. Derek says on 24/Feb/09
Ola says on 23/Feb/09
"6'5 for mabel, taker had him by 2-3 inches"
Taker was 1.5-2" tops taller. Watch their casket match at IYH 5 and Taker certainly wasn't several inches taller. Clay says on 24/Feb/09
How exactly did Viscera look identical to 6'7.5 Max Starks then. Lifts backstage for a picture with a couple football players? Doubt it. Danimal says on 23/Feb/09
Alex says on 22/Feb/09
Danimal, I remember all those billings. I think he wore lifts sometimes too because he came VERY close to UT in height in 1999.
In 1999, I would have put Taker at 6'7.5"-6'8" and Mabel/Viscera at 6'6". Taker seemed to have over an inch on him at that time. Would be interesting to see how they stacked up today. Red says on 23/Feb/09
Great List Annoyed,
I agree with nearly all. I think Big Show is still 7´0" during the day, so a peak morning height would be nothing under 7´1" Danimal says on 22/Feb/09
Mabel was also billed at 495 pounds General. They slowly increased his height and weight when he was facing guys like Diesel and Undertaker. Annoyed says on 22/Feb/09
my modified PEAK MORNING estimates ( check these out Danimal and give me your critique )
Andre: 7'0.5"
Big Show: 7'0.5"
Nash: 6'10"
Undertaker: 6'8"
Kane: 6'8"
Sid: 6'7.5"
Viscera:6'6.5"
Albert: 6'6.5"
Hogan: 6'6"
Jake Roberts: 6'5.5" (my friend trained with him and assures me 6'6" minimum but i am being overly downplaying here )
Hall: 6'5"
Goldust: 6'5"
The Rock: 6'3.5"
Goldberg: 6'2.5"
Lesnar: 6'2.25"
Triple H: 6'2.25"
Stone Cold Steve Austin: 6'1"
These are PEAK and MORNING estimates. I am not accountng for height loss over a day , which varies and height loss as of their current ages respectively. This is what I think they where in theyre peaks.
any opinions?
What do you think Danimal? and anyone else who wants to throw in ? Alex says on 22/Feb/09
Danimal, I remember all those billings. I think he wore lifts sometimes too because he came VERY close to UT in height in 1999. Danimal says on 22/Feb/09
general93 says on 22/Feb/09
kevin nash 6'10".mable was billed 6'8" 568lbs king95
You were only 1 or 2 years old when Mable was being billed General. Mabel had MORE THAN ONE BILLING...haha. He was billed at 6'6", 6'7", 6'8", 6'9" AND 6'10". Depending who he faced. Red says on 22/Feb/09
mike says on 20/Feb/09
Take andre and nash and i bet they would,ve been the same height around 6'10".
I think even a old Andre would edge Nash out general93 says on 22/Feb/09
kevin nash 6'10".mable was billed 6'8" 568lbs king95. Vegas says on 21/Feb/09
Danimal says on 20/Feb/09
Viscera HAS been billed at 6'6" on one occasion that I can remember in the mid 90's, as well as many other heights: 6'8", 6'10", etc... The fact is, he HAS been described as 6'6", so imo he is NOT over that.
no problem with that reasoning but why do you throw that reasoning out the window regarding andre who has been billed at 6'10 age 24, why is andre deserving of special attention and not others?? mike says on 20/Feb/09
Take andre and nash and i bet they would,ve been the same height around 6'10". Danimal says on 20/Feb/09
Viscera HAS been billed at 6'6" on one occasion that I can remember in the mid 90's, as well as many other heights: 6'8", 6'10", etc... The fact is, he HAS been described as 6'6", so imo he is NOT over that. Red says on 20/Feb/09
Da Man says on 19/Feb/09
I agree with every single estimate save for Viscera. He was about 1" shorter than Kane and looked to be the same height as 6'7"+ Max Starks.
Viscera looked arround 2 inches shorter than peak Taker in the mid nineties, in the late nineties it was only 1 inch and today in his "Kane" boots he looks nearly the same height as Taker with Kane.
And you think I couldn´t measure my own head? ;)
If I´m able to buy a stadiometer, I´ll bring up more evidence, as far... Vegas says on 20/Feb/09
i seriously doubt nash grew after his college basketball days, remember nash had knee surgery while in college, if you look at the photo JT posted of nash in college he looks huge, the two guys to his immediate left and right both played in the NBA; howard wood and reggie johnson and they were listed there at 6'7 and 6'9 respectively. if anything that is nash at his peak there before injuries Click Here
don't forget when nash debuted in wcw as part of the master blasters, jim ross described nash as 6'10, surely he would have said 6'11 if he was that tall Annoyed says on 19/Feb/09
Nash calling himself "6'10" " strange, as he usually says 6'11" or 7'0" ! Da Man says on 19/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 17/Feb/09
"Talk about looking WAY TOO DEEP into things. The stare down is what it is: Taker barely taller than the MAX 6'6" A-Train."
If we were to take every single photo at face value, Austin could be as tall as Taker.
Red says
"Big Show 7´0.25" 214cm
Nash 6´10" 208cm
N. Jones 6´10" 208cm
Morgan 6´9" 206cm
Kane 6´8" 204cm
Undertaker 6´7.75" 203cm
Sid 6´7.25" 201cm
A-Train 6´6.5" 199cm
Viscera 6´6" 198cm"
I agree with every single estimate save for Viscera. He was about 1" shorter than Kane and looked to be the same height as 6'7"+ Max Starks.
The evidence used to support Viscera being significantly shorter than Undertaker is dubious a best. Danimal says on 19/Feb/09
Hall refers to Nash in one of their shoot interviews as having been a 6'11" guy in his socks when he first met him. I think Nash grew from 6'10" to 6'10.5"-6'11" during his college basketball days. I also believe that Big Show was a STRONG 7'0.5"-7'1.25" guy during his WCW days (early to late 20's). gazz says on 19/Feb/09
On nash's RF shoot interview in 2007 he referred to himself as 6'10 twice, shawn micheals 6'1 and scott hall as 6'5/6'6 Red says on 18/Feb/09
Annoyed, yeah thats my current etimation for their peak heights, but I´m open for Big Show 7´1", Taker 6´8" and Nash 6´10.5"
I think Taker has lost arround 0.5" during the last 8 years tuga says on 18/Feb/09
Red says on 17/Feb/09
tuga, you don´t need to show me my own yt video from Taker and Nash;)
Just to remind you ;)
About the comparison with big show taker didn´t really have a staredown like with khali, remember khali had 5 inches on taker and 1 inch or 1 and a half on big show so big show has not over 4 inches on taker.
7'1 Khali, 7' big show and 6'8 taker imo today.
Anyway I wouldn´t rule out 6'10 even today for nash. Annoyed says on 18/Feb/09
Red says on 17/Feb/09
tuga, you don´t need to show me my own yt video from Taker and Nash;)
Big Show is slouching and A-Train is much closer to the camera.
A-Train has clearly Big Boots against Nash. A-Train is at least 6´8.25" in them, barfoot I see him at 6´6"-6´6.5".
Nash 2"+ taller than UT, we disagreed before in that one point, but no prob - maybe other evidence are found that UT isn´t 2"+ shorter than Nash.
Click Here Big Show has 4.5"-5" on Taker
Nash was about 2´5" shorter but had more footwear disadvantage.
My current Estimates
Big Show 7´0.25" 214cm
Nash 6´10" 208cm
N. Jones 6´10" 208cm
Morgan 6´9" 206cm
Kane 6´8" 204cm
Undertaker 6´7.75" 203cm
Sid 6´7.25" 201cm
A-Train 6´6.5" 199cm
Viscera 6´6" 198cm
You know Red, if you mean those as peak height estimates..........I damn near agree with every damn one man! Those are all what I had deducted fromt he sheer and huge body of evidence that is ACTUALLY available on this site ! If you start at the bottom of this thread and read right up till now, you will see the evidence for a 85-15 percent shot on Nash being 6'10" peak rather than 6'9". There is evidence of him appearing shorter than 6'10" but the overwhelming body of evidence puts Nash at a comfortable 6'10" peak opposed to anything less. On another more stubborn note, I will fight tooth and nail int he face of adversity with my strong belief that Undertaker was 6'8" flat peak, and has only recently dropped down to about 6'7" - 6'7.5". willy79 says on 17/Feb/09
Nash being anything under 6'10 is crazy, he still at his age has an inch over 6'9 Matt Morgan. Red says on 17/Feb/09
tuga, you don´t need to show me my own yt video from Taker and Nash;)
Big Show is slouching and A-Train is much closer to the camera.
A-Train has clearly Big Boots against Nash. A-Train is at least 6´8.25" in them, barfoot I see him at 6´6"-6´6.5".
Nash 2"+ taller than UT, we disagreed before in that one point, but no prob - maybe other evidence are found that UT isn´t 2"+ shorter than Nash.
Click Here Big Show has 4.5"-5" on Taker
Nash was about 2´5" shorter but had more footwear disadvantage.
My current Estimates
Big Show 7´0.25" 214cm
Nash 6´10" 208cm
N. Jones 6´10" 208cm
Morgan 6´9" 206cm
Kane 6´8" 204cm
Undertaker 6´7.75" 203cm
Sid 6´7.25" 201cm
A-Train 6´6.5" 199cm
Viscera 6´6" 198cm Anonymous says on 17/Feb/09
Da Man says on 16/Feb/09
It also looks like Taker is selling A-Train's size there. He's got a really relaxed posture, knees slightly bent, etc. Taker could probably squeeze out another 1/2"-1" there with Albert.
Talk about looking WAY TOO DEEP into things. The stare down is what it is: Taker barely taller than the MAX 6'6" A-Train. JD says on 17/Feb/09
nash was definitely a strong 6-10 peak. likely 6-10.5 now seems around 6-9.5 nick says on 17/Feb/09
it is very safe to put nash at 6'9.5, it would only make the website more acurate Da Man says on 16/Feb/09
It also looks like Taker is selling A-Train's size there. He's got a really relaxed posture, knees slightly bent, etc. Taker could probably squeeze out another 1/2"-1" there with Albert. tuga says on 16/Feb/09
Vegas says on 14/Feb/09
nash and giant bernard (aka a-train) staredown from last month Click Here
Nice video Vegas.
Red, the camera favors nash HEAVILY...taker and nash had a staredown and there was no 2 1/2. And how do we know giant bernard has boots as big as his staredown with taker?
Click Here
Look between 2:21 and 2:22...are you going to say nash is taller than big show???
Click Here
Pause at around 1:18 or 1:19, both men are at same distance from camera and its also not tilted as you can see from the urn behind.
Anyway nash is still close to 6'10 imo, maybe half an inch less, what really would be great would be a staredown between khali and nash... Atoadaso says on 16/Feb/09
wow albert has got some massive chunky shoes in that pic with Nash. Big time footwear advantage. Red says on 15/Feb/09
great find Vegas, time to upgrade Nash or downgrade Taker, Nash is 2.5" taller than Taker JT says on 15/Feb/09
The high camera angle will favor Nash but the height advantage over A-Train (who also has a footwear advantage) is still significant Click Here
Compare that to this: Click Here Click Here
IIRC, Nash had (or claimed) 13 or 14 knee surgeries as of the mid-1990s. Danimal says on 15/Feb/09
Starting to believe that Nash was a strong 6'10" or weak 6'11" in his prime (which would have confirmed a 7'1" Big Show in the mid-late 90's). Today he appears to be a strong 6'9" or weak 6'10". I see him having lost around 1" or slightly more than that in height since the 1990's. Danimal says on 15/Feb/09
Starting to believe that Nash was a strong 6'10" or weak 6'11" in his prime (which would have confirmed a 7'1" Big Show in the mid-late 90's). Today he appears to be a strong 6'9" or weak 6'10". I see him having lost around 1" or slightly more than that in height since the 1990's. Vegas says on 14/Feb/09
nash and giant bernard (aka a-train) staredown from last month Click Here Vegas says on 14/Feb/09
nash was being listed at 7ft in 1995, it wasn't until wcw in summer of 1996 that he got listed at 7'1. as far as knee problems he already had numerous by 1995, countless knee injuries/surgeries ended his basketball career in the early 1980s Annoyed says on 13/Feb/09
In Vegas's Video, Nash looks HUGE compared to vince ! Was this when he was being billed 7'1" ? or just 7'0" ? He looks a STRONG 6'10" there! Also, notice how flat his shows are. And this was before his knee and neck issues, what a big man he was. TELLEM says on 13/Feb/09
looks 2 inches shorter than mcmahon and plus he's in wrestling boots. Vegas says on 12/Feb/09
another nash/bulldog segment from summmer 1995 good comparison there between bulldog and 6'1 vince Click Here Danimal says on 11/Feb/09
Red says on 11/Feb/09
great find tuga
Mane has clearly the bigger footwear and Nash is still taller.
Nash 6´10"
Mane 6´8"
Bulldog 5´10" RIP
Bulldog - 5'9". I met the man. tuga says on 11/Feb/09
Red says on 11/Feb/09
great find tuga
Mane has clearly the bigger footwear and Nash is still taller.
Nash 6´10" Mane 6´8" Bulldog 5´10" RIP
Thanks Red, I do agree with your estimates.
About scott hall I think he was 6'5 peak, no less. Annoyed says on 11/Feb/09
good vids tuga, Nash and Tyler are only lined up when they first walk out, the difference looks a good 2" - 3 " in Nash's favour, after that, perspective gets in the way as does posture but at this point we see at least 2". I think Mane was the legit 6'8" he has claimed and is listed at here, maybe only 6'7" though , either way, still puts Nash in the 6'9" - 6'10" brackett. Red says on 11/Feb/09
great find tuga
Mane has clearly the bigger footwear and Nash is still taller.
Nash 6´10"
Mane 6´8"
Bulldog 5´10" RIP tuga says on 11/Feb/09
Here go 2 "vinnie vegas" videos:
Click Here
Tyler mane does look almost as tall as nash, but is it me or he has bigger footware??
Click Here
Vs British bulldog, looks a foot taller... Annoyed says on 10/Feb/09
In my opinion Hall was always a good 6'5". Any lower than 6'4" seems remarkably unfeasable. TELLEM says on 9/Feb/09
i agree with ola, and put a randy "macho man" savage page. by the way, was scott hall really ever 6'5? i'm starting to think the highest he ever was was a strong 6'4 Red says on 9/Feb/09
Razor was a weak 6´5" at peak imo Dan says on 8/Feb/09
Do you guys say Scott Hall is much shorter in the WWE days than in the WCW NWO and Razor Ramone days? When he was Razor and in the NWO, he looked very tall. Though i say he looked about 6'4 or so, he looked a whole lot shorter when he was with the WWE. He looked like he was about 6'2 only when confronting Austin.
How tall was Hall during the Razor ERA, NWO ERA and then the WWE ERA? Her certainly looked like he got shorter. Anonymous says on 4/Feb/09
Yes, Nash sometimes appears taller than Morgan. Red says on 2/Feb/09
mmmh, I think if he´s really 6´9"now than Matt Morgan is max 6´8.5" Danimal says on 1/Feb/09
6'10" peak - 6'9" today. nick says on 1/Feb/09
6'10 peak, 6'9 1/4 now Red says on 30/Jan/09
I think a Randy Orton page is more important than a Hall page. Hall is slouching in most pics/vids, while Orton has staredowns with great posture. Annoyed says on 27/Jan/09
6'10" peak at least. Clay says on 26/Jan/09
Rob needs to fix this and add peak 6'10 for Nash. Steve says on 26/Jan/09
Yes I agree with you Dave about that site,its a bit ridiculous about heights.Nash is undoubtedly taller than both Tyler Mane and Kane.And I would bet that Nash had 6ft 10in peak height. Red says on 25/Jan/09
A 6´10"peak would be just fair Anonymous says on 20/Jan/09
I think it is very safe to say that Nash was a peak 6'10" and the very least we could do is a peak listing and a current listing. Nash looks to wear orthotics....which isn't so uncommon being that he's had 27 different surgeries....he may be 6'9" now, but I'll take a bet of a 6'10" peak any day. There is just way too much evedence on the side of 6'10" peak than against. He measures up well against others, has not been, that we know of, a lift wearer, and is photgraphed with many "name" tall celebs....give the man his due and at leat give him a 6'10" peak. Honestly, this site gives Hogan a 6'6" peak....which is rather sketchy in my opinion......even in the NWO days I think Nash had Hogan by at least 6". Alex says on 19/Jan/09
Most sites have him born in 1962 though. Anonymous says on 18/Jan/09
I heard that about nash too, someone told me it wasn't uncommon to see him in bare feet like a lot because of how flat his feet were Clay says on 17/Jan/09
The Undertaker must have been dumb as a stick to be held back in school for four years Danimal... Annoyed says on 14/Jan/09
dave says on 13/Jan/09
well steve thats a bit silly considering nash is taller than both of those men.... and before people start sayin ah but the pics suggest same height, nash NEVER wore lifts, this is something he can never be accused of, look at ANY ring pic of him, NO LIFTS, and it has been said this is due to he has very flat feet and the arch wrecks his knees.
and that site is clearly wrong, mane nor jacobs are 6'10, whereas theres EVERY bit of evidence to suggest nash was in his prime.
Ownage anyone!?? Kidding but fair play to Steve for having a go. Nash was a 6'10" flat peak guy in my opinion, Dave your right about his knee's although i dont know about his feet, I think its just his knees are bad and he can no longer straighten them. Danimal says on 13/Jan/09
Big T says on 13/Jan/09
lol Ola
Undertaker was born in 1965, fact
It's not a FACT, but based on his H.S. graduation, it is very plausible. dave says on 13/Jan/09
well steve thats a bit silly considering nash is taller than both of those men.... and before people start sayin ah but the pics suggest same height, nash NEVER wore lifts, this is something he can never be accused of, look at ANY ring pic of him, NO LIFTS, and it has been said this is due to he has very flat feet and the arch wrecks his knees.
and that site is clearly wrong, mane nor jacobs are 6'10, whereas theres EVERY bit of evidence to suggest nash was in his prime. Steve says on 13/Jan/09
Anonymous says on 8/Jan/09
Sometimes Nash used to be listed as 6ft 9.5in,do you know that?
I didnt refer to Nashs billed height, i refered to his real height.On site for tall actors Nash was listed as 6ft 9.5in.Btw both Kane and Tyler Mane were listed as 6ft 10in. Big T says on 13/Jan/09
lol Ola
Undertaker was born in 1965, fact Alex says on 12/Jan/09
Test is actually 6'5 I've heard. I wont go lower than that for him. JT says on 10/Jan/09
There has been some reference to Nash being 6’11” during his college b-ball days though it’s usually 6’10”. Click Here
On Nitro, Hall referred to Nash as being 6'10" after pointing out that the Giant (Big Show) kept freakishly growing past the 7 foot mark. Annoyed says on 10/Jan/09
nah Dave, i looked at them and they are very good pics, if you go even further down, you might get some comments from me where I posted LOADS of pics of the guy looking AT LEAST at 6'10" . Go check em out Vegas says on 9/Jan/09
Ola; this is his high school page, waltrip hs in houston texas, they say he graduated there in 1983, people normally graduate high school at 17-18 not 22-23 if he was born in 1961 Click Here thats him in 1983 on the highschool bb team, no way is everyone 5 years younger than him there Click Here he had a ton of makeup on in his early wwf days so he looked older.
Annoyed; Nash was decribed as 6-10 a few times in wrestling e.g. his wcw debut as one of the master blasters jim ross describes him at 6'10 and later against big show (giant in wcw) circa 1997 he is introduced by michael buffer as standing 6'10. i never remember nash being listed at 6'9.5 in wrestling though Annoyed says on 8/Jan/09
Anonymous says on 8/Jan/09
Sometimes Nash used to be listed as 6ft 9.5in,do you know that?
No..........I dont think ANYONE would ever know that.......considering the smallest he has ever been EVIDENTLY billed was 6'11" !!!!!!!!!!! with his usual billing being 7'0" and 7'1" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but then...maybe we are all wrong and its ALL lies, he must have been "billed" at 6'9.5" !
ina ll seriousness, the only 6'9.5" for Nash could be his REAL height ! But billing? I dont think so ! dave says on 8/Jan/09
did people just competley ignore the 2 pics going towards proving nash's height down there?!... or are you more interested in written claims from some mag which knows no more than us about these wrestlers... and btw, its totally skewed.... if anything kane is taller than taker, and is a bigger framed man in general.... sid is shorter than both of them btw.
someone look at my links below, its a really interesting shot. Anonymous says on 8/Jan/09
Sometimes Nash used to be listed as 6ft 9.5in,do you know that? sid says on 8/Jan/09
Danimal those are bull **** stats, In college glenn jacobs was listed at 6'8. It wasn't rocky mountain, it was smokey moutain valley smv. taker was born in 65, kane is taller then sid, who is 6'7, kane 6'8 Big T says on 7/Jan/09
I dunno if I would trust that Danimal, because Calaway is born in 1965, not 1961
Click Here Danimal says on 7/Jan/09
If anyone is interested, I have an issue of TOXXXIC magazine from 1999 where they go into wrestlers biographies and they don't do Kayfabe stats. They give HONEST backgrounds on the wrestlers OUTSIDE of the ring. For Undertaker they call him by his real name and they list all his gimmick names. They state that his official date of birth is March 24, 1961. They go onto say that he made his debut in the CWA/USWA in 1989 and was a very large man standing an official 6'8" and weighing around 300 pounds.
They go onto Sid's profile. They state that he was born on July 4, 1960 and grew to be 6'8" and weighed as much as 318 pounds when he made his debut in 1987.
Lastly, they give a biography on a Glenn Jacobs (kane), who was born in Spain, born to Jewish parents. They state that he tag teamed with Al Snow in Rock Mountain Wrestling and they show a full body picture of the two of them, where Glenn is really NOT towering Al Snow. They state that he is a BIG man standing 6'7" and has gone up to 345 pounds, but weighs around 323 pounds at the current time.
Lastly, they did a profile on Kevin Nash, stating that he was 39 years old at the time this was published and is one of the tallest wrestlers at the moment, standing at an official 6'10".
WOW...WOW.....WOW.. This was at a time when ALL these men were being BILLED at 2-3" more than this magazine states. I believe this was their TRUE stats. When I get a scanner, I WILL scan these pages, but this is SO cool. Okay, before you start flaming me, I AM a 4 year veteran to this website (celebheights). Tim says on 6/Jan/09
In the WCW about 10 years ago, Nash's height was listed at 6 ft 11 in. They always "fudge" the numbers in wresting, making them taller than they really are. I would say Kevin is 6 ft 9 to 6 ft 9.5 .... His buddy Scott Hall is around 6 ft 5 to 6 ft 5.5 dave says on 5/Jan/09
Interesting pic of Kevin nash and HHH (ROUGHLY 6'2 barefoot)
I watched the vid, both men had very similar footwear and there was NO lifts, street shoes only, both men wearing generic black shoes
Nash looks a STRONG 6'10 here, with HHH coming up underneath his nose if both men are straight
First link is unedited, second link has line drawn.
Click Here
With height line:
Click Here
Nash is clearly about 6'10 here IMO, opinions? sid says on 5/Jan/09
Eric 1 I remember that eric, Nash looked 3 inches taller, maybe cause test was in ring gear, made him looked 6'7, test is 6'6 barefeet Eric 1 says on 5/Jan/09
I agree that Nash is easily 6ft10.5 to 6ft11 in his prime. But right now I would give him 6ft9. Maybe snudge over 6ft9. In 2002-2003 kevin nash had a fued in wwe against a 6ft6 Test and for some reason they look to be the same height in the fued maybe Nash had only an inch on him . I want everyone to watch that match and explain to me what the heck is going on cause Test wasnt wearing any monster boots or anything?? I dont know if its due to Nash maybe loosing height or was it that Test is taller then 6ft6???? Dont know . Alex says on 5/Jan/09
I've heard Kevin Nash has told fans he's 6'10 when asked his height and he was billed at 7'0-7'1 at those times too. He could easily just tell his billed height if he wanted. Danimal says on 5/Jan/09
I've heard both 6'10", 6'10.5" and 6'11" legit for his peak height. I'd say he was a strong 6'10" peak and today is floating around 6'9". Annoyed says on 4/Jan/09
I'd say a flat 6'10 peak but 6'9" now. I posted loads of pics, ths man was/is HUGE. Only the Undertaker staredown suggests he is smaller but there are variables we cant factor and ive seen him with Taker in DVD's and he comfortably had 1.5" - 2" . Alex says on 4/Jan/09
Peak-6'10
Today 6'8 1/2-6'9 Neon says on 3/Jan/09
6'11'' at peak, now 6'9.5 / 6'.9'' Danimal says on 31/Dec/08
In this recent Shoot interview Hall states that Nash was 6'11" in his socks when he met him. Why am I believing him? Click Here Danimal says on 31/Dec/08
In this recent Shoot interview Hall states that Nash was 6'11" in his socks when he met him. Why am I believing him? Click Here king kong bundy says on 31/Dec/08
peak at 6-10.5, now more around the 6-9 mark Freddy says on 28/Dec/08
yoyo says on 24/Dec/08
Nash could looks taller than 7ft claim BigShow sometimes.
There are plenty of clips with show next to nash, show has atleast 3 inches on him. Outlaw says on 28/Dec/08
Kevin Nash lives within a few mile radius of me and my family has been friends with him for probably around 10 years. I used to do pull-ups on his arms. He's currently 6'10," and maybe 6'11" at most. He's quite frequently seen around here, as my sister goes to the same gym as him.
He's no doubt, any lower than 6'10". Danimal says on 24/Dec/08
I believe that Nash would have had a solid 2" on Taker at their respective PEAKS in the early-mid 1990's. 6'7.5"-6'8" for Taker and 6'9.5"-6'10" for Nash. I believe that Nash has chopped a full inch off of his height now at 50 years of age. He also suffered from MANY knee surgeries and neck surgery. I believe that Taker lost even more than an inch since the 1990's. yoyo says on 24/Dec/08
Nash could looks taller than 7ft claim BigShow sometimes. imoen-mania says on 14/Dec/08
I believe Nash is a little shorter than 6' 11" Sarevok
Click Here supermanfan380 says on 8/Dec/08
I always thought Jones looked about 2" than UT (although there are no really good shots of them head to toe, or with a decent camera angle, some of them would go back and forth by a huge margin depending on where the camera was), and 1" more than Morgan. I have the entire team Lesnar angle on DVD, the smackdowns proceding it, and Jones looked a bit taller than Morgan, but hard to tell. Seemed like 1" to me. Both of them looked about 2-3" shorter than BigShow. Anyhow, I did not know Morgan actually said 6'10", I could have sworn that he said 6'8" or 6'9". Big dude there. Frank says on 7/Dec/08
Supermanfan i would say Taker and Jones were very close in height maybe an inch
difference for Morgan No way 2 to 3 inch difference Big Show had Taker by
3 inches in some photos some it looked close to 4.. Nash had Taker by about 1.5 inches at best when Taker stood up Straight |
