|
Shock says on 7/Nov/09
Danimal Taker is within Big Show's forehead range with a slight footwear disadvantage, so Big Show is probably between 3 and 3.5" taller than him. Even in 1999 Taker was up to Big Show's eyebrows with nearly 1" disadvantage. Big Show's forehead is about 4"-4.5".
I think Akebono and Taker are virtually identical height, Taker might have a slight edge. The Albert Taker picture is highly suspect as Albert may have a nearly 1" footwear advantage, and I simply do not believe Albert is is anyway a dead even 6'6", it makes a difference. 6'6" Albert put Taker at 6'6.5" by comparison, a 1" advantage puts Taker at 6'7.5", and Albert is probably mroe than 6'6" even. Compared to so many other guys it's just not possible. He's closer to 6'7" than 6'6". Even with Akebono Albert has come out nearly his height with a 1" footwear advantage, same as Taker. If Albert is 6'6" even, Akebono is 6'7 or 7.5"
Spence says on 5/Nov/09
My god he looks every bit of 6'8 in that photo with Frank...over a 182 guy looks to have 8 inches easily Vegas says on 5/Nov/09
akebono was listed at 204cm in sumo which is 6'8.3
this article is very specific about what height and weight he was at certain periods
Mar 1988 200cm and 334lb
Jan 1989 202cm and 340lb
Mar 1990 203cm and 386lb
Sep 1990 204cm and 411lb
Click Here Red says on 5/Nov/09
Danimal says on 4/Nov/09
Red, where are you getting this 1/4" and 1/3" from????
Just from the pixel´s.
I don´t think UT is as tall as Akebono, Akebono would edge Taker out!
Akebono is a strong 6´8"
Undertaker is a strong 6´7"
Bernard is 6´6" Rest is footwear advantage Danimal says on 4/Nov/09
Red, where are you getting this 1/4" and 1/3" from???? Clay says on 4/Nov/09
Danimal and Alex have no explanation as to why Taker is so tall next to Khali, other than Taker must have been in 2.5 inch lifts?
Taker is still 6'7.75-6'8 down from a peak of 6'8.5ish. PERIOD. tuga says on 4/Nov/09
Red says on 4/Nov/09
tuga, in that vid Akebono has a much wider stand than Bernard.
Click Here this is very close to the truth
Click Here
Taker has also a wider stance than albert and look at albert´s feet...he´s on his tip toes for sure, look at your photo, albert is more relaxed...
All of this evidence posted here all just show similar heights between taker and akebono: 6'8. Red says on 4/Nov/09
tuga, in that vid Akebono has a much wider stand than Bernard.
Click Here this is very close to the truth tuga says on 4/Nov/09
Vegas says on 3/Nov/09
anyone come up with a good explanation as to why taker was slightly taller next to khali than kane??
Easy one, for the same reason he and jbl looked close in height until taker stood tall next to him exposing the real diference...answer: POSTURE
JT says on 4/Nov/09
Taker in Lugz-style boots was basically the same height as Albert/Matt Bloom, when Albert in those same type boots was noticeably shorter than 6'8" Akebono in boots with paper-thin soles....
Click Here
Take a look or pause anywhere from 3:32 to 3:37, how do explain that? Is Akebono even any taller than albert?? Please do take some screen caps and draw the lines. JT says on 4/Nov/09
Vegas says on 3/Nov/09
anyone come up with a good explanation as to why taker was slightly taller next to khali than kane??
...and Kane was not wearing small-heeled boots with Khali, and why Taker in Lugz-style boots was basically the same height as Albert/Matt Bloom, when Albert in those same type boots was noticeably shorter than 6'8" Akebono in boots with paper-thin soles.... Vegas says on 3/Nov/09
anyone come up with a good explanation as to why taker was slightly taller next to khali than kane?? hs2009 says on 3/Nov/09
There was a clear 5" difference between Taker & Khali but no more. Stefan says on 3/Nov/09
Khali/Taker. Max. difference here: 12,7cm/5". Click Here
Khali/O´Neal. Equal. Click Here (Shaq is a save 2,16 m/7-1). Taker is 6-8 and Khali 7-1. Clay says on 2/Nov/09
It was max 6 inches between Khali and Taker which leaves Calloway MIN. 6'7''. tuga says on 1/Nov/09
Danimal says on 1/Nov/09
Big Show had more than 3" on Taker post 2001. When Big Show stood fully straight, it was more like 4-5" on Taker.
It could be 4 inches, 5 inches I just can´t see, khali had 5 inches on taker and has 1 on big show just like shaq.
7'1 for khali and shaq, 7' for big show and 6'8 taker are fair estimates for them. Big show and taker have bad posture, so most of the times they look shorter...I´ll give that. Danimal says on 1/Nov/09
tuga says on 1/Nov/09
Danimal says on 31/Oct/09
Taker was marginally taller than MAX 6'6" Albert in 2001 in their infamous staredown.
Yes, but when you´re only 2 inches shorter than someone bigger footware and just a little better posture can do miracles...
If you put taker at under 6'7 you have tou put khali and shaq at under 7', big show 6'10, kane under 6'7 as well, jbl at 6'3 range and etc etc.
Big Show had more than 3" on Taker post 2001. When Big Show stood fully straight, it was more like 4-5" on Taker. tuga says on 1/Nov/09
Danimal says on 31/Oct/09
Taker was marginally taller than MAX 6'6" Albert in 2001 in their infamous staredown.
Yes, but when you´re only 2 inches shorter than someone bigger footware and just a little better posture can do miracles...
If you put taker at under 6'7 you have tou put khali and shaq at under 7', big show 6'10, kane under 6'7 as well, jbl at 6'3 range and etc etc. Danimal says on 31/Oct/09
Taker was marginally taller than MAX 6'6" Albert in 2001 in their infamous staredown.
Only 2 guys on this entire site who believe that Taker is below 6'7" today: Myself and Alex. I also believe that Kane is a 6'7" guy, as was Sid. Taker was slightly taller than Sid in the 1990's. Da Man says on 31/Oct/09
I've said it for 3 years now, Taker is not under 6'7" today, or even a flat 6'7" for that matter. Over the last few years as he's leaned and gotten back into good shape, he looks as tall as he ever did. His so called height loss was really just a loss of posture, IMO. Kane needs to get on Taker's regimen, it looked like he was having a lot of knee problems in the match with Jericho on the last SmackDown. Ray says on 31/Oct/09
I would say Undertaker definitely has 3" on JBL. Plus, Taker's knees are bent and his posture is loose in that pic Shock posted. Also, saying Taker is below 6'7" today is really almost impossible and really lowers heights of everyone else then. I also love how some poeple also claim Kane is 6'8.5" since that's what he has supposofly said himself but then say Taker is no more than 6'7" these days. Makes me laugh since they are about the same height (IMO I see Taker just a little taller). Da Man says on 31/Oct/09
Shock says,
"Taker is coming out 3.5" taller than JBL"
How in the world are you getting 3.5" out of that pic? miko says on 30/Oct/09
1992.
Staredown: Undertaker vs Sid Justice.
This is the best view we have of a staredown between them at 2:45, Undertaker might just shade it, but it's damn close.
If Taker really was near 6"8 at his peak then Sid is well over 6"7.
Click Here Shock says on 30/Oct/09
"Danimal says on 27/Oct/09
Taker hasn't been close to 6'8" since 2000. Below 6'7" today."
You're right, he isn't "close" to 6'8" anymore since he was over 6'8" as of this year: Click Here
Please actually look at the picture an analyze it. Taker is coming out 3.5" taller than JBL who is a minimum of 6'5" even. Taker has 1 boot layer advantage on JBL which = 0.3". The shortest we're looking at is 6'8.25". This is a good example of Taker not slouching and coming out virtually full height. You can see with the bend in his legs vs the rigid stance of JBL that may be even taller yet. The picture might even have some tilt in favor of JBL.
But, for the sake of argument, I'm going to humor the "below 6'7" comment for a minute and go over some things.
If Taker is below 6'7", then JBL is around 6'3.75", and Kane would be approaching 6'6" even since he's not as tall as Taker with a boot advantage. But ya know, maybe Kane actually is 6'6" even. I mean after all, PWI did list him as 6'7" and Taker as 6'8". That must be their max heights. I'll break the news to Mamun who is now reduced to 5'6.75" since Taker is below 6'7".
So, how tall is JBL then for real?
...below 6'7" Clay says on 29/Oct/09
I guess Khali is 6'11.5 then. Danimal says on 27/Oct/09
Clay says on 13/Oct/09
Taker and Kane are both 6'8''.
Taker hasn't been close to 6'8" since 2000. Below 6'7" today. mcfan says on 25/Oct/09
I'm pretty sure he used to claim 6'8 years ago, but was billed at 6'10. Chris Sneed says on 24/Oct/09
Rob, Im still not sure why people believe that psycho sid is shorter than the undertaker. I believe they are the exact same height 202 cm. I also believe that john nord the berzerker appeared to be taller than the undertaker. I wish there were photos that could change my mind! I also believe that earthquake rip, was as tall as taker comparing each other to yokozuna staredowns. these men hold their own against mr mark calaway. Clay says on 13/Oct/09
Taker and Kane are both 6'8''. James S says on 13/Oct/09
6'7? That sounds too short. From when I saw him in person, he is much closer to 7'0. I'd say his comment of 6'9-6'10 sounds right for him as Kane was about two inches taller. Shock says on 11/Oct/09
I just reread this part of my post:
"like these: Click Here - 2 layer with the extra stitched layer = about .75"
It should read .75" without the none standard half layer, so again just about 1" total. Big Show's boots are 0.9" in the front. Shock says on 10/Oct/09
Big Show's are slightly bigger than Angle's there, 3 layers in the front, 5 in the back, so 1.5" for Big Show, which he's virtually always had his entire career, but in different makes of boot.
Similar to these: Click Here with an extra layer. Those specifically, are 4 layer, 1.2"
Those red Angle boots I do remember now, look like they 2 front, 4 in the back, but they might not be exactly. Because he's tip toeing it does throw off the actual heel shape. Also, he didn't wear those for long in his career. His other boot types are definitely 0.6" and he's had them for a long time.
To go deeper, the boot designs are entirely different, and I'm talking about era defining different. Big Show's are a softer rounded sole, patent leather boot, and Angle's are more old school design.
like these: Click Here - 2 layer with the extra stitched layer = about .75", Angle's might have one more layer for just over 1" but I think it's the stepping position that is making it look like that. Again, I could be wrong, I'll have to look at more pics to be sure, but Big Show's are definitely at least a layer thicker.
I rarely see those old boots on the indy scene anymore, my partner happens to have a pair, but they are usually have a couple layers with a weird half stitched layer, making a 0.6" come out more like .75". You can see the discoloration between Angle's sole and the red of the boot, and that's the stitched layer. justin bailey says on 10/Oct/09
Hey shock, go to myspace vids. they took it off of youtube. and click on undertaker and kurt angle backstage. also, there is a guy standing next to taker that appears about three inches shorter. Vegas says on 10/Oct/09
nah shock, angles boots were bigger than 0.6 inches from time to time unless big show only wore 0.6 inch boots too, same 1 inchers there clearly worn by both men just different colours Click Here Shock says on 10/Oct/09
"Justin Bailey says on 9/Oct/09
Ok... there is a vid from 2002. its undertaker and kurt angle backstage when taker insulted angle and stated that he had a bad wig. angle is 5'10'' barefoot, and right around 6' in boots. he wasnt much shorter than vince mcmahon. now ppl, I am 6ft in shoes, and i had seen the advantage taker had over angle, 7-8 inches, i put a tape measure up and saw how much taker had over him, so, taker is about 6'8'' in his boots, and about 6'7 without!"
I believe Kurt Angle to be, more specifically 5'10.5" barefoot, and I must stress, his wrestling boots do not in any way shape or form give him 2". I believe the thickest boots he ever had (mind you I did not watch a ton of Kurt Angle matches) were 2 layer (0.6") for his normal wrestling boots
Click Here - you catch a little bit of the underside of the boot, and the shadow, but those are 1 layer front, 2 layer back = 0.6" in the most technical sense.
His other boot type which came later, is OTOMIX - Click Here
Those give probably 0.5", there's a funny incline right under the heel but clearly zero boost in the front and .5" under the pivot.
if Angle is 5'10" even barefoot, he's about 5'10.5" in the boots, I believe he IS 5'10.5" and about 5'11" in his boots.
Now, if you watch any matches where Angle and Taker, Taker generally has about a 0.6"- .75" boot advantage but he still comes out virtually an entire head taller than him. I'm gonna wager he's nearly 10" taller than Angle barefoot, at full posture, but here's a couple shots from a tag match, in the second one you can see how massive Taker's skull is.
Click Here Frank says on 9/Oct/09
Well that Video show what i thought Studd is about 6ft 6 and Ladd about 6ft 7
Ladd had bad posture but he stood would have been alittle taller than Studd so again Ladd does NOT APPEAR 6ft 9 Sorry Ray says on 9/Oct/09
"Shock says on 8/Oct/09
Griffin, can you post some pics where Kane comes out taller than Taker, and doesn't have a boot or camera advantage?"
Well said, I was going to actually post something similar. The answer is no, becaise Kane always had/has a boot advantage. Justin Bailey says on 9/Oct/09
Ok... there is a vid from 2002. its undertaker and kurt angle backstage when taker insulted angle and stated that he had a bad wig. angle is 5'10'' barefoot, and right around 6' in boots. he wasnt much shorter than vince mcmahon. now ppl, I am 6ft in shoes, and i had seen the advantage taker had over angle, 7-8 inches, i put a tape measure up and saw how much taker had over him, so, taker is about 6'8'' in his boots, and about 6'7 without! Shock says on 8/Oct/09
Griffin, can you post some pics where Kane comes out taller than Taker, and doesn't have a boot or camera advantage? Big Show says on 8/Oct/09
Shock says on 30/Sep/09
lsu alum, maybe post some pics? I'm on the fence about his height myself as he seems anywhere between 6'7" and 6'9" to me but I believe closer to 6'7" or 6'8".
Here's a video with Flair, Ladd and Studd. Studd looks the same height if not slightly taller. So I can't say that Ladd is looking 6'9" here, because Studd sure isn't 6'9" either (more like 6'7").
Click Here
Remember Ladd had extensive knee surgery in 1969 which pretty much ended his football career. His posture sucked most of the times. Griffin says on 7/Oct/09
Taker can't be at the same height as kane, taker is more like 6'6.5 pushing to 6'7. drk says on 2/Oct/09
I tend to agree with Shock here, Ladd looks within the 6'7"-6'8" range... probably closer to 6'8" if anything though. Shock says on 30/Sep/09
lsu alum, maybe post some pics? I'm on the fence about his height myself as he seems anywhere between 6'7" and 6'9" to me but I believe closer to 6'7" or 6'8". Frank says on 30/Sep/09
Isu Alum all im saying in alot of pictures he does not appear 6ft 9 too me Danimal says on 30/Sep/09
Ryan says on 26/Sep/09
hogan 6'5 3/4 and rock 6'2, ha ha ha, try same height jeremiah Click Here
In Hogan's prime he would have had 2.5"-3" on the Rock. I have NO DOUBT about that. lsu alum says on 30/Sep/09
I hate to call anyone an idiot,but anyone that says Ernie Ladd was not his full 6'9" is an idiot.Period ! JMan29 says on 30/Sep/09
My brother and I met Undertaker at a house show. My brother is a legit 6'7 and with the shoes he was wearing was closer to 6'8. Undertaker still had a good inch on him so I definatly buy 6'9 for a legit height.. Shock says on 28/Sep/09
Jeremiah - There's about .5" between Rock and Hogan today at most, and there's never a full 3" between them ever since the Rock reached adulthood. Great Khali has been billed 7'3" for quite some time now. They used to jump round from 7'2" to 7'4", and in Japan he had some crazy bills. However he definitely does not wear platforms, his boots are approximately 1.25", not exactly large for a guy his size. Ryan says on 26/Sep/09
hogan 6'5 3/4 and rock 6'2, ha ha ha, try same height jeremiah Click Here
khalis boots don't even have a heel ffs, they are nearly flat, kane wears platforms, at least try not to lie before typing stuff Jeremiah says on 25/Sep/09
I've met and seen some wrestlers. I'm eye to eye with Hulk Hogan, I'm 6'5 3/4" that's w/o shoes. Depending on my shoes I can reach almost 6'8". The Rock is at 6'2". Bill Goldberg is 6'3" (met him 4 times, 3rd time he recognized me). Scott Hall is shorter than me by a little. Sting is almost 6' 3". Rey Mysterio is 5' 2". Undertaker is 6'8". Kane is just a hair shorter than Kevin Nash. Nash is right at 6'10" I've seen a lot more and Height and weight is exagerated. And to add in the fact of the boots? Look at the great Khali he's listed at 7'5" (depends where you look) and look at his platforms, I mean boots....wonder why he doesn't run much? Shock says on 12/Sep/09
Mike, Lesnar is more like 6'2", and there were definitely some deceptive angles/posture issues with him. There's a chokeslam clip where you can see that Lesnar only comes up to about Taker's nose, not his eyebrows. general93 says on 11/Sep/09
sid and studd where the same height 6'7-8" and taker 6'8.5" jbl 6'6" crush 6'6" nash 6'10". mike says on 11/Sep/09
lesnar was about 4 inches shorter than taker ,and lesnar is listed at 6'3". Paul says on 9/Sep/09
Heenan was probably 5'11, surely 1.80m if not 1.81. He seemed slightly taller than Paul Bearer as I recall, who I would say would be a shade over 5'10, 1.79m. Electric says on 8/Sep/09
Vegas, there's a match between Studd and Gang on WWE classics in May. I screen capped the hell out of it and will make the folder public.
Studd is slightly taller. Shock says on 5/Sep/09
In the Studd/Akeem comparison btw, Studd's feet are wider and he is not standing up straight, I remember even noticing this when I was 7. I think there's even some tilt in Gang's favor. I don't think there's more than .25" between them but I also think both were flirting with 6'7". Shock says on 5/Sep/09
Hehe, JBL once said that the Tombstone was the reason he was DOWN to 6'6". I don't believe he is currently under 6'5.25". 6'6" is sketchy at best I know, but he did seem taller over 10 years ago.
If Reis was under 7'2" in WCW, then Big Show is and always has been 6'11.5", which I think is possible. I think college listings are very much a rough number to go by. Some of them can be round downs, it's been known to happen depending on player position. Shock says on 5/Sep/09
Heenan at peak 5'11" is very likely. Andre topped out at approximately a full head taller.
Andre to me, about 3.5" taller than Studd. Frank says on 5/Sep/09
I believe Heenan was smaller than 5ft 11 maybe 5ft 10 Vegas says on 5/Sep/09
on the studd/OMG point, this is the only real time in the 89 rumble that you can make a comparison Click Here
andre looked more than 3 inches taller than studd at WM5 i thought Electric says on 4/Sep/09
If John Studd is 6'6", then peak Hogan was 6'4.5", and Andre was 6'9". JT says on 3/Sep/09
Click Here Heenan's no more than 5'11". Even assuming Heenan has cowboy boots or similar thick-soled shoes on, Studd's not looking beyond 6'6", just like in the staredown with Fralic. 6'7" is highly unlikely; 6'8" is impossible. Shock says on 3/Sep/09
Interestingly enough, in the main page pic with Orton and Jake, Orton comes out slightly taller due to the angle, it looks very similar to the Taker/Kane WM14 pic where Kane comes out nearly 1.5" taller. However, you can see in a couple of the other pics, that Jake is actually taller than Orton with his footwear advantage, so Orton gains about .75" from the angle.
I really can't see Orton at much under 6'5", probably 6'4.75", Jake probably about the same after footwear deduction, and probably down from a peak in the 6'5" range. Danimal says on 3/Sep/09
Anonymous says on 3/Sep/09
Vegas - it's really tough to judge from that Studd Flair interview, Flair was definitely taller in 1978 than he is now, and he's a little closer to the camera. Peak Flair at 6' puts Studd at about 6'5.5" there, which is pretty much impossible.
agreed, total impossible since studd was TOPS 6'4 1/2 - 6'5 next to fralic
Give it a rest OLA. Anonymous says on 3/Sep/09
Vegas - it's really tough to judge from that Studd Flair interview, Flair was definitely taller in 1978 than he is now, and he's a little closer to the camera. Peak Flair at 6' puts Studd at about 6'5.5" there, which is pretty much impossible.
agreed, total impossible since studd was TOPS 6'4 1/2 - 6'5 next to fralic general93 says on 3/Sep/09
if studd is 6'5" taker is 6'5.5" peak.there wuoldnt be that much of a difference ill go 6'7.5" studd 6'8" taker.roberts was in front of gang right next to the camera plus he was 400lbs its hard to stand perfectly straight at that weight jake was always a slim build back then always of great posture his father was taller than him grizzly smith. Vegas says on 3/Sep/09
i dunno about flair being taller back then, maybe before he broke his back prior to starting wrestling ok but between 78 and 2001 not so sure, there is video of himself and valentine from 78 where flair looks about 1 inch taller than 5-10 valentine and also only 1 inch or so taller than 5-10 ricky steamboat in full length photos from the early 80s, i first met flair in 2001, looked a solid 5-11 to me then
reis was listed at 7-1 in college bb at 22 so little chance he was 7-2
jbl 6-5 in nfl and WLAF (another pro league) so little chance he was 6-6 Vegas says on 3/Sep/09
Danimal says on 2/Sep/09
5 years ago? Try 2007 and he had already undergone hip surgery and was already in his 50's, compared to a YOUNG and HEALTHY kid by the name of Randy Orton.
Click Here it was march 2005 so i was closer lol, roberts underwent hip surgery AFTER that showdown with orton in april 2005, roberts was only 48 and roberts was wearing 1.5 shox too while orton was in flat dress-shoes so approx 0.5 footwear advantage to jake, first photo Click Here Shock says on 3/Sep/09
In interviews with Hogan on the Snake Pit, Jake typically came out the same height as Hogan in his wrestling boots, so basically, however much taller he is than Jake there, is how much taller Gang was than Hogan in respective gear, and Hogan was legitimately taller than 6'5" minimum peak Jake Roberts. When Jake wore lifts he came out a 6'8" bill at times, which makes his 6'5" bill absolutely baffling.
Studd was definitely a little taller than Akeem at RR89, but with a possible 1 layer boot advantage he'd come out maybe only .25" taller if that.
Vegas - it's really tough to judge from that Studd Flair interview, Flair was definitely taller in 1978 than he is now, and he's a little closer to the camera. Peak Flair at 6' puts Studd at about 6'5.5" there, which is pretty much impossible.
hosk83 - I've heard several people who have met Adams say the same thing, he always put himself at 6'7", which I believe he was pretty close to in boots. Crush also definitely a bit taller than Brian Lee.
My peak estimates of all mentioned guys in the last several posts -
Giant Gonzalez: 7'6.5"
Reis: 7'2"
Big Show: 7'
Kevin Nash: 6'9.75" (maybe 6'10" even)
Tyler Mane: 6'8" range
Undertaker: 6'8.25" (maybe .5")
Kane: 6'7.5" (maybe up to 6'8" even but I doubt it more and more all the time)
Sid: 6'7" (maybe .25")
Big John Studd: 6'7"
Ernie Ladd: 6'7" range
One Man Gang: 6'6.5" (maybe .75")
Big Daddy V: 6'6.5" (maybe .75")
Dan Spivey: 6'6.5"
Brian Adams: 6'6.25" (maybe .5")
Brian Clark: 6'6" (maybe .25")
JBL: 6'6"
Earthquake: 6'6"
John Nord: 6'6"
Hulk Hogan: 6'6"
Mideon: 6'5" range
Brian Lee: 6'5.5"
Tugboat: 6'5"
Scott Hall: 6'5" range
Goldust: 6'5" range
The Godfather: 6'5"
Jake Roberts: 6'5.25"
Randy Orton: 6'4.75"
Kamala: 6'4.75"
Mark Canterbury: 6'4" range
Triple H: 6'2.75"
Sting: 6'2.5"
Ultimate Warrior: 6'2.25"
Vince McMahon: 6'1.5"
Ric Flair: 6' Paul says on 2/Sep/09
I know which video you are referring to Frank but the height difference was around 2in even in that video and would have been more apparent if UT had stood perfectly straight. UT was leaning in slightly. Also Crush was wearing pretty decent heeled boots around this time. Danimal says on 2/Sep/09
Vegas says on 2/Sep/09
gang was 3 inches taller than orton??? roberts was the same height as orton on raw 5 years ago, studd was no more than an inch taller than a 6'5 listed nfl guy, he wasn't 6'8
5 years ago? Try 2007 and he had already undergone hip surgery and was already in his 50's, compared to a YOUNG and HEALTHY kid by the name of Randy Orton. Anonymous says on 2/Sep/09
Studd had flair by 5 inches in that old video Vegas says on 2/Sep/09
gang was 3 inches taller than orton??? roberts was the same height as orton on raw 5 years ago, studd was no more than an inch taller than a 6'5 listed nfl guy, he wasn't 6'8 general93 says on 2/Sep/09
ric flair is 6feet tall there and talking of mops of hair like andre flair has probably more woo.anyway the interviwer is about flairs height maybe 1" taller so studd 6'7-8".jake roberts is much closer to the camera and is still shorter than omg who was 3" taller than randy orton so no 6'6" for gang either vegas.gang was probably 6'7.5".taker is 6'8-9". Vegas says on 2/Sep/09
crush was only about 1 inch shorter looking next to brian "chainz/fake undertaker" lee than calaway was in summerslam 1994
as far as studd goes, he wasn't taller than akeem at royal rumble they looked the same height and akeem wasn't 6'8, 6'6 no more than that Click Here
studd in 1978, flair is or at least was my height (i met him lots of times) and thats how i measure up next to 6'6ish men, flair comes out no taller next to 6'5.5 charles barkley than this some 15 years later Click Here Shock says on 1/Sep/09
I agree Studd had about .5" on Akeem at RR89, but Akeem at the time probably was about 6'6.75", and I think Studd had a layer advantage in boots. Studd basically comes out 6'7" in numerous comparisons, I've never seen anything that's suggested more than that.
Studd would sometimes bill himself 7', I've heard "over" 7 foot, but 6'10" through and through was his traditional bill. He was billed quite a bit more than his actual height partially due to Andre's super bill.
Taker I believe is between 6'8" and 6'8.5" still today. hosk83 says on 1/Sep/09
I actually met Bryan "Crush" Adams backstage in 1997 at a "Wrestlemania Revenge" house show in Toronto, Canada. He told me he was 6'7".
Assuming this is truth, this puts the Undertaker at 6'9". He himself has said in interviews (It's My Yard 2001) that he was between 6'8" and 6'9". I'm more likely to believe 6'9" as well, considering his comparisons to Sid and Kevin Nash. Two guys who are genuinely 6'9" and 6'10" respectively. Sid at one point even looks a tiny bit shorter than Taker. general93 says on 1/Sep/09
just look at the interview its called bobby heenan and john studd live from los vegas, pause it as studd comes out he has around 7" on vince and about 12" on lord alfred hayes, he had 0.5" on akeem at rr 89, akeem was billed 6'9" 455lbs so i think akeem was 6'7.5-8".studd had a 1984 hogan by 1.5" approx taker had 1991 hogan by 2".it also didnt look like 6'9" ernie ladd had him by much at all.you cant see a clear stand off with 6'10" ed jones and studd at wm 2 but again not too much of a difference in height.i just wont buy a 6'6" studd at all a 6'7" studd is possible but all the evidence points to 6'8" for studd he was billed 6'10" and rare 6'11" and 364lbs 367lbs and late 384lbs.taker i belive if he was measured today he'd come out 6'8" possibly closer to 6'9" early 90s.i still go for a 6'6" crush i think thats about right. Frank says on 31/Aug/09
Im just saying ive seen Taker look atleast 2 inches in Crush but in the one Video it did look about .05 Also Adams was alittle taller than Hogan and Taker had Hogan by atleast 2.5 inches Shock says on 31/Aug/09
general93, I really don't think Studd was as tall as Taker. Studd probably close to, if not Sid's height, and Taker at least 1" taller than them. I do agree Studd had Vince by about 6" legit putting him somewhere 6'7" - 6'7.5", I think closer to 6'7" even. They definitely used a lot of tricky angles to make Studd seem even taller during promos and he did tip toe a lot in the ring. He also wore slightly larger boots than most others at the time, nothing more than average by today's standards though. As of 10 years ago when Vince was still a mid 6'1", he came up to Taker's nose, so probably close to 7" on Vince for Taker.
Taker had around 2" on Crush in 1993, not quite 3. I also believe Crush was at least 6'6". Taker's leaning forward in the staredown, his eyes are still at least 1" higher than Crush's, on top of that he has a bigger head than Crush, he's just over 1.5" taller leaning forward. Definitely more than .75" even there.
Click Here - 1.5" here, probably 2" or more if he wasn't leaning forward. Both men in 2 layer boots I believe.
Click Here - I know it's not nearly scientific, but here in '97, Taker comes out a whole lot bigger than Crush in passing, way bigger than he would if Crush was only .75" taller.
Crush was billed generically 6'6" or 7 at times, but up to 6'8", which would be very normal bill for someone who is around 6'6". There is definitely evidence he lost some height by WCW when compared to Hogan. I believe Crush was at some point taller than peak Hogan.
During the BoD/Kronik feud, both Taker and Kane come out noticeably taller than Adams and Clark, furthering that Crush may have lost height, and I've always thought Adams was slightly taller than Clark.
Taker: 6'8.25"
Studd: 6'7"
Crush: 6'6.25"
Clark: 6'6"
Vince: 6'1.5" peak general93 says on 30/Aug/09
so its possible for a 0.5" difference in 1 photo and in actual fact there is a 2" difference at least, thanks for clearing that up frank but most people will 100% agree wit u, but dont for fralic and studd why? i honestly think studd wud measure up the same to taker he clearly had vince by 6-7.5" in an interview live from vegas with bobby heenan. Shock says on 30/Aug/09
I watched some old promos last night, saw this with Taker and Triple H:
Click Here Taker here at a very wide lazy stance coming out basically 6'7", Triple H taking a step up from a similar stance to a more normal one between these two frames, which are a couple seconds apart.
and here in a less reliable shot, Taker steps back and stands as straight as possible for an instant, comes out 6'8" even with Triple H at debatable 6'2": Click Here Taker's head tilt makes Trips look like he's under his nose but he'd probably be to the middle of his nose, still resulting in roughly 6'8" for Taker with Trips at only 6'2"
The position of the camera makes the perspective look weird, but I don't think they are very much out of alignment.
At what point do most people here think Taker started losing height? I ask this because I really don't see any evidence of it anywhere, I would say nothing more than .5" at the very most. Nothing compared to say Hogan or DiBiase. Frank says on 28/Aug/09
I seen Taker Next to Crush and he did have a couple of inches on him and Yes that one match Taker only look alittle taller for some reason I believe he was a couple of inches taller Anh says on 28/Aug/09
I would say Nash only had just over 1 inch on undertaker. 1.5 inches maximum.
Nash is no doubt a bigger guy (build) than the height difference suggests though. general93 says on 28/Aug/09
justin bailey i agree with some of your estimates but taker had nowhere near 3" on crush 1993 more like 0.5-1" at most. you also have to add 1-2" for omg.crush was billed 6'7" i doubt he was far off. gazzdw says on 27/Aug/09
tyler mane- on a haloween movie special he claimed his height was 6'8 justin bailey says on 27/Aug/09
Heres something totally kayfabe. copy and paste this link. Click Here justin bailey says on 27/Aug/09
I would say that taker is anywhere from 6'7.5'' 6'8''. its obvious people! kevin nash was a full 6'10'' in the early to mid 90s and had about 2-2.5 on taker, and that would put taker 6'7.5''-6'8''. also, about the whole tyler mane ordeal, i would say that mane would be 1-1.5 taller than taker.
nash-6'10'' peak today a tad under
taker 6'7.5''-6'8'' not sure if he lost height or not. hes not that old.
tyler mane 6'8.5- 6'9'' and change. anywhere in that range
kane 6'7-6'7.5 judging by the video not posted long ago. and according to footwear. taker appears to be a little taller.
sid eudy 6'7''
dan spivey 6'6 today 6'6.5-6'7'' pre to the mid 90s. he wasnt all that short next to nash.
mable aka big daddy v- Its kind of hard to judge this one because of footwear, but I would be willing to bet that hes about 6'6.5 maybe 6'6.75. according to that one photo of he and the football star. nevertheless, these men are huge!!!
other estimates would be:
one man gang- 6'6'' appeared about two inches taller than 6'4'' big bossman.
hogan pre to early 90s. 6'5
jake the snake-6'5'' maybe a little change. peak at times he looked about 6'6''-6'7'' in boots. so about 6'4'' today he and orton appeared the same roughly
john studd a legit 6'7'' barefoot
kamala 6'4'' had an action figure that billed him 6'2''hes clearly taller than that. but today he maybe a tad shorter than orton or around the same.
big show 6'11.5''
khali-7'0.5
ron reis 7'0.5-7'1''
john nord-6'6
crush 6'5
adam bomb 6'5-6'5.25
earthquake 6'6
tugboat 6'5.5
jbl 6'6.25
goldust 6'5
scott hall 6'4.5''-6'5
papa shango 6'4''
giant gonzales right around 7'7''
all of these are barefoot heights. i could be wrong, but they seem accurate.
two more are mideon and mark canterbury
id give mideon 6'5'' and mark about 6'4 and change, not much under mideon. Anonymous says on 26/Aug/09
And once again, warrior is a tad taller than sting.
warrior 6'1 1/2 and sting 6'1 hs2009 says on 23/Aug/09
Thanks JT, Dutch looks about 5'11" next to Sting & Warrior.
I'd say The Undertaker looks a good 6'8" with Mantel. JT says on 23/Aug/09
hs2009 says on 23/Aug/09
Undertaker with 6'1" billed Dutch Mantel in April 1989, when he was only 24 (& had no tattoos!):
Click Here
I have no idea how tall Mantel is legit.
Probably in the 5'10" to 5'11" range: Click Here That's Ultimate Warrior to his right. Here's Mantell in what appears to be cowboy boots with Sid Eudy (also in cowboy boots) and Kevin Nash in tennis shoes: Click Here hs2009 says on 23/Aug/09
Undertaker with 6'1" billed Dutch Mantel in April 1989, when he was only 24 (& had no tattoos!):
Click Here
I have no idea how tall Mantel is legit. Paul says on 22/Aug/09
Minimum 2 in difference, probably around 2.5. Electric says on 22/Aug/09
er less than 6'7". Electric says on 20/Aug/09
Danimal, you can't find one clip of WWF footage where Vis was called anything less than 6'6" by a commentator. Electric says on 20/Aug/09
I'm thinking:
Undertaker- 6'8"-6'8.5"
Kane- 6'7.5"
Mabel- 6'6.5" Frank says on 19/Aug/09
I would say theres a 2 in difference Shock says on 18/Aug/09
He definitely comes out 3" taller when Mabel is looking down, but Mabel's also doing some weird stuff with his feet at that point. It's definitely somewhere between 1" and 3" though lol. James N. says on 18/Aug/09
In the video Red posted on August 8th, Undertaker is CONSIDERABLY taller than Mabel (pause at 4:41). Go back and watch it again. Even with the Mohawk, he's more than one inch taller than Mabel. To be fair, you can't tell how good or bad each guy's posture is, but, based on what we can see, Undertaker is 3"+ taller, not including the Mohawk. Even if Mabel is under 6'6", Taker still comes out to 6'8"+. Shock says on 18/Aug/09
Danimal, you have to really evaluate information sources and disregard anything post under bios on WWE . com. It is notorious for arbitrary and poor billing. For the most part, they are pretty vague, and subsequently fairly accurate, but you can't deny that serious errors are made on a regular basis. This is enough to dismiss anything they post because it's unreliable.
For example, Undertaker's weight bill was dropped to 299 lbs on TV, and for a very long time, wwe . com had him listed as 295 lbs. That's a generic bill, and poor communication error. It's obvious, and I don't understand how you can misunderstand that. 295 was not his bill and it never was. It was eventually changed to 299, obviously when someone noticed it. We know that Undertaker probably weighs a good 15 lbs less than that right now, but regardless, 295 was not his bill. That alone should be enough to get you to realize that you put far too much stock in random bills. Roddy Piper said Undertaker was 6'5" on TV once, whoops, guess he's no taller than that. Where do you draw the line?
It's not just simply "WWE" announcing it. Kozlov is billed 6'8" on WWE.com, but JR consistently refers to him as 6'6". Which bill is right? Obviously JR's but only based on serious evaluation. JR is also known for giving guys 2 or 3 different bills, but they generally range from their actual height, perhaps a round up, through to their high bill, really no different from wwe . com, but at least we know JR has some credibility. Someone, however, clearly made a mistake with Kozlov's bill.
If BDV was never consistently referred to as 6'6" on TV (and he probably never was ever), then obviously, OBVIOUSLY, there was poor communication when he was listed that on the website 10 years ago, seeing as since his debut in 1993 throughout 2008, he was forever and always billed 6'8" and 6'9". There's a good chance anyone who has access to editing that information could be unqualified to do so. It's not like Joey Styles goes through every page, and measures the wrestlers and gives them a bill, or calls up Vince and says "Hey what are we billing Viscera as a face?" "6'6" IS GOOD HAHA!"
The 3rd party is the person who posts the bill, and it's could even be some intern who doesn't like wrestling or can't comprehend a wrestling bill.
This is some seriously ridiculous pig-headedness, and I see you do it all the time. You take the lowest bill someone was given that you just happened to see or hear, and assume that's the max height they could possibly since it's sometimes close to their actual height. "This is his MAX height, don't you dare go over it." BS. You are arguing down 0.5" based on hearsay and conjecture, while others here are trying to argue things up and down based on reasonable doubt and visual evidence.
Do you think Dennis Knight is 6'3"? because that's the lowest bill he's gotten on wwe .com. WWE announced that according to you, so that must be correct. That would mean he's could be as short as 6'1" based on wrestling bill consistency. Dennis Knight is absolutely, beyond all doubt, very clearly 6'5" or taller. Danimal says on 17/Aug/09
Shock on The Undertaker
Just because 6'6" was his lowest bill, doesn't mean he actually was 6'6" even or less. It would more likely suggest he's between 6'4" and 6'5" which is completely and totally impossible. 6'6" sounds like some poor 3rd party communication since he's been thoroughly billed 6'8" and 6'9" throughout his career otherwise.
If you consider the WWE announcing him at 6'6" a 3rd part communication, then fine. Joe says on 16/Aug/09
Click Here
^ ^ ^ ^ in this video from 3.45+ its from 2003 where kane had stopped wearing heels. (you can clearly tell he isnt wearing any) taker and kane stand right next to each other and undertaker is a good 1-1.5 inch taller than him. I've always considered undertaker at 6.8 or 6.85. I also remember once on smackdown in 2003 i think he fought kurt angle and they made a mistake on the stats screen and put undertaker as 6'8. Which makes Kane about 6'7.... which makes me laugh because he recently conducted a UK interview for a news channel where he stated he was 7' lol Shock says on 16/Aug/09
Just because 6'6" was his lowest bill, doesn't mean he actually was 6'6" even or less. It would more likely suggest he's between 6'4" and 6'5" which is completely and totally impossible. 6'6" sounds like some poor 3rd party communication since he's been thoroughly billed 6'8" and 6'9" throughout his career otherwise.
WWE has billed some mid carders are very unrealistically low heights. The biggest one I can think of is Dennis Knight who was billed 6'3" and actually is closer to 6'6".
In fact, Earthquake was billed as low as 6'4" and the guy was obviously beyond all doubt very near if not 6'6". To further that, I met him in October, 1999 on an indy show we did together, he immediately came off as 6'6", a clear head taller than me.
Ted DiBiase also, billed 6'3" religiously and today he is billed 6'1" on his alumni page, which is very likely his current height. He was very obviously closer to 6'4" at his peak and should have been billed 6'5".
Jacques Rougeau was billed anywhere from 6'1" to 6'3" and very clearly is 6'2" today at age 49.
Sting is billed 6'2" and probably a little taller than that, should be billed 6'4".
Vis when compared to Max Starks is nearly 6'7", probably 6'6.5" - 6'6.75", also when compared to Kane, comes out less than 1" shorter in comparable footwear. There's no way Kane's under 6'7".
Undertaker: 6'8.25"
Kane 6'7.5"
Big Daddy V: 6'6.75" Derek says on 14/Aug/09
Danimal says on 13/Aug/09
"Mabel was billed at 6'6" at one time. He's not over that."
That too, but also take into consideration that Mabel at that time wore big boots(lifts very possible) and still was not taller than Taker. 6'8" and 6'6" is plausible. Danimal says on 13/Aug/09
Red says on 8/Aug/09
Click Here good quality vid from KOTR1995
Undertaker looks a solid inch taller than 6´6.5" Mabel.
peak Undertaker 6´7.5"-6´8"
Mabel was billed at 6'6" at one time. He's not over that. Shock says on 12/Aug/09
I posted a high quality video of the staredown in Mabel vs Taker from KotR a little while back. Taker definitely about 1-1.25" taller but still at a boot disadvantage. More than likely between 1.5" and 1.75" taller in the end. Mabel somewhere around 6'6.75". Frank says on 10/Aug/09
Red i think Taker looks more than an inch taller dont let Mabels Mohawk throw you off Red says on 8/Aug/09
Click Here good quality vid from KOTR1995
Undertaker looks a solid inch taller than 6´6.5" Mabel.
peak Undertaker 6´7.5"-6´8" JMan says on 4/Aug/09
I'm 5'7. I got to meet Taker about a year ago in an airport. He had well over a foot on me. I would buy him being up to about 6'9 nick, says on 3/Aug/09
dave i was always wondering who that was. i figured he was about 6'1 as well. good identifying him dave says on 1/Aug/09
Very interesting pic of undertaker and current megadeth guitarist chris broderick.
Click Here
Having met broderick he is a STRONG 6'1... i am 6'1 barefoot and i had to stand fully straight to be his height. Broderick has claimed 6'2 in the past but i dont think hes quite that. Strong barefoot 6'1 is fair though.
now imagine if taker was fully straight his nose would be at the top of brodericks head (keep in mind broderick has long hair, therefore 1 inch elevation from the top of his skull.... there would be a clear 7 inch difference giving the length of takers head. This gives alot of evidence to suggest a legit 6'8 taker. who could have lost a half inch in height by this age considering surgeries etc. Shock says on 27/Jul/09
I emailed Rob about the username issue but he never responded.
Undertaker = 6'8 3/8" lol says on 26/Jul/09
if undertaker is 6 foot 7.5 (202 cm) then nathan jones is 6 foot 8 (203 cm) not 6 foot 10 (208 cm) Da Man says on 25/Jul/09
No, no, no Danimal, didn't you see his/their pics? LOL edi says on 24/Jul/09
i dont belive that undertaker is 6 foot 7.5,he has to be at least 6 foot 9 i think he's 6 foot 10 in boots 6 foot 11 Frank says on 24/Jul/09
Hey Rob how come all my pictures were taking off ??
[Editor Rob: this one's showing again, I moved the site a few weeks ago from one server to another and was deleting glenn pictures so point any out and I'd fix it.] Danimal says on 24/Jul/09
WHY are you posting both under SHOCK AND ELECTRIC? YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON. YOU DO REALIZE THAT, RIGHT? mike says on 24/Jul/09
if tripleh is 6,4" in wrestling boots then taker is 6,7". mike says on 24/Jul/09
Taker has 3 inches on triple h. Da Man says on 23/Jul/09
Rantsrob says on 23/Jul/09
"Shock, i find you to be no more then a really nerdy undertaker mark."
LOL! Shock says on 23/Jul/09
Yes, Akebono's boots are as thin as possible, but Albert's boots are not as thick in their match as they are vs Taker. I believe both Akebono and Taker are about 1.5" taller than Albert in even footwear/barefoot, but I don't think Albert is an even 6'6". Taker's boots vs Albert are not exactly Skechers style, more than likely half the thickness of traditional work boots because the soles are practically invisible like Akebono's in the front but have a small heel in the very back maybe half the size of Albert's or smaller. Completely unusual style though to say the least. Albert's look like standard 3x5 layered wrestling boots which = 1.5" Rantsrob says on 23/Jul/09
Shock, i find you to be no more then a really nerdy undertaker mark. JT says on 22/Jul/09
Shock says on 22/Jul/09
....Before anyone starts claiming "But Akebono is more taller than Albert and he's 6'8"!" In their actual match, Akebono has less of a footwear disadvantage than Undertaker vs Albert. I would say there's a chance Akebono and Undertaker are the same height or Undertaker is very slightly if at all taller....
Sorry - not buying it. Akebono's boots with Albert were about as thin as they come. Click Here Taker's boots with Albert had a decent sized heel. Click Here IIRC, they were Skechers-style casual boots.
In your great pic of Albert/Akebono, Akebono is not even trying to stand tall, unlike Albert, who I will give a full 6’6”. It's obvious given the respective level of their shoulders. Plus, Akebono does not have a small noggin. Shock says on 22/Jul/09
Kane's original boots throughout most of 1998 were approximately 2" (dubbed "super lifts" "platforms" or "Munsters" on here ::eyeroll::). He had similar looking boots eventually that could have been slightly smaller while still using this attire. The boot heel look different but it's hard to tell the thickness. Undertaker's boots between the time Kane arrived to when Undertaker left in late 1999 were approximately .5", *possibly* .75" but they look like 1 layer front, 2 layer in the back. Really in the most technical sense that's .6". Kane's today are smaller than they use to be, they are 2 layers in the front and 5 layers in the back, which = 1.5", with a steady arch incline 0.9", so I doubt he loses much if any height. Undertaker's boots are 3 layers front, 4 layers in the back, apprpximately 1.2", arch difference of .3" and I doubt he loses any height at all from that. When you're dealing with such small height differences you have to account for everything.
If you subtract .5" from Kane's boots, and add .75" to Undertaker's boots, the old difference is gone and reversed, but Kane's boots are still thicker by one layer and he comes out shorter. This is how it appears today.
Breaking down the Undertaker - Kane 1998 staredown like a jerk: Undertaker's head when rotated more straight up and down, is approximately 260 pixels tall and his head in actuality is approximately 11" tall (believe it or don't but it definitely is based endless comparisons). This gives us a more accurate pixels to inch ratio than if we took the measurement as is and said 10.5" is close enough to 11". At the center of their eyes there is an approximate 1.25" difference. Undertaker has a .5" taller head above the eyes and below the eyes than Kane, coming out to a 1" taller head. That knocks the difference we see in that image down 1.25" to .75".
Click Here for a hybrid with shaved head Kane.
Next, Kane's boots are at least 1" thicker. That knocks the difference down to minimum of -0.25", but possibly to -.75" depending on the true difference between the boots. Today I get their height difference to be about 2 cm/0.8", in favor of Taker.
Click Here I adjusted the ropes so they no longer favor Taker so go with the red and purple lines, and not the blue. We see a .5" difference here, and then we need to compensate for boots. Not for nothing but MVP coming out about 6'0.75" here, which is what he seemed like when I met him (6'1" max vs 6'3" bill).
Now, before anyone starts crying "But Undertaker is only .5" taller than Albert! Watch their match from 2001! He was listed 6'6" from college sports so Undertaker is only 6'6.5!" go and watch that match again, and take note that Undertaker's boots are practically leather socks. They are very small compared to Albert's. Albert is approximately 1.5" shorter than Taker or more after taxes, and I believe Albert is closer to 6'7" than 6'6", as college sports' generic to the inch listings mean nothing to me and they shouldn't mean much to anyone else since we all deal in fractions of an inch and they tend to not. They can write anything and there are reasons to list some athletes as rounded down based on their utilization. Albert is significantly taller than Test who was definitely right around 6'6". Part of that was boots, and part of that was because Albert is probably not a cut and dry 6'6" even. There's also a chance that Albert's forehead lump anomaly helps him more than you would think when his head is tilted back: Click Here
Akebono in small footwear, Albert looks to have some kind of boots on. This difference looks no more than Taker vs Albert, and suffice it to say, it doesn't surprise me at all. Albert here by comparison comes out 6'7.5" but has at least 1" footwear advantage, and slight camera advantage. Forehead lump FTW.
Before anyone starts claiming "But Akebono is more taller than Albert and he's 6'8"!" In their actual match, Akebono has less of a footwear disadvantage than Undertaker vs Albert. I would say there's a chance Akebono and Undertaker are the same height or Undertaker is very slightly if at all taller.
The real bottom line is, Kane is no less than 6'7.5" as provided by Mamun's picture and that he is slightly taller than Max Starks at 6'7" by comparison with Big Ben. Undertaker is taller than Kane. Undertaker is at least 6'8" even. Electric says on 21/Jul/09
In the 1998 video, Undertaker has REALLY small boots. As small as Austins. He wore smaller boots to help make Kane look bigger.
In the 1999 video he's wearing boots that are maybe half an inch smaller than Kane's, but still decent sized. Ray says on 21/Jul/09
Vegas: Either Kane's boots aren't as large as they were during his debut and up to Da Man's video or Undertaker's boots give him a little more boost than they did previously - if that is the case, then Undertaker finally had on footwear that was similar to Kane's (but not as large) and shows Kane is no taller. Even if Taker's boots gave him a little more boost during his ministry era, they don't look larger than Kane's. Are you telling me Taker has larger boots in that video than Kane? I don't think so. To me, that shows Taker is taller and always was. Even today, Kane has larger boots and they look very close in height (talking .5"); barefoot=Taker taller. Vegas says on 20/Jul/09
so how do you explain your video Ray, you say kane is still in bigger boots but undertaker has grown from Da Mans video to yours, why do you think that is?? Ray says on 20/Jul/09
Da Man: that's not Ministry era Taker. The pic and video you posted are before Taker's ministry days when Kane was wearing the largest boots of his life. Ministry era Taker is when he had the Ministry of Darkness and also the Corporate Ministry. Here's a good one from his Corporate Ministry days. Look at 5:15 on and you'll see they are both around same height but Taker has the very slightest edge IMO even with Kane's bigger boots (look at back top of Taker's head). Taker also looks more massive than Kane as well during this time. Here's the vid:
Click Here Da Man says on 19/Jul/09
Kane and ministry era Taker. This is what happens when Kane wears the big boots: Click Here
Stare down begins around 5:38 in the video: Click Here Shock says on 15/Jul/09
I don't think Taker was a whole lot heavier in 1999, they were pretty close in weight though. They both look right around 300, maybe 295 for Kane 305 for Taker. Taker's heaviest was around 2000, he claims 350, he might have been that heavy while he was out of action. He also wore some pretty baggy clothing regularly for a while and referred to himself as a "fat pirate" lol.
As for the staredown in the 1999 clip, they come out virtually identical height and Kane's boots are about double the thickness of Taker's at the time, probably .75" for Taker and 1.5" for Kane. They definitely aren't the same boots he wore when he first came around, which made him look taller than Taker. Ray says on 14/Jul/09
Click Here good one of Undertaker (Ministry days) and Kane. Watch from 5:12 on and specifically at 5:15 on when they have a close up staredown. Undertaker looks to edge out Kane in height and Kane's boots look bigger. Undertaker also is more massive than Kane here as well. Kane really was trimmed down during this time period or it looks that way since Taker was bigger. Like Drexyl said, Kane got bigger again and was monstrous around 2000-2001 when he wore the tank top. Andrew says on 8/Jul/09
Undertaker 350 ibs at American Bad Ass. Drexyl says on 7/Jul/09
Undertaker was almost certainly heavier than Kane in 1999. Kane went from being very thick and heavily built in '98 to what you saw in that video, and then he started to get big again around the middle of 2000. Ray says on 4/Jul/09
Here'a an interesting video: Click Here
Shows how big Undertaker really was during the ministry era. He gets in the ring with Kane at around 7:30 on. Not that it has much merit since there's no staredown but at a glance it looks like Undertaker is taller (even with Kanes large boots) and aside from that, Undertaker very well may have also weighed more than Kane/had more mass at this time than him. Again, doesn't hold too much merit but it's worth a watch and certainly entertaining that Undertaker may have been all around bigger than Kane at this time. Undertaker looked 300 lbs.+ for sure there and was probably around his actual billed weight of 328 lbs. Shock says on 3/Jul/09
Rob have you checked the recent posts yet? Da Man says on 30/Jun/09
"Being Correct Disorder?"
If that's a disorder then rest easy, because you are symptom free. :) Shock says on 29/Jun/09
Being Correct Disorder? Danimal says on 29/Jun/09
Shock says on 27/Jun/09
No, I'm Shock, and use to post as "Shock of Electric" until "Electric Shock" (now just "Electric") started making posts on here because even I found it confusing. I honestly don't remember ever posting as "Electric Shock" in 2007, but I guess I did. I mean it was over 18 months ago.
There is medication for your disorder. Shock says on 28/Jun/09
I guess Rob isn't going to check where he will see all the posts in the last 2 months made by Electric were from a different person. It should also be noted that clearly Electric uses a photobucket account to post pic comparisons, and I use my own website. I don't think the name "Electric Shock" was even used between December 6th, 2007 and May of 2009. Rob, I'm curious, as to how many times I did post as "Electric Shock" in 2007? Other than that post, in which I even refer to Electric (the other "avid billbuster"), I only see one post in the Nathan Jones thread which happens to still show posts from 2007 and was on the same day. Maybe a couple vs the dozens made by a different IP in the last two months. I know from running my own board that you have to do a little bit of research at times with this stuff when vbulletin sends out a message about dup account posting. I've had users who can't speak english very well have friends on the site post for them as a translator so it looks like the same person is posting from two different locations. Da Man says on 28/Jun/09
Electric says on 26/Jun/09
"Click Here - have a nice day."
LMAO! I wonder how much you paid your buddy to hold that sign up for you. TexasWrestling says on 27/Jun/09
The Undertaker's height is 6 ft 7.5 in (202 cm)
peak height was 6 ft 8 in (203 cm)
John Layfield's height is 6 ft 5.5 in (197 cm)
peak height was 6 ft 6 in (198 cm)
Jake Roberts's height is 6 ft 4.75 in (195 cm)
peak height was 6 ft 5.5 in (197 cm)
those are my estimated heights from my fellow Texas born wrestlers drk says on 27/Jun/09
this is why this site needs accounts... Shock says on 27/Jun/09
No, I'm Shock, and use to post as "Shock of Electric" until "Electric Shock" (now just "Electric") started making posts on here because even I found it confusing. I honestly don't remember ever posting as "Electric Shock" in 2007, but I guess I did. I mean it was over 18 months ago.
But getting back on topic, I still want to know why no one is really saying anything about the series of pics Tom posted. I would call it a smoking gun, and say that clearly Undertaker is a minimum of .5" taller than Kane. Danimal says on 26/Jun/09
So now you're Electric, Shock, Shock of Electric and Electric Shock and you're all supposed to be different???? Shock says on 26/Jun/09
As of May 31st in this thread and in the Kane thread, May 17th in the Hogan thread, June 7th in the Jesse Ventura thread which I've never even posted in, May 21st in Nathan Jones, (there are two 07 posts from me that were mine however), and I believe May 21st in the Sid thread, were all not made by me.
Again this is why I said that I would go by "Shock" to eliminate confusion. Electric says on 26/Jun/09
Rob...we started out as two people using one name, and gradually Matt decided to form his own splinter name, as we started to disagree on things. Electric says on 26/Jun/09
and yes I posted the 5/8ths just to get under your skin. I have no clue if that's accurate. Shock says on 26/Jun/09
But you didn't check Electric Shock's posts and see that it's coming from a very different computer? I think it's important to not leave anything out. Please confirm that so members know who is who and to not erroneously treat two people as one person.
[Editor Rob: What? I showed everybody the first 3 posts each of the usernames made and they all originated from the same computer.
so you can explain on December 6th 2007 how 'Electric Shock' posted from the same computer as Shock/Shock of Electric.
I'd love to hear it...] C says on 25/Jun/09
I thought Taker was 6'10 and Kane was 7'0 Shock says on 24/Jun/09
No, he has an approximately 11" tall head. It may be hard to believe at say 6'7.5", but at 6'8" or taller it isn't. If there is say, 2.5" under his mouth, and you are at all below that, it would leave nearly 9" above (since some people don't like referring to 1/4" increments). Compare his skull to anyone else and you will see shocking results. Undertaker's forehead (eyebrows and above) is almost 5" alone. The top of his head is 2/3 - 3/4 into that hat in the picture here.
And btw, I still cannot believe there is any doubt as to Taker being taller than Kane. Kane cannot be any shorter than 6'7.5" and Taker is no less than .5" taller. Clay says on 23/Jun/09
Thats bizarre how anyone could see Undertaker n inch taller than Kane currently. Rantsrob says on 23/Jun/09
Shock says on 21/Jun/09
In the pics Tom posted with Kane and MVP, Taker is between .5" and .75" taller than Kane and that's not counting boots, and even when you correct the ropes to be even, since they favor Taker slightly. This agrees with what I've been suggesting all along.
Undertaker = 6'8.25" as of 2007, unlikely to be any shorter today, or any taller in the 90s, unless we want to go up to 6'8.5" or more. I would suggest Kane has lost some height as I believe he was nearly the same height as Taker during the Yankem gimmick.
He is 8.5" taller than Frank in the pic here, with his traditional headlean. Closer to 9" at full posture.
9'' taller? I dont think taker has a 14'' head.. Da Man says on 23/Jun/09
Here's what "Shock of Electric" claimed on the Kane page:
Shock of Electric says on 5/Jun/09
"First off, I am not the same person as Electric Shock, I would like to clarify that."
"They" do indeed share the same uncanny "ability" to nail height down to 1/4" increments based on nothing but photographs. It is really quite incredible. Paul says on 23/Jun/09
Danimal...maybe you shoud treat them as live, neutral and earth. See if you can see a live spark. Danimal says on 22/Jun/09
Rob, serious question here. Is SHOCK, Electric SHOCK and SHOCK of electric all the same person??? I'm sure they are seeing they all use the .25" and .75" measurements. Why not expose this split personality user?
[Editor Rob: yes treat shock/electric as the same poster.] Shock says on 22/Jun/09
Undertaker- 6'8.25"
Kane- 6'7.5"
Big Daddy V- 6'6.75"
JBL- 6'5.25"
Batista- 6'3.75"
Edge- 6'3.5"
Triple H- 6'2.75"
MVP- 6'0.75" Anonymous says on 22/Jun/09
Undertaker- 6'6.75"
Kane- 6'7"
Big Daddy V- 6'6.5"
JBL- 6'6"
Edge- 6'3"
Batista- 6'2.5"
Triple H- 6'1.75"
MVP- 6'0.25" Shock says on 21/Jun/09
In the pics Tom posted with Kane and MVP, Taker is between .5" and .75" taller than Kane and that's not counting boots, and even when you correct the ropes to be even, since they favor Taker slightly. This agrees with what I've been suggesting all along.
Undertaker = 6'8.25" as of 2007, unlikely to be any shorter today, or any taller in the 90s, unless we want to go up to 6'8.5" or more. I would suggest Kane has lost some height as I believe he was nearly the same height as Taker during the Yankem gimmick.
He is 8.5" taller than Frank in the pic here, with his traditional headlean. Closer to 9" at full posture. Electric Shock says on 21/Jun/09
Undertaker- 6'8.25"
Kane- 6'7.5"
Big Daddy V- 6'6.75"
JBL- 6'5"
Edge- 6'3.5"
Batista- 6'3.5"
Triple H- 6'2.75"
MVP- 6'0.75" Anonymous says on 21/Jun/09
Ray, Undertaker is 6'6.75 and 6'7.5 in wrestling boots I'd say. Also quite thin so he isn't so intimidating these days as when he was taller and heavier built.
JBL can easily reach Undertaker's height and more when he wears bigger boots. He is about 6'8.25 in cowboy boots and then outsizes UT. Triple H is nearly 6'2. Ray says on 20/Jun/09
Come on 6'6"-6'6.5" today; that is too low. Also, how did he lose 2" in height? I could see an inch but he really looks pretty much the same height as he always did. Most of the time he looks and hunches down since most are shorter but the times he does stand straight he looks darn tall to me; lowest I will go for him is 6'7" and that is still too low. 6'7" and change and probably 6'8" still is his height. Take a look at this backstage HHH and Taker staredown. Triple H is 6'2" and probably at least 6'3" in his boots if not slightly more. Look at Taker looking down on HHH.
Click Here Danimal says on 19/Jun/09
Clay says on 19/Jun/09
If you ask Danimal the veteran....the Undertaker is 6'6''?
6'6"-6'6.5" today, YES. 6'7.5"-6'8" in the 1990's. Clay says on 19/Jun/09
If you ask Danimal the veteran....the Undertaker is 6'6''? titan says on 18/Jun/09
I do think that undertakers height needs lookin at again,i just dont agree with the height stated on this page. undertaker is definately a legit 6ft 8in even could be 6ft 8.5in. I just know this height aint right. Clay says on 17/Jun/09
6'8'' very well may be legit. Frank says on 16/Jun/09
Whats Funny Titan when i asked how tall he was he told me 6ft 9 and i believed him he looked it and also he could have said 6ft 10 so i thought he was telling the truth titan says on 16/Jun/09
I definately do think that the undertaker is 6ft 8inches because i have heard him state it in an interview and if he was going to lie he would of said 6ft 10in, which is his wrestling height. Frank says on 15/Jun/09
Titan, Taker and Paul Bearer were about on the same plane i was behind them so i was looking alittle taller Go to the Gary Sinise page and see how much taller i am than a 5ft 8 person but Gary could also be 5ft 7.5 ?? Taker is a Big Dude take my word on that!! titan says on 14/Jun/09
Editor Rob. You need to have a photo with the undertaker yourself then we could really prove it. On the photo that u have showing everyone looks uneven. hs2009 says on 12/Jun/09
Kurt Angle ALWAYS exaggerates. He's an amazing athlete but can talk a load of rubbish & rewrite history when it suits him.
I still can't see any significant height loss for The Undertaker, I just watched the Royal Rumble 2009 & he was about 3" taller than 6'5" Mike Knox. His boots didn't look anything special either IMO. Still a strong 6'7.5" for me, perhaps 6'8" on a good day. Shock of Electric says on 10/Jun/09
Taker comes up to Khali's eyes so there's no way Khali's got more than 5" on him. For 6" Taker would have to come up to the middle of his nose. It's more like 4.75", and that's based on Khali with an 11.5" tall head. His is somewhere in height between Taker's and Big Show's.
I think the reason why people downgrade Taker is because of something like Big John Studd's 6'10" bill, which was about 3" more than he actually was, and I believe this was to cover the gap somewhat for Andre's ridiculous 7'4" bill. In fact at times Studd was billed near 7' similarly to Kane. People probably assume that 6'10.5" is just his actual height + 3". Taker's 6'10.5" bill lines up a bit bette with guys like Sid's 6'9" bill, Hogan 6'8", Akeem 6'9", Issac Yankem 6'10" Nash 7', Big Show's original WWF 7'2", Khali 7'3", all 2-2.25" more than their peak heights.
Another big factor is how he leans his head forward, and how often he has smaller boots than his opponents. People still insist that he wore lifts during the Ministry era, he didn't, just really as tall as he comes out if not taller.
I've been saying, if Taker had his head straight up in the above pic, he'd look closer to 9" taller than Frank. Ray says on 9/Jun/09
"Clay says on 8/Jun/09
Taker is possibly 6 inches shorter than Khali."
I never saw this; all pics and vids look like 4" and max 5".
Not sure why people like to try and downgrade Undertaker so much. Danimal says on 8/Jun/09
Electric Shock says on 4/Jun/09
Danimal, Hogan comes out too close to Earthquake to be under 6'5". He'd have to be 6'5.5". Earthquake a proven legit 6'5.75".
Go onto Hilbilly Jim's website and you'll see a pic of Hilbilly Jim who is marginally taller than Earthquake. It's a picture from 2004 I believe. Earthquake was sick (dying of Cancer), but what's interesting is that Hogan was taller than Hilbilly Jim from 1985-1989 and her we see Hilbilly taller than Earthquake. Could that mean that Hogan would have been taller than Earthquake in the 1980's? Quite possibly imo. Maybe he really was close to 6'7" at one point. Danimal says on 8/Jun/09
Electric Shock says on 4/Jun/09
Danimal, Hogan comes out too close to Earthquake to be under 6'5". He'd have to be 6'5.5". Earthquake a proven legit 6'5.75".
Go onto Hilbilly Jim's website and you'll see a pic of Hilbilly Jim who is marginally taller than Earthquake. It's a picture from 2004 I believe. Earthquake was sick (dying of Cancer), but what's interesting is that Hogan was taller than Hilbilly Jim from 1985-1989 and her we see Hilbilly taller than Earthquake. Could that mean that Hogan would have been taller than Earthquake in the 1980's? Quite possibly imo. Maybe he really was close to 6'7" at one point. Clay says on 8/Jun/09
Taker is possibly 6 inches shorter than Khali. Rantsrob says on 7/Jun/09
Ahh old Hulk Hogan. The man with the most severe case of height loss in the history of man... mike says on 7/Jun/09
i see 4 inches between taker and khali,i,d go as far as to give taker max 6'9". ... says on 5/Jun/09
the Big Show 6'11.5
Andre the Giant 6'10.75
Kevin Nash 6'9
Undertaker 6'7.5
Kane 6'7
Big John studd 6'6.75
Sid Justice/Vicious 6'6'75
Hulk Hogan 6'5 Shock of Electric says on 5/Jun/09
Early 97 Undertaker's boots were 1", from mid 1997 to 1999, they were under 1". This works out very well in effort to make Kane appear taller than Undertaker considering Kane's boots were about 2" at the biggest. In 2000 to 2003, ocassionally Taker wore Tims style wrestling boots. They weren't actually Tims, but they were designed as such, giving him 1.25"-1.5", equal with Kane. During this time, Taker generally came out slightly tall than Kane. This is because Taker is bumped up .75" from the gothic era, and kane is down .5", eliminating the 1.25" boot advantage he had in 1997 to 1999.
As for Nathan Taker, I say max 1.25" difference. The Ben says on 4/Jun/09
Electric shock
Find some pics of taker in the minestry of darkness days...the man wore pretty huge lifts... Electric Shock says on 4/Jun/09
Danimal, Hogan comes out too close to Earthquake to be under 6'5". He'd have to be 6'5.5". Earthquake a proven legit 6'5.75". Electric Shock says on 4/Jun/09
The Ben, taker NEVER wore lifts. His boots were ALWAYS small.
The training video is the proof. Nathan Jones is only 1 inch taller. Danimal says on 4/Jun/09
Electricc Shock,
Hogan has been known to have said he underwent back sugery in the early 1990's, reducing his height by 1 1/4". If he was a FULL 6'6" in his younger days (which I believe he was), then he was down to 6'4 3/4" by the early 1990's and maintained that height until the late 90's at which point he was down to 6'4". After 2000, he went to a shade over 6'3". The Ben says on 4/Jun/09
The video with undertaker training jones is hard to argue with... Maybe taker was wearing lifts in his boots. (although in 2003 i dont remember him wearing lifts like he did in 1998-2000)
Going by that video i would say jones 6'9 taker 6'8... But going by all other evidence from the begining of the universe until the dawn of hulkamania and right through till today i would say jones 6'10, taker 6'7-8... Taker must have had bigger soles. Da Man says on 3/Jun/09
Just the opposite, actually. Electric Shock says on 3/Jun/09
Danimal
Hogan came out 6'5" with a distinct posture disadvantage against 6'5.75" Earthquake. If he had been in the same posture they would've been virtually identical. Hogan however, had about a layer of boot advantage, which would put him at 6'5.5".
If you want to ignore boots, since there's been so much disputing on the matter, Sid is 1.5" taller than Hogan, and Taker is 1" taller than Sid.
That'd put them at approximately:
Undertaker- 6'8"
Sid- 6'7"
Hogan- 6'5.5"
I can't buy Undertaker under 6'8", unless you want to bump Kane down to 6'7.25" or 6'7" even, as Undertaker is half an inch taller than Kane. Anonymous says on 3/Jun/09
T says on 3/Jun/09
hey guys, why does sid look taller than taker at WM 13??
Dunno why do you think ? Do you wear magic glasses ? T says on 3/Jun/09
hey guys, why does sid look taller than taker at WM 13?? Danimal says on 2/Jun/09
Electric Shock says on 31/May/09
Nathan Jones is NOT 6'10". He's only an inch taller than The Undertaker.
Frank, Hogan had lost height by the time he faced Sid. Hogan was 6'5.5" ish by the time he wrestled Sid. Sid also had a slight boot advantage of 1/4". Sid was never 2 full inches taller than Hogan, at least not until WCW.
I believe that Hogan was down to a FLAT 6'5" by the time he faced Sid and Taker in the early 1990's. kinggollum says on 2/Jun/09
Anonymous says on 20/May/09
peak heights:
Big Show 6'11
Andre the Giant 6'9 3/4 stood on a box for interviews
undertaker 6'7 1/4
Sid 6'7 1/2
big john studd 6'7 make an allowance for big boots
hogan 6'5 6'8 is a myth
hall 6'6
nash 7'1
Tell me your real name so I can put a name to my laughter. T says on 2/Jun/09
Paul says on 1/Jun/09
Jones is about 6'10, certainly no less than 6'9 1/2. Undertaker was I believe just over 6'8 when he was working with Nathan in the early 2000's. Sid was about 6'7 1/2-2/3 years ago.
I agree. if you want to lowball his height id say 6'8 so they should change it to 6'8 not 6'7.5 Electric Shock says on 1/Jun/09
Jones is 6'9.25" max. Paul says on 1/Jun/09
Jones is about 6'10, certainly no less than 6'9 1/2. Undertaker was I believe just over 6'8 when he was working with Nathan in the early 2000's. Sid was about 6'7 1/2-2/3 years ago. Electric Shock says on 31/May/09
Nathan Jones is NOT 6'10". He's only an inch taller than The Undertaker.
Frank, Hogan had lost height by the time he faced Sid. Hogan was 6'5.5" ish by the time he wrestled Sid. Sid also had a slight boot advantage of 1/4". Sid was never 2 full inches taller than Hogan, at least not until WCW. Anonymous says on 31/May/09
Nathan Jones is a legit 6`10 Frank says on 31/May/09
Sid was more than an inch taller than Hogan more like 2 to 2.5 Electric Shock says on 31/May/09
what I get for each guy as of winning their first WWF/E World title:
Great Khali- 7'1"
The Big Show- 6'11.5"
Andre The Giant- 6'11.25"
Kevin Nash- 6'9.75"
Undertaker- 6'8.25"
Kane- 6'7.75"
Sid- 6'7"
Hulk Hogan- 6'6" T says on 31/May/09
on you tube type in Undertaker trains Nathan Jones
he looks maybe 1/2" shorter than nathan jones who is 6'9 elvis himself says on 30/May/09
heres another vid of him as the punisher next to kerry von erich
Click Here |
