Add a Comment7822 comments
Average Guess (650 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 7.86in (202.9cm)
Current: 6ft 6.92in (200.5cm)
Peak: 6ft 7.86in (202.9cm)
Current: 6ft 6.92in (200.5cm)
Rantsrob said on 2/Mar/09
I changed my perspective on kanes height, i have recently become friends with someone who is a legit 6'6'' he dwarfs me at 5'11'' and if i didnt know his height i'd estimate 6'8''+. I just cant see how you people who meet him would be able to guage his height
I changed my perspective on kanes height, i have recently become friends with someone who is a legit 6'6'' he dwarfs me at 5'11'' and if i didnt know his height i'd estimate 6'8''+. I just cant see how you people who meet him would be able to guage his height
sid said on 1/Mar/09
Heres kane vs Test, kane looked to have 2'5 to 3 inches on kane considered lift, in reality 2'5 inches on test check it out Click Here
Heres kane vs Test, kane looked to have 2'5 to 3 inches on kane considered lift, in reality 2'5 inches on test check it out Click Here
RANDY said on 28/Feb/09
KANE IS 6'11" but his Monster footwear make him 7'00"
KANE IS 6'11" but his Monster footwear make him 7'00"
tuga said on 27/Feb/09
Sorry Da Man, about the boots I was refering the video with kane austin and vince mcmanon.
Sorry Da Man, about the boots I was refering the video with kane austin and vince mcmanon.
Da Man said on 26/Feb/09
I'm not sure what you're saying about footwear, tuga. The video you linked was only 1:17.
If you're saying Kane wasn't wearing the big boots in the video I pulled my screen cap from, then I agree. If you were saying he was, then I disagree.
Even still, he looks about 7" taller than Austin there. Austin was closer to the camera in my screen cap and still didn't reach Kane's nose.
I'm not sure what you're saying about footwear, tuga. The video you linked was only 1:17.
If you're saying Kane wasn't wearing the big boots in the video I pulled my screen cap from, then I agree. If you were saying he was, then I disagree.
Even still, he looks about 7" taller than Austin there. Austin was closer to the camera in my screen cap and still didn't reach Kane's nose.
tuga said on 26/Feb/09
Da Man, I agree with your estimate on austin, but about kane he is not wearing his monster boots (pause at 1:14 for example).
Click Here
eric 1 says on 25/Feb/09
if tuga could he would make kane 6ft4 on this site and taker 6ft10
You should go out kane
Da Man, I agree with your estimate on austin, but about kane he is not wearing his monster boots (pause at 1:14 for example).
Click Here
eric 1 says on 25/Feb/09
if tuga could he would make kane 6ft4 on this site and taker 6ft10
You should go out kane
eric 1 said on 25/Feb/09
if tuga could he would make kane 6ft4 on this site and taker 6ft10
if tuga could he would make kane 6ft4 on this site and taker 6ft10
nick said on 25/Feb/09
well at 1:15 taker is standing pretty straight compared to a somewhat slouched austin looks about 7 inches taller.
on 1:20 taker and austin kind of go toe to toe with taker looking 6 plus inches again. Now this is taker with good posture here. Austin at 6'1, will actuallly make himself around 6'2.5 or even 6'2.75 when he is with these guys. So if austin was 6'2.5 with shoes on taker can be close to 6'9 with his shoes on (likely 6'8.5 making undertaker around 6'7.5 which i believe is his height.
well at 1:15 taker is standing pretty straight compared to a somewhat slouched austin looks about 7 inches taller.
on 1:20 taker and austin kind of go toe to toe with taker looking 6 plus inches again. Now this is taker with good posture here. Austin at 6'1, will actuallly make himself around 6'2.5 or even 6'2.75 when he is with these guys. So if austin was 6'2.5 with shoes on taker can be close to 6'9 with his shoes on (likely 6'8.5 making undertaker around 6'7.5 which i believe is his height.
eric 1 said on 24/Feb/09
steve austin is an easy 6ft1 maybe a little over. Austins head only comes up to kanes nose and this is when kane didnot wear monster boots. How about the pic tuga with austin and taker in the video i posted how tall do you think taker is there??? here let me post it again for you . So in kanes normal foot wear austin comes up to kanes nose and you tell me the height difference with austin and taker. Click Here
steve austin is an easy 6ft1 maybe a little over. Austins head only comes up to kanes nose and this is when kane didnot wear monster boots. How about the pic tuga with austin and taker in the video i posted how tall do you think taker is there??? here let me post it again for you . So in kanes normal foot wear austin comes up to kanes nose and you tell me the height difference with austin and taker. Click Here
sid said on 24/Feb/09
tuga da man, kane had 3 inches on goldust, i seen kane and dustin, 2000 here kane always looked 3 inches taller, in that video kane was slouching not standing straight
tuga da man, kane had 3 inches on goldust, i seen kane and dustin, 2000 here kane always looked 3 inches taller, in that video kane was slouching not standing straight
Da Man said on 24/Feb/09
Here you go tuga, no rotation: Click Here
Austin is still very much closer to the camera though. I think with the initial rotation that difference is very close to the real difference between them with comparable posture AND if the same distance from the camera.
I believe Austin is around 6'1".
Kane's posture in the video you linked was just horrible, knees bent, feet wide apart, head way down, leaned forward, etc. This is the reason for the disparity, not footwear. That video has been discussed ad nauseum.
Here you go tuga, no rotation: Click Here
Austin is still very much closer to the camera though. I think with the initial rotation that difference is very close to the real difference between them with comparable posture AND if the same distance from the camera.
I believe Austin is around 6'1".
Kane's posture in the video you linked was just horrible, knees bent, feet wide apart, head way down, leaned forward, etc. This is the reason for the disparity, not footwear. That video has been discussed ad nauseum.
tuga said on 24/Feb/09
Da Man, I knew you would post that, but why not the video instead of the pic:
Click Here
Bu the way, you made a full review of kane goldust backstage video(good one), don
Da Man, I knew you would post that, but why not the video instead of the pic:
Click Here
Bu the way, you made a full review of kane goldust backstage video(good one), don
Red said on 23/Feb/09
Nice pic Da Man
I think its 1"-1.5 inches between them, Kane
Nice pic Da Man
I think its 1"-1.5 inches between them, Kane
Danimal said on 21/Feb/09
Peak Taker - 6'7.5"-6'8"
Sid - 6'7"
Peak Taker - 6'7.5"-6'8"
Sid - 6'7"
Da Man said on 21/Feb/09
gazz says on 20/Feb/09
"looking at that kane/taker picture staredown just posted by 'Da Man', kane looks to have 2.5 inches on taker if you look at the very top of his head, looks like a little mole hill goin on, saying this kane is closer to the camera so it could more like 1.5 inches?"
Here is Kane slightly further from the camera: Click Here
gazz says on 20/Feb/09
"looking at that kane/taker picture staredown just posted by 'Da Man', kane looks to have 2.5 inches on taker if you look at the very top of his head, looks like a little mole hill goin on, saying this kane is closer to the camera so it could more like 1.5 inches?"
Here is Kane slightly further from the camera: Click Here
KingNick said on 20/Feb/09
Not sure sure if this will help my point or not but at the tail end of this video is a staredown between Undertaker and Sid from 1997. The camera is titled up towards them and Sid actually appears the taller of the two and he's not tilting his head back. My point again is that Sid's features are higher but UT was taller
Click Here
On a side note, this was actually when I started wondering if wrestler's heights weren't accurate (I was a new fan at this point) b/c UT was billed as being taller but didn't look it here. Then I saw this other video a few months later and I was REALLY confused (staredown is towards the end)
Click Here
Not sure sure if this will help my point or not but at the tail end of this video is a staredown between Undertaker and Sid from 1997. The camera is titled up towards them and Sid actually appears the taller of the two and he's not tilting his head back. My point again is that Sid's features are higher but UT was taller
Click Here
On a side note, this was actually when I started wondering if wrestler's heights weren't accurate (I was a new fan at this point) b/c UT was billed as being taller but didn't look it here. Then I saw this other video a few months later and I was REALLY confused (staredown is towards the end)
Click Here
sid said on 20/Feb/09
KingNick They look atleast 5'8 to me
KingNick They look atleast 5'8 to me
Paul said on 20/Feb/09
Good to here back from you KingNick.
Some educated guys on here and a buffoon or two.
I will bring some new estimates out later.
Good to here back from you KingNick.
Some educated guys on here and a buffoon or two.
I will bring some new estimates out later.
gazz said on 20/Feb/09
looks a strong 6'8+ with that fan just posted
looking at that kane/taker picture staredown just posted by 'Da Man', kane looks to have 2.5 inches on taker if you look at the very top of his head, looks like a little mole hill goin on, saying this kane is closer to the camera so it could more like 1.5 inches?
looks a strong 6'8+ with that fan just posted
looking at that kane/taker picture staredown just posted by 'Da Man', kane looks to have 2.5 inches on taker if you look at the very top of his head, looks like a little mole hill goin on, saying this kane is closer to the camera so it could more like 1.5 inches?
KingNick said on 20/Feb/09
Paul, pretty good my man. Just enjoying celebheights!
Sid, any idea how tall any of those fans are in those photos?
Paul, pretty good my man. Just enjoying celebheights!
Sid, any idea how tall any of those fans are in those photos?
Da Man said on 19/Feb/09
KingNick says on 18/Feb/09
"I challenge anyone to measure UT's head to guys like Sid, Kane, HHH. I garuantee you UT's head will be longer."
You really can't group Kane's head size in with Sid and HHH. Kane has quite a bit of height above his eyes as well, maybe not quite as much as Taker, but FAR more than Sid or HHH.
Click Here
KingNick says on 18/Feb/09
"I challenge anyone to measure UT's head to guys like Sid, Kane, HHH. I garuantee you UT's head will be longer."
You really can't group Kane's head size in with Sid and HHH. Kane has quite a bit of height above his eyes as well, maybe not quite as much as Taker, but FAR more than Sid or HHH.
Click Here
sid said on 19/Feb/09
Heres Kane in street cloth with a fan, estimate how tall you think Kane is
Click Here
Heres Kane in street cloth with a fan, estimate how tall you think Kane is
Click Here
sid said on 19/Feb/09
I got a picture with a fan next to kane win street cloth, I don;t know how to post it.
I got a picture with a fan next to kane win street cloth, I don;t know how to post it.
sid said on 19/Feb/09
Da Man Kane looked 6'8 when I saw him a few weeks back, I'm still trying to retreive photos from a friend of mines, I estimated kane at 6'8 street cloth, in ring gear 6'9, no more then that
Da Man Kane looked 6'8 when I saw him a few weeks back, I'm still trying to retreive photos from a friend of mines, I estimated kane at 6'8 street cloth, in ring gear 6'9, no more then that
Paul said on 19/Feb/09
Hi KingNick how you doing ? You know UT wasn't receding in 1997 which is what many of the Sid comparisons relate to.
Hi KingNick how you doing ? You know UT wasn't receding in 1997 which is what many of the Sid comparisons relate to.
sid said on 19/Feb/09
Ok kingnick thanks.
Ok kingnick thanks.
Clay said on 18/Feb/09
Thats funny big Will since Glenn Jacobs himself claims 6'8.5.
Thats funny big Will since Glenn Jacobs himself claims 6'8.5.
Da Man said on 18/Feb/09
A legit 6'8" with Kane's build could pass for 6'10" to a lot of people.
A legit 6'8" with Kane's build could pass for 6'10" to a lot of people.
KingNick said on 18/Feb/09
Paul and Ranstrob, I don't disagree UT has a receding hairline. I just think his head is longer than Sid's which makes up the height difference and makes his height deceiving to other wrestlers. I've seen people measure the heads of wrestlers in the stare down photos. I challenge anyone to measure UT's head to guys like Sid, Kane, HHH. I garuantee you UT's head will be longer.
Sid, if you have a pic from a website, you have to copy and paste it in tinyurl.com to make it smaller and then post it here.
If it's a pic from your desktop or something, I think you have to drag it to the comment window, then shorten the URL on tinyurl.com
Paul and Ranstrob, I don't disagree UT has a receding hairline. I just think his head is longer than Sid's which makes up the height difference and makes his height deceiving to other wrestlers. I've seen people measure the heads of wrestlers in the stare down photos. I challenge anyone to measure UT's head to guys like Sid, Kane, HHH. I garuantee you UT's head will be longer.
Sid, if you have a pic from a website, you have to copy and paste it in tinyurl.com to make it smaller and then post it here.
If it's a pic from your desktop or something, I think you have to drag it to the comment window, then shorten the URL on tinyurl.com
M.o.r.g said on 18/Feb/09
Paul says on 16/Feb/09
KingNick, Rantsrob is right. Taker has been receding for some years. Thats why he had a close crop in the late 90's. I remember he had this cut for the match with RVD and he looked really evil with it. Could be on a DHT blocker which would explain why he still has a decent head of hair.
That wasnt late 90's.that was december 2001.
Paul says on 16/Feb/09
KingNick, Rantsrob is right. Taker has been receding for some years. Thats why he had a close crop in the late 90's. I remember he had this cut for the match with RVD and he looked really evil with it. Could be on a DHT blocker which would explain why he still has a decent head of hair.
That wasnt late 90's.that was december 2001.
sid said on 18/Feb/09
How do you post pictures on here.???
How do you post pictures on here.???
sid said on 18/Feb/09
Big Will thats bull, kane is 6'8, 6'9 in ring gear, I saw kane 2 weeks back I esitmated 6'8. I'm still trying to get pictures of kane sent to me from the show
Big Will thats bull, kane is 6'8, 6'9 in ring gear, I saw kane 2 weeks back I esitmated 6'8. I'm still trying to get pictures of kane sent to me from the show
Big Will said on 18/Feb/09
Hey guys new to this board. My name is Will, aka big will. I wrestled for Central States Wrestling in St. joseph Missouri for about five years and I was backstage at alot of WWE wresling shows even worked a few times as an Extra. I can promise you Kane and taker are both near the 6'10" mark. I am 6'4 bear foot and 6'6" when I wore my boots. ( which were custom made by stage coach who made kanes first boots). I met Glen jacobs aka kane at a show and he is every bit 6-10 close to seven with the boots on.
Hey guys new to this board. My name is Will, aka big will. I wrestled for Central States Wrestling in St. joseph Missouri for about five years and I was backstage at alot of WWE wresling shows even worked a few times as an Extra. I can promise you Kane and taker are both near the 6'10" mark. I am 6'4 bear foot and 6'6" when I wore my boots. ( which were custom made by stage coach who made kanes first boots). I met Glen jacobs aka kane at a show and he is every bit 6-10 close to seven with the boots on.
tuga said on 17/Feb/09
KingNick says on 15/Feb/09
Long forehead. Look through the whole album: Click Here
I agree KingNick.
KingNick says on 15/Feb/09
Long forehead. Look through the whole album: Click Here
I agree KingNick.
KingNick said on 16/Feb/09
Oh and Paul welcome back by the way
Oh and Paul welcome back by the way
Rantsrob said on 16/Feb/09
No more then .5 or less then a standard persons forehead.
No more then .5 or less then a standard persons forehead.
Paul said on 16/Feb/09
KingNick, Rantsrob is right. Taker has been receding for some years. Thats why he had a close crop in the late 90's. I remember he had this cut for the match with RVD and he looked really evil with it. Could be on a DHT blocker which would explain why he still has a decent head of hair.
KingNick, Rantsrob is right. Taker has been receding for some years. Thats why he had a close crop in the late 90's. I remember he had this cut for the match with RVD and he looked really evil with it. Could be on a DHT blocker which would explain why he still has a decent head of hair.
KingNick said on 15/Feb/09
Rantsrob says on 14/Feb/09
KingNick says on 13/Feb/09
Here's another thing about Undertaker's height. His features are very low and he has a long forehead so he can appear shorter than he actually is.
Tuga found a video that Red was nice enough to screen cap. A good close up of Sid and UT from WM 13 Click Here
If Sid wasn't tilting his head back his features would still be higher than UT's and he would appear at first glance to be taller. But in reality UT is taller because of his face and head are longer.
I think this is why he can appear shorter next to smaller wrestlers plus he rarely stands up straight to begin with unless it's with someone as tall or taller than him, which is rare, like The Great Khali.
Long forehead? Or just a reseeding hairline.
Long forehead. Look through the whole album: Click Here
Rantsrob says on 14/Feb/09
KingNick says on 13/Feb/09
Here's another thing about Undertaker's height. His features are very low and he has a long forehead so he can appear shorter than he actually is.
Tuga found a video that Red was nice enough to screen cap. A good close up of Sid and UT from WM 13 Click Here
If Sid wasn't tilting his head back his features would still be higher than UT's and he would appear at first glance to be taller. But in reality UT is taller because of his face and head are longer.
I think this is why he can appear shorter next to smaller wrestlers plus he rarely stands up straight to begin with unless it's with someone as tall or taller than him, which is rare, like The Great Khali.
Long forehead? Or just a reseeding hairline.
Long forehead. Look through the whole album: Click Here
Rantsrob said on 15/Feb/09
nick says on 14/Feb/09
Click Here pause at 11 seconds. here is taker standing straight with the rock. He looks like he is 6'8 plus
6'8'' at most with hefty boots on. Which are clearly seen a few seconds before 11 seconds.
nick says on 14/Feb/09
Click Here pause at 11 seconds. here is taker standing straight with the rock. He looks like he is 6'8 plus
6'8'' at most with hefty boots on. Which are clearly seen a few seconds before 11 seconds.
Anonymous said on 15/Feb/09
Taker does look a strong 6,8" there. The difference his posture makes is quite remarkable.
Taker does look a strong 6,8" there. The difference his posture makes is quite remarkable.
nick said on 14/Feb/09
Click Here pause at 11 seconds. here is taker standing straight with the rock. He looks like he is 6'8 plus
Click Here pause at 11 seconds. here is taker standing straight with the rock. He looks like he is 6'8 plus
Clay said on 14/Feb/09
LoL no worries Red.
LoL no worries Red.
Rantsrob said on 14/Feb/09
KingNick says on 13/Feb/09
Here's another thing about Undertaker's height. His features are very low and he has a long forehead so he can appear shorter than he actually is.
Tuga found a video that Red was nice enough to screen cap. A good close up of Sid and UT from WM 13 Click Here
If Sid wasn't tilting his head back his features would still be higher than UT's and he would appear at first glance to be taller. But in reality UT is taller because of his face and head are longer.
I think this is why he can appear shorter next to smaller wrestlers plus he rarely stands up straight to begin with unless it's with someone as tall or taller than him, which is rare, like The Great Khali.
Long forehead? Or just a reseeding hairline.
KingNick says on 13/Feb/09
Here's another thing about Undertaker's height. His features are very low and he has a long forehead so he can appear shorter than he actually is.
Tuga found a video that Red was nice enough to screen cap. A good close up of Sid and UT from WM 13 Click Here
If Sid wasn't tilting his head back his features would still be higher than UT's and he would appear at first glance to be taller. But in reality UT is taller because of his face and head are longer.
I think this is why he can appear shorter next to smaller wrestlers plus he rarely stands up straight to begin with unless it's with someone as tall or taller than him, which is rare, like The Great Khali.
Long forehead? Or just a reseeding hairline.
Ray said on 14/Feb/09
eric 1: what do you give Kane then 6'6.5" in street clothes? Kane and Taker are VERY close in height. I wouldn't say it's absurd to give Taker 6'6" but it is a low ball figure IMO.
eric 1: what do you give Kane then 6'6.5" in street clothes? Kane and Taker are VERY close in height. I wouldn't say it's absurd to give Taker 6'6" but it is a low ball figure IMO.
Vegas said on 14/Feb/09
undertaker/austin have a staredown during a match circa 1997, i can't find it atm though
undertaker/austin have a staredown during a match circa 1997, i can't find it atm though
Red said on 14/Feb/09
Sorry Clay I forgot the smiley, it was meant as a joke to support ;)
Sorry Clay I forgot the smiley, it was meant as a joke to support ;)
eric 1 said on 14/Feb/09
I agree with all of you. Camera Angle does play a role but i dont think hes more then 6ft6 in street clothes.
I agree with all of you. Camera Angle does play a role but i dont think hes more then 6ft6 in street clothes.
Rantsrob said on 13/Feb/09
Austin appears to come slightly above undertakers nose. No matter which way you cut it.
Austin appears to come slightly above undertakers nose. No matter which way you cut it.
KingNick said on 13/Feb/09
Here's another thing about Undertaker's height. His features are very low and he has a long forehead so he can appear shorter than he actually is.
Tuga found a video that Red was nice enough to screen cap. A good close up of Sid and UT from WM 13 Click Here
If Sid wasn't tilting his head back his features would still be higher than UT's and he would appear at first glance to be taller. But in reality UT is taller because of his face and head are longer.
I think this is why he can appear shorter next to smaller wrestlers plus he rarely stands up straight to begin with unless it's with someone as tall or taller than him, which is rare, like The Great Khali.
Here's another thing about Undertaker's height. His features are very low and he has a long forehead so he can appear shorter than he actually is.
Tuga found a video that Red was nice enough to screen cap. A good close up of Sid and UT from WM 13 Click Here
If Sid wasn't tilting his head back his features would still be higher than UT's and he would appear at first glance to be taller. But in reality UT is taller because of his face and head are longer.
I think this is why he can appear shorter next to smaller wrestlers plus he rarely stands up straight to begin with unless it's with someone as tall or taller than him, which is rare, like The Great Khali.
Red said on 13/Feb/09
Clay says on 13/Feb/09
Those were some mighty 3-3.5 inch lifts Undertaker was in when he got in the face of Khali then.
Thats insane, do you really think we
Clay says on 13/Feb/09
Those were some mighty 3-3.5 inch lifts Undertaker was in when he got in the face of Khali then.
Thats insane, do you really think we
tuga said on 13/Feb/09
KingNick says on 13/Feb/09
I'll repeat my post again. If you look past the 47 second mark, Undertaker is standing up straight from that point on and to me he looks taller than 6'6" there
You
KingNick says on 13/Feb/09
I'll repeat my post again. If you look past the 47 second mark, Undertaker is standing up straight from that point on and to me he looks taller than 6'6" there
You
Clay said on 13/Feb/09
Those were some mighty 3-3.5 inch lifts Undertaker was in when he got in the face of Khali then.
Those were some mighty 3-3.5 inch lifts Undertaker was in when he got in the face of Khali then.
KingNick said on 13/Feb/09
I'll repeat my post again. If you look past the 47 second mark, Undertaker is standing up straight from that point on and to me he looks taller than 6'6" there
Click Here
I'll repeat my post again. If you look past the 47 second mark, Undertaker is standing up straight from that point on and to me he looks taller than 6'6" there
Click Here
Danimal said on 12/Feb/09
eric 1 says on 11/Feb/09
Click Here
Look undertaker looks no more then 6ft6 in street clothes
Honestly, he looks to be MAX 6'5" there. I still think 2000 and before he would have been taller.
eric 1 says on 11/Feb/09
Click Here
Look undertaker looks no more then 6ft6 in street clothes
Honestly, he looks to be MAX 6'5" there. I still think 2000 and before he would have been taller.
sid said on 12/Feb/09
eric 1 The camera is far away from taker, he was slouching, taker 6'7 6'7'5 max these days, kane 6'8
eric 1 The camera is far away from taker, he was slouching, taker 6'7 6'7'5 max these days, kane 6'8
Alex said on 12/Feb/09
Big Show, yea that video is even closer. Looks only 4 inches there. Yea camera angles can make a difference.
Big Show, yea that video is even closer. Looks only 4 inches there. Yea camera angles can make a difference.
KingNick said on 12/Feb/09
As a matter of fact from the 47 second mark and on in that video UT is more or less standing straight showing the truer height difference Click Here
As a matter of fact from the 47 second mark and on in that video UT is more or less standing straight showing the truer height difference Click Here
KingNick said on 12/Feb/09
Big Show says on 12/Feb/09
Alex says on 12/Feb/09
Eric, I remember that video. Wow, Austin and Angle come much closer to UT than I've seen other times.
I think the closest Austin has ever looked against UT is in this video.
Click Here
Camera-angles and posture can do a lot.
If you pause at the 47 second mark on that video UT appears MUCH taller
Big Show says on 12/Feb/09
Alex says on 12/Feb/09
Eric, I remember that video. Wow, Austin and Angle come much closer to UT than I've seen other times.
I think the closest Austin has ever looked against UT is in this video.
Click Here
Camera-angles and posture can do a lot.
If you pause at the 47 second mark on that video UT appears MUCH taller
Big Show said on 12/Feb/09
Alex says on 12/Feb/09
Eric, I remember that video. Wow, Austin and Angle come much closer to UT than I've seen other times.
I think the closest Austin has ever looked against UT is in this video.
Click Here
Camera-angles and posture can do a lot.
Alex says on 12/Feb/09
Eric, I remember that video. Wow, Austin and Angle come much closer to UT than I've seen other times.
I think the closest Austin has ever looked against UT is in this video.
Click Here
Camera-angles and posture can do a lot.
Alex said on 12/Feb/09
Eric, I remember that video. Wow, Austin and Angle come much closer to UT than I've seen other times.
Eric, I remember that video. Wow, Austin and Angle come much closer to UT than I've seen other times.
eric 1 said on 11/Feb/09
Mike Knox is 6ft4 and change. Maybe 6ft5 max. By the way I bet undertaker wears lifts also .
Mike Knox is 6ft4 and change. Maybe 6ft5 max. By the way I bet undertaker wears lifts also .
Alex said on 11/Feb/09
I have seen in the past UT only look within a few inches of Rock and HHH. But that video is in Rock's favor.
I have seen in the past UT only look within a few inches of Rock and HHH. But that video is in Rock's favor.
sid said on 11/Feb/09
undertaker looks shorter with the rock, then kane does.. heres the link Click Here
undertaker looks shorter with the rock, then kane does.. heres the link Click Here
sid said on 10/Feb/09
This from lastnite raw, I believe cole said mike knox is 6'6, kane looks to have 3 inches, kane in ring 6'9, barefeet 6'8, seems like mike knox's true height Click Here
This from lastnite raw, I believe cole said mike knox is 6'6, kane looks to have 3 inches, kane in ring 6'9, barefeet 6'8, seems like mike knox's true height Click Here
Rantsrob said on 8/Feb/09
I always thought knox would stack up better to kane then he did. He really looks small next to kane in height and in mass.
I always thought knox would stack up better to kane then he did. He really looks small next to kane in height and in mass.
Rantsrob said on 8/Feb/09
M.o.r.g says on 8/Feb/09
Im surprised mike knox is that much shorter than kane.He looks like a shorter matt morgan.But u have to take into account kane's huge boots which have at LEAST 2 ins boost on the bottom,and no doubt built up inside too adding mumerous inches.Which would make him 6'6 at most with no shoes on.And royal rumble 2003 confirms taker is taller than kane too.
Your post is full fail.
M.o.r.g says on 8/Feb/09
Im surprised mike knox is that much shorter than kane.He looks like a shorter matt morgan.But u have to take into account kane's huge boots which have at LEAST 2 ins boost on the bottom,and no doubt built up inside too adding mumerous inches.Which would make him 6'6 at most with no shoes on.And royal rumble 2003 confirms taker is taller than kane too.
Your post is full fail.
tony said on 8/Feb/09
glenn says on 8/Feb/09
tony-why dont you leave the site? do you realise who i am? im the main contributer here.dont ever talk to me like that again.if people can post about danimals behaviour all over the site lately,then i can post my opinion without someone like you making a stupid comment.
i really dont care who are you glen
glenn says on 8/Feb/09
tony-why dont you leave the site? do you realise who i am? im the main contributer here.dont ever talk to me like that again.if people can post about danimals behaviour all over the site lately,then i can post my opinion without someone like you making a stupid comment.
i really dont care who are you glen
sid said on 8/Feb/09
Heres is a footage of chris jericho yesterday here in B.c getting into a fight with a fan, he does look short, check it out Click Here
Heres is a footage of chris jericho yesterday here in B.c getting into a fight with a fan, he does look short, check it out Click Here
sid said on 8/Feb/09
M.o.r.g I just saw kane on fri, he is taller then 6'6, kane is 6'8 I esitmated, he looked a inch taller, he boots give 1 inch not to, it's hard to wrestle in 2 inches. he looked 6'9 when he wrestled..he def looked a inch shorter when he was heading into the arena. I'm gonna post pictures from a friend camera.
M.o.r.g I just saw kane on fri, he is taller then 6'6, kane is 6'8 I esitmated, he looked a inch taller, he boots give 1 inch not to, it's hard to wrestle in 2 inches. he looked 6'9 when he wrestled..he def looked a inch shorter when he was heading into the arena. I'm gonna post pictures from a friend camera.
Da Man said on 8/Feb/09
I don't think I've ever seen Tony post on here before.
I don't think I've ever seen Tony post on here before.
Big Show said on 8/Feb/09
M.o.r.g says on 8/Feb/09
Im surprised mike knox is that much shorter than kane.He looks like a shorter matt morgan.But u have to take into account kane's huge boots which have at LEAST 2 ins boost on the bottom,and no doubt built up inside too adding mumerous inches.Which would make him 6'6 at most with no shoes on.And royal rumble 2003 confirms taker is taller than kane too.
Click Here
Click Here
Kane's boots aren't nearly as huge anymore as they used to be. The shape of his boots look normal (so no internal lifts anymore). His soles are still huge, but I doubt his wrestling boots would give him more than a 1.5" boost. And the Royal Rumble 2003 confirms nothing, as Kane was staggering to his feet. He hardly assumed a good posture there.
Here's another pic of Kane & Knox from the WWE website itself. Looks about a 2 inch difference, but Kane could probably squeeze out another inch if he stood up straight.
Click Here
M.o.r.g says on 8/Feb/09
Im surprised mike knox is that much shorter than kane.He looks like a shorter matt morgan.But u have to take into account kane's huge boots which have at LEAST 2 ins boost on the bottom,and no doubt built up inside too adding mumerous inches.Which would make him 6'6 at most with no shoes on.And royal rumble 2003 confirms taker is taller than kane too.
Click Here
Click Here
Kane's boots aren't nearly as huge anymore as they used to be. The shape of his boots look normal (so no internal lifts anymore). His soles are still huge, but I doubt his wrestling boots would give him more than a 1.5" boost. And the Royal Rumble 2003 confirms nothing, as Kane was staggering to his feet. He hardly assumed a good posture there.
Here's another pic of Kane & Knox from the WWE website itself. Looks about a 2 inch difference, but Kane could probably squeeze out another inch if he stood up straight.
Click Here
Da Man said on 8/Feb/09
M.o.r.g says on 8/Feb/09
"M.o.r.g says on 8/Feb/09
Im surprised mike knox is that much shorter than kane.He looks like a shorter matt morgan.But u have to take into account kane's huge boots which have at LEAST 2 ins boost on the bottom,and no doubt built up inside too adding mumerous inches.Which would make him 6'6 at most with no shoes on.And royal rumble 2003 confirms taker is taller than kane too."
You are wrong on every single point.
M.o.r.g says on 8/Feb/09
"M.o.r.g says on 8/Feb/09
Im surprised mike knox is that much shorter than kane.He looks like a shorter matt morgan.But u have to take into account kane's huge boots which have at LEAST 2 ins boost on the bottom,and no doubt built up inside too adding mumerous inches.Which would make him 6'6 at most with no shoes on.And royal rumble 2003 confirms taker is taller than kane too."
You are wrong on every single point.
M.o.r.g said on 8/Feb/09
Im surprised mike knox is that much shorter than kane.He looks like a shorter matt morgan.But u have to take into account kane's huge boots which have at LEAST 2 ins boost on the bottom,and no doubt built up inside too adding mumerous inches.Which would make him 6'6 at most with no shoes on.And royal rumble 2003 confirms taker is taller than kane too.
Im surprised mike knox is that much shorter than kane.He looks like a shorter matt morgan.But u have to take into account kane's huge boots which have at LEAST 2 ins boost on the bottom,and no doubt built up inside too adding mumerous inches.Which would make him 6'6 at most with no shoes on.And royal rumble 2003 confirms taker is taller than kane too.
glenn said on 8/Feb/09
tony-why dont you leave the site? do you realise who i am? im the main contributer here.dont ever talk to me like that again.if people can post about danimals behaviour all over the site lately,then i can post my opinion without someone like you making a stupid comment.
tony-why dont you leave the site? do you realise who i am? im the main contributer here.dont ever talk to me like that again.if people can post about danimals behaviour all over the site lately,then i can post my opinion without someone like you making a stupid comment.
tony said on 7/Feb/09
glenn says on 6/Feb/09
i havnt been thrilled with danimals post lately either.not cause of attitude.he is a sweet guy.but i personally dont see what was wrong with his post below.maybe i should mind my business.
maybe you should goto oprah about it as this is a blog to talk about someones height
glenn says on 6/Feb/09
i havnt been thrilled with danimals post lately either.not cause of attitude.he is a sweet guy.but i personally dont see what was wrong with his post below.maybe i should mind my business.
maybe you should goto oprah about it as this is a blog to talk about someones height
sid said on 7/Feb/09
Just saw kane at a houseshow lastnite.. here in Vancouver, he was def the tallest guy on the raw roster, he's still huge.. He parked his car where I standing behind the fence, I wasn't quick enough to get his pic, I was esitmating how tall, he looked 6'8, was wearing sneakers, long leather jacket and baggy jeans, funny to see that. I got seats where the entrance was, when he came out he looked taller, of course his ring gear, I'd say he looked a inch taller with his gear, 6'9. Kane looked every bit of 6'8 when got out of his car, no pic darn it. I'm gonna check if my friend if she took pics, and post on here.
Just saw kane at a houseshow lastnite.. here in Vancouver, he was def the tallest guy on the raw roster, he's still huge.. He parked his car where I standing behind the fence, I wasn't quick enough to get his pic, I was esitmating how tall, he looked 6'8, was wearing sneakers, long leather jacket and baggy jeans, funny to see that. I got seats where the entrance was, when he came out he looked taller, of course his ring gear, I'd say he looked a inch taller with his gear, 6'9. Kane looked every bit of 6'8 when got out of his car, no pic darn it. I'm gonna check if my friend if she took pics, and post on here.
Da Man said on 7/Feb/09
Doesn't state height, but still pretty interesting: Click Here
Goes to show that his name is misspelled all across the internet as well.
Doesn't state height, but still pretty interesting: Click Here
Goes to show that his name is misspelled all across the internet as well.
Red said on 7/Feb/09
Clay says on 5/Feb/09
Danimal seems to be on edge lately. First he goes on a laughable tirade about how Undertaker is 2inches taller than Kane after seeing ONE strange video where Kane wasnt even standing up porperly, now he's getting angry when people post opinions. Danimal, take a month away and cool off man
Clay, maybe Dan has a hard time but I think you have to cool down too.
I personally read enough of your attacks against dan lately, over many pages here.
And hs2009 take your own advice and chill out
I don
Clay says on 5/Feb/09
Danimal seems to be on edge lately. First he goes on a laughable tirade about how Undertaker is 2inches taller than Kane after seeing ONE strange video where Kane wasnt even standing up porperly, now he's getting angry when people post opinions. Danimal, take a month away and cool off man
Clay, maybe Dan has a hard time but I think you have to cool down too.
I personally read enough of your attacks against dan lately, over many pages here.
And hs2009 take your own advice and chill out
I don
Alex said on 7/Feb/09
ONLY a few wrestlers I can remember where underbilled. Spike they listed at 5'5 at some point while he was really more 5'8. Christian was listed at 5'10 when he first came while he was really 5'11-6'0.
ONLY a few wrestlers I can remember where underbilled. Spike they listed at 5'5 at some point while he was really more 5'8. Christian was listed at 5'10 when he first came while he was really 5'11-6'0.
glenn said on 6/Feb/09
i havnt been thrilled with danimals post lately either.not cause of attitude.he is a sweet guy.but i personally dont see what was wrong with his post below.maybe i should mind my business.
i havnt been thrilled with danimals post lately either.not cause of attitude.he is a sweet guy.but i personally dont see what was wrong with his post below.maybe i should mind my business.
hs2009 said on 6/Feb/09
Erm..ok. How I feel is really none of your business Trevor, I'm not 'emotional' over it lol. No offence or anything but it's really nothing to do with you :D
Anyhoo, back to Kane...
Erm..ok. How I feel is really none of your business Trevor, I'm not 'emotional' over it lol. No offence or anything but it's really nothing to do with you :D
Anyhoo, back to Kane...
trevor said on 5/Feb/09
hs2009 says on 5/Feb/09
Trevor, not taking it to heart. Just don't like people who patronise others.
theres no reason to get emotional with other peoples opinions
hs2009 says on 5/Feb/09
Trevor, not taking it to heart. Just don't like people who patronise others.
theres no reason to get emotional with other peoples opinions
hs2009 said on 5/Feb/09
BTW, apart from Christian being billed at 5'10" what other wrestlers have been underbilled?
BTW, apart from Christian being billed at 5'10" what other wrestlers have been underbilled?
Clay said on 5/Feb/09
Danimal seems to be on edge lately. First he goes on a laughable tirade about how Undertaker is 2inches taller than Kane after seeing ONE strange video where Kane wasnt even standing up porperly, now he's getting angry when people post opinions. Danimal, take a month away and cool off man.
Danimal seems to be on edge lately. First he goes on a laughable tirade about how Undertaker is 2inches taller than Kane after seeing ONE strange video where Kane wasnt even standing up porperly, now he's getting angry when people post opinions. Danimal, take a month away and cool off man.
hs2009 said on 5/Feb/09
Trevor, not taking it to heart. Just don't like people who patronise others.
Trevor, not taking it to heart. Just don't like people who patronise others.
Clay said on 4/Feb/09
Just dont trust what they're billed at period, like any sport. Some wrestlers are underbilled, some are billed properly, some are billed slightly more and some are exagerated greatly.
Just dont trust what they're billed at period, like any sport. Some wrestlers are underbilled, some are billed properly, some are billed slightly more and some are exagerated greatly.
trevor said on 4/Feb/09
Danimal, what is your problem! You say to others, "Shawn Michaels & Bret Hart are 5'11" MAX becasue that's what they were billed at when they first started in wrestling." But when I do the same, that's not allowed?
I never said that a billed height means legit, I said that Knox was first billed at 6'5" in UPW compared to being billed at 6'6"-6'7" in WWE so it may be his legit height. CHILL OUT!
why are you taking this to heart - this is a public comment blog
Danimal, what is your problem! You say to others, "Shawn Michaels & Bret Hart are 5'11" MAX becasue that's what they were billed at when they first started in wrestling." But when I do the same, that's not allowed?
I never said that a billed height means legit, I said that Knox was first billed at 6'5" in UPW compared to being billed at 6'6"-6'7" in WWE so it may be his legit height. CHILL OUT!
why are you taking this to heart - this is a public comment blog
Ben said on 4/Feb/09
knox looks a legit 6ft 5, shad is about 6ft 4-5
knox looks a legit 6ft 5, shad is about 6ft 4-5
hs2009 said on 4/Feb/09
Danimal, what is your problem! You say to others, "Shawn Michaels & Bret Hart are 5'11" MAX becasue that's what they were billed at when they first started in wrestling." But when I do the same, that's not allowed?
I never said that a billed height means legit, I said that Knox was first billed at 6'5" in UPW compared to being billed at 6'6"-6'7" in WWE so it may be his legit height. CHILL OUT!
Danimal, what is your problem! You say to others, "Shawn Michaels & Bret Hart are 5'11" MAX becasue that's what they were billed at when they first started in wrestling." But when I do the same, that's not allowed?
I never said that a billed height means legit, I said that Knox was first billed at 6'5" in UPW compared to being billed at 6'6"-6'7" in WWE so it may be his legit height. CHILL OUT!
sid said on 4/Feb/09
Da Man Kane had about 3 to 4 inches
Da Man Kane had about 3 to 4 inches
Da Man said on 3/Feb/09
Click Here
Kane's feet are pretty wide apart there. But it looks like Knox stacks up to Kane about like JBL and Roethlisberger do, and better than Edge or Orton do. 6'5"-ish seems fair so far.
Click Here
Kane's feet are pretty wide apart there. But it looks like Knox stacks up to Kane about like JBL and Roethlisberger do, and better than Edge or Orton do. 6'5"-ish seems fair so far.
Danimal said on 3/Feb/09
hs2009 says on 3/Feb/09
Knox is legit 6'5" I believe, at least that's what he was billed at when he first started off in wrestling.
Shad looks about 6'4"-6'5" IMO, he does wear pretty chunky work boots to wrestle in which make him look taller though.
So, being billed at a certain height makes that the wrestler's "legit" height according to you??? So, I guess Andre was 7'5", Hogan was 6'8", Big John Studd was 6'10", Davey Boy Smith was 6'3", Viscera was 6'10", etc....
hs2009 says on 3/Feb/09
Knox is legit 6'5" I believe, at least that's what he was billed at when he first started off in wrestling.
Shad looks about 6'4"-6'5" IMO, he does wear pretty chunky work boots to wrestle in which make him look taller though.
So, being billed at a certain height makes that the wrestler's "legit" height according to you??? So, I guess Andre was 7'5", Hogan was 6'8", Big John Studd was 6'10", Davey Boy Smith was 6'3", Viscera was 6'10", etc....
Da Man said on 3/Feb/09
dave says on 3/Feb/09
"da man...... theres NO evidence for kanes footwear there, he could have been in socks for all we know.... the fact is though, on EVERY other piece of footage of them together, EVERY other one.... kane is taller than this. And i have met both men in street clothes, id say kane has AT LEAST 3-4 inches on him."
Kane had around 3" on 'Dust in that pic, not sure what you were looking at.
dave says on 3/Feb/09
"da man...... theres NO evidence for kanes footwear there, he could have been in socks for all we know.... the fact is though, on EVERY other piece of footage of them together, EVERY other one.... kane is taller than this. And i have met both men in street clothes, id say kane has AT LEAST 3-4 inches on him."
Kane had around 3" on 'Dust in that pic, not sure what you were looking at.
dave said on 3/Feb/09
da man...... theres NO evidence for kanes footwear there, he could have been in socks for all we know.... the fact is though, on EVERY other piece of footage of them together, EVERY other one.... kane is taller than this. And i have met both men in street clothes, id say kane has AT LEAST 3-4 inches on him.
da man...... theres NO evidence for kanes footwear there, he could have been in socks for all we know.... the fact is though, on EVERY other piece of footage of them together, EVERY other one.... kane is taller than this. And i have met both men in street clothes, id say kane has AT LEAST 3-4 inches on him.
hs2009 said on 3/Feb/09
Knox is legit 6'5" I believe, at least that's what he was billed at when he first started off in wrestling.
Shad looks about 6'4"-6'5" IMO, he does wear pretty chunky work boots to wrestle in which make him look taller though.
Knox is legit 6'5" I believe, at least that's what he was billed at when he first started off in wrestling.
Shad looks about 6'4"-6'5" IMO, he does wear pretty chunky work boots to wrestle in which make him look taller though.
sid said on 3/Feb/09
Heres Kane and mike knox, from lastnights raw.. kane looked to have 3 to 4 inches..Click Here
Heres Kane and mike knox, from lastnights raw.. kane looked to have 3 to 4 inches..Click Here
sid said on 2/Feb/09
gazz kane had 3 inches on golddust... what are you talking about.. goldust 6'5 kane 6'8
gazz kane had 3 inches on golddust... what are you talking about.. goldust 6'5 kane 6'8
Rantsrob said on 2/Feb/09
Big Show says on 1/Feb/09
Click Here
Kane looked about 3-4 inches taller than Shad from Cryme Tyme this past week on RAW. Shad looks about an inch taller than Goldust.
Holy balls, I thought kane would only have Shad by 1.5'' tops. I always thought Shad was legit 6'6'' but maybe not.
Big Show says on 1/Feb/09
Click Here
Kane looked about 3-4 inches taller than Shad from Cryme Tyme this past week on RAW. Shad looks about an inch taller than Goldust.
Holy balls, I thought kane would only have Shad by 1.5'' tops. I always thought Shad was legit 6'6'' but maybe not.
Da Man said on 2/Feb/09
gazz says
"gazz says on 2/Feb/09
what i dont understand in that pic with shad and goldust is about 5 years ago, kane had a backstage segment with goldust and hardly looked even 1 inch taller than him."
Never happened. As usual, those over the shoulder shots fooled people as the frame was rotated in Goldust's favor AND he was closer most of the time. This is was the real difference between them in that video (or close to it): Click Here
gazz says
"gazz says on 2/Feb/09
what i dont understand in that pic with shad and goldust is about 5 years ago, kane had a backstage segment with goldust and hardly looked even 1 inch taller than him."
Never happened. As usual, those over the shoulder shots fooled people as the frame was rotated in Goldust's favor AND he was closer most of the time. This is was the real difference between them in that video (or close to it): Click Here
gazz said on 2/Feb/09
what i dont understand in that pic with shad and goldust is about 5 years ago, kane had a backstage segment with goldust and hardly looked even 1 inch taller than him.i believe this was around the time of goldust and booker teaming, im sure the vids been posted on here before, does anyone else know which clip im talking about?confused.
what i dont understand in that pic with shad and goldust is about 5 years ago, kane had a backstage segment with goldust and hardly looked even 1 inch taller than him.i believe this was around the time of goldust and booker teaming, im sure the vids been posted on here before, does anyone else know which clip im talking about?confused.
sid said on 1/Feb/09
Big show, kane had good 3 inches maybe 4 on shad... shad had 2 inches on golddust
Big show, kane had good 3 inches maybe 4 on shad... shad had 2 inches on golddust
Big Show said on 1/Feb/09
Click Here
Kane looked about 3-4 inches taller than Shad from Cryme Tyme this past week on RAW. Shad looks about an inch taller than Goldust.
Click Here
Kane looked about 3-4 inches taller than Shad from Cryme Tyme this past week on RAW. Shad looks about an inch taller than Goldust.
Eric 1 said on 1/Feb/09
Heres a good stare down between Undertaker and kevin nash toe to toe.
Click Here
Heres a good stare down between Undertaker and kevin nash toe to toe.
Click Here
Kevin said on 30/Jan/09
Rantsrob says on 28/Jan/09
We know this...
I know this...welcome to 5 years ago
Rantsrob says on 28/Jan/09
We know this...
I know this...welcome to 5 years ago
Rantsrob said on 28/Jan/09
Kevin says on 27/Jan/09
noooo i thought we were in Jan. 2009, Cla are you kidding me??? of course i KNOW this, get with the times, just like some other people here stay arguing over old things i'm mocking you guys because it's the same stuff again & again, get this, the WWE lies about height (& even weight) by too much (+ lifts on wrestlers) to be able to tell who's what & where
We know this...
Kevin says on 27/Jan/09
noooo i thought we were in Jan. 2009, Cla are you kidding me??? of course i KNOW this, get with the times, just like some other people here stay arguing over old things i'm mocking you guys because it's the same stuff again & again, get this, the WWE lies about height (& even weight) by too much (+ lifts on wrestlers) to be able to tell who's what & where
We know this...
Kevin said on 27/Jan/09
noooo i thought we were in Jan. 2009, Cla are you kidding me??? of course i KNOW this, get with the times, just like some other people here stay arguing over old things i'm mocking you guys because it's the same stuff again & again, get this, the WWE lies about height (& even weight) by too much (+ lifts on wrestlers) to be able to tell who's what & where
noooo i thought we were in Jan. 2009, Cla are you kidding me??? of course i KNOW this, get with the times, just like some other people here stay arguing over old things i'm mocking you guys because it's the same stuff again & again, get this, the WWE lies about height (& even weight) by too much (+ lifts on wrestlers) to be able to tell who's what & where
Clay said on 27/Jan/09
Welcome to 4 months ago Kevi.
Welcome to 4 months ago Kevi.
sid said on 27/Jan/09
Kevin those are old pic. from last year
Kevin those are old pic. from last year
Kevin said on 26/Jan/09
idk if any of you seen the link on the Dalip Singh page, but Shaq went backstage once again 2 visit with the WWE supertsars he took more pix with the likes of Kane & Khali, etc.
idk if any of you seen the link on the Dalip Singh page, but Shaq went backstage once again 2 visit with the WWE supertsars he took more pix with the likes of Kane & Khali, etc.
sid said on 25/Jan/09
Heres sid vs scott hall, click here, sid looks a good 3 to 4 inches.., taller Click Here
Heres sid vs scott hall, click here, sid looks a good 3 to 4 inches.., taller Click Here
sid said on 25/Jan/09
Heres sid vs Jbl on early 90's raw.. perhaps we can get a good height estimate on sid from back then.. click here Click Here
Heres sid vs Jbl on early 90's raw.. perhaps we can get a good height estimate on sid from back then.. click here Click Here
sid said on 25/Jan/09
Sid what am I saying. Good 3 inches. on jake, jake is 6'5
Sid what am I saying. Good 3 inches. on jake, jake is 6'5
hs2009 said on 25/Jan/09
It looks like a 3" difference, but Jake has HUGE boots on. Barefeet it would be more like 4" difference IMO. I'd have Jake at 6'4.5" & Kane & 6'8.5"
It looks like a 3" difference, but Jake has HUGE boots on. Barefeet it would be more like 4" difference IMO. I'd have Jake at 6'4.5" & Kane & 6'8.5"
sid said on 24/Jan/09
Danimal Good 4 inches.. jake is 6'5 max issac had probably 3 inches on jake..
Danimal Good 4 inches.. jake is 6'5 max issac had probably 3 inches on jake..
Da Man said on 24/Jan/09
It's really impossible the gauge exactly how much height he had on either Sting or Roberts. They were in-motion the entire time and there were virtually no frames with which to compare height.
One thing's for sure, Mastino made Sting look like a child with visibly small footwear. Hard to say for sure, but he was NO less than 5" taller than Sting there. The Jake the Snake match was even worse for comparing height, you can watch the video and every time they just about get on the same plane they switch cameras. Neither bothered to stand tall. Yankem is very visibly taller despite this though which likely means a good 3".
It's really impossible the gauge exactly how much height he had on either Sting or Roberts. They were in-motion the entire time and there were virtually no frames with which to compare height.
One thing's for sure, Mastino made Sting look like a child with visibly small footwear. Hard to say for sure, but he was NO less than 5" taller than Sting there. The Jake the Snake match was even worse for comparing height, you can watch the video and every time they just about get on the same plane they switch cameras. Neither bothered to stand tall. Yankem is very visibly taller despite this though which likely means a good 3".
Rantsrob said on 24/Jan/09
Danimal says on 24/Jan/09
sid says on 23/Jan/09
tuga issac had about good 4 inches on jake the snake from what i could see
2-3" MAX.
A good 3'' to me.
Danimal says on 24/Jan/09
sid says on 23/Jan/09
tuga issac had about good 4 inches on jake the snake from what i could see
2-3" MAX.
A good 3'' to me.
Danimal said on 24/Jan/09
sid says on 23/Jan/09
tuga issac had about good 4 inches on jake the snake from what i could see
2-3" MAX.
sid says on 23/Jan/09
tuga issac had about good 4 inches on jake the snake from what i could see
2-3" MAX.
Vegas said on 24/Jan/09
sid says on 23/Jan/09
tuga issac had about good 4 inches on jake the snake from what i could see
sid says on 8/Jan/09
Check this out, heres masked kane in his full body suit vs vicera, kane had 3 inches on him back then, now these days kane has 1 on vice click here
at what point do you see these things, there is no staredown or nothing in those videos
sid says on 23/Jan/09
tuga issac had about good 4 inches on jake the snake from what i could see
sid says on 8/Jan/09
Check this out, heres masked kane in his full body suit vs vicera, kane had 3 inches on him back then, now these days kane has 1 on vice click here
at what point do you see these things, there is no staredown or nothing in those videos
Red said on 24/Jan/09
good 4 inches???
I say max 2 inches, but Jake has a footwear advantage.
I say Glen is 6
good 4 inches???
I say max 2 inches, but Jake has a footwear advantage.
I say Glen is 6
sid said on 23/Jan/09
tuga issac had about good 4 inches on jake the snake from what i could see
tuga issac had about good 4 inches on jake the snake from what i could see
Danimal said on 23/Jan/09
Sting was 6'2" imo. Funny thing is, in the WCW he was BILLED at his true height. He at times got s 6'3" billing. Lex Luger, who was an official 6'3" seemed to edge out Sting, so I am comfortable with a flat 6'2" for Sting. At lowest, I would say 6'1.5" for Sting.
Sting was 6'2" imo. Funny thing is, in the WCW he was BILLED at his true height. He at times got s 6'3" billing. Lex Luger, who was an official 6'3" seemed to edge out Sting, so I am comfortable with a flat 6'2" for Sting. At lowest, I would say 6'1.5" for Sting.
tuga said on 23/Jan/09
Vegas says on 23/Jan/09
there is a staredown between sting and nash at hog wild 1996
You
Vegas says on 23/Jan/09
there is a staredown between sting and nash at hog wild 1996
You
Vegas said on 23/Jan/09
there is a staredown between sting and nash at hog wild 1996
there is a staredown between sting and nash at hog wild 1996
ancient Aztec Guy said on 22/Jan/09
If you round off Eric's height to 6ft I would guess Kane's height to be around the 6'9" mark. Just a guess.
If you round off Eric's height to 6ft I would guess Kane's height to be around the 6'9" mark. Just a guess.
Da Man said on 22/Jan/09
There's nothing wrong with people who go conservative in their estimates, they have to offset all of the people who want to oversell celebs.
There's nothing wrong with people who go conservative in their estimates, they have to offset all of the people who want to oversell celebs.
Clay said on 22/Jan/09
Ola is usually alright from what I've seen.
Ola is usually alright from what I've seen.
Derek said on 21/Jan/09
If we had a forum, we'd have put up with people like Viper and Ola 24/7.
If we had a forum, we'd have put up with people like Viper and Ola 24/7.
Eric 1 said on 21/Jan/09
This is the best way to do this sight. I think a forum would make it to complicated.
This is the best way to do this sight. I think a forum would make it to complicated.
Alex said on 21/Jan/09
I agree with Rob. A forum style wouldn't be the best for this type of site.
I agree with Rob. A forum style wouldn't be the best for this type of site.
Rantsrob said on 20/Jan/09
Rob, ever consider making this site more "Forum" style. Maybe making an account with post counts and rep. Or did you make it this way because you didnt want it like that?
Editor Rob
Rob, ever consider making this site more "Forum" style. Maybe making an account with post counts and rep. Or did you make it this way because you didnt want it like that?
Editor Rob I thought about it and didn't think it the best way for this particular type of site.
Rantsrob said on 18/Jan/09
Thank you Da man, plus the mans hair due gives him a decent height increase. Kanes no less then 6'8'' if that dude is "A little over 6ft" as he claims.
Thank you Da man, plus the mans hair due gives him a decent height increase. Kanes no less then 6'8'' if that dude is "A little over 6ft" as he claims.
Alex said on 18/Jan/09
UT is probably still 6'7 but no more.
UT is probably still 6'7 but no more.
The Ben said on 18/Jan/09
i still think its possible taker could be 6'8
i still think its possible taker could be 6'8
Clay said on 17/Jan/09
Undertaker still at least 6'6''?? Well no ****, thats a pretty safe statement Danimal.
Undertaker still at least 6'6''?? Well no ****, thats a pretty safe statement Danimal.
Rantsrob said on 17/Jan/09
Danimal says on 17/Jan/09
Whatever Taker weighed in the early 90's, he's much less now. I wouldn't be in shock if someone told me that he was in his 250's today. He is at least 6'6" and lean with muscularity. As for his highest weight, well, in a 1999 interview he stated he was 335 pounds at that point and he looked it. He was also at his taller at that point (close to 6'8"). He said his heaviest was 350 pounds. As for his weight when he came into the WWE, I would say it was between 285-300 pounds and he slowly gained weight as the years went by and in 2001 he began to shed it all and more.
Danimal, are you putting kane as low as 6'5.5'' then? I certainly hope not.
Danimal says on 17/Jan/09
Whatever Taker weighed in the early 90's, he's much less now. I wouldn't be in shock if someone told me that he was in his 250's today. He is at least 6'6" and lean with muscularity. As for his highest weight, well, in a 1999 interview he stated he was 335 pounds at that point and he looked it. He was also at his taller at that point (close to 6'8"). He said his heaviest was 350 pounds. As for his weight when he came into the WWE, I would say it was between 285-300 pounds and he slowly gained weight as the years went by and in 2001 he began to shed it all and more.
Danimal, are you putting kane as low as 6'5.5'' then? I certainly hope not.
The Ben said on 17/Jan/09
could be true danimal, he just looked a little slimmer than 285 in 1990 to me, but his shirt could have hidden his size i suppose. Id totally agree with rest or your statemant.... what do you think nash weighed back in 93 and at his biggest. Ive stood next to both of them in hotel lobby in 1994, they were together for about 20 mins and nash was noticably bigger, looked at least 2 inches taller, i remember thinking undertaker was tall like someone you see every few months but nash could have been the tallest person id ever seen..
could be true danimal, he just looked a little slimmer than 285 in 1990 to me, but his shirt could have hidden his size i suppose. Id totally agree with rest or your statemant.... what do you think nash weighed back in 93 and at his biggest. Ive stood next to both of them in hotel lobby in 1994, they were together for about 20 mins and nash was noticably bigger, looked at least 2 inches taller, i remember thinking undertaker was tall like someone you see every few months but nash could have been the tallest person id ever seen..
Da Man said on 17/Jan/09
Regarding Kane's dome size, even though he might look like a pinhead next to Show and Khali, he's got a huge head compared to your average adult male.
Click Here
I'd guesstimate that his head is 10.5" at a minimum, and maybe pushing 11".
Regarding Kane's dome size, even though he might look like a pinhead next to Show and Khali, he's got a huge head compared to your average adult male.
Click Here
I'd guesstimate that his head is 10.5" at a minimum, and maybe pushing 11".
Danimal said on 17/Jan/09
Whatever Taker weighed in the early 90's, he's much less now. I wouldn't be in shock if someone told me that he was in his 250's today. He is at least 6'6" and lean with muscularity. As for his highest weight, well, in a 1999 interview he stated he was 335 pounds at that point and he looked it. He was also at his taller at that point (close to 6'8"). He said his heaviest was 350 pounds. As for his weight when he came into the WWE, I would say it was between 285-300 pounds and he slowly gained weight as the years went by and in 2001 he began to shed it all and more.
Whatever Taker weighed in the early 90's, he's much less now. I wouldn't be in shock if someone told me that he was in his 250's today. He is at least 6'6" and lean with muscularity. As for his highest weight, well, in a 1999 interview he stated he was 335 pounds at that point and he looked it. He was also at his taller at that point (close to 6'8"). He said his heaviest was 350 pounds. As for his weight when he came into the WWE, I would say it was between 285-300 pounds and he slowly gained weight as the years went by and in 2001 he began to shed it all and more.
Da Man said on 17/Jan/09
Kane hunched down is about as tall as the door, up straight clearly taller. Decent case for the guy being a legit, barefoot 6'8". Unless all of these people are 5'0", the doors 6'4", and the hallway ceiling nothing 7', Kane is a really big dude out in the real world sans "lifts".
Click Here
Click Here
Kane hunched down is about as tall as the door, up straight clearly taller. Decent case for the guy being a legit, barefoot 6'8". Unless all of these people are 5'0", the doors 6'4", and the hallway ceiling nothing 7', Kane is a really big dude out in the real world sans "lifts".
Click Here
Click Here
hs2009 said on 17/Jan/09
When Kane says he's 6'8.5" I'm inclined to believe him personally, he could claim more & most people would believe him but he doesn't.
He seems like a really nice guy too, it's a shame he's never had a proper WWE Championship reign since he's been a huge star for over 11 years.
When Kane says he's 6'8.5" I'm inclined to believe him personally, he could claim more & most people would believe him but he doesn't.
He seems like a really nice guy too, it's a shame he's never had a proper WWE Championship reign since he's been a huge star for over 11 years.
sid said on 17/Jan/09
Rantsrob some people are just stupid man.. lift at a convention, why would kane wear lifts in street close, when he is big enough to be taller then most people..Kane is still huge and tall, enough to dwarf people he doesn't need lift to make him taller in street cloth or some convention
Rantsrob some people are just stupid man.. lift at a convention, why would kane wear lifts in street close, when he is big enough to be taller then most people..Kane is still huge and tall, enough to dwarf people he doesn't need lift to make him taller in street cloth or some convention
Rantsrob said on 16/Jan/09
Click Here
Very interesting video with a man who is "A little over 6ft" according to him. Here is what he posted.
"I'm a little over 6 feet tall, and he towered over me. You can see it in the video. He also worked security for Dr. Paul, and even in a crowd, there's no mistaking Glenn.
He's a great guy, and I was really blown away by his knowledge and insights."
Extrememly funny to see how Knowledgible he really is. Onto height, well idk to the untrained eye he could only appear 6'5'' in that video. But i'd say the guy comes up to right under his nose. Granted the guy is standing straight as an arrow with his chin up look at him, i'd say Kane looks a solid 6'8'' to me.
Click Here
Very interesting video with a man who is "A little over 6ft" according to him. Here is what he posted.
"I'm a little over 6 feet tall, and he towered over me. You can see it in the video. He also worked security for Dr. Paul, and even in a crowd, there's no mistaking Glenn.
He's a great guy, and I was really blown away by his knowledge and insights."
Extrememly funny to see how Knowledgible he really is. Onto height, well idk to the untrained eye he could only appear 6'5'' in that video. But i'd say the guy comes up to right under his nose. Granted the guy is standing straight as an arrow with his chin up look at him, i'd say Kane looks a solid 6'8'' to me.
Rantsrob said on 16/Jan/09
Click Here
I know I've posted this video many times before. But from 1 second to 26 seconds in this video you get to see: A look at Glens footwear, Glen with "Regular" sized people, and a haft-decent comparison with Kane and a doorway. I'd also like to point out Kanes very poor posture, As you will be able to tell he never picks his head up. Doorways in my area (Western pa) are 6'8'' to the top of the door, 6'10'' at the top of the doorframe. Kane looks to have an about a .5'' advantage over the doorway even with relativly poor posture. It be nice if someone good make some stills of kane beside the door. If someone mentions he has lifts on in this video, i would ask do you think he is really trying to get his height over at a Republican convention during one of his few times off on a 300 day+ traveling work schedule?
Click Here
I know I've posted this video many times before. But from 1 second to 26 seconds in this video you get to see: A look at Glens footwear, Glen with "Regular" sized people, and a haft-decent comparison with Kane and a doorway. I'd also like to point out Kanes very poor posture, As you will be able to tell he never picks his head up. Doorways in my area (Western pa) are 6'8'' to the top of the door, 6'10'' at the top of the doorframe. Kane looks to have an about a .5'' advantage over the doorway even with relativly poor posture. It be nice if someone good make some stills of kane beside the door. If someone mentions he has lifts on in this video, i would ask do you think he is really trying to get his height over at a Republican convention during one of his few times off on a 300 day+ traveling work schedule?
KingNick said on 16/Jan/09
Derek says on 15/Jan/09
Danimal- I read an article about a year or two ago that had Taker at 6'8" 285. Obviously, the 6'8" was his peak, but was he really 285 say 12-13 years ago? When he debuted, I don't think he was over 260.
I have to admit, he seemed pretty thin in his early years. Even as late as 1996. Look at him with a minimum of a 300lb Kevin Nash Click Here he's definitely much thinner.
Derek says on 15/Jan/09
Danimal- I read an article about a year or two ago that had Taker at 6'8" 285. Obviously, the 6'8" was his peak, but was he really 285 say 12-13 years ago? When he debuted, I don't think he was over 260.
I have to admit, he seemed pretty thin in his early years. Even as late as 1996. Look at him with a minimum of a 300lb Kevin Nash Click Here he's definitely much thinner.
Rantsrob said on 16/Jan/09
To be 6'8'' Kane needs to be a foot taller then Mamun. Mamun would be 5'9'' in the picture. Mamun also appears to be 2 inches lower then Kanes chin, from the tip of Mamuns forehead not counting hair. Which would make kanes head a plausiible 10'' to 11''. Also, Mamun has come on this page before and state Kane appeared to be 6'9'' in this picture and also had big footwear on, I think he said boot but im not sure. Can we agree?
To be 6'8'' Kane needs to be a foot taller then Mamun. Mamun would be 5'9'' in the picture. Mamun also appears to be 2 inches lower then Kanes chin, from the tip of Mamuns forehead not counting hair. Which would make kanes head a plausiible 10'' to 11''. Also, Mamun has come on this page before and state Kane appeared to be 6'9'' in this picture and also had big footwear on, I think he said boot but im not sure. Can we agree?
sid said on 16/Jan/09
The Ben kane weighs around 317 to 320, jr said last year one time that kane precise weight is 317 to be exact, how he probably has gained some weight he's probably 320 or so
The Ben kane weighs around 317 to 320, jr said last year one time that kane precise weight is 317 to be exact, how he probably has gained some weight he's probably 320 or so
The Ben said on 16/Jan/09
i think he could well have been 260 when he made his debut, his outfit made it quite hard to tell and the early 90's was when the steroid testing came in for the first time so most guys got pretty slim, look at nash in 93 i remember him on the uk tv show the big breakfast in 95 and im sure he said he weighed 300. he was far bigger in 95 then 93.
stan lane said in 1995 that scott hall was 6'5 and 260lbs on an episode of superstars or something, i remember being shocked cos iaways though he was billed height of 6'7 and weight of 287.
i think he could well have been 260 when he made his debut, his outfit made it quite hard to tell and the early 90's was when the steroid testing came in for the first time so most guys got pretty slim, look at nash in 93 i remember him on the uk tv show the big breakfast in 95 and im sure he said he weighed 300. he was far bigger in 95 then 93.
stan lane said in 1995 that scott hall was 6'5 and 260lbs on an episode of superstars or something, i remember being shocked cos iaways though he was billed height of 6'7 and weight of 287.
Derek said on 15/Jan/09
Danimal- I read an article about a year or two ago that had Taker at 6'8" 285. Obviously, the 6'8" was his peak, but was he really 285 say 12-13 years ago? When he debuted, I don't think he was over 260.
Danimal- I read an article about a year or two ago that had Taker at 6'8" 285. Obviously, the 6'8" was his peak, but was he really 285 say 12-13 years ago? When he debuted, I don't think he was over 260.
Drexyl said on 15/Jan/09
I wouldn't give Taker more than 280 these days either. He's lost the weight for the benefit of his career though. A guy of his size and his age just wouldn't be able to compete well at 330lbs. He's still very athletic, but he's had to shed a lot of weight to keep it that way.
I think Kane was at his biggest when he first came into the WWE back in '97. He was enormous then. He thinned out during 1999 though, and then started getting huge again towards the end of 2000. He was a monster during 2001, and strong as hell. When he came back in 2002 he looked a lot thinner again. These days he still looks well north of 300 lbs, but not as muscular.
I wouldn't give Taker more than 280 these days either. He's lost the weight for the benefit of his career though. A guy of his size and his age just wouldn't be able to compete well at 330lbs. He's still very athletic, but he's had to shed a lot of weight to keep it that way.
I think Kane was at his biggest when he first came into the WWE back in '97. He was enormous then. He thinned out during 1999 though, and then started getting huge again towards the end of 2000. He was a monster during 2001, and strong as hell. When he came back in 2002 he looked a lot thinner again. These days he still looks well north of 300 lbs, but not as muscular.
Clay said on 15/Jan/09
Undertaker is down to 275-280 pounds today I agree there.
Undertaker is down to 275-280 pounds today I agree there.
sid said on 15/Jan/09
Danimal when kane was in the 90's early 200 kane still weigh more then taker, taker heaviest was probably 320 atleast, kane heaviest was 330, thats funny how you say kane heaviest was 340 when yet, you never hear jr say 345, heaviest jr said about kane weight was 330
Danimal when kane was in the 90's early 200 kane still weigh more then taker, taker heaviest was probably 320 atleast, kane heaviest was 330, thats funny how you say kane heaviest was 340 when yet, you never hear jr say 345, heaviest jr said about kane weight was 330
The Ben said on 15/Jan/09
Its hard to tell kanes weight today, he has lost muscle but put a lot of fat on his waist, when your on 'supliments' you often look heavier than you are, ive seen guys look huge in the gym and only weigh 210lbs and guys who look like nothing weigh 240lbs.
I wouldnt be suprised if kanes roughly the same weight as the late 90's
Its hard to tell kanes weight today, he has lost muscle but put a lot of fat on his waist, when your on 'supliments' you often look heavier than you are, ive seen guys look huge in the gym and only weigh 210lbs and guys who look like nothing weigh 240lbs.
I wouldnt be suprised if kanes roughly the same weight as the late 90's
Alex said on 15/Jan/09
Danimal, I would have said up until 2004 when he came back he still looked over 300lbs. in 2001-2203 he still looked around 300lbs at least. from 2004 and on I can believe 280 or less.
Danimal, I would have said up until 2004 when he came back he still looked over 300lbs. in 2001-2203 he still looked around 300lbs at least. from 2004 and on I can believe 280 or less.
Danimal said on 15/Jan/09
Drexyl says on 13/Jan/09
Kane is still massive today, people seem to forget. He still makes Undertaker look skinny, and he doesn't even look too outmatched by the likes of Khali.
Undertaker is a SHADOW of his former self (PRE-2001). He was a very big (heavy man) up until 2000. He was floating around 335 pounds in 1999-2000. By 2001-2003 he looked to have trimmed down by about 50 pounds, taking him down to about 285. TODAY, he looks to be NO MORE than 260-275 pounds. Kane at his largest was around 345 pounds (late 90's) with a TON of muscle. Today he looks to be about 320 pounds, but not nearly the same amount of muscle he used to carry a decade ago. He was also in his late 20's and early 30's back then. Today he is in his early 40's, so, that makes a difference too.
Drexyl says on 13/Jan/09
Kane is still massive today, people seem to forget. He still makes Undertaker look skinny, and he doesn't even look too outmatched by the likes of Khali.
Undertaker is a SHADOW of his former self (PRE-2001). He was a very big (heavy man) up until 2000. He was floating around 335 pounds in 1999-2000. By 2001-2003 he looked to have trimmed down by about 50 pounds, taking him down to about 285. TODAY, he looks to be NO MORE than 260-275 pounds. Kane at his largest was around 345 pounds (late 90's) with a TON of muscle. Today he looks to be about 320 pounds, but not nearly the same amount of muscle he used to carry a decade ago. He was also in his late 20's and early 30's back then. Today he is in his early 40's, so, that makes a difference too.
sid said on 14/Jan/09
Da Man Kane is taller then sid, kane is taller then taker by a hair, from what I seen....And Danimal it's just a site man, don't have to get bent out of shape about it
Da Man Kane is taller then sid, kane is taller then taker by a hair, from what I seen....And Danimal it's just a site man, don't have to get bent out of shape about it
Da Man said on 14/Jan/09
Danimal says on 13/Jan/09
"6'7"-6'8" are Sid's, Taker's and Kane's peak height."
I can agree with that. But I don't think all three are the same height. I do agree that no more than an inch separates the shortest and tallest among the three.
Danimal says on 13/Jan/09
"6'7"-6'8" are Sid's, Taker's and Kane's peak height."
I can agree with that. But I don't think all three are the same height. I do agree that no more than an inch separates the shortest and tallest among the three.
Danimal said on 14/Jan/09
sid says on 13/Jan/09
Heres a 6'7 guy meeting kane in this website, he said kane had about inch to a inch in half on him or so... check it out Click Here
That's as credible to me as some people claiming to be 7'0" on this site. People always claim they are the same height as pro wrestlers to make themselves feel more important. The guy is probably 5'7". I call B.S.
sid says on 13/Jan/09
Heres a 6'7 guy meeting kane in this website, he said kane had about inch to a inch in half on him or so... check it out Click Here
That's as credible to me as some people claiming to be 7'0" on this site. People always claim they are the same height as pro wrestlers to make themselves feel more important. The guy is probably 5'7". I call B.S.
Rantsrob said on 14/Jan/09
Even Undertaker himself stated Kane was one of the strongest men ever to be in the wwe.
Even Undertaker himself stated Kane was one of the strongest men ever to be in the wwe.
Drexyl said on 13/Jan/09
Kane is still massive today, people seem to forget. He still makes Undertaker look skinny, and he doesn't even look too outmatched by the likes of Khali.
He's definitely not as big as he was back in the late 90s and the early 00s though. He was truly a machine then.
I still believe Kane is/was pound for pound one of the strongest guys ever to get into the squared circle. Just take a look at those videos when he was man-handling Big Show a few years ago.
Kane is still massive today, people seem to forget. He still makes Undertaker look skinny, and he doesn't even look too outmatched by the likes of Khali.
He's definitely not as big as he was back in the late 90s and the early 00s though. He was truly a machine then.
I still believe Kane is/was pound for pound one of the strongest guys ever to get into the squared circle. Just take a look at those videos when he was man-handling Big Show a few years ago.
sid said on 13/Jan/09
Heres a 6'7 guy meeting kane in this website, he said kane had about inch to a inch in half on him or so... check it out Click Here
Heres a 6'7 guy meeting kane in this website, he said kane had about inch to a inch in half on him or so... check it out Click Here
Danimal said on 13/Jan/09
6'7"-6'8" are Sid's, Taker's and Kane's peak height.
6'7"-6'8" are Sid's, Taker's and Kane's peak height.
nick said on 12/Jan/09
Click Here 325 onward. taker kane
all that crap with kane 2 inches 1 inch is because of footwear advantage. If you look at this video you will see that they are the same height
Click Here 325 onward. taker kane
all that crap with kane 2 inches 1 inch is because of footwear advantage. If you look at this video you will see that they are the same height
Rantsrob said on 12/Jan/09
Before the Bicep injury, he was doing reps of 405. "Even Glen Jacobs, better known as Kane, who was once a school teacher has been reported to bench press easy sets with 405lbs." Click Here
Before the Bicep injury, he was doing reps of 405. "Even Glen Jacobs, better known as Kane, who was once a school teacher has been reported to bench press easy sets with 405lbs." Click Here
Eric 1 said on 12/Jan/09
I think what was provided with the smw match between the 2 was pretty good cause it made this whole thing alot more debatable however i still think that kane is about an inch taller. If you just take time out to look at them in pics with the same people kane mostly looks like the taller of the 2.
I think what was provided with the smw match between the 2 was pretty good cause it made this whole thing alot more debatable however i still think that kane is about an inch taller. If you just take time out to look at them in pics with the same people kane mostly looks like the taller of the 2.
Alex said on 12/Jan/09
Sid, yea I can see that but Kane had bigger footwear then so would be more an inch difference really I think. Also Kane looked HUGE there. Looks a good 325-330lbs then. Today he's still a big man but not huge like he was.
Sid, yea I can see that but Kane had bigger footwear then so would be more an inch difference really I think. Also Kane looked HUGE there. Looks a good 325-330lbs then. Today he's still a big man but not huge like he was.
sid said on 11/Jan/09
Heres kane and taker in 2001 doing there interview with couch, kane had what it looked liked to be 2 inches, check it out. Click Here
Heres kane and taker in 2001 doing there interview with couch, kane had what it looked liked to be 2 inches, check it out. Click Here
bigman said on 9/Jan/09
Rantsrob kane easily looks 6'9 with that guy
Rantsrob kane easily looks 6'9 with that guy
Rantsrob said on 9/Jan/09
riskman82 says on 9/Jan/09
Haven't seen this posted yet..
"Who
riskman82 says on 9/Jan/09
Haven't seen this posted yet..
"Who
sid said on 9/Jan/09
Danimal kane in that video had 3 inches on vice, thats with lifts, last year big vice wore lifts in his shoes making him 6'7
Danimal kane in that video had 3 inches on vice, thats with lifts, last year big vice wore lifts in his shoes making him 6'7
Da Man said on 9/Jan/09
tuga says on 9/Jan/09
"Da Man, good point, but still I believe taker edges kane, you believe its kane edges taker, so lets call it even ;)"
Agree to disagree? OK
tuga says on 9/Jan/09
"Da Man, good point, but still I believe taker edges kane, you believe its kane edges taker, so lets call it even ;)"
Agree to disagree? OK
Da Man said on 9/Jan/09
Yankem clearly edged Taker, and IMHO he would have done so in the SMW video as well if not for Taker's greater camera advantage.
Click Here
Yankem clearly edged Taker, and IMHO he would have done so in the SMW video as well if not for Taker's greater camera advantage.
Click Here
riskman82 said on 9/Jan/09
Haven't seen this posted yet..
"Who
Haven't seen this posted yet..
"Who
tuga said on 9/Jan/09
Rantsrob says on 8/Jan/09
Rantsrob speaks! Enough with the Undertaker/Kane evidence
Ok, I agree, its enough...for now! lol
Da Man, good point, but still I believe taker edges kane, you believe its kane edges taker, so lets call it even ;)
About the picture with Shaq, all things considered I see a max 5 inch difference between the 2, kane is closer but shaq has much better posture, kane is in ring gear but possibly, again possibly shaq has somekind of Basketball shoes which are also big, but its only a possibility, if there was a pic of him that day full body...
As for body mass kane is bigger, he may be closer but he has his body sideways.
Rantsrob says on 8/Jan/09
Rantsrob speaks! Enough with the Undertaker/Kane evidence
Ok, I agree, its enough...for now! lol
Da Man, good point, but still I believe taker edges kane, you believe its kane edges taker, so lets call it even ;)
About the picture with Shaq, all things considered I see a max 5 inch difference between the 2, kane is closer but shaq has much better posture, kane is in ring gear but possibly, again possibly shaq has somekind of Basketball shoes which are also big, but its only a possibility, if there was a pic of him that day full body...
As for body mass kane is bigger, he may be closer but he has his body sideways.
Da Man said on 8/Jan/09
Some might find this interesting: Click Here
The only difference between the SMW and WWF Kane/Taker matches is that Taker's perspective advantage is much less in the WWF match: Click Here
In the SMW match, you can see Kane is on a much lower plane than Taker, and the the SMW match is also shot from higher up (notice the disparity in the top ropes), both of these effects serve to provide Taker with more advantage in the SMW clip.
Some might find this interesting: Click Here
The only difference between the SMW and WWF Kane/Taker matches is that Taker's perspective advantage is much less in the WWF match: Click Here
In the SMW match, you can see Kane is on a much lower plane than Taker, and the the SMW match is also shot from higher up (notice the disparity in the top ropes), both of these effects serve to provide Taker with more advantage in the SMW clip.
Danimal said on 8/Jan/09
sid says on 8/Jan/09
Check this out, heres masked kane in his full body suit vs vicera, kane had 3 inches on him back then, now these days kane has 1 on vice click here Click Here
Viscera is a legit 6'6", putting Kane at a legit 6'7" imo. Taker was a legit 6'8" in the 1990's. Today I believe that he is struggling with 6'7".
sid says on 8/Jan/09
Check this out, heres masked kane in his full body suit vs vicera, kane had 3 inches on him back then, now these days kane has 1 on vice click here Click Here
Viscera is a legit 6'6", putting Kane at a legit 6'7" imo. Taker was a legit 6'8" in the 1990's. Today I believe that he is struggling with 6'7".
Da Man said on 8/Jan/09
Rantsrob says on 7/Jan/09
"Mentally reposition kane in the picture. Shaq is standing with great posture, as for kane his knees are bent and is leaning. Granted his BODY is closer to the camera which is the reasoning for Kane seemingly "Dwarfing" shaq is size, but his head has no advantage. I see Kane right at Shaqs browline Shaq who is obviously in shoes is 7'2'' Kane in his inring attire is standing 6'9.5'' imho. Which puts Kane's late day height at no less the 6'7.5'' barefoot. Out of Bed would make him 6'8.25''? thats just going off my height average morning to night height loss 6' - 5'11.25''."
Nice post, and I agree with everything you just said.
Rantsrob says on 7/Jan/09
"Mentally reposition kane in the picture. Shaq is standing with great posture, as for kane his knees are bent and is leaning. Granted his BODY is closer to the camera which is the reasoning for Kane seemingly "Dwarfing" shaq is size, but his head has no advantage. I see Kane right at Shaqs browline Shaq who is obviously in shoes is 7'2'' Kane in his inring attire is standing 6'9.5'' imho. Which puts Kane's late day height at no less the 6'7.5'' barefoot. Out of Bed would make him 6'8.25''? thats just going off my height average morning to night height loss 6' - 5'11.25''."
Nice post, and I agree with everything you just said.
Rantsrob said on 8/Jan/09
tuga says on 8/Jan/09
Something is wrong with the link, here it goes again:
Click Here
Its on taker page, KingNick posted it, JT took the still and Big Show found the video.
No height difference. Taker with the camera advantage, Kane in wrestling boots with probably a little more of a boost then Taker would be taller in that picture via lifts. Making them the exact same height be in 6'7.5'' or 6'8''.
Rantsrob speaks! Enough with the Undertaker/Kane evidence. I want somthing new and fresh to argue about. Hmm how about Click Here
Tall dude beside Kane in shoes estimate is 6'5'', Short dude estimate 5'11''
in shoes, Kane 6'8.5'' in shoes. The 6'5'' estimate for the tall guy is based on a picture with him and Triple H with him easily 2'' over Hunter.
tuga says on 8/Jan/09
Something is wrong with the link, here it goes again:
Click Here
Its on taker page, KingNick posted it, JT took the still and Big Show found the video.
No height difference. Taker with the camera advantage, Kane in wrestling boots with probably a little more of a boost then Taker would be taller in that picture via lifts. Making them the exact same height be in 6'7.5'' or 6'8''.
Rantsrob speaks! Enough with the Undertaker/Kane evidence. I want somthing new and fresh to argue about. Hmm how about Click Here
Tall dude beside Kane in shoes estimate is 6'5'', Short dude estimate 5'11''
in shoes, Kane 6'8.5'' in shoes. The 6'5'' estimate for the tall guy is based on a picture with him and Triple H with him easily 2'' over Hunter.
Da Man said on 8/Jan/09
tuga says on 8/Jan/09
"Da Man, I
tuga says on 8/Jan/09
"Da Man, I
tuga said on 8/Jan/09
Something is wrong with the link, here it goes again:
Click Here
Its on taker page, KingNick posted it, JT took the still and Big Show found the video.
Something is wrong with the link, here it goes again:
Click Here
Its on taker page, KingNick posted it, JT took the still and Big Show found the video.
sid said on 8/Jan/09
Check this out, heres masked kane in his full body suit vs vicera, kane had 3 inches on him back then, now these days kane has 1 on vice click here Click Here
Check this out, heres masked kane in his full body suit vs vicera, kane had 3 inches on him back then, now these days kane has 1 on vice click here Click Here
Rantsrob said on 7/Jan/09
Click Here
Mentally reposition kane in the picture. Shaq is standing with great posture, as for kane his knees are bent and is leaning. Granted his BODY is closer to the camera which is the reasoning for Kane seemingly "Dwarfing" shaq is size, but his head has no advantage. I see Kane right at Shaqs browline Shaq who is obviously in shoes is 7'2'' Kane in his inring attire is standing 6'9.5'' imho. Which puts Kane's late day height at no less the 6'7.5'' barefoot. Out of Bed would make him 6'8.25''? thats just going off my height average morning to night height loss 6' - 5'11.25''.
Click Here
Mentally reposition kane in the picture. Shaq is standing with great posture, as for kane his knees are bent and is leaning. Granted his BODY is closer to the camera which is the reasoning for Kane seemingly "Dwarfing" shaq is size, but his head has no advantage. I see Kane right at Shaqs browline Shaq who is obviously in shoes is 7'2'' Kane in his inring attire is standing 6'9.5'' imho. Which puts Kane's late day height at no less the 6'7.5'' barefoot. Out of Bed would make him 6'8.25''? thats just going off my height average morning to night height loss 6' - 5'11.25''.
sid said on 7/Jan/09
Rantsrob Eric 1 2 or 3 inches lift would be hard to wrestle in, I have 2 inch lifts makiung me taller there really hard to walk, i doubt kane wrestles in 3 inch, he had 1 inch lift in side, and his sole is 1 inches making it 2 inches. 3 inches would be hard to wrestle in,
Rantsrob Eric 1 2 or 3 inches lift would be hard to wrestle in, I have 2 inch lifts makiung me taller there really hard to walk, i doubt kane wrestles in 3 inch, he had 1 inch lift in side, and his sole is 1 inches making it 2 inches. 3 inches would be hard to wrestle in,
Eric 1 said on 7/Jan/09
I already said that kane had at least 3 inches in those monster boots but in the 2001 royal rumble his boots arent monster boots and its evident cause kane only has a 1 inch advantage. Maybe only 3 quarters of an inch.
I already said that kane had at least 3 inches in those monster boots but in the 2001 royal rumble his boots arent monster boots and its evident cause kane only has a 1 inch advantage. Maybe only 3 quarters of an inch.
KingNick said on 7/Jan/09
Rantsrob says on 7/Jan/09
Your basically assuming Takers wrestling in socks. His boot give no less then that of the average sneaker if not more.
Ranstrob, what I'm saying is that in the pic from WRESTLEMANIA 14 UT's shoes didn't give him much of a boost, I'm not saying that he wrestles in that same boot in every single match he ever has. I even said that towards of that same post you copied and pasted that I thought UT had bigger boots today:
KingNick says on 5/Jan/09
That also explains why Kane and UT appeared the same height in that live fan pic someone posted a while back. UT prob wears a normal wrestling shoe now making him closer to 6'9".
Take this pic for example. UT is probably around 6'9" in his boots here and Kane around 6'10" Click Here
Sid, I see what you're saying with seeing them in person. Again, I'm open to the possibility.
Rantsrob says on 7/Jan/09
Your basically assuming Takers wrestling in socks. His boot give no less then that of the average sneaker if not more.
Ranstrob, what I'm saying is that in the pic from WRESTLEMANIA 14 UT's shoes didn't give him much of a boost, I'm not saying that he wrestles in that same boot in every single match he ever has. I even said that towards of that same post you copied and pasted that I thought UT had bigger boots today:
KingNick says on 5/Jan/09
That also explains why Kane and UT appeared the same height in that live fan pic someone posted a while back. UT prob wears a normal wrestling shoe now making him closer to 6'9".
Take this pic for example. UT is probably around 6'9" in his boots here and Kane around 6'10" Click Here
Sid, I see what you're saying with seeing them in person. Again, I'm open to the possibility.
Rantsrob said on 7/Jan/09
"To get to 3 inches the front platform would need to be 1.25 inch, for a true 4 inches over barefoot we are talking 2.25 inches on the front section, which is a huge sized platform.
In the following image, this wedge gets you 2.4 inches over barefoot. So adding larger platforms at the front is really needed to get well beyond 3-inches and near 4 inches."
Quote from rob on heel height truth. So if Kane is 6'7'' and wore 3'' lifts in 1997-2000 as Danimal has said, The toe section of kanes boot would according to you Nicknick would have to be 1'' inch taller then takers whole boot. Click Here
Those Heels are Tops 2.5'' Making the overall boost 2'' or less possibly 1.75''. Kane wasnt wrestling in high heels like oh so many of you seem to believe.
"To get to 3 inches the front platform would need to be 1.25 inch, for a true 4 inches over barefoot we are talking 2.25 inches on the front section, which is a huge sized platform.
In the following image, this wedge gets you 2.4 inches over barefoot. So adding larger platforms at the front is really needed to get well beyond 3-inches and near 4 inches."
Quote from rob on heel height truth. So if Kane is 6'7'' and wore 3'' lifts in 1997-2000 as Danimal has said, The toe section of kanes boot would according to you Nicknick would have to be 1'' inch taller then takers whole boot. Click Here
Those Heels are Tops 2.5'' Making the overall boost 2'' or less possibly 1.75''. Kane wasnt wrestling in high heels like oh so many of you seem to believe.
KingNick said on 7/Jan/09
Thanks to all of you for reading my posts, esp tuga and Da Man
Da Man, I see all your points and they're very possible. I'm open to the possibility that you're correct I just don't agree right now. I do definitely see Kane's shoes as giving him 1.5" advantage. But to agree with you on something, I DO agree with your analysis of the Kane/Goldust segment, especially this photo: Click Here it makes a lot more sense
Thanks to all of you for reading my posts, esp tuga and Da Man
Da Man, I see all your points and they're very possible. I'm open to the possibility that you're correct I just don't agree right now. I do definitely see Kane's shoes as giving him 1.5" advantage. But to agree with you on something, I DO agree with your analysis of the Kane/Goldust segment, especially this photo: Click Here it makes a lot more sense
Rantsrob said on 7/Jan/09
So if Kane was 6'7.5" barefoot, that'd make him 6'10" in those boots. Now here are UT's boots from that match Click Here nearly flat. TOPS .5" boost, probably more like .25". That would make UT around 6'8.5" TOPS. There's your 1.5" to 2" difference.
Your basically assuming Takers wrestling in socks. His boot give no less then that of the average sneaker if not more.
So if Kane was 6'7.5" barefoot, that'd make him 6'10" in those boots. Now here are UT's boots from that match Click Here nearly flat. TOPS .5" boost, probably more like .25". That would make UT around 6'8.5" TOPS. There's your 1.5" to 2" difference.
Your basically assuming Takers wrestling in socks. His boot give no less then that of the average sneaker if not more.
Ray said on 7/Jan/09
In Da Man's last pic it looks like Kane's boot soles are double, actually 2.5x to maybe even 3x larger than Undertaker's. Geez, those are some huge boots; it's almost unbelievable if you look at his ankle and where the bottom of his foot would be; almost like he's on mini stilts or platforms. I'd say Kane did have at least 2" advantage in those boots; maybe 2.5" to even 3" and Taker had a 1" advantage in boots so Kane's advantage was for sure over an inch; maybe 1.5"-2". Can't really estimate for sure but Kane definitely had a considerable advantage in his boots.
In Da Man's last pic it looks like Kane's boot soles are double, actually 2.5x to maybe even 3x larger than Undertaker's. Geez, those are some huge boots; it's almost unbelievable if you look at his ankle and where the bottom of his foot would be; almost like he's on mini stilts or platforms. I'd say Kane did have at least 2" advantage in those boots; maybe 2.5" to even 3" and Taker had a 1" advantage in boots so Kane's advantage was for sure over an inch; maybe 1.5"-2". Can't really estimate for sure but Kane definitely had a considerable advantage in his boots.
Rantsrob said on 6/Jan/09
Tuga low camera angles minimize height differnce, reasoning theres not as noticable of a difference as others. I still dont think you can wrestle quality matches like their match at wr 14 in 2.5in boots. As for undertakers boots they give no less the 1'' at the least i mean really there wrestling boots.
Tuga low camera angles minimize height differnce, reasoning theres not as noticable of a difference as others. I still dont think you can wrestle quality matches like their match at wr 14 in 2.5in boots. As for undertakers boots they give no less the 1'' at the least i mean really there wrestling boots.
Da Man said on 6/Jan/09
tuga says
"Da Man...taker is taller in the RR, not the 2-3 inches mentioned but when they assume similar posture taker still has at least 1 inch on kane.
Have any of you seen kane during that time without the monster boots? There
tuga says
"Da Man...taker is taller in the RR, not the 2-3 inches mentioned but when they assume similar posture taker still has at least 1 inch on kane.
Have any of you seen kane during that time without the monster boots? There
tuga said on 6/Jan/09
Rantsrob says on 5/Jan/09
"Your right tuga i did word that wrong. But right now i think we are all forcing are opinions on each other, Which i do not agree with. No one for either argument is giving an inch..."
Its ok Rantsrob, its this "healthy" discussions that make this site even more interesting.
Da Man...taker is taller in the RR, not the 2-3 inches mentioned but when they assume similar posture taker still has at least 1 inch on kane.
Have any of you seen kane during that time without the monster boots? There
Rantsrob says on 5/Jan/09
"Your right tuga i did word that wrong. But right now i think we are all forcing are opinions on each other, Which i do not agree with. No one for either argument is giving an inch..."
Its ok Rantsrob, its this "healthy" discussions that make this site even more interesting.
Da Man...taker is taller in the RR, not the 2-3 inches mentioned but when they assume similar posture taker still has at least 1 inch on kane.
Have any of you seen kane during that time without the monster boots? There
sid said on 6/Jan/09
KingNick I seen kane and taker when they got out of the car, kane was taller then the two, taker got out first, sure ya he looked kinda tall, jacobs came out, jacobs seemed taller like maybe half a inch to a inch, thats back in 2001, i also saw kane in 98, at a resturant with, jeff jerrett, bob holly etc
KingNick I seen kane and taker when they got out of the car, kane was taller then the two, taker got out first, sure ya he looked kinda tall, jacobs came out, jacobs seemed taller like maybe half a inch to a inch, thats back in 2001, i also saw kane in 98, at a resturant with, jeff jerrett, bob holly etc
KingNick said on 5/Jan/09
I'm leaning towards Kane being Rob's guestimate of 6'7.5" and I'll show you why with theories and photos.
Everyone knows I'm a firm believer of UT being 6'8", so let's just say for argument's sake he is. Here they are at WM14 with about a 1.5" - 2" difference in Kane's favor Click Here
That same shot shows Kane's boots from WM 14. I'm trying to find a clearer one but check out the 2:22 mark on this video Click Here now I know the question has been brought up of how big can a lift be for a guy to wrestle but I'm sorry, those have to give him AT LEAST a 2.5" boost.
So if Kane was 6'7.5" barefoot, that'd make him 6'10" in those boots. Now here are UT's boots from that match Click Here nearly flat. TOPS .5" boost, probably more like .25". That would make UT around 6'8.5" TOPS. There's your 1.5" to 2" difference.
This particular 2.5" boost also explains how at times Kane can be within 3" of Big Show. Depending on Show's shoes, Kane can appear very close in height if he wears those.
And Kane obviously didn't/ doesn't always wear these super lifts. Here he is looking only 1" taller than UT Click Here
Now think about it. How Kane be taller already yet wear these lifts such as these to be taller than Undertaker by only an inch? Click Here
It only makes sense that they're either the same height or Kane is just a little shorter. That also explains why Kane and UT appeared the same height in that live fan pic someone posted a while back. UT prob wears a normal wrestling shoe now making him closer to 6'9". Kane is probably around 6'9" in his boots now which may give him up to 1.5" boost. Click Here
sid says on 5/Jan/09
Rantsrob theres photos of kane in street cloth, he still looks taller then taker.
Can you post?
I'm leaning towards Kane being Rob's guestimate of 6'7.5" and I'll show you why with theories and photos.
Everyone knows I'm a firm believer of UT being 6'8", so let's just say for argument's sake he is. Here they are at WM14 with about a 1.5" - 2" difference in Kane's favor Click Here
That same shot shows Kane's boots from WM 14. I'm trying to find a clearer one but check out the 2:22 mark on this video Click Here now I know the question has been brought up of how big can a lift be for a guy to wrestle but I'm sorry, those have to give him AT LEAST a 2.5" boost.
So if Kane was 6'7.5" barefoot, that'd make him 6'10" in those boots. Now here are UT's boots from that match Click Here nearly flat. TOPS .5" boost, probably more like .25". That would make UT around 6'8.5" TOPS. There's your 1.5" to 2" difference.
This particular 2.5" boost also explains how at times Kane can be within 3" of Big Show. Depending on Show's shoes, Kane can appear very close in height if he wears those.
And Kane obviously didn't/ doesn't always wear these super lifts. Here he is looking only 1" taller than UT Click Here
Now think about it. How Kane be taller already yet wear these lifts such as these to be taller than Undertaker by only an inch? Click Here
It only makes sense that they're either the same height or Kane is just a little shorter. That also explains why Kane and UT appeared the same height in that live fan pic someone posted a while back. UT prob wears a normal wrestling shoe now making him closer to 6'9". Kane is probably around 6'9" in his boots now which may give him up to 1.5" boost. Click Here
sid says on 5/Jan/09
Rantsrob theres photos of kane in street cloth, he still looks taller then taker.
Can you post?
Rantsrob said on 5/Jan/09
Alex says on 5/Jan/09
Ben was measured at 6'4 7/8 at the NFL combine so 6'5 that is but thats in the morning so he's probably just under 6'5 legit but give him 6'5 that still puts Kane at 6'8 max.
Which makes him Atleast 6'6'' in the picture. The nfl combine is an all day event. I don't think theres a Set time for height measurements and other events.
Alex says on 5/Jan/09
Ben was measured at 6'4 7/8 at the NFL combine so 6'5 that is but thats in the morning so he's probably just under 6'5 legit but give him 6'5 that still puts Kane at 6'8 max.
Which makes him Atleast 6'6'' in the picture. The nfl combine is an all day event. I don't think theres a Set time for height measurements and other events.
sid said on 5/Jan/09
eric 1 i seen kane and taker in street cloth several times very cloth, kane always appeared taller, by inch or so, on both ocasions. I seen kane and kevin nash one after another getting out of the same car, nash looked 1 inch taller then kane, this was years ago.
eric 1 i seen kane and taker in street cloth several times very cloth, kane always appeared taller, by inch or so, on both ocasions. I seen kane and kevin nash one after another getting out of the same car, nash looked 1 inch taller then kane, this was years ago.
sid said on 5/Jan/09
Rantsrob theres photos of kane in street cloth, he still looks taller then taker.
Rantsrob theres photos of kane in street cloth, he still looks taller then taker.
Rantsrob said on 5/Jan/09
Your right tuga i did word that wrong. But right now i think we are all forcing are opinions on each other, Which i do not agree with. No one for either argument is giving an inch. Theres a difference between discussion and arguments. There to much other evidence to take into account to have one video decide who is taller. My opinion is theres a 95% chance they are the same height with more evidence pointing towards Kane being taller be them with lifts or whatever in more photos/videos kane appears taller. I wish there was a way we can dig up past comments to find the article that listed Kane as a 6'8'' center which was only a couple of months ago.
Your right tuga i did word that wrong. But right now i think we are all forcing are opinions on each other, Which i do not agree with. No one for either argument is giving an inch. Theres a difference between discussion and arguments. There to much other evidence to take into account to have one video decide who is taller. My opinion is theres a 95% chance they are the same height with more evidence pointing towards Kane being taller be them with lifts or whatever in more photos/videos kane appears taller. I wish there was a way we can dig up past comments to find the article that listed Kane as a 6'8'' center which was only a couple of months ago.
Da Man said on 5/Jan/09
tuga says
"If yankem was taller did he loose height at the RR??? NO, he lost footware advantage! Get over it!"
No, but he did lose a posture advantage. Taker was only taller in that video when Kane's feet were spread ridiculously far apart and he was stumbling around. I seriously question the objectively of those that use evidence like this as "defining" evidence.
tuga says
"If yankem was taller did he loose height at the RR??? NO, he lost footware advantage! Get over it!"
No, but he did lose a posture advantage. Taker was only taller in that video when Kane's feet were spread ridiculously far apart and he was stumbling around. I seriously question the objectively of those that use evidence like this as "defining" evidence.
Eric 1 said on 5/Jan/09
Tuga needs to get his eyes checked. Mostly every comparison shows kane being taller even without his lifts. He didnt have any monster shoes on as yankem. He didnt have any monster shoes on as fake diesel. As kane he wears them at certain points and sometimes he doesnt. The 2001 Royal Rumble staredown kane isnt wearing monster shoes. IN fact his shoes were regular sized shoes the same ones he wore in the 2003 Royal Rumble.You can take the 2003 Royal rumble arugument and throw it out the window. Kane had a far wider stance then taker. If you want to make a comparison I repeat HE IS WEARING THE SAME SHOES IN THE 2001 RUMBLE AND THERES A 15 SECOND STAREDOWN. Kane EDGES HIM OUT. kane doesnt always wear monster shoes. WHEN HE DID WEAR MONSTER SHOES AT THERE FIRST WRESTLEMANIA MATCH UP YOU CAN SEE A WAY BIGGER DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT. KANE HAD HIM BY A FEW INCHES AS WELL AS THE TRIPLE THREAT MATCH AGAINST STONE COLD LATER THAT YEAR. HE HAD TAKER BY 3 INCHES. YOU TUBE THAT MATCH AS WELL YOU CAN SEE A DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT. Kanes taller then taker by half of an inch. Also kane has horrible posture . So if kane isnt standing straight up taker can appear taller cause taker has a huge head.
Tuga needs to get his eyes checked. Mostly every comparison shows kane being taller even without his lifts. He didnt have any monster shoes on as yankem. He didnt have any monster shoes on as fake diesel. As kane he wears them at certain points and sometimes he doesnt. The 2001 Royal Rumble staredown kane isnt wearing monster shoes. IN fact his shoes were regular sized shoes the same ones he wore in the 2003 Royal Rumble.You can take the 2003 Royal rumble arugument and throw it out the window. Kane had a far wider stance then taker. If you want to make a comparison I repeat HE IS WEARING THE SAME SHOES IN THE 2001 RUMBLE AND THERES A 15 SECOND STAREDOWN. Kane EDGES HIM OUT. kane doesnt always wear monster shoes. WHEN HE DID WEAR MONSTER SHOES AT THERE FIRST WRESTLEMANIA MATCH UP YOU CAN SEE A WAY BIGGER DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT. KANE HAD HIM BY A FEW INCHES AS WELL AS THE TRIPLE THREAT MATCH AGAINST STONE COLD LATER THAT YEAR. HE HAD TAKER BY 3 INCHES. YOU TUBE THAT MATCH AS WELL YOU CAN SEE A DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT. Kanes taller then taker by half of an inch. Also kane has horrible posture . So if kane isnt standing straight up taker can appear taller cause taker has a huge head.
Alex said on 5/Jan/09
Ben was measured at 6'4 7/8 at the NFL combine so 6'5 that is but thats in the morning so he's probably just under 6'5 legit but give him 6'5 that still puts Kane at 6'8 max.
Ben was measured at 6'4 7/8 at the NFL combine so 6'5 that is but thats in the morning so he's probably just under 6'5 legit but give him 6'5 that still puts Kane at 6'8 max.
Eric 1 said on 5/Jan/09
There is no way he is . Kane is taller without ring gear than taker is.
There is no way he is . Kane is taller without ring gear than taker is.
sid said on 5/Jan/09
Eric 1 you believe kane is shorter then taker without ring gear.??
Eric 1 you believe kane is shorter then taker without ring gear.??
Danimal said on 5/Jan/09
Ben says on 2/Jan/09
Danimal keeps saying a peak hogan was over 6'6 and now kane is max 6'7 meaning he belives he is under, kane and hogan once the same height, here is a 47 year old hogan with kane Click Here
HAHA... Hogan already had all the major surgeries by 2002 and was barely over 6'3" there (based on how he barely edged out 6'3" MAX Rock) and we have Kane in RING GEAR LIFTS and all. So, we have Hogan at 6'4" and very little change in his boots (NO lifts) and 6'7" Kane in his 3" lifts, putting him up to 6'10". YES, that is what you are seeing.
A PRIME Hogan who was minimum 6'5" BAREFEET would have been 2" MAX shorter than Kane, or possibly 1", if Hogan was a full 6'6".
Ben says on 2/Jan/09
Danimal keeps saying a peak hogan was over 6'6 and now kane is max 6'7 meaning he belives he is under, kane and hogan once the same height, here is a 47 year old hogan with kane Click Here
HAHA... Hogan already had all the major surgeries by 2002 and was barely over 6'3" there (based on how he barely edged out 6'3" MAX Rock) and we have Kane in RING GEAR LIFTS and all. So, we have Hogan at 6'4" and very little change in his boots (NO lifts) and 6'7" Kane in his 3" lifts, putting him up to 6'10". YES, that is what you are seeing.
A PRIME Hogan who was minimum 6'5" BAREFEET would have been 2" MAX shorter than Kane, or possibly 1", if Hogan was a full 6'6".
Danimal said on 5/Jan/09
I no longer see Kane at over 6'7" after seeing Royal Rumble 2003. I think Kane and Sid were the exact same height. Taker was probably about 6'7.5" peak.
I no longer see Kane at over 6'7" after seeing Royal Rumble 2003. I think Kane and Sid were the exact same height. Taker was probably about 6'7.5" peak.
Rantsrob said on 4/Jan/09
Alex The picture of ben/kane Kane is just as tall as the doorframe to his right. Which makes you think ben might have some boots or somthing on pushing 6'6''+. And Ben is 6'5'' i dont know where anyone got 6'4.75'' from the offical nfl site lists him at 6'5'' I would know im from pittsburgh.
Alex The picture of ben/kane Kane is just as tall as the doorframe to his right. Which makes you think ben might have some boots or somthing on pushing 6'6''+. And Ben is 6'5'' i dont know where anyone got 6'4.75'' from the offical nfl site lists him at 6'5'' I would know im from pittsburgh.
tuga said on 4/Jan/09
Eric 1 says on 4/Jan/09
Can someone find the pics with the 6ft4 guy with glasses and all the wrestlers. It was on here once before. It will also take Tugas argument and destroy it. This guy with glasses took pics with everyonce from sid to kane to undertaker. I would like to see Tugas response after he takes a look at them.
Are you serious?? Destroy? Its NOT MY ARGUMENT, kane decided to hang his monster boots for a while...the result is OBVIOUS...check his other matches/promos etc of him during that time.
There
Eric 1 says on 4/Jan/09
Can someone find the pics with the 6ft4 guy with glasses and all the wrestlers. It was on here once before. It will also take Tugas argument and destroy it. This guy with glasses took pics with everyonce from sid to kane to undertaker. I would like to see Tugas response after he takes a look at them.
Are you serious?? Destroy? Its NOT MY ARGUMENT, kane decided to hang his monster boots for a while...the result is OBVIOUS...check his other matches/promos etc of him during that time.
There
Alex said on 4/Jan/09
This is the picture that really shows Kane is 6'8 max I think where he's with 6'4 3/4 Ben Roethlisberger. Thats really 3 inches max between them and thats taking into account Ben's hat.
Click Here
This is the picture that really shows Kane is 6'8 max I think where he's with 6'4 3/4 Ben Roethlisberger. Thats really 3 inches max between them and thats taking into account Ben's hat.
Click Here
Eric 1 said on 4/Jan/09
Can someone find the pics with the 6ft4 guy with glasses and all the wrestlers. It was on here once before. It will also take Tugas argument and destroy it. This guy with glasses took pics with everyonce from sid to kane to undertaker. I would like to see Tugas response after he takes a look at them.
Can someone find the pics with the 6ft4 guy with glasses and all the wrestlers. It was on here once before. It will also take Tugas argument and destroy it. This guy with glasses took pics with everyonce from sid to kane to undertaker. I would like to see Tugas response after he takes a look at them.
Eric 1 said on 4/Jan/09
Tuga. I have my opinion along with sid , Da Man and others. Kane edges him out a little. You can think what you would like. I met kane on more than one occasion. On one occasion he was wearing the same clothes he wore in the pic with the 6ft4 guy and the pic with me. So i figured hmmm good chance he was wearing black dress shoes.
Tuga. I have my opinion along with sid , Da Man and others. Kane edges him out a little. You can think what you would like. I met kane on more than one occasion. On one occasion he was wearing the same clothes he wore in the pic with the 6ft4 guy and the pic with me. So i figured hmmm good chance he was wearing black dress shoes.
Rantsrob said on 4/Jan/09
If anyone is sounding terribly desperate its those for the argument of Taker edging out Kane. Had this been a real debate Da man would have one long ago with just pure better evidence and reasoning behind his points. The people who are blowing up one video of Kane and Undertaker in ring where Taker has the Illusion of being taller is ridiculous. Danimal when you posted your first comment from royal rumble 2001 and you stated Kane was clearly 2'' taller and you believe Undertaker LOST heigh in late 2000 you did not make this big of a deal. 100% of the people who look at Yankem/Taker will say yankem is taller, i really dont see how you guys can clearly without a shadow of a doubt see Undertaker taller Then Yankem it sounds like a case of denial. The one set of photos tuga posted was a very nice find, but The man in the photo with taker i'd say is sitting down but if he isnt There is almost an identical height differnce between the two photos, except Undertaker is closer the the camera with the advantage, where as the photo with Kane the other man has the advantage with Kane further away.
Rantsrob,
If anyone is sounding terribly desperate its those for the argument of Taker edging out Kane. Had this been a real debate Da man would have one long ago with just pure better evidence and reasoning behind his points. The people who are blowing up one video of Kane and Undertaker in ring where Taker has the Illusion of being taller is ridiculous. Danimal when you posted your first comment from royal rumble 2001 and you stated Kane was clearly 2'' taller and you believe Undertaker LOST heigh in late 2000 you did not make this big of a deal. 100% of the people who look at Yankem/Taker will say yankem is taller, i really dont see how you guys can clearly without a shadow of a doubt see Undertaker taller Then Yankem it sounds like a case of denial. The one set of photos tuga posted was a very nice find, but The man in the photo with taker i'd say is sitting down but if he isnt There is almost an identical height differnce between the two photos, except Undertaker is closer the the camera with the advantage, where as the photo with Kane the other man has the advantage with Kane further away.
Rantsrob,
sid said on 3/Jan/09
tuga where did u guys get this pics of kane
tuga where did u guys get this pics of kane
Ray said on 3/Jan/09
The only things solid are Jacob's lifts; well, they may probably have some give to them to be fair.
The only things solid are Jacob's lifts; well, they may probably have some give to them to be fair.
tuga said on 3/Jan/09
Da Man says on 3/Jan/09
What's funny is that Taker is WAY closer to the camera, and the guy actually appears to be either slouched way forward or sitting on something, judging by his posture. Kane is actually further from the camera than the guy in his pic, and the guy is clearly standing tall next to Kane.
Da Man says on 3/Jan/09
Kane has almost always looked to have the edge on Taker in streets (in less distorted photos) just as he did in the Yankem/Taker video.
Thanks for proving my point, I said this in my post:
Eitherway, this kind of comparisons are dubious because we have no idea of nobodys footware or other factors...
As for Yankem, don
Da Man says on 3/Jan/09
What's funny is that Taker is WAY closer to the camera, and the guy actually appears to be either slouched way forward or sitting on something, judging by his posture. Kane is actually further from the camera than the guy in his pic, and the guy is clearly standing tall next to Kane.
Da Man says on 3/Jan/09
Kane has almost always looked to have the edge on Taker in streets (in less distorted photos) just as he did in the Yankem/Taker video.
Thanks for proving my point, I said this in my post:
Eitherway, this kind of comparisons are dubious because we have no idea of nobodys footware or other factors...
As for Yankem, don
Da Man said on 3/Jan/09
Sorry, I was referring to the 2nd pic, yet anyone with two fully functional eyes can see Taker's head extends beyond the mask in the 1st pic. It does not change the fact that Yankem clearly and plainly has the edge there.
Sorry, I was referring to the 2nd pic, yet anyone with two fully functional eyes can see Taker's head extends beyond the mask in the 1st pic. It does not change the fact that Yankem clearly and plainly has the edge there.
Da Man said on 3/Jan/09
tuga says
"WRONG:
On your first pic taker
tuga says
"WRONG:
On your first pic taker
tuga said on 3/Jan/09
Eric 1 says on 3/Jan/09
Tuga Undertaker had only 1.5 inches tops on hogan in that match. Everyone also disregards thats its a possibility that taker wore lifts here and there. When taker and kane are in street clothes and take pics with fans especially next to the same fans kane always looks to be taller. There were these pics that were on here a while back that someone posted. It was this 6ft4 guy with glasses and he was in many pics with wrestlers. THis guy stood right next to taker and there was another pic with kane. Kane Easily looked taller. Same goes for the pics with kane and undertaker with JJ. No lifts just street clothes
Street clothes kane as always looked taller???
Really?:
Click Here
Click Here
The funny thing is that the camera in taker
Eric 1 says on 3/Jan/09
Tuga Undertaker had only 1.5 inches tops on hogan in that match. Everyone also disregards thats its a possibility that taker wore lifts here and there. When taker and kane are in street clothes and take pics with fans especially next to the same fans kane always looks to be taller. There were these pics that were on here a while back that someone posted. It was this 6ft4 guy with glasses and he was in many pics with wrestlers. THis guy stood right next to taker and there was another pic with kane. Kane Easily looked taller. Same goes for the pics with kane and undertaker with JJ. No lifts just street clothes
Street clothes kane as always looked taller???
Really?:
Click Here
Click Here
The funny thing is that the camera in taker
tuga said on 3/Jan/09
Da Man says on 2/Jan/09
tuga says
"Yankem DID NOT edge Taker..."
Photographic and video evidence shows that he did in fact edge Taker:
1. Click Here 2. Click Here
WRONG:
On your first pic taker
Da Man says on 2/Jan/09
tuga says
"Yankem DID NOT edge Taker..."
Photographic and video evidence shows that he did in fact edge Taker:
1. Click Here 2. Click Here
WRONG:
On your first pic taker
sid said on 3/Jan/09
Eric 1 i seen it, kane looked easily taller in street cloth, with jj, you noticed that big show is looking short with jj. I seen kane and taker manytimes, kane seemed to taller of the in street cloth by a inch or maybe half a inch, i noticed kane stood taller, taker slouches more.
Eric 1 i seen it, kane looked easily taller in street cloth, with jj, you noticed that big show is looking short with jj. I seen kane and taker manytimes, kane seemed to taller of the in street cloth by a inch or maybe half a inch, i noticed kane stood taller, taker slouches more.
Eric 1 said on 3/Jan/09
Tuga Undertaker had only 1.5 inches tops on hogan in that match. Everyone also disregards thats its a possibility that taker wore lifts here and there. When taker and kane are in street clothes and take pics with fans especially next to the same fans kane always looks to be taller. There were these pics that were on here a while back that someone posted. It was this 6ft4 guy with glasses and he was in many pics with wrestlers. THis guy stood right next to taker and there was another pic with kane. Kane Easily looked taller. Same goes for the pics with kane and undertaker with JJ. No lifts just street clothes
Tuga Undertaker had only 1.5 inches tops on hogan in that match. Everyone also disregards thats its a possibility that taker wore lifts here and there. When taker and kane are in street clothes and take pics with fans especially next to the same fans kane always looks to be taller. There were these pics that were on here a while back that someone posted. It was this 6ft4 guy with glasses and he was in many pics with wrestlers. THis guy stood right next to taker and there was another pic with kane. Kane Easily looked taller. Same goes for the pics with kane and undertaker with JJ. No lifts just street clothes
Ben said on 2/Jan/09
Danimal keeps saying a peak hogan was over 6'6 and now kane is max 6'7 meaning he belives he is under, kane and hogan once the same height, here is a 47 year old hogan with kane Click Here
Danimal keeps saying a peak hogan was over 6'6 and now kane is max 6'7 meaning he belives he is under, kane and hogan once the same height, here is a 47 year old hogan with kane Click Here
Alex said on 2/Jan/09
I wouldn't go as high as 6'9 for Kane but 6'8 I can see him at, no lower than 6'7 1/2.
I wouldn't go as high as 6'9 for Kane but 6'8 I can see him at, no lower than 6'7 1/2.
Da Man said on 2/Jan/09
tuga says
"Yankem DID NOT edge Taker..."
Photographic and video evidence shows that he did in fact edge Taker:
1. Click Here 2. Click Here
tuga then says
"Even in those monster boots kane is little taller"
Kane's has a bit more than just 1" inch there: Click Here
This is but one example of the 3-4 I've seen in the last 2-3 years here were Kane comes out better than Taker in street clothes:
1. Click Here 2. Click Here
Taker's leaning a bit, but he's looking almost 2" shorter, and I doubt Kane wears lifts in street clothes.
tuga says
"Yankem DID NOT edge Taker..."
Photographic and video evidence shows that he did in fact edge Taker:
1. Click Here 2. Click Here
tuga then says
"Even in those monster boots kane is little taller"
Kane's has a bit more than just 1" inch there: Click Here
This is but one example of the 3-4 I've seen in the last 2-3 years here were Kane comes out better than Taker in street clothes:
1. Click Here 2. Click Here
Taker's leaning a bit, but he's looking almost 2" shorter, and I doubt Kane wears lifts in street clothes.
Derek said on 2/Jan/09
I agree Alex. Kane looked minimum 6'8" with Shaq.
I agree Alex. Kane looked minimum 6'8" with Shaq.
Drexyl said on 2/Jan/09
Kane stacked up very well to a legit 7,1" Shaq, who remember is well known for wearing sneakers with big heels. Kane looked a strong 6,9" next to him.
Kane stacked up very well to a legit 7,1" Shaq, who remember is well known for wearing sneakers with big heels. Kane looked a strong 6,9" next to him.
Rantsrob said on 2/Jan/09
Click Here How tall do you think cage match doors are? Because Kane had to duck to enter it and at 40 - 45 seconds you can see him stand 2-3'' taller then the doorway.
Click Here How tall do you think cage match doors are? Because Kane had to duck to enter it and at 40 - 45 seconds you can see him stand 2-3'' taller then the doorway.
Da Man said on 2/Jan/09
Rantsrob says on 31/Dec/08
"This is the video Danimal chose to not post with his comment. 3:40-3:55 in this video is a staredown almost identical to yankem/taker."
Kane's boots of that era were smaller than his 98-99 clodhoppers and pretty similar to what he wears today. He looks to have an EASY 1" over Taker there: Click Here
Another: Click Here
Some pics of Yankem's footwear (which is small):
1. Click Here 2. Click Here 3. Click Here 4. Click Here 5. Click Here
And once again, Sid/Taker contrasted with Taker/Yankem:
Click Here Click Here
Yankem had the edge on Taker, be it 1/2" or less, the advantage was clearly his. And Danimal, Kane is MAX 6'8"+, 6'7" would be his MINIMUM.
Rantsrob says on 31/Dec/08
"This is the video Danimal chose to not post with his comment. 3:40-3:55 in this video is a staredown almost identical to yankem/taker."
Kane's boots of that era were smaller than his 98-99 clodhoppers and pretty similar to what he wears today. He looks to have an EASY 1" over Taker there: Click Here
Another: Click Here
Some pics of Yankem's footwear (which is small):
1. Click Here 2. Click Here 3. Click Here 4. Click Here 5. Click Here
And once again, Sid/Taker contrasted with Taker/Yankem:
Click Here Click Here
Yankem had the edge on Taker, be it 1/2" or less, the advantage was clearly his. And Danimal, Kane is MAX 6'8"+, 6'7" would be his MINIMUM.
Alex said on 2/Jan/09
Kane didn't look as short as 6'7 with 7'1 Shaq though.
Kane didn't look as short as 6'7 with 7'1 Shaq though.
Big Show said on 2/Jan/09
AnonymousHunter says on 1/Jan/09
KingNick - very good observation. I honestly think they are the same height barefoot, or if not then definitely within less than an inch of each other. I found this clip with Big Show (a legit 7 footer) and Kane.:
Click Here
At 0:31 they look about 2-3 inches of each other..Now granted Kane probably was wearing lifts here, but the lowest that would make him is 6'9, or very close to it.
I posted that clip a while ago on the Big Show board. Kane indeed only looks 2-3 inches shorter there. I have many staredowns of these two and Kane always looked 2-3 inches shorter. It wasn't until recent years, that Big Show suddenly looked taller. Kane was probably wearing smaller lifts there. Still Big Show never wore any small footwear either. So in this staredown, he's at least 7'1 in his boots (probably a bit more). Kane would therefore be 6'10-6'11 in his boots. There's no way a 6'6 guy to be that tall in wrestling boots. Most are forgetting the fact that he also needs to be able to wrestle in them. Do you think it's possible for someone to do a top rope clothesline (a signature move that Kane did in nearly every match) in 3-4 inch lifts? I don't as the chances of him snapping his anckle is extremely high.
AnonymousHunter says on 1/Jan/09
KingNick - very good observation. I honestly think they are the same height barefoot, or if not then definitely within less than an inch of each other. I found this clip with Big Show (a legit 7 footer) and Kane.:
Click Here
At 0:31 they look about 2-3 inches of each other..Now granted Kane probably was wearing lifts here, but the lowest that would make him is 6'9, or very close to it.
I posted that clip a while ago on the Big Show board. Kane indeed only looks 2-3 inches shorter there. I have many staredowns of these two and Kane always looked 2-3 inches shorter. It wasn't until recent years, that Big Show suddenly looked taller. Kane was probably wearing smaller lifts there. Still Big Show never wore any small footwear either. So in this staredown, he's at least 7'1 in his boots (probably a bit more). Kane would therefore be 6'10-6'11 in his boots. There's no way a 6'6 guy to be that tall in wrestling boots. Most are forgetting the fact that he also needs to be able to wrestle in them. Do you think it's possible for someone to do a top rope clothesline (a signature move that Kane did in nearly every match) in 3-4 inch lifts? I don't as the chances of him snapping his anckle is extremely high.
Ghost said on 2/Jan/09
After all, in lifts Kane could appear 2 inches taller than Taker. I don't think his lifts gave him 4 inches, that's pretty ridiculous.
After all, in lifts Kane could appear 2 inches taller than Taker. I don't think his lifts gave him 4 inches, that's pretty ridiculous.
Ghost said on 2/Jan/09
Danimal says on 1/Jan/09
KANE is MAX 6'7".
I wouldn't be that quick to discard all other evidence because of one clip.
To me Taker and Kane were both 6'8 in their primes and not much less today, about 6'7,5.
Danimal says on 1/Jan/09
KANE is MAX 6'7".
I wouldn't be that quick to discard all other evidence because of one clip.
To me Taker and Kane were both 6'8 in their primes and not much less today, about 6'7,5.
sid said on 2/Jan/09
Eric 1 did u see the yankem vs taker video, jscobs looked a inch taller, back as yankem his soles were flat, he was just a jobber back then, so theres no need for him to wear aNY lifts. i still say kane is 6'8, taker 6'7, kane in ring gear making him 6'9
Eric 1 did u see the yankem vs taker video, jscobs looked a inch taller, back as yankem his soles were flat, he was just a jobber back then, so theres no need for him to wear aNY lifts. i still say kane is 6'8, taker 6'7, kane in ring gear making him 6'9
Eric 1 said on 2/Jan/09
I agree thats its very hard to call now with these films. In the 1995 smw match its looks like its a tough angle but there to me it looked the same height. I know kane wears lifts but heres a good question. How come everyone makes the assumption that taker has never worn lifts. Theres plenty of matches in takers career where he looked different heights. Against hogan in 1990 he looked to only had 1 inch on him. That was a prime hogan but hogan in his prime was no more than 6ft5 and change. Now hogan is 6ft4 barely. Maybe a little under.
I agree thats its very hard to call now with these films. In the 1995 smw match its looks like its a tough angle but there to me it looked the same height. I know kane wears lifts but heres a good question. How come everyone makes the assumption that taker has never worn lifts. Theres plenty of matches in takers career where he looked different heights. Against hogan in 1990 he looked to only had 1 inch on him. That was a prime hogan but hogan in his prime was no more than 6ft5 and change. Now hogan is 6ft4 barely. Maybe a little under.
Rantsrob said on 1/Jan/09
I believe Someone Found old High School articles of kane in his basketball days a few months ago which stated him as a 6'8'' Center. Which holds water considering there is no place in college basketball for a 6'6'' center as some people are putting him at now.
I believe Someone Found old High School articles of kane in his basketball days a few months ago which stated him as a 6'8'' Center. Which holds water considering there is no place in college basketball for a 6'6'' center as some people are putting him at now.
Rantsrob said on 1/Jan/09
Theres no height difference in the SMW video nicknick but that is sure a hell of a find. Remember in those types of staredowns the favor goes to the one further away.
Theres no height difference in the SMW video nicknick but that is sure a hell of a find. Remember in those types of staredowns the favor goes to the one further away.
dave said on 1/Jan/09
danimal, at the 5.22 part kane isnt even CLOSE to straight, a blind man could see that,..... jeez.... infact i have to ask why rob allows you to continue to post about this, because you ARE wrong mate, its not that we are pciking on you, its jsut kanes legs are far apart, his legs not straight, in a slouched position, and when they stood up straighter they are clearly similar height, there is 2 inches there at that VERY moment, but that very moment happens to be when kane isnt even close to fully erect.
Editor Rob
danimal, at the 5.22 part kane isnt even CLOSE to straight, a blind man could see that,..... jeez.... infact i have to ask why rob allows you to continue to post about this, because you ARE wrong mate, its not that we are pciking on you, its jsut kanes legs are far apart, his legs not straight, in a slouched position, and when they stood up straighter they are clearly similar height, there is 2 inches there at that VERY moment, but that very moment happens to be when kane isnt even close to fully erect.
Editor Rob it's tough to say on some of those videos, taker does look taller but kane seems a bit stumbly.
AnonymousHunter said on 1/Jan/09
KingNick - very good observation. I honestly think they are the same height barefoot, or if not then definitely within less than an inch of each other. I found this clip with Big Show (a legit 7 footer) and Kane.:
Click Here
At 0:31 they look about 2-3 inches of each other..Now granted Kane probably was wearing lifts here, but the lowest that would make him is 6'9, or very close to it.
KingNick - very good observation. I honestly think they are the same height barefoot, or if not then definitely within less than an inch of each other. I found this clip with Big Show (a legit 7 footer) and Kane.:
Click Here
At 0:31 they look about 2-3 inches of each other..Now granted Kane probably was wearing lifts here, but the lowest that would make him is 6'9, or very close to it.
Danimal said on 1/Jan/09
KANE is MAX 6'7".
KANE is MAX 6'7".
Da Man said on 1/Jan/09
tuga says
"Da Man, Yankem is NOT taller, his footware is even bigger still"
Yankem's footwear is bigger? That may be your opinion, but it's not what the video shows:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Yankem's boots were plainly and obviously the same size as Taker's in that video, which on the small size for a wrestling boot by today's standards.
tuga says
"Da Man, Yankem is NOT taller, his footware is even bigger still"
Yankem's footwear is bigger? That may be your opinion, but it's not what the video shows:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Yankem's boots were plainly and obviously the same size as Taker's in that video, which on the small size for a wrestling boot by today's standards.
Da Man said on 1/Jan/09
Danimal says on 31/Dec/08
"Rob, why are you allowing DA MAN to spam on this page? AGAIN, at the 5:22 mark, Taker has 2" on Kane: Click Here"
I kept getting error messages, that's why I had multiple messages. The pic I posted WAS at 5:22, NO WHERE in the video did Taker have 2"! 1" yes, but that is accounted for entirely by stance and posture! Once again, once Kane tightened up his stance at 5:26, he was ROUGHLY the same height as Taker in MID-STRIDE! Click Here
This indicates that Kane YET AGAIN edged Taker.
tuga says on 31/Dec/08
"Good point Ray, people have to separate reality from their WWE characters, in WWE Kane character is supposed to be taller than Undertaker."
But Yankem wasn't, even though he was.
Click Here
Click Here
Danimal says on 31/Dec/08
"Rob, why are you allowing DA MAN to spam on this page? AGAIN, at the 5:22 mark, Taker has 2" on Kane: Click Here"
I kept getting error messages, that's why I had multiple messages. The pic I posted WAS at 5:22, NO WHERE in the video did Taker have 2"! 1" yes, but that is accounted for entirely by stance and posture! Once again, once Kane tightened up his stance at 5:26, he was ROUGHLY the same height as Taker in MID-STRIDE! Click Here
This indicates that Kane YET AGAIN edged Taker.
tuga says on 31/Dec/08
"Good point Ray, people have to separate reality from their WWE characters, in WWE Kane character is supposed to be taller than Undertaker."
But Yankem wasn't, even though he was.
Click Here
Click Here
gazz said on 1/Jan/09
im sticking with kane edging out taker but not even by an inch, its the yankem video where no-one can say he was wearing lifts if anything taker had the larger boots and yankem was still taller, also just going by photos of the both of them with other people of the public kane gives the impression of being the taller...he looked huge next to that 5'11ish guy thats posted below somewhere.
im sticking with kane edging out taker but not even by an inch, its the yankem video where no-one can say he was wearing lifts if anything taker had the larger boots and yankem was still taller, also just going by photos of the both of them with other people of the public kane gives the impression of being the taller...he looked huge next to that 5'11ish guy thats posted below somewhere.
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.