Add a Comment3558 comments
Average Guess (482 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 9.65in (207.4cm)
Current: 6ft 8.71in (205cm)
Peak: 6ft 9.65in (207.4cm)
Current: 6ft 8.71in (205cm)
Drummer777 said on 26/Jan/11
Basketball shoes do add a little more than 1 inch, in some cases 1 inch, in others 1 1/2 inches and yet some Basketball shoes add 2 inches. Unless Tyler Mane is Fibing about his height....lol
Basketball shoes do add a little more than 1 inch, in some cases 1 inch, in others 1 1/2 inches and yet some Basketball shoes add 2 inches. Unless Tyler Mane is Fibing about his height....lol
Nishanth Hegde said on 25/Jan/11
Drummer777 says on 20/Jan/11
I think nash is 6'10 in his shoes and that was used as his basketball height, but in his bare feet, he is 6'8 or 6'8 1/2. so you can say he is 6'10, just with his foot apparell on.
Went to Subway a while back and this guy was really tall I asked him how tall he was and he said 6'10, plays basketball for high school, so then I asked him another key question how tall are you barefoot, he smiled and said 6'8. so in shoes this other guy is 6'10. good stuff
A shoe adds 1 inch at the most to a person's height. If he has really thick soles and lifts in it,then it might add 2 inches.I doubt every 6ft10 shoed person in the world is 6ft8 barefoot!
Drummer777 says on 20/Jan/11
I think nash is 6'10 in his shoes and that was used as his basketball height, but in his bare feet, he is 6'8 or 6'8 1/2. so you can say he is 6'10, just with his foot apparell on.
Went to Subway a while back and this guy was really tall I asked him how tall he was and he said 6'10, plays basketball for high school, so then I asked him another key question how tall are you barefoot, he smiled and said 6'8. so in shoes this other guy is 6'10. good stuff
A shoe adds 1 inch at the most to a person's height. If he has really thick soles and lifts in it,then it might add 2 inches.I doubt every 6ft10 shoed person in the world is 6ft8 barefoot!
Lester said on 22/Jan/11
i'm 6'0" tall and I once took down a 6'8" guy by blowing his knee. Big deal, I cut tall timber down to size.
i'm 6'0" tall and I once took down a 6'8" guy by blowing his knee. Big deal, I cut tall timber down to size.
Drummer777 said on 22/Jan/11
Well the guy I met at Subway was in Highschool played basketball for Highschool, said he was 6'10 in his shoes and he is 6'8 barefoot...
Maybe someone should get a tape measure and walk up to Kevin Nash and see...
Well the guy I met at Subway was in Highschool played basketball for Highschool, said he was 6'10 in his shoes and he is 6'8 barefoot...
Maybe someone should get a tape measure and walk up to Kevin Nash and see...
Robby said on 22/Jan/11
Tim Duncan was listed without shoes at 6'11". that's weird how Wake Forest had him listed at 6'10".
Tim Duncan was listed without shoes at 6'11". that's weird how Wake Forest had him listed at 6'10".
Vegas said on 22/Jan/11
highschool bb listings and ncaa division 1 bb listings are worlds apart drummer
are you saying tim duncan is really just 6'8 because he was listed 6'10 in college?? Click Here
highschool bb listings and ncaa division 1 bb listings are worlds apart drummer
are you saying tim duncan is really just 6'8 because he was listed 6'10 in college?? Click Here
Drummer777 said on 20/Jan/11
I think nash is 6'10 in his shoes and that was used as his basketball height, but in his bare feet, he is 6'8 or 6'8 1/2. so you can say he is 6'10, just with his foot apparell on.
Went to Subway a while back and this guy was really tall I asked him how tall he was and he said 6'10, plays basketball for high school, so then I asked him another key question how tall are you barefoot, he smiled and said 6'8. so in shoes this other guy is 6'10. good stuff
I think nash is 6'10 in his shoes and that was used as his basketball height, but in his bare feet, he is 6'8 or 6'8 1/2. so you can say he is 6'10, just with his foot apparell on.
Went to Subway a while back and this guy was really tall I asked him how tall he was and he said 6'10, plays basketball for high school, so then I asked him another key question how tall are you barefoot, he smiled and said 6'8. so in shoes this other guy is 6'10. good stuff
flo said on 18/Jan/11
nash...is...6"10...
nash...is...6"10...
Vegas said on 17/Jan/11
i have never seen anything mentioned about his back, its his knees that have given him trouble since college, his last major surgeries were on his arms and no he wasn't 6'10.5, he was listed 6'10 in college ball and 6'10 in wrestling when he started, 57 second mark Click Here
i have never seen anything mentioned about his back, its his knees that have given him trouble since college, his last major surgeries were on his arms and no he wasn't 6'10.5, he was listed 6'10 in college ball and 6'10 in wrestling when he started, 57 second mark Click Here
Danimal said on 16/Jan/11
Vegas says on 8/Jan/11
danimal loves 1980s hogan :D
Dream about him every night ;).
Vegas says on 8/Jan/11
danimal loves 1980s hogan :D
Dream about him every night ;).
Danimal said on 16/Jan/11
solared says on 15/Jan/11
He was 6'10 1/2 don't go by what you see in pics and what you see now, the guy has degenerative discs, he may actually be 6'8 1/2 now his back is in terrible shape
He also has the worst knees in the industry (behind Hulk Hogan).
solared says on 15/Jan/11
He was 6'10 1/2 don't go by what you see in pics and what you see now, the guy has degenerative discs, he may actually be 6'8 1/2 now his back is in terrible shape
He also has the worst knees in the industry (behind Hulk Hogan).
solared said on 15/Jan/11
He was 6'10 1/2 don't go by what you see in pics and what you see now, the guy has degenerative discs, he may actually be 6'8 1/2 now his back is in terrible shape
He was 6'10 1/2 don't go by what you see in pics and what you see now, the guy has degenerative discs, he may actually be 6'8 1/2 now his back is in terrible shape
Joe said on 11/Jan/11
there he is. mr clique himself.
there he is. mr clique himself.
Vegas said on 8/Jan/11
danimal loves 1980s hogan :D
danimal loves 1980s hogan :D
Danimal said on 8/Jan/11
Robby says on 7/Jan/11
Jacky you sound a lot like our dear old friend Ola. we give you proof and pics and you either change the subject or completely ignore or make accusations saying "oh he is wearing lifts." or some excuse. everything that Vegas,Jackie Knife or myself have presented so much evidence that points to Nash being at least 6'9". we're all just too tired of taking to someone who's parents built them a swingset facing a brick wall. Nash is at least 6'9" even the Rob thinks so and he runs the site. case closed for me.
Ola was never a friend ;)...
Robby says on 7/Jan/11
Jacky you sound a lot like our dear old friend Ola. we give you proof and pics and you either change the subject or completely ignore or make accusations saying "oh he is wearing lifts." or some excuse. everything that Vegas,Jackie Knife or myself have presented so much evidence that points to Nash being at least 6'9". we're all just too tired of taking to someone who's parents built them a swingset facing a brick wall. Nash is at least 6'9" even the Rob thinks so and he runs the site. case closed for me.
Ola was never a friend ;)...
Danimal said on 8/Jan/11
JT says on 8/Jan/11
Spivey was only around an inch taller than ~ 6'5" Bill Fralic Click Here and Scott Hall Click Here
That is how a PEAK Hogan would have stacked up next to Scott Hall in the 1980's..
JT says on 8/Jan/11
Spivey was only around an inch taller than ~ 6'5" Bill Fralic Click Here and Scott Hall Click Here
That is how a PEAK Hogan would have stacked up next to Scott Hall in the 1980's..
JT said on 8/Jan/11
Spivey was only around an inch taller than ~ 6'5" Bill Fralic Click Here and Scott Hall Click Here
Spivey was only around an inch taller than ~ 6'5" Bill Fralic Click Here and Scott Hall Click Here
Captain said on 7/Jan/11
Click Here
This is Scott Hall with a peak Dan Spivey circa 1984 as the tag team American Starship. Kevin Nash never looked this short next to Scott Hall. Nash always looked about 4" or more taller than Hall. Peak Scott Hall was in the 6'5" range and peak Spivey was in the 6'6" range. Peak Nash was in the 6'9" range, and he is still around 6'9" tall today.
Click Here
This is Scott Hall with a peak Dan Spivey circa 1984 as the tag team American Starship. Kevin Nash never looked this short next to Scott Hall. Nash always looked about 4" or more taller than Hall. Peak Scott Hall was in the 6'5" range and peak Spivey was in the 6'6" range. Peak Nash was in the 6'9" range, and he is still around 6'9" tall today.
Robby said on 7/Jan/11
Jacky you sound a lot like our dear old friend Ola. we give you proof and pics and you either change the subject or completely ignore or make accusations saying "oh he is wearing lifts." or some excuse. everything that Vegas,Jackie Knife or myself have presented so much evidence that points to Nash being at least 6'9". we're all just too tired of taking to someone who's parents built them a swingset facing a brick wall. Nash is at least 6'9" even the Rob thinks so and he runs the site. case closed for me.
Jacky you sound a lot like our dear old friend Ola. we give you proof and pics and you either change the subject or completely ignore or make accusations saying "oh he is wearing lifts." or some excuse. everything that Vegas,Jackie Knife or myself have presented so much evidence that points to Nash being at least 6'9". we're all just too tired of taking to someone who's parents built them a swingset facing a brick wall. Nash is at least 6'9" even the Rob thinks so and he runs the site. case closed for me.
Danimal said on 7/Jan/11
jacky says on 5/Jan/11
first of all - in 1995 spivey was 43 year old. if this is your proof than you realy got nothing. there are hundreds of photos of spivey next to sid and undertaker and he was taller than both of them. so, unless you want to tell me that sid and taker are this much shorter than nash (and more), then you realy got nothing. the guy obviously shrinked or nash is wearing high heels as usual.
The past tense of shrink is SHRUNK, NOT SHRINKED...
jacky says on 5/Jan/11
first of all - in 1995 spivey was 43 year old. if this is your proof than you realy got nothing. there are hundreds of photos of spivey next to sid and undertaker and he was taller than both of them. so, unless you want to tell me that sid and taker are this much shorter than nash (and more), then you realy got nothing. the guy obviously shrinked or nash is wearing high heels as usual.
The past tense of shrink is SHRUNK, NOT SHRINKED...
tell-em said on 6/Jan/11
he looks taller than spivey too me, unless u think the top of sid's head is where his curly hairline starts on his forehead.
he looks taller than spivey too me, unless u think the top of sid's head is where his curly hairline starts on his forehead.
Vegas said on 6/Jan/11
i give up, not going to debate each and every wrestler's height with you, believe what you want to believe, lets just agree to disagree
how you thought nash and spivey were around the same height is beyond me though, did you watch any wrestling in the early 90s?? nash could have passed for 7ft at times, spivey never looked this tall, key words there is "could have" :D Click Here
anyway to finish spivey wasn't 6'7 and he wasn't taller than either taker or sid, in that photo sid is actually taller, nash had about 2 inches on sid, sid had 2-2.5 on hogan, nash had hogan by about 5
the year 2000 Click Here
1992, 30 seconds in Click Here
1997 Click Here
here is nash and jorge gonzales barefoot from 1990-91, gonzales was listed 7'6 by the nba, the guy playing swamp thing who nash and gonzales pass right at the start is listed 6'5 Click Here
i give up, not going to debate each and every wrestler's height with you, believe what you want to believe, lets just agree to disagree
how you thought nash and spivey were around the same height is beyond me though, did you watch any wrestling in the early 90s?? nash could have passed for 7ft at times, spivey never looked this tall, key words there is "could have" :D Click Here
anyway to finish spivey wasn't 6'7 and he wasn't taller than either taker or sid, in that photo sid is actually taller, nash had about 2 inches on sid, sid had 2-2.5 on hogan, nash had hogan by about 5
the year 2000 Click Here
1992, 30 seconds in Click Here
1997 Click Here
here is nash and jorge gonzales barefoot from 1990-91, gonzales was listed 7'6 by the nba, the guy playing swamp thing who nash and gonzales pass right at the start is listed 6'5 Click Here
Vegas said on 5/Jan/11
well jacky there was a staredown between spivey and nash in 1995 Click Here
spivey wasn't 6'7, he was arrested a couple of times (2000, 2007) and both times his booking sheet said 6'6
well jacky there was a staredown between spivey and nash in 1995 Click Here
spivey wasn't 6'7, he was arrested a couple of times (2000, 2007) and both times his booking sheet said 6'6
Vegas said on 3/Jan/11
jacky you imply it indirectly e.g. you said kaz was 187 and that nash didn't have more than 6 inches on him and that nash was in much bigger boots, that nash/kaz match was over 19 years ago, if hall was 6'3 then most wrestlers (and quite a few other celebs) need to be downgraded big time, you do realise that hall was billed at 6'9 in awa in the mid 80s, how tall jerry lawler in 1992-93 e.g hall had him by 6-7 inches Click Here thats jerry lawler and 6'2 listed adam west for comparison Click Here
hall had vince mcmahon by at least 4 inches nearly 20 years ago and there on people on here claiming vince was 6'2 back then Click Here
sting was approx ultimate warriors height in the 80s Click Here
hall wasn't shorter than 6'4 imo
jacky you imply it indirectly e.g. you said kaz was 187 and that nash didn't have more than 6 inches on him and that nash was in much bigger boots, that nash/kaz match was over 19 years ago, if hall was 6'3 then most wrestlers (and quite a few other celebs) need to be downgraded big time, you do realise that hall was billed at 6'9 in awa in the mid 80s, how tall jerry lawler in 1992-93 e.g hall had him by 6-7 inches Click Here thats jerry lawler and 6'2 listed adam west for comparison Click Here
hall had vince mcmahon by at least 4 inches nearly 20 years ago and there on people on here claiming vince was 6'2 back then Click Here
sting was approx ultimate warriors height in the 80s Click Here
hall wasn't shorter than 6'4 imo
d wade said on 3/Jan/11
hulk must be wearing lifts in the picture with bill wennington look at the legs of both and than look at the upper body of both . sid looks shorter than hall in picture has he lost height vegas?
hulk must be wearing lifts in the picture with bill wennington look at the legs of both and than look at the upper body of both . sid looks shorter than hall in picture has he lost height vegas?
Robby said on 3/Jan/11
the other guy in the Hogan picture is Bill Wennington. he use to play for the Chicago Bulls back in the Jordan Era.being from Chicago I watched Bill play all the time.he was listed at 7 feet tall. Jacky I am more open to admitting that Nash is in the 6'9" range. I told you I have a open mind and I am willing to listen to both sides of the debate. I just cant see Nash being under 6'9". especially considering he looks every bit that in the Oliver Miller photo. cant deny that. as for wearing lifts that a pretty big accusation without showing any proof. if you're gonna present your reasoning to why Nash is wearing lifts. you have to show some pics or vids that display that. then perhaps we might take you more seriously.
the other guy in the Hogan picture is Bill Wennington. he use to play for the Chicago Bulls back in the Jordan Era.being from Chicago I watched Bill play all the time.he was listed at 7 feet tall. Jacky I am more open to admitting that Nash is in the 6'9" range. I told you I have a open mind and I am willing to listen to both sides of the debate. I just cant see Nash being under 6'9". especially considering he looks every bit that in the Oliver Miller photo. cant deny that. as for wearing lifts that a pretty big accusation without showing any proof. if you're gonna present your reasoning to why Nash is wearing lifts. you have to show some pics or vids that display that. then perhaps we might take you more seriously.
Vegas said on 3/Jan/11
which photo jacky, here is a photo, how tall does sid look Click Here here is a photo how tall would you estimate the other guy next to hogan, 2002 Click Here why are you referring to photos when there are tons of video of hogan/nash/hall
as for footwear nash is in 1/4 inch flip flops Click Here nash in slippers here (giving half an inch tops) and further from the camera for alot of the vid while hall is in big heavy work (at least 1.5 inchers) boots and bischoff in ~2 inch cubans Click Here
again i don't think nash was/is 6'10 but he is taller than you are trying to pin him at 6'7
which photo jacky, here is a photo, how tall does sid look Click Here here is a photo how tall would you estimate the other guy next to hogan, 2002 Click Here why are you referring to photos when there are tons of video of hogan/nash/hall
as for footwear nash is in 1/4 inch flip flops Click Here nash in slippers here (giving half an inch tops) and further from the camera for alot of the vid while hall is in big heavy work (at least 1.5 inchers) boots and bischoff in ~2 inch cubans Click Here
again i don't think nash was/is 6'10 but he is taller than you are trying to pin him at 6'7
robby said on 2/Jan/11
The problem with that is that kevin nash hasn't been in the wrestling business for 25 years . oliver miller was measured at 6 foot 7 and a half inches tall and kevin nash was to inches taller than him. matt bloom otherwise known as a train at least 6'6"and nash had him by at least 3 inches. Hogan was about 6'3.5" when he faced the Rock at wrestlemania 18. If u look at pics with Nash and Hogan and the ones from 1998 to 2002. In 98 u would see that he topped off at Nash's eyebrow line. In 2002 pic scroll down the page and stop the page at Nash's eyebrow line. there you can see the height difference.to where hogan topped off in 98 compared to 2002.
The problem with that is that kevin nash hasn't been in the wrestling business for 25 years . oliver miller was measured at 6 foot 7 and a half inches tall and kevin nash was to inches taller than him. matt bloom otherwise known as a train at least 6'6"and nash had him by at least 3 inches. Hogan was about 6'3.5" when he faced the Rock at wrestlemania 18. If u look at pics with Nash and Hogan and the ones from 1998 to 2002. In 98 u would see that he topped off at Nash's eyebrow line. In 2002 pic scroll down the page and stop the page at Nash's eyebrow line. there you can see the height difference.to where hogan topped off in 98 compared to 2002.
Vegas said on 2/Jan/11
jacky that photo is from 1996, nash is only 36 years old there and had been in the wrestling business less than 6 years at that point having debuted in september 1990, so 35 is past peak now?? too bad for me i turn that age in a few days :( Click Here
when was nash at peak then jacky, the 1994 video with kareem he was 34 years old, the video with bill kazmaier was october 1991 so he was just 31 years old and yet both of those you claimed he was 6'7 in!!!! so let me guess he lost height in his 20s??
jacky if nash is 6'7 there with hogan Click Here then how tall is andre the giant next to hogan 1984 Click Here 1987 Click Here
and watching the videos would be an idea this time :D
jacky that photo is from 1996, nash is only 36 years old there and had been in the wrestling business less than 6 years at that point having debuted in september 1990, so 35 is past peak now?? too bad for me i turn that age in a few days :( Click Here
when was nash at peak then jacky, the 1994 video with kareem he was 34 years old, the video with bill kazmaier was october 1991 so he was just 31 years old and yet both of those you claimed he was 6'7 in!!!! so let me guess he lost height in his 20s??
jacky if nash is 6'7 there with hogan Click Here then how tall is andre the giant next to hogan 1984 Click Here 1987 Click Here
and watching the videos would be an idea this time :D
robby said on 2/Jan/11
Jacky those are PEAK HEIGHTS that I listed. With Rock and hogan that was 2002.hulk hogan had lost considerable height by then.
Jacky those are PEAK HEIGHTS that I listed. With Rock and hogan that was 2002.hulk hogan had lost considerable height by then.
d wade said on 2/Jan/11
the rock with hogan Click Here
they are really close in height with hogan 1/4 or 1/2 inch advantage over rock.
the rock with hogan Click Here
they are really close in height with hogan 1/4 or 1/2 inch advantage over rock.
tell-em said on 31/Dec/10
Vegas says on 30/Dec/10
jake looked ~6'4 with orton 5-6 years ago and he has a footwear advantage too that night as he was in 1.4 inch shox over ortons flat dress-shoes
actually, jake was a 1/2 inch taller than randy orton. i think both men are 6'4.5"
Vegas says on 30/Dec/10
jake looked ~6'4 with orton 5-6 years ago and he has a footwear advantage too that night as he was in 1.4 inch shox over ortons flat dress-shoes
actually, jake was a 1/2 inch taller than randy orton. i think both men are 6'4.5"
Robby said on 31/Dec/10
as for Nash. his eyebrow line is about 6'5" thats where guys like Scott Hall and Hulk Hogan would top out at. Vegas, I could see Nash being 6'9". Jacky sorry no way he is 6'8" and the answer is still No!
as for Nash. his eyebrow line is about 6'5" thats where guys like Scott Hall and Hulk Hogan would top out at. Vegas, I could see Nash being 6'9". Jacky sorry no way he is 6'8" and the answer is still No!
PatB said on 31/Dec/10
I saw an interesting wrestling match a few years ago on TV. It was billed as Korean Sumo. I expected fat guys - but no - tall guys. It was a real match not a "pro" wrestling match. The shorter guy won. He was 7'2". The loser was 7'3".
Mr. Nash is pretty tall but he would be a runt next to those Koreans.
I saw an interesting wrestling match a few years ago on TV. It was billed as Korean Sumo. I expected fat guys - but no - tall guys. It was a real match not a "pro" wrestling match. The shorter guy won. He was 7'2". The loser was 7'3".
Mr. Nash is pretty tall but he would be a runt next to those Koreans.
Jackie Knife said on 31/Dec/10
jacky
you are acting so stupid. so weak. you are surely the wittiest person alive, but i thought you could discuss it in normal way. so you have no evidence? ok, i don't care. but don't try to act so wise - "oh, these guys are so stupid i don't even want to argue".
every single question that you and swarupb asked me i responded. but when i tried to get some answer from you, guys, it was just silence.
you think bundy is under 6'2"?
you think difference between bundy and nash is less than 7"?
you think in their match with kaz nash looks like he has some lifts on?
you think in their match from 1991 difference between nash and kaz is less than 6,5 inches?
you think difference between nash and oliver miller is less than 1,5"?
are you suspicious about miller's 6'7,5" listing?
ps: and by the way, jacky. nash is 8'4", you smartass
jacky
you are acting so stupid. so weak. you are surely the wittiest person alive, but i thought you could discuss it in normal way. so you have no evidence? ok, i don't care. but don't try to act so wise - "oh, these guys are so stupid i don't even want to argue".
every single question that you and swarupb asked me i responded. but when i tried to get some answer from you, guys, it was just silence.
you think bundy is under 6'2"?
you think difference between bundy and nash is less than 7"?
you think in their match with kaz nash looks like he has some lifts on?
you think in their match from 1991 difference between nash and kaz is less than 6,5 inches?
you think difference between nash and oliver miller is less than 1,5"?
are you suspicious about miller's 6'7,5" listing?
ps: and by the way, jacky. nash is 8'4", you smartass
Vegas said on 30/Dec/10
sid and nash, in these nash doesn't look to be more than 2 inches taller than sid
1995 Click Here
1999 Click Here
looks a little bit more than 2 inches in this video at times Click Here
sid and nash, in these nash doesn't look to be more than 2 inches taller than sid
1995 Click Here
1999 Click Here
looks a little bit more than 2 inches in this video at times Click Here
Robby said on 30/Dec/10
oh yeah Jacky, I am referring to peak heights here. its possible Nash could have been 6'9.5" I think he was 6'10" its just my opinion... I wonder if that will raise your blood pressure even more.... I saw about 2.5"-3" between Nash and Sid at the first ever In Your House May, 1995... JT has the pics posted on his photobucket page. river of darkness? I never heard of it. was it good?
oh yeah Jacky, I am referring to peak heights here. its possible Nash could have been 6'9.5" I think he was 6'10" its just my opinion... I wonder if that will raise your blood pressure even more.... I saw about 2.5"-3" between Nash and Sid at the first ever In Your House May, 1995... JT has the pics posted on his photobucket page. river of darkness? I never heard of it. was it good?
Vegas said on 30/Dec/10
jake looked ~6'4 with orton 5-6 years ago and he has a footwear advantage too that night as he was in 1.4 inch shox over ortons flat dress-shoes
this was filmed in 2001, aired feb 2002, roberts in his wrestling boots with 5'11 cricket listed david gower and jonathan ross (who is approx will smiths height for those that don't watch his show) Click Here
jake looked ~6'4 with orton 5-6 years ago and he has a footwear advantage too that night as he was in 1.4 inch shox over ortons flat dress-shoes
this was filmed in 2001, aired feb 2002, roberts in his wrestling boots with 5'11 cricket listed david gower and jonathan ross (who is approx will smiths height for those that don't watch his show) Click Here
d wade said on 30/Dec/10
the undertaker was more like 2,5 inches taller than hogan not only 1,5.
the undertaker was more like 2,5 inches taller than hogan not only 1,5.
robby said on 30/Dec/10
I can go with Jake being 6'5". I was on the fence:
I can go with Jake being 6'5". I was on the fence:
Red said on 30/Dec/10
Robby, Jake Roberts was taller than 6´4", with equal footwear he was the same height as a peak 6´5.5" Hogan (maybe a half inch shorter) and with lifts he was just around 1.5 inches shorter than The Undertaker in normal wrestlingboots.
Hogan peak 6´5.5" , 6´6.5" in wrestlingboots
Jake peak 6´5", 6´6" in normal wrestling boots, 6´7" in his munsters
Undertaker peak 6´7.25", in ring gear 6´8"- 6´8.5" depending on his boots
Robby, Jake Roberts was taller than 6´4", with equal footwear he was the same height as a peak 6´5.5" Hogan (maybe a half inch shorter) and with lifts he was just around 1.5 inches shorter than The Undertaker in normal wrestlingboots.
Hogan peak 6´5.5" , 6´6.5" in wrestlingboots
Jake peak 6´5", 6´6" in normal wrestling boots, 6´7" in his munsters
Undertaker peak 6´7.25", in ring gear 6´8"- 6´8.5" depending on his boots
Danimal said on 29/Dec/10
Hennig was a strong 6'1" guy, billed at 6'2"-6'3"..
Hall was a strong 6'4"/weak 6'5" guy (same height as Hogan was by the time they were in the NWO together in 1996)...
Hennig was a strong 6'1" guy, billed at 6'2"-6'3"..
Hall was a strong 6'4"/weak 6'5" guy (same height as Hogan was by the time they were in the NWO together in 1996)...
Tuga said on 29/Dec/10
I believe hennig was around 6'1 1/2, hall was no less than 6'5 maybe 6'5 1/2.
Hall and nash with 6'9 nba listed magic johnson (no less than legit 6'7)
Click Here
I believe hennig was around 6'1 1/2, hall was no less than 6'5 maybe 6'5 1/2.
Hall and nash with 6'9 nba listed magic johnson (no less than legit 6'7)
Click Here
Vegas said on 29/Dec/10
i have never seen a scott hall mugshot, there was a scott hall booking sheet Click Here
hall was not 4 inches shorter than taker in the 80s when they wrestled together in japan, more like ~2-2.5
i have never seen a scott hall mugshot, there was a scott hall booking sheet Click Here
hall was not 4 inches shorter than taker in the 80s when they wrestled together in japan, more like ~2-2.5
Clay said on 28/Dec/10
Under 6'5'' for Scott Hall isn't plausible.
Under 6'5'' for Scott Hall isn't plausible.
Jackie Knife said on 28/Dec/10
jacky
everything is ok. pretty much ok.
1) tell exactly where i've been wrong. is this situation with 6.5-7 inches between nash and kaz? or is this situation with 1,5-2" inches between nash and taker? or it's maybe something wrong with miller's listing?
2) if hall is 6'3" that means sid is 6'5", hogan is 6'2,5" and ultimate warrior is 5'11". is THAT ok?
3)
jacky
everything is ok. pretty much ok.
1) tell exactly where i've been wrong. is this situation with 6.5-7 inches between nash and kaz? or is this situation with 1,5-2" inches between nash and taker? or it's maybe something wrong with miller's listing?
2) if hall is 6'3" that means sid is 6'5", hogan is 6'2,5" and ultimate warrior is 5'11". is THAT ok?
3)
Halb said on 27/Dec/10
I met Davey Boy a few times in the 90s, I reckon he was taller than 5'10.
I met Davey Boy a few times in the 90s, I reckon he was taller than 5'10.
Jackie Knife said on 27/Dec/10
since my post wasn't "released" i have to repeat it once again
swarupb
"I only know one simple fact and that is Kevin Nash is somewhere around 6.75 to 6.8".
it's getting more and more annoying. you can't know something for a fact here. you didn't measure nash with a tape, you don't have his police photo or college listing. so if you don't...how can you say "for a fact"?
nash looks 1,5" taller than oliver miller. maybe you see that, but you don't respond. nash doesn't look short next to wight. but you don't want to admit that there's only 2,5 - 3 inches between him and nash. and i mean nothing more than 2,5-3 inches
Click Here
Click Here
and by the way.
on kane's page you admitted that jacobs is 6'7":
"Sam Rick says on 24/Dec/10
Kane:billed height-6'10
actual height-6'7"
"swarupb says on 24/Dec/10
Sam, I agree with U!"
emmmm....don't you know that kane and taker are about the same height with no lifts on.
Click Here
and don't you know that there's something like 2 inches between nash and taker?
Click Here
Click Here
i proved that nash had 7 inches on 6'2" kaz in their match back in 1991. and i proved that he had no lifts, but you, guys, just don't respond. nice
i just don't understand you
ps: and please. stop convincing us that khali is not that tall. i know that he's your one and only "evidence", but...do you have any video with khali saying in english "i am a shade under 7 feet"?
since my post wasn't "released" i have to repeat it once again
swarupb
"I only know one simple fact and that is Kevin Nash is somewhere around 6.75 to 6.8".
it's getting more and more annoying. you can't know something for a fact here. you didn't measure nash with a tape, you don't have his police photo or college listing. so if you don't...how can you say "for a fact"?
nash looks 1,5" taller than oliver miller. maybe you see that, but you don't respond. nash doesn't look short next to wight. but you don't want to admit that there's only 2,5 - 3 inches between him and nash. and i mean nothing more than 2,5-3 inches
Click Here
Click Here
and by the way.
on kane's page you admitted that jacobs is 6'7":
"Sam Rick says on 24/Dec/10
Kane:billed height-6'10
actual height-6'7"
"swarupb says on 24/Dec/10
Sam, I agree with U!"
emmmm....don't you know that kane and taker are about the same height with no lifts on.
Click Here
and don't you know that there's something like 2 inches between nash and taker?
Click Here
Click Here
i proved that nash had 7 inches on 6'2" kaz in their match back in 1991. and i proved that he had no lifts, but you, guys, just don't respond. nice
i just don't understand you
ps: and please. stop convincing us that khali is not that tall. i know that he's your one and only "evidence", but...do you have any video with khali saying in english "i am a shade under 7 feet"?
Robby said on 27/Dec/10
I would say British Bulldog was about 5'10" as well. he was a little shorter then Bret Hart and a little bit taller then Owen Hart. Jacky I am waiting for you to disprove the Kevin Nash and Oliver Miller pic???? you haven't said one word about that. I am await your arguement on that. or will you just ignore my challenge?
I would say British Bulldog was about 5'10" as well. he was a little shorter then Bret Hart and a little bit taller then Owen Hart. Jacky I am waiting for you to disprove the Kevin Nash and Oliver Miller pic???? you haven't said one word about that. I am await your arguement on that. or will you just ignore my challenge?
robby said on 27/Dec/10
I am not U still have yet to disprove nash and Oliver miller pic he was measured at
6'7.5" nash was clearly taller than miller by 2". some people have agreed with me. If u feel nash more is 6'8" power to u. I just don't care.
I am not U still have yet to disprove nash and Oliver miller pic he was measured at
6'7.5" nash was clearly taller than miller by 2". some people have agreed with me. If u feel nash more is 6'8" power to u. I just don't care.
Clay said on 26/Dec/10
IMO The British Bulldog was 5'10'', though a few on here swear he was really just a pint-sized 5'9''.
IMO The British Bulldog was 5'10'', though a few on here swear he was really just a pint-sized 5'9''.
jacky said on 25/Dec/10
davey boy was 5"10.5 - 5"11. he was one of my favorite wrestlers growing up. he was a little shorter in real life than what he was on tv. the dynamite kid was only 5"7-5"8. most of this guys are not as tall as you think they are, including the nashman.
davey boy was 5"10.5 - 5"11. he was one of my favorite wrestlers growing up. he was a little shorter in real life than what he was on tv. the dynamite kid was only 5"7-5"8. most of this guys are not as tall as you think they are, including the nashman.
KEM said on 25/Dec/10
I would say Robby's arguement is right on
I would say Robby's arguement is right on
swarupb said on 24/Dec/10
MEK, you are quite correct!
Vegas, I didnt watch your video but I think that Bulldog is around 6 or Maybe less. I dont know about Vince.
I only know one simple fact and that is Kevin Nash is somewhere around 6.75 to 6.8. If hes more than this, then he will appear to be same as the Big Show, which he is not!!!
MEK, you are quite correct!
Vegas, I didnt watch your video but I think that Bulldog is around 6 or Maybe less. I dont know about Vince.
I only know one simple fact and that is Kevin Nash is somewhere around 6.75 to 6.8. If hes more than this, then he will appear to be same as the Big Show, which he is not!!!
Vegas said on 24/Dec/10
jacky and swarupb just out of interest how tall do you guys think british bulldog and vince mcmahon were, thats 15 years ago so vince is 49 Click Here
jacky and swarupb just out of interest how tall do you guys think british bulldog and vince mcmahon were, thats 15 years ago so vince is 49 Click Here
Clay said on 23/Dec/10
MEK says on 23/Dec/10
Giant Gonzales = Peak real height(early 90s) 7'5" (Rip)7.4"
Great Khali = = = 7'0" now 6'11.5"
Big Show = = = 6'10.5" = 6'10"
Kevin Nash = = = 6'8" = 6'7.5"
Undertaker = = = 6'6.5" = 6'6"
Hulk Hogan = = (early 80s) 6'4" = 6'3"
Stone Cold = = (early 90s) 6'0" = 5'11.5"
(maximum ~ = half inch)
Yikes....
MEK says on 23/Dec/10
Giant Gonzales = Peak real height(early 90s) 7'5" (Rip)7.4"
Great Khali = = = 7'0" now 6'11.5"
Big Show = = = 6'10.5" = 6'10"
Kevin Nash = = = 6'8" = 6'7.5"
Undertaker = = = 6'6.5" = 6'6"
Hulk Hogan = = (early 80s) 6'4" = 6'3"
Stone Cold = = (early 90s) 6'0" = 5'11.5"
(maximum ~ = half inch)
Yikes....
Danimal said on 23/Dec/10
jacky says on 23/Dec/10
jackie knife, if there is 6.5 inches between nash and kaz like you said, that would make nash only 6"8, because it's a well known fact that nash used to wear the "biggest" boots as you described it. you can see by looking at nash that his posture is consistent with someone wearing high heels - just look at his knees.
vegas, kaz wasn't listed as 6"3. only on television he was 6"3 and even that was only in the usa. in europe he was allways 187-188 cm. it's just like with Phil Pfister. on television they allways list him as 6"7 or 6"8, but in real life he is only 6"6. they allways do that on espn.
Phil Pfister has never been listed as being over 6'7" and usually gets 6'6" at the WSM.. True height = 6'5.5".
jacky says on 23/Dec/10
jackie knife, if there is 6.5 inches between nash and kaz like you said, that would make nash only 6"8, because it's a well known fact that nash used to wear the "biggest" boots as you described it. you can see by looking at nash that his posture is consistent with someone wearing high heels - just look at his knees.
vegas, kaz wasn't listed as 6"3. only on television he was 6"3 and even that was only in the usa. in europe he was allways 187-188 cm. it's just like with Phil Pfister. on television they allways list him as 6"7 or 6"8, but in real life he is only 6"6. they allways do that on espn.
Phil Pfister has never been listed as being over 6'7" and usually gets 6'6" at the WSM.. True height = 6'5.5".
Jackie Knife said on 23/Dec/10
ahhhh, robby...you're so right but some guys will say that oliver is 6'6" or he's just 0,5" shorter than nash
ahhhh, robby...you're so right but some guys will say that oliver is 6'6" or he's just 0,5" shorter than nash
Robby said on 23/Dec/10
Nash is taller then 6'8"! Nash is clearly taller by about 2" then legit 6'7.5" Oliver Miller. Oliver Miller was measured at 6'7.5" WITHOUT SHOES ON before 1992 NBA Draft. JT has a picture with Nash and Miller as shown in my post below. if Nash was 6'8" then those two men would be just about identical in height. But Nash is TALLER then Miller. so that throws out any arguement with Nash being 6'8". Nash is at least 6'9". come on look at the picture! you're telling me their is only a half inch difference?????
Nash is taller then 6'8"! Nash is clearly taller by about 2" then legit 6'7.5" Oliver Miller. Oliver Miller was measured at 6'7.5" WITHOUT SHOES ON before 1992 NBA Draft. JT has a picture with Nash and Miller as shown in my post below. if Nash was 6'8" then those two men would be just about identical in height. But Nash is TALLER then Miller. so that throws out any arguement with Nash being 6'8". Nash is at least 6'9". come on look at the picture! you're telling me their is only a half inch difference?????
Jackie Knife said on 23/Dec/10
jacky
"it's a well known fact that nash used to wear the "biggest" boots as you described it"
really? i didn't know. would you please post any picture or video that will show us nash with some lifts on. in his match against kaz kevin doesn't look to wear lifts. just take a look.
does it look like lifts to you? bill's boots look huge compare to kevin's
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
speaking of nash's knees. man...it's just nash's knees. he had more than dozen surgeries. it's just the way he walks, it's just his tread. haven't you ever noticed that his right leg is a kinda bandy, even crooked?
jacky
"it's a well known fact that nash used to wear the "biggest" boots as you described it"
really? i didn't know. would you please post any picture or video that will show us nash with some lifts on. in his match against kaz kevin doesn't look to wear lifts. just take a look.
does it look like lifts to you? bill's boots look huge compare to kevin's
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
speaking of nash's knees. man...it's just nash's knees. he had more than dozen surgeries. it's just the way he walks, it's just his tread. haven't you ever noticed that his right leg is a kinda bandy, even crooked?
MEK said on 23/Dec/10
Giant Gonzales = Peak real height(early 90s) 7'5" (Rip)7.4"
Great Khali = = = 7'0" now 6'11.5"
Big Show = = = 6'10.5" = 6'10"
Kevin Nash = = = 6'8" = 6'7.5"
Undertaker = = = 6'6.5" = 6'6"
Hulk Hogan = = (early 80s) 6'4" = 6'3"
Stone Cold = = (early 90s) 6'0" = 5'11.5"
(maximum ~ = half inch)
Giant Gonzales = Peak real height(early 90s) 7'5" (Rip)7.4"
Great Khali = = = 7'0" now 6'11.5"
Big Show = = = 6'10.5" = 6'10"
Kevin Nash = = = 6'8" = 6'7.5"
Undertaker = = = 6'6.5" = 6'6"
Hulk Hogan = = (early 80s) 6'4" = 6'3"
Stone Cold = = (early 90s) 6'0" = 5'11.5"
(maximum ~ = half inch)
Danimal said on 22/Dec/10
Jackie Knife says on 21/Dec/10
by the way, guys, how do you think
how tall was king kong bundy back in mid 90s?
At least 6'3"..
Jackie Knife says on 21/Dec/10
by the way, guys, how do you think
how tall was king kong bundy back in mid 90s?
At least 6'3"..
Danimal said on 22/Dec/10
Vegas says on 22/Dec/10
jacky i don't think nash was 6'10, at least not by the time he joined wcw in 1990, i have him at 6'9 flat, but would be open to evidence +- 0.5 inch
and btw kazmaier was listed 6'3 in wsm (but his real height was probably just 6'2)
1980 WSM he was called out as being 6'2.5" (his TRUE peak height).. Today he's 6'1".
Vegas says on 22/Dec/10
jacky i don't think nash was 6'10, at least not by the time he joined wcw in 1990, i have him at 6'9 flat, but would be open to evidence +- 0.5 inch
and btw kazmaier was listed 6'3 in wsm (but his real height was probably just 6'2)
1980 WSM he was called out as being 6'2.5" (his TRUE peak height).. Today he's 6'1".
Tuga said on 22/Dec/10
Vegas says on 21/Dec/10
takers about 6'7 yeah, i have met him in person a few times, also met mccool in heels and have a photo with her, saw the two of them stand together and he is much taller than her in person even though she had heels on
Vegas, taker´s posture is horrible again as you can see in your pics, don´t you think he could give an "only" 6'7 impression because of his posture?
IMO nash was about 6'10 peak, for example next to legit 6'7 1/2 oliver miller he´s quite taller with bad posture, Vegas, again, don´t you think taker is closer in height to nash than oliver miller?
Vegas says on 21/Dec/10
takers about 6'7 yeah, i have met him in person a few times, also met mccool in heels and have a photo with her, saw the two of them stand together and he is much taller than her in person even though she had heels on
Vegas, taker´s posture is horrible again as you can see in your pics, don´t you think he could give an "only" 6'7 impression because of his posture?
IMO nash was about 6'10 peak, for example next to legit 6'7 1/2 oliver miller he´s quite taller with bad posture, Vegas, again, don´t you think taker is closer in height to nash than oliver miller?
Jackie Knife said on 22/Dec/10
speaking of kazmaier
there's something like 6,5 inches between kevin and bill. and pay some attention to kaz' boots. they look bigger than nash's to me. so, if bill is 6'2" and there's 6'5 inches between him and nash (don't forget footwear advantage) that still means nash is standing at 6 feet 9 inches
Click Here
in next photo both men are slouching, but there's still obvious 6"-7" difference between them
Click Here
speaking of kazmaier
there's something like 6,5 inches between kevin and bill. and pay some attention to kaz' boots. they look bigger than nash's to me. so, if bill is 6'2" and there's 6'5 inches between him and nash (don't forget footwear advantage) that still means nash is standing at 6 feet 9 inches
Click Here
in next photo both men are slouching, but there's still obvious 6"-7" difference between them
Click Here
Vegas said on 22/Dec/10
jacky i don't think nash was 6'10, at least not by the time he joined wcw in 1990, i have him at 6'9 flat, but would be open to evidence +- 0.5 inch
and btw kazmaier was listed 6'3 in wsm (but his real height was probably just 6'2), there is no good comparison between kaz and nash in wcw, kaz was slightly shorter than mick foley in wcw in the early 1990s, foley and nash comparison Click Here
jacky i don't think nash was 6'10, at least not by the time he joined wcw in 1990, i have him at 6'9 flat, but would be open to evidence +- 0.5 inch
and btw kazmaier was listed 6'3 in wsm (but his real height was probably just 6'2), there is no good comparison between kaz and nash in wcw, kaz was slightly shorter than mick foley in wcw in the early 1990s, foley and nash comparison Click Here
Jackie Knife said on 22/Dec/10
jacky
nash is 6'9", not 6'10"
and there's CLEAR 1,5 - 2 inches between 6'7,5" taker and 6'9" nash
Click Here
Click Here
ps: and stop doing this "i met/i know for a fact" thing. show us evidence. show us photos or video
jacky
nash is 6'9", not 6'10"
and there's CLEAR 1,5 - 2 inches between 6'7,5" taker and 6'9" nash
Click Here
Click Here
ps: and stop doing this "i met/i know for a fact" thing. show us evidence. show us photos or video
Clay said on 21/Dec/10
He looks huge in those shots Vegas. 6'7 flat is bunk.
He looks huge in those shots Vegas. 6'7 flat is bunk.
Jackie Knife said on 21/Dec/10
by the way, guys, how do you think
how tall was king kong bundy back in mid 90s?
here's a staredown of these two from 1995. if nash was standing straight he would have 7 or 8 inches on bundy, i guess.
Click Here
by the way, guys, how do you think
how tall was king kong bundy back in mid 90s?
here's a staredown of these two from 1995. if nash was standing straight he would have 7 or 8 inches on bundy, i guess.
Click Here
Robby said on 21/Dec/10
Swarupb and Jacky. what I dont understand is that you guys or guy(probably the same person posting under two different names, Editor Rob can you verify this?) in general think that Nash is 6'8" right???? Well our good friend JT (who's work I admire) posted a pic of Kevin Nash with former NBA Star Oliver Miller Click Here Oliver Miller was measured before the 1992 NBA Draft WITHOUT shoes let me say again WITHOUT SHOES ON! at 6'7.5" Click Here and as you can see in that picture Nash has Miller by 2"-2.5" making him in my opinion a strong 6'9"-6'10" if Nash was 6'8" they would be roughly the same height and since Miller who is just a half inch off of 6'8" AND is clearly about 2" shorter then Mr. Nash then that means.... wait a second... Nash is NOT 6'8"! hey if this makes me a smartass guys or guy. then I am ok with that.... its better to be a smartass then a dumbass...
Swarupb and Jacky. what I dont understand is that you guys or guy(probably the same person posting under two different names, Editor Rob can you verify this?) in general think that Nash is 6'8" right???? Well our good friend JT (who's work I admire) posted a pic of Kevin Nash with former NBA Star Oliver Miller Click Here Oliver Miller was measured before the 1992 NBA Draft WITHOUT shoes let me say again WITHOUT SHOES ON! at 6'7.5" Click Here and as you can see in that picture Nash has Miller by 2"-2.5" making him in my opinion a strong 6'9"-6'10" if Nash was 6'8" they would be roughly the same height and since Miller who is just a half inch off of 6'8" AND is clearly about 2" shorter then Mr. Nash then that means.... wait a second... Nash is NOT 6'8"! hey if this makes me a smartass guys or guy. then I am ok with that.... its better to be a smartass then a dumbass...
Robby said on 21/Dec/10
If you're saying that Nash is 6'8" then Hulk Hogan and Scott Hall were only 6'3" in 1996. which is way off.
If you're saying that Nash is 6'8" then Hulk Hogan and Scott Hall were only 6'3" in 1996. which is way off.
Jackie Knife said on 21/Dec/10
and by the way, i don't think that taker is 6'9". and he has never been. 6'7" is correct i guess
and by the way, i don't think that taker is 6'9". and he has never been. 6'7" is correct i guess
Jackie Knife said on 21/Dec/10
jacky
WHAT? sorry, but you're blind. nothing less than 10" between mccool and take
Click Here
jacky
WHAT? sorry, but you're blind. nothing less than 10" between mccool and take
Click Here
Vegas said on 21/Dec/10
takers about 6'7 yeah, i have met him in person a few times, also met mccool in heels and have a photo with her, saw the two of them stand together and he is much taller than her in person even though she had heels on
mccools height changes alot next to taker e.g she looks short in these, can't find the full shot of this which includes sharmell but you can see feet Click Here chavo is about 5'7 met him too Click Here
takers about 6'7 yeah, i have met him in person a few times, also met mccool in heels and have a photo with her, saw the two of them stand together and he is much taller than her in person even though she had heels on
mccools height changes alot next to taker e.g she looks short in these, can't find the full shot of this which includes sharmell but you can see feet Click Here chavo is about 5'7 met him too Click Here
Jackie Knife said on 21/Dec/10
my God, swarupb
YOU SOUND CRAZY
you really see more difference in the first photo? really? even though nash is slouching a bit it's still obvious that there's more inches between him and hunter (who's the same height as brock) than between taker and khali
Click Here
Click Here
my God, swarupb
YOU SOUND CRAZY
you really see more difference in the first photo? really? even though nash is slouching a bit it's still obvious that there's more inches between him and hunter (who's the same height as brock) than between taker and khali
Click Here
Click Here
Clay said on 21/Dec/10
Vegas, The undertaker Khali difference is more than Nash and Lesnar, look carefully!
LoL, no it isn't.
Vegas, The undertaker Khali difference is more than Nash and Lesnar, look carefully!
LoL, no it isn't.
swarupb said on 20/Dec/10
Vegas says on 18/Dec/10
here is a nash/lesnar staredown, nash is bending his head looking down too so would easily gain an inch or two more if he stood with military posture (or a lesnar type posture with neck stretched) Click Here Click Here
swarupb you claim there is 7+ inches Click Here and now 4 inches Click Here
people no doubt see what they want to see on this site
Vegas, The undertaker Khali difference is more than Nash and Lesnar, look carefully!
Vegas says on 18/Dec/10
here is a nash/lesnar staredown, nash is bending his head looking down too so would easily gain an inch or two more if he stood with military posture (or a lesnar type posture with neck stretched) Click Here Click Here
swarupb you claim there is 7+ inches Click Here and now 4 inches Click Here
people no doubt see what they want to see on this site
Vegas, The undertaker Khali difference is more than Nash and Lesnar, look carefully!
Jackie Knife said on 20/Dec/10
since we have no nash-lesnar staredowns, let's make some math, guys. it's a known fact that brock and goldberg are about the same height (bill may be 1cm taller). the known fact as well is that triple h and goldberg are the same height. so it means that hunter and brock are about the same height too. here's a couple of nash-hunter photos so we can see what lesnar would be like standing that close to kevin
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
it's easy to imagine that if nash wasn't slouching it would be something like 6,5" between them. at every shot hhh is at nash's nose line. i know it's not a way we can discuss something but i'm 6'2" and there's 6 inches from the top of my head to the tip of my nose. so nash (being a giant)has to have little more.
and here's one good video of kev-hunter fight after highlight reel. it's obvious that nash has more than a "half head" on hunter, jacky
Click Here
since we have no nash-lesnar staredowns, let's make some math, guys. it's a known fact that brock and goldberg are about the same height (bill may be 1cm taller). the known fact as well is that triple h and goldberg are the same height. so it means that hunter and brock are about the same height too. here's a couple of nash-hunter photos so we can see what lesnar would be like standing that close to kevin
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
it's easy to imagine that if nash wasn't slouching it would be something like 6,5" between them. at every shot hhh is at nash's nose line. i know it's not a way we can discuss something but i'm 6'2" and there's 6 inches from the top of my head to the tip of my nose. so nash (being a giant)has to have little more.
and here's one good video of kev-hunter fight after highlight reel. it's obvious that nash has more than a "half head" on hunter, jacky
Click Here
Vegas said on 20/Dec/10
jacky, nash is looking down on lesnar, look at the difference in shoulder height, when you look down on someone it alters it alot, nobody here thinks chris jericho is taller than 5'10 but yet when shaq looked down on him he didn't look ~15-16 inches taller Click Here
jacky, nash is looking down on lesnar, look at the difference in shoulder height, when you look down on someone it alters it alot, nobody here thinks chris jericho is taller than 5'10 but yet when shaq looked down on him he didn't look ~15-16 inches taller Click Here
Robby said on 19/Dec/10
warupb Nash has more then five inches over Brock Lesnar. Nash's eyebrow level is about 6'5" thats where Hulk Hogan and Scott Hall would always top out. that's where guys like Dan Spivey and Mabel would be slightly above. those guys are 6'6". Nash is clearly taller then 6'8". he is at the very least 6'9" he was billed at 7 feet tall when he was Diesel and was billed 7'1" in WCW. Nash was one of the first wrestlers to publicly denounced his billing and admit that he was 6'10" so if you're saying Nash is 6'8" then Mamun is only 5'6" -5'7" not 5'8.25"
warupb Nash has more then five inches over Brock Lesnar. Nash's eyebrow level is about 6'5" thats where Hulk Hogan and Scott Hall would always top out. that's where guys like Dan Spivey and Mabel would be slightly above. those guys are 6'6". Nash is clearly taller then 6'8". he is at the very least 6'9" he was billed at 7 feet tall when he was Diesel and was billed 7'1" in WCW. Nash was one of the first wrestlers to publicly denounced his billing and admit that he was 6'10" so if you're saying Nash is 6'8" then Mamun is only 5'6" -5'7" not 5'8.25"
The Ben said on 19/Dec/10
The Nash Lesnar Video is hard to call because of the angle, I'd say 6'2-6'2.5 Lesnar and i've met Nash and he looked 6'10 back in 94.
In the video I was suprised how shaort x pac looked, 5'10 maybe, 5'11.5 HBK.
The Nash Lesnar Video is hard to call because of the angle, I'd say 6'2-6'2.5 Lesnar and i've met Nash and he looked 6'10 back in 94.
In the video I was suprised how shaort x pac looked, 5'10 maybe, 5'11.5 HBK.
d wade said on 19/Dec/10
nash has a minimum head of 11 inches jacky that is what a 7 inch differenz looks.
nash has a minimum head of 11 inches jacky that is what a 7 inch differenz looks.
Clay said on 19/Dec/10
Christ almighty....
Nash is slouching to get in the face of the 189 CM Lesnar, its just deceiving thats all.
Christ almighty....
Nash is slouching to get in the face of the 189 CM Lesnar, its just deceiving thats all.
swarupb said on 17/Dec/10
Jackie Knife says on 17/Dec/10
my gosh. jacky and swarupb, are you twins or something?
swarupb
you said so many times that nash is only 4" inches above brock. now it's five. should we wait for couple of months when you will be correct with pair more inches at last?
vegas' video and magazine print ARE evidence. your "i have seen...i bet...i know for a fact..." ARE JUST NOT. sorry. you don't seem to be right. still
OK. Lets settle down with 4 inches. Is that OK with you?
Jackie Knife says on 17/Dec/10
my gosh. jacky and swarupb, are you twins or something?
swarupb
you said so many times that nash is only 4" inches above brock. now it's five. should we wait for couple of months when you will be correct with pair more inches at last?
vegas' video and magazine print ARE evidence. your "i have seen...i bet...i know for a fact..." ARE JUST NOT. sorry. you don't seem to be right. still
OK. Lets settle down with 4 inches. Is that OK with you?
Danimal said on 17/Dec/10
Clay says on 9/Nov/10
There wasnt more than 5-5.5 inches between Khali and the deadman whenever they faced off. Anyone with a brain saw that. And Khali is massive at 7'1''.
Kid, you always resort to insults when someone doesn't agree with you.
Clay says on 9/Nov/10
There wasnt more than 5-5.5 inches between Khali and the deadman whenever they faced off. Anyone with a brain saw that. And Khali is massive at 7'1''.
Kid, you always resort to insults when someone doesn't agree with you.
Jackie Knife said on 17/Dec/10
my gosh. jacky and swarupb, are you twins or something?
swarupb
you said so many times that nash is only 4" inches above brock. now it's five. should we wait for couple of months when you will be correct with pair more inches at last?
vegas' video and magazine print ARE evidence. your "i have seen...i bet...i know for a fact..." ARE JUST NOT. sorry. you don't seem to be right. still
my gosh. jacky and swarupb, are you twins or something?
swarupb
you said so many times that nash is only 4" inches above brock. now it's five. should we wait for couple of months when you will be correct with pair more inches at last?
vegas' video and magazine print ARE evidence. your "i have seen...i bet...i know for a fact..." ARE JUST NOT. sorry. you don't seem to be right. still
Vegas said on 16/Dec/10
jacky, thats a different route altogether you have gone on; was jones listed 6'9 in wsm or was he not??
as far as how tall he look, in wwe he didn't look 6'10 at all at times e.g camera angles are awful but i doubt he would get within 1 inch of wight here Click Here
i don't think jones would be taller than nash, here is jones and taker Click Here taker and nash Click Here
jacky, thats a different route altogether you have gone on; was jones listed 6'9 in wsm or was he not??
as far as how tall he look, in wwe he didn't look 6'10 at all at times e.g camera angles are awful but i doubt he would get within 1 inch of wight here Click Here
i don't think jones would be taller than nash, here is jones and taker Click Here taker and nash Click Here
swarupb said on 16/Dec/10
Robby, Nash is around 5 inches above Brock Lesner (6.2) and there are a lot of evidences on the net. For Nash to be 6.9, he has to be atleast 7 inches above Brock which he is not!
Robby, Nash is around 5 inches above Brock Lesner (6.2) and there are a lot of evidences on the net. For Nash to be 6.9, he has to be atleast 7 inches above Brock which he is not!
Vegas said on 15/Dec/10
jacky can you link where he was listed 6'9 in wsm, all the listings i have seen for him in those strongman events say 6'10
at this event the guy at the start announces him as "6'10, one of the tallest competitors we have ever had", at the 2min mark he describes him as 6'10 and 25 stone (350lb) Click Here
shortly before he became a pro-wrestler Click Here
jones and magnus Click Here
looking at jones next to matt morgan, taker and big show and nash next to the same men, i would say both are around the same height
jacky can you link where he was listed 6'9 in wsm, all the listings i have seen for him in those strongman events say 6'10
at this event the guy at the start announces him as "6'10, one of the tallest competitors we have ever had", at the 2min mark he describes him as 6'10 and 25 stone (350lb) Click Here
shortly before he became a pro-wrestler Click Here
jones and magnus Click Here
looking at jones next to matt morgan, taker and big show and nash next to the same men, i would say both are around the same height
anonymous said on 15/Dec/10
Wouldn't you like to be that tall if just for a day.
Wouldn't you like to be that tall if just for a day.
Jackie Knife said on 14/Dec/10
jacky says on 13/Dec/10
i know for a fact that nathan jones is not that tall
evidence?
jacky says on 13/Dec/10
i know for a fact that nathan jones is not that tall
evidence?
Robby said on 14/Dec/10
In the above pic. Mamun is listed at 5'8" Nash is leaning and is still a good foot taller then Mamun. Jacky you're entitled to your opinion. Mine is Nash could be around 6'9" right now. in his prime as Diesel I believe he was 6'10"
In the above pic. Mamun is listed at 5'8" Nash is leaning and is still a good foot taller then Mamun. Jacky you're entitled to your opinion. Mine is Nash could be around 6'9" right now. in his prime as Diesel I believe he was 6'10"
Robby said on 12/Dec/10
I have been having fun some conversations on Twitter with Matt Morgan about his height.... @Tnamattmorgan ok I think you're 6'9" legit. Nash is 6'10" Click Here if I am wrong. I apologize. just what I gathered.
@rwalter99 lol, wrong. We both r 7. There's another photo out there where I look taller, so it just depends on how were standing at time.
@Tnamattmorgan 7' in wrestling boots or barefoot?Jim Ross said you were 6'9-6'10" when you were in Tough Enough.Nash has admitted 6'10" 2 me
@rwalter99 was measured at 6'10" as freshman in NCAA tourney then when I did American Glads they measured me at 6'11". Had no clue I was.
I have been having fun some conversations on Twitter with Matt Morgan about his height.... @Tnamattmorgan ok I think you're 6'9" legit. Nash is 6'10" Click Here if I am wrong. I apologize. just what I gathered.
@rwalter99 lol, wrong. We both r 7. There's another photo out there where I look taller, so it just depends on how were standing at time.
@Tnamattmorgan 7' in wrestling boots or barefoot?Jim Ross said you were 6'9-6'10" when you were in Tough Enough.Nash has admitted 6'10" 2 me
@rwalter99 was measured at 6'10" as freshman in NCAA tourney then when I did American Glads they measured me at 6'11". Had no clue I was.
Vegas said on 10/Dec/10
jacky, i am well aware people shrink, however you said "the taller you are the more you shrink", care to back that up with evidence, i posted two extremely tall men to show that neither have shrunk much despite their age, nash is still only 50, you shouldn't notice any major shrinkage due to age until late 60s
jacky, i am well aware people shrink, however you said "the taller you are the more you shrink", care to back that up with evidence, i posted two extremely tall men to show that neither have shrunk much despite their age, nash is still only 50, you shouldn't notice any major shrinkage due to age until late 60s
Supermanfan380 said on 9/Dec/10
Looking at the posts here, I'd say today with injuries and so forth added up he is likely about 6'9" mid day. For his peak height years ago I would say solid 6'10".
Looking at the posts here, I'd say today with injuries and so forth added up he is likely about 6'9" mid day. For his peak height years ago I would say solid 6'10".
Vegas said on 9/Dec/10
jacky says on 9/Dec/10
he did have that back surgery. it's acually a known fact that the taller you are the more you shrink
________________________
when did have back surgery?? he has had multiple knee surgeries dating back to his time in college in the late 70s, he has had shoulder and elbow surgery recently (last 3 years)
you are the second person on this site to claim "the taller you are the more you shrink", well kareem still looks over 7ft at 63 Click Here
bill russell according to the nba grew to be a "shade over 6'9", thats him at 75 years old Click Here
jacky says on 9/Dec/10
he did have that back surgery. it's acually a known fact that the taller you are the more you shrink
________________________
when did have back surgery?? he has had multiple knee surgeries dating back to his time in college in the late 70s, he has had shoulder and elbow surgery recently (last 3 years)
you are the second person on this site to claim "the taller you are the more you shrink", well kareem still looks over 7ft at 63 Click Here
bill russell according to the nba grew to be a "shade over 6'9", thats him at 75 years old Click Here
Vegas said on 8/Dec/10
in a recent shoot interview from last month, nash referring to his time as oz in wcw, jokingly says "yeah at that time i was 7ft, but i have shrunk 2 inches since"
in a recent shoot interview from last month, nash referring to his time as oz in wcw, jokingly says "yeah at that time i was 7ft, but i have shrunk 2 inches since"
Vegas said on 7/Dec/10
jacky, you can tell by eye level johnson is not taller and i really doubt he would be 1 inch taller just going by shoulder levels, the way the players are positioned leads to the tallest man in the middle (they get taller the further in each goes from the right or left) and nash is in the middle, reggie johnson also played at forward, nash was the center, the center is "usually" the tallest man on the team
but yes you are correct, johnson might not have been as tall as his listing, he might have just been 6'7 something, still that photo makes the 6'7 estimates you and swarupb are trying to pass off for him here look on very shaky ground
jacky, you can tell by eye level johnson is not taller and i really doubt he would be 1 inch taller just going by shoulder levels, the way the players are positioned leads to the tallest man in the middle (they get taller the further in each goes from the right or left) and nash is in the middle, reggie johnson also played at forward, nash was the center, the center is "usually" the tallest man on the team
but yes you are correct, johnson might not have been as tall as his listing, he might have just been 6'7 something, still that photo makes the 6'7 estimates you and swarupb are trying to pass off for him here look on very shaky ground
swarupb said on 5/Dec/10
Vegas, I meant doors which in our homes or in smaller places, not in public places like auditoriums, gyms, restaurants or cinema halls! Normal doors in houses as shown in Nash's film averages between 6.6 and 6.9. Check your own house door and that too if its in a building like a flat or appartment.
Dear annoyed Kareem is less than 7.2 in the pic. Rest are all your observations.
Vegas, I meant doors which in our homes or in smaller places, not in public places like auditoriums, gyms, restaurants or cinema halls! Normal doors in houses as shown in Nash's film averages between 6.6 and 6.9. Check your own house door and that too if its in a building like a flat or appartment.
Dear annoyed Kareem is less than 7.2 in the pic. Rest are all your observations.
annoyed said on 4/Dec/10
sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sick of the kareem abdul jabbar vid being used as evidence for an accurate height difference between the two. The angle is all over the place, the camera is looking up, we cant see footwear and they are not even in line. 6'8" comments are ridiculous.
Rob has it right 6'9". That simple.
sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo sick of the kareem abdul jabbar vid being used as evidence for an accurate height difference between the two. The angle is all over the place, the camera is looking up, we cant see footwear and they are not even in line. 6'8" comments are ridiculous.
Rob has it right 6'9". That simple.
Vegas said on 4/Dec/10
swarupb says on 3/Nov/10
Jacky You do have a very valid point there! Doors all over the world vary from 6.6 to 6.10. No one makes doors over 7 feet.
____________________
the door in this scene looks every bit of 7ft if not over, will ferrell is a~ 6'3 (around 6'4 in shoes) Click Here
swarupb says on 3/Nov/10
Jacky You do have a very valid point there! Doors all over the world vary from 6.6 to 6.10. No one makes doors over 7 feet.
____________________
the door in this scene looks every bit of 7ft if not over, will ferrell is a~ 6'3 (around 6'4 in shoes) Click Here
swarupb said on 3/Dec/10
Thanks Jacky! Thats what I am trying to say. Kevin is a Giant no doubt but not as tall as his fans are claiming him to be. Because there are a lot of evidences to prove it.
Thanks Jacky! Thats what I am trying to say. Kevin is a Giant no doubt but not as tall as his fans are claiming him to be. Because there are a lot of evidences to prove it.
swarupb said on 28/Nov/10
Vegas, you can clearly see the video Bruce provided.
In it, Kareem is not standing very upright because he is facing someone shorter to him, secondly he is not as young as he used to be. The height that you and me know about Kareem is his peak height. He is not the same as he was in Bruce Lee Movie in early seventies. He is not the same 7"2" as he was then. Sure.
As for Kevin Nash, I am sorry for all his fans, but he does look too short to be 6.9 as you all claim. Because what I and Bruce are saying have facts. If you see proof and ignore it then that is a different story.
Just by posting more and more pics of people who are irrelevant is not going to help. Does it make any sense? What Vegas has posted is a picture, which has no meaning on Kevin Nash Page. Instead of seeing real evidence provided by Bruce, do we have to ignore it and keep comparing basketball players heights?????
Vegas, you can clearly see the video Bruce provided.
In it, Kareem is not standing very upright because he is facing someone shorter to him, secondly he is not as young as he used to be. The height that you and me know about Kareem is his peak height. He is not the same as he was in Bruce Lee Movie in early seventies. He is not the same 7"2" as he was then. Sure.
As for Kevin Nash, I am sorry for all his fans, but he does look too short to be 6.9 as you all claim. Because what I and Bruce are saying have facts. If you see proof and ignore it then that is a different story.
Just by posting more and more pics of people who are irrelevant is not going to help. Does it make any sense? What Vegas has posted is a picture, which has no meaning on Kevin Nash Page. Instead of seeing real evidence provided by Bruce, do we have to ignore it and keep comparing basketball players heights?????
Vegas said on 23/Nov/10
swarupb, more than 6 inches difference?? so how many inches difference is here, magic is 6'7 range Click Here
swarupb, more than 6 inches difference?? so how many inches difference is here, magic is 6'7 range Click Here
JT said on 22/Nov/10
Click Here Probably approaching a 5 inch difference - 7'2" to 6'9"ish. Nash measures up to Kareem better than Magic Johnson (around 6'7.5") ever did. A.C. Green and Vlad Radmanovic are both around 6'9" and would probably be around Nash's height. Click Here Nash had 6'3" Kevin Green of the NFL by around 6 inches. Click Here
Click Here Probably approaching a 5 inch difference - 7'2" to 6'9"ish. Nash measures up to Kareem better than Magic Johnson (around 6'7.5") ever did. A.C. Green and Vlad Radmanovic are both around 6'9" and would probably be around Nash's height. Click Here Nash had 6'3" Kevin Green of the NFL by around 6 inches. Click Here
swarupb said on 21/Nov/10
Bruce I agree with you.
Also I would like to add that in the video, the shoot has an advantage to Kevin. Just see the door line behind them. Kevin's side is higher than Abdul's side. Another point is that Abdul has no hair while Kevin has. And last but not the least, Kevin's posture is firm, but Abdul's head is tilted little downside.
And Kevin's head is in line with Abdul's nose. If the difference from my point on nose to head is 6 inches at 5.9, then how can Abdul's be 6 inches? Definitely his has to be more.
There is more than 6 inches difference definitely! And I dont think anyone can prove this video wrong.
So Bruce Keep up the good work!
Bruce I agree with you.
Also I would like to add that in the video, the shoot has an advantage to Kevin. Just see the door line behind them. Kevin's side is higher than Abdul's side. Another point is that Abdul has no hair while Kevin has. And last but not the least, Kevin's posture is firm, but Abdul's head is tilted little downside.
And Kevin's head is in line with Abdul's nose. If the difference from my point on nose to head is 6 inches at 5.9, then how can Abdul's be 6 inches? Definitely his has to be more.
There is more than 6 inches difference definitely! And I dont think anyone can prove this video wrong.
So Bruce Keep up the good work!
Bruce said on 18/Nov/10
Nash from 1994 is at least 6" shorter than Kareem Abdul Jabbar it's on you tube American Sportscaster Association Award Ceremony 1994 at most in his prime 6'7"- 6'8"
Nash from 1994 is at least 6" shorter than Kareem Abdul Jabbar it's on you tube American Sportscaster Association Award Ceremony 1994 at most in his prime 6'7"- 6'8"
swarupb said on 13/Nov/10
Please watch:
khali vs batisda vs kane pt2 on youtube
Pause at 8:02. You can see that Khali's line of vision is over Kanes head. Kane is an easy 6 inches below 7 feet Khali.
Please watch:
khali vs batisda vs kane pt2 on youtube
Pause at 8:02. You can see that Khali's line of vision is over Kanes head. Kane is an easy 6 inches below 7 feet Khali.
swarupb said on 10/Nov/10
Clay says on 9/Nov/10
There wasnt more than 5-5.5 inches between Khali and the deadman whenever they faced off. Anyone with a brain saw that. And Khali is massive at 7'1''.
No Clay, atleast 7 inches. Just look at it more carefully! Deadmans head comes up to Khalis point between eye and nose. From there Khalis head has an easy 7 inches to his top since Khali is a Giant! I am mamuns height and for me the point on my face to top is 5 inches.
Clay says on 9/Nov/10
There wasnt more than 5-5.5 inches between Khali and the deadman whenever they faced off. Anyone with a brain saw that. And Khali is massive at 7'1''.
No Clay, atleast 7 inches. Just look at it more carefully! Deadmans head comes up to Khalis point between eye and nose. From there Khalis head has an easy 7 inches to his top since Khali is a Giant! I am mamuns height and for me the point on my face to top is 5 inches.
Clay said on 9/Nov/10
There wasnt more than 5-5.5 inches between Khali and the deadman whenever they faced off. Anyone with a brain saw that. And Khali is massive at 7'1''.
There wasnt more than 5-5.5 inches between Khali and the deadman whenever they faced off. Anyone with a brain saw that. And Khali is massive at 7'1''.
swarupb said on 5/Nov/10
jacky, the link is not working
jacky, the link is not working
RSTO said on 4/Nov/10
Nash 206 cm
Taker 203 cm
Kane 202 cm
Sid 200 cm
Nash 206 cm
Taker 203 cm
Kane 202 cm
Sid 200 cm
swarupb said on 3/Nov/10
Jacky You do have a very valid point there! Doors all over the world vary from 6.6 to 6.10. No one makes doors over 7 feet.
Jacky You do have a very valid point there! Doors all over the world vary from 6.6 to 6.10. No one makes doors over 7 feet.
swarupb said on 2/Nov/10
Vegas, I didnt get what you said.
Vegas, I didnt get what you said.
d wade said on 2/Nov/10
that no way 4 inches a leaning goldberg come easily over the eyes of this guy thats more like 3 or 2,5 inches .
that no way 4 inches a leaning goldberg come easily over the eyes of this guy thats more like 3 or 2,5 inches .
Vegas said on 2/Nov/10
singh is about an inch under khalis eyeline there so more like a 6 inch difference, difference is slightly less than this actually Click Here
swarupb about a week ago you claimed nash was only 3-4 inches taller than lesnar, yet godsey has 4 inches on goldberg (who was roughly lesnars height in wwe) himself Click Here
the listed heights of some of the other guys in those photos, bob sapp was listed at 6'4 in the nfl, irvin, goldberg and crews were listed at 6'2
brandon molale is listed at 6'4
6'5 measured matt leinart doesn't have this much height next to molale in photos or video Click Here
singh is about an inch under khalis eyeline there so more like a 6 inch difference, difference is slightly less than this actually Click Here
swarupb about a week ago you claimed nash was only 3-4 inches taller than lesnar, yet godsey has 4 inches on goldberg (who was roughly lesnars height in wwe) himself Click Here
the listed heights of some of the other guys in those photos, bob sapp was listed at 6'4 in the nfl, irvin, goldberg and crews were listed at 6'2
brandon molale is listed at 6'4
6'5 measured matt leinart doesn't have this much height next to molale in photos or video Click Here
swarupb said on 1/Nov/10
By the way Jackie Knife....
How much difference do you see in height between Khali and the Undertaker on Khalis debut clip on youtube. I would say not less than 6-7 inches.
By the way Jackie Knife....
How much difference do you see in height between Khali and the Undertaker on Khalis debut clip on youtube. I would say not less than 6-7 inches.
swarupb said on 1/Nov/10
jackie Knife
Pls see the same guy with Khali. His come to around Khalis nose. The point of my head to my nose is 7 inches. Khali is a big man. Naturally his will be more. If you look carefully you will see that there is a clear 8+ inches difference them. This makes it affirmative that this guy is not more than 6.5 sure. If I am wrong pls see the pic on site by vegas and tell.
jackie Knife
Pls see the same guy with Khali. His come to around Khalis nose. The point of my head to my nose is 7 inches. Khali is a big man. Naturally his will be more. If you look carefully you will see that there is a clear 8+ inches difference them. This makes it affirmative that this guy is not more than 6.5 sure. If I am wrong pls see the pic on site by vegas and tell.
linke said on 1/Nov/10
Yea,swarupb even I was surprised that khali said only 7,when that rahul bhatt guy was trying to say 7'2.
Yea,swarupb even I was surprised that khali said only 7,when that rahul bhatt guy was trying to say 7'2.
d wade said on 1/Nov/10
but the guy looks only 6,5 with goldberg and bob sapp.
but the guy looks only 6,5 with goldberg and bob sapp.
Jackie Knife said on 31/Oct/10
swarupb.
it's getting more absurd. where the hell did i say that wight is taller than khali? just point, just show me, give me the quotation with me writing such thing. i said that khali is 0.75" taller. so if singh is even (that i don't actually believe) 7'0", wight is 6'11,025" nash is still like 6'9"
just take a look at this vegas' photo below. if godsey is 6'6" or 6'7" nash is 6'9" for sure cause there's an obvious 2" - 2,5" difference between them. and kev has a bad posture here
Click Here
just look how godsey towers over sandler. he can't be something like 6'4,5". and only 6'4,5" godsey would make nash 6'7" as you want him to be
Click Here
swarupb.
it's getting more absurd. where the hell did i say that wight is taller than khali? just point, just show me, give me the quotation with me writing such thing. i said that khali is 0.75" taller. so if singh is even (that i don't actually believe) 7'0", wight is 6'11,025" nash is still like 6'9"
just take a look at this vegas' photo below. if godsey is 6'6" or 6'7" nash is 6'9" for sure cause there's an obvious 2" - 2,5" difference between them. and kev has a bad posture here
Click Here
just look how godsey towers over sandler. he can't be something like 6'4,5". and only 6'4,5" godsey would make nash 6'7" as you want him to be
Click Here
swarupb said on 30/Oct/10
Jackie Knife
Khalis documents prove hes 7.1 but he himself said in TV a month back hes 7. Wright is smaller than Khali. Whole world knows that! No need to prove.
Jackie Knife
Khalis documents prove hes 7.1 but he himself said in TV a month back hes 7. Wright is smaller than Khali. Whole world knows that! No need to prove.
Vegas said on 29/Oct/10
speaking of the longest yard, here is a good photo collection from that movie, gary godsey (listed at both 6'6, 6'7 for the most part and sometimes 6'8 in college) starred in it, he has a photo with khali and nash and other wrestlers/nfl stars and actors Click Here
speaking of the longest yard, here is a good photo collection from that movie, gary godsey (listed at both 6'6, 6'7 for the most part and sometimes 6'8 in college) starred in it, he has a photo with khali and nash and other wrestlers/nfl stars and actors Click Here
Vegas said on 29/Oct/10
nash and kurt angle (who is listed 5'10 on this site) Click Here
nash and 7'2 nba listed kareem abdul-jabbar in 1994 Click Here
nash and kurt angle (who is listed 5'10 on this site) Click Here
nash and 7'2 nba listed kareem abdul-jabbar in 1994 Click Here
Jackie Knife said on 29/Oct/10
swarupb,
1) why can't i do such a thing? more photos - more information.
anyway, i could be wrong about 3,5". getting more pics i've started to believe that there's 2,5"-3" between wight and nash.
in this photo it's nothing more than 2,5" (6 cm)
Click Here
i think back then in wcw days paul had bigger footwear that gave him 0,5-0,75" advantage. plus he might be taller himself than he is now. so i think for 2002 it could be 213 cm for wight and 207 cm for nash
2) i don't speak and i don't understand indian. so it would be nice if khali said in english that he's 7' only. but still - singh is taller than wight and the difference between the guys is in about 0,75".
Click Here
plus for me khali's footwear looks bigger than wight's
Click Here
the big show is only 1 inch shorter than shaq who is 7'1". and since there's much more information and evidence about o'neal's height than about khali's it looks like wight still is around 6'11,5" - 7'0" and nash is around 6'9"
swarupb,
1) why can't i do such a thing? more photos - more information.
anyway, i could be wrong about 3,5". getting more pics i've started to believe that there's 2,5"-3" between wight and nash.
in this photo it's nothing more than 2,5" (6 cm)
Click Here
i think back then in wcw days paul had bigger footwear that gave him 0,5-0,75" advantage. plus he might be taller himself than he is now. so i think for 2002 it could be 213 cm for wight and 207 cm for nash
2) i don't speak and i don't understand indian. so it would be nice if khali said in english that he's 7' only. but still - singh is taller than wight and the difference between the guys is in about 0,75".
Click Here
plus for me khali's footwear looks bigger than wight's
Click Here
the big show is only 1 inch shorter than shaq who is 7'1". and since there's much more information and evidence about o'neal's height than about khali's it looks like wight still is around 6'11,5" - 7'0" and nash is around 6'9"
swarupb said on 28/Oct/10
Jackie Knife, Why do you post such pics when we both have agreed that there is a clear 3-3.5 inches difference between Nash and Wright?
KHALI has himself said in BIGGBOSS TV Show that he is 7 feet. Everybody knows Wright is shorter than Great Khali. Am I wrong? If yes, then please post a video, not pic about Wright taller than Khali.
Jackie Knife, Why do you post such pics when we both have agreed that there is a clear 3-3.5 inches difference between Nash and Wright?
KHALI has himself said in BIGGBOSS TV Show that he is 7 feet. Everybody knows Wright is shorter than Great Khali. Am I wrong? If yes, then please post a video, not pic about Wright taller than Khali.
Jackie Knife said on 28/Oct/10
Vegas,
last hope - it maybe you who has wight's college listing? we need some help here. show's 7'1" would bring some sense
Vegas,
last hope - it maybe you who has wight's college listing? we need some help here. show's 7'1" would bring some sense
Vegas said on 27/Oct/10
jacky, there is hall and nash in flip-flops Click Here
not sure on the nash/hogan video you are referring to but here is hogan and nash side by side in 1997, skip forwards to 4mins 30seconds onward Click Here
jacky, there is hall and nash in flip-flops Click Here
not sure on the nash/hogan video you are referring to but here is hogan and nash side by side in 1997, skip forwards to 4mins 30seconds onward Click Here
supermanfan380 said on 3/Jul/09
Again, in the wrestling ring, it is hard to get a real good height, or even for that matter the odd angles of cameras back stage. Too many variables. It just gives you a vauge idea. You can see Nash is taller than Jesse by a good margin, but other than that the best you can guess his height by is within a 2" margin of error. Then there are those people that will suprise you. You guess their height, based off of them in person, then get the measuring stick out, barefoot, and they are out of out 2" margin of error.
Nash has said numerous times he is 6'10", and is likely talking about in his youth. Can we get a peak height of 6'10" added for him?
Again, in the wrestling ring, it is hard to get a real good height, or even for that matter the odd angles of cameras back stage. Too many variables. It just gives you a vauge idea. You can see Nash is taller than Jesse by a good margin, but other than that the best you can guess his height by is within a 2" margin of error. Then there are those people that will suprise you. You guess their height, based off of them in person, then get the measuring stick out, barefoot, and they are out of out 2" margin of error.
Nash has said numerous times he is 6'10", and is likely talking about in his youth. Can we get a peak height of 6'10" added for him?
Big Show said on 25/Jun/09
Click Here
Here's a arm wrestling match between Nash and Atlas. At the end there's a nice comparison of Nash and Jesse Ventura.
Click Here
Here's a arm wrestling match between Nash and Atlas. At the end there's a nice comparison of Nash and Jesse Ventura.
Anonymous said on 20/Jun/09
Rob , you should add a peak height for Nash cause he was every bit of 6'10 in his younger days.
Rob , you should add a peak height for Nash cause he was every bit of 6'10 in his younger days.
Rika said on 20/Jun/09
Yeah he was billed at 7'1.
Perhaps his age has caught upto him and now he's lost some height?
Yeah he was billed at 7'1.
Perhaps his age has caught upto him and now he's lost some height?
Joe said on 16/Jun/09
he's MASSIVE! I think Nash looks around 6'10.
he's MASSIVE! I think Nash looks around 6'10.
The Ben said on 16/Jun/09
LG69
I've seen wcw nash listed at 7'1 and wwf nash was often called 7ft... That seems pretty standard for how much they add on.
LG69
I've seen wcw nash listed at 7'1 and wwf nash was often called 7ft... That seems pretty standard for how much they add on.
LG69 said on 15/Jun/09
He was usually billed at 6'10", but I think 6'9" is right on the money. One thing with Kevin's height is, it never was ridiculously exaggerated like some wrestlers.
He was usually billed at 6'10", but I think 6'9" is right on the money. One thing with Kevin's height is, it never was ridiculously exaggerated like some wrestlers.
Tom said on 15/Jun/09
You know, it's funny. WCW said Nash was 6 ft 11 back in the mid to late 90's... Did Kevin shrink two inches in ten years? LOL
You know, it's funny. WCW said Nash was 6 ft 11 back in the mid to late 90's... Did Kevin shrink two inches in ten years? LOL
Rika said on 9/Jun/09
Hmmm his height seems to be shrinking everytime i log on here.
Last time he was 6'10.
Hmmm his height seems to be shrinking everytime i log on here.
Last time he was 6'10.
Mamun said on 8/Jun/09
Thank you T for telling the whole world the truth ! I know the truth can hurt
sometimes ! Yeah I loved that real picture !Nice job T !
Kind regards
Supermun
Thank you T for telling the whole world the truth ! I know the truth can hurt
sometimes ! Yeah I loved that real picture !Nice job T !
Kind regards
Supermun
T said on 5/Jun/09
haha, you like that Manum?
haha, you like that Manum?
T said on 4/Jun/09
his peak was 6'10, thats how people should be listed on here. Peak height.
his peak was 6'10, thats how people should be listed on here. Peak height.
Mark D. said on 30/May/09
Danimal, I was being sarcastic, that's why I said 'ha ha'. What you're saying is exactly what I meant, 6'9 is still huge. If you read it again with scarcasim in mind you'll get the intended humor in it.
Danimal, I was being sarcastic, that's why I said 'ha ha'. What you're saying is exactly what I meant, 6'9 is still huge. If you read it again with scarcasim in mind you'll get the intended humor in it.
The Ben said on 29/May/09
I met him in 1994 and he was the biggest man i recall ever seeing in my life.
I met him in 1994 and he was the biggest man i recall ever seeing in my life.
Clay said on 28/May/09
6'9 with a large build, is - in a word...massive.
6'9 with a large build, is - in a word...massive.
Danimal said on 28/May/09
Mark D. says on 28/May/09
Ha ha. Funny post there. "He was such a huge man at his peak", and "he was a
solid 6'10" in his youth". Yeah, he's not huge anymore, a not-so-solid 6'9".
6'9" isn't huge?
Mark D. says on 28/May/09
Ha ha. Funny post there. "He was such a huge man at his peak", and "he was a
solid 6'10" in his youth". Yeah, he's not huge anymore, a not-so-solid 6'9".
6'9" isn't huge?
Mark D. said on 28/May/09
Ha ha. Funny post there. "He was such a huge man at his peak", and "he was a
solid 6'10" in his youth". Yeah, he's not huge anymore, a not-so-solid 6'9".
Ha ha. Funny post there. "He was such a huge man at his peak", and "he was a
solid 6'10" in his youth". Yeah, he's not huge anymore, a not-so-solid 6'9".
Mamun said on 27/May/09
Nah !!!!!!!! That's only because he was wearing shoes and he has the camera
angle favour . I am taller than him ! I realy am !
Regards
Supermun
Nah !!!!!!!! That's only because he was wearing shoes and he has the camera
angle favour . I am taller than him ! I realy am !
Regards
Supermun
James said on 27/May/09
Super man looks tiny beside Nash :)
Super man looks tiny beside Nash :)
Danimal said on 21/May/09
He was at least 6'10" in his younger days.
He was at least 6'10" in his younger days.
Annoyed said on 20/May/09
nice pic JT, he was just such a huge man at his peak.
nice pic JT, he was just such a huge man at his peak.
James S said on 20/May/09
When I saw Nash he was just under me, I'd make him 6ft 10 back then, 6ft 9 now.
When I saw Nash he was just under me, I'd make him 6ft 10 back then, 6ft 9 now.
Alex5 said on 12/May/09
It's not the fact that they're getting older. It's just that if you're 6'7"+ you have a lot of body to deal with and are going to slouch constantly. I'm 6'7" and I've forgotten how to stand properly. It's just so second nature to hunch over like that.
It's not the fact that they're getting older. It's just that if you're 6'7"+ you have a lot of body to deal with and are going to slouch constantly. I'm 6'7" and I've forgotten how to stand properly. It's just so second nature to hunch over like that.
Annoyed said on 8/May/09
"In the 2nd reference, in the first he puts him at just under 7 feet. Tho he also puts Sid at 6'9 and Andre at 7'4:D"
If Brett hinks Sid is the same height as nash in the other reference or at ANY stage then we can discrad Brett's opinion lol lol.
"In the 2nd reference, in the first he puts him at just under 7 feet. Tho he also puts Sid at 6'9 and Andre at 7'4:D"
If Brett hinks Sid is the same height as nash in the other reference or at ANY stage then we can discrad Brett's opinion lol lol.
Halb said on 7/May/09
"TELLEM says on 21/Apr/09
in bret hart's bio he said nash was 6'9."
In the 2nd reference, in the first he puts him at just under 7 feet. Tho he also puts Sid at 6'9 and Andre at 7'4:D
"TELLEM says on 21/Apr/09
in bret hart's bio he said nash was 6'9."
In the 2nd reference, in the first he puts him at just under 7 feet. Tho he also puts Sid at 6'9 and Andre at 7'4:D
Annoyed said on 5/May/09
sid, I believe Kane and Taker are 6'8" ish and Nash is 6'9" 'ish so that all works out well.
sid, I believe Kane and Taker are 6'8" ish and Nash is 6'9" 'ish so that all works out well.
sid said on 5/May/09
Annoyed Kane had a relaxed posture to, now he hunches alot..nash hunches, they all do when they get older..Nash and kane theres only a inch between them I'd say when I saw them years ago in street cloth, as well as taker. they all got out of the same car right in front me, they backed in, they all went to the back of the trunkm to grab there gear. Kane edges taker, nash edged kane by a bit..this was years ago...2000 before his injury...full masked kane with the tank top era...
Annoyed Kane had a relaxed posture to, now he hunches alot..nash hunches, they all do when they get older..Nash and kane theres only a inch between them I'd say when I saw them years ago in street cloth, as well as taker. they all got out of the same car right in front me, they backed in, they all went to the back of the trunkm to grab there gear. Kane edges taker, nash edged kane by a bit..this was years ago...2000 before his injury...full masked kane with the tank top era...
Annoyed said on 2/May/09
nash was 6'10" morning barefoot and peak. 6'9.5" morning now and 6'9" resting height. one of the few true big men who always wore flats and drew lifts out fo the biggest and tallest stars. a true big man. holds up well to big show and surpasses taker, kane and sid with ease and relaxed posture. Great character aswell.
nash was 6'10" morning barefoot and peak. 6'9.5" morning now and 6'9" resting height. one of the few true big men who always wore flats and drew lifts out fo the biggest and tallest stars. a true big man. holds up well to big show and surpasses taker, kane and sid with ease and relaxed posture. Great character aswell.
Da Man said on 28/Apr/09
Shock, you continue to remain incorrect. No logical leaps, anatomical misinterpretations or mental gymnastics will change this.
An example of one the most ridiculous lines of reasoning I have ever seen on celebheights: "Mike Knox I would put as high as 6'5.5" based on comparison with Richards if they are in even footwear as I see 4.5" there and Richards as I said from my own personal experience, no shorter than 6'1". In comparison with Kane, Knox is approximately 2.75" shorter by the direct comparison, but we do know Kane also has a .5" boot advantage on him, making Kane closer to 2.25" taller which also agrees with the difference with Big Ben, making Kane 6'7.75". That extra .5" in boots agrees with Kane and Taker being essentially the same height with a slight boot difference.
Using a similar comparison, the bottom line after boots difference between Taker and JBL is no less than 3". JBL at 6'5" even would leave Taker at a minimum 6'8" and honestly I believe JBL is 6'5.25". Another thing to point out, Taker is slightly more taller than JBL than Kane is compared to Big Ben, and JBL is slightly taller than Big Ben since he is "verified" 195cm and we've seen JBL as at least 6'5". I'm seeing .5" for Taker over Kane in cross reference aside from that same .5" we've seen from them in alike footwear that often gets ignored due all kinds of ifs buts and camera advantages."
Shock, you continue to remain incorrect. No logical leaps, anatomical misinterpretations or mental gymnastics will change this.
An example of one the most ridiculous lines of reasoning I have ever seen on celebheights: "Mike Knox I would put as high as 6'5.5" based on comparison with Richards if they are in even footwear as I see 4.5" there and Richards as I said from my own personal experience, no shorter than 6'1". In comparison with Kane, Knox is approximately 2.75" shorter by the direct comparison, but we do know Kane also has a .5" boot advantage on him, making Kane closer to 2.25" taller which also agrees with the difference with Big Ben, making Kane 6'7.75". That extra .5" in boots agrees with Kane and Taker being essentially the same height with a slight boot difference.
Using a similar comparison, the bottom line after boots difference between Taker and JBL is no less than 3". JBL at 6'5" even would leave Taker at a minimum 6'8" and honestly I believe JBL is 6'5.25". Another thing to point out, Taker is slightly more taller than JBL than Kane is compared to Big Ben, and JBL is slightly taller than Big Ben since he is "verified" 195cm and we've seen JBL as at least 6'5". I'm seeing .5" for Taker over Kane in cross reference aside from that same .5" we've seen from them in alike footwear that often gets ignored due all kinds of ifs buts and camera advantages."
Shock of Electric said on 28/Apr/09
Da Man, your "wrong on both counts" reply still shows that I'm right. Taker's rear foot being level with Glenn's front foot doesn't make them even plane, and Glenn's hair is about even with the top of Taker's head.
Da Man, your "wrong on both counts" reply still shows that I'm right. Taker's rear foot being level with Glenn's front foot doesn't make them even plane, and Glenn's hair is about even with the top of Taker's head.
supermanfan380 said on 21/Apr/09
Haven't checked the site in months, and sure enough not a "peak height" listing for Nash yet. I think he was a solid 6'10" in his youth.
Haven't checked the site in months, and sure enough not a "peak height" listing for Nash yet. I think he was a solid 6'10" in his youth.
Danimal said on 21/Apr/09
Ola says on 21/Apr/09
MK, whatever. he have been calling me TROLL for some years now... i have more accurate heights than him ;)
You're nothing but a joke Ola and are only here to PISS people off and act like the victim when ganged up on.
Ola says on 21/Apr/09
MK, whatever. he have been calling me TROLL for some years now... i have more accurate heights than him ;)
You're nothing but a joke Ola and are only here to PISS people off and act like the victim when ganged up on.
TELLEM said on 21/Apr/09
in bret hart's bio he said nash was 6'9.
in bret hart's bio he said nash was 6'9.
MK said on 20/Apr/09
Ola says on 18/Apr/09
no offense but i believe that danimal would believe that scott hall would have take down a peak alexander karelin
And its comments like that which back up his claim that you're a TROLL wirh obviously nothing better to do. On this basis i'd have to agree.
Ola says on 18/Apr/09
no offense but i believe that danimal would believe that scott hall would have take down a peak alexander karelin
And its comments like that which back up his claim that you're a TROLL wirh obviously nothing better to do. On this basis i'd have to agree.
Alex said on 19/Apr/09
I think Nash needs his peak height of 6'10 listed. 6'9 seems about right for him today as he could be a bit less too.
I think Nash needs his peak height of 6'10 listed. 6'9 seems about right for him today as he could be a bit less too.
Da Man said on 12/Apr/09
"Da Man, you posted pics of Glenn and Taker from the Fake Diesel match, Taker is on a slightly different plane as him but he still comes out taller"
Wrong on both counts: Click Here
"Da Man, you posted pics of Glenn and Taker from the Fake Diesel match, Taker is on a slightly different plane as him but he still comes out taller"
Wrong on both counts: Click Here
Shock of Electric said on 10/Apr/09
Da Man, you posted pics of Glenn and Taker from the Fake Diesel match, Taker is on a slightly different plane as him but he still comes out taller, I don't know how you can try and pass off the same thing as both advantage for Taker. I don't know if I've ever seen anyone say he was at any kind of disadvantage who was trying to prove against him being taller than someone.
The top of Taker's head above his eyes is nearly equal to below it. You can't go any lower. There are plenty of other pics that suggest 1" between Taker and Sid. What you see is what you get in that pic. Taker is approximately 1" taller than Sid, who was 1.5" taller than peak Hogan.
Da Man, you posted pics of Glenn and Taker from the Fake Diesel match, Taker is on a slightly different plane as him but he still comes out taller, I don't know how you can try and pass off the same thing as both advantage for Taker. I don't know if I've ever seen anyone say he was at any kind of disadvantage who was trying to prove against him being taller than someone.
The top of Taker's head above his eyes is nearly equal to below it. You can't go any lower. There are plenty of other pics that suggest 1" between Taker and Sid. What you see is what you get in that pic. Taker is approximately 1" taller than Sid, who was 1.5" taller than peak Hogan.
Da Man said on 8/Apr/09
I agree with Red, Taker had roughly 1/2" on Sid.
SoE says,
"Undertaker is about 9 pixels taller than Sid and the picture is between 8 and 8.25 pixels to the inch for Undertaker so there is at least 1" difference in height. If you want me to give my exact estimate it's 1.1"."
2 problems with this:
1. Taker is on a higher plane
2. Taker's line is too generous
I agree with Red, Taker had roughly 1/2" on Sid.
SoE says,
"Undertaker is about 9 pixels taller than Sid and the picture is between 8 and 8.25 pixels to the inch for Undertaker so there is at least 1" difference in height. If you want me to give my exact estimate it's 1.1"."
2 problems with this:
1. Taker is on a higher plane
2. Taker's line is too generous
Shock of Electric said on 8/Apr/09
Of course Taker's soles look thicker, seeing as his boot is closer to the camera! lol. Their soles are identical thickness. I'm sorry guys but come on. Sid any less than 1" shorter is straight up belligerent contradiction an example of the consistent underestimation. Look at his foto shape. Where are all the guys who draw foot outlines?
The old pic where you have no idea what is going on other than that one frame is totally irrelevant at this point, and clearly there IS something erroneous about it since Sid has never once since the late 80s been as tall or taller by direct or indirect comparisons with wrestlers who have had matches with them. The biggest issue is Sid's shoulders were never close to that much higher than Taker's, so there's definitely something going on we can't see. The only other explanation is, Sid shrunk 2" between 1988 and 1992.
Sid is either tip toeing in his boots are WM13 or has internal lifts and he's still at least 1" shorter.
Of course Taker's soles look thicker, seeing as his boot is closer to the camera! lol. Their soles are identical thickness. I'm sorry guys but come on. Sid any less than 1" shorter is straight up belligerent contradiction an example of the consistent underestimation. Look at his foto shape. Where are all the guys who draw foot outlines?
The old pic where you have no idea what is going on other than that one frame is totally irrelevant at this point, and clearly there IS something erroneous about it since Sid has never once since the late 80s been as tall or taller by direct or indirect comparisons with wrestlers who have had matches with them. The biggest issue is Sid's shoulders were never close to that much higher than Taker's, so there's definitely something going on we can't see. The only other explanation is, Sid shrunk 2" between 1988 and 1992.
Sid is either tip toeing in his boots are WM13 or has internal lifts and he's still at least 1" shorter.
tuga said on 8/Apr/09
Red says on 7/Apr/09
tuga says on 5/Apr/09
More REAL facts:
HaHaHa, LoL, I would say more biased facts.
Oh really, sorry, but your comments are the biased ones, or else try to argument the things I stated, because "HaHaHa" is a VERY weak argument.
I never said sid wore lifts, but you sure wanted to point taker as having bigger footware using his much closer to the camera boot, the higher knee and it being "taker
Red says on 7/Apr/09
tuga says on 5/Apr/09
More REAL facts:
HaHaHa, LoL, I would say more biased facts.
Oh really, sorry, but your comments are the biased ones, or else try to argument the things I stated, because "HaHaHa" is a VERY weak argument.
I never said sid wore lifts, but you sure wanted to point taker as having bigger footware using his much closer to the camera boot, the higher knee and it being "taker
Red said on 7/Apr/09
tuga says on 5/Apr/09
More REAL facts:
HaHaHa, LoL, I would say more biased facts.
Look at all the old evidence and you see that:
Sid was not a Liftwearer and he was not more than 0.5" shorter than UT
tuga says on 5/Apr/09
More REAL facts:
HaHaHa, LoL, I would say more biased facts.
Look at all the old evidence and you see that:
Sid was not a Liftwearer and he was not more than 0.5" shorter than UT
sidewalk said on 6/Apr/09
Let me show you something SHOCK Click Here
Now how is Sid taller than 'Taker in this old pic if Sid's boots at WM 13 boots give him a bigger lift? Have you ever seen the many different styles of wrestling boots? Like I said in another thread here you guys out-think yourselves often. Sid's WM 13 are standard fare -if anything Sid's old boots give him a lift.
Let me show you something SHOCK Click Here
Now how is Sid taller than 'Taker in this old pic if Sid's boots at WM 13 boots give him a bigger lift? Have you ever seen the many different styles of wrestling boots? Like I said in another thread here you guys out-think yourselves often. Sid's WM 13 are standard fare -if anything Sid's old boots give him a lift.
tuga said on 5/Apr/09
Red says on 4/Apr/09
More facts:
Takers soles are thicker, Takers knees are higher and it was Takers Big Day - so no lifts for Sid!
------------------------
More REAL facts:
Taker
Red says on 4/Apr/09
More facts:
Takers soles are thicker, Takers knees are higher and it was Takers Big Day - so no lifts for Sid!
------------------------
More REAL facts:
Taker
Red said on 4/Apr/09
Shock of Electric says on 3/Apr/09
You
Shock of Electric says on 3/Apr/09
You
Shock of Electric said on 3/Apr/09
Compare the shape of Sid's WM13 boots with much older, formfitting boots here:
Click Here
You're telling me there's no difference in shape of the back of his heel?
All I do is present reasonable doubt and showing where he's being cheated in height. He's not the only person on this site I believe is underestimated either. It's abundantly clear that most people on here favor against Undertaker's actual height, are fooled by the head tilt character gimmick or ignore boot advantage, and anytime someone shows something that proves he isn't what they think he is, someone waves their finger and posts a controversial pic of him at some ignored disadvantage and says "Uh ah ah, you're wrong, look here." The comparison with JBL recently is a smoking gun, there's no doubt he is at least 3" taller than him and we know that JBL is at least 6'5".
Red, I didn't draw the lines in the pic with Taker and Sid, but it's the only copy I have of it offhand. All of your pics show a 1" difference except the last one which is relatively unusable. Sid's head would have to end at the top of his hair for there to be a .5" difference. When Sid doesn't tilt his head up, their eyes are even, and Undertaker easily has 1" more forehead than Sid. In your first pic, the top of Sid's head is just beneath Taker's hairline. Undertaker is about 9 pixels taller than Sid and the picture is between 8 and 8.25 pixels to the inch for Undertaker so there is at least 1" difference in height. If you want me to give my exact estimate it's 1.1".
Click Here
These lines cut off where the hair contrast is lighter which is a good indicator of the tops of the heads. It also puts 50 pixels below the middle of Taker's eyes, and 40 above which matches his head symmetry with very centered eyes. If that's .5" then Taker's head is between 5" and 6" tall.
There's no denying that Taker is 1" taller in the comparisons from around WM13, and there's also a very good chance Sid has internal lifts on top of that. The WM13 angle cannot make Taker look taller than he should be in comparison to the top of Sid's head because they taper to essentially the same XYZ plane even though Taker's left foot is closer to the camera, nor can it make the difference look like it's more than it actually is. Even though Taker's foot is closer, his head is not, so they become exponentially closer in ratio, the closer you get to the top of their heads.
The opposite argument was used *against* Undertaker in the Big Show pic from 1999, where people said it made him look closer in height to Big Show, thus meaning Taker benefits in both directions from the same angle. It cannot be both. Maybe his powers also make him bend light, and not just turn lights on and off.
These are some of my estimates for Peak/Current barefoot - (Peak/Current in boots) using the boots they wore/are wearing during the time frames given to make the approximate difference.
Khali - 2006/2009: 7'1"/same - (7'2.25"/same)
Big Show - 1995/2009: 7'/6'11.5" - (7'1.5"/7'1")
Nash - 1993/2008: 6'10.25"/6'9.75" - (6'11.5"/6'11")
Undertaker - 1991/2009: 6'8.5"/6'8.25" - (6'9.25"/6'9.25")
Kane - 1997/2009: 6'8.25"/6'7.75" - (over 6'10"/6'9.25")
Sid - 1992/1997: 6'7"/6'6.75" - (6'8"/6'8.25")
Hogan - 1980s/2006: 6'6"/6'4" - (6'6.5"/6'4.75")
JBL - 1996/2009: 6'6.25"/6'5.25" (6'7"/6'6")
Compare the shape of Sid's WM13 boots with much older, formfitting boots here:
Click Here
You're telling me there's no difference in shape of the back of his heel?
All I do is present reasonable doubt and showing where he's being cheated in height. He's not the only person on this site I believe is underestimated either. It's abundantly clear that most people on here favor against Undertaker's actual height, are fooled by the head tilt character gimmick or ignore boot advantage, and anytime someone shows something that proves he isn't what they think he is, someone waves their finger and posts a controversial pic of him at some ignored disadvantage and says "Uh ah ah, you're wrong, look here." The comparison with JBL recently is a smoking gun, there's no doubt he is at least 3" taller than him and we know that JBL is at least 6'5".
Red, I didn't draw the lines in the pic with Taker and Sid, but it's the only copy I have of it offhand. All of your pics show a 1" difference except the last one which is relatively unusable. Sid's head would have to end at the top of his hair for there to be a .5" difference. When Sid doesn't tilt his head up, their eyes are even, and Undertaker easily has 1" more forehead than Sid. In your first pic, the top of Sid's head is just beneath Taker's hairline. Undertaker is about 9 pixels taller than Sid and the picture is between 8 and 8.25 pixels to the inch for Undertaker so there is at least 1" difference in height. If you want me to give my exact estimate it's 1.1".
Click Here
These lines cut off where the hair contrast is lighter which is a good indicator of the tops of the heads. It also puts 50 pixels below the middle of Taker's eyes, and 40 above which matches his head symmetry with very centered eyes. If that's .5" then Taker's head is between 5" and 6" tall.
There's no denying that Taker is 1" taller in the comparisons from around WM13, and there's also a very good chance Sid has internal lifts on top of that. The WM13 angle cannot make Taker look taller than he should be in comparison to the top of Sid's head because they taper to essentially the same XYZ plane even though Taker's left foot is closer to the camera, nor can it make the difference look like it's more than it actually is. Even though Taker's foot is closer, his head is not, so they become exponentially closer in ratio, the closer you get to the top of their heads.
The opposite argument was used *against* Undertaker in the Big Show pic from 1999, where people said it made him look closer in height to Big Show, thus meaning Taker benefits in both directions from the same angle. It cannot be both. Maybe his powers also make him bend light, and not just turn lights on and off.
These are some of my estimates for Peak/Current barefoot - (Peak/Current in boots) using the boots they wore/are wearing during the time frames given to make the approximate difference.
Khali - 2006/2009: 7'1"/same - (7'2.25"/same)
Big Show - 1995/2009: 7'/6'11.5" - (7'1.5"/7'1")
Nash - 1993/2008: 6'10.25"/6'9.75" - (6'11.5"/6'11")
Undertaker - 1991/2009: 6'8.5"/6'8.25" - (6'9.25"/6'9.25")
Kane - 1997/2009: 6'8.25"/6'7.75" - (over 6'10"/6'9.25")
Sid - 1992/1997: 6'7"/6'6.75" - (6'8"/6'8.25")
Hogan - 1980s/2006: 6'6"/6'4" - (6'6.5"/6'4.75")
JBL - 1996/2009: 6'6.25"/6'5.25" (6'7"/6'6")
general93 said on 3/Apr/09
just take off 2" of the most used billing and thats about right nash 7ft 6'10".taker 6'10.5" 6'8.5" john studd 6'10" 6'8" mable 6'8" 6'6" hogan 6'8" 6'6" peak roughly right.
just take off 2" of the most used billing and thats about right nash 7ft 6'10".taker 6'10.5" 6'8.5" john studd 6'10" 6'8" mable 6'8" 6'6" hogan 6'8" 6'6" peak roughly right.
aaron said on 1/Apr/09
i remember seeing a photo of a young mark callus( undertaker), standing next to big john studd, and they were the exact same height
i remember seeing a photo of a young mark callus( undertaker), standing next to big john studd, and they were the exact same height
Danimal said on 1/Apr/09
Red says on 30/Mar/09
Shock, you can
Red says on 30/Mar/09
Shock, you can
Red said on 30/Mar/09
Shock, you can
Shock, you can
fanboy said on 29/Mar/09
Shock of Electric, No it does not look like Sid has any internal lifts. You are just showing to much favoritism towards the Undertaker.
Shock of Electric, No it does not look like Sid has any internal lifts. You are just showing to much favoritism towards the Undertaker.
Shock of Electric said on 27/Mar/09
Click Here Nash with Mabel(definite footwear advantage) and Nash with Sid(possible footwear advantage)
Click Here Taker with Sid. Does it look like Sid's got his heels stuffed? Regardless of that, that's about 7/8" right there, in fact the top of Taker's head could even be a pixel or 2 higher (I did not draw them) because his hair is extremely flat to his skull and there is some above the yellow line, so another 1/8" - 1/4". I'd Taker is exactly an inch taller or very slightly more by this comparison, however, Sid could have some internal lift there based on how tall the back of foot is. If that's .5" then Sid's head is only about 4.5" tall.
Click Here Nash with Taker, footwear is relatively even but Nash may have .25" advantage. I'd have to watch Nash's match from this PPV to be sure. The top of Nash's head may overlap the off screen by about .5" so I added an overlay from a similar pic, but I really see no more than 2" between Taker and Nash and about 3" between Nash and Sid/Mabel who both have or may have footwear advantage over Taker.
Click Here Nash with Mabel(definite footwear advantage) and Nash with Sid(possible footwear advantage)
Click Here Taker with Sid. Does it look like Sid's got his heels stuffed? Regardless of that, that's about 7/8" right there, in fact the top of Taker's head could even be a pixel or 2 higher (I did not draw them) because his hair is extremely flat to his skull and there is some above the yellow line, so another 1/8" - 1/4". I'd Taker is exactly an inch taller or very slightly more by this comparison, however, Sid could have some internal lift there based on how tall the back of foot is. If that's .5" then Sid's head is only about 4.5" tall.
Click Here Nash with Taker, footwear is relatively even but Nash may have .25" advantage. I'd have to watch Nash's match from this PPV to be sure. The top of Nash's head may overlap the off screen by about .5" so I added an overlay from a similar pic, but I really see no more than 2" between Taker and Nash and about 3" between Nash and Sid/Mabel who both have or may have footwear advantage over Taker.
Kiat said on 27/Mar/09
Jake the Snake: 6'5"
Hulk: 6'5.5"
Sid: 6'7.5"
Undertaker: 6'8"
Kevin Nash: 6'10"
Jake the Snake: 6'5"
Hulk: 6'5.5"
Sid: 6'7.5"
Undertaker: 6'8"
Kevin Nash: 6'10"
Danimal said on 26/Mar/09
Let me retract. Nash - 6'10", Taker - 6'7.5" and Sid - 6'7".
Let me retract. Nash - 6'10", Taker - 6'7.5" and Sid - 6'7".
Anonymous said on 25/Mar/09
taker wasn't 1 inch taller than sid
taker wasn't 1 inch taller than sid
Red said on 25/Mar/09
I agree with Danimal for Taker and Nash but I dont think Sid is a full inch shorter than Taker, Sid never looked a full inch shorter in clear face offs.
I agree with Danimal for Taker and Nash but I dont think Sid is a full inch shorter than Taker, Sid never looked a full inch shorter in clear face offs.
Annoyed said on 25/Mar/09
Danimal says on 23/Mar/09
general93 says on 23/Mar/09
nash 6'10.5" taker 6'9" sid 6'8" at peak
6'10", 6'8" and 6'7".
I agree with Danimal for these peak heights.
Danimal says on 23/Mar/09
general93 says on 23/Mar/09
nash 6'10.5" taker 6'9" sid 6'8" at peak
6'10", 6'8" and 6'7".
I agree with Danimal for these peak heights.
Danimal said on 23/Mar/09
general93 says on 23/Mar/09
nash 6'10.5" taker 6'9" sid 6'8" at peak
6'10", 6'8" and 6'7".
general93 says on 23/Mar/09
nash 6'10.5" taker 6'9" sid 6'8" at peak
6'10", 6'8" and 6'7".
general93 said on 23/Mar/09
nash 6'10.5" taker 6'9" sid 6'8" at peak
nash 6'10.5" taker 6'9" sid 6'8" at peak
JD said on 21/Mar/09
anything under 6-10 is ridiculous
anything under 6-10 is ridiculous
Danimal said on 20/Mar/09
Mabel was never tall than 6'6" seeing that's what he was billed at one point.
Mabel was never tall than 6'6" seeing that's what he was billed at one point.
Annoyed said on 20/Mar/09
tyn man says on 18/Mar/09
kevin nash is 6"10 at least. taker 6"8. mable 6"7.5
Id say, if you where talking PEAK , Morning and Barefoot, I'd definetly accept your first two as possible. I think Nash was a comfortable 6'10" peak guy, on all but one occasion he had Taker by a comfortable 2" back in their prime when he was Diesel. Mabel I'd peg around 6'6.5" - 6'7" barefoot peak, he has always had footwear over Nash ( who wears constant flats ) and sometimes Taker. I find it hard to believe Mabel was ever taller than 6'7" though.
And i DO think Taker gets a rough ride with people chopping him down, he was a genuinly big tall man !
tyn man says on 18/Mar/09
kevin nash is 6"10 at least. taker 6"8. mable 6"7.5
Id say, if you where talking PEAK , Morning and Barefoot, I'd definetly accept your first two as possible. I think Nash was a comfortable 6'10" peak guy, on all but one occasion he had Taker by a comfortable 2" back in their prime when he was Diesel. Mabel I'd peg around 6'6.5" - 6'7" barefoot peak, he has always had footwear over Nash ( who wears constant flats ) and sometimes Taker. I find it hard to believe Mabel was ever taller than 6'7" though.
And i DO think Taker gets a rough ride with people chopping him down, he was a genuinly big tall man !
tyn man said on 18/Mar/09
kevin nash is 6"10 at least. taker 6"8. mable 6"7.5
kevin nash is 6"10 at least. taker 6"8. mable 6"7.5
Annoyed said on 10/Mar/09
Ola says on 9/Mar/09
Nash 6'9 or 6'9 1/2 tops peak. still 6'9 today
could be right Ola, I think he was a genuine giant back in his prime though, im still thinking he was 6'10" peak first thing in the morning at least.
Now id say 6'9" flat morning.
Ola says on 9/Mar/09
Nash 6'9 or 6'9 1/2 tops peak. still 6'9 today
could be right Ola, I think he was a genuine giant back in his prime though, im still thinking he was 6'10" peak first thing in the morning at least.
Now id say 6'9" flat morning.
Da Man said on 9/Mar/09
"Taker has more height on him than kane does for sure, is that why you want to disregard this evidence?"
Nope, I think most are misinterpreting the evidence.
"Taker has more height on him than kane does for sure, is that why you want to disregard this evidence?"
Nope, I think most are misinterpreting the evidence.
Danimal said on 7/Mar/09
Red says on 7/Mar/09
Mabel 6
Red says on 7/Mar/09
Mabel 6
badeedee said on 6/Mar/09
Nash 6'11.5- NO QUESTION - PEAK
today, 6'10 flat !
Nash 6'11.5- NO QUESTION - PEAK
today, 6'10 flat !
Da Man said on 6/Mar/09
Anonymous says
"If you pause at right when it comes to 4:40 he has NOT his head lowered, that unless your
Anonymous says
"If you pause at right when it comes to 4:40 he has NOT his head lowered, that unless your
Anonymous said on 6/Mar/09
Da Man says on 4/Mar/09
At 4:40, Mabel has already begun to droop his head.
If you pause at right when it comes to 4:40 he has NOT his head lowered, that unless your
Da Man says on 4/Mar/09
At 4:40, Mabel has already begun to droop his head.
If you pause at right when it comes to 4:40 he has NOT his head lowered, that unless your
Danimal said on 5/Mar/09
Really? I could have sworn his neck appeared to be compressed in length a la Hogan and some other since 2001. He also had something funky going on in the back of his neck in 2001 (it looked like scar tissue from surgery). He just appeared taller up until 1999-2000. I could be wrong.
Really? I could have sworn his neck appeared to be compressed in length a la Hogan and some other since 2001. He also had something funky going on in the back of his neck in 2001 (it looked like scar tissue from surgery). He just appeared taller up until 1999-2000. I could be wrong.
Da Man said on 4/Mar/09
tuga says
"Why quite dubious? Pause at 4:40 for example"
Because by the time the camera is close enough to begin to estimate how they compare, Mabel starts lowering his head.
In the earlier frames they look much closer in height, seemingly within 1". At 4:40, Mabel has already begun to droop his head.
Click Here
4:40 with lowered head: Click Here
IMO, peak Taker was very near 6'8", Mabel a flat 6'7" or possibly a hair under. I see little evidence of a 6'6" Mabel, especially in light of the Max Starks photo were they are indeed too close to call.
tuga says
"Why quite dubious? Pause at 4:40 for example"
Because by the time the camera is close enough to begin to estimate how they compare, Mabel starts lowering his head.
In the earlier frames they look much closer in height, seemingly within 1". At 4:40, Mabel has already begun to droop his head.
Click Here
4:40 with lowered head: Click Here
IMO, peak Taker was very near 6'8", Mabel a flat 6'7" or possibly a hair under. I see little evidence of a 6'6" Mabel, especially in light of the Max Starks photo were they are indeed too close to call.
Big Show said on 4/Mar/09
Vegas says on 4/Mar/09
evidence i have found of undertaker injuries/surgeries since 1999
pectoral muscle, groin and gallbladder surgery Click Here
bicep Click Here
knee Click Here
taker actually had back surgery in 1994, right after the rumble when he took 7 months off before returning.
i haven't been able to find evidence of major neck or back surgeries for taker since 2001
I've been looking into that aswell. Taker was out for several months from 1999 til 2000 with a groin injury followed by a torn pectoral muscle.
In 2002 he was out for several months with a elbow injury.
In 2007 he was out for several months with a torn biceps
In 2008 he was out for several months with a knee injury.
No major back and especially neck surgeries (which would take him out for a year) since 1999.
Vegas says on 4/Mar/09
evidence i have found of undertaker injuries/surgeries since 1999
pectoral muscle, groin and gallbladder surgery Click Here
bicep Click Here
knee Click Here
taker actually had back surgery in 1994, right after the rumble when he took 7 months off before returning.
i haven't been able to find evidence of major neck or back surgeries for taker since 2001
I've been looking into that aswell. Taker was out for several months from 1999 til 2000 with a groin injury followed by a torn pectoral muscle.
In 2002 he was out for several months with a elbow injury.
In 2007 he was out for several months with a torn biceps
In 2008 he was out for several months with a knee injury.
No major back and especially neck surgeries (which would take him out for a year) since 1999.
Vegas said on 4/Mar/09
evidence i have found of undertaker injuries/surgeries since 1999
pectoral muscle, groin and gallbladder surgery Click Here
bicep Click Here
knee Click Here
taker actually had back surgery in 1994, right after the rumble when he took 7 months off before returning.
i haven't been able to find evidence of major neck or back surgeries for taker since 2001
evidence i have found of undertaker injuries/surgeries since 1999
pectoral muscle, groin and gallbladder surgery Click Here
bicep Click Here
knee Click Here
taker actually had back surgery in 1994, right after the rumble when he took 7 months off before returning.
i haven't been able to find evidence of major neck or back surgeries for taker since 2001
Danimal said on 3/Mar/09
tuga says on 3/Mar/09
Da Man says on 2/Mar/09
The old Taker/Mable evidence remains quite dubious, angles and postures are playing quite a large role there.
Click Here
That actually confirms to me that Undertaker WAS a 6'8" man at one point in time (PRE-2001). He didn't have THAT much height on 6'6" Albert in 2002 as he did on 6'6" Mabel in 1995 or 1999 for that matter. Taker WAS 6'8" and is probably struggling with a FULL 6'7" today. Since 2001 he has had MAJOR back, neck and knee surgeries.
tuga says on 3/Mar/09
Da Man says on 2/Mar/09
The old Taker/Mable evidence remains quite dubious, angles and postures are playing quite a large role there.
Click Here
That actually confirms to me that Undertaker WAS a 6'8" man at one point in time (PRE-2001). He didn't have THAT much height on 6'6" Albert in 2002 as he did on 6'6" Mabel in 1995 or 1999 for that matter. Taker WAS 6'8" and is probably struggling with a FULL 6'7" today. Since 2001 he has had MAJOR back, neck and knee surgeries.
Clay said on 3/Mar/09
''Supposed'' to be a huge tall guy? Just look at the man!
''Supposed'' to be a huge tall guy? Just look at the man!
Annoyed said on 3/Mar/09
Mabel was 2" shorter than Nash in big massive shoes compared to Nash's flats, Nash usually seemed to have about 3" on Mabel . Maybe someone saw 4" but personally I havent myself. I think Mabel is 6'6.5" or thereabouts, not quite a full 6'7". Maybe a 6'6" flat guy but I think closer to the 6'7" mark than 6'6". he is a hard one to nail though, supposed to be a huge tall guy so its hard to say.
Mabel was 2" shorter than Nash in big massive shoes compared to Nash's flats, Nash usually seemed to have about 3" on Mabel . Maybe someone saw 4" but personally I havent myself. I think Mabel is 6'6.5" or thereabouts, not quite a full 6'7". Maybe a 6'6" flat guy but I think closer to the 6'7" mark than 6'6". he is a hard one to nail though, supposed to be a huge tall guy so its hard to say.
Da Man said on 3/Mar/09
When did Mabel look 4" shorter than Nash?
When did Mabel look 4" shorter than Nash?
tuga said on 3/Mar/09
Da Man says on 2/Mar/09
The old Taker/Mable evidence remains quite dubious, angles and postures are playing quite a large role there.
Click Here
Why quite dubious? Pause at 4:40 for example, Taker has a wider stance, camera favors viscera, viscera even looks to have bigger footware, but forget all about that anyway and still taker is clearly taller.
After that camera is not the best but taker has a considerable advantage.
Just another proof of how footware plays a major role...seeing that staredown with kane, viscera with his "big daddy V" footware would be almost as tall as taker today.
But I
Da Man says on 2/Mar/09
The old Taker/Mable evidence remains quite dubious, angles and postures are playing quite a large role there.
Click Here
Why quite dubious? Pause at 4:40 for example, Taker has a wider stance, camera favors viscera, viscera even looks to have bigger footware, but forget all about that anyway and still taker is clearly taller.
After that camera is not the best but taker has a considerable advantage.
Just another proof of how footware plays a major role...seeing that staredown with kane, viscera with his "big daddy V" footware would be almost as tall as taker today.
But I
Danimal said on 3/Mar/09
Kevin Nash was 6'10". Kane is 6'7" and Viscera is 6'6". I stand by that.
Kevin Nash was 6'10". Kane is 6'7" and Viscera is 6'6". I stand by that.
Da Man said on 3/Mar/09
Mabel is only 6'6" if you count Starks' headsock/skull cap as part of his height.
Mabel is only 6'6" if you count Starks' headsock/skull cap as part of his height.
Da Man said on 2/Mar/09
Danimal says, "He's 6'6"."
Saying it over and over will not make it true.
Of course, he must really be only 6'5" seeing how he stacks next to 6'6" Kane in comparable footwear :)
Click Here
Seriously though, he looks to be almost exactly the same height as confirmed and measured 6'7.1" Max Starks.
The old Taker/Mable evidence remains quite dubious, angles and postures are playing quite a large role there. Vis is very much a flat 6'7" (or very, very, very near it) man.
Danimal says, "He's 6'6"."
Saying it over and over will not make it true.
Of course, he must really be only 6'5" seeing how he stacks next to 6'6" Kane in comparable footwear :)
Click Here
Seriously though, he looks to be almost exactly the same height as confirmed and measured 6'7.1" Max Starks.
The old Taker/Mable evidence remains quite dubious, angles and postures are playing quite a large role there. Vis is very much a flat 6'7" (or very, very, very near it) man.
Danimal said on 2/Mar/09
Clay says on 27/Feb/09
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
Hahaha...
And you all might want to look at how Viscera is positioning his head there. If he stands straight you will see no difference what so ever.
Viscera is 6'7.
He's 6'6".
Clay says on 27/Feb/09
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
Hahaha...
And you all might want to look at how Viscera is positioning his head there. If he stands straight you will see no difference what so ever.
Viscera is 6'7.
He's 6'6".
Da Man said on 2/Mar/09
There's better evidence for a roughly or very near 6'7" Viscera than a 6'6" Viscera.
Click Here
There's better evidence for a roughly or very near 6'7" Viscera than a 6'6" Viscera.
Click Here
Clay said on 27/Feb/09
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
Hahaha...
And you all might want to look at how Viscera is positioning his head there. If he stands straight you will see no difference what so ever.
Viscera is 6'7.
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
Hahaha...
And you all might want to look at how Viscera is positioning his head there. If he stands straight you will see no difference what so ever.
Viscera is 6'7.
Danimal said on 27/Feb/09
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
Your ignorance is LEGENDARY Ola and what makes it worse is that you act confident with things you know NOTHING about. MELTDOWN OLA.
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
Your ignorance is LEGENDARY Ola and what makes it worse is that you act confident with things you know NOTHING about. MELTDOWN OLA.
Vegas said on 27/Feb/09
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
we know everything about him ola, nfl listed at 6'8 Click Here his barefoot height is here number 78 Click Here
Ola says on 26/Feb/09
we know nothing about this "stark" guy he could be 6'5 or less
we know everything about him ola, nfl listed at 6'8 Click Here his barefoot height is here number 78 Click Here
Da Man said on 26/Feb/09
You two are assuming Starks has that skull cap pulled down tight as frog's bottom! I think it's pretty clear he doesn't.
You have to realize Starks' cap could be hiding this: Click Here
I can't see Starks being anything on the order of 0.75" taller than Vis, if anything at all we're talking a 1/4" at best.
Click Here
You two are assuming Starks has that skull cap pulled down tight as frog's bottom! I think it's pretty clear he doesn't.
You have to realize Starks' cap could be hiding this: Click Here
I can't see Starks being anything on the order of 0.75" taller than Vis, if anything at all we're talking a 1/4" at best.
Click Here
Clay said on 26/Feb/09
Danimal says on 26/Feb/09
Da Man says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
REALLY. Draw a line to the TOP of Starks HEAD (including that black thing he's wearing and Starks edges him out.
So when the line is drawn between Khali/Shaq it means nothing, but here it proves Starks is taller???
Danimal says on 26/Feb/09
Da Man says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
REALLY. Draw a line to the TOP of Starks HEAD (including that black thing he's wearing and Starks edges him out.
So when the line is drawn between Khali/Shaq it means nothing, but here it proves Starks is taller???
Red said on 26/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 26/Feb/09
i doubt starks head goes to the top of the hat though, that would mean starks head is about 2 inches longer than visceras.......
Maybe its just 0.5" but Stark is taller, Starks head looks longer because Viscera has much more headtilt
Anonymous says on 26/Feb/09
i doubt starks head goes to the top of the hat though, that would mean starks head is about 2 inches longer than visceras.......
Maybe its just 0.5" but Stark is taller, Starks head looks longer because Viscera has much more headtilt
Danimal said on 26/Feb/09
Da Man says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
REALLY. Draw a line to the TOP of Starks HEAD (including that black thing he's wearing and Starks edges him out.
Da Man says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
REALLY. Draw a line to the TOP of Starks HEAD (including that black thing he's wearing and Starks edges him out.
tuga said on 26/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 26/Feb/09
i doubt starks head goes to the top of the hat though, that would mean starks head is about 2 inches longer than visceras.......
Good point, Viscera could and should be same height there.
Anonymous says on 26/Feb/09
i doubt starks head goes to the top of the hat though, that would mean starks head is about 2 inches longer than visceras.......
Good point, Viscera could and should be same height there.
Anonymous said on 26/Feb/09
i doubt starks head goes to the top of the hat though, that would mean starks head is about 2 inches longer than visceras.......
i doubt starks head goes to the top of the hat though, that would mean starks head is about 2 inches longer than visceras.......
Red said on 26/Feb/09
Da Man says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
Really!! Click Here unless you count Visceras hair to his height, he looks about 0.75 inches shorter
Stark 6
Da Man says on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
Really!! Click Here unless you count Visceras hair to his height, he looks about 0.75 inches shorter
Stark 6
Anonymous said on 26/Feb/09
taker 3 inches taller than mabel but only 1 inch taller than crush in 1993, something is wrong, mabel wasn't even 3 inches shorter than nash who has 2 inches to spare on taker
taker 3 inches taller than mabel but only 1 inch taller than crush in 1993, something is wrong, mabel wasn't even 3 inches shorter than nash who has 2 inches to spare on taker
sid said on 26/Feb/09
Danimal who's taller kane or max stark, Kane got to be taller, a inch differ
Danimal who's taller kane or max stark, Kane got to be taller, a inch differ
Da Man said on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
Danimal says, "LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough."
Really? Click Here
Clay said on 25/Feb/09
Danimal says on 25/Feb/09
Clay says on 24/Feb/09
How exactly did Viscera look identical to 6'7.5 Max Starks then. Lifts backstage for a picture with a couple football players? Doubt it.
First of all, VISCERA was IN RING GEAR CLAY!! Furthermore, MAX Starks is 6'7.1", NOT 6'7.5" and LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough. Mabel was billed at 6'6" at times (When you were just a wee lad) and I DOUBT they would have billed him as low as 6'6" if he was over 6'7". Give it a rest.
So Max Starks decided to lurk around backstage at a WWE event barefoot? ;)
Danimal says on 25/Feb/09
Clay says on 24/Feb/09
How exactly did Viscera look identical to 6'7.5 Max Starks then. Lifts backstage for a picture with a couple football players? Doubt it.
First of all, VISCERA was IN RING GEAR CLAY!! Furthermore, MAX Starks is 6'7.1", NOT 6'7.5" and LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough. Mabel was billed at 6'6" at times (When you were just a wee lad) and I DOUBT they would have billed him as low as 6'6" if he was over 6'7". Give it a rest.
So Max Starks decided to lurk around backstage at a WWE event barefoot? ;)
Danimal said on 25/Feb/09
OLAAAAAAAA, I'm calling you out. Here is PROOF that Jesse Ventura was taller than 6'2". Here he is next to 6'2" Sting: Click Here
OLAAAAAAAA, I'm calling you out. Here is PROOF that Jesse Ventura was taller than 6'2". Here he is next to 6'2" Sting: Click Here
Danimal said on 25/Feb/09
Clay says on 24/Feb/09
How exactly did Viscera look identical to 6'7.5 Max Starks then. Lifts backstage for a picture with a couple football players? Doubt it.
First of all, VISCERA was IN RING GEAR CLAY!! Furthermore, MAX Starks is 6'7.1", NOT 6'7.5" and LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough. Mabel was billed at 6'6" at times (When you were just a wee lad) and I DOUBT they would have billed him as low as 6'6" if he was over 6'7". Give it a rest.
Clay says on 24/Feb/09
How exactly did Viscera look identical to 6'7.5 Max Starks then. Lifts backstage for a picture with a couple football players? Doubt it.
First of all, VISCERA was IN RING GEAR CLAY!! Furthermore, MAX Starks is 6'7.1", NOT 6'7.5" and LASTLY, Viscera was not as tall as MAX if you look closely enough. Mabel was billed at 6'6" at times (When you were just a wee lad) and I DOUBT they would have billed him as low as 6'6" if he was over 6'7". Give it a rest.
Derek said on 24/Feb/09
Ola says on 23/Feb/09
"6'5 for mabel, taker had him by 2-3 inches"
Taker was 1.5-2" tops taller. Watch their casket match at IYH 5 and Taker certainly wasn't several inches taller.
Ola says on 23/Feb/09
"6'5 for mabel, taker had him by 2-3 inches"
Taker was 1.5-2" tops taller. Watch their casket match at IYH 5 and Taker certainly wasn't several inches taller.
Clay said on 24/Feb/09
How exactly did Viscera look identical to 6'7.5 Max Starks then. Lifts backstage for a picture with a couple football players? Doubt it.
How exactly did Viscera look identical to 6'7.5 Max Starks then. Lifts backstage for a picture with a couple football players? Doubt it.
Danimal said on 23/Feb/09
Alex says on 22/Feb/09
Danimal, I remember all those billings. I think he wore lifts sometimes too because he came VERY close to UT in height in 1999.
In 1999, I would have put Taker at 6'7.5"-6'8" and Mabel/Viscera at 6'6". Taker seemed to have over an inch on him at that time. Would be interesting to see how they stacked up today.
Alex says on 22/Feb/09
Danimal, I remember all those billings. I think he wore lifts sometimes too because he came VERY close to UT in height in 1999.
In 1999, I would have put Taker at 6'7.5"-6'8" and Mabel/Viscera at 6'6". Taker seemed to have over an inch on him at that time. Would be interesting to see how they stacked up today.
Red said on 23/Feb/09
Great List Annoyed,
I agree with nearly all. I think Big Show is still 7
Great List Annoyed,
I agree with nearly all. I think Big Show is still 7
Danimal said on 22/Feb/09
Mabel was also billed at 495 pounds General. They slowly increased his height and weight when he was facing guys like Diesel and Undertaker.
Mabel was also billed at 495 pounds General. They slowly increased his height and weight when he was facing guys like Diesel and Undertaker.
Annoyed said on 22/Feb/09
my modified PEAK MORNING estimates ( check these out Danimal and give me your critique )
Andre: 7'0.5"
Big Show: 7'0.5"
Nash: 6'10"
Undertaker: 6'8"
Kane: 6'8"
Sid: 6'7.5"
Viscera:6'6.5"
Albert: 6'6.5"
Hogan: 6'6"
Jake Roberts: 6'5.5" (my friend trained with him and assures me 6'6" minimum but i am being overly downplaying here )
Hall: 6'5"
Goldust: 6'5"
The Rock: 6'3.5"
Goldberg: 6'2.5"
Lesnar: 6'2.25"
Triple H: 6'2.25"
Stone Cold Steve Austin: 6'1"
These are PEAK and MORNING estimates. I am not accountng for height loss over a day , which varies and height loss as of their current ages respectively. This is what I think they where in theyre peaks.
any opinions?
What do you think Danimal? and anyone else who wants to throw in ?
my modified PEAK MORNING estimates ( check these out Danimal and give me your critique )
Andre: 7'0.5"
Big Show: 7'0.5"
Nash: 6'10"
Undertaker: 6'8"
Kane: 6'8"
Sid: 6'7.5"
Viscera:6'6.5"
Albert: 6'6.5"
Hogan: 6'6"
Jake Roberts: 6'5.5" (my friend trained with him and assures me 6'6" minimum but i am being overly downplaying here )
Hall: 6'5"
Goldust: 6'5"
The Rock: 6'3.5"
Goldberg: 6'2.5"
Lesnar: 6'2.25"
Triple H: 6'2.25"
Stone Cold Steve Austin: 6'1"
These are PEAK and MORNING estimates. I am not accountng for height loss over a day , which varies and height loss as of their current ages respectively. This is what I think they where in theyre peaks.
any opinions?
What do you think Danimal? and anyone else who wants to throw in ?
Alex said on 22/Feb/09
Danimal, I remember all those billings. I think he wore lifts sometimes too because he came VERY close to UT in height in 1999.
Danimal, I remember all those billings. I think he wore lifts sometimes too because he came VERY close to UT in height in 1999.
Danimal said on 22/Feb/09
general93 says on 22/Feb/09
kevin nash 6'10".mable was billed 6'8" 568lbs king95
You were only 1 or 2 years old when Mable was being billed General. Mabel had MORE THAN ONE BILLING...haha. He was billed at 6'6", 6'7", 6'8", 6'9" AND 6'10". Depending who he faced.
general93 says on 22/Feb/09
kevin nash 6'10".mable was billed 6'8" 568lbs king95
You were only 1 or 2 years old when Mable was being billed General. Mabel had MORE THAN ONE BILLING...haha. He was billed at 6'6", 6'7", 6'8", 6'9" AND 6'10". Depending who he faced.
Red said on 22/Feb/09
mike says on 20/Feb/09
Take andre and nash and i bet they would,ve been the same height around 6'10".
I think even a old Andre would edge Nash out
mike says on 20/Feb/09
Take andre and nash and i bet they would,ve been the same height around 6'10".
I think even a old Andre would edge Nash out
general93 said on 22/Feb/09
kevin nash 6'10".mable was billed 6'8" 568lbs king95.
kevin nash 6'10".mable was billed 6'8" 568lbs king95.
Vegas said on 21/Feb/09
Danimal says on 20/Feb/09
Viscera HAS been billed at 6'6" on one occasion that I can remember in the mid 90's, as well as many other heights: 6'8", 6'10", etc... The fact is, he HAS been described as 6'6", so imo he is NOT over that.
no problem with that reasoning but why do you throw that reasoning out the window regarding andre who has been billed at 6'10 age 24, why is andre deserving of special attention and not others??
Danimal says on 20/Feb/09
Viscera HAS been billed at 6'6" on one occasion that I can remember in the mid 90's, as well as many other heights: 6'8", 6'10", etc... The fact is, he HAS been described as 6'6", so imo he is NOT over that.
no problem with that reasoning but why do you throw that reasoning out the window regarding andre who has been billed at 6'10 age 24, why is andre deserving of special attention and not others??
mike said on 20/Feb/09
Take andre and nash and i bet they would,ve been the same height around 6'10".
Take andre and nash and i bet they would,ve been the same height around 6'10".
Danimal said on 20/Feb/09
Viscera HAS been billed at 6'6" on one occasion that I can remember in the mid 90's, as well as many other heights: 6'8", 6'10", etc... The fact is, he HAS been described as 6'6", so imo he is NOT over that.
Viscera HAS been billed at 6'6" on one occasion that I can remember in the mid 90's, as well as many other heights: 6'8", 6'10", etc... The fact is, he HAS been described as 6'6", so imo he is NOT over that.
Red said on 20/Feb/09
Da Man says on 19/Feb/09
I agree with every single estimate save for Viscera. He was about 1" shorter than Kane and looked to be the same height as 6'7"+ Max Starks.
Viscera looked arround 2 inches shorter than peak Taker in the mid nineties, in the late nineties it was only 1 inch and today in his "Kane" boots he looks nearly the same height as Taker with Kane.
And you think I couldn
Da Man says on 19/Feb/09
I agree with every single estimate save for Viscera. He was about 1" shorter than Kane and looked to be the same height as 6'7"+ Max Starks.
Viscera looked arround 2 inches shorter than peak Taker in the mid nineties, in the late nineties it was only 1 inch and today in his "Kane" boots he looks nearly the same height as Taker with Kane.
And you think I couldn
Vegas said on 20/Feb/09
i seriously doubt nash grew after his college basketball days, remember nash had knee surgery while in college, if you look at the photo JT posted of nash in college he looks huge, the two guys to his immediate left and right both played in the NBA; howard wood and reggie johnson and they were listed there at 6'7 and 6'9 respectively. if anything that is nash at his peak there before injuries Click Here
don't forget when nash debuted in wcw as part of the master blasters, jim ross described nash as 6'10, surely he would have said 6'11 if he was that tall
i seriously doubt nash grew after his college basketball days, remember nash had knee surgery while in college, if you look at the photo JT posted of nash in college he looks huge, the two guys to his immediate left and right both played in the NBA; howard wood and reggie johnson and they were listed there at 6'7 and 6'9 respectively. if anything that is nash at his peak there before injuries Click Here
don't forget when nash debuted in wcw as part of the master blasters, jim ross described nash as 6'10, surely he would have said 6'11 if he was that tall
Annoyed said on 19/Feb/09
Nash calling himself "6'10" " strange, as he usually says 6'11" or 7'0" !
Nash calling himself "6'10" " strange, as he usually says 6'11" or 7'0" !
Da Man said on 19/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 17/Feb/09
"Talk about looking WAY TOO DEEP into things. The stare down is what it is: Taker barely taller than the MAX 6'6" A-Train."
If we were to take every single photo at face value, Austin could be as tall as Taker.
Red says
"Big Show 7
Anonymous says on 17/Feb/09
"Talk about looking WAY TOO DEEP into things. The stare down is what it is: Taker barely taller than the MAX 6'6" A-Train."
If we were to take every single photo at face value, Austin could be as tall as Taker.
Red says
"Big Show 7
Danimal said on 19/Feb/09
Hall refers to Nash in one of their shoot interviews as having been a 6'11" guy in his socks when he first met him. I think Nash grew from 6'10" to 6'10.5"-6'11" during his college basketball days. I also believe that Big Show was a STRONG 7'0.5"-7'1.25" guy during his WCW days (early to late 20's).
Hall refers to Nash in one of their shoot interviews as having been a 6'11" guy in his socks when he first met him. I think Nash grew from 6'10" to 6'10.5"-6'11" during his college basketball days. I also believe that Big Show was a STRONG 7'0.5"-7'1.25" guy during his WCW days (early to late 20's).
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.