Add a Comment9891 comments
Average Guess (930 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 7.69in (202.4cm)
Current: 6ft 6.41in (199.2cm)
Peak: 6ft 7.69in (202.4cm)
Current: 6ft 6.41in (199.2cm)
KingNick said on 9/Dec/08
Here are some images of Orton and Edge together. Not all of them are the best camera angles but I'll post them for now. I'm open to Edge possibly being 6'3.5" but I'm thinking more 6'3".
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Here are some images of Orton and Edge together. Not all of them are the best camera angles but I'll post them for now. I'm open to Edge possibly being 6'3.5" but I'm thinking more 6'3".
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Ghost said on 9/Dec/08
I don't get how people see a noticable difference in height between Edge and Orton.
I think Edge is 6'3,5. He never looks anything under 6'3, usually more like 6'4.
Orton is probably 6'4, he wasn't taller than an old, broken down Jake Roberts.
If there's evidence that Edge is an inch or more shorter than Orton, please present it.
I don't get how people see a noticable difference in height between Edge and Orton.
I think Edge is 6'3,5. He never looks anything under 6'3, usually more like 6'4.
Orton is probably 6'4, he wasn't taller than an old, broken down Jake Roberts.
If there's evidence that Edge is an inch or more shorter than Orton, please present it.
KingNick said on 9/Dec/08
B_rad87, nice estimates.
hs2008, good pics. The only thing with Edge though is I noticed he likes to wear large footwear when he's not in wrestling gear. His feet are cut off in all the photos so I'm not sure if he was or not. Still, I don't see him less than 6'3" either. IMO, Edge 6'3" and Orton 6'4".
Jeff around 6'1" sounds right, maybe even 6'. I know Matt claims 6'2" but I see him as more 6'1". He and his brother are about the same height.
B_rad87, nice estimates.
hs2008, good pics. The only thing with Edge though is I noticed he likes to wear large footwear when he's not in wrestling gear. His feet are cut off in all the photos so I'm not sure if he was or not. Still, I don't see him less than 6'3" either. IMO, Edge 6'3" and Orton 6'4".
Jeff around 6'1" sounds right, maybe even 6'. I know Matt claims 6'2" but I see him as more 6'1". He and his brother are about the same height.
hs2008 said on 9/Dec/08
Edge with Jeff Hardy:
Click Here
Click Here
Randy Orton & Jeff Hardy:
Click Here
Click Here
Both seem to have around 3" on Hardy, who looks about 6'1".
Edge with Jeff Hardy:
Click Here
Click Here
Randy Orton & Jeff Hardy:
Click Here
Click Here
Both seem to have around 3" on Hardy, who looks about 6'1".
B_rad87 said on 9/Dec/08
No way is edge anything other than 6 ft 3. Orton is 6 ft 4 at tops. Batista 6 ft 2.5. Triple h 6 ft 1.5. Undertaker and kane 6 ft 7.5 to 6 ft 8. Khali 7 ft even. Big show 6 ft 11 without lifts. Shad gaspard at no more than 6 ft 5. Cena 6 ft 1. Mysterio 5 ft 3. Mike knox at 6 ft 4. Couture 5 ft 10.5. Lesnar 6 ft 2. Arlovski 6 ft 3. Sylvia at 6 ft 6 tops. Hughes 5 ft 6.5. Griffin 6 ft 3. Liddell 6 ft. Ortiz 6 ft 1.
No way is edge anything other than 6 ft 3. Orton is 6 ft 4 at tops. Batista 6 ft 2.5. Triple h 6 ft 1.5. Undertaker and kane 6 ft 7.5 to 6 ft 8. Khali 7 ft even. Big show 6 ft 11 without lifts. Shad gaspard at no more than 6 ft 5. Cena 6 ft 1. Mysterio 5 ft 3. Mike knox at 6 ft 4. Couture 5 ft 10.5. Lesnar 6 ft 2. Arlovski 6 ft 3. Sylvia at 6 ft 6 tops. Hughes 5 ft 6.5. Griffin 6 ft 3. Liddell 6 ft. Ortiz 6 ft 1.
Shock of Electric said on 8/Dec/08
I don't think Batista is just under 6'3", I think he about 6'3.5", Edge 6'4", Orton could be 6'4.75" but only if he has some kind of internal lifts which I doubt. Being around wrestlers sometimes you can be surprised how tall they really are. The camera shortens them a bit.
Random example, Al Snow is an easy 6'1" based on my own personal estimation (comparing him side by side to a personal friend who is 6'). To show how oddly guys can be billed, Snow has been 6', 6'1" and 6'2'.
I don't think Batista is just under 6'3", I think he about 6'3.5", Edge 6'4", Orton could be 6'4.75" but only if he has some kind of internal lifts which I doubt. Being around wrestlers sometimes you can be surprised how tall they really are. The camera shortens them a bit.
Random example, Al Snow is an easy 6'1" based on my own personal estimation (comparing him side by side to a personal friend who is 6'). To show how oddly guys can be billed, Snow has been 6', 6'1" and 6'2'.
Alex said on 8/Dec/08
Actually Orton has 1-1.5 inches on Edge I see.
Actually Orton has 1-1.5 inches on Edge I see.
Viper said on 8/Dec/08
Yeah, they downgrade Orton's height Shock. Really Orton is really 6-3-6-3 1/2 in reality.
Yeah, they downgrade Orton's height Shock. Really Orton is really 6-3-6-3 1/2 in reality.
Ghost said on 8/Dec/08
If Randy Orton is 6'5 then Edge is atleast 6'4,5. They always practically the same height.
Orton is probably 6'4.
Batista's billing recently increased from 6'5 to 6'6. The evidence suggests he is just under 6'3. As Leviathan he was 6'7. It's crazy.
If Randy Orton is 6'5 then Edge is atleast 6'4,5. They always practically the same height.
Orton is probably 6'4.
Batista's billing recently increased from 6'5 to 6'6. The evidence suggests he is just under 6'3. As Leviathan he was 6'7. It's crazy.
dave said on 5/Dec/08
also id like to go back to a pic nick posted on the 25th of november of taker with an admitted 6'3 man, where taker looks comfortably 6'8..... and i DOUBT he had his lift-wrestling-boots on here LOL..... probably in very normal shoes. and looking VERY tall
also id like to go back to a pic nick posted on the 25th of november of taker with an admitted 6'3 man, where taker looks comfortably 6'8..... and i DOUBT he had his lift-wrestling-boots on here LOL..... probably in very normal shoes. and looking VERY tall
Derek said on 3/Dec/08
Cena I believe is 6'0.5". That puts JTG around 5'9"-5'9.5" and Shad around 6'4".
Cena I believe is 6'0.5". That puts JTG around 5'9"-5'9.5" and Shad around 6'4".
KingNick said on 3/Dec/08
Da Man, hs2008, and Vegas, very good points I have to admit. I could be wrong. Here's another clip of Cena and Shad from Raw. If you look from 2:33-2:40 or so, Shad seems to have more than 4", but I could be wrong. Good points.
Click Here
Da Man, hs2008, and Vegas, very good points I have to admit. I could be wrong. Here's another clip of Cena and Shad from Raw. If you look from 2:33-2:40 or so, Shad seems to have more than 4", but I could be wrong. Good points.
Click Here
hs2008 said on 3/Dec/08
There were pics on the internet recently showing how Cryme Tyme's heights were really padded. It was a pic with 6'0.5" John Cena & Shad looked about 6'4" & JTG about 5'10".
Click Here
There were pics on the internet recently showing how Cryme Tyme's heights were really padded. It was a pic with 6'0.5" John Cena & Shad looked about 6'4" & JTG about 5'10".
Click Here
Da Man said on 2/Dec/08
Shad is a big dude, but even in his Timbs he seems a bit shorter than Taker and Kane, IMO.
Shad is a big dude, but even in his Timbs he seems a bit shorter than Taker and Kane, IMO.
KingNick said on 2/Dec/08
Let me give you another example, Shad of Cryme Tyme is billed as 6'7" Click Here I think that's accurate. Have you seen this guy? He's enormous! I wish I could find a pic of him from Survivor Series but he matched up pretty well to Khali, like UT and Kane did. I don't think his billings are exaggarated because he's in a tag team and a less important storyline. I'll bet you anything though that if/when he goes up on his own his billing will jump to 6'8"or 6'9".
Let me give you another example, Shad of Cryme Tyme is billed as 6'7" Click Here I think that's accurate. Have you seen this guy? He's enormous! I wish I could find a pic of him from Survivor Series but he matched up pretty well to Khali, like UT and Kane did. I don't think his billings are exaggarated because he's in a tag team and a less important storyline. I'll bet you anything though that if/when he goes up on his own his billing will jump to 6'8"or 6'9".
KingNick said on 2/Dec/08
With the billings, I think it really just depends on the person/character. Like everyone pointed out, Viscera's billings were all over the place. Orton's billing IMO is dead on to his real height yet you got guys like Andre the Giant and Kane who were exaggerated numerous inches.
What I'm saying is I don't think there's a set rule to wrestler's heights and weights being billed. Are most exaggerated? Certainly. I'd say at least 95%. But there are guys like Orton that slip through the cracks, even Viscera at one point. I think it depends on the character, the person, and probably the storyline.
With the billings, I think it really just depends on the person/character. Like everyone pointed out, Viscera's billings were all over the place. Orton's billing IMO is dead on to his real height yet you got guys like Andre the Giant and Kane who were exaggerated numerous inches.
What I'm saying is I don't think there's a set rule to wrestler's heights and weights being billed. Are most exaggerated? Certainly. I'd say at least 95%. But there are guys like Orton that slip through the cracks, even Viscera at one point. I think it depends on the character, the person, and probably the storyline.
Alex said on 2/Dec/08
Viscera has been billed at 6'6, 6'8, 6'9 and 6'10.
Viscera has been billed at 6'6, 6'8, 6'9 and 6'10.
Big Show said on 2/Dec/08
Danimal says on 1/Dec/08
Actually, I believe he was between 6'4" and 6'5". He had 6'6" and 6'7" billings. No way would they have billed a 6'6" at that exact same height. Viscera at 6'6" was getting billed as high as 6'10".
Viscera has been billed at 6'6 as well by the WWE.
Danimal says on 1/Dec/08
Actually, I believe he was between 6'4" and 6'5". He had 6'6" and 6'7" billings. No way would they have billed a 6'6" at that exact same height. Viscera at 6'6" was getting billed as high as 6'10".
Viscera has been billed at 6'6 as well by the WWE.
Danimal said on 1/Dec/08
KingNick says on 1/Dec/08
JT, I do agree there's a 5" difference between UT and Khali. I'm not sure how tall you think both are, but I believe Khali to be a strong 7'1", which would put Undertaker at 6'8".
I agree with you Frank also about UT pointing his head down to Adams. UT does that with everyone shorter than him, which is about 95% of his opponents. UT also wore shoes nearly flat during that era. I also think Adams might have been closer to 6'6" than 6'5".
Actually, I believe he was between 6'4" and 6'5". He had 6'6" and 6'7" billings. No way would they have billed a 6'6" at that exact same height. Viscera at 6'6" was getting billed as high as 6'10".
KingNick says on 1/Dec/08
JT, I do agree there's a 5" difference between UT and Khali. I'm not sure how tall you think both are, but I believe Khali to be a strong 7'1", which would put Undertaker at 6'8".
I agree with you Frank also about UT pointing his head down to Adams. UT does that with everyone shorter than him, which is about 95% of his opponents. UT also wore shoes nearly flat during that era. I also think Adams might have been closer to 6'6" than 6'5".
Actually, I believe he was between 6'4" and 6'5". He had 6'6" and 6'7" billings. No way would they have billed a 6'6" at that exact same height. Viscera at 6'6" was getting billed as high as 6'10".
KingNick said on 1/Dec/08
JT, I do agree there's a 5" difference between UT and Khali. I'm not sure how tall you think both are, but I believe Khali to be a strong 7'1", which would put Undertaker at 6'8".
I agree with you Frank also about UT pointing his head down to Adams. UT does that with everyone shorter than him, which is about 95% of his opponents. UT also wore shoes nearly flat during that era. I also think Adams might have been closer to 6'6" than 6'5".
JT, I do agree there's a 5" difference between UT and Khali. I'm not sure how tall you think both are, but I believe Khali to be a strong 7'1", which would put Undertaker at 6'8".
I agree with you Frank also about UT pointing his head down to Adams. UT does that with everyone shorter than him, which is about 95% of his opponents. UT also wore shoes nearly flat during that era. I also think Adams might have been closer to 6'6" than 6'5".
Frank said on 1/Dec/08
Jt i agree Taker does not appear that much taller than Adams but i think the reason is Taker is looking downard so he he is appearing shorter than he really is He does that with Shorter guys alot
Jt i agree Taker does not appear that much taller than Adams but i think the reason is Taker is looking downard so he he is appearing shorter than he really is He does that with Shorter guys alot
tuga said on 1/Dec/08
Da Man, being open minded towards something doesn
Da Man, being open minded towards something doesn
Ghost said on 1/Dec/08
Alex says on 29/Nov/08
I believe Khali and Shaq to be 7'1. Kane is 6'7.5-6'8. UT can be 6'7 with those guys at those heights.
You really Taker as 6 inches shorter than Khali?
Alex says on 29/Nov/08
I believe Khali and Shaq to be 7'1. Kane is 6'7.5-6'8. UT can be 6'7 with those guys at those heights.
You really Taker as 6 inches shorter than Khali?
Shock of Electric said on 1/Dec/08
Taker is about 2" - 2.25" taller than JBL, an inch taller than Sid. JBL I believe to be no shorter than 6'6". Also, Taker does not have a puffy haired mullet in that pic with Sid/Sid with JBL comparison, Sid has the mullet I believe you mean. Taker's Hair is as close to his scalp as it can be laying right on top of it. The pics with Lesnar are not clean comparisons, he could be more than 6" taller than him with even head levels but looks as low as 5" with the head tilts creating an illusion. Taker's eyes are actually about Lesnar's head level in a clean comparison. If you watch them in match Taker is significantly taller than him.
Taker is about 2" - 2.25" taller than JBL, an inch taller than Sid. JBL I believe to be no shorter than 6'6". Also, Taker does not have a puffy haired mullet in that pic with Sid/Sid with JBL comparison, Sid has the mullet I believe you mean. Taker's Hair is as close to his scalp as it can be laying right on top of it. The pics with Lesnar are not clean comparisons, he could be more than 6" taller than him with even head levels but looks as low as 5" with the head tilts creating an illusion. Taker's eyes are actually about Lesnar's head level in a clean comparison. If you watch them in match Taker is significantly taller than him.
Da Man said on 30/Nov/08
tuga says:
"Its obivous to everyone you
tuga says:
"Its obivous to everyone you
Red said on 30/Nov/08
Lesnar isn
Lesnar isn
Alex said on 30/Nov/08
Its really 5 inches between Lesnar and UT. 6'2 and 6'7 I think look right.
Its really 5 inches between Lesnar and UT. 6'2 and 6'7 I think look right.
Shock of Electric said on 30/Nov/08
Kane is not taller than Taker, it is purely a footwear issue. Undertaker below 6'7" is preposterous, even under 6'8" is silly since so many people base his height on eye level and correctable posture (his posture is gimmicked), aside from that his head is probably 11" tall so there's about 5.5" from his eyes up. Never once in his career has he been listed below 6'8" anywhere and that was rare, even in arbitrary listings for PWI who list many wrestlers incorrectly, He's mostly listed at 6'9" if he wasn't listed 6'10.5" He refers to himself - "He's about 6 foot 8, 6'9." talking about someone calling WCW to have him replace Sid. It should also be noted that in the same interview Kane uses his kayfabe bill of 6'10" - 6'11" and JR uses the more odd bill of "6'9", 6'10". Here we have 6'7" - 6'8" and some people are now saying 6'6 - 6'7". I think the guy in the middle is right.
Click Here
He is no shorter than he was 20 years ago.
Kane is not taller than Taker, it is purely a footwear issue. Undertaker below 6'7" is preposterous, even under 6'8" is silly since so many people base his height on eye level and correctable posture (his posture is gimmicked), aside from that his head is probably 11" tall so there's about 5.5" from his eyes up. Never once in his career has he been listed below 6'8" anywhere and that was rare, even in arbitrary listings for PWI who list many wrestlers incorrectly, He's mostly listed at 6'9" if he wasn't listed 6'10.5" He refers to himself - "He's about 6 foot 8, 6'9." talking about someone calling WCW to have him replace Sid. It should also be noted that in the same interview Kane uses his kayfabe bill of 6'10" - 6'11" and JR uses the more odd bill of "6'9", 6'10". Here we have 6'7" - 6'8" and some people are now saying 6'6 - 6'7". I think the guy in the middle is right.
Click Here
He is no shorter than he was 20 years ago.
Atoadaso said on 29/Nov/08
That's a good comparison picture to see just how massive Undertaker's forehead is. Brock has a large head, and look at the difference. Their eyes are only around 1" apart yet taker's head rises close to 4" higher.
That's a good comparison picture to see just how massive Undertaker's forehead is. Brock has a large head, and look at the difference. Their eyes are only around 1" apart yet taker's head rises close to 4" higher.
Alex said on 29/Nov/08
I believe Khali and Shaq to be 7'1. Kane is 6'7.5-6'8. UT can be 6'7 with those guys at those heights.
I believe Khali and Shaq to be 7'1. Kane is 6'7.5-6'8. UT can be 6'7 with those guys at those heights.
JT said on 29/Nov/08
Ray says on 29/Nov/08
I'd liek to see another pic of Taker Lesnar staredown....
Click Here
These were posted on the Big Show page:
Click Here Tenta was on his tippy toes a bit for most of the staredown. However, the high camera angle favors Yoko, and Tenta
Ray says on 29/Nov/08
I'd liek to see another pic of Taker Lesnar staredown....
Click Here
These were posted on the Big Show page:
Click Here Tenta was on his tippy toes a bit for most of the staredown. However, the high camera angle favors Yoko, and Tenta
Ray said on 29/Nov/08
I'd liek to see another pic of Taker Lesnar staredown. That one below looks like the one where Lesnar just ran in to the ring and stops suddenly in front of Taker. Taker has an easy 5" on Lesnar and actually probably more like 6" and Lesnar is a strong 6'2" IMO.
I'd liek to see another pic of Taker Lesnar staredown. That one below looks like the one where Lesnar just ran in to the ring and stops suddenly in front of Taker. Taker has an easy 5" on Lesnar and actually probably more like 6" and Lesnar is a strong 6'2" IMO.
Anonymous said on 29/Nov/08
Undertaker's forehead really is huge. It's easy to under estimate his height because of it.
Undertaker's forehead really is huge. It's easy to under estimate his height because of it.
tuga said on 29/Nov/08
Alex, do you think khali and shaq are 6'11 1/2 and kane 6'6 1/2? You do realise that your estimates on taker also downgrades others...
Comparing big men with much shorter men will make the difference look smaller because they will be slouching or looking down, that unless you
Alex, do you think khali and shaq are 6'11 1/2 and kane 6'6 1/2? You do realise that your estimates on taker also downgrades others...
Comparing big men with much shorter men will make the difference look smaller because they will be slouching or looking down, that unless you
Alex said on 28/Nov/08
UT looks 6'6 1/2-6'7 here with 6'2 Lesnar. UT does have a big forehead and his eye level I would say is 5-5.5 inches from the top of his head and Lesnar would be slightly above his eye level if their heads were level and not titled up or down like in this picture.
Click Here
UT looks 6'6 1/2-6'7 here with 6'2 Lesnar. UT does have a big forehead and his eye level I would say is 5-5.5 inches from the top of his head and Lesnar would be slightly above his eye level if their heads were level and not titled up or down like in this picture.
Click Here
Paul said on 28/Nov/08
I think he is 6'7.5 - 6'7.75 today. Maybe 1 inch taller way back eg 12 and 15 years ago. Probably 6'8 in the early 2000's.
I think he is 6'7.5 - 6'7.75 today. Maybe 1 inch taller way back eg 12 and 15 years ago. Probably 6'8 in the early 2000's.
Ray said on 27/Nov/08
Sorry, I meant 6'7" and change I wouldn't rule out.
Sorry, I meant 6'7" and change I wouldn't rule out.
Ray said on 27/Nov/08
"Alex says on 26/Nov/08
UT at 6'6 1/2 today I wouldn't rule out."
I would. Too short - he's taller than that IMO. I'd rule out anything under 6'7" and that may very well be selling him short as well. Now, 6'7" and change I would rule out.
"Alex says on 26/Nov/08
UT at 6'6 1/2 today I wouldn't rule out."
I would. Too short - he's taller than that IMO. I'd rule out anything under 6'7" and that may very well be selling him short as well. Now, 6'7" and change I would rule out.
general93 said on 27/Nov/08
undertaker is 6'8" and around 6'9" in svr series 1990.kane is 6'9".sid was only a half inch shorter than taker 92.nash is billed 7'1" today but peak 6'10.5".stud 6'8.5".they were all between 300-370lbs.
undertaker is 6'8" and around 6'9" in svr series 1990.kane is 6'9".sid was only a half inch shorter than taker 92.nash is billed 7'1" today but peak 6'10.5".stud 6'8.5".they were all between 300-370lbs.
Kendra said on 26/Nov/08
my whole family happens to be at least six feet tall, even my mom, deal with it.
my whole family happens to be at least six feet tall, even my mom, deal with it.
Alex said on 26/Nov/08
UT at 6'6 1/2 today I wouldn't rule out.
UT at 6'6 1/2 today I wouldn't rule out.
Derek said on 26/Nov/08
Ola says on 26/Nov/08
"43 or 47...doesnt matter! the man has still been wrestle for 20 years, maybe 1 inch heght loss is possible. 6'7 1/2 or maybe even 6'8 peak and slightly under 6'7 today? that is what i would bet my money on"
For once, I actually almost agree with you Ola. I say 6'8" peak and 6'7" today.
Ola says on 26/Nov/08
"43 or 47...doesnt matter! the man has still been wrestle for 20 years, maybe 1 inch heght loss is possible. 6'7 1/2 or maybe even 6'8 peak and slightly under 6'7 today? that is what i would bet my money on"
For once, I actually almost agree with you Ola. I say 6'8" peak and 6'7" today.
KingNick said on 26/Nov/08
nick, nice find man!
nick, nice find man!
Anonymous said on 26/Nov/08
this is peak undertaker in 1993, doesn't look taller than today Click Here
this is peak undertaker in 1993, doesn't look taller than today Click Here
tuga said on 26/Nov/08
Da Man says on 25/Nov/08
I posted more evidence regarding Kane over the last 2 years than you have. The pissier you get the more credibility you lose, not vice versa.
LOL, yes really, its noticeable by the HUGE amount of evidence you have posted of recent comparisons of taker and kane...your contribution has been amazing: "not a single solitary frame, "A and B", "sucks as usual".
Its obivous to everyone you
Da Man says on 25/Nov/08
I posted more evidence regarding Kane over the last 2 years than you have. The pissier you get the more credibility you lose, not vice versa.
LOL, yes really, its noticeable by the HUGE amount of evidence you have posted of recent comparisons of taker and kane...your contribution has been amazing: "not a single solitary frame, "A and B", "sucks as usual".
Its obivous to everyone you
Ghost said on 25/Nov/08
There is no way Taker is under 6'7 today.
That would make things crazy.
Big Show would become about 6'10 and Khali would be under 7 feet as well, which he certainly isn't compared to 7'1 Shaq.
There is no way Taker is under 6'7 today.
That would make things crazy.
Big Show would become about 6'10 and Khali would be under 7 feet as well, which he certainly isn't compared to 7'1 Shaq.
nick said on 25/Nov/08
Click Here
Scroll down to the caption to the undertaker pic. The guy he is with claims that he is 6'3, taker looks between 6'7 and 6'8
Click Here
Scroll down to the caption to the undertaker pic. The guy he is with claims that he is 6'3, taker looks between 6'7 and 6'8
hs2008 said on 25/Nov/08
Undertaker is 43 as Vegas has pointed out.
The man himself said he had "a couple of years" before he was 40 in 2003. Whoever said he was 46 or 47 is plain wrong. I also don't see any major height loss at all.
Undertaker is 43 as Vegas has pointed out.
The man himself said he had "a couple of years" before he was 40 in 2003. Whoever said he was 46 or 47 is plain wrong. I also don't see any major height loss at all.
Da Man said on 25/Nov/08
tuga says on 25/Nov/08
Da Man says on 24/Nov/08
As soon as you start providing decent comparisons, I'll stop pointing it out. Don't get all pissy just because you don't like being challenged.
Challenged? How? You have posted no evidence...others have, is that a challenge to you?
I posted more evidence regarding Kane over the last 2 years than you have. The pissier you get the more credibility you lose, not vice versa.
There is not a single, solitary frame with which to compare height in the video you posted. Th Khali/Kane pic I posted was a horrible angle (and intended as semi-joke) but it actually offered a better comparison than anything in the video you continually post and re-post to show the two at the same height. Your evidence sucks, as usual.
tuga says on 25/Nov/08
Da Man says on 24/Nov/08
As soon as you start providing decent comparisons, I'll stop pointing it out. Don't get all pissy just because you don't like being challenged.
Challenged? How? You have posted no evidence...others have, is that a challenge to you?
I posted more evidence regarding Kane over the last 2 years than you have. The pissier you get the more credibility you lose, not vice versa.
There is not a single, solitary frame with which to compare height in the video you posted. Th Khali/Kane pic I posted was a horrible angle (and intended as semi-joke) but it actually offered a better comparison than anything in the video you continually post and re-post to show the two at the same height. Your evidence sucks, as usual.
nick said on 25/Nov/08
Hey JT iv been looking for those pictures thanks. Here the case here, The undertaker does have a looking down slouch in those comparisons, if he stood as straight as brock he would have maximum 5 inches on him. The fact is is that the undertaker is 5 inches taller than brock is. It makes sense, if brock is 6'2 then taker is 6'7, if he is 6'2.5 which is very likely then he is 6'7.5
Hey JT iv been looking for those pictures thanks. Here the case here, The undertaker does have a looking down slouch in those comparisons, if he stood as straight as brock he would have maximum 5 inches on him. The fact is is that the undertaker is 5 inches taller than brock is. It makes sense, if brock is 6'2 then taker is 6'7, if he is 6'2.5 which is very likely then he is 6'7.5
tuga said on 25/Nov/08
Da Man says on 24/Nov/08
As soon as you start providing decent comparisons, I'll stop pointing it out. Don't get all pissy just because you don't like being challenged.
Challenged? How? You have posted no evidence...others have, is that a challenge to you?
The funny thing is I saw the photo you posted of kane and khali at a bad angle at kane
Da Man says on 24/Nov/08
As soon as you start providing decent comparisons, I'll stop pointing it out. Don't get all pissy just because you don't like being challenged.
Challenged? How? You have posted no evidence...others have, is that a challenge to you?
The funny thing is I saw the photo you posted of kane and khali at a bad angle at kane
Vegas said on 25/Nov/08
Danimal says on 24/Nov/08
I've read that he's 47 years old.
evidence has been posted here time and again that undertaker is 43, i don't care who told you he is 47 because he is not, mark william calaway born in 1965 Click Here
graduated high school in 1983 (you think he graduated high school at 22 years old lol instead of 18) Click Here
if he lost 2 inches why is he the same height as kane in those photos from april???
Danimal says on 24/Nov/08
I've read that he's 47 years old.
evidence has been posted here time and again that undertaker is 43, i don't care who told you he is 47 because he is not, mark william calaway born in 1965 Click Here
graduated high school in 1983 (you think he graduated high school at 22 years old lol instead of 18) Click Here
if he lost 2 inches why is he the same height as kane in those photos from april???
Danimal said on 24/Nov/08
Frank says on 22/Nov/08
Why would Taker lose height hes about 43 years old !!!
Frank Frank Frank. It surprises me that you would ask such a question after having been on here for all these years. Taker has been wrestling professionally for 20 years. Do you realize the abuse this man has put on his body and of course the surgeries required to mend it, ie: neck, back, knee. BTW, I read he is 47. I say it is possible that he has lost up to 2" since the 1990's, but at the very least he has lost 1" since 2000.
Frank says on 22/Nov/08
Why would Taker lose height hes about 43 years old !!!
Frank Frank Frank. It surprises me that you would ask such a question after having been on here for all these years. Taker has been wrestling professionally for 20 years. Do you realize the abuse this man has put on his body and of course the surgeries required to mend it, ie: neck, back, knee. BTW, I read he is 47. I say it is possible that he has lost up to 2" since the 1990's, but at the very least he has lost 1" since 2000.
Danimal said on 24/Nov/08
Frank says on 22/Nov/08
Why would Taker lose height hes about 43 years old !!!
I've read that he's 47 years old.
Frank says on 22/Nov/08
Why would Taker lose height hes about 43 years old !!!
I've read that he's 47 years old.
Da Man said on 24/Nov/08
tuga says on 24/Nov/08
"you
tuga says on 24/Nov/08
"you
tuga said on 24/Nov/08
Da Man says on 23/Nov/08
not a single frame with which a decent comparison can be drawn in that video. Not a single, solitary frame.
you
Da Man says on 23/Nov/08
not a single frame with which a decent comparison can be drawn in that video. Not a single, solitary frame.
you
Da Man said on 23/Nov/08
tuga says:
"Are you joking? They are side by side, face each other, walk together... ENOUGH???
I guess you mean a single frame where kane looks taller, ok..."
not a single frame with which a decent comparison can be drawn in that video. Not a single, solitary frame.
And..."And by the way explain how can kane and taker be about same amount shorter than khali and kane HAS BIGGER FOOTWARE???"
Once again, why use ABC evidence when when there are numerous comparisons on A and B directly? This stuff isn't new...
tuga says:
"Are you joking? They are side by side, face each other, walk together... ENOUGH???
I guess you mean a single frame where kane looks taller, ok..."
not a single frame with which a decent comparison can be drawn in that video. Not a single, solitary frame.
And..."And by the way explain how can kane and taker be about same amount shorter than khali and kane HAS BIGGER FOOTWARE???"
Once again, why use ABC evidence when when there are numerous comparisons on A and B directly? This stuff isn't new...
KingNick said on 22/Nov/08
I would love to see the Smokey Mountain match they had if anyone can find that by some miracle.
Before Jacobs came up to WWF(E) as Isaac Yankem, he was wrestling for an Independent company called Smokey Mountain Wrestling. UT went down there and had a match with him, it was covered in Pro Wrestling Illustrated. I just wonder if they had a better staredown with a better angle then their WWF/E matches.
I would love to see the Smokey Mountain match they had if anyone can find that by some miracle.
Before Jacobs came up to WWF(E) as Isaac Yankem, he was wrestling for an Independent company called Smokey Mountain Wrestling. UT went down there and had a match with him, it was covered in Pro Wrestling Illustrated. I just wonder if they had a better staredown with a better angle then their WWF/E matches.
Frank said on 22/Nov/08
I dont think Kane has an inch on Taker i would say .5 but we know Jacobs wears lifts so im not sure Jacobs is really taller??
I dont think Kane has an inch on Taker i would say .5 but we know Jacobs wears lifts so im not sure Jacobs is really taller??
Frank said on 22/Nov/08
Why would Taker lose height hes about 43 years old !!!
Why would Taker lose height hes about 43 years old !!!
Anonymous said on 21/Nov/08
I believe that at your respective peaks, Kane had an inch on Taker. Kane at 6'8.5" and Taker at 6'8". The fact that they look the same height today is strange, seeing I believe that Taker has lost height.
I believe that at your respective peaks, Kane had an inch on Taker. Kane at 6'8.5" and Taker at 6'8". The fact that they look the same height today is strange, seeing I believe that Taker has lost height.
tuga said on 21/Nov/08
Da Man says on 21/Nov/08
Of course it's hard to tell who's taller there, there's not a single solitary frame in that video with which to compare height. The only frame worth a darn is when Taker walks up to Kane after Kane blows the torches, but the catch there is Kane has his feet like 3 feet apart. Videos like that can make it hard to tell if Taker is taller than Orton! LOL
Are you joking? They are side by side, face each other, walk together... ENOUGH???
I guess you mean a single frame where kane looks taller, ok...
And by the way explain how can kane and taker be about same amount shorter than khali and kane HAS BIGGER FOOTWARE???
Da Man says on 21/Nov/08
Of course it's hard to tell who's taller there, there's not a single solitary frame in that video with which to compare height. The only frame worth a darn is when Taker walks up to Kane after Kane blows the torches, but the catch there is Kane has his feet like 3 feet apart. Videos like that can make it hard to tell if Taker is taller than Orton! LOL
Are you joking? They are side by side, face each other, walk together... ENOUGH???
I guess you mean a single frame where kane looks taller, ok...
And by the way explain how can kane and taker be about same amount shorter than khali and kane HAS BIGGER FOOTWARE???
KingNick said on 21/Nov/08
Da Man says on 21/Nov/08
KingNick says
"Da Man normally I would agree but look at this photo Click Here it's an even shot. They're standing right next to each other and no one has a camera advantage and they still look the same height. It's an even plane."
Kane is still on a lower plane there...closer to the camera, and look at the top ropes in the background. Neither has posture worth a crap there either.
Just want to make sure you're referring to this picture Click Here
I posted it here:
KingNick says on 20/Nov/08
KingNick says on 20/Nov/08
Here I agree Taker is on a higher plane, but it's from the same night and you can see that Kane has a footwear advantage Click Here
Meant to post this photo Click Here
Da Man says on 21/Nov/08
KingNick says
"Da Man normally I would agree but look at this photo Click Here it's an even shot. They're standing right next to each other and no one has a camera advantage and they still look the same height. It's an even plane."
Kane is still on a lower plane there...closer to the camera, and look at the top ropes in the background. Neither has posture worth a crap there either.
Just want to make sure you're referring to this picture Click Here
I posted it here:
KingNick says on 20/Nov/08
KingNick says on 20/Nov/08
Here I agree Taker is on a higher plane, but it's from the same night and you can see that Kane has a footwear advantage Click Here
Meant to post this photo Click Here
Drexyl said on 21/Nov/08
I'm open to Taker being taller than Kane, but not by an inch and a half or anywhere near it.
Barefoot I'd imagine them to be within 1/4 of an inch of each other. Yes, Kane's always had a footwear advantage, but he's always looked an inch or so taller.
I'm open to Taker being taller than Kane, but not by an inch and a half or anywhere near it.
Barefoot I'd imagine them to be within 1/4 of an inch of each other. Yes, Kane's always had a footwear advantage, but he's always looked an inch or so taller.
Da Man said on 21/Nov/08
tuga says:
"The fact is that looking at the last pic you posted, kane still has considerable footware advantage but its still hard to tell who
tuga says:
"The fact is that looking at the last pic you posted, kane still has considerable footware advantage but its still hard to tell who
Da Man said on 21/Nov/08
KingNick says
"Da Man normally I would agree but look at this photo Click Here it's an even shot. They're standing right next to each other and no one has a camera advantage and they still look the same height. It's an even plane."
Kane is still on a lower plane there...closer to the camera, and look at the top ropes in the background. Neither has posture worth a crap there either.
"Now here's a dead on shot from WM 14 with no camera advantage Click Here remember to look at the top of UT's head. His height is deceiving because of that (which is why he's taller than Sid Click Here and Click Here). "
Kane has a relatively low eye level and a pointy head himself. Maybe not the extreme degree Taker does, but he doesn't have a small head above the eyes like Sid does by any stretch.
I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that indicates Kane is shorter than Taker barefoot. All the evidence presented has made an extremely poor case for that.
KingNick says
"Da Man normally I would agree but look at this photo Click Here it's an even shot. They're standing right next to each other and no one has a camera advantage and they still look the same height. It's an even plane."
Kane is still on a lower plane there...closer to the camera, and look at the top ropes in the background. Neither has posture worth a crap there either.
"Now here's a dead on shot from WM 14 with no camera advantage Click Here remember to look at the top of UT's head. His height is deceiving because of that (which is why he's taller than Sid Click Here and Click Here). "
Kane has a relatively low eye level and a pointy head himself. Maybe not the extreme degree Taker does, but he doesn't have a small head above the eyes like Sid does by any stretch.
I've yet to see a single shred of evidence that indicates Kane is shorter than Taker barefoot. All the evidence presented has made an extremely poor case for that.
Da Man said on 21/Nov/08
KingNick says
"Da Man normally I would agree but look at this photo Click Here it's an even shot. They're standing right next to each other and no one has a camera advantage and they still look the same height. It's an even plane."
Kane is still on a lower plane there...closer to the camera, and look at the top ropes in the background. Neither has posture worth a crap there either.
KingNick says
"Da Man normally I would agree but look at this photo Click Here it's an even shot. They're standing right next to each other and no one has a camera advantage and they still look the same height. It's an even plane."
Kane is still on a lower plane there...closer to the camera, and look at the top ropes in the background. Neither has posture worth a crap there either.
tuga said on 21/Nov/08
Frank says on 20/Nov/08
Most Pictures have shown Jacobs alittle taller but there was a guy on here about 2 years ago and he said he worked for the WWF and he said Jacobs did wear lifts and that Taker was really taller ???
Click Here
Very interesting answer on the question of which one is taller, who knows if its really truth but I do reckon the info on this site is very accurate.
KingNick says on 20/Nov/08
I'm just open to the possibility now that Kane may be shorter than the Undertaker barefoot or at the very least the same height.
I agree with you kingNick, from what I
Frank says on 20/Nov/08
Most Pictures have shown Jacobs alittle taller but there was a guy on here about 2 years ago and he said he worked for the WWF and he said Jacobs did wear lifts and that Taker was really taller ???
Click Here
Very interesting answer on the question of which one is taller, who knows if its really truth but I do reckon the info on this site is very accurate.
KingNick says on 20/Nov/08
I'm just open to the possibility now that Kane may be shorter than the Undertaker barefoot or at the very least the same height.
I agree with you kingNick, from what I
JT said on 20/Nov/08
KingNick says on 20/Nov/08
....Now here's a dead on shot from WM 14 with no camera advantage Click Here remember to look at the top of UT's head....
Click Here There is still a slight camera advantage for Kane but not much since the camera is almost at the level of their heads. Kane is clearly taller, with the height difference looking at least as great as his footwear advantage over Taker.
KingNick says on 20/Nov/08
....Now here's a dead on shot from WM 14 with no camera advantage Click Here remember to look at the top of UT's head....
Click Here There is still a slight camera advantage for Kane but not much since the camera is almost at the level of their heads. Kane is clearly taller, with the height difference looking at least as great as his footwear advantage over Taker.
KingNick said on 20/Nov/08
KingNick says on 20/Nov/08
Here I agree Taker is on a higher plane, but it's from the same night and you can see that Kane has a footwear advantage Click Here
Meant to post this photo Click Here
And looking back at this photo, UT's shoes may have only given him a .5" boost at WM 14
KingNick says on 20/Nov/08
Here I agree Taker is on a higher plane, but it's from the same night and you can see that Kane has a footwear advantage Click Here
Meant to post this photo Click Here
And looking back at this photo, UT's shoes may have only given him a .5" boost at WM 14
Frank said on 20/Nov/08
Most Pictures have shown Jacobs alittle taller but there was a guy on here about 2 years ago and he said he worked for the WWF and he said Jacobs did wear lifts and that Taker was really taller ???
Most Pictures have shown Jacobs alittle taller but there was a guy on here about 2 years ago and he said he worked for the WWF and he said Jacobs did wear lifts and that Taker was really taller ???
Ray said on 20/Nov/08
Yeah, I agree Shock and KingNick. Taker is slightly taller than Kane barefoot today and always has been IMO.
Yeah, I agree Shock and KingNick. Taker is slightly taller than Kane barefoot today and always has been IMO.
KingNick said on 19/Nov/08
Shock of Electric says on 19/Nov/08
Taker has not lost any height, if anyone has lost height it's Kane. I don't see how any could look at those pics and say Kane is taller. I mean, the one pic he looks clearly shorter than Taker and the other pic you'd have to compensate for Taker's posture/head lean and the fact that Kane's got about .5" boot advantage. Taker is taller than Kane beyond the shadow of a doubt barefoot.
I gotta agree man. Kane clearly has bigger footwear in those pics below and they look about the same height. I really don't know with him anymore.
Shock of Electric says on 19/Nov/08
Taker has not lost any height, if anyone has lost height it's Kane. I don't see how any could look at those pics and say Kane is taller. I mean, the one pic he looks clearly shorter than Taker and the other pic you'd have to compensate for Taker's posture/head lean and the fact that Kane's got about .5" boot advantage. Taker is taller than Kane beyond the shadow of a doubt barefoot.
I gotta agree man. Kane clearly has bigger footwear in those pics below and they look about the same height. I really don't know with him anymore.
gee said on 19/Nov/08
taker 6'6 today
kane 6'6 1/2 today
show 6'10 1/2
khali 6'11 1/2
batista 6'2
taker 6'6 today
kane 6'6 1/2 today
show 6'10 1/2
khali 6'11 1/2
batista 6'2
gee said on 19/Nov/08
undertaker is 6'6 1/2 peak
today roughly 6'6
undertaker is 6'6 1/2 peak
today roughly 6'6
Shock of Electric said on 19/Nov/08
Taker has not lost any height, if anyone has lost height it's Kane. I don't see how any could look at those pics and say Kane is taller. I mean, the one pic he looks clearly shorter than Taker and the other pic you'd have to compensate for Taker's posture/head lean and the fact that Kane's got about .5" boot advantage. Taker is taller than Kane beyond the shadow of a doubt barefoot.
Taker has not lost any height, if anyone has lost height it's Kane. I don't see how any could look at those pics and say Kane is taller. I mean, the one pic he looks clearly shorter than Taker and the other pic you'd have to compensate for Taker's posture/head lean and the fact that Kane's got about .5" boot advantage. Taker is taller than Kane beyond the shadow of a doubt barefoot.
Anonymous said on 18/Nov/08
Undertaker is nothing above 6'8" his 6'10 1/2" billing as is false as Big Show being billed 7'2" in 2000, or andre billed 7'4" oh well, WWE lives to exaggerate.
Undertaker is nothing above 6'8" his 6'10 1/2" billing as is false as Big Show being billed 7'2" in 2000, or andre billed 7'4" oh well, WWE lives to exaggerate.
Anonymous said on 18/Nov/08
here are some photos from april 2008 which show that undertaker has lost little or no height, he is barely half an inch shorter than kane who is in decent sized footwear. taker has for sure lost weight, he looks 260lb-270lb max there next to 300lb kane
kane and undertaker Click Here
kane, undertaker and big show from the same night Click Here
here are some photos from april 2008 which show that undertaker has lost little or no height, he is barely half an inch shorter than kane who is in decent sized footwear. taker has for sure lost weight, he looks 260lb-270lb max there next to 300lb kane
kane and undertaker Click Here
kane, undertaker and big show from the same night Click Here
Alex said on 17/Nov/08
UT looks a bit too lean today I'd say.
UT looks a bit too lean today I'd say.
Derek said on 17/Nov/08
280 sounds right, but IMO, Taker looks in better shape now than he did at any point in his career.
280 sounds right, but IMO, Taker looks in better shape now than he did at any point in his career.
Drexyl said on 17/Nov/08
He's probably no more than 280 lbs these days.
He's probably no more than 280 lbs these days.
willy79 said on 17/Nov/08
Vegas says on 6/Nov/08
he heels and on show and khalis boots are almost identical Click Here
the heels on shows and kurt angles boots were identical, i suppose he is wearing huge lifts now too lol Click Here
Cool pics btw but look at Shows heels with Angle and notice how his heel is flat. Where as in the other pic with Khali, his heel is pushed up, almost like halfway tippy toes!
Vegas says on 6/Nov/08
he heels and on show and khalis boots are almost identical Click Here
the heels on shows and kurt angles boots were identical, i suppose he is wearing huge lifts now too lol Click Here
Cool pics btw but look at Shows heels with Angle and notice how his heel is flat. Where as in the other pic with Khali, his heel is pushed up, almost like halfway tippy toes!
Anonymous said on 17/Nov/08
recent enough photo of taker and big show from april 2008 Click Here
kane and taker from same show Click Here
looking at those kane has barely half an inch on taker, if that, personally i don't think taker has lost any height though he has clearly lost weight, he looks 260-270lb there next to 300lb kane
recent enough photo of taker and big show from april 2008 Click Here
kane and taker from same show Click Here
looking at those kane has barely half an inch on taker, if that, personally i don't think taker has lost any height though he has clearly lost weight, he looks 260-270lb there next to 300lb kane
Paul said on 17/Nov/08
Undertaker is probably around 6'7.75. Weight about 285lbs I would say.
Undertaker is probably around 6'7.75. Weight about 285lbs I would say.
Clay said on 17/Nov/08
I see 6'9'' there next to Big Show, to be honest.
I see 6'9'' there next to Big Show, to be honest.
Danimal said on 16/Nov/08
335 pounds from 1998-2000. Been losing height and weight since 2001. Is probably down to 270 pounds today imo.
335 pounds from 1998-2000. Been losing height and weight since 2001. Is probably down to 270 pounds today imo.
Marotte said on 15/Nov/08
Ray says on 14/Nov/08
Taker has lost weight but I don't really see much difference in height from his earlier days. Even though he's lost some weight, he's still huge. He was probably around 330 lbs. during most of his earlier career and I'd say up until 2002-2003 around there. Now he's probably around 285-290 lbs. but he looks in great shape nowadays and sometimes he looks bulkier and close to 300lbs.
I would say 310 lbs for most of his career personally. And 280 right now
Ray says on 14/Nov/08
Taker has lost weight but I don't really see much difference in height from his earlier days. Even though he's lost some weight, he's still huge. He was probably around 330 lbs. during most of his earlier career and I'd say up until 2002-2003 around there. Now he's probably around 285-290 lbs. but he looks in great shape nowadays and sometimes he looks bulkier and close to 300lbs.
I would say 310 lbs for most of his career personally. And 280 right now
Ghost said on 15/Nov/08
Yep, Taker's lost weight, but not much height.
Yep, Taker's lost weight, but not much height.
Ray said on 14/Nov/08
Taker has lost weight but I don't really see much difference in height from his earlier days. Even though he's lost some weight, he's still huge. He was probably around 330 lbs. during most of his earlier career and I'd say up until 2002-2003 around there. Now he's probably around 285-290 lbs. but he looks in great shape nowadays and sometimes he looks bulkier and close to 300lbs.
Taker has lost weight but I don't really see much difference in height from his earlier days. Even though he's lost some weight, he's still huge. He was probably around 330 lbs. during most of his earlier career and I'd say up until 2002-2003 around there. Now he's probably around 285-290 lbs. but he looks in great shape nowadays and sometimes he looks bulkier and close to 300lbs.
Anonymous said on 14/Nov/08
does anyone have proof of undertaker losing 2 inches like on video
does anyone have proof of undertaker losing 2 inches like on video
Drexyl said on 14/Nov/08
I think Taker gives the impression of being a smaller man these days because he's a lot thinner than he used to be. When he locks up with the likes of Randy Orton and Edge, he really doesn't look that much thicker than them at all, so it's easy to be fooled into thinking he's not much bigger than they are.
Just watch how well he stacks up to The Big Show and Khali though. He still looks a solid 6,8".
I think Taker gives the impression of being a smaller man these days because he's a lot thinner than he used to be. When he locks up with the likes of Randy Orton and Edge, he really doesn't look that much thicker than them at all, so it's easy to be fooled into thinking he's not much bigger than they are.
Just watch how well he stacks up to The Big Show and Khali though. He still looks a solid 6,8".
KingNick said on 14/Nov/08
tuga, great photos. Here's another photo from that same match with a shot of Undertaker's shoes. So it's not like he was in huge lifts against Show or anything:
Click Here
tuga, great photos. Here's another photo from that same match with a shot of Undertaker's shoes. So it's not like he was in huge lifts against Show or anything:
Click Here
Frank said on 14/Nov/08
Monsoon looked about 2 inches shorter than The 6ft 5 Chuck Wepner
Monsoon looked about 2 inches shorter than The 6ft 5 Chuck Wepner
tuga said on 14/Nov/08
Danimal says on 13/Nov/08
Frank says on 12/Nov/08
Guys dont forget Taker is A Very Big Man
Frank, he is about 50 pounds less than he was a decade ago and imo 1-2" shorter.
Yes, taker is huge, he has lost a lot of weight for sure, but in terms of height he
Danimal says on 13/Nov/08
Frank says on 12/Nov/08
Guys dont forget Taker is A Very Big Man
Frank, he is about 50 pounds less than he was a decade ago and imo 1-2" shorter.
Yes, taker is huge, he has lost a lot of weight for sure, but in terms of height he
Danimal said on 13/Nov/08
Ghost says on 13/Nov/08
Alex says on 11/Nov/08
Then that makes Monsoon what 6'1 1/2 or something. Thats not right.
No it doesn't. Monsoon was probably closer to 6'3 in his older years, since he was shorter than King kong Bundy and very close in height with 6'2 Vader. Ventura also wore big boots and appeared the same height with Monsoon. That makes me wonder if Ventura was actually closer to 6'2.
Vader was minimum 6'3" and Monsoon was still every bit 6'4"+ in the mid-late 1990's. Watch the 1997 Slammy Awards and watch Sid standing right next to Monsoon (BOTH in tuxedos) and Sid having 2-3" on Monsoon MAX. Watch a backstage footage of Monsoon throwing Stone Cold out of the building and Monsoon having at least 4" on Stone Cold. Christ, Stone Cold had to stand on his tip toes to try and come close to an old and sick Monsoon. Watch Monsoon have 2" MINIMUM on 6'3" Muhammed Ali in the 1970's and minimum 4" on Vince in the subsequent interview. He was the same height as a 6'3"-6'4" Ventura who wore high heeled shoes.
PEAK - 6'5"
Old Age - 6'4"
Ghost says on 13/Nov/08
Alex says on 11/Nov/08
Then that makes Monsoon what 6'1 1/2 or something. Thats not right.
No it doesn't. Monsoon was probably closer to 6'3 in his older years, since he was shorter than King kong Bundy and very close in height with 6'2 Vader. Ventura also wore big boots and appeared the same height with Monsoon. That makes me wonder if Ventura was actually closer to 6'2.
Vader was minimum 6'3" and Monsoon was still every bit 6'4"+ in the mid-late 1990's. Watch the 1997 Slammy Awards and watch Sid standing right next to Monsoon (BOTH in tuxedos) and Sid having 2-3" on Monsoon MAX. Watch a backstage footage of Monsoon throwing Stone Cold out of the building and Monsoon having at least 4" on Stone Cold. Christ, Stone Cold had to stand on his tip toes to try and come close to an old and sick Monsoon. Watch Monsoon have 2" MINIMUM on 6'3" Muhammed Ali in the 1970's and minimum 4" on Vince in the subsequent interview. He was the same height as a 6'3"-6'4" Ventura who wore high heeled shoes.
PEAK - 6'5"
Old Age - 6'4"
Danimal said on 13/Nov/08
Frank says on 12/Nov/08
Guys dont forget Taker is A Very Big Man
Frank, he is about 50 pounds less than he was a decade ago and imo 1-2" shorter.
Frank says on 12/Nov/08
Guys dont forget Taker is A Very Big Man
Frank, he is about 50 pounds less than he was a decade ago and imo 1-2" shorter.
Ray said on 13/Nov/08
Shock Of Electric: it is hard to pin a height on Koslov. I would like to see him with Orton since Orton is around 6'4" or even with Batista who is probably 6'3" and change IMO; Orton looks just a little taller than Batista. But both those men are taller than HHH which is why I lean more towards 6'2" for HHH; but HHH could be 6'2" and a little change. I'll stick around 6'3" for Koslov for now but he could very well be a little taller. I would think Koslov and Batista could be around the same height. Undertaker just looked to tower Koslov considerably but you never know; though Koslov's boots are chunky so I'll stick with around 6'3" but he could be 6'4" in boots or a bit more.
Shock Of Electric: it is hard to pin a height on Koslov. I would like to see him with Orton since Orton is around 6'4" or even with Batista who is probably 6'3" and change IMO; Orton looks just a little taller than Batista. But both those men are taller than HHH which is why I lean more towards 6'2" for HHH; but HHH could be 6'2" and a little change. I'll stick around 6'3" for Koslov for now but he could very well be a little taller. I would think Koslov and Batista could be around the same height. Undertaker just looked to tower Koslov considerably but you never know; though Koslov's boots are chunky so I'll stick with around 6'3" but he could be 6'4" in boots or a bit more.
Shock of Electric said on 13/Nov/08
There are a lot of issues trying to figure out Kozlov's height based on comparison with Trips because this site puts him at 6'2" and he could very well be closer to 6'3" than 6'2". I think Koz is just around 6'4".
As for Big Show vs Khali boots, Big Show's boots are thicker. The Angle Big Show comparison is based on perception. Big Show's feet in general are signficantly bigger than Angle's and Kurt's soles blend in with the ring there making them look slightly thicker than they really are. Not only that but Angle's foot is creeping up off the mat changing the angle of the back of the heel compared to the toe. Based on layered boot soles, Big Show's do only have about 1/4" on Angle's there, thus being 1.25" and 1.5" boots which are signficantly thicker than boots were in say, the 80's and early 90's. Those are also thicker boots than the little black boots Angle wore later on. Heels of 1.25" are pretty much the standard now, vs .75" being the standard up until around 1995, and even Andre the Giant wore paper thin boots back in the day. The sort of condescending tone that Angle would never wear "huge" lifts is unnecessary as he obvious is wearing thicker than average boots compared to some era of wrestling.
There are a lot of issues trying to figure out Kozlov's height based on comparison with Trips because this site puts him at 6'2" and he could very well be closer to 6'3" than 6'2". I think Koz is just around 6'4".
As for Big Show vs Khali boots, Big Show's boots are thicker. The Angle Big Show comparison is based on perception. Big Show's feet in general are signficantly bigger than Angle's and Kurt's soles blend in with the ring there making them look slightly thicker than they really are. Not only that but Angle's foot is creeping up off the mat changing the angle of the back of the heel compared to the toe. Based on layered boot soles, Big Show's do only have about 1/4" on Angle's there, thus being 1.25" and 1.5" boots which are signficantly thicker than boots were in say, the 80's and early 90's. Those are also thicker boots than the little black boots Angle wore later on. Heels of 1.25" are pretty much the standard now, vs .75" being the standard up until around 1995, and even Andre the Giant wore paper thin boots back in the day. The sort of condescending tone that Angle would never wear "huge" lifts is unnecessary as he obvious is wearing thicker than average boots compared to some era of wrestling.
Clay said on 13/Nov/08
Kozlov 6'2?
Kozlov 6'2?
Derek said on 13/Nov/08
Ola- Monsoon was in flat dress shoes while Vader was in boots and possibly a little extra.
Ola- Monsoon was in flat dress shoes while Vader was in boots and possibly a little extra.
Anonymous said on 13/Nov/08
the carlie haas/koslov staredown was much better than the HHH/koslov staredown where koslov is not even close to standing straight, standing straight he has haas by nearly 4 inches there Click Here
a 6'2 koslov would equal a 5'10 haas but that would also equal a 5'10 max vince mcmahon as haas was standing next to vince during one of those millionaire giveaways earlier this year Click Here
the carlie haas/koslov staredown was much better than the HHH/koslov staredown where koslov is not even close to standing straight, standing straight he has haas by nearly 4 inches there Click Here
a 6'2 koslov would equal a 5'10 haas but that would also equal a 5'10 max vince mcmahon as haas was standing next to vince during one of those millionaire giveaways earlier this year Click Here
tuga said on 13/Nov/08
Vegas says on 12/Nov/08
speaking of festus met him, jesse and victoria on monday night in of all places a fast food restaurant, got a photo not great to show height but will upload if anyone interested :)
Yes Vegas, it would be cool to see your pic with them.
How tall did festus look to you?
Vegas says on 12/Nov/08
speaking of festus met him, jesse and victoria on monday night in of all places a fast food restaurant, got a photo not great to show height but will upload if anyone interested :)
Yes Vegas, it would be cool to see your pic with them.
How tall did festus look to you?
Ghost said on 13/Nov/08
Alex says on 11/Nov/08
Then that makes Monsoon what 6'1 1/2 or something. Thats not right.
No it doesn't. Monsoon was probably closer to 6'3 in his older years, since he was shorter than King kong Bundy and very close in height with 6'2 Vader. Ventura also wore big boots and appeared the same height with Monsoon. That makes me wonder if Ventura was actually closer to 6'2.
Alex says on 11/Nov/08
Then that makes Monsoon what 6'1 1/2 or something. Thats not right.
No it doesn't. Monsoon was probably closer to 6'3 in his older years, since he was shorter than King kong Bundy and very close in height with 6'2 Vader. Ventura also wore big boots and appeared the same height with Monsoon. That makes me wonder if Ventura was actually closer to 6'2.
Danimal said on 12/Nov/08
Vladimir is 6'2" imo.
Vladimir is 6'2" imo.
Paul Roadman said on 12/Nov/08
I actually met Vladimir and I know he's not 6'6", I should know because I'm actually a 6'6" guy, and I stood a tad taller. Kozlov is actually 6'4-6'5". Six four and a half seems accurate.
I actually met Vladimir and I know he's not 6'6", I should know because I'm actually a 6'6" guy, and I stood a tad taller. Kozlov is actually 6'4-6'5". Six four and a half seems accurate.
Frank said on 12/Nov/08
Guys dont forget Taker is A Very Big Man
Guys dont forget Taker is A Very Big Man
Ray said on 12/Nov/08
Yeah, I agree Big Show. I remember watching that staredown and thinking huh, Koslov in his gear is pretty much the same height as HHH. Koslov's boots do look chunky too. Judging by that, I'd have to say Koslov is 6'2" and probably change. Though his head is down and his legs look spread decently but still I don't think I'd go over 6'3" for him unless I see something that changes that. KingNick, sometimes it is easy to forget how large Undertaker really is.
Yeah, I agree Big Show. I remember watching that staredown and thinking huh, Koslov in his gear is pretty much the same height as HHH. Koslov's boots do look chunky too. Judging by that, I'd have to say Koslov is 6'2" and probably change. Though his head is down and his legs look spread decently but still I don't think I'd go over 6'3" for him unless I see something that changes that. KingNick, sometimes it is easy to forget how large Undertaker really is.
Vegas said on 12/Nov/08
speaking of festus met him, jesse and victoria on monday night in of all places a fast food restaurant, got a photo not great to show height but will upload if anyone interested :)
speaking of festus met him, jesse and victoria on monday night in of all places a fast food restaurant, got a photo not great to show height but will upload if anyone interested :)
tom said on 12/Nov/08
i have met undertaker at wwe events in the uk, he is billed at 6;10 he is huge man, am 6'2 and he was a lot bigger than me, festus is 6;7, kozlov is 6'7,undertaker is 6;9 or 10 still for me
i have met undertaker at wwe events in the uk, he is billed at 6;10 he is huge man, am 6'2 and he was a lot bigger than me, festus is 6;7, kozlov is 6'7,undertaker is 6;9 or 10 still for me
Anthony said on 12/Nov/08
I'd put Koslov as 6'2.5 to 6'3. JR has claimed he is 6'6 and even 6'8 at times
I'd put Koslov as 6'2.5 to 6'3. JR has claimed he is 6'6 and even 6'8 at times
KingNick said on 12/Nov/08
Ray, I honestly don't know, that's a good question. I remember him measuring up well to Festus, but when he fought Undertaker I was surprised at how small he looked compared to him. I think it's easy too to forget just how big Undertaker is. I'd say 6'3ish for Vladimir
Ray, I honestly don't know, that's a good question. I remember him measuring up well to Festus, but when he fought Undertaker I was surprised at how small he looked compared to him. I think it's easy too to forget just how big Undertaker is. I'd say 6'3ish for Vladimir
Derek said on 12/Nov/08
Monsoon had about 2 inches on Vader in 1996.
Monsoon had about 2 inches on Vader in 1996.
Big Show said on 12/Nov/08
Ray says on 12/Nov/08
How tall do you think Vladmir Koslov is? 6'3"? Undertaker pretty much towered over him on Smackdown last week; had him by a considerable amount. I thought Koslov would stack up better and was actually a little surprised when Undertaker looked so large/tall compared to him - then again, I wasn't since Undertaker is huge. Here's parts 1 $2 of the match if anyone wants to take a look:
Frankly, I wasn't surprised that Taker would tower over Kozlov. We've been discussing Kozlov on the Triple H board for a few weeks now. Some still claim Kozlov is 6'4-6'5 even though he's barely taller than Triple H. If you've seen the staredowns from Smackdown, Kozlov is only a fraction taller than Triple and he probably has a footwear advantage aswell, because Triple H is in very thin dressing shoes there, while Kozlov is in his wrestling boots.
Click Here
Click Here
Ray says on 12/Nov/08
How tall do you think Vladmir Koslov is? 6'3"? Undertaker pretty much towered over him on Smackdown last week; had him by a considerable amount. I thought Koslov would stack up better and was actually a little surprised when Undertaker looked so large/tall compared to him - then again, I wasn't since Undertaker is huge. Here's parts 1 $2 of the match if anyone wants to take a look:
Frankly, I wasn't surprised that Taker would tower over Kozlov. We've been discussing Kozlov on the Triple H board for a few weeks now. Some still claim Kozlov is 6'4-6'5 even though he's barely taller than Triple H. If you've seen the staredowns from Smackdown, Kozlov is only a fraction taller than Triple and he probably has a footwear advantage aswell, because Triple H is in very thin dressing shoes there, while Kozlov is in his wrestling boots.
Click Here
Click Here
Ray said on 12/Nov/08
How tall do you think Vladmir Koslov is? 6'3"? Undertaker pretty much towered over him on Smackdown last week; had him by a considerable amount. I thought Koslov would stack up better and was actually a little surprised when Undertaker looked so large/tall compared to him - then again, I wasn't since Undertaker is huge. Here's parts 1 $2 of the match if anyone wants to take a look:
Click Here
Click Here
How tall do you think Vladmir Koslov is? 6'3"? Undertaker pretty much towered over him on Smackdown last week; had him by a considerable amount. I thought Koslov would stack up better and was actually a little surprised when Undertaker looked so large/tall compared to him - then again, I wasn't since Undertaker is huge. Here's parts 1 $2 of the match if anyone wants to take a look:
Click Here
Click Here
Big Show said on 12/Nov/08
Ventura is a strange one. He looked around the same height as Dibiasi and in cowboy boots he was around the same height as Monsoon. So based on that I would say he's around 6'3.
On WWE.com he's been listed as 6'2, so based on that I would say he ain't taller than that.
But back in 1999 when he was going to be the guest referee at Summerslam, he also appeared on Smackdown shortly before Summerslam and looked easily an inch or two taller than Triple H. I can post the video of that online if someone cares.
Ventura is a strange one. He looked around the same height as Dibiasi and in cowboy boots he was around the same height as Monsoon. So based on that I would say he's around 6'3.
On WWE.com he's been listed as 6'2, so based on that I would say he ain't taller than that.
But back in 1999 when he was going to be the guest referee at Summerslam, he also appeared on Smackdown shortly before Summerslam and looked easily an inch or two taller than Triple H. I can post the video of that online if someone cares.
Alex said on 11/Nov/08
Then that makes Monsoon what 6'1 1/2 or something. Thats not right.
Then that makes Monsoon what 6'1 1/2 or something. Thats not right.
Ghost said on 11/Nov/08
Ventura was 6'3 max.
Ventura was 6'3 max.
Alex said on 10/Nov/08
Hogan wasn't under 6'5 1/2 at his peak. Bossman, Ventura and Bundy were probably very similar in height. Bossman may have been ab it shorter though.
Hogan wasn't under 6'5 1/2 at his peak. Bossman, Ventura and Bundy were probably very similar in height. Bossman may have been ab it shorter though.
JT said on 9/Nov/08
Pretty good stare down of Taker and JBL in 2004 at around the 7:48 mark
Click Here
Click Here
Pretty good stare down of Taker and JBL in 2004 at around the 7:48 mark
Click Here
Click Here
Danimal said on 9/Nov/08
IMO, Bossman, Jesse Ventura and King Kong Bundy were all around the same height and Hogan was 2" taller than all of them at their respective peaks.
IMO, Bossman, Jesse Ventura and King Kong Bundy were all around the same height and Hogan was 2" taller than all of them at their respective peaks.
Big Show said on 9/Nov/08
Click Here
Here's a match between Undertaker and Ken Shamrock from Backlash 1999. Watch 8:04 and on. There's a nice staredown between Undertaker and Bradshaw.
Click Here
Here's a match between Undertaker and Ken Shamrock from Backlash 1999. Watch 8:04 and on. There's a nice staredown between Undertaker and Bradshaw.
Red said on 8/Nov/08
Nice vid Vegas, I think Bossman was a max 6
Nice vid Vegas, I think Bossman was a max 6
Haze said on 7/Nov/08
when kane had hes megas on i think he was standing about 6'10ish and looking it to standing with show. i think that theres only .5" difference with kane and ut. makes me wonder how kane was even able to safley perform wearing them. im roughly 6'3.5 barefoot and got some boots that can make me 6'5.5 and i couldnt imagine having to do anything physical while wearing them
when kane had hes megas on i think he was standing about 6'10ish and looking it to standing with show. i think that theres only .5" difference with kane and ut. makes me wonder how kane was even able to safley perform wearing them. im roughly 6'3.5 barefoot and got some boots that can make me 6'5.5 and i couldnt imagine having to do anything physical while wearing them
Haze said on 7/Nov/08
id say 6'7 ut and 6'7.5 for kane. i think show is in the 6'10.5 - 6'11 range. i see a 4 inch difference in the Ut and show pic a lil bit down. and with the regular foot wear i think it seems right. in boots id say 6'8 UT and 7' show
id say 6'7 ut and 6'7.5 for kane. i think show is in the 6'10.5 - 6'11 range. i see a 4 inch difference in the Ut and show pic a lil bit down. and with the regular foot wear i think it seems right. in boots id say 6'8 UT and 7' show
Ghost said on 7/Nov/08
Danimal says on 6/Nov/08
Ghost says on 4/Nov/08
I remember somewhat recently Big Show was mentioned as 7'5 on WWE.com.
No, Tazz said that Big Show was 7'0" 500 pounds. He said it quickly so that it sounded like 7'5". I thought the same thing at the time. Remember, Big Show as The Giant was billed at 7'4" in the WCW and actually looked to be a legit 7'1"-7'2" man then (mid-late 90's). Personally, I believe he was a full 7'1" up until 1999 and has since gone down to 7'0", or just under due to horrible posture and perhaps some surgery.
No, it was an article hyping a match of his, so it was in written form not spoken. They also described Kane and Khali as "Both over 7 feet tall" at wwe.com before their wrestlemania match.
Danimal says on 6/Nov/08
Ghost says on 4/Nov/08
I remember somewhat recently Big Show was mentioned as 7'5 on WWE.com.
No, Tazz said that Big Show was 7'0" 500 pounds. He said it quickly so that it sounded like 7'5". I thought the same thing at the time. Remember, Big Show as The Giant was billed at 7'4" in the WCW and actually looked to be a legit 7'1"-7'2" man then (mid-late 90's). Personally, I believe he was a full 7'1" up until 1999 and has since gone down to 7'0", or just under due to horrible posture and perhaps some surgery.
No, it was an article hyping a match of his, so it was in written form not spoken. They also described Kane and Khali as "Both over 7 feet tall" at wwe.com before their wrestlemania match.
JT said on 6/Nov/08
Da Man says on 6/Nov/08
Da Man says on 6/Nov/08
Danimal said on 6/Nov/08
Ghost says on 4/Nov/08
I remember somewhat recently Big Show was mentioned as 7'5 on WWE.com.
No, Tazz said that Big Show was 7'0" 500 pounds. He said it quickly so that it sounded like 7'5". I thought the same thing at the time. Remember, Big Show as The Giant was billed at 7'4" in the WCW and actually looked to be a legit 7'1"-7'2" man then (mid-late 90's). Personally, I believe he was a full 7'1" up until 1999 and has since gone down to 7'0", or just under due to horrible posture and perhaps some surgery.
Ghost says on 4/Nov/08
I remember somewhat recently Big Show was mentioned as 7'5 on WWE.com.
No, Tazz said that Big Show was 7'0" 500 pounds. He said it quickly so that it sounded like 7'5". I thought the same thing at the time. Remember, Big Show as The Giant was billed at 7'4" in the WCW and actually looked to be a legit 7'1"-7'2" man then (mid-late 90's). Personally, I believe he was a full 7'1" up until 1999 and has since gone down to 7'0", or just under due to horrible posture and perhaps some surgery.
Clay said on 6/Nov/08
I have seen moe than one video and more than one photo where its 1.5-2 inches between Show and Khali.
I have seen moe than one video and more than one photo where its 1.5-2 inches between Show and Khali.
KingNick said on 6/Nov/08
And JT, Kurt Angle was billed 6'2" and is only around 5'10" I don't think it's weird at all if he has a bit of a boost in his shoe.
And JT, Kurt Angle was billed 6'2" and is only around 5'10" I don't think it's weird at all if he has a bit of a boost in his shoe.
KingNick said on 6/Nov/08
Vegas says on 6/Nov/08
he heels and on show and khalis boots are almost identical Click Here
Does anyone else feel these heels are identical? I think Show has CLEAR advantage there!
Vegas says on 6/Nov/08
he heels and on show and khalis boots are almost identical Click Here
Does anyone else feel these heels are identical? I think Show has CLEAR advantage there!
Annoyed said on 6/Nov/08
Taker is still 6'8" minimum, he looked it next to 6'6" albert who had a clear 1.5" over barefoot gain in those mad boots he had on. Taker had 0.5" flats on. this would mean around an inch of actual difference even though it appears 1/2" difference ( which looks tiny compared to two giants ) id say in the famous Albert/Taker staredown, Albert was standing 6'7.5" in boots and taker was 6'8.5" but with lean on taker he appeared 6'8". Thus giving the 1/2" difference. id say he was actually 6'8.5" peak. How did the 6'7.5" figure arise and is there any evidence outwith the Albert pic ????
Taker is still 6'8" minimum, he looked it next to 6'6" albert who had a clear 1.5" over barefoot gain in those mad boots he had on. Taker had 0.5" flats on. this would mean around an inch of actual difference even though it appears 1/2" difference ( which looks tiny compared to two giants ) id say in the famous Albert/Taker staredown, Albert was standing 6'7.5" in boots and taker was 6'8.5" but with lean on taker he appeared 6'8". Thus giving the 1/2" difference. id say he was actually 6'8.5" peak. How did the 6'7.5" figure arise and is there any evidence outwith the Albert pic ????
Da Man said on 6/Nov/08
Yea, there's really very little difference between them footwear wise. No way is Show getting anything close to a 1" advantage over Khali from footwear.
I think it was JT who noticed that one of Show's boots may even have a thicker heel than the other to account for some sort of leg length discrepency.
Yea, there's really very little difference between them footwear wise. No way is Show getting anything close to a 1" advantage over Khali from footwear.
I think it was JT who noticed that one of Show's boots may even have a thicker heel than the other to account for some sort of leg length discrepency.
Shock of Electric said on 6/Nov/08
Big Show is close to 2" shorter than Khali. His boots are lifts, Khali's are normal. Big Show is probably just under 7', maybe as much under and Khali is over.
King Nick, I have never worked for JAPW, I did a show in Point Pleasant/Seaside Heights for NWA in 2001, lots of ECW names on that show, almost all of them dead. =(
Big Show is close to 2" shorter than Khali. His boots are lifts, Khali's are normal. Big Show is probably just under 7', maybe as much under and Khali is over.
King Nick, I have never worked for JAPW, I did a show in Point Pleasant/Seaside Heights for NWA in 2001, lots of ECW names on that show, almost all of them dead. =(
Drexyl said on 5/Nov/08
Big Show actually looks very very close to Khali's height in that photo. Show's eyeline is lower but his forehead is much longer.
I still maintain that there is at the MOST an inch between the two.
Big Show actually looks very very close to Khali's height in that photo. Show's eyeline is lower but his forehead is much longer.
I still maintain that there is at the MOST an inch between the two.
Big Show said on 5/Nov/08
Anonymous says on 4/Nov/08
big show was first billed at 7'1 by the wwe, his first billing came on the monday night raw dated 15 february 1999 straight after the ppv where he made his debut Valentine's Day Massacre, vince introduces him as guest ref for the wrestlemania title match and michael cole describes him as 7'1
You're correct about Michael Cole referring to him as 7'1, but his official billing was 7', 500 lbs (A week later Michael Cole referred to him as such). I wouldn't hold much value to what WWE announcers bill the wrestlers at. They often don't stick to the billings.
Here's a picture of his bio as listed on the Wrestlemania XV dvd.
Click Here
Tuga, if I remember correctly Big Show wasn't billed 7'2 until he started feuding with the likes of Kane and Undertaker.
Anonymous says on 4/Nov/08
big show was first billed at 7'1 by the wwe, his first billing came on the monday night raw dated 15 february 1999 straight after the ppv where he made his debut Valentine's Day Massacre, vince introduces him as guest ref for the wrestlemania title match and michael cole describes him as 7'1
You're correct about Michael Cole referring to him as 7'1, but his official billing was 7', 500 lbs (A week later Michael Cole referred to him as such). I wouldn't hold much value to what WWE announcers bill the wrestlers at. They often don't stick to the billings.
Here's a picture of his bio as listed on the Wrestlemania XV dvd.
Click Here
Tuga, if I remember correctly Big Show wasn't billed 7'2 until he started feuding with the likes of Kane and Undertaker.
Derek said on 5/Nov/08
Show does appear to be about an inch shorter than Khali. A 7'0.5"-7'1" Khali and a 6'11.5"-7'0" Show sounds right.
Show does appear to be about an inch shorter than Khali. A 7'0.5"-7'1" Khali and a 6'11.5"-7'0" Show sounds right.
tuga said on 4/Nov/08
Big show was also billed 7'2 when he came to wwe(f).
Yes, big show
Big show was also billed 7'2 when he came to wwe(f).
Yes, big show
Alex said on 4/Nov/08
Big Show, I agree. Maybe 1/2 inch loss, but not 1-2 inches like some are saying. With his weight increase and posture that can make him appear a little shorter.
Big Show would stack up against Shaq the same way he does against Khali. An inch shorter.
Big Show, I agree. Maybe 1/2 inch loss, but not 1-2 inches like some are saying. With his weight increase and posture that can make him appear a little shorter.
Big Show would stack up against Shaq the same way he does against Khali. An inch shorter.
Drexyl said on 4/Nov/08
Big Show was billed as 7,2" up until mid-late 2002.
Big Show was billed as 7,2" up until mid-late 2002.
Ghost said on 4/Nov/08
I remember somewhat recently Big Show was mentioned as 7'5 on WWE.com.
I remember somewhat recently Big Show was mentioned as 7'5 on WWE.com.
KingNick said on 4/Nov/08
Hey guys so here's what I'm talking about with the Big Show possibly losing around 1" of height.
Here's Show and Khali from the SNME a few years ago: Click Here
The pic is small, but if you were to watch the video: Click Here (pause at about the 4 sec mark) the image is a little bigger.
If Show were to stand straight, I think there'd be .5" difference there. But he has bigger footwear if you look.
Here's a current staredown between the the two with what looks like a 1" difference: Click Here
And here's Big Show's shoes: Click Here (see pic 42)
If Khali's 7'1", Show's shoes has to give him about 1.5" advantage. So if he's 6'11" barefoot, his shoes would make him 7'1.5". Khali's probably make him just under 7'2" (see pic 9)
In the old SNME staredown, I think Show was only .5" away but with bigger footwear.
7' peak (SNME), 6'11" current (current staredowns) my opinion.
Hey guys so here's what I'm talking about with the Big Show possibly losing around 1" of height.
Here's Show and Khali from the SNME a few years ago: Click Here
The pic is small, but if you were to watch the video: Click Here (pause at about the 4 sec mark) the image is a little bigger.
If Show were to stand straight, I think there'd be .5" difference there. But he has bigger footwear if you look.
Here's a current staredown between the the two with what looks like a 1" difference: Click Here
And here's Big Show's shoes: Click Here (see pic 42)
If Khali's 7'1", Show's shoes has to give him about 1.5" advantage. So if he's 6'11" barefoot, his shoes would make him 7'1.5". Khali's probably make him just under 7'2" (see pic 9)
In the old SNME staredown, I think Show was only .5" away but with bigger footwear.
7' peak (SNME), 6'11" current (current staredowns) my opinion.
Anonymous said on 4/Nov/08
big show was first billed at 7'1 by the wwe, his first billing came on the monday night raw dated 15 february 1999 straight after the ppv where he made his debut Valentine's Day Massacre, vince introduces him as guest ref for the wrestlemania title match and michael cole describes him as 7'1
big show was first billed at 7'1 by the wwe, his first billing came on the monday night raw dated 15 february 1999 straight after the ppv where he made his debut Valentine's Day Massacre, vince introduces him as guest ref for the wrestlemania title match and michael cole describes him as 7'1
Big Show said on 4/Nov/08
tuga says on 3/Nov/08
Big Show says on 3/Nov/08
Click Here This was the tallest that Big Show ever looked next to Undertaker. And he isn't even wearing his big boots there.
What are your estimates on both?
Big Show was billed 7 foot from the get-go in the WWE, so I don't think he was ever taller than that. If he wanted to, his posture was perfect at the time and he didn't have any surgeries which would've made him shrink.
I don't think Undertaker is any taller than 6'7 tops today, but I'm open to the possibility that he might've been a little taller than that in the late 90's.
Big Show looks shorter now, because his posture has become worse. It looks as if he can't straighten his back to its full extent anymore, which might've resulted into an actual height loss. But we're talking about maybe 0.5" here, I don't buy a 1-2 inch height loss for Big Show.
tuga says on 3/Nov/08
Big Show says on 3/Nov/08
Click Here This was the tallest that Big Show ever looked next to Undertaker. And he isn't even wearing his big boots there.
What are your estimates on both?
Big Show was billed 7 foot from the get-go in the WWE, so I don't think he was ever taller than that. If he wanted to, his posture was perfect at the time and he didn't have any surgeries which would've made him shrink.
I don't think Undertaker is any taller than 6'7 tops today, but I'm open to the possibility that he might've been a little taller than that in the late 90's.
Big Show looks shorter now, because his posture has become worse. It looks as if he can't straighten his back to its full extent anymore, which might've resulted into an actual height loss. But we're talking about maybe 0.5" here, I don't buy a 1-2 inch height loss for Big Show.
Alex said on 3/Nov/08
Big Show looks 5 inches taller than UT there.
Big Show looks 5 inches taller than UT there.
tuga said on 3/Nov/08
Big Show says on 3/Nov/08
Click Here This was the tallest that Big Show ever looked next to Undertaker. And he isn't even wearing his big boots there.
What are your estimates on both?
KingNick says on 3/Nov/08
Oh BTW I understand what you're saying. I don't have time now but later I'll post some pictures showing why I think he lost height (to give you an idea, I think he lost the inch when we returned for last year's Wrestlemania, not prior)
Maybe he lost 2 inches, he was really really tall in wcw, he did seen taller than shaq comparing both with hogan, Nowadays he
Big Show says on 3/Nov/08
Click Here This was the tallest that Big Show ever looked next to Undertaker. And he isn't even wearing his big boots there.
What are your estimates on both?
KingNick says on 3/Nov/08
Oh BTW I understand what you're saying. I don't have time now but later I'll post some pictures showing why I think he lost height (to give you an idea, I think he lost the inch when we returned for last year's Wrestlemania, not prior)
Maybe he lost 2 inches, he was really really tall in wcw, he did seen taller than shaq comparing both with hogan, Nowadays he
tuga said on 3/Nov/08
JT says on 1/Nov/08
KingNick says on 31/Oct/08
Come to think of it in the video tuga posted Show's shoes seem to be flat and it looks like there's about 3" between them...
This is how we get to only a 3 inch difference though Click Here leaving aside Taker's footwear advantage.
Taker did not indeed have footware advantage during 1999 ministry of darkness...that
JT says on 1/Nov/08
KingNick says on 31/Oct/08
Come to think of it in the video tuga posted Show's shoes seem to be flat and it looks like there's about 3" between them...
This is how we get to only a 3 inch difference though Click Here leaving aside Taker's footwear advantage.
Taker did not indeed have footware advantage during 1999 ministry of darkness...that
Big Show said on 3/Nov/08
Click Here
This was the tallest that Big Show ever looked next to Undertaker. And he isn't even wearing his big boots there.
Click Here
This was the tallest that Big Show ever looked next to Undertaker. And he isn't even wearing his big boots there.
KingNick said on 3/Nov/08
tuga says on 31/Oct/08
KingNick, I don
tuga says on 31/Oct/08
KingNick, I don
KingNick said on 3/Nov/08
Shock of Electric says on 3/Nov/08
King Nick, just a little FYI, I've wrestled at Seaside Heights before, and I agree with Lawler 5'10" and Bundy nearly 6'4" (met him a couple times).
No way, really?? Was it for JAPW? I went to a summer show in 2002 I believe it was. Jerry Lawler fought Steve Corino and the main event was a multi tag team hardcore match.
Shock of Electric says on 3/Nov/08
King Nick, just a little FYI, I've wrestled at Seaside Heights before, and I agree with Lawler 5'10" and Bundy nearly 6'4" (met him a couple times).
No way, really?? Was it for JAPW? I went to a summer show in 2002 I believe it was. Jerry Lawler fought Steve Corino and the main event was a multi tag team hardcore match.
Danimal said on 3/Nov/08
Anonymous says on 3/Nov/08
Frank says on 3/Nov/08
Hers the thing about Shaq He said on the Howard Stern Show he was 6ft 11.5 so that can be possible 6ft 11.5 barefoot and 7ft.5 in sneakers rounds it up to 7ft 1 ???
he was measured at 7'1 barefoot, he is clearly 5.75" taller than 6.7.25" measured lebron james, 4.5" taller than measured amare stoudemire, chris bosh measured 6'10 barefoot but you believe he is just 1 inch shorter than shaq :
Click Here
i sure only see 3 inches between big show and undertaker in this photo Click Here
More like 4-5" difference in that pic.
Anonymous says on 3/Nov/08
Frank says on 3/Nov/08
Hers the thing about Shaq He said on the Howard Stern Show he was 6ft 11.5 so that can be possible 6ft 11.5 barefoot and 7ft.5 in sneakers rounds it up to 7ft 1 ???
he was measured at 7'1 barefoot, he is clearly 5.75" taller than 6.7.25" measured lebron james, 4.5" taller than measured amare stoudemire, chris bosh measured 6'10 barefoot but you believe he is just 1 inch shorter than shaq :
Click Here
i sure only see 3 inches between big show and undertaker in this photo Click Here
More like 4-5" difference in that pic.
Frank said on 3/Nov/08
Well thats what Shaq said not me !! Rodman is billed @ 6ft 8 and he says he 6ft 6 ??? I heard basketball measures guys in there sneakers ??
Well thats what Shaq said not me !! Rodman is billed @ 6ft 8 and he says he 6ft 6 ??? I heard basketball measures guys in there sneakers ??
Anonymous said on 3/Nov/08
Frank says on 3/Nov/08
Hers the thing about Shaq He said on the Howard Stern Show he was 6ft 11.5 so that can be possible 6ft 11.5 barefoot and 7ft.5 in sneakers rounds it up to 7ft 1 ???
he was measured at 7'1 barefoot, he is clearly 5.75" taller than 6.7.25" measured lebron james, 4.5" taller than measured amare stoudemire, chris bosh measured 6'10 barefoot but you believe he is just 1 inch shorter than shaq :
Click Here
i sure only see 3 inches between big show and undertaker in this photo Click Here
Frank says on 3/Nov/08
Hers the thing about Shaq He said on the Howard Stern Show he was 6ft 11.5 so that can be possible 6ft 11.5 barefoot and 7ft.5 in sneakers rounds it up to 7ft 1 ???
he was measured at 7'1 barefoot, he is clearly 5.75" taller than 6.7.25" measured lebron james, 4.5" taller than measured amare stoudemire, chris bosh measured 6'10 barefoot but you believe he is just 1 inch shorter than shaq :
Click Here
i sure only see 3 inches between big show and undertaker in this photo Click Here
Shock of Electric said on 3/Nov/08
Taker is not wearing lifts of any kind in the Ministry of Darkness era pics, in fact his boots are thinner than just about anyone else's. I can't believe I just saw another picture where a person's heel was sliced in half in effort to say they were wearing lifts. Taker's boots were .75" during that time. Big Show's are 1.5" generally for his lifts which he still wears now and wore from time to time them. What I don't understand is how people put Taker at such a big difference when he clearly has a boot disadvantage. Basically anyone who says Taker is 6'7" based on the assumption he's wearing lifts should really accept the fact that you need to deduct that from the other person and not him, either bringing them down an inch or Taker up one. Big Show is currently no more than 3" taller than Taker today and possibly was 4" taller at some point. Again, footwear advantage has always been to Big Show. Big Show I believe to be not much more than 6'11" right now. Big Show at 7', Kane at 6'8" and then Taker at 6'7.5 is succumbing to the illusion of bill differences mixed with footwear discrepencies.
King Nick, just a little FYI, I've wrestled at Seaside Heights before, and I agree with Lawler 5'10" and Bundy nearly 6'4" (met him a couple times).
Taker is not wearing lifts of any kind in the Ministry of Darkness era pics, in fact his boots are thinner than just about anyone else's. I can't believe I just saw another picture where a person's heel was sliced in half in effort to say they were wearing lifts. Taker's boots were .75" during that time. Big Show's are 1.5" generally for his lifts which he still wears now and wore from time to time them. What I don't understand is how people put Taker at such a big difference when he clearly has a boot disadvantage. Basically anyone who says Taker is 6'7" based on the assumption he's wearing lifts should really accept the fact that you need to deduct that from the other person and not him, either bringing them down an inch or Taker up one. Big Show is currently no more than 3" taller than Taker today and possibly was 4" taller at some point. Again, footwear advantage has always been to Big Show. Big Show I believe to be not much more than 6'11" right now. Big Show at 7', Kane at 6'8" and then Taker at 6'7.5 is succumbing to the illusion of bill differences mixed with footwear discrepencies.
King Nick, just a little FYI, I've wrestled at Seaside Heights before, and I agree with Lawler 5'10" and Bundy nearly 6'4" (met him a couple times).
Frank said on 3/Nov/08
Hers the thing about Shaq He said on the Howard Stern Show he was 6ft 11.5 so that can be possible 6ft 11.5 barefoot and 7ft.5 in sneakers rounds it up to 7ft 1 ???
Hers the thing about Shaq He said on the Howard Stern Show he was 6ft 11.5 so that can be possible 6ft 11.5 barefoot and 7ft.5 in sneakers rounds it up to 7ft 1 ???
Anonymous said on 2/Nov/08
here are the listed heights
Shaq 7'1"
Khali 7'1"
some guy named Jeremy who never posts
proof of his height and brags, 7'0.5"
Big Show 7'0"
Kane 6'8"
Undertaker 6'7.5"
"Ryan Ennis" 6'7" (who is he?)
Rob, tell Jeremy and Ryan to post proof of their heights please.
here are the listed heights
Shaq 7'1"
Khali 7'1"
some guy named Jeremy who never posts
proof of his height and brags, 7'0.5"
Big Show 7'0"
Kane 6'8"
Undertaker 6'7.5"
"Ryan Ennis" 6'7" (who is he?)
Rob, tell Jeremy and Ryan to post proof of their heights please.
JT said on 1/Nov/08
KingNick says on 31/Oct/08
Come to think of it in the video tuga posted Show's shoes seem to be flat and it looks like there's about 3" between them...
This is how we get to only a 3 inch difference though Click Here leaving aside Taker's footwear advantage.
KingNick says on 31/Oct/08
Come to think of it in the video tuga posted Show's shoes seem to be flat and it looks like there's about 3" between them...
This is how we get to only a 3 inch difference though Click Here leaving aside Taker's footwear advantage.
said on 31/Oct/08
Big Show is 6'11.5"
Undertaker is 6'7.5"
Kane is 6'8"
Jake Roberts is 6'4.75"
JBL is 6'5.5"
Steve Austin is 6'1.25"
Goldberg is 6'2.75"
Batista is 6'3.5"
Khali is 7'1"
Shaq is 7'1"
John Cena is 6'0.5"
Kurt Angle is 5'10.5"
Big Show is 6'11.5"
Undertaker is 6'7.5"
Kane is 6'8"
Jake Roberts is 6'4.75"
JBL is 6'5.5"
Steve Austin is 6'1.25"
Goldberg is 6'2.75"
Batista is 6'3.5"
Khali is 7'1"
Shaq is 7'1"
John Cena is 6'0.5"
Kurt Angle is 5'10.5"
tuga said on 31/Oct/08
KingNick, I don
KingNick, I don
KingNick said on 31/Oct/08
Come to think of it in the video tuga posted Show's shoes seem to be flat and it looks like there's about 3" between them.
My personal opinion is that the average wrestling shoe gives about .75" extra in height. So I'd be willing to believe that UT's boots during that era gave him a full 1" boost and that would make that staredown accurate.
Here's my list of big men:
Kane: 6'8" (up to 6'10.5" in boots)
UT 6'8" (I think it's possible he's 6'7" now but I still think he's 6'8")
Show: 7' peak, 6'11" current
Khali: 7'1"
Come to think of it in the video tuga posted Show's shoes seem to be flat and it looks like there's about 3" between them.
My personal opinion is that the average wrestling shoe gives about .75" extra in height. So I'd be willing to believe that UT's boots during that era gave him a full 1" boost and that would make that staredown accurate.
Here's my list of big men:
Kane: 6'8" (up to 6'10.5" in boots)
UT 6'8" (I think it's possible he's 6'7" now but I still think he's 6'8")
Show: 7' peak, 6'11" current
Khali: 7'1"
KingNick said on 31/Oct/08
And don't get me wrong, I certainly think Show is WAY taller than Undertaker. At least 7' during the ministry era, 6'11" now, I just think UT appears much taller next to guys like Show, Khali, and even Gonzalez b/c they force him to stand up straight.
And don't get me wrong, I certainly think Show is WAY taller than Undertaker. At least 7' during the ministry era, 6'11" now, I just think UT appears much taller next to guys like Show, Khali, and even Gonzalez b/c they force him to stand up straight.
tuga said on 31/Oct/08
KingNick says on 30/Oct/08
JT, those pics are way too blurry to show any kind of evidence IMO. Tuga posted this clear pic of UT in his boots and you could easily color the same spot you did yet you can tell here he doesn't have a boost Click Here
You are right KingNick.
Its the SAME BOOTS, those pics are too blurry, they mislead because taker boots are a bit strange, check this:
Click Here
Look at their format on top, on a blurry video they will mislead people into thinking they have a big sole or something inside.
Here
KingNick says on 30/Oct/08
JT, those pics are way too blurry to show any kind of evidence IMO. Tuga posted this clear pic of UT in his boots and you could easily color the same spot you did yet you can tell here he doesn't have a boost Click Here
You are right KingNick.
Its the SAME BOOTS, those pics are too blurry, they mislead because taker boots are a bit strange, check this:
Click Here
Look at their format on top, on a blurry video they will mislead people into thinking they have a big sole or something inside.
Here
Da Man said on 30/Oct/08
KingNick says on 30/Oct/08
"JT, those pics are way too blurry to show any kind of evidence IMO. Tuga posted this clear pic of UT in his boots and you could easily color the same spot you did yet you can tell here he doesn't have a boost Click Here"
Definitely different boots in the two pics. Look at the angle of the foot in the shoe.
KingNick says on 30/Oct/08
"JT, those pics are way too blurry to show any kind of evidence IMO. Tuga posted this clear pic of UT in his boots and you could easily color the same spot you did yet you can tell here he doesn't have a boost Click Here"
Definitely different boots in the two pics. Look at the angle of the foot in the shoe.
KingNick said on 30/Oct/08
JT, those pics are way too blurry to show any kind of evidence IMO. Tuga posted this clear pic of UT in his boots and you could easily color the same spot you did yet you can tell here he doesn't have a boost Click Here
JT, those pics are way too blurry to show any kind of evidence IMO. Tuga posted this clear pic of UT in his boots and you could easily color the same spot you did yet you can tell here he doesn't have a boost Click Here
tuga said on 30/Oct/08
Frank says on 29/Oct/08
So if Taker is 6ft 7 Show looks 6ft 9 to 6ft 10
Yes, I
Frank says on 29/Oct/08
So if Taker is 6ft 7 Show looks 6ft 9 to 6ft 10
Yes, I
JT said on 29/Oct/08
You can see the outer edge of Taker
You can see the outer edge of Taker
Atoadaso said on 29/Oct/08
Big Show was awesome in those days. Look at that leap over the top rope!
Big Show was awesome in those days. Look at that leap over the top rope!
Frank said on 29/Oct/08
So if Taker is 6ft 7 Show looks 6ft 9 to 6ft 10
So if Taker is 6ft 7 Show looks 6ft 9 to 6ft 10
Big Show said on 29/Oct/08
Alex says on 28/Oct/08
Or it could be UT is in lifts when facing Big Show. Wouldn't suprise me. I think even back then in 1999 he wore lifts to stack up that close to Big Show in height.
Big Show mostly slouched when he was around Undertaker. Look at this vid from 1999. Look at 3:40 and further. Big Show's posture is horrible, he's completely leaning forward. Yet he's still around 3 inches taller than Taker. No footwear advantage either for Big Show as he's in dress shoes there.
Click Here
Alex says on 28/Oct/08
Or it could be UT is in lifts when facing Big Show. Wouldn't suprise me. I think even back then in 1999 he wore lifts to stack up that close to Big Show in height.
Big Show mostly slouched when he was around Undertaker. Look at this vid from 1999. Look at 3:40 and further. Big Show's posture is horrible, he's completely leaning forward. Yet he's still around 3 inches taller than Taker. No footwear advantage either for Big Show as he's in dress shoes there.
Click Here
Alex2 said on 29/Oct/08
Crush was probably 6'5.5"
Crush was probably 6'5.5"
KingNick said on 29/Oct/08
The thing is at rare times when UT finds someone taller than himself, like Big Show and Khali, he actually stands up straight. I think that's where the lift myth came from with him. When he stares down shorter guys he always bends his head down where as someone like Sid always keeps a good posture no matter who he stares down with.
The thing is at rare times when UT finds someone taller than himself, like Big Show and Khali, he actually stands up straight. I think that's where the lift myth came from with him. When he stares down shorter guys he always bends his head down where as someone like Sid always keeps a good posture no matter who he stares down with.
tuga said on 29/Oct/08
nick, I agree with, kane is no taller than taker.
Alex, this is taker
nick, I agree with, kane is no taller than taker.
Alex, this is taker
sid said on 29/Oct/08
nick Kane is still has a inch on taker in that video
nick Kane is still has a inch on taker in that video
sid said on 29/Oct/08
nick Kane is 6'8 still barefeet. taker is 6'7 kane still has a inch.. how do you expect kane to be 6'9.. he looks 6'9 with shaq in ring gear... so that would make kane 6'9 barefeet. his ring gear boots gives him atleast a inch.. theres no way you can wrestle with 2 inches lift. hard to walk and wrestle. i have 2 inch lift there very hard to walk on.. cmon common sense
nick Kane is 6'8 still barefeet. taker is 6'7 kane still has a inch.. how do you expect kane to be 6'9.. he looks 6'9 with shaq in ring gear... so that would make kane 6'9 barefeet. his ring gear boots gives him atleast a inch.. theres no way you can wrestle with 2 inches lift. hard to walk and wrestle. i have 2 inch lift there very hard to walk on.. cmon common sense
nick said on 28/Oct/08
Click Here
Kane has about a half in advantage in footwear, pause at 2:40 and they look to be about the same height , this is actually a good vid of them staring one another downm kane may have a half inch on him (footwear), these guys are the same height . They most likely are really 6'7.5 today after the averages of all the evidence given.
Click Here
Kane has about a half in advantage in footwear, pause at 2:40 and they look to be about the same height , this is actually a good vid of them staring one another downm kane may have a half inch on him (footwear), these guys are the same height . They most likely are really 6'7.5 today after the averages of all the evidence given.
Alex said on 28/Oct/08
Or it could be UT is in lifts when facing Big Show. Wouldn't suprise me. I think even back then in 1999 he wore lifts to stack up that close to Big Show in height. Guys like UT and Kane may wear lifts against guys like Big Show and Khali but then dont against guys shorter.
Or it could be UT is in lifts when facing Big Show. Wouldn't suprise me. I think even back then in 1999 he wore lifts to stack up that close to Big Show in height. Guys like UT and Kane may wear lifts against guys like Big Show and Khali but then dont against guys shorter.
KingNick said on 27/Oct/08
Big Show, honestly, I think that's very realistic. I personally think UT is 6'8" but I wouldn't be surprised if he was 6'7".
Big Show, honestly, I think that's very realistic. I personally think UT is 6'8" but I wouldn't be surprised if he was 6'7".
tuga said on 27/Oct/08
A 6'6 taker today makes big show perhaps not even 6'10, khali max 6'11.
A 6'7 peak taker makes sid 6'6, hogan 6'4, nash 6'8 1/2.
While some might be dubious, nash is a GREAT reference, he has pics with huge basketball players foe example so we know he was no way less than 6'10, big show compared to nash was 7'1 peak, today 7', khali is at least 7'1.
Taker still stacks up very well to show TODAY, so 6'6 is out of the question, well, even 6'7 is...
By the way, crush was also billed 6'8 and had to be above 6'5 comparing to hogan or even nash unless you bring those 2 heights down also...
A 6'6 taker today makes big show perhaps not even 6'10, khali max 6'11.
A 6'7 peak taker makes sid 6'6, hogan 6'4, nash 6'8 1/2.
While some might be dubious, nash is a GREAT reference, he has pics with huge basketball players foe example so we know he was no way less than 6'10, big show compared to nash was 7'1 peak, today 7', khali is at least 7'1.
Taker still stacks up very well to show TODAY, so 6'6 is out of the question, well, even 6'7 is...
By the way, crush was also billed 6'8 and had to be above 6'5 comparing to hogan or even nash unless you bring those 2 heights down also...
Alex said on 27/Oct/08
Crush was billed at 6'8 at some point too.
Crush was billed at 6'8 at some point too.
Big Show said on 27/Oct/08
KingNick says on 26/Oct/08
Big Show, sorry bud I don't necessarily agree, but then again, maybe you and I aren't disagreeing as much as I think. You mentioned you thought UT was 1"-2" taller than Viscera. How tall do you think UT is?
Nowadays I would put Undertaker at 6'7. He might be a little taller than that in the 90's, seeing how close he was in height to Kevin Nash (whom I don't think was anything below 6'9.5).
KingNick says on 26/Oct/08
Big Show, sorry bud I don't necessarily agree, but then again, maybe you and I aren't disagreeing as much as I think. You mentioned you thought UT was 1"-2" taller than Viscera. How tall do you think UT is?
Nowadays I would put Undertaker at 6'7. He might be a little taller than that in the 90's, seeing how close he was in height to Kevin Nash (whom I don't think was anything below 6'9.5).
Danimal said on 26/Oct/08
Crush was billed at 6'6" and 6'7" in the early 1990's, so he was NOT his billed height. He was 6'4"-6'5".
Albert was billed at 6'7" and 6'8", so he wasn't taller than his billed height when in boots. SO much overbilling here lately.
Again, Crush was 6'4"-6'5" and Albert was 6'5"-6'6" imo. Taker was in the 6'7" and change region in his respective prime and today he is 6'6"-6'6.5".
Crush was billed at 6'6" and 6'7" in the early 1990's, so he was NOT his billed height. He was 6'4"-6'5".
Albert was billed at 6'7" and 6'8", so he wasn't taller than his billed height when in boots. SO much overbilling here lately.
Again, Crush was 6'4"-6'5" and Albert was 6'5"-6'6" imo. Taker was in the 6'7" and change region in his respective prime and today he is 6'6"-6'6.5".
KingNick said on 26/Oct/08
Big Show, sorry bud I don't necessarily agree, but then again, maybe you and I aren't disagreeing as much as I think. You mentioned you thought UT was 1"-2" taller than Viscera. How tall do you think UT is?
Shock of Electric, I've actually never had the pleasure of working at an Indy show, I've just been to many of them as a fan. I love them sometimes better than going to a WWE event. You're always right by the ring and you get to see everything up close.
I went to one show at Seaside Heights where Jerry Lawler actually shook my hand (he appeared to be 5'10" btw). I also met Iron Sheik, he was sitting down though, and King Kong Bundy. I got an autograph from him too, he appeared 6'4" to me (I have a 6'4" uncle). Overall, just great experiences.
Big Show, sorry bud I don't necessarily agree, but then again, maybe you and I aren't disagreeing as much as I think. You mentioned you thought UT was 1"-2" taller than Viscera. How tall do you think UT is?
Shock of Electric, I've actually never had the pleasure of working at an Indy show, I've just been to many of them as a fan. I love them sometimes better than going to a WWE event. You're always right by the ring and you get to see everything up close.
I went to one show at Seaside Heights where Jerry Lawler actually shook my hand (he appeared to be 5'10" btw). I also met Iron Sheik, he was sitting down though, and King Kong Bundy. I got an autograph from him too, he appeared 6'4" to me (I have a 6'4" uncle). Overall, just great experiences.
Big Show said on 26/Oct/08
KingNick says on 25/Oct/08
My opinion: Albert 6'6" barefoot, 6'8.5" in those boots. Taker 6'8" barefoot, 6'8.75" in his boot.
KingNick I don't think those boots give Albert a 2.5" height boost. That's twice as much as the boost that Big Show's boots give (which many claim are some huge boots) and equal to some very chunky cowboy boots.
In Albert's match with 6'8 Akebono, he was wearing larger boots than in his match with UT. Click Here
Those boots clearly have internal lifts, and you can see by comparing their knee heights, that Albert has a huge footwear advantage, yet he's still shorter than Akebono, who's boots probably don't give him more than a 0.5" height boost which would make him 6'8.5 in boots.
Shock of Electric, we've been trough Albert's height before. He's been listed as 6'6 in College Football and while wrestling as Giant Bernard in Japan, he was billed at 198 cm (the equivalent of 6'6), and the Japanese don't bill giants below their actual height. They exaggerate heights even more than the WWE does.
As for Crush, since a few weeks he has his own board under his real name Brian Adams. Most put him at 6'5.
KingNick says on 25/Oct/08
My opinion: Albert 6'6" barefoot, 6'8.5" in those boots. Taker 6'8" barefoot, 6'8.75" in his boot.
KingNick I don't think those boots give Albert a 2.5" height boost. That's twice as much as the boost that Big Show's boots give (which many claim are some huge boots) and equal to some very chunky cowboy boots.
In Albert's match with 6'8 Akebono, he was wearing larger boots than in his match with UT. Click Here
Those boots clearly have internal lifts, and you can see by comparing their knee heights, that Albert has a huge footwear advantage, yet he's still shorter than Akebono, who's boots probably don't give him more than a 0.5" height boost which would make him 6'8.5 in boots.
Shock of Electric, we've been trough Albert's height before. He's been listed as 6'6 in College Football and while wrestling as Giant Bernard in Japan, he was billed at 198 cm (the equivalent of 6'6), and the Japanese don't bill giants below their actual height. They exaggerate heights even more than the WWE does.
As for Crush, since a few weeks he has his own board under his real name Brian Adams. Most put him at 6'5.
Drexyl said on 26/Oct/08
That's a really cool video. Undertaker's definitely got an inch and a half on Viscera there, and he looks like he stacks up very well to Big Show too.
It's interesting to see how athletic Big Show was back then as well. I couldn't imagine him jumping over the top rope like that nowadays.
That's a really cool video. Undertaker's definitely got an inch and a half on Viscera there, and he looks like he stacks up very well to Big Show too.
It's interesting to see how athletic Big Show was back then as well. I couldn't imagine him jumping over the top rope like that nowadays.
Shock of Electric said on 26/Oct/08
Alex, there is no way that Kane is an inch taller than Undertaker today. It's completely impossible. By 2001 with the gear change he wasn't more than .5" taller than Taker and he still had footwear advantage. If either of them has lost height, it's Kane. He carries more weight on average over the course of his career, more muscle, etc, and Kane's posture has gotten poor, not a gimmicked posture like Taker has built into his gimmick, his actual posture. If Taker and Kane were to have swapped boots in the late 90s for an angle (like when Taker dressed up as Kane and Kane dressed up as Taker at different times) you would see the exact same height difference in reverse.
Undertaker is more noticably taller than Crush and Clarke during the Kronik feud I believe due to Taker possibly having different footwear. Crush 2" shorter than Taker in '93 is not out of the question. I also believe Crush at being as high as 6'6.5" back then, Clarke 6'6.25."
Albert confirmed to wear lifts from time to time, and I also believe his height is slightly underestimated, he could be a mid 6'6" and regardless of any football stats and Taker has 1" on him in the staredown. It's interesting because, say Taker is 6'7.5", then Albert MUST be a mid 6'6" and not a flat 6'6."
Jake Roberts somewhere in the 6'5" area, and his lifts during his 91-92 heel run, also during his 96 return, very big lifts lifts, approximately 2", possibly 1.75". This can easily make him appear 2" shorter than Taker which he did at times. I don't think there is any disputing Jake being at least 6'5". Taker had about 2" on Roberts at times, and 3" or more on Orton easily. This obviously, due to Jake's lifts.
From the few mentionings I've seen recently on here, Taker below 6'7.5" is basically a complete insult.
King Nick, what do you do in the indies and where abouts are you? I work indy shows in NJ mostly. Sid is a good example of someone I've met whom I feel is unfairly docked on here, granted I met him in 1998.
Alex, there is no way that Kane is an inch taller than Undertaker today. It's completely impossible. By 2001 with the gear change he wasn't more than .5" taller than Taker and he still had footwear advantage. If either of them has lost height, it's Kane. He carries more weight on average over the course of his career, more muscle, etc, and Kane's posture has gotten poor, not a gimmicked posture like Taker has built into his gimmick, his actual posture. If Taker and Kane were to have swapped boots in the late 90s for an angle (like when Taker dressed up as Kane and Kane dressed up as Taker at different times) you would see the exact same height difference in reverse.
Undertaker is more noticably taller than Crush and Clarke during the Kronik feud I believe due to Taker possibly having different footwear. Crush 2" shorter than Taker in '93 is not out of the question. I also believe Crush at being as high as 6'6.5" back then, Clarke 6'6.25."
Albert confirmed to wear lifts from time to time, and I also believe his height is slightly underestimated, he could be a mid 6'6" and regardless of any football stats and Taker has 1" on him in the staredown. It's interesting because, say Taker is 6'7.5", then Albert MUST be a mid 6'6" and not a flat 6'6."
Jake Roberts somewhere in the 6'5" area, and his lifts during his 91-92 heel run, also during his 96 return, very big lifts lifts, approximately 2", possibly 1.75". This can easily make him appear 2" shorter than Taker which he did at times. I don't think there is any disputing Jake being at least 6'5". Taker had about 2" on Roberts at times, and 3" or more on Orton easily. This obviously, due to Jake's lifts.
From the few mentionings I've seen recently on here, Taker below 6'7.5" is basically a complete insult.
King Nick, what do you do in the indies and where abouts are you? I work indy shows in NJ mostly. Sid is a good example of someone I've met whom I feel is unfairly docked on here, granted I met him in 1998.
Big Show said on 25/Oct/08
Click Here
Here's a Royal Rumble Rules Match from Smackdown 09.16.1999. Check out the aftermath at 12:13 where Undertaker looks to have 1-2 inches on Viscera. Undertaker is not wearing his Ministery boots there and Viscera also looks to be wearing normal wrestling boots.
Click Here
Here's a Royal Rumble Rules Match from Smackdown 09.16.1999. Check out the aftermath at 12:13 where Undertaker looks to have 1-2 inches on Viscera. Undertaker is not wearing his Ministery boots there and Viscera also looks to be wearing normal wrestling boots.
KingNick said on 25/Oct/08
Sorry Big Show. Much respect for you here but I just disagree. I think Albert clearly has an advantage on those boots, look at the heel. Plus also Albert was getting a push at the time, it was right around when he won the IC belt. They probably wanted him to appear as large as 'Taker IMO. Here's another look, look under the bottom rope you can tell Click Here and Click Here
UT does have a very slight height advantage IMO too Click Here I'm talking no more than .25" though.
My opinion: Albert 6'6" barefoot, 6'8.5" in those boots. Taker 6'8" barefoot, 6'8.75" in his boot.
Sorry Big Show. Much respect for you here but I just disagree. I think Albert clearly has an advantage on those boots, look at the heel. Plus also Albert was getting a push at the time, it was right around when he won the IC belt. They probably wanted him to appear as large as 'Taker IMO. Here's another look, look under the bottom rope you can tell Click Here and Click Here
UT does have a very slight height advantage IMO too Click Here I'm talking no more than .25" though.
My opinion: Albert 6'6" barefoot, 6'8.5" in those boots. Taker 6'8" barefoot, 6'8.75" in his boot.
Ray said on 25/Oct/08
Albert looks to have internal help in his boots. His boots as well as his entire body look like he's slanted. Taker still has him by around an inch in that photo and I'm sure camera angle comes in to play as well. It's not a dead center shot. Taker looked large and tall compared to HHH last night on SD. He is also stacking up quite well to Big Show today as well.
Albert looks to have internal help in his boots. His boots as well as his entire body look like he's slanted. Taker still has him by around an inch in that photo and I'm sure camera angle comes in to play as well. It's not a dead center shot. Taker looked large and tall compared to HHH last night on SD. He is also stacking up quite well to Big Show today as well.
Drexyl said on 25/Oct/08
Maybe Albert was wearing inner lifts? Maybe he's actually taller than 6,6"?
Maybe Albert was wearing inner lifts? Maybe he's actually taller than 6,6"?
tuga said on 25/Oct/08
Its not only the soles Big Show, look ay the shape of the boot, there
Its not only the soles Big Show, look ay the shape of the boot, there
Alex said on 25/Oct/08
Well UT didn't have more than 5 inches tops on Brock Lesnar in their faceoffs and Lesnar is 6'2 and this was 5 years ago.
Well UT didn't have more than 5 inches tops on Brock Lesnar in their faceoffs and Lesnar is 6'2 and this was 5 years ago.
Big Show said on 25/Oct/08
KingNick says on 24/Oct/08
we've been through these staredowns a bunch of times between Albert and Roberts. Both wore tremendously huge shoes to match up to UT. I've pointed it out each time and if anyone cares to post the photos again I'll be glad to point it out again. And IMO he had about 2" on Crush who I believe to be a legit 6'6".
We've been through the staredown between Albert and UT more often than I can remember. But in my opinion it's some strong evidence that Taker was no 6'8 in 2001. Albert was not wearing gigantic boots there. Click Here
The heel of his boots might give him a 1-inch height boost, but no more than that. Big Show wore boots with larger soles than that and his boots only gave him a 1.25" height boost. Kane's boot soles were like twice as big as those of Albert's.
UT wasn't barefoot there either. His boots have a noticable heel there too.
And there was nothing wrong with UT posture either. Click Here
His knees aren't buckled, his back isn't leaning forward or anything and his neck isn't bending either.
KingNick says on 24/Oct/08
we've been through these staredowns a bunch of times between Albert and Roberts. Both wore tremendously huge shoes to match up to UT. I've pointed it out each time and if anyone cares to post the photos again I'll be glad to point it out again. And IMO he had about 2" on Crush who I believe to be a legit 6'6".
We've been through the staredown between Albert and UT more often than I can remember. But in my opinion it's some strong evidence that Taker was no 6'8 in 2001. Albert was not wearing gigantic boots there. Click Here
The heel of his boots might give him a 1-inch height boost, but no more than that. Big Show wore boots with larger soles than that and his boots only gave him a 1.25" height boost. Kane's boot soles were like twice as big as those of Albert's.
UT wasn't barefoot there either. His boots have a noticable heel there too.
And there was nothing wrong with UT posture either. Click Here
His knees aren't buckled, his back isn't leaning forward or anything and his neck isn't bending either.
tuga said on 25/Oct/08
KingNick says on 24/Oct/08
"we've been through these staredowns a bunch of times between Albert and Roberts. Both wore tremendously huge shoes to match up to UT..."
I agree, taker never looked below 6'8 next to big men like khali, nathan jones, kevin nash etc etc, even today he stacks up well next to big show.
A 6'6 1/2 taker would make hogan around 6'2 in 2002 which is nonsense as hogan still had minimum 6'3 rock by one inch at the time.
The point is that footware plays a big role sometimes, just see what it did for kane...
KingNick says on 24/Oct/08
"we've been through these staredowns a bunch of times between Albert and Roberts. Both wore tremendously huge shoes to match up to UT..."
I agree, taker never looked below 6'8 next to big men like khali, nathan jones, kevin nash etc etc, even today he stacks up well next to big show.
A 6'6 1/2 taker would make hogan around 6'2 in 2002 which is nonsense as hogan still had minimum 6'3 rock by one inch at the time.
The point is that footware plays a big role sometimes, just see what it did for kane...
sid said on 25/Oct/08
Rantsrob Not only kane dwarfed him... kane looked huge. next to hhh. kane 6 to 7 inches on hhh.. who is 6'2
Rantsrob Not only kane dwarfed him... kane looked huge. next to hhh. kane 6 to 7 inches on hhh.. who is 6'2
Clay said on 24/Oct/08
Please, Taker NEVER stands as straight as he can when he faced off with shorter guys, like Albert. So I wouldnt put any stock in that. When you see him standing straight, he checks in at 6'7.5-6'8.
Please, Taker NEVER stands as straight as he can when he faced off with shorter guys, like Albert. So I wouldnt put any stock in that. When you see him standing straight, he checks in at 6'7.5-6'8.
Drexyl said on 24/Oct/08
Don't forget though, Albert always wore boots with huge heels.
Don't forget though, Albert always wore boots with huge heels.
KingNick said on 24/Oct/08
we've been through these staredowns a bunch of times between Albert and Roberts. Both wore tremendously huge shoes to match up to UT. I've pointed it out each time and if anyone cares to post the photos again I'll be glad to point it out again. And IMO he had about 2" on Crush who I believe to be a legit 6'6".
we've been through these staredowns a bunch of times between Albert and Roberts. Both wore tremendously huge shoes to match up to UT. I've pointed it out each time and if anyone cares to post the photos again I'll be glad to point it out again. And IMO he had about 2" on Crush who I believe to be a legit 6'6".
Anonymous said on 24/Oct/08
i dunno taker wasn't that much taller than people like crush and jake roberts in the early 1990s, roberts was the same height as orton and taker has the same amount of height on orton in 2006 he has on roberts in 1991
i dunno taker wasn't that much taller than people like crush and jake roberts in the early 1990s, roberts was the same height as orton and taker has the same amount of height on orton in 2006 he has on roberts in 1991
Big Show said on 24/Oct/08
Clay says on 24/Oct/08
M.org is right Kane and Taker are genuinely really tall dudes its not a kayfabe like Batista and Kozlov. They're both 6'7.5-6'8.5. Alex, we've seen NOTHING to suggest Taker has lost height and is 6'7 max now. Where do you get that from? I've only seen one bit where he did and it was a horrible camera angle (that video where he got jumped by Big Show and Khali backstage). lol.
Watch the staredown of Taker and Albert from 2001. UT only had 6'6 TOPS Albert by 0.5" (Albert might have a 0.5" footwear advantage though). That would put UT at 6'7 in 2001.
In coming weeks I expect to receive all Heat episodes from 1999. I'd like to see how Taker stacked up to Kurrgan, whom he faced somewhere during that period.
Clay says on 24/Oct/08
M.org is right Kane and Taker are genuinely really tall dudes its not a kayfabe like Batista and Kozlov. They're both 6'7.5-6'8.5. Alex, we've seen NOTHING to suggest Taker has lost height and is 6'7 max now. Where do you get that from? I've only seen one bit where he did and it was a horrible camera angle (that video where he got jumped by Big Show and Khali backstage). lol.
Watch the staredown of Taker and Albert from 2001. UT only had 6'6 TOPS Albert by 0.5" (Albert might have a 0.5" footwear advantage though). That would put UT at 6'7 in 2001.
In coming weeks I expect to receive all Heat episodes from 1999. I'd like to see how Taker stacked up to Kurrgan, whom he faced somewhere during that period.
Alex said on 24/Oct/08
Clay, just look at UT. You can tell the man is a little shorter than he was in the 90's. Kane I can believe is a legit 6'8 but UT I wouldn't give more than 6'7 today.
Clay, just look at UT. You can tell the man is a little shorter than he was in the 90's. Kane I can believe is a legit 6'8 but UT I wouldn't give more than 6'7 today.
Clay said on 24/Oct/08
M.org is right Kane and Taker are genuinely really tall dudes its not a kayfabe like Batista and Kozlov. They're both 6'7.5-6'8.5. Alex, we've seen NOTHING to suggest Taker has lost height and is 6'7 max now. Where do you get that from? I've only seen one bit where he did and it was a horrible camera angle (that video where he got jumped by Big Show and Khali backstage). lol.
M.org is right Kane and Taker are genuinely really tall dudes its not a kayfabe like Batista and Kozlov. They're both 6'7.5-6'8.5. Alex, we've seen NOTHING to suggest Taker has lost height and is 6'7 max now. Where do you get that from? I've only seen one bit where he did and it was a horrible camera angle (that video where he got jumped by Big Show and Khali backstage). lol.
KingNick said on 23/Oct/08
Just an interesting tidbit for you guys and something you may find interesting, I've met quite a few wrestlers who work the Indy circuit. One guy I worked with last year is 6'8". LEGIT, I worked with him. I asked him about if the Indy wrestlers exaggerate heights and he said that his height was always measured in his wrestling boots and that he was billed anywhere from 6'9"-6'10" depending on the promoter. He also said he met Big Show in person and Show was an easy 7' in his opinion.
Just an interesting tidbit for you guys and something you may find interesting, I've met quite a few wrestlers who work the Indy circuit. One guy I worked with last year is 6'8". LEGIT, I worked with him. I asked him about if the Indy wrestlers exaggerate heights and he said that his height was always measured in his wrestling boots and that he was billed anywhere from 6'9"-6'10" depending on the promoter. He also said he met Big Show in person and Show was an easy 7' in his opinion.
Big T said on 23/Oct/08
Undertaker and Kane are the worlds greatest.
Undertaker and Kane are the worlds greatest.
Drexyl said on 23/Oct/08
Kane looks a good 6 inches taller there.
Kane looks a good 6 inches taller there.
Rantsrob said on 22/Oct/08
Pictures where kane barely looks taller then trips? i dont think so Click Here
Pictures where kane barely looks taller then trips? i dont think so Click Here
KingNick said on 22/Oct/08
Shock of Electric , nice photos and comparisons man, you make great points.
Shock of Electric , nice photos and comparisons man, you make great points.
hs2008 said on 21/Oct/08
Michael Cole is a doofus, lol.
Even after a decade commentating in WWE, he still can't call most of the moves.
Michael Cole is a doofus, lol.
Even after a decade commentating in WWE, he still can't call most of the moves.
Big Show said on 21/Oct/08
Frank says on 17/Oct/08
Jacob i am 46 and im older than him and i dont believe knee surgury makes you shrink?? Maybe your spine can do so
They don't! Read any article on the causes of height loss. They all refer to surgeries to the spine and neck for possible height loss as well as poor posture. Knee surgeries don't make you shrink in a direct way.
The only way that knee surgery can affect your height is in an indirect way. It could affect your posture, which would lead to height loss. However, there looks to be nothing wrong with Taker's posture. He can still stretch his knees.
Frank says on 17/Oct/08
Jacob i am 46 and im older than him and i dont believe knee surgury makes you shrink?? Maybe your spine can do so
They don't! Read any article on the causes of height loss. They all refer to surgeries to the spine and neck for possible height loss as well as poor posture. Knee surgeries don't make you shrink in a direct way.
The only way that knee surgery can affect your height is in an indirect way. It could affect your posture, which would lead to height loss. However, there looks to be nothing wrong with Taker's posture. He can still stretch his knees.
Drexyl said on 21/Oct/08
I remember when Michael Cole referred to Kane as being heavier but shorter than Undertaker as well. It really made me laugh. They spend years trying to tell us that Kane is taller than Taker and then Michael Cole comes along and says the complete opposite.
I remember when Michael Cole referred to Kane as being heavier but shorter than Undertaker as well. It really made me laugh. They spend years trying to tell us that Kane is taller than Taker and then Michael Cole comes along and says the complete opposite.
Shock of Electric said on 21/Oct/08
If you go by the top of Taker's mask and Glen's hair in the picture with Yankem, Yankem looks taller, but Taker's forehead still has a couple inches above the maskline. Kane's largest boots were in 1997 to '99, during the same time Taker wore his thinnest boots because they were really pushing the 7' bill for Kane and they were with each other so often.
Here is an example of what flip flopping footwear advantage will do.
Click Here
In the first pic, Kane is wearing supers (possibly 2"), and Big Show is wearing relatively normal boots, around a 1.25". In the second pic, Big Show's boots are closer to 1.75" and Kane's 1.5", and all of this adds up to that extra 1" difference you see in the more recent pic. If you only see .75" difference extra, then perhaps their boots are just about even in terms of lift. Big Show's are hard to pin due to the width of his boots.
Kane today though is shorter than Taker by basically 1/4" and I doubt anything more. The variables in the more recent picture with Taker Kane are all entirely at Taker's disadvantage as well, footwear, posture, and camera position.
Taker's wrestling boots have never been thicker than Kane's in the traditional wrestling fashion. When Kane didn't wear lifts for a time during 2001, occasionally Taker wore work boots during promos, and there are times Taker looks taller. Interestingly enough, even though Kane is always billed 7' on paper and casually during commentary as the "7 footer," and Taker always a "shade under 7 foot" if they don't specifically say 6'10 and a half, they do sometimes cut them down a bit even putting Kane at 6'10.5" at times. Recently, for whatever reason, Michael Cole decided to say in comparison "Kane outweighing Undertaker by just a bit, Undertaker a little bit taller." when they wrestled each other after WM this year.
This would basically defeat the purpose of the 7 foot and 6'10.5" bills. Also, to repeat myself yet again, Kane has two different types of boots he currently wears on a regular basis and the heel difference is obvious. One pair very large lifts, the other, not so much but still thicker than Taker's current boots. In that match specifically, of the pic I posted, Kane is not wearing the normal lifts, but the smaller ones which is why they look virtually identical height. Even still there is a discrepency between boots.
Another example, there is match where Big Daddy V looks 1" shorter than Kane in a blatant staredown. BDV is wearing lifts, Kane is not, but another match where they are reversed in footwear advantage from a different time frame (like the shot with Big Show and Kane), there is a clear difference in height. There's really no reason for them to switch up footwear like that but they do. I guess all those pics I posted of footwear comparisons were pointless because the same mistakes are being made by many. Also, putting Taker as low as 6'6.5" as some people have here makes most other guys impossibly short even by the listings here.
If you go by the top of Taker's mask and Glen's hair in the picture with Yankem, Yankem looks taller, but Taker's forehead still has a couple inches above the maskline. Kane's largest boots were in 1997 to '99, during the same time Taker wore his thinnest boots because they were really pushing the 7' bill for Kane and they were with each other so often.
Here is an example of what flip flopping footwear advantage will do.
Click Here
In the first pic, Kane is wearing supers (possibly 2"), and Big Show is wearing relatively normal boots, around a 1.25". In the second pic, Big Show's boots are closer to 1.75" and Kane's 1.5", and all of this adds up to that extra 1" difference you see in the more recent pic. If you only see .75" difference extra, then perhaps their boots are just about even in terms of lift. Big Show's are hard to pin due to the width of his boots.
Kane today though is shorter than Taker by basically 1/4" and I doubt anything more. The variables in the more recent picture with Taker Kane are all entirely at Taker's disadvantage as well, footwear, posture, and camera position.
Taker's wrestling boots have never been thicker than Kane's in the traditional wrestling fashion. When Kane didn't wear lifts for a time during 2001, occasionally Taker wore work boots during promos, and there are times Taker looks taller. Interestingly enough, even though Kane is always billed 7' on paper and casually during commentary as the "7 footer," and Taker always a "shade under 7 foot" if they don't specifically say 6'10 and a half, they do sometimes cut them down a bit even putting Kane at 6'10.5" at times. Recently, for whatever reason, Michael Cole decided to say in comparison "Kane outweighing Undertaker by just a bit, Undertaker a little bit taller." when they wrestled each other after WM this year.
This would basically defeat the purpose of the 7 foot and 6'10.5" bills. Also, to repeat myself yet again, Kane has two different types of boots he currently wears on a regular basis and the heel difference is obvious. One pair very large lifts, the other, not so much but still thicker than Taker's current boots. In that match specifically, of the pic I posted, Kane is not wearing the normal lifts, but the smaller ones which is why they look virtually identical height. Even still there is a discrepency between boots.
Another example, there is match where Big Daddy V looks 1" shorter than Kane in a blatant staredown. BDV is wearing lifts, Kane is not, but another match where they are reversed in footwear advantage from a different time frame (like the shot with Big Show and Kane), there is a clear difference in height. There's really no reason for them to switch up footwear like that but they do. I guess all those pics I posted of footwear comparisons were pointless because the same mistakes are being made by many. Also, putting Taker as low as 6'6.5" as some people have here makes most other guys impossibly short even by the listings here.
darkjon said on 20/Oct/08
6ft8 probably nt that it matters much he is bigger in person thats for sure
6ft8 probably nt that it matters much he is bigger in person thats for sure
Mama said on 20/Oct/08
lmfao. Those lies dont count. those are two different shows. we dont know how much higeher the stage was than the cameras and how the cameras were angled.
Frank, it is possible for knees to fail and lose height. its actually very painful.
lmfao. Those lies dont count. those are two different shows. we dont know how much higeher the stage was than the cameras and how the cameras were angled.
Frank, it is possible for knees to fail and lose height. its actually very painful.
Red said on 20/Oct/08
Here he looks 6
Here he looks 6
Frank said on 17/Oct/08
Jacob i am 46 and im older than him and i dont believe knee surgury makes you shrink?? Maybe your spine can do so
Jacob i am 46 and im older than him and i dont believe knee surgury makes you shrink?? Maybe your spine can do so
jacob lineberry said on 17/Oct/08
frank i know taker is probably 6'8'' or maybe he was at one time, but you had seen him like 15 plus years ago and he is in his 40s now, and has had surgery on his knees a cpl of times. im still going with 6'6 .5''- 6'7'' today.
frank i know taker is probably 6'8'' or maybe he was at one time, but you had seen him like 15 plus years ago and he is in his 40s now, and has had surgery on his knees a cpl of times. im still going with 6'6 .5''- 6'7'' today.
Anonymous said on 16/Oct/08
I met him a few years ago in Phoenix. He was a solid 6'8.
I met him a few years ago in Phoenix. He was a solid 6'8.
Frank said on 16/Oct/08
Jacob I met him and hes taller than 6ft 6 .5 and most people who were stood very close to him would Agree
Jacob I met him and hes taller than 6ft 6 .5 and most people who were stood very close to him would Agree
jacob lineberry said on 15/Oct/08
ahhh m.o.r.g be quiet we all know that the undertaker is 6'6.5'' as well as sid and kane. theyre all the same height and stand a little over 6 and a half feet tall. soooooooooooooooo put that in your pipe and leave the language to the side smorg borg
ahhh m.o.r.g be quiet we all know that the undertaker is 6'6.5'' as well as sid and kane. theyre all the same height and stand a little over 6 and a half feet tall. soooooooooooooooo put that in your pipe and leave the language to the side smorg borg
M.o.r.g said on 15/Oct/08
Da Man says on 13/Oct/08
M.o.r.g. says
"It's pointless anyway,you all totally ignored my photo's were kane is hardly taller than goldberg or triple H."
How do you not realize your photos were useless for declaring height? And why do you ignore those posted by others, most of which offered far more accurate comparisons?
Fact is, finding photos between these guys isn't hard and Kane dwarfs HHH and Goldberg by over 5" easily. Kane also looks about 5" taller than Edge (who's taller than HHH) in street clothes in the pic with Harley Race and Mick Foley.
Haha right.so im supposed to believe someone else's cruddy photo but mine doesnt mean anything? what a load of sh*t.
If my photo's are "useless" then so are everyone else's c*nt.
Da Man says on 13/Oct/08
M.o.r.g. says
"It's pointless anyway,you all totally ignored my photo's were kane is hardly taller than goldberg or triple H."
How do you not realize your photos were useless for declaring height? And why do you ignore those posted by others, most of which offered far more accurate comparisons?
Fact is, finding photos between these guys isn't hard and Kane dwarfs HHH and Goldberg by over 5" easily. Kane also looks about 5" taller than Edge (who's taller than HHH) in street clothes in the pic with Harley Race and Mick Foley.
Haha right.so im supposed to believe someone else's cruddy photo but mine doesnt mean anything? what a load of sh*t.
If my photo's are "useless" then so are everyone else's c*nt.
Drexyl said on 14/Oct/08
I'm not sure if Kane does have a footwear advantage there. Taker is wearing some pretty thick boots these days as well.
I think they're both pretty much exactly the same height to be honest. Maybe a very slight advantage to Kane, but no more than about 1/4 of an inch.
I'm not sure if Kane does have a footwear advantage there. Taker is wearing some pretty thick boots these days as well.
I think they're both pretty much exactly the same height to be honest. Maybe a very slight advantage to Kane, but no more than about 1/4 of an inch.
KingNick said on 14/Oct/08
I'm really not sure about Kane anymore in terms of whether or not he's shorter than UT. I use to think he was .5" taller, but now I'm thinking the same height. I don't want to say shorter because of this pic
Click Here
yet in this pic they look more the same height. UT's eye and jaw lines are lower but the back of his gives him his height, much like his photos with Sid. Click Here
I'm really not sure about Kane anymore in terms of whether or not he's shorter than UT. I use to think he was .5" taller, but now I'm thinking the same height. I don't want to say shorter because of this pic
Click Here
yet in this pic they look more the same height. UT's eye and jaw lines are lower but the back of his gives him his height, much like his photos with Sid. Click Here
Da Man said on 14/Oct/08
Shock of Electric says on 13/Oct/08
"Alex, Kane is only taller than Taker when Kane is wearing lifts, Taker is actually about 1/4" taller than Kane.
Click Here"
There are too many variables to tell anything from that pic, other than they are relatively close in height which we all know anyway.
Kane in his largest boots circa 1999 was easily 1.5" taller than Taker, and NUMEROUS videos show Kane nearly an inch taller than Taker in current footwear.
Shock of Electric says on 13/Oct/08
"Alex, Kane is only taller than Taker when Kane is wearing lifts, Taker is actually about 1/4" taller than Kane.
Click Here"
There are too many variables to tell anything from that pic, other than they are relatively close in height which we all know anyway.
Kane in his largest boots circa 1999 was easily 1.5" taller than Taker, and NUMEROUS videos show Kane nearly an inch taller than Taker in current footwear.
Ray said on 14/Oct/08
I totally agree Shock Of Electric about Taker being a little taller than Kane. I've always thought this. Kane is only a little taller than Taker because of his larger boots. Kane only had around 1"-1.5" if that on Taker back when he first appeared in his monster boots. The people that downgrade Taker and want Kane to be taller will disagree and show pictures but really, the pictures support our claims since Kane will look a bit taller in of course his bigger boots. They made sure to put him in monsters to be taller than Taker; if he wasn't he would be around the same height and even a hair shorter.
I totally agree Shock Of Electric about Taker being a little taller than Kane. I've always thought this. Kane is only a little taller than Taker because of his larger boots. Kane only had around 1"-1.5" if that on Taker back when he first appeared in his monster boots. The people that downgrade Taker and want Kane to be taller will disagree and show pictures but really, the pictures support our claims since Kane will look a bit taller in of course his bigger boots. They made sure to put him in monsters to be taller than Taker; if he wasn't he would be around the same height and even a hair shorter.
Shock of Electric said on 13/Oct/08
Alex, Kane is only taller than Taker when Kane is wearing lifts, Taker is actually about 1/4" taller than Kane.
Click Here
Footwear and posture advantage all go to Kane in these pics. Compensating for Taker's gimmick head lean, they would be identical height, add that Kane's boots are slightly thicker than Taker's and you then have a height difference. He's definitely shorter than Taker, not by much, but enough that their height differential should be noted.
There are no viable photos that show Kane barely taller than Goldberg or Triple H, especially since there are clear photos that show Kane approximately 6" taller than Triple H.
Alex, Kane is only taller than Taker when Kane is wearing lifts, Taker is actually about 1/4" taller than Kane.
Click Here
Footwear and posture advantage all go to Kane in these pics. Compensating for Taker's gimmick head lean, they would be identical height, add that Kane's boots are slightly thicker than Taker's and you then have a height difference. He's definitely shorter than Taker, not by much, but enough that their height differential should be noted.
There are no viable photos that show Kane barely taller than Goldberg or Triple H, especially since there are clear photos that show Kane approximately 6" taller than Triple H.
Da Man said on 13/Oct/08
M.o.r.g. says
"It's pointless anyway,you all totally ignored my photo's were kane is hardly taller than goldberg or triple H."
How do you not realize your photos were useless for declaring height? And why do you ignore those posted by others, most of which offered far more accurate comparisons?
Fact is, finding photos between these guys isn't hard and Kane dwarfs HHH and Goldberg by over 5" easily. Kane also looks about 5" taller than Edge (who's taller than HHH) in street clothes in the pic with Harley Race and Mick Foley.
M.o.r.g. says
"It's pointless anyway,you all totally ignored my photo's were kane is hardly taller than goldberg or triple H."
How do you not realize your photos were useless for declaring height? And why do you ignore those posted by others, most of which offered far more accurate comparisons?
Fact is, finding photos between these guys isn't hard and Kane dwarfs HHH and Goldberg by over 5" easily. Kane also looks about 5" taller than Edge (who's taller than HHH) in street clothes in the pic with Harley Race and Mick Foley.
jacob lineberry said on 13/Oct/08
I really dont think so red, dig this, this male nurse that delivers meds where i work had talked to me about wrestling the other day, and mark canterbury aka henry godwin is from this area of west virginia, and the nurses name is gary meyers. well he said that he used to work out at the princeton fitness center with canterbury, and i asked him if canterbury was a big dude and he stated ''Yeah he was a big boy, he was about 6'6'', Im 6'1'' and he stood about 4 or 5 inches over me.'' so i asked him if he had ever met the undertaker in person and he said he had seen him in the early 90s as mark callous, i asked him if callous was larger than canterbury and he said he was by about 2 or 3 inches! so calaway has got to be 6'8''- 6'9'' range. or at least he was at one time. also tim silvia is listed at 6'8'' and appears to be about 6'6'' and taker has a cpl on him.. so im gonna go with my billing. a lot of other ppl would agree, but there are a few that dont. its ok though, we go with what makes the most sense. ;P
I really dont think so red, dig this, this male nurse that delivers meds where i work had talked to me about wrestling the other day, and mark canterbury aka henry godwin is from this area of west virginia, and the nurses name is gary meyers. well he said that he used to work out at the princeton fitness center with canterbury, and i asked him if canterbury was a big dude and he stated ''Yeah he was a big boy, he was about 6'6'', Im 6'1'' and he stood about 4 or 5 inches over me.'' so i asked him if he had ever met the undertaker in person and he said he had seen him in the early 90s as mark callous, i asked him if callous was larger than canterbury and he said he was by about 2 or 3 inches! so calaway has got to be 6'8''- 6'9'' range. or at least he was at one time. also tim silvia is listed at 6'8'' and appears to be about 6'6'' and taker has a cpl on him.. so im gonna go with my billing. a lot of other ppl would agree, but there are a few that dont. its ok though, we go with what makes the most sense. ;P
M.o.r.g said on 12/Oct/08
Rantsrob says on 5/Oct/08
M.o.r.g says on 4/Oct/08
Typical users of this site,think it's ok to dish it out but go and cry to the guy who runs it(rob) if anyone stands up to them.
Its not hard to voice your opinion and discuss. Once you loose respect on this site its hard to get it back. Ask Ola
Im sure you meant "lose" respect.
It's pointless anyway,you all totally ignored my photo's were kane is hardly taller than goldberg or triple H.And "old fag" is a term my mate and i use for old,miserable,stiff w*nkers.Like the guy who called me a "kid".
Rantsrob says on 5/Oct/08
M.o.r.g says on 4/Oct/08
Typical users of this site,think it's ok to dish it out but go and cry to the guy who runs it(rob) if anyone stands up to them.
Its not hard to voice your opinion and discuss. Once you loose respect on this site its hard to get it back. Ask Ola
Im sure you meant "lose" respect.
It's pointless anyway,you all totally ignored my photo's were kane is hardly taller than goldberg or triple H.And "old fag" is a term my mate and i use for old,miserable,stiff w*nkers.Like the guy who called me a "kid".
Red said on 10/Oct/08
taker93 says on 10/Oct/08
so if taker were 6'8''-6'9'' sid is anywhere from 6'7.5''-6'8'' and change
I think Taker 6
taker93 says on 10/Oct/08
so if taker were 6'8''-6'9'' sid is anywhere from 6'7.5''-6'8'' and change
I think Taker 6
taker93 said on 10/Oct/08
he has to be in the 6'8''-6'9'' range just as he states. because their billed heights are most likely 2-3 inches off. taker at highest in 91-94 was billed at 6'10 1/2'' and even 6'11''. so id say 6'8''-6'9'' minimum 6'8''. in the early 90s they didnt have any guys as tall as he so they had to give him a monster billing. and once sid justice had come he kinda ruined that billing for taker, despite the fact that taker has a little change on sid, taker in the early 90s did appear shorter than sid at times. so if taker were 6'8''-6'9'' sid is anywhere from 6'7.5''-6'8'' and change.
he has to be in the 6'8''-6'9'' range just as he states. because their billed heights are most likely 2-3 inches off. taker at highest in 91-94 was billed at 6'10 1/2'' and even 6'11''. so id say 6'8''-6'9'' minimum 6'8''. in the early 90s they didnt have any guys as tall as he so they had to give him a monster billing. and once sid justice had come he kinda ruined that billing for taker, despite the fact that taker has a little change on sid, taker in the early 90s did appear shorter than sid at times. so if taker were 6'8''-6'9'' sid is anywhere from 6'7.5''-6'8'' and change.
Alex said on 10/Oct/08
Kane is still 1/2-1 inch taller than UT today. No more than 6'7 for UT today though.
Kane is still 1/2-1 inch taller than UT today. No more than 6'7 for UT today though.
hs2008 said on 8/Oct/08
Taker looks a good 6'8" in that pic with Tony Longo, providing of course that he is legit 6'6". He certainly looks it comparing him to other actors.
Taker looks a good 6'8" in that pic with Tony Longo, providing of course that he is legit 6'6". He certainly looks it comparing him to other actors.
tuga said on 7/Oct/08
Anonymous says on 7/Oct/08
Click Here
Can
Anonymous says on 7/Oct/08
Click Here
Can
Alex2 said on 7/Oct/08
Any comparisons with Hogan and Longo in that movie?
Any comparisons with Hogan and Longo in that movie?
KingNick said on 7/Oct/08
MikeV10, nice photos. I love that whole album. I see more of a solid 2" between UT and Longo tho.
MikeV10, nice photos. I love that whole album. I see more of a solid 2" between UT and Longo tho.
MikeV10 said on 7/Oct/08
Here is taker with 6`6 listet Tony Longo
Click Here
I would say taker has 1,5 inches on him .
btw: Longo is listed as currently 6`6 , maybe he was taller in 1991 ?
Click Here
Here is taker with 6`6 listet Tony Longo
Click Here
I would say taker has 1,5 inches on him .
btw: Longo is listed as currently 6`6 , maybe he was taller in 1991 ?
Click Here
Clay said on 7/Oct/08
The tallest I have seen Taker look is 6'8-6'8.5 and he has looked like 6'6.5-6'7 as well. He's one of those tall guys that can look a variety of height the truth probably lies right in the middle.
The tallest I have seen Taker look is 6'8-6'8.5 and he has looked like 6'6.5-6'7 as well. He's one of those tall guys that can look a variety of height the truth probably lies right in the middle.
Shock of Electric said on 7/Oct/08
Thanks tuga, that is something I've been asking for a while on here but no one could ever back it up. That is clearly one of the thinnest types of boots (Ministry Taker) you could wear and I've heard it go so far as to be claimed that he would lifts comparable to Kane's, those are clearly 0.75" max and there's no internal lifting there, which is another generalized claim. Nash and Taker's footwear was pretty much much even, which is why their height differential is what it is.
There is a photo of Taker and the Big Show, where Taker is wearing those exact boots, and Big Show is wearing lifts, Taker still looks about 4" shorter compensating for the angle, but when you recompensate for the lifts, it goes back to what their true height difference probably is. I posted that on here and people said Taker looks as tall as 6'9" but the boots were claimed to be lifts when they clearly aren't. I don't think there's really much more than 3" between Big Show and Taker as Taker is above his eyebrows even when footwear advantage goes to Big Show, but I also put Big Show at about 6'11.5", possibly less today.
Nash about 2" taller than Taker. Bundy I believe wore some amount of lift during his final WWF run. I met Bundy in '96 and he was definitely around 6'3" (noticably taller than my friends who were both 6'1"ish at the time around age 15-16).
Since then I started doing indy shows in '97 and have met numerous workers, but I have no pictures with them since that is considered taboo amongst workers. Sid whom I have met, most notably, I believe is off by nearly an inch on this site.
Thanks tuga, that is something I've been asking for a while on here but no one could ever back it up. That is clearly one of the thinnest types of boots (Ministry Taker) you could wear and I've heard it go so far as to be claimed that he would lifts comparable to Kane's, those are clearly 0.75" max and there's no internal lifting there, which is another generalized claim. Nash and Taker's footwear was pretty much much even, which is why their height differential is what it is.
There is a photo of Taker and the Big Show, where Taker is wearing those exact boots, and Big Show is wearing lifts, Taker still looks about 4" shorter compensating for the angle, but when you recompensate for the lifts, it goes back to what their true height difference probably is. I posted that on here and people said Taker looks as tall as 6'9" but the boots were claimed to be lifts when they clearly aren't. I don't think there's really much more than 3" between Big Show and Taker as Taker is above his eyebrows even when footwear advantage goes to Big Show, but I also put Big Show at about 6'11.5", possibly less today.
Nash about 2" taller than Taker. Bundy I believe wore some amount of lift during his final WWF run. I met Bundy in '96 and he was definitely around 6'3" (noticably taller than my friends who were both 6'1"ish at the time around age 15-16).
Since then I started doing indy shows in '97 and have met numerous workers, but I have no pictures with them since that is considered taboo amongst workers. Sid whom I have met, most notably, I believe is off by nearly an inch on this site.
Ryan Ennis said on 6/Oct/08
the only way Undertaker is 6'9" or 6'10" is in high platform shoes. In gym shoes he's 6'8"-6'8 1/2" and would barely be a hair taller than me. I am 6'7" tall. I was measured 6'7 1/2" before graduating Round Rock High School in 1997 a couple months shy of turning 18.
the only way Undertaker is 6'9" or 6'10" is in high platform shoes. In gym shoes he's 6'8"-6'8 1/2" and would barely be a hair taller than me. I am 6'7" tall. I was measured 6'7 1/2" before graduating Round Rock High School in 1997 a couple months shy of turning 18.
KingNick said on 6/Oct/08
shock of electric, your very welcome. tuga, awesome job by you too.
shock of electric, your very welcome. tuga, awesome job by you too.
tuga said on 6/Oct/08
Shock of Electric says on 5/Oct/08
Thanks KingNick. My purpose was to show that Taker's often at a disadvantage in boots at all times throughout his career...
Yes, your right, there
Shock of Electric says on 5/Oct/08
Thanks KingNick. My purpose was to show that Taker's often at a disadvantage in boots at all times throughout his career...
Yes, your right, there
Shock of Electric said on 5/Oct/08
Thanks KingNick. My purpose was to show that Taker's often at a disadvantage in boots at all times throughout his career, that combined with his gimmick posture make him seem a bit shorter but still obvious tall. Today he also uses a variable stance to come down to the level of his opponent (this makes it easier for them to land punches to the face, apply holds and to pick him up on top of complimenting his MMA style). When the man stands up completely straight you can see just how tall he really is, and that's only in situations where his opponent is just about his height or taller.
I saw Triple H referenced at being about 6-7" shorter than Kane, and I believe this to be true when Kane is in his lifts, as I have seen the exact same difference in height. Most notably during the big tag match they had on RAW earlier in the year with Taker, Kane, Trips, and Cena vs JBL, Edge, Orton etc. They are side by side and Kane absolutely dwarfs Triple H. I also disagree with this site's listing of Trips at 6'2", he is clearly closer to 6'3" than 6'2" based on various comparisons putting him at about 6'2.75". Triple H is more than half a head shorter than Taker. That makes Taker a minimum 6'8" based on this site's listing of Triple H to start, as Taker's head is no less than 11" tall (bigger than Kane's, smaller than Big Show's). Basically, his forehead is about 5" from his eyebrows up so anyone up to his eyes (Batista) is about 5" shorter, and up to his nose (6" shorter), bottom of the nose 7" shorter. Kurt Angle as an example, always looked 10" shorter than Taker easily.
On a side note, Albert is definitely a mid 6'6" and occasionally wore lifts. He should have had a 6'8" or 6'9" bill.
I also remember this site having (6'8" is probably) listed for Taker, but shortly after I mentioned posted a pic showing Taker and Kane the same height it was removed. I don't know if it had anything to do with that, but the pic was meant to show they are the same height in different boot thickness.
Thanks KingNick. My purpose was to show that Taker's often at a disadvantage in boots at all times throughout his career, that combined with his gimmick posture make him seem a bit shorter but still obvious tall. Today he also uses a variable stance to come down to the level of his opponent (this makes it easier for them to land punches to the face, apply holds and to pick him up on top of complimenting his MMA style). When the man stands up completely straight you can see just how tall he really is, and that's only in situations where his opponent is just about his height or taller.
I saw Triple H referenced at being about 6-7" shorter than Kane, and I believe this to be true when Kane is in his lifts, as I have seen the exact same difference in height. Most notably during the big tag match they had on RAW earlier in the year with Taker, Kane, Trips, and Cena vs JBL, Edge, Orton etc. They are side by side and Kane absolutely dwarfs Triple H. I also disagree with this site's listing of Trips at 6'2", he is clearly closer to 6'3" than 6'2" based on various comparisons putting him at about 6'2.75". Triple H is more than half a head shorter than Taker. That makes Taker a minimum 6'8" based on this site's listing of Triple H to start, as Taker's head is no less than 11" tall (bigger than Kane's, smaller than Big Show's). Basically, his forehead is about 5" from his eyebrows up so anyone up to his eyes (Batista) is about 5" shorter, and up to his nose (6" shorter), bottom of the nose 7" shorter. Kurt Angle as an example, always looked 10" shorter than Taker easily.
On a side note, Albert is definitely a mid 6'6" and occasionally wore lifts. He should have had a 6'8" or 6'9" bill.
I also remember this site having (6'8" is probably) listed for Taker, but shortly after I mentioned posted a pic showing Taker and Kane the same height it was removed. I don't know if it had anything to do with that, but the pic was meant to show they are the same height in different boot thickness.
Rantsrob said on 5/Oct/08
M.o.r.g says on 4/Oct/08
Typical users of this site,think it's ok to dish it out but go and cry to the guy who runs it(rob) if anyone stands up to them.
Its not hard to voice your opinion and discuss. Once you loose respect on this site its hard to get it back. Ask Ola
M.o.r.g says on 4/Oct/08
Typical users of this site,think it's ok to dish it out but go and cry to the guy who runs it(rob) if anyone stands up to them.
Its not hard to voice your opinion and discuss. Once you loose respect on this site its hard to get it back. Ask Ola
hs2008 said on 5/Oct/08
Calling somebody a "fag" isn't standing up to them, it's pathetic name calling.
Calling somebody a "fag" isn't standing up to them, it's pathetic name calling.
Alex said on 4/Oct/08
I'd say no more than 6 inches between HHH in Kane based on most photos.
I'd say no more than 6 inches between HHH in Kane based on most photos.
M.o.r.g said on 4/Oct/08
Typical users of this site,think it's ok to dish it out but go and cry to the guy who runs it(rob) if anyone stands up to them.
Typical users of this site,think it's ok to dish it out but go and cry to the guy who runs it(rob) if anyone stands up to them.
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.