How tall is Big Show - Page 16

Add a Comment7423 comments

Average Guess (762 Votes)
Peak: 7ft 0.06in (213.5cm)
Current: 6ft 10.39in (209.3cm)
Big Show said on 31/Mar/09
MK says on 31/Mar/09
Big Show says on 31/Mar/09
Big Show's peak was 7 feet. I don't think he was ever any taller than that because he was billed at 7 feet when he arrived in the WWE in 1999

Such forgetfulness ;)He was billed 7'2'' on his wwf arrival, and a few years back went down to 7'0''(bizarrly)

Not really. He was billed 7'0" at arrival. I have every televised Big Show match from 1999. Apart from one occasional 7'1 referral by Michael Cole he was being described as 7', 500lbs nearly every match. His billing was changed to 7'2" when he started fueding with the likes of Undertaker and Kane, which was a few months after he made his debut.
MK said on 31/Mar/09
Big Show says on 31/Mar/09
Big Show's peak was 7 feet. I don't think he was ever any taller than that because he was billed at 7 feet when he arrived in the WWE in 1999

Such forgetfulness ;)He was billed 7'2'' on his wwf arrival, and a few years back went down to 7'0''(bizarrly)
Big Show said on 31/Mar/09
Boss says on 29/Mar/09
Big Show , what is your estimate for a peak Paul Wight and a peak Andre. My opinion Wight 7' peak and Andre between 6'11-7' peak. Andre actual real height is the a great debate because there are pics , articles and such supporting both sides of the debate. We have posture and height loss issues with Andre how much height did he actually lose or how big was his head exactly(some will say 12 inches some will say 12.5 inches and maybe 13 inches) either side you pic that is a massive head. Anyway it's all in good fun and informative for us all. In light of the book you posted I've posted a link on the Andre page for The Rivalry and it does state that Wilt was measured in 1980 while lying down and the only other time he would let someone measure him was high school so I assume that's where he got 7'1 1/16. So in turn I don't beleive Andre looked 7' with Wilt 6'11.5 yes but not 7'. With the proper information I am willing to change my stance on things but not because of a certain comparison although they are very interesting.

Actually our estimates are close to the same. Big Show's peak was 7 feet. I don't think he was ever any taller than that because he was billed at 7 feet when he arrived in the WWE in 1999. I've read somewhere that he was also billed 7 feet in his first professional match ever (so that would be in early 1995), but have yet to see the wrestling mag that covered this match.
Andre I'd say was around 6'11 peak. Lot's of 6'10 2/3 listings of him in the 60's, plus he's referred to as 6'11 in 3 different Non-WWE sources.
Anonymous said on 30/Mar/09
It makes since that a peak Big Show was just about 7'0.
Boss said on 29/Mar/09
Big Show , what is your estimate for a peak Paul Wight and a peak Andre. My opinion Wight 7' peak and Andre between 6'11-7' peak. Andre actual real height is the a great debate because there are pics , articles and such supporting both sides of the debate. We have posture and height loss issues with Andre how much height did he actually lose or how big was his head exactly(some will say 12 inches some will say 12.5 inches and maybe 13 inches) either side you pic that is a massive head. Anyway it's all in good fun and informative for us all. In light of the book you posted I've posted a link on the Andre page for The Rivalry and it does state that Wilt was measured in 1980 while lying down and the only other time he would let someone measure him was high school so I assume that's where he got 7'1 1/16. So in turn I don't beleive Andre looked 7' with Wilt 6'11.5 yes but not 7'. With the proper information I am willing to change my stance on things but not because of a certain comparison although they are very interesting.
Big Show said on 29/Mar/09
Boss says on 28/Mar/09
The photbucket account is Goliath777 so get your facts straight. Second Big Show is only 6'11 ish nowadays and 7' for a absolute peak and will be 6'10ish in a couple years. Sounds an awful lot like Andre to me except for that the fact Big Show has and always has had better posture than Andre. Yes , he looks every bit of 6'11' with 6'7 Akebono since he was 6'8 peak and had a sumo career and weighed over 500 pounds for most of his adult life.

Unless you have proof that Akebono is 6'7", don't go claiming so just to downgrade Big Show. Akebono still looked every bit of his 6'8" against 6'6" Albert (1 year after his staredown with Big Show).

Whether it's Goliath777 or Nova's photobucket account is irrelevant. Both accounts give a very one-sided (read: biased) view on Andre's height.
Boss said on 28/Mar/09
The photbucket account is Goliath777 so get your facts straight. Second Big Show is only 6'11 ish nowadays and 7' for a absolute peak and will be 6'10ish in a couple years. Sounds an awful lot like Andre to me except for that the fact Big Show has and always has had better posture than Andre. Yes , he looks every bit of 6'11' with 6'7 Akebono since he was 6'8 peak and had a sumo career and weighed over 500 pounds for most of his adult life.
JT said on 28/Mar/09
Boss says on 27/Mar/09
Big Show with 6'5 but billed 6'6 to 6'7 Shad of Cryme Tyme. Also Show with Michaels. In both pics Show isn't looking near 7'. Click Here

When he's slouching or you can't see the full postures, of course you can try to make such a claim. Comes out a little different when he's standing straight. Click Here Click Here Michaels had some chunky boots on as well. Make sure to add these to your (Nova's) photobucket account.
willy79 said on 27/Mar/09
Paul Wight says on 22/Mar/09
alright "Big Show" wannabe, I am 6'11 and a half these days, 7 ft. peak. got it?
Now quit using my stage name! or else.

This is funny. Come on dude, that is crazy. I know I feel that Big Show is bias at times but like Danimal says he does give great resourses to all his post. As much as he gets on my nerves at times he, Danimal and Vegas are corner stones to these pages. Ok, Paul Wight, lol!!!! Please.
Vegas said on 27/Mar/09
cm punk wrestled the most wwe matches in 2008, 174, Kane next at 162.
Click Here

big show is correct, since the brand extension wwe stars are wrestling much less days, show with raw stars take place 4 days a week, smackdown 3 days a week (sometimes 4), prior to the draft many stars wrestled 5 days a week sometimes 6 days a week
Boss said on 27/Mar/09
Big Show with 6'5 but billed 6'6 to 6'7 Shad of Cryme Tyme. Also Show with Michaels. In both pics Show isn't looking near 7'. Click Here
Big Show said on 27/Mar/09
Halb says on 27/Mar/09
I think they do Big Show. I cannot quote exactly from what I read in PowerSlam the regular routine of WWE wrestlers (the ones that can't negotiate lower schedules) is of the 300 mark. Can any reader of PowerSlam give a number here?

Click Here
Click Here

This is an excellent site for WWE match results (I always use it when I'm trying to locate a match). By looking at 2009 thusfar a wrestler would now had to have wrestled 70 matches. By random checking a few names (the main-eventers as well as mid-carters to jobbers) no one comes even close to that amount. Most are around 25-35 matches so far.
tuga said on 27/Mar/09
What are people talking about...edge is way to much shorter than big show to make any fair comparisons, someone so much taller than other will never look his true height because he will be slouching or looking down...

The fact is that khali is AT LEAST same height as 7'1 shaq and big show is 1 inch shorter than khali and also big show is BAREFEET 4 inches taller than 6'8 measured akebono making him a legit 7 footer.

Big show will only look below 7' due to posture imo.
Hugh 190cm said on 27/Mar/09
6ft11/7ft in boots.
Halb said on 27/Mar/09
"I don't think any wrestler actually wrestles 300 matches a year these days (at least not in the WWE). In the old days there were many wrestlers that wrestled 300+ matches a year. But since the coming of weekly tv-shows more and more time is being spend in creating storylines for the big PPV matches."

I think they do Big Show. I cannot quote exactly from what I read in PowerSlam the regular routine of WWE wrestlers (the ones that can't negotiate lower schedules) is of the 300 mark. Can any reader of PowerSlam give a number here?
gazz said on 26/Mar/09
Big show dead on 7 foot i reckon maybe 7'1 in WCW he just slouches so much these days which i dont understand, you would of thought as hes billed as a heel they would tell him to make himself as big as possible
Vegas said on 26/Mar/09
if big show was 7'1 in wcw he would have had 7.5 inches on john tenta, i don't see 7.5 inches in that staredown, i don't see 7 either
Danimal said on 25/Mar/09
I believe that Big Show is around 6'11"-6'11.5" today and 7'0.5"-7'1" in his WCW days.
Big Show said on 25/Mar/09
Danimal says on 23/Mar/09
Big Show (the poster) imo is probably the most OBJECTIVE and likable guy on celebheights. He always provides evidence and is ALWAYS open minded. I really enjoy his knowledgeable posts. NO ONE should be bashing him for being biased. That honor goes to others I won't mention.

Thanks for the support!
Big Show said on 25/Mar/09
Halb says on 25/Mar/09
Difference is that bodybuilders don't take the beating tyhat wrestlers do, njor do any other competitors in sport. No-one in sport is competitive for more than 300 days a year. I would say the amount of steds a wrestler takes on avg) exceeds that of any other professional sports person.

I don't think any wrestler actually wrestles 300 matches a year these days (at least not in the WWE). In the old days there were many wrestlers that wrestled 300+ matches a year. But since the coming of weekly tv-shows more and more time is being spend in creating storylines for the big PPV matches.
Halb said on 25/Mar/09
TBS may have been the full 7 feet once, he seemed it in his WCW days. He seems 1 inch lower than Singh, so if Singh is 7'
MK said on 25/Mar/09
JT says on 24/Mar/09
End of debate:
Click Here

Hardly the end of the debate, but thats as good as it gets.
Anonymous said on 25/Mar/09
Anonymous says on 24/Mar/09
willy79 says on 24/Mar/09
I watched RAW tonight and can not help but notice that Edge and Big Show looked about the height difference as Andre and Hogan from WM3.

at mania 3 hogan came to andres eyebrows, so edge is the same height as dennis rodman who we saw had about 3 inches himself on hogan in wcw
edge is also basically as tall as akebono

Did you even watch Raw. Edge seemed as tall as Hogan did to Andre at WM3. Just watch and you will see that, if not your blind.
JT said on 24/Mar/09
End of debate:
Click Here
Anonymous said on 24/Mar/09
willy79 says on 24/Mar/09
I watched RAW tonight and can not help but notice that Edge and Big Show looked about the height difference as Andre and Hogan from WM3.

at mania 3 hogan came to andres eyebrows, so edge is the same height as dennis rodman who we saw had about 3 inches himself on hogan in wcw Click Here|1&axs=0|79128494%2c79131254%2c74843779%2c79727633%2c81669723%2c79131310%2c74843777%2c74843771%2c79131261%2c81669730%2c74843780%2c74843790%2c74843788%2c74843787|0

edge is also basically as tall as akebono
willy79 said on 24/Mar/09
I watched RAW tonight and can not help but notice that Edge and Big Show looked about the height difference as Andre and Hogan from WM3.
Danimal said on 23/Mar/09
Big Show (the poster) imo is probably the most OBJECTIVE and likable guy on celebheights. He always provides evidence and is ALWAYS open minded. I really enjoy his knowledgeable posts. NO ONE should be bashing him for being biased. That honor goes to others I won't mention.
Danimal said on 23/Mar/09
Marble says on 22/Mar/09
Wow jt you sure arent biased :S you just cant accept that andre might have been the same height as show can you ?

You don't know the half of it... JT will NEVER admit that Andre was over 6'10".
Anonymous said on 23/Mar/09
willy79 says on 22/Mar/09
Show was or has never been 8 inches taller than Edge.

posture is key, go to the end of this video you might be surprised Click Here
Clay said on 23/Mar/09
What is gerweck.com?
Alex said on 23/Mar/09
I guess its possible Big Show lost a bit of height, maybe an inch at most. If Big Show is 6'11 then Khali is closer to 7'0 than 7'1. And on Gerweck.com it was reported that Khali is a legit 7'0.5 which would put Big Show in the 6'11-6'11.5 range.
willy79 said on 22/Mar/09
Show was or has never been 8 inches taller than Edge. 6'11 sounds about right for Snow considering how much taller a 7'1 Khali is.

Lol!!!!!! I have over 40 dvd's of Andre, several rare Japanese magazines and dozens of other magazines. Yeah I guess that makes me an Andre hater. What does your Andre collection consists of?
Judging from the Andre board where you have never posted anything new regarding pics or vids, I think I know the answer to that question: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
You're so-called interest in Andre stops at Andre's size, which apparently has to be at least 7 feet in order for you to still be interested with him.
If you claim you're an Andre fan you're insulting every true Andre fan, the ones who don't just like him for his size but also for his abilities inside the ring.

Blah, blah, blah, blah!!!! Next time just write this Big Show and maybe your Bias want show as much. MAYBE!
willy79 said on 22/Mar/09
Big Show says on 21/Mar/09
willy79 says on 21/Mar/09
another example of how big show hates Andre!!!!lol!!!!!

Lol!!!!!! I have over 40 dvd's of Andre, several rare Japanese magazines and dozens of other magazines. Yeah I guess that makes me an Andre hater. What does your Andre collection consists of?
Judging from the Andre board where you have never posted anything new regarding pics or vids, I think I know the answer to that question: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
You're so-called interest in Andre stops at Andre's size, which apparently has to be at least 7 feet in order for you to still be interested with him.
If you claim you're an Andre fan you're insulting every true Andre fan, the ones who don't just like him for his size but also for his abilities inside the ring.

Blah, blah, blah, blah!!!! Next time just write this Big Show and maybe your Bias want show as much. MAYBE!
Paul Wight said on 22/Mar/09
alright "Big Show" wannabe, I am 6'11 and a half these days, 7 ft. peak. got it?
Now quit using my stage name! or else.
dicksock said on 22/Mar/09
Dicksock, the shorter you try to make Big Show, the shorter Andre ends up being. Andre never came close to having a head size on guys like Vince McMahon or Roddy Piper, whereas Big Show did.

That is nonsense and you know it. Andre pretty much had a full head on Piper and McMahon.
Ray said on 22/Mar/09
Show is no less than 6'11" barefoot today IMO. He probably is 7' our darn close to it if not.
Marble said on 22/Mar/09
Wow jt you sure arent biased :S you just cant accept that andre might have been the same height as show can you ?
nick said on 22/Mar/09
all posture, edge is around 6'3.5 -6'3.75 but in his boots he is 6'5. show is about 8 inches taller but he displays loose posture which makes him look about 7 inch taller
hs2009 said on 22/Mar/09
Big Show has a footwear advantage over Edge in that pic & is still only about 7" taller than a guy who most peg at 6'3" on this site. I personally think he's more 6'4" but Show still looks shy of 7'0".
JT said on 21/Mar/09
Big Show in dress shoes; Edge in tennis shoes (possibly Converse All-Stars) Click Here If so, that's still only a ~ 0.75" footwear advantage at most for Big Show.

Dicksock, the shorter you try to make Big Show, the shorter Andre ends up being. Andre never came close to having a head size on guys like Vince McMahon or Roddy Piper, whereas Big Show did.
MK said on 21/Mar/09
Big Show seems to be a lone curusader on this page, why dont some of us try to read IN FULL what he says.
Big Show said on 21/Mar/09
dicksock says on 21/Mar/09
I'm not surprised you once again ignore the evidence. Why not show the cap from 9:57? That would show a 7" difference. And it's pathetic how you try to say Edge has any kind of footware advantage. What about Big Show's giant boots? Show looks about 6'11. And that is assuming Edge is 6'4. I'll admit that I underestimated the length of the Big Show's head. I was off by about an inch. But, the Tenta pic you posted does show about 6" between them. I'll give Paul Wight 7' at THE ABSOLUTE MOST in his prime. Now, around 6'11.

I capped that part because it was one of the few parts where they had somewhat of a similar posture. I've added the entire match aswell so everyone can make their own judgment of what they think the height difference is. Plus I wasn't saying Edge had a footwear advantage. I just said Edge wears some chunky boots aswell so I doubt Big Show is having a shoewear advantage there.
Big Show said on 21/Mar/09
willy79 says on 21/Mar/09
another example of how big show hates Andre!!!!lol!!!!!

Lol!!!!!! I have over 40 dvd's of Andre, several rare Japanese magazines and dozens of other magazines. Yeah I guess that makes me an Andre hater. What does your Andre collection consists of?
Judging from the Andre board where you have never posted anything new regarding pics or vids, I think I know the answer to that question: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!
You're so-called interest in Andre stops at Andre's size, which apparently has to be at least 7 feet in order for you to still be interested with him.
If you claim you're an Andre fan you're insulting every true Andre fan, the ones who don't just like him for his size but also for his abilities inside the ring.
willy79 said on 21/Mar/09
Big Show says on 21/Mar/09
dicksock says on 21/Mar/09
Anyone see smackdown? Well, Big Show certainly didn't appear to have more than 6" on Edge. He must have forgotten his lifts or something. I used to think that Wight was about 7'1 peak and 7' now. But now a 6'11" peak sounds better. He only had 6'6" tenta by 6" AT THE MOST in WCW with those giant boots. And he may be as low as 6'10 now. Even with his big heels, he is not that much taller than 6'4" MAX Edge. The episode of Smackdown was from March 20 at the end of the show.

Click Here

I'm surprised you're not mentioning Edge's spaceboots there!
Click Here
You're claiming this is a 6" difference:
Click Here
Click Here

Yet this is supposed to be a 5" difference???
Click Here
Click Here

Here are a few videos of Big Show from 1996 where he's not wearing his giant boots but normal shoes. He must be wearing lifts in them too or else it sure as hell doesn't look good for Hogan, Piper and Nash. If Big Show was 6'11" peak he would need a 2" shoewear advantage over Nash, which I highly doubt.
Click Here

another example of how big show hates Andre!!!!lol!!!!!
willy79 said on 21/Mar/09
dicksock says on 21/Mar/09
Anyone see smackdown? Well, Big Show certainly didn't appear to have more than 6" on Edge. He must have forgotten his lifts or something. I used to think that Wight was about 7'1 peak and 7' now. But now a 6'11" peak sounds better. He only had 6'6" tenta by 6" AT THE MOST in WCW with those giant boots. And he may be as low as 6'10 now. Even with his big heels, he is not that much taller than 6'4" MAX Edge. The episode of Smackdown was from March 20 at the end of the show.

I agree dicksock, like I said Kurrgan was just as tall to Tenta as Big Show. Kurrgan is about 6'10.5-11
willy79 said on 21/Mar/09
Funny thing was I remember edge being 6'2 in a wwf mag about developing wrestlers. Also Tiger Ali, Val Venis and Kurgan were in the article too.
Danimal said on 21/Mar/09
dicksock says on 21/Mar/09
Anyone see smackdown? Well, Big Show certainly didn't appear to have more than 6" on Edge. He must have forgotten his lifts or something. I used to think that Wight was about 7'1 peak and 7' now. But now a 6'11" peak sounds better. He only had 6'6" tenta by 6" AT THE MOST in WCW with those giant boots. And he may be as low as 6'10 now. Even with his big heels, he is not that much taller than 6'4" MAX Edge. The episode of Smackdown was from March 20 at the end of the show.

IF he was only 6'11" PEAK, then Kevin Nash was only 6'7" PEAK, seeing Big Show had 3" on a PRIME Nash and Big Show's college must have inflated his height by 2", seeing he was listed at 7'1".

He's LOST HEIGHT over the years and it's obvious to my eyes. We was minimum 7'0" in the WCW and probably closer to 7'1". Today I believe he is struggling with 6'11". That tremendous weight has killed his posture (neck and back) and buckled his legs.
dicksock said on 21/Mar/09
I'm not surprised you once again ignore the evidence. Why not show the cap from 9:57? That would show a 7" difference. And it's pathetic how you try to say Edge has any kind of footware advantage. What about Big Show's giant boots? Show looks about 6'11. And that is assuming Edge is 6'4. I'll admit that I underestimated the length of the Big Show's head. I was off by about an inch. But, the Tenta pic you posted does show about 6" between them. I'll give Paul Wight 7' at THE ABSOLUTE MOST in his prime. Now, around 6'11. As far as the Andre post goes. Again, I know said 5" and I'll admit I was wrong. But there is about 4" between them. And again, Andre is FAR from being in his prime in that pic. So, I wouldn't expect him to be above 6'11.
hs2009 said on 21/Mar/09
Edge wears sneakers to the ring these days with kickpads over the top, has done since about 2005.

They're no chunkier than John Cena's trainers or chunkier than a standard wrestling boot I would imagine.
Big Show said on 21/Mar/09
dicksock says on 21/Mar/09
Anyone see smackdown? Well, Big Show certainly didn't appear to have more than 6" on Edge. He must have forgotten his lifts or something. I used to think that Wight was about 7'1 peak and 7' now. But now a 6'11" peak sounds better. He only had 6'6" tenta by 6" AT THE MOST in WCW with those giant boots. And he may be as low as 6'10 now. Even with his big heels, he is not that much taller than 6'4" MAX Edge. The episode of Smackdown was from March 20 at the end of the show.

Click Here

I'm surprised you're not mentioning Edge's spaceboots there!
Click Here
You're claiming this is a 6" difference:
Click Here
Click Here

Yet this is supposed to be a 5" difference???
Click Here
Click Here

Here are a few videos of Big Show from 1996 where he's not wearing his giant boots but normal shoes. He must be wearing lifts in them too or else it sure as hell doesn't look good for Hogan, Piper and Nash. If Big Show was 6'11" peak he would need a 2" shoewear advantage over Nash, which I highly doubt.
Click Here
Click Here
dicksock said on 21/Mar/09
Anyone see smackdown? Well, Big Show certainly didn't appear to have more than 6" on Edge. He must have forgotten his lifts or something. I used to think that Wight was about 7'1 peak and 7' now. But now a 6'11" peak sounds better. He only had 6'6" tenta by 6" AT THE MOST in WCW with those giant boots. And he may be as low as 6'10 now. Even with his big heels, he is not that much taller than 6'4" MAX Edge. The episode of Smackdown was from March 20 at the end of the show.
Alex said on 19/Mar/09
When I was in middle school there were a few kids in the 5'10-6'0 range but not until the 8th grade though.
JT said on 18/Mar/09
Alex says on 16/Mar/09
From what I read and heard on TV and radio talk shows. Big Show was
6'2 at 12
6'5 at 13
6'8 at 14
6'11 at 16
7'0 at 18

I've heard Big Show say he was 7'1" at age 18. I still don't think he was ever quite that tall, however.
topdweeb said on 17/Mar/09
Big Show: what do you mean it was a fluke that he violated the wellness policy?

Yeah, I don't know how tall that guy who was 12 and 6' in my 6th grade class. But I know that the 3rd tallest in the class was 5' 7 at the time, and he topped off at 6' 5.
Danimal said on 16/Mar/09
Alex says on 16/Mar/09
From what I read and heard on TV and radio talk shows. Big Show was
6'2 at 12
6'5 at 13
6'8 at 14
6'11 at 16
7'0 at 18

So he was probably in the 5'11-6'0 range at 11. Imagine that graduating grammar school at 5'11-6'0.

A guy I went to grammar school and high school with was 5'6" at 11 years old and 6'3" at 14 and was 6'8" at our 10 year high school reunion. Skinny as a rake.
topdweeb said on 16/Mar/09
Alex: when I was in 6th grade, the tallest and biggest kid in my class (and my school in fact) was 6' 220 lbs. Don't know how tall he turned out though, as I have ever seen him since.
Alex said on 16/Mar/09
From what I read and heard on TV and radio talk shows. Big Show was
6'2 at 12
6'5 at 13
6'8 at 14
6'11 at 16
7'0 at 18

So he was probably in the 5'11-6'0 range at 11. Imagine that graduating grammar school at 5'11-6'0.
topdweeb said on 16/Mar/09
fan says on 16/Mar/09
"is it true that the big show was only 6.1-6.3 at the age 23"

Big Show was 23 when he was in WCW. Did he look only 6' 1 to 6' 3 to you?
fan said on 16/Mar/09
confirm it.
is it true that the big show was only 6.1-6.3 at the age 23
willy79 said on 16/Mar/09
JT says on 14/Mar/09
dicksock says on 13/Mar/09
I just saw Paul Wight vs max 6'6 Earthquake and he didn't appear to have much height at all on him. I'd say 4.5-5.5" max. There is no way he was over 7'. Usually the "Giant" looked pretty tall. But, I must say he was very unimpressive looking.
JT says on 14/Mar/09
dicksock says on 13/Mar/09
I just saw Paul Wight vs max 6'6 Earthquake and he didn't appear to have much height at all on him. I'd say 4.5-5.5" max. There is no way he was over 7'. Usually the "Giant" looked pretty tall. But, I must say he was very unimpressive looking.

Right... Click Here Click Here
This is 4 inches tops Click Here Click Here

Show and Andre look the same height there, JT.


circa 2003-04 Click Here

Great Find Vegas and sometimes Kurrgan seemed that tall to Tenta, too.
willy79 said on 16/Mar/09
Vegas says on 15/Mar/09
there is a staredown between tenta and big show in this match from 1996, funny thing is its about the same difference as between big show and giant haystacks and big show and tenta in that photo i posted and big show is also wearing same boots as with haystacks
1996 Click Here

circa 2003-04 Click Here

Great Find Vegas and sometimes Kurrgan seemed that tall to Tenta, too.
willy79 said on 16/Mar/09
Yeah that was terrible, about Test and only 33. Yes, Big Show Test was a great talent and was awesome in singles comp. I always thought when he had long hair he looked like a Nash clone. Andrew Test Martin was a great wrestler, he could've carried ECW to great heights as their Champion if WWE would have let him. Something, William Regal, Finlay and Christian also could do. Shame
topdweeb said on 16/Mar/09
Big Show: no I had no idea... do you know what happened? Crap, that sucks. And only 33??
Clay said on 16/Mar/09
Kane and Undertaker are still both referred to as ''a shade under 7 feet tall'' by the announcer, when even the little kids know that isnt the case because they see legit 7 foot giants like Show and Khali towering both of them.
Big Show said on 15/Mar/09
Did any of you hear about the sad death of Test this past weekend. The guy was only 33 years old and is new addition to the list of wrestlers who passed away before their 50th birthday. It sucks, I always thought of Test to be a huge talent within the WWE in the late 90's and early 00's.
Danimal said on 15/Mar/09
James says on 14/Mar/09
i would say

Silva 7ft 2
Khali 7ft 0.5 (7ft 2 in lifts)
Reis 7ft 1 (haha i can remember when he was claimed to be 7ft 8)
Big Show 7ft 1 (but I do think he was a solid 7ft 2 or 3 in the 90s upto 02.

Big Show was listed at 7'1" in College Basketball. He was NEVER taller than that height. MAYBE by 1/4", but that's it. I do believe he's lost height since the 1990's FOR SURE... When he reached around 550 pounds in 2006-2007, I think it definitely messed up his spine, knees and ankles, resulting in height lost. Remember, he came back a year later claiming to be down to 441 pounds and having lost 109 pounds, meaning he was high as 550 pounds, which he looked to be JUST BEFORE he left the WWE. That obesity and maybe some injuries resulted in height loss. I say he was right around that 7'1" mark at one point and has lost at least an inch, even though he is only in his late 30's.
topdweeb said on 15/Mar/09
dicksock says on 14/Mar/09
"I could find still shots of Andre giving John Studd a headbut where he looks 8" taller than him. And his feet remain on the ground."

Oh really??? I'm calling you out: provide a pic of where Andre looks 8" taller than Studd and both of their feet are on level ground.
hs2009 said on 15/Mar/09
I really don't know why WWE persist with billing Kane at 7'0". For years Jim Ross & Paul Heymanh described him as 6'10"-6'10.5" on commentary plus he looks about 3.5"-4" shorter than Big Show.

If I were WWE I'd bill Taker at 6'8" & Kane & 6'9".
Alex said on 15/Mar/09
Thats more like 6 inches between Big Show and Earthquake but I am unsure on Earthquakes height.

With Khali at 7'3 at least bill Big Show at 7'1 because it can sometimes look closer to 2 inches difference with angles but I never seen 3 inches difference even with camera angles making him look taller. Yet they still have Kane at 7'0 though sometimes say he's 6'10.
Vegas said on 15/Mar/09
there is a staredown between tenta and big show in this match from 1996, funny thing is its about the same difference as between big show and giant haystacks and big show and tenta in that photo i posted and big show is also wearing same boots as with haystacks
1996 Click Here

circa 2003-04 Click Here
Marble said on 14/Mar/09
comparing those pictures it seems to me like show was one inch taller than andre maybe 1.5 but not more than that . And it doesnt really work to post in ring pictures where their not even standing straight
dicksock said on 14/Mar/09
I don't care what kind of stupid pointless slides you show. Every single one of the "comparisons" are worthless. I saw the match between them and there was less than a 6" difference for sure. Talk about using the most bogus pics possible. I could find still shots of Andre giving John Studd a headbut where he looks 8" taller than him. And his feet remain on the ground.
topdweeb said on 14/Mar/09
Vegas: Tatanka definitely isn't tall. Watch his matches with Shawn Michaels, Michaels is clearly the taller of the two. Unless you want to argue that Michaels is now 6' 3 or 6' 4, there is no way Tatanka is 6' 2. Also, I doubt Rikishi is 6' 1. I've seen him up close (enough to shake his hand) and he wasn't much taller than I am.
JT said on 14/Mar/09
dicksock says on 13/Mar/09
I just saw Paul Wight vs max 6'6 Earthquake and he didn't appear to have much height at all on him. I'd say 4.5-5.5" max. There is no way he was over 7'. Usually the "Giant" looked pretty tall. But, I must say he was very unimpressive looking.

Right... Click Here Click Here
This is 4 inches tops Click Here Click Here
KingNick said on 14/Mar/09
Anonymous says on 14/Mar/09

They just talk out of their asses all the time. It was also hilarious how the Big Show went from 7,2" to 7,0" in the space of a few months back in 2002.

I know! I never understood that. Show could easily get away with being billed 7'2" especially now if Khali is billed 7'3". What benefit did they gain by downgrading them 2"?

hs2009 says on 14/Mar/09
I was wondering how tall Tatanka was! Just the other day I watched an old tape of some match of his & he stood near Shawn Michaels & was like 2" shorter despite being billed taller.

yeah I concure with you and topdweeb. Tatanka 5'10", maybe 5'11" tops. He was always a favorite of mine. I enjoyed his run when he came back briefly a few years ago.
hs2009 said on 14/Mar/09
I was wondering how tall Tatanka was! Just the other day I watched an old tape of some match of his & he stood near Shawn Michaels & was like 2" shorter despite being billed taller.
Anonymous said on 14/Mar/09
The WWE's height billings are ridiculous. It's not worth even paying attention to them.

They spent years trying to tell us Kane was taller than Taker, then a couple of years ago when they did the whole Brothers of Destruction reunion thing, I heard Michael Cole say something like "Kane is the heavier of the two, while the Undertaker is a little taller".

They just talk out of their asses all the time. It was also hilarious how the Big Show went from 7,2" to 7,0" in the space of a few months back in 2002.
dicksock said on 13/Mar/09
I just saw Paul Wight vs max 6'6 Earthquake and he didn't appear to have much height at all on him. I'd say 4.5-5.5" max. There is no way he was over 7'. Usually the "Giant" looked pretty tall. But, I must say he was very unimpressive looking.
Alex said on 13/Mar/09
Hockey listings seem pretty accurate like NFL.
Clay said on 13/Mar/09
They only really do it with the giants or the big men like Kane and Taker. Other than that their height listings for the wrestlers are no worse than UFC, baseball, basically any sport other than hockey and football.
MK said on 13/Mar/09
topdweeb says on 13/Mar/09
I get really tired of how hokey wrestling is with height. The Big Show used to be billed at 7' 4 and at times he was claimed to be 7' 5. But he went from that, to 7' 2 to 7' and now it seems like he might even be as low as 6' 10. It's so ridiculous.

This could be for the best, Big Show looks ALOT nearer to 7' than 7'4-5'', which would somewhat indicate that the wwe seem to be getting more realistic with their 'superstars' billings(remember UT was 6'11'' two years ago and then a few weeks back 6'9'' as quoted by Michael Cole) as opposed to tna who still seem use the old method ie. Matt Morgan.
topdweeb said on 13/Mar/09
JT: to me, it looks like that head piece is simply a thin cloth wrapped around the Yeti's head. If that's the case, then the height he gets from it would be negligible, about as much of a height increase that wearing socks would give. Too small to measure basically.
Halb said on 13/Mar/09
Here are mine;
Singh - 7'1
Reis - 7'1
Show - 7'0
Andre - 6'11
topdweeb said on 13/Mar/09
I get really tired of how hokey wrestling is with height. The Big Show used to be billed at 7' 4 and at times he was claimed to be 7' 5. But he went from that, to 7' 2 to 7' and now it seems like he might even be as low as 6' 10. It's so ridiculous.
JT said on 13/Mar/09
Topdweeb, I don
Clay said on 12/Mar/09
willy79 says on 12/Mar/09
I figure peak goes....
Silva 7'2.5
Khali 7'1.5
Reis 7'1
Big Show 7'0

Silva an inch taller than Singh? You couldn't see a height difference when they were tag teaming in Japan and Singh was in sneakers, Silva in boots. Here's my peaks for the giants:

Silva - 7'2
Singh - 7'1.5
Reis - 7'1
Andre - 7'0.5
Show - 7'0
topdweeb said on 12/Mar/09
Vegas: ok, I didn't know you didn't think Big Show was 7' 1 at one point. I'm honestly going to say now that I don't think he ever was either... I think Big Show might have been 7' 1 or slightly over in shoes, but not barefooted. I don't think Big Show was ever as tall as Khali.
willy79 said on 12/Mar/09
I figure peak goes....
Silva 7'2.5
Khali 7'1.5
Reis 7'1
Big Show 7'0
Alex said on 12/Mar/09
AT WM 24 HHH vs Orton vs Cena wasn't last and HHH for once wasn't in the final title match. They had the World title between Edge and UT last.

I didn't know HHH said Angle was too short for be champ and Patterson said who would be between him and Angle and HHH sat down, lol.
TELLEM said on 12/Mar/09
Danimal says on 11/Mar/09
The year was 1995 and we have a 7'2" Yeti standing side by side with the BIG SHOW with arms raised (starting at 1:46). Imagine THAT 23 year old Big Show standing next to Khali TODAY! He would be his EXACT height imo: Click Here

and soon after the YETEEEEEEEEEI disappeared...what a horrible wrestling moment...but yea he was taller than big show
Vegas said on 12/Mar/09
i don't believe big show was ever 7'1 topdweeb; being listed at 7'1 in ncaa basketball doesn't mean he was legit 7'1 barefoot, i originally posted those big show listings because people like jason and one or two others claimed he was listed at 6'10 and 6'11 in college and played at power-forward and not center, claims which were wrong btw, reis i believe is a legit 7'1

HHH will be on raw after mania, there is draft either the night after mania or the week after on raw, HHH was moved to smackdown to help increase ratings when smackdown moved to mynetworktv, the move has proved to be a disaster as HHH is not the draw he believes he is
topdweeb said on 12/Mar/09
Vegas: I understand, but it just seems like the WWE title would be on RAW, Triple H would be the WWE title holder and his matches would be last.

BTW, I know you also have documented that the Big Show was listed as 7' 1 in basketball too. So Ron Reis seems to have an inch or so on him, and this was definitely when the Big Show was in his prime (it'd be pretty bad if he was already out of his prime at 24). So how do you explain the discrepancy?
topdweeb said on 11/Mar/09
Alex: pretty much the title match that happens last is dependent on who the "bigger" champion is. Like if the champion is Triple H, then his match will be last if the other champion is some loser like JBL.

I used to find it kinda weird when the World Heavyweight title was on RAW and Triple H was the champion, and his matches would be the last match, while the WWE title holder's be like the 3rd to the last. I find it weird because RAW is the WWE's top show, and you'd think that the WWE title would be on RAW and be considered the "higher" of the two titles especially since the WWE title is the WWE title, and the World Heavyweight title is WCW's former title.
Danimal said on 11/Mar/09
The year was 1995 and we have a 7'2" Yeti standing side by side with the BIG SHOW with arms raised (starting at 1:46). Imagine THAT 23 year old Big Show standing next to Khali TODAY! He would be his EXACT height imo: Click Here
Alex said on 11/Mar/09
Topdweeb, I dont have a problem with triple threat matches for big titles but at WM I do. For example at WM 22, Angle vs Orton vs Mysterio. Could have been longer than just 10 mins. Also lately the have the winner of the RR have his title match not as the last match. I think the RR winner should have his title match at the end. This year it'll be like that because Orton vs HHH is def going to be last.
topdweeb said on 11/Mar/09
KingNick says on 10/Mar/09
"Anyone see Raw last night? I knew they were going to weasle Cena into that match"

I don't think anyone is surprised, and Alex and I brought that up a while ago. And this sucks. I hate triple threat matches, because like I said before, they are a way for the champion to be "beaten" without suffering a one-on-one loss. Also, I think they are cheap to the fans who want to see a one-on-one competition. Plus, Cena needs to just go away and get a life. He'll definitely be the type who sticks around long past his prime and welcome.
hs2009 said on 11/Mar/09
Also, quite an interesting candid here of Batista, Edge & Orton:
Click Here
hs2009 said on 11/Mar/09
More Edge & Orton pics:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Shock of Electric said on 11/Mar/09
I don't understand why Big Shoes just gets 7' even. It really ruins the trend of short changing people, particularly wrestlers. He was definitely about that over 10 years, maybe even slightly more, but today he is closer to 6'11" than 7'. His lifts compensate for that. Other guys have specifically said their height who are in the upper end of 6' yet they don't get that honor.
topdweeb said on 10/Mar/09
Alex: well looks like it happened, the Edge vs Big Show match turned into a triple threat. As for the Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels... you want the Undertaker to keep the streak alive and he probably will. I've heard that he will probably never lose at WM... but honestly, I'm not much of an Undertaker fan, so I don't really care if he loses.
KingNick said on 10/Mar/09
Edge IMO is a MINIMUM of 6'3", I'd say 6'3.5" . The only reason I wouldn't say 6'4" is because he's usually shorter than Orton. I do consider Orton to be a legit 6'4" but he always wears chunky boots in the ring. I think he may be over 6'5" in his ring gear. Edge's boots seem to be a little smaller. When Edge is in street clothes he usually wears large boots, but not when wrestling.

Anyone see Raw last night? I knew they were going to weasle Cena into that match :>)


KingNick says on 5/Mar/09
I'm also very excited that Big Show is finally being given the spotlight at Wrestlemania again. I thought the Mayweather match was atrocious. I'm sure they're going to find a way to weasle Cena into it tho.
hs2009 said on 10/Mar/09
Also, check out this face-off with Edge & JBL from RAW last night. It's at 6.06 on this video:
Click Here
hs2009 said on 10/Mar/09
Some more Egde & Orton pics. I still don't see 1" advantage for Orton: Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Ray said on 10/Mar/09
Yeah, I'd have to agree Edge is at least 6'3"; he seems closer to Orton than Triple H. Actually 6'2" for Triple H sounds very reasonable since he has been looking pretty close to Orton lately.
MK said on 10/Mar/09
How can most people on here agree that Orton is 6'4', yet cannot see 6'3'' for Edge? There was a noticeable 1'' differance between the two during their 'rated RKO' stinth. 6'3'' makes perfect sense for Edge.
Ghost said on 10/Mar/09
Edge is ATLEAST 6'3.
Clay said on 9/Mar/09
No more than 8 inches between Edge and Show - roughly 7'0 and 6'4 respectively.
hs2009 said on 9/Mar/09
Clay, I though that as well. He's MAX 2" shorter than B.J. Ryan who's listed at 6'6", although I wasn't sure if that was his legit height. He certainly looks that tall though. Shows that Edge isn't under 6'3.5"-6'4" which he also looks with Big Show.

Punk is a legit tall guy, another that's billed pretty accurately by WWE (height wise at least). Edge had 3"-3.5" on him:
Click Here
Punk's listed weight is 222lbs, how much do you guys think he weighs legit? He certainly doesn't weigh as much as Santino IMO, who does look like a legit 220lbs with DiPietro as Vegas said.
Clay said on 9/Mar/09
Edge isnt too far under BJ Ryan, who is legit 6'6.

hs2009 says on 8/Mar/09
Also, some pics of other WWE guys with Rick DiPietro:
Click Here

Wow. CM Punk is legitimately 6'0.5-6'1 seeing him there next to Dipietro. Whats odd is Jerihco and him looked right on the same height a couple months ago. But accoring to 4 year veteran Danimal Jericho struggles with 5'8??
mike said on 8/Mar/09
big show 6'11" edge around 6-7 inches shorter at 6'4" or so.
Rusty said on 8/Mar/09
Mike is standing straight and Big Show is slouching a little, but still he looks more 6'10" in this photo than 7'. Still a very tall man.
Vegas said on 8/Mar/09
DiPietro is 185lb and santino looks huge beside him, looks the 220lb that the police said in the report
hs2009 said on 8/Mar/09
Also, some pics of other WWE guys with Rick DiPietro:
Click Here
hs2009 said on 8/Mar/09
Here's Edge with some players from the Toronto Blue Jays in 2006:
Click Here
Anonymous said on 8/Mar/09
Edge always looked just a shade under Randy Orton, who is nothing less than 6,4" in ring gear.

I'd agree with Edge 6,3.5" barefoot. He always looked as tall as The Rock in staredowns.
hs2009 said on 8/Mar/09
Oh Danimal, PLEASE! Edge is not MAX 6'3" at all :P

He has 3" on Jeff Hardy (same difference Randy Orton had on him), 2" on Triple H, at least 3" on John Cena. He's also only about 7" shorter than Big Show, who's not as low as 6'10". He's also marginally taller than Hulk Hogan in street clothes, the man is 6'3.5" at least IMO :D
Danimal said on 7/Mar/09
Jesse Hughes says on 7/Mar/09
big Show 6'11 3/4"
Undertaker 6'8"
Edge 6'4 1/2"
John Cena 6'1"
Jesse Hughes 5'9"
these are my listed heights, let's leave it at that.

Edge is MAX 6'3".
Jesse Hughes said on 7/Mar/09
big Show 6'11 3/4"
Undertaker 6'8"
Edge 6'4 1/2"
John Cena 6'1"
Jesse Hughes 5'9"
these are my listed heights, let's leave it at that.
Anonymous said on 7/Mar/09
what was edge wearing last night those boots were huge, last week side by side
Click Here
JT said on 7/Mar/09
topdweeb says on 7/Mar/09
JT says on 7/Mar/09

"Dale Wolfe, Iron Mike Sharpe, Rusty Brooks, AJ Petruzzi..."

Eh... ok, the fact that Funaki's name is known AND that he comes out to entrance music. That's what I meant to say...

I know. I just wanted to throw out some jobber names from the past.
Alex said on 7/Mar/09
Edge looks 6'3 there.
hs2009 said on 7/Mar/09
Here's a picture of Edge & Big Show facing off on Smackdown:
Click Here
Click Here

Also, a video:
Click Here
topdweeb said on 7/Mar/09
JT says on 7/Mar/09

"Dale Wolfe, Iron Mike Sharpe, Rusty Brooks, AJ Petruzzi..."

Eh... ok, the fact that Funaki's name is known AND that he comes out to entrance music. That's what I meant to say...
JT said on 7/Mar/09
topdweeb says on 6/Mar/09
....The fact that you even know his name means he's not a true jobber. Alex is talking about those guys back in the 80's and early 90's where you didn't even know their name, they were already shown as being in the ring before the superstar came out....

Dale Wolfe, Iron Mike Sharpe, Rusty Brooks, AJ Petruzzi...
ancient Aztec Guy said on 6/Mar/09
I remember big show being over a head taller than 6'2.5"-6'4" Goldberg back in WCW.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 6/Mar/09
I'll give him 7ft now and maybe 7'1" in the 90's.
Big Show said on 6/Mar/09
topdweeb says on 6/Mar/09
Big Show says on 6/Mar/09
"I think Funaki is also a true jobber. Did this guy ever win a match?"
The fact that you even know his name means he's not a true jobber. Alex is talking about those guys back in the 80's and early 90's where you didn't even know their name, they were already shown as being in the ring before the superstar came out. And pretty much every match with them was a complete squash with very little to no-offense at all given by the jobber.

So when you're referring to true jobbers, you mean guys like this.
Click Here

They're mostly not WWE wrestlers and are simply brought in to job (also mostly against the stars). These jobbers are often people from the independent cirquits and can very well be a champion there. A independent wrestler named Joey Ryans was a world champion at PWG wrestling. He also wrestled a few times in the WWE jobbing to guys like Big Show, Rosey, Sylvain Grenier, John Morrison.
I can't recall Funaki ever being a jobber to the stars. He was a jobber to the jobber of the stars.
KingNick said on 6/Mar/09
Vegas says on 6/Mar/09
the mayweather match was actually one of big shows better matches in the last year, it was great fun to watch live, mayweather did a great job

Actually I would agree with that to an extent. I think the way I wrote my last post was misleading. What I meant was that I thought it was atrocious that Big Show LOST to Mayweather, like it was atrocious that Bam Bam lost to LT, even tho that was a great match too. I just don't agree with a celebrity winning a wrestling match. I think it's unrealistic and it hurts the business more. It ruins that credibility of how the WWE promotes their wrestlers as unstoppable monsters when some random celebrity, even if they are an athlete, comes in to beat them. After WM 11, the WWE was doing very poorly. I don't think WWE is necessarily doing badly now, but the Mayweather storyline didn't help. The WWE is about as popular as it was last year IMO.
topdweeb said on 6/Mar/09
Big Show says on 6/Mar/09
"I think Funaki is also a true jobber. Did this guy ever win a match?"

The fact that you even know his name means he's not a true jobber. Alex is talking about those guys back in the 80's and early 90's where you didn't even know their name, they were already shown as being in the ring before the superstar came out. And pretty much every match with them was a complete squash with very little to no-offense at all given by the jobber.

Guys that you know their name, and even put up a good fight at times, at called "jobbers to the stars" they are just one notch ahead of the true jobbers. Guys like this sometimes put up a good fight, but they are essentially only used as stepping stones. When I think of JTTS, the names Tito Santana and Hercules come to mind. Snitsky got turned into a JTTS before his release, Val Venis is also a JTTS, and Vladimir Kozlov is well on his way. It seems almost universal that in the WWE, if you start off with a really impressive win streak, you end up becoming a JTTS wrestler sooner or later. It happened with Honky, it happened with Tatanka, and I'm betting it will happen to Kozlov. On that not, I have to agree with hs2009. As much as it sucks to wreck his impressive win streak, I knew it wouldn't last. I could tell this guy has JTTS written all over him. He's boring, has no mic skills, and is just plain dull. I don't even know what the WWE was thinking originally when he had no entrance music. Just made him even more bland and boring.
Big Show said on 6/Mar/09
Vegas says on 6/Mar/09
the mayweather match was actually one of big shows better matches in the last year, it was great fun to watch live, mayweather did a great job
i have zero interest in edge/big show at mania, thats a smackdown match in truth not a mania main event, no buildup either, at least orton and HHH has been built up well over the last few weeks, loads of people bought mania to see mayweather; how many people are going to buy mania to see edge/big show??

Couldn't agree with you more. I thought Big Show's angle with Mayweather was by far the best angle I've seen Big Show in since his return (even though it was handled poorly at first). The build up was excellent and the crowd was really into the match. Could you here the crowd response when it was announced that Big Show will face Edge at Wrestlemania. I don't think so as there wasn't any. Like Vegas hardly anyone cares about such a match-up. If John Cena is added to that group I think Big Show will be just a third wheel in the match (he's probably going to turn face in the match or in the build-up).

Btw Alex I think Funaki is also a true jobber. Did this guy ever win a match?
Vegas said on 6/Mar/09
the mayweather match was actually one of big shows better matches in the last year, it was great fun to watch live, mayweather did a great job

i have zero interest in edge/big show at mania, thats a smackdown match in truth not a mania main event, no buildup either, at least orton and HHH has been built up well over the last few weeks, loads of people bought mania to see mayweather; how many people are going to buy mania to see edge/big show??
Big Show said on 6/Mar/09
Big Show says on 5/Mar/09
Undertaker is known for his winning streak whilst I am known for my losing streak at Wrestlemania.

This username is already spoken for. Use another one!
Big Show said on 5/Mar/09
Undertaker is known for his winning streak whilst I am known for my losing streak at Wrestlemania.
Alex said on 5/Mar/09
Topdweeb, I remember those true jobbers back in the day. The guys who would already be in the ring waiting with no entrance for their opponent to come out. Those were real jobbers which they dont have anymore but now you'll have "jobber to the stars" like you say.
KingNick said on 5/Mar/09
I can't begin to tell you guys how upset I was that Kozlov got a clean victory over Undertaker. There's a only a few guys in the company that I can see realistically beating Undertaker. Kozlov hasn't been around a year yet, I don't think it was a good choice. It damages the creditbility of both wrestlers. The same thing happend with Great Khali.

I'm really looking forward to UT facing HBK tho. That's going to be an amazing match if not the best match on the card.

I'm also very excited that Big Show is finally being given the spotlight at Wrestlemania again. I thought the Mayweather match was atrocious. I'm sure they're going to find a way to weasle Cena into it tho.

It's not so much that I have a problem with certain wrestlers as it is that I have a problem with the WWE shoving them down the fans throats. I feel that's what they did with Khali and that's what they've been doing with Cena and Kozlov
hs2009 said on 5/Mar/09
Apparently WWE has really soured on Kozlov. Not surprising really since he's such a boring wrestler. I think WWE should put more time into pushing really talented wrestlers like MVP, Shelton Benjamin & Brian Kendrick than no-hopers like Kozlov. Kozlov may be big, but he doesn't have 'it' IMO & I highly doubt he'll ever get over with the audience.

Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker will no doubt be entertaining, it would be a total shock if you're suggestion happened Danimal! I personally would have Shawn Michaels face Edge, then it's like Rated-RKO vs. DX again, that feud never had a chance to finish because of Triple H's quad injury.

I'd save HBK-Taker for Shawn's retirement match, then it could be Streak vs. Career.
topdweeb said on 5/Mar/09
From what I read, Kozlov just lost on SmackDown to the Undertaker. From what you said, Big Show, if Kozlov is losing at House Shows and just now lost twice in the same week on TV, I think it's safe to say that Kozlov is going to be down graded to "jobber to the stars" status.
Alex said on 5/Mar/09
I was thinking the same thing with Cena being added to the Edge vs Big Show match making it a tripe threat match for the World title. But I've heard of Cena vs Batista one on one which would be fine with me.

I have no problem with HBK really but UT has to keep the streak alive.
Danimal said on 5/Mar/09
Big Show says on 4/Mar/09
Can't say I'm really looking forward to this year's Wrestlemania. Most matches we've already seen dozens of times before. Triple H vs. Orton, Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker, the Money-in-the-Bank match with people like Kane and Mark Henry. Other matches that are bound to show up are Jeff vs. Matt Hardy (seen that one before), Beth Phoenix vs. Melina, Stone Cold vs. Chris Jericho (Looking forward to that one if it's going to happen).
Big Show vs. Edge is bound to change. John Cena is WWE's cash cow and he's bound to be at Wrestlemania.

I agree with Topdweeb about Kozlov's undefeated streak (although he's lost a few matches cleanly on house show's). Losing to Shawn Michaels might make Shawn look more intimidating going into his match with Taker, it really doesn't do much else for him, while Kozlov's character has taken a huge bump. WWE always had a problem with ending impressive winning streaks. Honky Tonk Man's 14 month reign as Intercontinental Champion was ended in 11 seconds by Ultimate Warrior.
Not that it's going to happen, but what if in the Michaels/Undertaker match, at the beginning when Undertaker removes his hat (not paying attention to his opponent) and Michaels superkicks him in the face, tells the referee to ring the bell and pins the Undertaker in less than 5 seconds to end his undefeated streak. That would destroy Undertaker's streak.
If you're putting so much effort into creating an impressive streak it would be nice if the streak also ended with a bang.

Kind of like Mike Tyson's did to Buster Douglas ;).
topdweeb said on 4/Mar/09
Big Show: well, in the world of pro-wrestling, if it doesn't happen on TV, then it never happened. Although I think it's dumb to make Kozlov lose at house shows because it only makes wrestling seem more hokey to those who witnessed it.

Shawn could have defeated anyone else on RAW to qualify to face the Undertaker, it didn't have to be Kozlov and Kozlov could still be undefeated. But it's like you say, WWE blows it when it comes to undefeated streak. It's like the Tatanka thing. After 2 years of being undefeated, Tatanka loses to Ludvig Borga who pins him with one fingers on Superstars, not even RAW, but should have been on a PPV event.

Kozlov losing should have been at a PPV. At least Honkey's loss was.
Big Show said on 4/Mar/09
Can't say I'm really looking forward to this year's Wrestlemania. Most matches we've already seen dozens of times before. Triple H vs. Orton, Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker, the Money-in-the-Bank match with people like Kane and Mark Henry. Other matches that are bound to show up are Jeff vs. Matt Hardy (seen that one before), Beth Phoenix vs. Melina, Stone Cold vs. Chris Jericho (Looking forward to that one if it's going to happen).
Big Show vs. Edge is bound to change. John Cena is WWE's cash cow and he's bound to be at Wrestlemania.

I agree with Topdweeb about Kozlov's undefeated streak (although he's lost a few matches cleanly on house show's). Losing to Shawn Michaels might make Shawn look more intimidating going into his match with Taker, it really doesn't do much else for him, while Kozlov's character has taken a huge bump. WWE always had a problem with ending impressive winning streaks. Honky Tonk Man's 14 month reign as Intercontinental Champion was ended in 11 seconds by Ultimate Warrior.
Not that it's going to happen, but what if in the Michaels/Undertaker match, at the beginning when Undertaker removes his hat (not paying attention to his opponent) and Michaels superkicks him in the face, tells the referee to ring the bell and pins the Undertaker in less than 5 seconds to end his undefeated streak. That would destroy Undertaker's streak.
If you're putting so much effort into creating an impressive streak it would be nice if the streak also ended with a bang.
topdweeb said on 4/Mar/09
Alex: honestly, I'm glad it isn't John Cena vs Edge but I am almost willing to bet money that this will turn into a triple threat match between Edge, the Big Show, and John Cena.

I think Cena has the spotlight way too much (him and Triple H). So I'm just glad that it will be the Big Show vs. Edge, but I do know what you mean that it is weird to have two heels face off, especially since the two didn't have much build up, at least I didn't think so.

But I really hope it doesn't turn into a triple threat. I think triple threats are really cheap and it's a way for the champ to lose the title without actually losing to an opponent. And it's cheap to the fans who want to see two wrestlers go at it one on one.

On a side note: I thought Vladimir Kozlov might go to WM to face the Undertaker because I thought it would be Kozlov's undefeated streak vs. the Undertaker's undefeated WM streak, and I thought this would be where Kozlov finally loses. But Shawn Michaels is a better opponent for him so I do understand why.

What I don't get, is why make Kozlov suddenly lose his undefeated streak, and fairly easily after all this time? Kinda feel let down... kinda like how Tatanka went undefeated for 2 years and when he finally gets beat, it's by Ludvig Borga pinning him with one finger.
Alex said on 4/Mar/09
I am a big fan of Big Show. Always been but him vs Edge at WM 25 for the World title seems a bit odd. 2 heels facing off one on one. Very rare you'll see that at WM for a title. What do you guys think?
Paul said on 4/Mar/09
kingNick
Honestly Big Show really was 7'1 once. WCW had him down variously as 7'2, 7'4.
I remember around 1996 he even wore boots such that he was just over 7'3 in them. Towered Martin Ruane by 6 inches. These days Show is likely just over 6'11, maybe 6'11.5, I doubt 7'0.
KingNick said on 3/Mar/09
Paul says on 2/Mar/09
On Big Show
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Big Show: 6'11" barefoot (7' peak barefoot), 7'0.5" wrestling boots
KingNick you should know Big Show was actually 7'1 in the mid-latter 90's legitimately. These days he isn't that much over 6'11.
On Khali
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Khali: 7'1" barefoot, 7'1.5" - 7'1.75" wrestling boots
The first estimate is essentially correct but wrestling boots that add maybe only 0.5 of an inch for Khali ? Trust me those boots have more in them than you think.

sorry dude, I disagree. But there's evidence to support your therios too. No problem, we're all entitled to our opinions :>D
Alex said on 3/Mar/09
Big Show looks in the 425-450lb range for sure. Though when he was 420lbs in 1999 he was leaner than he is now and 430lbs in early 2000. Khali is 400-410lbs I think.
mike said on 3/Mar/09
big show 441 1bs and khali i,d say 385 1bs.
Alex said on 2/Mar/09
In those pics Nick posted Big Show's boots look a bit bigger than Khalis but when they faced off the boots may have not been like that.
Paul said on 2/Mar/09
On Big Show
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Big Show: 6'11" barefoot (7' peak barefoot), 7'0.5" wrestling boots
KingNick you should know Big Show was actually 7'1 in the mid-latter 90's legitimately. These days he isn't that much over 6'11.
On Khali
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Khali: 7'1" barefoot, 7'1.5" - 7'1.75" wrestling boots
The first estimate is essentially correct but wrestling boots that add maybe only 0.5 of an inch for Khali ? Trust me those boots have more in them than you think.
Clay said on 2/Mar/09
Oh my god Khali looks scary huge in pic 8.
Alex said on 2/Mar/09
I barely see a 1 inch difference at the 2:33 mark.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 28/Feb/09
Take a look at this

Click Here

Big show appears to be easily 4.5 inches above Undertaker in 1999. Undertaker comes out during big show v.s Vicera match.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 28/Feb/09
Take a look at this

Click Here

Big show appears to be easily 4.5 inches above Undertaker in 1999.
KingNick said on 28/Feb/09
In wrestling gear, I think there's a 1" or tops 1.25" difference between Big Show and Khali. Alex's video is a good reference for that. If you notice in the staredown, Show doesn't even have his neck completely straight.

Barefoot, I think there's 2" between them. I don't agree in the least bit that the footwear for Khali and Show is the same.

Here are some photos of Show's footwear look particularly at pics 1 and 23 Click Here
Here are some photos of Khali's footwear look particularly at pic 18 Click Here

I think Show has a clear footwear advantage over Khali.

Big Show: 6'11" barefoot (7' peak barefoot), 7'0.5" wrestling boots
Khali: 7'1" barefoot, 7'1.5" - 7'1.75" wrestling boots
Clay said on 27/Feb/09
Another thing you guys are doing is assuming. If you're going strictly by the top of Khali's hair you can see the 2 inch gap. Now, lets ASSUME - there I go doing it myself, that Khali's poofed hair is giving him a .5-.75 of an inch advantage, that still leaves Khali skull 1.25-1.5 above Big Show's. Just my observation. :)

And lord knows about the Show's boots.
mike said on 27/Feb/09
giant gonzales ,the tallest wrestler i,d ever seen at 7'6".
Clay said on 27/Feb/09
I see an inch there, but when the camera shifts its angles at times you can see 1.5. I never see Big Show as close as under an inch of Khali.
Anonymous said on 27/Feb/09
There's MAX an inch of difference there.
topdweeb said on 27/Feb/09
Alex: pause it at 2:33 and you see a close up of the two. Once again, it doesn't even look like a full inch, like mike says, it looks more like 0.5 inch. Khali is NOT 1.5 inches taller than Big Show.
mike said on 27/Feb/09
i have to agree with you Alex,imo it looks more like maybe.05 inch.Show looks more like 7'0" there than anything.
Alex said on 26/Feb/09
Here at the 2:30 mark and on you can see them face off and the very most you can say is 1.5 inches and that looks to be even stretching it a bit. I think 2 inches is def out of the question. Their footwear looks the same to me.

Click Here
Alex said on 26/Feb/09
The times that Khali looked 2 inches or so taller than Big Show were due to camera angles to make Khali look even taller than Big Show but face to face with normal angles there was roughly an inch difference.
topdweeb said on 26/Feb/09
Who cares how tall the short wrestlers are. Only the tall ones are interesting.
TELLEM said on 26/Feb/09
sting IS 6'2...he has/had 3 inches over 5'11 scott steiner, 4 inches over 5'10 kurt angle, 1 inch shorter than 6'3 lex luger, and that puts jesse ventura at about 6'3 at that time in WCW.
Anonymous said on 26/Feb/09
its difficult to tell anything from that sting/ventura video, camera angle is too high and we get no full body shots
Clay said on 25/Feb/09
Thanks Alex. So you agree at times there appears more than an inch, at times an inch. I think we can all agree Big Show's boots look a little suspect as well.

Danimal, well lately you have been very Jason/Viper esque. You have seemingly just been out to uncover that these people are shorter than everyone thinks - what with trying to go on with the Will Smith 5'11 possibility, Jericho looking 5'8 and no more? And now with undertaker 6'6/6'6.5 - I dont think you should be Banned man its just annoying!
Anonymous said on 25/Feb/09
"OLAAAAAAAA, I'm calling you out. Here is PROOF that Jesse Ventura was taller than 6'2". Here he is next to 6'2" Sting: Click Here"

standing next to sting who himself is not 6'2 lol
Danimal said on 25/Feb/09
OLAAAAAAAA, I'm calling you out. Here is PROOF that Jesse Ventura was taller than 6'2". Here he is next to 6'2" Sting: Click Here
Danimal said on 25/Feb/09
GET AWAY with Clay? What, you want me Banned, because I've stated I think it's POSSIBLE that Taker is 6'6"-6'6.5"?? Get over yourself Clay. I am entitled to my opinion. I am not known for exaggerating or minimizing people's heights. I call it as I see it and have been doing so on here CONSISTENTLY for well over 4 years. Don't lose anymore sleep over it please.
Alex said on 25/Feb/09
MOST of the time I seen an inch between Khali and Big Show but a few times I saw maybe 1.5 inches. Never seen 2 inches.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 24/Feb/09
I highly doubt Undertaker was ever under 6'7". I would say there may have been a time back in the 90's maybe when big Show stood maybe a pinch over the 7ft mark. I would say there is maybe 2 inches between big show and Khali, maybe 1.5 inches. I would say Khali is about 7'1.5" or 7'2". Khali in my opionion appears to be taller than Shaq.
Clay said on 24/Feb/09
Whatever. Im positive its more like 1.5 between them instead of just 1 inch, thats all I argue - not a big deal. A lot of folks agree with me on that too, not to mention anyone who has seen them live says Khali is noticably taller.
Alex said on 24/Feb/09
At least the 6'6 claims for UT aren't as bad as that one 6'2 claim for him.

I think giving UT 6'7 is fair but I wouldn't go more than that.
topdweeb said on 23/Feb/09
Clay says on 23/Feb/09
"To be fair there is only a couple people argueing for a 6'6 Taker. How Danimal gets away with some of the stuff he says is beyond me."

I don't know specifically what you're talking about, but I wouldn't say he "gets away" with anything. I just think that most of the times when we disagree with each other, we just kinda let it go, but I wouldn't really call that getting away with it.

Like you and I disagree about the Big Show. I see one inch between him and Khali, and you see more. The difference here is that I look at the facts and go by the facts while you constantly try to make Khali out to be Robert Wadlow or something. And even though you're dead wrong (and you usually are when it comes to Khali, no offense) I usually don't say anything because unless I personally see Khali measured I can't ever know for sure if I am right or wrong, but let's just face simple facts: the chances of you being right isn't very good.
Clay said on 23/Feb/09
To be fair there is only a couple people argueing for a 6'6 Taker. How Danimal gets away with some of the stuff he says is beyond me.
miko said on 23/Feb/09
Kane and Big Show side by side.

Click Here
hs2009 said on 23/Feb/09
Good pics Vegas, Jericho's boots look pretty standard these days. They're thicker than Shawn Michaels boots, who has really thin soles these days, but they still look like a 1.25" standard sole.

Like you say Vegas, the size of his wrestling boots are pretty irrelevant since he looks 5'10" in dress shoes next to everyone he has stood next to.

Good find Tuga, Taker towers everyone else in that photo! Chavo Guerrero is at least 5'7" & Taker has over a head size on him. No way he is only 6'6" these days.
Ghost said on 22/Feb/09
tuga says on 22/Feb/09
Sorry Ed. Rob, I posted anonymous...

Here goes again:
Click Here

Taker with chavo guerrero and michelle mcool.


Taker looks enourmous there, even though he is slouching big time. That is not a 6'6 man.
tuga said on 22/Feb/09
Sorry Ed. Rob, I posted anonymous...

Here goes again:
Click Here

Taker with chavo guerrero and michelle mcool.
Clay said on 22/Feb/09
Eddie - 5'7
Chavo - 5'8
hs2009 said on 21/Feb/09
I still think that Jericho is 5'9.5"-5'10".

He had 3"-3.5" in street clothes on Chavo Jr. & Eddie Guerrero in the pictures in Y2J's book. I think most people would agree that they are 5'6.5"-5'7". Eddie was also just marginally taller than 5'6" referee Brian Hildebrand (RIP), so for me that adds up to solid 5'9.5"-5'10" Jericho.
Paul said on 20/Feb/09
Clay says on 19/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 19/Feb/09
JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9.

Failed miserably. Funny though....
Alex said on 20/Feb/09
JBL is a lift wearer I think. He appears taller next to taller wrestler and shorter next to guys who aren't tall. I'd say no more than 6'5 for him though.
Clay said on 20/Feb/09
Jericho has held his own against Shawn Michaels, CM Punk, and now Rowdy Roddy. I guess Jericho strutts out to the ring in 4 inch lifts every night?
Danimal said on 20/Feb/09
I can live with 5'9" for Jericho, but not over that. He wore space boots a la HBK for YEARS. Piper was a legit tall man in the 1980's. He stood toe to toe with Vince in the mid 80's and was NOT shorter than him. There are a TON of Piper's Pits on dailymotion, where he looks every bit 6'1"+ in ALL of them next to legit tall men. He had spinal surgery years back, as well as an entire hip replacement. BEFORE YOUR time on celebheights, there was an article floating around (2004) where Piper stated he went from 6'1" to 5'9".
Vegas said on 20/Feb/09
Danimal says on 19/Feb/09
I do not give Jericho more than 5'9" and YES VEGAS, it has been proven that Piper (who I know you LOVEEEEEEE so much) has lost SIGNIFICANT height over the years and not is NOT up for debate.

jericho is actually edging out piper there in dress shoes, surely piper isn't in the 5'8 range?? thats really what you are contemplating, if jericho is 5'8 then piper is max 5'8 today and more possibly 5'7.5, thats just silly

piper was taller than jimmy kimmel only a few months ago on smackdown, jericho has looked ~5'10 in everything since his return, he looked 5'10 next to vince, next to hbk, next to flair, next to orton, next to jbl, next to big show, next to steamboat, next to eli roth, next to batista
mike said on 19/Feb/09
i give big show 6'11.5" and khali 7'1". i say an inch and a half difference between the two.big show may have indeed been 7'1" during highschool ,but with the weight gain and all i thinks it,s very possible he shrunk.
Clay said on 19/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 19/Feb/09
JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9.

Failed miserably.
topdweeb said on 19/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 19/Feb/09
"JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9."

I swear, some people like this guy, just don't ever want to give it up.
Danimal said on 19/Feb/09
I do not give Jericho more than 5'9" and YES VEGAS, it has been proven that Piper (who I know you LOVEEEEEEE so much) has lost SIGNIFICANT height over the years and not is NOT up for debate.
Anonymous said on 19/Feb/09
JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9.
Ghost said on 19/Feb/09
tuga says on 18/Feb/09
Click Here

Taker and Jbl, side by side, no camera tilt as we can see from the door frame and painting in the wall.


I would love people who say Taker is 6'6 or 6'6,5 today to comment on this photo with JBL who was just proven to be atleast 6'5.

Also 5'8 at best for Jericho is simply ridiculous.
hs2009 said on 19/Feb/09
Face-off between Big Show & Edge on Smackdown:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
topdweeb said on 18/Feb/09
Danimal says on 17/Feb/09
"Surprised how NO ONE mentioned how SHORT Jericho looks in that group photo with the General. Definitely NOT 5'10" there. 5'8" if he's lucky. Randy Orton also NOT looking 6'4" next to The General (he is RIGHT BESIDE HIM in a hat)."

I know I didn't mention it because Jericho looks no shorter than I would have expected him to look. I mean, someone who is like 5' 9.5 isn't exactly a lumbering giant or anything. As for Randy Orton, c'mon, you can easily tell he has a very casual stance while the General has a very erect posture.

cantstop25 says on 17/Feb/09
"Why does big show look so tall in that group photo? I mean hes looking easily over 7'"

Well, someone who stands 7' will look really tall compared to those guys who aren't even close to that height. Plus, Big Show is probably standing as straight as he can (for what he can pull off nowadays) because he is getting his pic taken with other wrestlers and a tall General, so he probably wanted to show his true height. Big Show is every bit a 7'. And he probably actually is a little over 7' considering he's probably 7' in barefeet and obviously a little more with shoes.
Vegas said on 18/Feb/09
Danimal says on 17/Feb/09
Surprised how NO ONE mentioned how SHORT Jericho looks in that group photo with the General. Definitely NOT 5'10" there. 5'8" if he's lucky. Randy Orton also NOT looking 6'4" next to The General (he is RIGHT BESIDE HIM in a hat).

this will surprise you so Danimal, from monday night, jericho in dress shoes, if jericho is "5'8 if he is lucky" what height piper?? need to watch the whole thing Click Here

btw jericho is only about 4 inches shorter than batista in that group shot and towers lillian garcia (who isn't that short i have a photo with her she is about 5'5-5'6) orton is behind the general
tuga said on 18/Feb/09
Click Here

Taker and Jbl, side by side, no camera tilt as we can see from the door frame and painting in the wall.
nick said on 18/Feb/09
Remember you cant always trust pictures, so many factors, footwear, and posture along with angles.

Take a look at this photo. The guy on the absolute left is 6'0.5 measured by myself midday. The guy next to him is 6'3.25 measured midday. If you look at the photo next to it, the guy on the left appears the same height as the 6'3.25 guy. Now if i posted the photo next to the first one initially and said that the guy on the right was 6'0.5 you would all claim with absolute certainty the in the green would never be over 6'2. The guy on the left has the footwear advantage (slightly over 1.75) over the green who has .75 and camera angle advantage as well as posture.

Now they next set of photos. Same guy 6'3 .25 with his brother, he seems to be taller in the photo, however if you go to the next photo you see that his brother is comfortably taller, which he is at slightly over 6'4.5 midday.

Now to the thing that made me post all of this. That photo with batista and the 6'5 man. Batista is 6'2 in the photo at the top of his head but he is giving up over* an inch posture while the other guy isnt. I know exactly the way he is standing and i myself with similiar height to batista lose over an inch using that posture. If he stood very straight he would bear near an inch shorter than that guy.
Danimal said on 17/Feb/09
Surprised how NO ONE mentioned how SHORT Jericho looks in that group photo with the General. Definitely NOT 5'10" there. 5'8" if he's lucky. Randy Orton also NOT looking 6'4" next to The General (he is RIGHT BESIDE HIM in a hat).
Danimal said on 17/Feb/09
I think a prime Hogan would have been the EXACT same height as JBL. Big Show is looking to be close to that 7'0" mark there.
cantstop25 said on 17/Feb/09
Why does big show look so tall in that group photo? I mean hes looking easily over 7'
willy79 said on 17/Feb/09
Great pics Vegas! I must say though, JBL is not standing as erect as the General, they'd be about an inch difference, also JBL still looks taller.
Big Show said on 17/Feb/09
topdweeb says on 15/Feb/09
I could be wrong and the hair could be throwing me off, but I really think JBL looks slightly taller. I didn't realize that that big guy (forgot his name) from Cryme Time was so tall. He's billed at 6' 7 and it looks like it might be legit.

Shad from Cryme Tyme looked 3-4 inches shorter than Kane a few weeks ago on RAW. I posted a pic of this on the Kane board.
me said on 16/Feb/09
Really good find Vegas.

I think JBL could be upto 6'5.5" but definitely a solid 6'5".

Big Show, that is Randy Orton in the hat next to the General. He has pretty loose posture, but looks a good 6'4".
tuga said on 16/Feb/09
Great find Vegas.

This rules out anything less than 6'5 for JBL and he could be even a little taller as he is leaning a bit.
I agree with JT, if Batista stood like cena he would be at the 6'3 mark.

Funny, in the group photo JBL looks even taller, I tought he was closer to the camera but batista is much closer and Jbl has still arond 4 inches on him, JBl actually looks taller than the General there...
Big Show said on 16/Feb/09
Nice find Vegas. In that group photo is that Randy Orton (with a hat on)standing next to the general?
topdweeb said on 15/Feb/09
I could be wrong and the hair could be throwing me off, but I really think JBL looks slightly taller. I didn't realize that that big guy (forgot his name) from Cryme Time was so tall. He's billed at 6' 7 and it looks like it might be legit.
JT said on 15/Feb/09
Great find Vegas. I think Batista could eek out another inch if he stood straight to get to around 6'3". JBL and General Odierno look the identical height to me in that one pic.

Here's a video of the WWE with General Odierno that includes a few more pics Click Here
Vegas said on 15/Feb/09
jbls big head of hair is giving the illusion of being taller however his eye-line is level with the generals, jbl imo is 6'5, thats what he was listed at in pro-football in both the nfl with the la raiders and the world league of american football with the san antonio riders, he was listed at 6'6 in college football
topdweeb said on 15/Feb/09
Vegas: nice find! And I know from being in the U.S. Air Force myself, that the military takes very accurate measurements of height. So there is no dispute that that General is a legitimate 6' 5. I think based on these pics, it also confirms that JBL is a legit 6' 6. Man, I wish Jason were still around to see how wrong he was for pegging Big Show at 6' 8. Again, the General height is about as much fact as you can get considering that this is the military measuring. And incase anyone is wondering, the military measures us in barefeet, not in our boots.
Alex said on 15/Feb/09
Batista looks barely taller than Cena who I believe is 6'0 1/2. Even if Cena was 6'1 like some say that puts Batista at 6'1 1/2. That is not even an inch between the 2. I dont think Batista is that short but shows how some pictures show other things. I've seen Batista as much as 2 inches taller than Cena before too.
Atoadaso said on 15/Feb/09
If Mike is standing on flat feet, and is actually 6'1.5", then I would be only about 3.5" inches shorter than Big Show... yeah right. In the REAL world, this is not the case. I think it's fairly clear this photo is not an accurate representation of Big Show's height. In my opinion, he is on his toes, based on the composition of their bodies within view. Mike would have disproportionately long legs, for as you can see their inseams are more or less lined up equally. There is many other photos that can be used to demonstrate what his true height is that hold much more validity, so one of those should be used. This page is mostly in regards to a debate on this photo.
Clay said on 14/Feb/09
Im saying this photo is just deceiving thats all Mike is slightly closer to the camera, is OBVIOUSLY standing at least on one foot only, which adds an inch - if not his tippy toes all together. Big Show is standing straight either, as always.
topdweeb said on 14/Feb/09
Alex: Vegas said that the picture isn't up here because he doesn't have permission from his friend to put it on here. I'm actually surprised with as much controversy there is of the pic of mike and the Big Show, that it still remains. I mean, can anyone truly just simply send Rob some random pic with the celeb, claim an unverified height and he'll post it? What kind of screening for accuracy is that? mike isn't even in the very least around anymore to answer anything.
Alex said on 14/Feb/09
Mike would be 6'4-6'4.5 when you compare it to the picture of Big Show and Vegas's 6'4 friend. I am suprised that the picture of Big Show and Vegas' 6'4 friend isn't on top of this page too.
topdweeb said on 14/Feb/09
JT: my comment was meant to be taken in sarcasm. Meaning that if mike is really only about 6' 1.75 and he stands this tall to the Big Show, then I'd love to see how tall a 6' 8 man would stand. The comparison you did assumes an approx 6' 5 mike, as Tenta is barely taller than him.
JT said on 13/Feb/09
topdweeb says on 13/Feb/09
Clay: if that's how tall a 6' 2 man stands to someone who is 6' 11.5, then I would love to see how a 6' 8 man would have stacked up
Clay said on 13/Feb/09
I think Mike may be on his tippy toes on his right foot, while his left foot is flat on the ground, but that still adds height.
topdweeb said on 13/Feb/09
Clay: if that's how tall a 6' 2 man stands to someone who is 6' 11.5, then I would love to see how a 6' 8 man would have stacked up. Besides, JT has already down a comparison between this photo and the one of Vegas' 6' 4 friend, and the Big Show has the same posture in both pics, and mike edged the 6' 4 guy out by about an inch. mike has to be on his toes if he is only the described height or the ground isn't level.
topdweeb said on 13/Feb/09
Danimal: mike also said he was flat footed, the ground was level, and there's nothing suspicious about the photo. I don't see why we can believe him when he says he is 6' 1.75" if he is obviously lying about the photo not being suspicious.
Danimal said on 12/Feb/09
Mike also claimed to be 6'1 3/4", not 6'1.5". I don't know why Rob hasn't changed his height. Anyways, just by looking at the picture, it looks obvious to me that Mike is standing on his tippy toes.
Clay said on 12/Feb/09
This really isnt that big of a deal. Even if Mike is 6'2, I still see the Showster at 6'11-6'11.5 in this photo which is what I think he is anyways.
Big Show said on 12/Feb/09
Alex says on 11/Feb/09
See anybody can post a picture with someone and claim a random height that they want. For all we know Mike can be downgrading himself by a few inches to make Big Show seem shorter than he really is. You never know.

Yet Mike claimed Big Show looked 6'11, so it's not like he was deliberately trying to downgrade him. If he wanted to do that he could just claim Big Show looked 6'9. His picture would then confirm his claim. Now his picture defies his own claim, so I don't think Mike was lying about his height. I think there are other factors at play which made Big Show look shorter than he is and are simply unnoticed by Mike.
Alex said on 11/Feb/09
See anybody can post a picture with someone and claim a random height that they want. For all we know Mike can be downgrading himself by a few inches to make Big Show seem shorter than he really is. You never know.
topdweeb said on 11/Feb/09
Red: no mike claimed that they were on level ground, he was being truthful about his height, and he also claims that he was in no way raising up or anything. In other words, mike claimed that there is nothing to be suspicious about.
topdweeb said on 11/Feb/09
nick: we are missing much more than an inch considering that fact that in the comparison, Mike edges out Vegas' 6' 4 friend in height by about an inch. So, even if we were to round mike up to 6' 2, we still have 3 inches that are unaccounted for. Heck, if I only knew that Vegas' friend was 6' 4 and knew nothing about mike, I would have said that mike was about 6' 5.

JT is absolutely right, Big Show posture is virtually identical in both pics. Again, the fundamental flaw in your Photoshopped pics is that they aren't the originals, they are your interpretation of what you think a legit comparison between the two would look like. Only problem is, that pic with Vegas' friend shows Big Show's posture is virtually identical, so we can logically conclude that either mike is lying about his height, or he is on his toes, or the ground isn't level.

Taking the pic for what it is, there is no way a 6' 1.5 or even 6' 2 would stand that tall to a 7' man if the the ground was level and both were standing flat footed... I don't even care if Big Show is slouching, he should not be that short to someone he is supposed to be more than 10 inches taller than.
nick said on 11/Feb/09
nice comparsisn although i still thin their is a lafd inch andvanchage to the mike polture if stiiod strainght and vegas's firend looks like he can squeeze an in + if he has mikes pocture, all we are missing is is anch, which can come from fotwear etc
topdweeb said on 11/Feb/09
JT: ahh, good point, yes, you're right, his posture is very similar to the pic with Vegas' 6' 4 friend. Quite simply that pic above just isn't accurate. Either mike is raised up on his toes, or the ground isn't level, or something.
JT said on 10/Feb/09
Nick, there's no indication that Big Show is slouching in the photo with "Mike." His posture is similar to that in the photo with Vegas's 6'4" friend Click Here
mike said on 10/Feb/09
want to see tall check out igor vavinsky,he,s 7'8" a true giant.
nick said on 9/Feb/09
sorry JT but that photo you did is really inaccurate. You actually made the slouching big show taller than the big show with his chin up, which only brings mike up taller in comparison to vince. If you made the slouching big show (photo with mike) and the top of his head roughly a half inch below the erect posture bigshows hairline mike would climb down and be alsmost vinces height but about an inch taller. Mike is already a half inch taller than vince anyway so it proves nothing. Try comparing the erect photoshopped photo i made that logically assumes big shows height if he stood really straight Click Here
Also i have a another photo to show all of you.

Here is a 6'2 man compared to the 7'1 great khali. The great khali has weak posture much like the big show and look how high he comes on his face. Click Here

Remember you cannot even make a direct comparison with those two photos, however,in my opionion my photo is the best comparison you can make. JT you probobly did yours fairly quickly without calculating his near 2 inch loss of posture and also the half inch you actually gave the slouching big show (which makes mike appear taller) and the half inch may actually have over vince in the first place. It really is a tricky photo, but its real.
Anonymous said on 9/Feb/09
big show, foley and rock, if show is only 6ft 7 like jason says what height rock 5'10?? Click Here
Red said on 9/Feb/09
Cena is not shorter than 6
Ghost said on 9/Feb/09
I don't think Vince is even 6'1 today, he is the same height as Cena.
JT said on 8/Feb/09
Here was Chris
topdweeb said on 8/Feb/09
Alex: you know what, now that you mention it, mike does look like he is on his toes. And, just as an experiment, I measured myself on my toes and I am approximately 3 inches taller if I do that. If you remember, JT has compared the pic above with the one of Vegas's 6' 4 friend, and mike was about an inch taller than Vegas's friend, making mike appear to be 6' 5. mike claims that he wasn't on his toes, but I think he was. His posture looks weird. And it's not uncommon for people to try to raise up to get as much height as possible when they are getting their pic taken with someone who is so much taller.
Danimal said on 8/Feb/09
ancient Aztec Guy says on 7/Feb/09
Well JT I am not sure if show did have the footwear advantage over Vince, because Vince was wearing those thick dress shoes, unless show's shoes are thicker than I thought they were. But in that pic with vince (around 1999, with big show at his peak) I would say 7'1" if not then he was very close to it.

Wow, I actually agree with this.
KingNick said on 7/Feb/09
JT, excellent pics. That shot with Show and Vince is especially good b/c there are no camera advantages for either one.

To me, Show was a 7' peak. He was billed 7'4" in WCW and I do believe his shoes gave him an extra boost to make him appear closer to the billing.

Now I think he's 6'11" and his boots make him around 7'0.5". I'm open to him possibly being a full 7' still. It's just hard to tell b/c he has such bad posture.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 7/Feb/09
Well JT I am not sure if show did have the footwear advantage over Vince, because Vince was wearing those thick dress shoes, unless show's shoes are thicker than I thought they were. But in that pic with vince (around 1999, with big show at his peak) I would say 7'1" if not then he was very close to it.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 7/Feb/09
In the picture JT sent of vince and big show, show is easily a head taller than vince, or maybe more. How tall is vince 6'1 ish maybe 6'1.5".
topdweeb said on 7/Feb/09
JT: exactly, Vince is just about as tall as "mike" is. And look how much taller Big Show is than Vince, AND Big Show is slouching in that pic too. So, it's pretty obvious that there is something wrong with the pic above. What's funny is how much mental gymnastics people are doing to try to salvage that pic above. There is no salvaging it except to say that there is something inaccurate about its description which makes it so that we are not getting an accurate idea of the height of the Big Show.
Alex said on 7/Feb/09
Topdweeb, something is fishy. Mike could be on his tippy toes maybe. It also could be Mike is taller but is downgrading himself to make Big Show seem shorter. I could be wrong just a possibility. With Big Show at 7'0 I would have said Mike is more 6'4-6'5.
JT said on 7/Feb/09
Vince is roughly the height of Mike in the photo above. Click Here Big Show probably has at most a 1/2
miko said on 6/Feb/09
Big Show and Hulk Hogan from 2007.

Click Here
topdweeb said on 6/Feb/09
There's one major problem with that pic nick photoshopped: it's not the original. That's how he *THINKS* it would be if the Big Show was standing straight. Like it or not, Big Show simply does not look 7' in the picture above. I do think he is 7' in real life, but there's something fishy about that pic and I think there is something else at play other than Big Show simply slouching.
KingNick said on 5/Feb/09
John Tenta and Typhoon Click Here

Not sure if this is photoshopped or legit but here's another pic Click Here

Jake the Snake vs. Earthquake Click Here

Hulk Hogan vs. Earthquake Click Here there's also a VERY interesting height comparison between Hulk and Boss Man in the beginning (another one at 8:28)

Hulk Hogan and Tugboat/Typhoon Click Here
Ray said on 5/Feb/09
Nick: nice pics; the middle one is how it would be if Show was in proper posture. I can't believe that above photo with Mike caused so much stir since it's obvious to me Show is leaning down and back and probably has knee bent.
tuga said on 5/Feb/09
Ola says on 31/Jan/09
tuga, sting was shorter than the 6'1 1/2 warrior, not much but still shorter.

Ola, you
mike said on 5/Feb/09
andre was very athletic during his younger years but slowed down cosiderably later on due to back surjery and acromegaly.
nick said on 4/Feb/09
Click Here
nick said on 4/Feb/09
matt, if the guy in the above photo was 6'4 show would be at around 7'1+. Mike is close to 6'2 and in the photo big show is at 6'10. This is because of his posture if he stood up straight with his chin up he would clear the top of the photo and mike would be about at mid lip. Just look at how much taller the top of the photo is than mike, its about 10 inches taller. It really is an illusion, iv posted this picture of a projected big show standing straight like 50 times already lol. Also from a distance you can really respect ow much taller the big show is than a near 6'2 man better than when the picture is so large like it is on this site.

The photo shows the original picture with mike and at a distance (picture being smaller) you get a better idea of how much taller he is than a near 6'2 mike. Then i have a projected situation where if the big show stood as straight as possible you can clearly see he is a 7 footer, then there is a photo with a 6'6 big show next to mike. Remember the big show is leaning in and bending down slightly, also i believe he is leaning on is back foot (his right leg) diminishing a little more height. I took all of this into account when making the projected height.

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.

Page was generated in 0.11507511138916