Add a Comment6945 comments
Average Guess (862 Votes)
6ft 11.94in (213.2cm)
6ft 11.94in (213.2cm)
JT said on 10/Aug/17
Studd wasn't any taller than OMG Click Here
Click Here Studd looks to be cowboy boots given the pointy toe; OMG in tennis shows.
Studd wasn't any taller than OMG Click Here
Click Here Studd looks to be cowboy boots given the pointy toe; OMG in tennis shows.
Vegas said on 10/Aug/17
The best Studd and OMG comparison takes place towards the end of the 89 rumble
The best Studd and OMG comparison takes place towards the end of the 89 rumble
Capt. Nobody said on 9/Aug/17
Average Guess (229 Votes)
7ft 0.19in (213.9cm)
Logic said on 8/Aug/17
Was John Studd a littler taller than the One Man Gang/Akeem? Here is a face to face photo of the two of them. OMG is standing relatively straight but Studd has his knees bent quite a bit and Studd still looks like he is a little taller.
Click Here
Are there any good or better photos of the two of them face to face?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good shot there.
I'm fairly sure that's the consensus. In the matches with OMG it's hard to find any really great comps due to the fact that both men seemed to always kind of hunch over in a heelish manner while moving in the ring. Studds also a tough one to gauge at times because he seemed to rarely lift his head up fully. Both he and Andre had more of a hulking presence in that way.
I think you have Tenta with OMG being a bit taller than him, and Studd being a bit taller than OMG.
Average Guess (229 Votes)
7ft 0.19in (213.9cm)
Logic said on 8/Aug/17
Was John Studd a littler taller than the One Man Gang/Akeem? Here is a face to face photo of the two of them. OMG is standing relatively straight but Studd has his knees bent quite a bit and Studd still looks like he is a little taller.
Click Here
Are there any good or better photos of the two of them face to face?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good shot there.
I'm fairly sure that's the consensus. In the matches with OMG it's hard to find any really great comps due to the fact that both men seemed to always kind of hunch over in a heelish manner while moving in the ring. Studds also a tough one to gauge at times because he seemed to rarely lift his head up fully. Both he and Andre had more of a hulking presence in that way.
I think you have Tenta with OMG being a bit taller than him, and Studd being a bit taller than OMG.
Chaz said on 9/Aug/17
Logic said on 8/Aug/17
Was John Studd a littler taller than the One Man Gang/Akeem? Here is a face to face photo of the two of them. OMG is standing relatively straight but Studd has his knees bent quite a bit and Studd still looks like he is a little taller.
Click Here
Are there any good or better photos of the two of them face to face?
OMG is standing relatively straight! lol he's legs are going back,and he's being pushed down,
He's dead straight in the Big Shown photo and looking up and stretching to look taller.Studd OMG and Viscera,were all in the 198-99cm range,without the big heels and in the 203cm with them.
Logic said on 8/Aug/17
Was John Studd a littler taller than the One Man Gang/Akeem? Here is a face to face photo of the two of them. OMG is standing relatively straight but Studd has his knees bent quite a bit and Studd still looks like he is a little taller.
Click Here
Are there any good or better photos of the two of them face to face?
OMG is standing relatively straight! lol he's legs are going back,and he's being pushed down,
He's dead straight in the Big Shown photo and looking up and stretching to look taller.Studd OMG and Viscera,were all in the 198-99cm range,without the big heels and in the 203cm with them.
dicksock said on 9/Aug/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 8/Aug/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 6/Aug/17
Giant Big Show in Big footwear was about an inch taller than old Andre - fact
Click Here
Andre definitly lost some height
Click Here
__________________
You're first picture there is amazing. But as you noticed, Andre's knees are bent and his back is still hunched and he's still only an inch or so shorter than a peak Big Show with beyond perfect posture. Andre's real height loss was due to his posture. If he could've straightened up like Show, he would have been roughly the same height. The second pic with Studd is a bit off in my opinion. There are far better examples that show he didn't lose any real height. He looked the same height next to 5'11" Bobby Heenan in the late 80s as he did next to 5'10-5'11" Chief Jay in the mid 70s. Just look at the interview with him and 6'1" Frank Valois from 1974. No way was he more than 10" taller and that is being pretty generous. He looked no more than 9" taller than 6'2" Tony Atlas in 1983. Yet, he still looked a whole head taller than 5'11" Bobby Heenan in 1990 when he stood at straight as he could. My point is that he was never more than 6'11", even in 1974, and he could still look 6'11" in the late 80s/early 90s. I don't see how that is possible if lost more than about .25".
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 8/Aug/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 6/Aug/17
Giant Big Show in Big footwear was about an inch taller than old Andre - fact
Click Here
Andre definitly lost some height
Click Here
__________________
You're first picture there is amazing. But as you noticed, Andre's knees are bent and his back is still hunched and he's still only an inch or so shorter than a peak Big Show with beyond perfect posture. Andre's real height loss was due to his posture. If he could've straightened up like Show, he would have been roughly the same height. The second pic with Studd is a bit off in my opinion. There are far better examples that show he didn't lose any real height. He looked the same height next to 5'11" Bobby Heenan in the late 80s as he did next to 5'10-5'11" Chief Jay in the mid 70s. Just look at the interview with him and 6'1" Frank Valois from 1974. No way was he more than 10" taller and that is being pretty generous. He looked no more than 9" taller than 6'2" Tony Atlas in 1983. Yet, he still looked a whole head taller than 5'11" Bobby Heenan in 1990 when he stood at straight as he could. My point is that he was never more than 6'11", even in 1974, and he could still look 6'11" in the late 80s/early 90s. I don't see how that is possible if lost more than about .25".
Logic said on 8/Aug/17
Was John Studd a littler taller than the One Man Gang/Akeem? Here is a face to face photo of the two of them. OMG is standing relatively straight but Studd has his knees bent quite a bit and Studd still looks like he is a little taller.
Click Here
Are there any good or better photos of the two of them face to face?
Was John Studd a littler taller than the One Man Gang/Akeem? Here is a face to face photo of the two of them. OMG is standing relatively straight but Studd has his knees bent quite a bit and Studd still looks like he is a little taller.
Click Here
Are there any good or better photos of the two of them face to face?
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 8/Aug/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 6/Aug/17
Giant Big Show in Big footwear was about an inch taller than old Andre - fact
Click Here
Andre definitly lost some height
Click Here
Andre in max 2.5"boots wasn´t shorter than Wilt in ~1" boots
Click Here
If Wilt was 7´0.5" evening in 84, Andre was 6´11"
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 6/Aug/17
Giant Big Show in Big footwear was about an inch taller than old Andre - fact
Click Here
Andre definitly lost some height
Click Here
Andre in max 2.5"boots wasn´t shorter than Wilt in ~1" boots
Click Here
If Wilt was 7´0.5" evening in 84, Andre was 6´11"
dicksock said on 7/Aug/17
JT said on 7/Aug/17
whenever there’s a full body video of Andre where his footwear can be seen 6’10” barefoot looks generous for him. Click Here although I think he may have hit that mark on a good day – Meltzer’s claim is probably spot on.
___________________________
Andre looked a minimum of 6'11" next to 6'-6'1" peak Bob Backlund in the mid 70s: Click Here
I met Bob in 2013 and I can tell you for a fact he was still around 6' even then; certainly a solid 5'11" at least. Both men have similar posture and Backlund has a slight footwear advantage of probably .25"-.5".
Regarding the Wight/OMG staredown, I really doubt the Gang had any footwear advantage. He teamed with 6'5.75" John Tenta around that same time and looked roughly the same height. I think the truth is that Wight was around 6'11.5" and OMG was 6'6". I don't know how you can think Nash and Andre were the same height, when Andre was about 2" taller than Tyler Mane in 1990 and Nash was pretty much the same height as Mane in WCW.
Here's Hogan in the 80s with the Gang: Click Here
Here's a good comparison of Hogan and Andre with Andre at a slight footwear disadvantage: Click Here
Most evidence I've seen shows Andre to have been around 6'11" barefoot and maybe 7'1" in big cowboy boots.
JT said on 7/Aug/17
whenever there’s a full body video of Andre where his footwear can be seen 6’10” barefoot looks generous for him. Click Here although I think he may have hit that mark on a good day – Meltzer’s claim is probably spot on.
___________________________
Andre looked a minimum of 6'11" next to 6'-6'1" peak Bob Backlund in the mid 70s: Click Here
I met Bob in 2013 and I can tell you for a fact he was still around 6' even then; certainly a solid 5'11" at least. Both men have similar posture and Backlund has a slight footwear advantage of probably .25"-.5".
Regarding the Wight/OMG staredown, I really doubt the Gang had any footwear advantage. He teamed with 6'5.75" John Tenta around that same time and looked roughly the same height. I think the truth is that Wight was around 6'11.5" and OMG was 6'6". I don't know how you can think Nash and Andre were the same height, when Andre was about 2" taller than Tyler Mane in 1990 and Nash was pretty much the same height as Mane in WCW.
Here's Hogan in the 80s with the Gang: Click Here
Here's a good comparison of Hogan and Andre with Andre at a slight footwear disadvantage: Click Here
Most evidence I've seen shows Andre to have been around 6'11" barefoot and maybe 7'1" in big cowboy boots.
JT said on 7/Aug/17
whenever there’s a full body video of Andre where his footwear can be seen 6’10” barefoot looks generous for him. Click Here although I think he may have hit that mark on a good day – Meltzer’s claim is probably spot on.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Dicksock, that video’s been posted several times here. One Man Gang wore Kane-style boots there which put him around 6’8” in boots. Click Here In those boots, he comes out a little taller next to Big Show than Giant Haystacks did and 2+ inches taller than Hogan did Click Here
whenever there’s a full body video of Andre where his footwear can be seen 6’10” barefoot looks generous for him. Click Here although I think he may have hit that mark on a good day – Meltzer’s claim is probably spot on.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Dicksock, that video’s been posted several times here. One Man Gang wore Kane-style boots there which put him around 6’8” in boots. Click Here In those boots, he comes out a little taller next to Big Show than Giant Haystacks did and 2+ inches taller than Hogan did Click Here
Guanzo said on 6/Aug/17
Stop uploading pictures in photobucket. 3rd party error.
Editor Rob
Stop uploading pictures in photobucket. 3rd party error.
Editor Rob photobucket changed their terms recently, so anybody who uploaded stuff and didn't pay their yearly fee is kind of scuppered.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 6/Aug/17
Giant Big Show in Big footwear was about an inch taller than old Andre - fact
Click Here
Andre definitly lost some height
Click Here
Andre in max 2.5"boots wasn´t shorter than Wilt in ~1" boots
Click Here
If Wilt was 7´0.5" evening in 84, Andre was 6´11"
Giant Big Show in Big footwear was about an inch taller than old Andre - fact
Click Here
Andre definitly lost some height
Click Here
Andre in max 2.5"boots wasn´t shorter than Wilt in ~1" boots
Click Here
If Wilt was 7´0.5" evening in 84, Andre was 6´11"
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 5/Aug/17
Here is Big Show with ~1" more footwear facing Strowman, 6´10.5" seems generous
Click Here
Here is Big Show with ~1" more footwear facing Strowman, 6´10.5" seems generous
Click Here
Dan Chernau said on 4/Aug/17
Andre at a 41 inseam fwiw.
Andre at a 41 inseam fwiw.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 4/Aug/17
****sock said on 4/Aug/17
Here is a staredown I am sure very few have seen: Click Here
It is between Paul Wight and the roughly 6'6" One Man Gang.
**************************************************************
If I put OMG at 199cm there, Giant comes out at 212cm but high chance of footwearadvantage.
Regarding Andre:
1971 214cm early morning, 211cm evening
1980 213cm early morning, 210cm evening
1987 212cm early morning, 209cm evening
1991 210cm early morning, 208cm evening
Andre had an unhealthy lifestyle, wrestling bumps, overweight, bad posture, alcoholic... big chance for early heightloss
****sock said on 4/Aug/17
Here is a staredown I am sure very few have seen: Click Here
It is between Paul Wight and the roughly 6'6" One Man Gang.
**************************************************************
If I put OMG at 199cm there, Giant comes out at 212cm but high chance of footwearadvantage.
Regarding Andre:
1971 214cm early morning, 211cm evening
1980 213cm early morning, 210cm evening
1987 212cm early morning, 209cm evening
1991 210cm early morning, 208cm evening
Andre had an unhealthy lifestyle, wrestling bumps, overweight, bad posture, alcoholic... big chance for early heightloss
62B. said on 4/Aug/17
****sock said on 4/Aug/17
Here is a staredown I am sure very few have seen: Click Here
It is between Paul Wight and the roughly 6'6" One Man Gang. Starting at around 1:18:17, you'll see a perfect comparison of their heights. It is about the same difference as Hogan and Andre. The Gang/Akeem was less than 1" taller than Hogan in the 80s. Wight and Gang seem to have similar footwear as well. This pretty much confirms in my mind there was less than an inch between a peak Andre and a peak Paul Wight. Wight may have edged him out only because the top of his head was taller.
______________________________________________________________________________
I would like to meet Paul Wight. Bases on the pictures of Paul with Shaq I doubt he is any taller than the Andre I saw in 1988. So it would be cool to be able to judge in person. As far as a young Paul Wight, the only times he looked for sure taller than a young Andre to me is when he had some serious soles on his boots.
****sock said on 4/Aug/17
Here is a staredown I am sure very few have seen: Click Here
It is between Paul Wight and the roughly 6'6" One Man Gang. Starting at around 1:18:17, you'll see a perfect comparison of their heights. It is about the same difference as Hogan and Andre. The Gang/Akeem was less than 1" taller than Hogan in the 80s. Wight and Gang seem to have similar footwear as well. This pretty much confirms in my mind there was less than an inch between a peak Andre and a peak Paul Wight. Wight may have edged him out only because the top of his head was taller.
______________________________________________________________________________
I would like to meet Paul Wight. Bases on the pictures of Paul with Shaq I doubt he is any taller than the Andre I saw in 1988. So it would be cool to be able to judge in person. As far as a young Paul Wight, the only times he looked for sure taller than a young Andre to me is when he had some serious soles on his boots.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 4/Aug/17
****sock said on 4/Aug/17
The Gang/Akeem was less than 1" taller than Hogan in the 80s. Wight and Gang seem to have similar footwear as well.
*****************************
OMG was the same height as John Tenta when they teamed, Wight is in his normal giant boots, so he clearly has an advantage.
Here is Big Show with ~1" more footwear facing Strowman, 6´10.5" seems generous
****sock said on 4/Aug/17
The Gang/Akeem was less than 1" taller than Hogan in the 80s. Wight and Gang seem to have similar footwear as well.
*****************************
OMG was the same height as John Tenta when they teamed, Wight is in his normal giant boots, so he clearly has an advantage.
Here is Big Show with ~1" more footwear facing Strowman, 6´10.5" seems generous
dicksock said on 4/Aug/17
Here is a staredown I am sure very few have seen: Click Here
It is between Paul Wight and the roughly 6'6" One Man Gang. Starting at around 1:18:17, you'll see a perfect comparison of their heights. It is about the same difference as Hogan and Andre. The Gang/Akeem was less than 1" taller than Hogan in the 80s. Wight and Gang seem to have similar footwear as well. This pretty much confirms in my mind there was less than an inch between a peak Andre and a peak Paul Wight. Wight may have edged him out only because the top of his head was taller.
Here is a staredown I am sure very few have seen: Click Here
It is between Paul Wight and the roughly 6'6" One Man Gang. Starting at around 1:18:17, you'll see a perfect comparison of their heights. It is about the same difference as Hogan and Andre. The Gang/Akeem was less than 1" taller than Hogan in the 80s. Wight and Gang seem to have similar footwear as well. This pretty much confirms in my mind there was less than an inch between a peak Andre and a peak Paul Wight. Wight may have edged him out only because the top of his head was taller.
ReturnofG said on 2/Aug/17
I've seen too much proof that a peak Andre would hit just over 7'1. He pretty much had the same height on many of the same people with Big Show, and Big Show in his very thick soled boots.
I've seen too much proof that a peak Andre would hit just over 7'1. He pretty much had the same height on many of the same people with Big Show, and Big Show in his very thick soled boots.
Capt. Nobody said on 2/Aug/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 31/Jul/17
NCL said on 26/Jul/17
****sock said on 22/Jul/17
There is no way Undertaker was anymore than 1" taller than Viscera. That picture of them is not really the best evidence.
*************************
The camera level should be higher than the Top of their heads, so the lines could show more gap than it would be...
Click Here
Agree maximum 1" between Taker and Viscera if Viscera stands straight, most likely only 2cm.
King Mabel looked exactly the same height next to Kevin Nash as Sid...
Click Here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously footwear is key in all comparisons related to Mabel, but in that one on one match with OMG it looked like OMG was a bit taller than Mabel, or they were at least around the same height. So, in going back to Studd who was around the same height or even a little taller than OMG what are we looking at now?
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 31/Jul/17
NCL said on 26/Jul/17
****sock said on 22/Jul/17
There is no way Undertaker was anymore than 1" taller than Viscera. That picture of them is not really the best evidence.
*************************
The camera level should be higher than the Top of their heads, so the lines could show more gap than it would be...
Click Here
Agree maximum 1" between Taker and Viscera if Viscera stands straight, most likely only 2cm.
King Mabel looked exactly the same height next to Kevin Nash as Sid...
Click Here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously footwear is key in all comparisons related to Mabel, but in that one on one match with OMG it looked like OMG was a bit taller than Mabel, or they were at least around the same height. So, in going back to Studd who was around the same height or even a little taller than OMG what are we looking at now?
LG69 said on 2/Aug/17
@Dero, most NBA players listed heights are with shoes on, and then rounded up. For example, a "7 footer" can actually be 6'10.5" barefoot, and 6'11.5" with shoes. If he gets drafted, the team will typically list him at 7'0. Check out NBA pre draft measurements. They show players heights barefoot, and with shoes on. Most players are 1-2" shorter than their listed heights.
@Dero, most NBA players listed heights are with shoes on, and then rounded up. For example, a "7 footer" can actually be 6'10.5" barefoot, and 6'11.5" with shoes. If he gets drafted, the team will typically list him at 7'0. Check out NBA pre draft measurements. They show players heights barefoot, and with shoes on. Most players are 1-2" shorter than their listed heights.
Chaz said on 2/Aug/17
Dero said on 2/Aug/17
Do you think 7ft is still a common height. I'm looking at some unfamous basketball players and many are listed at 7ft or more (David Mockaitis for exemple). Do you think that listening are exagerrated or just it's still common ?
Exageratted.the chance of being exactly 7' is so low as not to be very likely.there are 67 millon people in the UK and only about 30 are saying they are 7'+ most so called 7 footers are in the 6'9.5-11.5'' range,
Dero said on 2/Aug/17
Do you think 7ft is still a common height. I'm looking at some unfamous basketball players and many are listed at 7ft or more (David Mockaitis for exemple). Do you think that listening are exagerrated or just it's still common ?
Exageratted.the chance of being exactly 7' is so low as not to be very likely.there are 67 millon people in the UK and only about 30 are saying they are 7'+ most so called 7 footers are in the 6'9.5-11.5'' range,
Dero said on 2/Aug/17
Do you think 7ft is still a common height. I'm looking at some unfamous basketball players and many are listed at 7ft or more (David Mockaitis for exemple). Do you think that listening are exagerrated or just it's still common ?
Do you think 7ft is still a common height. I'm looking at some unfamous basketball players and many are listed at 7ft or more (David Mockaitis for exemple). Do you think that listening are exagerrated or just it's still common ?
dicksock said on 1/Aug/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 31/Jul/17
****sock said on 29/Jul/17
Yet even in 1980, he had absolutely no more than 6" on 6'5"-6'5.5" Hulk Hogan and 6" is being generous.
*******************************************************************************************************
I still have to see a pic/vid of peak Andre standing as straight as possible next to Hogan but I agree
with the ~6´11.25" height for Andre.
Andre was wrestling more than a decade before he faced Hogan the first time, always a possibility to lose a bit height especially for a very tall 400+ lbs guy.
____________________
He was in pretty good shape during that time though. He said he didn't even stop growing until 1970/1971. So you're telling me you think he could have lost height during those 9 years after he stopped growing? He was only 36 in 1980. No 36 year old starts shrinking. That is absurd. I doubt he was over 400 lbs for most of that period. He was definitely under 400 lbs by 1974. For further proof he was never a legit 7', just look at him next to his 6'1" manager Frank Valois: Click Here
Frank was pretty old and overweight by then, so if we're talking about height loss, he may have lost some height by then. Do you see more than 10" between them? I sure don't. That is a young 28 year old Andre and he's no more than 375 lbs. He is clearly no more than 6'11" next to Frank. Also, there are pretty good odds that interview was taped in the afternoon.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 31/Jul/17
****sock said on 29/Jul/17
Yet even in 1980, he had absolutely no more than 6" on 6'5"-6'5.5" Hulk Hogan and 6" is being generous.
*******************************************************************************************************
I still have to see a pic/vid of peak Andre standing as straight as possible next to Hogan but I agree
with the ~6´11.25" height for Andre.
Andre was wrestling more than a decade before he faced Hogan the first time, always a possibility to lose a bit height especially for a very tall 400+ lbs guy.
____________________
He was in pretty good shape during that time though. He said he didn't even stop growing until 1970/1971. So you're telling me you think he could have lost height during those 9 years after he stopped growing? He was only 36 in 1980. No 36 year old starts shrinking. That is absurd. I doubt he was over 400 lbs for most of that period. He was definitely under 400 lbs by 1974. For further proof he was never a legit 7', just look at him next to his 6'1" manager Frank Valois: Click Here
Frank was pretty old and overweight by then, so if we're talking about height loss, he may have lost some height by then. Do you see more than 10" between them? I sure don't. That is a young 28 year old Andre and he's no more than 375 lbs. He is clearly no more than 6'11" next to Frank. Also, there are pretty good odds that interview was taped in the afternoon.
JT said on 1/Aug/17
Click Here
mrtguy said on 29/Jul/17
Rob, when you see both Andre and Big Show next to Hogan, doesn't the truth prove that Andre had a bigger head??
Click Here you notice the bottom Andre's chin is lower than Hogan and the top of his head is higher
Click Here with Big Show it's not the case
A head titled down will always looks larger than it really is and is further amplified when the other guy’s head is titled back. Andre’s and Big Show’s head sizes were close Click Here Andre’s head was longer from the eyes down and Big Show’s longer from the eyes up
Click Here
mrtguy said on 29/Jul/17
Rob, when you see both Andre and Big Show next to Hogan, doesn't the truth prove that Andre had a bigger head??
Click Here you notice the bottom Andre's chin is lower than Hogan and the top of his head is higher
Click Here with Big Show it's not the case
A head titled down will always looks larger than it really is and is further amplified when the other guy’s head is titled back. Andre’s and Big Show’s head sizes were close Click Here Andre’s head was longer from the eyes down and Big Show’s longer from the eyes up
miko said on 1/Aug/17
Correct Chaz, it was 4.5/5' at the very most from the late 70's all the way to the late 80's. At no point could Andre see over Hogans head unless he raised his eyeline.
Hulk was somewhere between 6'5/6'5.5 and Andre was around 6'10.25/6'10.5 IMO, and could get close to 7'0 in his biggest monster cowboy boots, or on a box backstage.
Big Show was close to 7'0 barefoot at his tallest.
Correct Chaz, it was 4.5/5' at the very most from the late 70's all the way to the late 80's. At no point could Andre see over Hogans head unless he raised his eyeline.
Hulk was somewhere between 6'5/6'5.5 and Andre was around 6'10.25/6'10.5 IMO, and could get close to 7'0 in his biggest monster cowboy boots, or on a box backstage.
Big Show was close to 7'0 barefoot at his tallest.
Chaz said on 1/Aug/17
Andre never had any 6'' on Hogan at any time,the 6'' point on Andre's face is just over the tip of he's nose,and Hogan comes up to the eyes.so 4.5-5'' at most.
Andre never had any 6'' on Hogan at any time,the 6'' point on Andre's face is just over the tip of he's nose,and Hogan comes up to the eyes.so 4.5-5'' at most.
62B. said on 1/Aug/17
****sock said on 29/Jul/17
62B. said on 28/Jul/17
****sock said on 26/Jul/17
I'll say Studd was maybe a tiny bit above 6'6"; like 6'6.25" and Andre was an even 6'11" at his tallest.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Naa. Peak Andre was probably the full 7'0".
_______________________-
Yet even in 1980, he had absolutely no more than 6" on 6'5"-6'5.5" Hulk Hogan and 6" is being generous. I haven't seen a video where Andre legitimately looks 7' next to someone. He always looked 6'11"/6'11.5" at best.
______________________________________
Maybe. but in person in 1988 when he stood straight up, 6'11" just seems right to me, based on other really tall people I have seen in person. I figure based on my own height loss and factoring in Andre's extreme poor posture and heavy head, that he probably lost between 3/4" and 1" of true height loss at that time. For sure his posture could make him appear shorter in pictures. Also I saw him early in the day, so maybe he was a bit taller than he would have been if I had seen him in the evening.
______________________
@ Guanzo. He was definitely taller than 6'8"
****sock said on 29/Jul/17
62B. said on 28/Jul/17
****sock said on 26/Jul/17
I'll say Studd was maybe a tiny bit above 6'6"; like 6'6.25" and Andre was an even 6'11" at his tallest.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Naa. Peak Andre was probably the full 7'0".
_______________________-
Yet even in 1980, he had absolutely no more than 6" on 6'5"-6'5.5" Hulk Hogan and 6" is being generous. I haven't seen a video where Andre legitimately looks 7' next to someone. He always looked 6'11"/6'11.5" at best.
______________________________________
Maybe. but in person in 1988 when he stood straight up, 6'11" just seems right to me, based on other really tall people I have seen in person. I figure based on my own height loss and factoring in Andre's extreme poor posture and heavy head, that he probably lost between 3/4" and 1" of true height loss at that time. For sure his posture could make him appear shorter in pictures. Also I saw him early in the day, so maybe he was a bit taller than he would have been if I had seen him in the evening.
______________________
@ Guanzo. He was definitely taller than 6'8"
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 31/Jul/17
****sock said on 29/Jul/17
Yet even in 1980, he had absolutely no more than 6" on 6'5"-6'5.5" Hulk Hogan and 6" is being generous.
*******************************************************************************************************
I still have to see a pic/vid of peak Andre standing as straight as possible next to Hogan but I agree
with the ~6´11.25" height for Andre.
Andre was wrestling more than a decade before he faced Hogan the first time, always a possibility to lose a bit height especially for a very tall 400+ lbs guy.
****sock said on 29/Jul/17
Yet even in 1980, he had absolutely no more than 6" on 6'5"-6'5.5" Hulk Hogan and 6" is being generous.
*******************************************************************************************************
I still have to see a pic/vid of peak Andre standing as straight as possible next to Hogan but I agree
with the ~6´11.25" height for Andre.
Andre was wrestling more than a decade before he faced Hogan the first time, always a possibility to lose a bit height especially for a very tall 400+ lbs guy.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 31/Jul/17
NCL said on 26/Jul/17
****sock said on 22/Jul/17
There is no way Undertaker was anymore than 1" taller than Viscera. That picture of them is not really the best evidence.
*************************
The camera level should be higher than the Top of their heads, so the lines could show more gap than it would be...
Click Here
Agree maximum 1" between Taker and Viscera if Viscera stands straight, most likely only 2cm.
King Mabel looked exactly the same height next to Kevin Nash as Sid...
Click Here
NCL said on 26/Jul/17
****sock said on 22/Jul/17
There is no way Undertaker was anymore than 1" taller than Viscera. That picture of them is not really the best evidence.
*************************
The camera level should be higher than the Top of their heads, so the lines could show more gap than it would be...
Click Here
Agree maximum 1" between Taker and Viscera if Viscera stands straight, most likely only 2cm.
King Mabel looked exactly the same height next to Kevin Nash as Sid...
Click Here
dicksock said on 30/Jul/17
Here is a match I've never seen before from June, 1977 with Andre and Chief Jay Strongbow:
Click Here
If you pause at 25:15/25:16, you'll see a perfect comparison of Jay and Andre. Both men are lined up and standing as straight as possible. They have equal footwear and Andre was in his prime. Andre was a whole head taller or about a foot taller. Chief was billed at 6' but was likely less as he looked about the same height as Bruno Sammartino, Larry Zbyszko, and Tatanka, all of whom were under 6'.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
It's also interesting that he stacked up the same with the roughly 5'11" Chief Jay in 1977 as he did with the roughly 5'11" Bobby Heenan in 1987-1990. This pretty much destroys any notion of significant height loss for Andre. He was never more than 6'11"/6'11.5". The only time he may have been 7' is right out of bed.
Here is a match I've never seen before from June, 1977 with Andre and Chief Jay Strongbow:
Click Here
If you pause at 25:15/25:16, you'll see a perfect comparison of Jay and Andre. Both men are lined up and standing as straight as possible. They have equal footwear and Andre was in his prime. Andre was a whole head taller or about a foot taller. Chief was billed at 6' but was likely less as he looked about the same height as Bruno Sammartino, Larry Zbyszko, and Tatanka, all of whom were under 6'.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
It's also interesting that he stacked up the same with the roughly 5'11" Chief Jay in 1977 as he did with the roughly 5'11" Bobby Heenan in 1987-1990. This pretty much destroys any notion of significant height loss for Andre. He was never more than 6'11"/6'11.5". The only time he may have been 7' is right out of bed.
dicksock said on 29/Jul/17
62B. said on 28/Jul/17
****sock said on 26/Jul/17
I'll say Studd was maybe a tiny bit above 6'6"; like 6'6.25" and Andre was an even 6'11" at his tallest.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Naa. Peak Andre was probably the full 7'0".
_______________________-
Yet even in 1980, he had absolutely no more than 6" on 6'5"-6'5.5" Hulk Hogan and 6" is being generous. I haven't seen a video where Andre legitimately looks 7' next to someone. He always looked 6'11"/6'11.5" at best.
62B. said on 28/Jul/17
****sock said on 26/Jul/17
I'll say Studd was maybe a tiny bit above 6'6"; like 6'6.25" and Andre was an even 6'11" at his tallest.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Naa. Peak Andre was probably the full 7'0".
_______________________-
Yet even in 1980, he had absolutely no more than 6" on 6'5"-6'5.5" Hulk Hogan and 6" is being generous. I haven't seen a video where Andre legitimately looks 7' next to someone. He always looked 6'11"/6'11.5" at best.
mrtguy said on 29/Jul/17
Rob, when you see both Andre and Big Show next to Hogan, doesn't the truth prove that Andre had a bigger head??
Click Here you notice the bottom Andre's chin is lower than Hogan and the top of his head is higher
Click Here with Big Show it's not the case
Rob, when you see both Andre and Big Show next to Hogan, doesn't the truth prove that Andre had a bigger head??
Click Here you notice the bottom Andre's chin is lower than Hogan and the top of his head is higher
Click Here with Big Show it's not the case
62B. said on 28/Jul/17
****sock said on 26/Jul/17
I'll say Studd was maybe a tiny bit above 6'6"; like 6'6.25" and Andre was an even 6'11" at his tallest.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Naa. Peak Andre was probably the full 7'0".
****sock said on 26/Jul/17
I'll say Studd was maybe a tiny bit above 6'6"; like 6'6.25" and Andre was an even 6'11" at his tallest.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-
Naa. Peak Andre was probably the full 7'0".
dicksock said on 28/Jul/17
Capt. Nobody said on 27/Jul/17
So there's a huge difference between 6'6.5" and 6'7"?
_____________
No, there is not. But if you read the last sentence of that paragraph, you'd know that I said, "Taker would have been at least 1" taller than Studd." The Undertaker was very clearly taller next to Bundy than Studd was. Studd was probably closer to 6'6" than 6'6.5" and Undertaker was probably closer to 6'7.5" than 6'7". But, Studd is another hard one to pin down just because at times he did look 6'7", but he too often looked less. It's hard to say, but all things considered, I will still say Undertaker would have been about 1" taller than John Studd. Not a huge difference, but a somewhat noticeable one.
Capt. Nobody said on 27/Jul/17
So there's a huge difference between 6'6.5" and 6'7"?
_____________
No, there is not. But if you read the last sentence of that paragraph, you'd know that I said, "Taker would have been at least 1" taller than Studd." The Undertaker was very clearly taller next to Bundy than Studd was. Studd was probably closer to 6'6" than 6'6.5" and Undertaker was probably closer to 6'7.5" than 6'7". But, Studd is another hard one to pin down just because at times he did look 6'7", but he too often looked less. It's hard to say, but all things considered, I will still say Undertaker would have been about 1" taller than John Studd. Not a huge difference, but a somewhat noticeable one.
JT said on 28/Jul/17
Click Here
Dicksock, Hogan was a good deal closer in height to Andre than Hall was to Big Show.
Click Here Click Here Click Here
Click Here
Dicksock, Hogan was a good deal closer in height to Andre than Hall was to Big Show.
Click Here Click Here Click Here
Capt. Nobody said on 27/Jul/17
****sock said on 26/Jul/17
How come people are saying Studd and Taker would have been about the same height? Look at the gaps in the Bundy comparisons. Undertaker was very clearly taller next to Bundy than Studd was. Taker had nearly 4" on Bundy, and Studd had about 2.5". Undertaker was probably 6'7/6'7.5" at his peak and Studd was about 6'6"/6'.5". Bundy was probably around 6'3.5". Taker would have been at least 1" taller than Studd.
Click Here
Look at 1:09 for the best comparison. Bundy came up to the middle of his forehead. Of course a 6'6"/6'6.5" John Studd completely rules out a 7' Andre as Andre never had 5.5"-6" on Studd. Andre was more like 4-5" taller than Studd at best. That puts him at 6'10"-6'11.5". I'll say Studd was maybe a tiny bit above 6'6"; like 6'6.25" and Andre was an even 6'11" at his tallest.
-----------------------------------------
So there's a huge difference between 6'6.5" and 6'7"?
****sock said on 26/Jul/17
How come people are saying Studd and Taker would have been about the same height? Look at the gaps in the Bundy comparisons. Undertaker was very clearly taller next to Bundy than Studd was. Taker had nearly 4" on Bundy, and Studd had about 2.5". Undertaker was probably 6'7/6'7.5" at his peak and Studd was about 6'6"/6'.5". Bundy was probably around 6'3.5". Taker would have been at least 1" taller than Studd.
Click Here
Look at 1:09 for the best comparison. Bundy came up to the middle of his forehead. Of course a 6'6"/6'6.5" John Studd completely rules out a 7' Andre as Andre never had 5.5"-6" on Studd. Andre was more like 4-5" taller than Studd at best. That puts him at 6'10"-6'11.5". I'll say Studd was maybe a tiny bit above 6'6"; like 6'6.25" and Andre was an even 6'11" at his tallest.
-----------------------------------------
So there's a huge difference between 6'6.5" and 6'7"?
dicksock said on 27/Jul/17
Since we're talking about guys on their tip toes in staredowns, take a look at this match: Click Here
It's 6'5" Scott Hall in a match with Paul Wight from 1998. When Hall is on his tip toes, he looks only a couple inches shorter than Wight. At 3:41 it seems like Hall got back to a normal stance and the difference between them is similar to the difference between Hogan and Andre (when Andre stood straight). If anything, Andre was taller next to Hogan. Either way, it is a cool clip that I'm sure some here haven't seen.
Since we're talking about guys on their tip toes in staredowns, take a look at this match: Click Here
It's 6'5" Scott Hall in a match with Paul Wight from 1998. When Hall is on his tip toes, he looks only a couple inches shorter than Wight. At 3:41 it seems like Hall got back to a normal stance and the difference between them is similar to the difference between Hogan and Andre (when Andre stood straight). If anything, Andre was taller next to Hogan. Either way, it is a cool clip that I'm sure some here haven't seen.
NCL said on 26/Jul/17
****sock said on 22/Jul/17
NCL: Don't forget that Kane had similar size heels on his boots, so Viscera wasn't really getting a footwear advantage in that staredown. Look at the picture you posted where it shows Kane's heels. They're huge and that is from the same time as the staredown. Viscera was about 6'6/6'6.5" and Kane was 6'7". There is no way Undertaker was anymore than 1" taller than Viscera. That picture of them is not really the best evidence.
You're right, I think that pic I showed may have been from a different match. See this video and pause at 5:08 Click Here Big Daddy V appears to me to have the footwear advantage. You can see Kane's boots too. Staredown is right in the beginning.
In regards to Undertaker and Mabel, here is the video of the match. You can see their footwear pretty clearly throughout most of it but a good shot is at 6:44 Click Here the staredown is about 6:08-6:13. Footwear looks comparable to me
****sock said on 22/Jul/17
NCL: Don't forget that Kane had similar size heels on his boots, so Viscera wasn't really getting a footwear advantage in that staredown. Look at the picture you posted where it shows Kane's heels. They're huge and that is from the same time as the staredown. Viscera was about 6'6/6'6.5" and Kane was 6'7". There is no way Undertaker was anymore than 1" taller than Viscera. That picture of them is not really the best evidence.
You're right, I think that pic I showed may have been from a different match. See this video and pause at 5:08 Click Here Big Daddy V appears to me to have the footwear advantage. You can see Kane's boots too. Staredown is right in the beginning.
In regards to Undertaker and Mabel, here is the video of the match. You can see their footwear pretty clearly throughout most of it but a good shot is at 6:44 Click Here the staredown is about 6:08-6:13. Footwear looks comparable to me
Capt. Nobody said on 26/Jul/17
Logic said on 25/Jul/17
Capt. Nobody said on 24/Jul/17
In looking at the Taker/Bundy and Bundy/Studd shots and comparing some Hogan/Taker, Hogan/Studd shots I think Taker and Studd look right around the same area height wise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Studd and the Undertaker were about the same height then here is how Studd would have measured up to Kevin Nash.
Click Here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In checking out some Jake the Snake comps I'm seeing roughly the same thing. Jake obviously wore pretty thick soled boots to get up to their range though. There certainly wouldn't have been much height difference between Taker and Studd in my estimation.
Logic said on 25/Jul/17
Capt. Nobody said on 24/Jul/17
In looking at the Taker/Bundy and Bundy/Studd shots and comparing some Hogan/Taker, Hogan/Studd shots I think Taker and Studd look right around the same area height wise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Studd and the Undertaker were about the same height then here is how Studd would have measured up to Kevin Nash.
Click Here
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In checking out some Jake the Snake comps I'm seeing roughly the same thing. Jake obviously wore pretty thick soled boots to get up to their range though. There certainly wouldn't have been much height difference between Taker and Studd in my estimation.
dicksock said on 26/Jul/17
How come people are saying Studd and Taker would have been about the same height? Look at the gaps in the Bundy comparisons. Undertaker was very clearly taller next to Bundy than Studd was. Taker had nearly 4" on Bundy, and Studd had about 2.5". Undertaker was probably 6'7/6'7.5" at his peak and Studd was about 6'6"/6'.5". Bundy was probably around 6'3.5". Taker would have been at least 1" taller than Studd.
Click Here
Look at 1:09 for the best comparison. Bundy came up to the middle of his forehead. Of course a 6'6"/6'6.5" John Studd completely rules out a 7' Andre as Andre never had 5.5"-6" on Studd. Andre was more like 4-5" taller than Studd at best. That puts him at 6'10"-6'11.5". I'll say Studd was maybe a tiny bit above 6'6"; like 6'6.25" and Andre was an even 6'11" at his tallest.
How come people are saying Studd and Taker would have been about the same height? Look at the gaps in the Bundy comparisons. Undertaker was very clearly taller next to Bundy than Studd was. Taker had nearly 4" on Bundy, and Studd had about 2.5". Undertaker was probably 6'7/6'7.5" at his peak and Studd was about 6'6"/6'.5". Bundy was probably around 6'3.5". Taker would have been at least 1" taller than Studd.
Click Here
Look at 1:09 for the best comparison. Bundy came up to the middle of his forehead. Of course a 6'6"/6'6.5" John Studd completely rules out a 7' Andre as Andre never had 5.5"-6" on Studd. Andre was more like 4-5" taller than Studd at best. That puts him at 6'10"-6'11.5". I'll say Studd was maybe a tiny bit above 6'6"; like 6'6.25" and Andre was an even 6'11" at his tallest.
62B. said on 26/Jul/17
Dan Chernau said on 25/Jul/17
7'2", I'd put my perm up against it.
__________________________________________--
Ready to shave your head? :) He was to much shorter than the 7'3ish Rick Smits for me to believe he was ever over 7'. And at the very best he was the same height in cowboy boots as 7'.05" Wilt was in a more normal heeled boot.
Dan Chernau said on 25/Jul/17
7'2", I'd put my perm up against it.
__________________________________________--
Ready to shave your head? :) He was to much shorter than the 7'3ish Rick Smits for me to believe he was ever over 7'. And at the very best he was the same height in cowboy boots as 7'.05" Wilt was in a more normal heeled boot.
David Banner said on 26/Jul/17
@Baba that photo is a bad judge of the height difference between Andre and Studd. The photo angle is tilted in Andre's favor plus Andre is on his tip toes.
@Baba that photo is a bad judge of the height difference between Andre and Studd. The photo angle is tilted in Andre's favor plus Andre is on his tip toes.
Baba said on 25/Jul/17
Here is a different photo of John Studd and Andre that some of you may have not seen.
Click Here
How much taller is Andre than Studd in that photo?
Here is a different photo of John Studd and Andre that some of you may have not seen.
Click Here
How much taller is Andre than Studd in that photo?
Dan Chernau said on 25/Jul/17
7'2", I'd put my perm up against it.
7'2", I'd put my perm up against it.
Logic said on 25/Jul/17
Capt. Nobody said on 24/Jul/17
In looking at the Taker/Bundy and Bundy/Studd shots and comparing some Hogan/Taker, Hogan/Studd shots I think Taker and Studd look right around the same area height wise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Studd and the Undertaker were about the same height then here is how Studd would have measured up to Kevin Nash.
Click Here
.
Capt. Nobody said on 24/Jul/17
In looking at the Taker/Bundy and Bundy/Studd shots and comparing some Hogan/Taker, Hogan/Studd shots I think Taker and Studd look right around the same area height wise.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Studd and the Undertaker were about the same height then here is how Studd would have measured up to Kevin Nash.
Click Here
.
dicksock said on 25/Jul/17
Chaz said on 25/Jul/17
He was more than 400lbs with those thick legs ass and hips,more in the 440-460 range.he's top is not very big,so makes him look less weight,but you need big legs hips and ass to be really heavy.
___________
Yes, he may have been over 400 lbs, but I did say at least 400lbs in the post you responded to. I disagree with the idea that his upper body wasn't that big. At his heaviest, he was as wide as a house. But, keep in mind he was billed at 348 lbs before he was King Kong Bundy. He didn't look dramatically smaller either. Click Here
During his first big run in WWF, I'll say he peaked at 400-420 and then slimmed down to around 360 by 1988. He was probably a under 400 for most of his career.
His upper body was huge at his biggest though.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Chaz said on 25/Jul/17
He was more than 400lbs with those thick legs ass and hips,more in the 440-460 range.he's top is not very big,so makes him look less weight,but you need big legs hips and ass to be really heavy.
___________
Yes, he may have been over 400 lbs, but I did say at least 400lbs in the post you responded to. I disagree with the idea that his upper body wasn't that big. At his heaviest, he was as wide as a house. But, keep in mind he was billed at 348 lbs before he was King Kong Bundy. He didn't look dramatically smaller either. Click Here
During his first big run in WWF, I'll say he peaked at 400-420 and then slimmed down to around 360 by 1988. He was probably a under 400 for most of his career.
His upper body was huge at his biggest though.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
JT said on 25/Jul/17
Chaz, Bundy had a wide upper body but didn’t have a huge gut. Click Here If I remember, Bundy was billed at 468 lbs. but looked quite a bit lighter than Andre when they wrestled in the mid-1980s. I think he was closer to 400-425 lbs. but would have been 450 lbs. or more if he had a big gut like the really obese wrestlers had.
Bundy’s on his tip toes Logic Click Here The curve of the heel at the back of the boot is too high compared to the toe for the sole to be flat on the mat. You can even see the shadow under his right boot in the screen cap you posted with Luger. The high camera angle in the screen cap with Luger also favors Bundy a bit as he's farther from the camera. Regardless, most here think Bundy was around 6’3” as do I.
Chaz, Bundy had a wide upper body but didn’t have a huge gut. Click Here If I remember, Bundy was billed at 468 lbs. but looked quite a bit lighter than Andre when they wrestled in the mid-1980s. I think he was closer to 400-425 lbs. but would have been 450 lbs. or more if he had a big gut like the really obese wrestlers had.
Bundy’s on his tip toes Logic Click Here The curve of the heel at the back of the boot is too high compared to the toe for the sole to be flat on the mat. You can even see the shadow under his right boot in the screen cap you posted with Luger. The high camera angle in the screen cap with Luger also favors Bundy a bit as he's farther from the camera. Regardless, most here think Bundy was around 6’3” as do I.
Chaz said on 25/Jul/17
****sock said on 24/Jul/17
It is a bit of an exaggeration to say Bundy was on his tip toes in those pics with Luger and Diesel, but he was slightly boosting himself without having the heels of his boots leave the mat. I've seen guys like John Studd and Brock Lesnar do this as well. It maybe gave him an extra .25". I tried it myself that's about the boost I got. Either way, Bundy was for sure at least 6'3" and could sometimes look taller. One thing I will say is that Andre appeared to have around 8" on him even when they were both in wrestling boots and about 9" when he had footwear advantage in that backstage interview I posted. I will also say Bundy was at least 400 lbs at his heaviest in 1985 and 1986.
He was more than 400lbs with those thick legs ass and hips,more in the 440-460 range.he's top is not very big,so makes him look less weight,but you need big legs hips and ass to be really heavy.
****sock said on 24/Jul/17
It is a bit of an exaggeration to say Bundy was on his tip toes in those pics with Luger and Diesel, but he was slightly boosting himself without having the heels of his boots leave the mat. I've seen guys like John Studd and Brock Lesnar do this as well. It maybe gave him an extra .25". I tried it myself that's about the boost I got. Either way, Bundy was for sure at least 6'3" and could sometimes look taller. One thing I will say is that Andre appeared to have around 8" on him even when they were both in wrestling boots and about 9" when he had footwear advantage in that backstage interview I posted. I will also say Bundy was at least 400 lbs at his heaviest in 1985 and 1986.
He was more than 400lbs with those thick legs ass and hips,more in the 440-460 range.he's top is not very big,so makes him look less weight,but you need big legs hips and ass to be really heavy.
Capt. Nobody said on 24/Jul/17
In looking at the Taker/Bundy and Bundy/Studd shots and comparing some Hogan/Taker, Hogan/Studd shots I think Taker and Studd look right around the same area height wise.
In looking at the Taker/Bundy and Bundy/Studd shots and comparing some Hogan/Taker, Hogan/Studd shots I think Taker and Studd look right around the same area height wise.
dicksock said on 24/Jul/17
It is a bit of an exaggeration to say Bundy was on his tip toes in those pics with Luger and Diesel, but he was slightly boosting himself without having the heels of his boots leave the mat. I've seen guys like John Studd and Brock Lesnar do this as well. It maybe gave him an extra .25". I tried it myself that's about the boost I got. Either way, Bundy was for sure at least 6'3" and could sometimes look taller. One thing I will say is that Andre appeared to have around 8" on him even when they were both in wrestling boots and about 9" when he had footwear advantage in that backstage interview I posted. I will also say Bundy was at least 400 lbs at his heaviest in 1985 and 1986.
It is a bit of an exaggeration to say Bundy was on his tip toes in those pics with Luger and Diesel, but he was slightly boosting himself without having the heels of his boots leave the mat. I've seen guys like John Studd and Brock Lesnar do this as well. It maybe gave him an extra .25". I tried it myself that's about the boost I got. Either way, Bundy was for sure at least 6'3" and could sometimes look taller. One thing I will say is that Andre appeared to have around 8" on him even when they were both in wrestling boots and about 9" when he had footwear advantage in that backstage interview I posted. I will also say Bundy was at least 400 lbs at his heaviest in 1985 and 1986.
62B. said on 24/Jul/17
Logic said on 23/Jul/17
Bundy and Lex Luger were very similar in height. Bundy may have been slightly taller.
Click Here
Click Here
______________________________
Bundy looks taller than Luger to me in that picture. Luger was absolutely not 6'3" in person when I saw him when he was in the NWA. I do think he wore lifts in the WWF
Logic said on 23/Jul/17
Bundy and Lex Luger were very similar in height. Bundy may have been slightly taller.
Click Here
Click Here
______________________________
Bundy looks taller than Luger to me in that picture. Luger was absolutely not 6'3" in person when I saw him when he was in the NWA. I do think he wore lifts in the WWF
Logic said on 23/Jul/17
Bundy is not standing on his tip toes with Luger. The soles of Bundy's shoes and the wrestling mat are basically the same color. So it may appear as he is standing on his tip toes because his shoe soles blend in with the mat and about all that you can see is the black part of his boot. But he if you look close you can see that Bundy is not standing on his tip toes there with Luger.
Here is the video so everybody can decide for themselves. You can see Bundy's soles starting around the 2:12 mark.
Click Here
Also at one point during the Nash vs Bundy match, Kevin Nash was standing on his tip toes in that stare down at the 1:04 mark.
Here's the link to the Bundy vs Kevin Nash match.
Click Here
Bundy's height is probably somewhere around 6' 3"- 6'3.5"
.
Bundy is not standing on his tip toes with Luger. The soles of Bundy's shoes and the wrestling mat are basically the same color. So it may appear as he is standing on his tip toes because his shoe soles blend in with the mat and about all that you can see is the black part of his boot. But he if you look close you can see that Bundy is not standing on his tip toes there with Luger.
Here is the video so everybody can decide for themselves. You can see Bundy's soles starting around the 2:12 mark.
Click Here
Also at one point during the Nash vs Bundy match, Kevin Nash was standing on his tip toes in that stare down at the 1:04 mark.
Here's the link to the Bundy vs Kevin Nash match.
Click Here
Bundy's height is probably somewhere around 6' 3"- 6'3.5"
.
the big show said on 23/Jul/17
lol andre the giant is 6'9 and ime 7'0
lol andre the giant is 6'9 and ime 7'0
JT said on 23/Jul/17
Bundy’s standing on his tip toes there with Luger as he was with Undertaker Click Here Kevin Nash was standing in about the same spot in the ring as Undertaker at that Royal Rumble event.
Click Here
Bundy’s standing on his tip toes there with Luger as he was with Undertaker Click Here Kevin Nash was standing in about the same spot in the ring as Undertaker at that Royal Rumble event.
Click Here
Logic said on 23/Jul/17
Bundy and Lex Luger were very similar in height. Bundy may have been slightly taller.
Click Here
Click Here
.
Bundy and Lex Luger were very similar in height. Bundy may have been slightly taller.
Click Here
Click Here
.
dicksock said on 22/Jul/17
NCL: Don't forget that Kane had similar size heels on his boots, so Viscera wasn't really getting a footwear advantage in that staredown. Look at the picture you posted where it shows Kane's heels. They're huge and that is from the same time as the staredown. Viscera was about 6'6/6'6.5" and Kane was 6'7". There is no way Undertaker was anymore than 1" taller than Viscera. That picture of them is not really the best evidence.
NCL: Don't forget that Kane had similar size heels on his boots, so Viscera wasn't really getting a footwear advantage in that staredown. Look at the picture you posted where it shows Kane's heels. They're huge and that is from the same time as the staredown. Viscera was about 6'6/6'6.5" and Kane was 6'7". There is no way Undertaker was anymore than 1" taller than Viscera. That picture of them is not really the best evidence.
NCL said on 22/Jul/17
With all the King Kong Bundy talk, I had to show this: Click Here Myself and King Kong Bundy from November 1999 indy show, I was about 14 at the time. Here's the program: Click Here
It's not the best photo for height 'cuz he's leaning down so much, but I wanted to post since everyone is talking about him. My honest impression at the time was 6'4". I have an uncle who's 6'4" and he looked about the same height to me. I was about 5'5" at the time I think. 6'3" or 6'3" and change is certainly possible for him in my opinion.
In regards to his staredowns with Undertaker, here are some good photos: Click Here and Click Here
Their shoes at the time: Click Here
I personally see a 4" difference between them. Look at the top of Undertaker's head, not the eye level
About King Kong Bundy, I remember him being really cool and I know an actor who worked with him on an indie film and felt the same!
In regards to Viscera, I don't know if he's the best to use for height photo comparisons. He's closer to the camera here: Click Here and he also tends to wear hefty footwear, which I think is why he's nearly the same height as Kane in this photo: Click Here
1995 he had normal shoes: Click Here
Mabel and Undertaker Click Here
Beyond that a lot of lifts:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Compare King Kong Bundy and 'Taker to 'Taker and Mabel: Click Here and Click Here
With all the King Kong Bundy talk, I had to show this: Click Here Myself and King Kong Bundy from November 1999 indy show, I was about 14 at the time. Here's the program: Click Here
It's not the best photo for height 'cuz he's leaning down so much, but I wanted to post since everyone is talking about him. My honest impression at the time was 6'4". I have an uncle who's 6'4" and he looked about the same height to me. I was about 5'5" at the time I think. 6'3" or 6'3" and change is certainly possible for him in my opinion.
In regards to his staredowns with Undertaker, here are some good photos: Click Here and Click Here
Their shoes at the time: Click Here
I personally see a 4" difference between them. Look at the top of Undertaker's head, not the eye level
About King Kong Bundy, I remember him being really cool and I know an actor who worked with him on an indie film and felt the same!
In regards to Viscera, I don't know if he's the best to use for height photo comparisons. He's closer to the camera here: Click Here and he also tends to wear hefty footwear, which I think is why he's nearly the same height as Kane in this photo: Click Here
1995 he had normal shoes: Click Here
Mabel and Undertaker Click Here
Beyond that a lot of lifts:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Compare King Kong Bundy and 'Taker to 'Taker and Mabel: Click Here and Click Here
day day said on 22/Jul/17
Andres tallest was 214cm he went down to 210 cm late in his career
Andres tallest was 214cm he went down to 210 cm late in his career
Mirko said on 22/Jul/17
He was my size
He was my size
Logic said on 21/Jul/17
Here is a photo of Bundy standing with Viscera (aka Mabel). Viscera appears to have about 3.5" or so on Bundy. Rob has Viscera at 6' 6.5"
Click Here
Studd and Viscera measure up very similar to Bundy. There probably isn't 1/2" height difference between Studd and Viscera.... if even that.
Click Here
Kane and Viscera stare down for comparison.
Click Here
Here is a photo of Bundy standing with Viscera (aka Mabel). Viscera appears to have about 3.5" or so on Bundy. Rob has Viscera at 6' 6.5"
Click Here
Studd and Viscera measure up very similar to Bundy. There probably isn't 1/2" height difference between Studd and Viscera.... if even that.
Click Here
Kane and Viscera stare down for comparison.
Click Here
Dustin said on 21/Jul/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 21/Jul/17
Click Here 18min onwards
Taker had about 3.5"-3.75" on Bundy, wich points to a less than 6´7.5" peak for Taker regarding eveningheight.
Studd looked 2.5"-3" taller than Bundy Click Here , Peak Hogan solid 2".
Bundy 6´3.5" means:
peak Hogan 6´5.5"
peak Studd 6´6"-6´6.5"
peak Taker 6´7"-6´7.25"
If you pause the video clip at 1:30, the height difference between Studd and Bundy and the height difference in the staredown between Undertaker and Bundy, (google the pic) is pretty similar. John Studd has an enormous head. thoughts?
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 21/Jul/17
Click Here 18min onwards
Taker had about 3.5"-3.75" on Bundy, wich points to a less than 6´7.5" peak for Taker regarding eveningheight.
Studd looked 2.5"-3" taller than Bundy Click Here , Peak Hogan solid 2".
Bundy 6´3.5" means:
peak Hogan 6´5.5"
peak Studd 6´6"-6´6.5"
peak Taker 6´7"-6´7.25"
If you pause the video clip at 1:30, the height difference between Studd and Bundy and the height difference in the staredown between Undertaker and Bundy, (google the pic) is pretty similar. John Studd has an enormous head. thoughts?
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 21/Jul/17
Click Here 18min onwards
Taker had about 3.5"-3.75" on Bundy, wich points to a less than 6´7.5" peak for Taker regarding eveningheight.
Studd looked 2.5"-3" taller than Bundy Click Here , Peak Hogan solid 2".
Bundy 6´3.5" means:
peak Hogan 6´5.5"
peak Studd 6´6"-6´6.5"
peak Taker 6´7"-6´7.25"
Click Here 18min onwards
Taker had about 3.5"-3.75" on Bundy, wich points to a less than 6´7.5" peak for Taker regarding eveningheight.
Studd looked 2.5"-3" taller than Bundy Click Here , Peak Hogan solid 2".
Bundy 6´3.5" means:
peak Hogan 6´5.5"
peak Studd 6´6"-6´6.5"
peak Taker 6´7"-6´7.25"
dicksock said on 20/Jul/17
In this clip Bundy and Studd looked pretty close in height. Studd looked maybe 2.5" taller at best and more like 2".
Click Here
In this clip Bundy and Studd looked pretty close in height. Studd looked maybe 2.5" taller at best and more like 2".
Click Here
Tyson said on 19/Jul/17
Peak height:
6'10.5 - 1.5/10
6'10.75 - 3.5/10
6'11 - 7/10
6'11.25 - 6/10
6'11.5 - 3/10
6'11.75 - 0.5/10
Peak height:
6'10.5 - 1.5/10
6'10.75 - 3.5/10
6'11 - 7/10
6'11.25 - 6/10
6'11.5 - 3/10
6'11.75 - 0.5/10
dicksock said on 19/Jul/17
RP said on 19/Jul/17
When Bundy stood with perfect posture vs Ted's perfect posture stance...Bundy was a 1/2" taller.
__________
Bundy may have been a tiny bit taller, but if you look at 1:55 into the video, they are the same height. This is maybe the only part of the video where they are lined up with identical posture. Assuming Ted was around 6'3", I can't give Bundy any more than 6'3.5" and more likely closer to 6'3". I've looked at quite a few videos of Bundy recently and I can't see him being more than 6'3.5" in any of them.
Here's a video of 6'3"/6'3.5" Bundy with Andre:
Click Here
RP said on 19/Jul/17
When Bundy stood with perfect posture vs Ted's perfect posture stance...Bundy was a 1/2" taller.
__________
Bundy may have been a tiny bit taller, but if you look at 1:55 into the video, they are the same height. This is maybe the only part of the video where they are lined up with identical posture. Assuming Ted was around 6'3", I can't give Bundy any more than 6'3.5" and more likely closer to 6'3". I've looked at quite a few videos of Bundy recently and I can't see him being more than 6'3.5" in any of them.
Here's a video of 6'3"/6'3.5" Bundy with Andre:
Click Here
JT said on 19/Jul/17
Click Here
King Kong Bundy looked around 3 inches shorter than Big John Studd and One Man Gang, around 2 inches shorter than Hogan, around 2 inches taller than JYD, and around 4 inches taller than Bobby Heenan so 6’3” is a good estimate for him.
Click Here Barkley’s around 6’6” when not slouching and actually looked taller next to Gene than Studd did.
Click Here
King Kong Bundy looked around 3 inches shorter than Big John Studd and One Man Gang, around 2 inches shorter than Hogan, around 2 inches taller than JYD, and around 4 inches taller than Bobby Heenan so 6’3” is a good estimate for him.
Click Here Barkley’s around 6’6” when not slouching and actually looked taller next to Gene than Studd did.
RP said on 19/Jul/17
When Bundy stood with perfect posture vs Ted's perfect posture stance...Bundy was a 1/2" taller.
When Bundy stood with perfect posture vs Ted's perfect posture stance...Bundy was a 1/2" taller.
62B. said on 18/Jul/17
Vegas said on 18/Jul/17
Clarke Duncan was shorter than 6'3 3/4 barefoot measured D Wade
_______________________
Any pictures?
Vegas said on 18/Jul/17
Clarke Duncan was shorter than 6'3 3/4 barefoot measured D Wade
_______________________
Any pictures?
Vegas said on 18/Jul/17
Clarke Duncan was shorter than 6'3 3/4 barefoot measured D Wade
Clarke Duncan was shorter than 6'3 3/4 barefoot measured D Wade
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 18/Jul/17
****sock said on 18/Jul/17
Here is an interview from 1988 with Bundy and 6'3" Ted Dibiase: Click Here
They look the same exact height.
************************************************************************
Yeah Bundy was solid 2" shorter than peak Hogan in the middle of the ring, so 6´3"-6´3.5" sounds right.
Click Here 3:30min onwards
DiBiase looks a tad shorter than KKB, always thought he was a weak 6´3" like 6´2.5"evening at his peak.
****sock said on 18/Jul/17
Here is an interview from 1988 with Bundy and 6'3" Ted Dibiase: Click Here
They look the same exact height.
************************************************************************
Yeah Bundy was solid 2" shorter than peak Hogan in the middle of the ring, so 6´3"-6´3.5" sounds right.
Click Here 3:30min onwards
DiBiase looks a tad shorter than KKB, always thought he was a weak 6´3" like 6´2.5"evening at his peak.
dicksock said on 18/Jul/17
Sometimes Bundy looked 6'3" and others he could look 6'4". My gut tells me he was more like 6'3". As for Michael Clarke Duncan, he was probably 6'4"-6'5" in his prime. It's not like there was a great comparison between him and Bundy in that clip anyway.
Here is an interview from 1988 with Bundy and 6'3" Ted Dibiase: Click Here
They look the same exact height.
Sometimes Bundy looked 6'3" and others he could look 6'4". My gut tells me he was more like 6'3". As for Michael Clarke Duncan, he was probably 6'4"-6'5" in his prime. It's not like there was a great comparison between him and Bundy in that clip anyway.
Here is an interview from 1988 with Bundy and 6'3" Ted Dibiase: Click Here
They look the same exact height.
aaronious said on 17/Jul/17
Jordan87, Michael Duncan Clarke never self-reported himself as 6'4". he said , 6'4"-6'5" in that interview Rotten Tomatoes interview, which means at the time, he was somewhere in between. when he was younger, he also used to say 6'5".
people lose height as they get older, and also Michael Duncan Clarke was a big time weight lifter when he was young, which he was in Married with Children, young and huge. he lost a ton of weight, and likely muscle mass, which believe it or not, affects your height. body builders and weight lifters are known to lose height when they stop listing and lose all the muscle mass. Look at Arnold Scwartzenegger, he was 6'1 5/8", as measured by Guinness in the 1970's, and he's easily 1.5"-2" shorter today.
MCD= 6'5" when he was in Married with Children. at the time of his death, i have know doubt he shrunk a little.
and FYI, Ive met KKB IRL twice. today, he's about 6'3.5", but he has terrible posture, and also lost a ton of weight, so a little height loss for him is likely as well.
Jordan87, Michael Duncan Clarke never self-reported himself as 6'4". he said , 6'4"-6'5" in that interview Rotten Tomatoes interview, which means at the time, he was somewhere in between. when he was younger, he also used to say 6'5".
people lose height as they get older, and also Michael Duncan Clarke was a big time weight lifter when he was young, which he was in Married with Children, young and huge. he lost a ton of weight, and likely muscle mass, which believe it or not, affects your height. body builders and weight lifters are known to lose height when they stop listing and lose all the muscle mass. Look at Arnold Scwartzenegger, he was 6'1 5/8", as measured by Guinness in the 1970's, and he's easily 1.5"-2" shorter today.
MCD= 6'5" when he was in Married with Children. at the time of his death, i have know doubt he shrunk a little.
and FYI, Ive met KKB IRL twice. today, he's about 6'3.5", but he has terrible posture, and also lost a ton of weight, so a little height loss for him is likely as well.
Chaz said on 17/Jul/17
Wrestler's are like live stunt men,that can also act,that is why they are used in films so much,you get two for the price of one.and like stunt men or woman they can get hurt or things can go wrong at any time.and more so with Wrestler's because you can't stop filming.it's a live fight.
Wrestler's are like live stunt men,that can also act,that is why they are used in films so much,you get two for the price of one.and like stunt men or woman they can get hurt or things can go wrong at any time.and more so with Wrestler's because you can't stop filming.it's a live fight.
dicksock said on 15/Jul/17
****sock said on 15/Jul/17
andre said on 14/Jul/17
in what year americans realized wrestling was staged rob?
Editor Rob: I think there are some who still think it's non scripted.
I mean the moves, skills and injuries are all real of course, it's a popular entertainment that millions enjoy.
__________________
The moves are real... come on Rob, give me a break. Wrestlers punch, kick, and put each other in submissions for real?? I know you're trying not to offend people but come on. Guys get hurt when they make mistakes, but pro wrestling is faker than Hillary Clinton's personality.
Editor Rob: the moves like the jumps, slams and throws...
______________
Yes, they are actually performing the moves. It's not special effects. But, they are in complete cooperation with one another and for the most part are landing on a bouncy ring that I've personally seen young children land on and not get hurt at all. I personally saw little kids jumping off the top rope at a TNA house show and they didn't get hurt at all. The only real hardship a pro wrestler faces is the travel schedule. They perform so often that they don't give their bodies a chance to properly rest. I love pro wrestling, but these guys are actors. They sell pain. Nothing they do seriously hurts. Of course there are guys like Mick Foley who destroyed their body, but most of them don't.
****sock said on 15/Jul/17
andre said on 14/Jul/17
in what year americans realized wrestling was staged rob?
Editor Rob: I think there are some who still think it's non scripted.
I mean the moves, skills and injuries are all real of course, it's a popular entertainment that millions enjoy.
__________________
The moves are real... come on Rob, give me a break. Wrestlers punch, kick, and put each other in submissions for real?? I know you're trying not to offend people but come on. Guys get hurt when they make mistakes, but pro wrestling is faker than Hillary Clinton's personality.
Editor Rob: the moves like the jumps, slams and throws...
______________
Yes, they are actually performing the moves. It's not special effects. But, they are in complete cooperation with one another and for the most part are landing on a bouncy ring that I've personally seen young children land on and not get hurt at all. I personally saw little kids jumping off the top rope at a TNA house show and they didn't get hurt at all. The only real hardship a pro wrestler faces is the travel schedule. They perform so often that they don't give their bodies a chance to properly rest. I love pro wrestling, but these guys are actors. They sell pain. Nothing they do seriously hurts. Of course there are guys like Mick Foley who destroyed their body, but most of them don't.
62B. said on 15/Jul/17
andre said on 14/Jul/17
in what year americans realized wrestling was staged rob?
Editor Rob: I think there are some who still think it's non scripted.
I mean the moves, skills and injuries are all real of course, it's a popular entertainment that millions enjoy.
___________________________________________
As a kid in the 1970's, most of us knew it was fake back then.
andre said on 14/Jul/17
in what year americans realized wrestling was staged rob?
Editor Rob: I think there are some who still think it's non scripted.
I mean the moves, skills and injuries are all real of course, it's a popular entertainment that millions enjoy.
___________________________________________
As a kid in the 1970's, most of us knew it was fake back then.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 15/Jul/17
****sock said on 15/Jul/17
...Guys get hurt when they make mistakes, but pro wrestling is faker than Hillary Clinton's personality.
********************************************************************************************************
Highly doubt that Hillaryous stuff, but I´m not a Trump fan either.
I enjoy pro-wrestling much more and you don´t only get hurt by mistake.
The BUMPS are real (superplex, lastride, jumping over the toprope out of the ring, just watch Mick Foleys stuff :) ),
the skills are real. Especially in fast sequenzes your timing has to fit.
In high spots your positioning has to fit, all infront of a live audience...
I like it and I wouldn´t want to see them fight real, because within a month the whole roster would´ve been destroyed.
****sock said on 15/Jul/17
...Guys get hurt when they make mistakes, but pro wrestling is faker than Hillary Clinton's personality.
********************************************************************************************************
Highly doubt that Hillaryous stuff, but I´m not a Trump fan either.
I enjoy pro-wrestling much more and you don´t only get hurt by mistake.
The BUMPS are real (superplex, lastride, jumping over the toprope out of the ring, just watch Mick Foleys stuff :) ),
the skills are real. Especially in fast sequenzes your timing has to fit.
In high spots your positioning has to fit, all infront of a live audience...
I like it and I wouldn´t want to see them fight real, because within a month the whole roster would´ve been destroyed.
dicksock said on 15/Jul/17
andre said on 14/Jul/17
in what year americans realized wrestling was staged rob?
Editor Rob: I think there are some who still think it's non scripted.
I mean the moves, skills and injuries are all real of course, it's a popular entertainment that millions enjoy.
__________________
The moves are real... come on Rob, give me a break. Wrestlers punch, kick, and put each other in submissions for real?? I know you're trying not to offend people but come on. Guys get hurt when they make mistakes, but pro wrestling is faker than Hillary Clinton's personality.
Editor Rob
andre said on 14/Jul/17
in what year americans realized wrestling was staged rob?
Editor Rob: I think there are some who still think it's non scripted.
I mean the moves, skills and injuries are all real of course, it's a popular entertainment that millions enjoy.
__________________
The moves are real... come on Rob, give me a break. Wrestlers punch, kick, and put each other in submissions for real?? I know you're trying not to offend people but come on. Guys get hurt when they make mistakes, but pro wrestling is faker than Hillary Clinton's personality.
Editor Rob the moves like the jumps, slams and throws...
dicksock said on 15/Jul/17
Danimal said on 13/Jul/17
****sock said on 19/Jun/17
Here we have official confirmation that Ron Reis was taller than Big Show in WCW:
Click Here
Big Show was barely shorter than Ron Reis in the mid 90's, when Big Show was 7'0.5"-7'1" legit:
Click Here
Click Here
A present day Big Show would be towered over by Ron Reis.
______________
Those are not legitimate comparisons. Reese was 7'1" and Big Show was maybe 6'11.5"-7'. I don't know how you think Show was over 7' when he was billed as 7' in 1999 by WWF! He was 7' at best and most likely closer to 6'11" like his father Andre... He is still at least 6'10.5" as he is 2.5" taller than 6'8" Big Cass. I'd say he went from 6'11.5" to 6'10.5" just like his father. It is truly amazing how you could think Show could have been 7'1" when even he himself admitted 7'1" BILLED Ron Reese was taller than him.
Danimal said on 13/Jul/17
****sock said on 19/Jun/17
Here we have official confirmation that Ron Reis was taller than Big Show in WCW:
Click Here
Big Show was barely shorter than Ron Reis in the mid 90's, when Big Show was 7'0.5"-7'1" legit:
Click Here
Click Here
A present day Big Show would be towered over by Ron Reis.
______________
Those are not legitimate comparisons. Reese was 7'1" and Big Show was maybe 6'11.5"-7'. I don't know how you think Show was over 7' when he was billed as 7' in 1999 by WWF! He was 7' at best and most likely closer to 6'11" like his father Andre... He is still at least 6'10.5" as he is 2.5" taller than 6'8" Big Cass. I'd say he went from 6'11.5" to 6'10.5" just like his father. It is truly amazing how you could think Show could have been 7'1" when even he himself admitted 7'1" BILLED Ron Reese was taller than him.
dicksock said on 14/Jul/17
Danimal said on 13/Jul/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Jul/17
Andre at his death was reported 6´10" and 550lbs, I think 550lbs was his maximum and he hit it different times from mid eighties to death.
peak height between 6´11" and 7´0".
It's been reported that Andre's maximum weight was 565 pounds.
_____________________
Who reported that? Andre himself said he got up to 560 lbs in late 1982. But obviously that is bs as I posted a video of him from late 1982 and he barely looked 400 lbs. Andre may have been at his heaviest in 1990. He was absolutely huge. Either 1990 or 1986 was him at his heaviest in my opinion. I would guess he was over 500 lbs legit. It's really hard to tell with him. I doubt he was ever over 550.
Danimal said on 13/Jul/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Jul/17
Andre at his death was reported 6´10" and 550lbs, I think 550lbs was his maximum and he hit it different times from mid eighties to death.
peak height between 6´11" and 7´0".
It's been reported that Andre's maximum weight was 565 pounds.
_____________________
Who reported that? Andre himself said he got up to 560 lbs in late 1982. But obviously that is bs as I posted a video of him from late 1982 and he barely looked 400 lbs. Andre may have been at his heaviest in 1990. He was absolutely huge. Either 1990 or 1986 was him at his heaviest in my opinion. I would guess he was over 500 lbs legit. It's really hard to tell with him. I doubt he was ever over 550.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 14/Jul/17
Danimal said on 13/Jul/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Jul/17
Andre at his death was reported 6´10" and 550lbs, I think 550lbs was his maximum and he hit it different times from mid eighties to death.
peak height between 6´11" and 7´0".
It's been reported that Andre's maximum weight was 565 pounds.
*****************************************************************
Yeah, I knew the number but couldn´t find a source... not impossible, but 300kg he never was for sure
Danimal said on 13/Jul/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Jul/17
Andre at his death was reported 6´10" and 550lbs, I think 550lbs was his maximum and he hit it different times from mid eighties to death.
peak height between 6´11" and 7´0".
It's been reported that Andre's maximum weight was 565 pounds.
*****************************************************************
Yeah, I knew the number but couldn´t find a source... not impossible, but 300kg he never was for sure
andre said on 14/Jul/17
in what year americans realized wrestling was staged rob?
Editor Rob
in what year americans realized wrestling was staged rob?
Editor Rob I think there are some who still think it's non scripted.
I mean the moves, skills and injuries are all real of course, it's a popular entertainment that millions enjoy.
I mean the moves, skills and injuries are all real of course, it's a popular entertainment that millions enjoy.
Danimal said on 13/Jul/17
****sock said on 19/Jun/17
Here we have official confirmation that Ron Reis was taller than Big Show in WCW:
Click Here
Big Show was barely shorter than Ron Reis in the mid 90's, when Big Show was 7'0.5"-7'1" legit:
Click Here
Click Here
A present day Big Show would be towered over by Ron Reis.
****sock said on 19/Jun/17
Here we have official confirmation that Ron Reis was taller than Big Show in WCW:
Click Here
Big Show was barely shorter than Ron Reis in the mid 90's, when Big Show was 7'0.5"-7'1" legit:
Click Here
Click Here
A present day Big Show would be towered over by Ron Reis.
Danimal said on 13/Jul/17
andre said on 6/Jul/17
can someone confirm me if andre weighted 300kilos at is max, what is andre max weight 1986 or 1993?
He never weighed 300 kilos. His max weight in kilos was said to have been 256 kilos (565 pounds).
andre said on 6/Jul/17
can someone confirm me if andre weighted 300kilos at is max, what is andre max weight 1986 or 1993?
He never weighed 300 kilos. His max weight in kilos was said to have been 256 kilos (565 pounds).
Danimal said on 13/Jul/17
even said on 7/Jul/17
7 feet exactly
weight = 520 pounds
His weight constantly changed. You do realize that, right?
even said on 7/Jul/17
7 feet exactly
weight = 520 pounds
His weight constantly changed. You do realize that, right?
Danimal said on 13/Jul/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Jul/17
Andre at his death was reported 6´10" and 550lbs, I think 550lbs was his maximum and he hit it different times from mid eighties to death.
peak height between 6´11" and 7´0".
It's been reported that Andre's maximum weight was 565 pounds.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Jul/17
Andre at his death was reported 6´10" and 550lbs, I think 550lbs was his maximum and he hit it different times from mid eighties to death.
peak height between 6´11" and 7´0".
It's been reported that Andre's maximum weight was 565 pounds.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Jul/17
Andre at his death was reported 6´10" and 550lbs, I think 550lbs was his maximum and he hit it different times from mid eighties to death.
peak height between 6´11" and 7´0".
Andre at his death was reported 6´10" and 550lbs, I think 550lbs was his maximum and he hit it different times from mid eighties to death.
peak height between 6´11" and 7´0".
Oanh said on 12/Jul/17
andre said on 6/Jul/17
can someone confirm me if andre weighted 300kilos at is max, what is andre max weight 1986 or 1993?
I can't confirm that, but based on the videos and photos of Andre, I think his heaviest weight was about 550lbs.
Rob, what is your guess on his max weight?
andre said on 6/Jul/17
can someone confirm me if andre weighted 300kilos at is max, what is andre max weight 1986 or 1993?
I can't confirm that, but based on the videos and photos of Andre, I think his heaviest weight was about 550lbs.
Rob, what is your guess on his max weight?
Jordan87 said on 11/Jul/17
AAronius,
MCD Was 6'4, he self Reported that. HE was at least an Inch SHorter than Kobe Bryant who was measured at 6'4-3/4.
If Bundy was an Inch SHorter than Him, he is 6'3 ;)
AAronius,
MCD Was 6'4, he self Reported that. HE was at least an Inch SHorter than Kobe Bryant who was measured at 6'4-3/4.
If Bundy was an Inch SHorter than Him, he is 6'3 ;)
aaronious said on 10/Jul/17
Logic, there's one issue with your Bundy/Elmer comparison. Bundy wasn't 6'3", he was 6'4" ;)
everyone is always trying to downgrade him, but in his prime, he was 6'4", all day long. watch married with children, he was less than an inch shorter than Michael Duncan Clarke, who was 6'5"
Logic, there's one issue with your Bundy/Elmer comparison. Bundy wasn't 6'3", he was 6'4" ;)
everyone is always trying to downgrade him, but in his prime, he was 6'4", all day long. watch married with children, he was less than an inch shorter than Michael Duncan Clarke, who was 6'5"
mark said on 8/Jul/17
andre is about 7.025 at peak 7.4
andre is about 7.025 at peak 7.4
even said on 7/Jul/17
7 feet exactly
weight = 520 pounds
7 feet exactly
weight = 520 pounds
dicksock said on 7/Jul/17
andre said on 6/Jul/17
can someone confirm me if andre weighted 300kilos at is max, what is andre max weight 1986 or 1993?
___________________
Andre never weighed 300 kg. That is about 660 lbs. At his heaviest he was probably more like 550 lbs or 250 kg. I'm sure he was heavier in 1985/1986 than 1993 because by 1993 his muscles had deteriorated by quite a bit. 560 lbs is the heaviest weight Andre has actually claimed for himself. When he was on David Letterman in January 1984, he said that 14 months prior he weighed 560 lbs. So that would mean his weight peaked in November 1982. I don't want to call Andre a liar, but there is no way in the world he was 560 lbs in Nov. 1982.
Here he is from Nov. 1982: Click Here
I doubt he even weighed 460 there. I'm sure he got over 500 lbs at his heaviest, but never more than 550 lbs. Hulk Hogan is the one who made up the ridiculous lie about Andre weighing close to 700 lbs at WM III. It's absolute garbage.
andre said on 6/Jul/17
can someone confirm me if andre weighted 300kilos at is max, what is andre max weight 1986 or 1993?
___________________
Andre never weighed 300 kg. That is about 660 lbs. At his heaviest he was probably more like 550 lbs or 250 kg. I'm sure he was heavier in 1985/1986 than 1993 because by 1993 his muscles had deteriorated by quite a bit. 560 lbs is the heaviest weight Andre has actually claimed for himself. When he was on David Letterman in January 1984, he said that 14 months prior he weighed 560 lbs. So that would mean his weight peaked in November 1982. I don't want to call Andre a liar, but there is no way in the world he was 560 lbs in Nov. 1982.
Here he is from Nov. 1982: Click Here
I doubt he even weighed 460 there. I'm sure he got over 500 lbs at his heaviest, but never more than 550 lbs. Hulk Hogan is the one who made up the ridiculous lie about Andre weighing close to 700 lbs at WM III. It's absolute garbage.
Chaz said on 7/Jul/17
andre said on 6/Jul/17
can someone confirm me if andre weighted 300kilos at is max, what is andre max weight 1986 or 1993?
Don't talk rubbish he was only said to be 540lbs at death when he was as fat as a pig.and could not stand or walk,and if the WWE say he's top weight was 520lbs he was not more than that in the ring,300kg is 661lbs that is more than Giant Haystacks,and Konishiki,the sumo wrestler.
andre said on 6/Jul/17
can someone confirm me if andre weighted 300kilos at is max, what is andre max weight 1986 or 1993?
Don't talk rubbish he was only said to be 540lbs at death when he was as fat as a pig.and could not stand or walk,and if the WWE say he's top weight was 520lbs he was not more than that in the ring,300kg is 661lbs that is more than Giant Haystacks,and Konishiki,the sumo wrestler.
andre said on 6/Jul/17
can someone confirm me if andre weighted 300kilos at is max, what is andre max weight 1986 or 1993?
can someone confirm me if andre weighted 300kilos at is max, what is andre max weight 1986 or 1993?
James said on 2/Jul/17
I think Andre was a legit 7'0 .but his body mass made him look shorter in the mid 80's
I think Andre was a legit 7'0 .but his body mass made him look shorter in the mid 80's
Logic said on 30/Jun/17
Andre and actor/writer Christopher Guest. Rob has Christopher Guest's height listed at 5'11". Andre appears to have about a foot on him. This photo was probably taken sometime in 1986.
Click Here
Click Here
.
Andre and actor/writer Christopher Guest. Rob has Christopher Guest's height listed at 5'11". Andre appears to have about a foot on him. This photo was probably taken sometime in 1986.
Click Here
Click Here
.
JT said on 29/Jun/17
mrtguy said on 27/Jun/17
….Giant Gonzalaz noggin had to be somewhere in 11 inch range (not quite 12), he didn't have a big head overall compared to his body. The first pic of his face next to lady which might be 8 inch range typically for a women show's it wasn't near a foot. His head was definitely smaller than Andre, Big Show and Khali
Click Here
The 50% percentile head length for a woman is around 8.6” Click Here Pam Anderson is above average height for a female so there’s no reason to believe her head length is anything less than the 50th percentile.
Click Here Gonzalez was well-proportioned so the size of his head did not stand out even though it was probably every bit as large as Andre’s or Big Show’s and larger than khali’s.
mrtguy said on 27/Jun/17
….Giant Gonzalaz noggin had to be somewhere in 11 inch range (not quite 12), he didn't have a big head overall compared to his body. The first pic of his face next to lady which might be 8 inch range typically for a women show's it wasn't near a foot. His head was definitely smaller than Andre, Big Show and Khali
Click Here
The 50% percentile head length for a woman is around 8.6” Click Here Pam Anderson is above average height for a female so there’s no reason to believe her head length is anything less than the 50th percentile.
Click Here Gonzalez was well-proportioned so the size of his head did not stand out even though it was probably every bit as large as Andre’s or Big Show’s and larger than khali’s.
mrtguy said on 27/Jun/17
JT said on 27/Jun/17
Jorge Gonzalez’s noggin had to be close to 12”. It just did not look that large since he was better proportioned than Andre or Big Show and much taller than them.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Gonzalez apparently tested negative for a pituitary tumor or excessive HGH when drafted by the Atlanta Hawks but was ultimately diagnosed with the tumor later in life.
Giant Gonzalaz noggin had to be somewhere in 11 inch range (not quite 12), he didn't have a big head overall compared to his body. The first pic of his face next to lady which might be 8 inch range typically for a women show's it wasn't near a foot. His head was definitely smaller than Andre, Big Show and Khali
JT said on 27/Jun/17
Jorge Gonzalez’s noggin had to be close to 12”. It just did not look that large since he was better proportioned than Andre or Big Show and much taller than them.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Gonzalez apparently tested negative for a pituitary tumor or excessive HGH when drafted by the Atlanta Hawks but was ultimately diagnosed with the tumor later in life.
Giant Gonzalaz noggin had to be somewhere in 11 inch range (not quite 12), he didn't have a big head overall compared to his body. The first pic of his face next to lady which might be 8 inch range typically for a women show's it wasn't near a foot. His head was definitely smaller than Andre, Big Show and Khali
Chaz said on 27/Jun/17
Click Here that is the longest face on record,of any giant measured Vaino Myllyrinne 30.5cm about 12.9''. also had 12.4'' hands.
Click Here that is the longest face on record,of any giant measured Vaino Myllyrinne 30.5cm about 12.9''. also had 12.4'' hands.
JT said on 27/Jun/17
Jorge Gonzalez’s noggin had to be close to 12”. It just did not look that large since he was better proportioned than Andre or Big Show and much taller than them.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Gonzalez apparently tested negative for a pituitary tumor or excessive HGH when drafted by the Atlanta Hawks but was ultimately diagnosed with the tumor later in life.
Jorge Gonzalez’s noggin had to be close to 12”. It just did not look that large since he was better proportioned than Andre or Big Show and much taller than them.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Gonzalez apparently tested negative for a pituitary tumor or excessive HGH when drafted by the Atlanta Hawks but was ultimately diagnosed with the tumor later in life.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 25/Jun/17
****sock said on 24/Jun/17
Old Haystacks was 6'6"-6'7" and old Andre was 6'10"-6'11". Peak Haystacks was 6'7"-6'8" and peak Andre was 6'11"-7' guaranteed.
____________________________________________
Adding peak Stan Frazier was full inch taller than peak Haystacks.
****sock said on 24/Jun/17
Old Haystacks was 6'6"-6'7" and old Andre was 6'10"-6'11". Peak Haystacks was 6'7"-6'8" and peak Andre was 6'11"-7' guaranteed.
____________________________________________
Adding peak Stan Frazier was full inch taller than peak Haystacks.
Chaz said on 24/Jun/17
****sock said on 24/Jun/17
Have you ever actually seen the Great Khali? His chin is insanely elongated; even more than Andre's. Don't forget that he didn't get his gigantism treated until he was about 40.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
You are right, he's face and chin has got the classic Acromegalic features,he's chin has got lots of over growth,so much so it bends rownd,all this 13'' rubbish needs to stop Andre's face was 11.75-12''
****sock said on 24/Jun/17
Have you ever actually seen the Great Khali? His chin is insanely elongated; even more than Andre's. Don't forget that he didn't get his gigantism treated until he was about 40.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
You are right, he's face and chin has got the classic Acromegalic features,he's chin has got lots of over growth,so much so it bends rownd,all this 13'' rubbish needs to stop Andre's face was 11.75-12''
dicksock said on 24/Jun/17
mrtguy said on 21/Jun/17
Rob, do you believe Andre's head was a little near 13(like 12.75''-13'') as his death was coming closer, his chin certainly looked much elongated compared to Show's and Khali's
______________________________
Have you ever actually seen the Great Khali? His chin is insanely elongated; even more than Andre's. Don't forget that he didn't get his gigantism treated until he was about 40.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
mrtguy said on 21/Jun/17
Rob, do you believe Andre's head was a little near 13(like 12.75''-13'') as his death was coming closer, his chin certainly looked much elongated compared to Show's and Khali's
______________________________
Have you ever actually seen the Great Khali? His chin is insanely elongated; even more than Andre's. Don't forget that he didn't get his gigantism treated until he was about 40.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Adijos said on 24/Jun/17
@Editor Rob: Maybe Andre was within 214 cm? Rob, can you argue for him the height of 7'0 and 1/4?
@Editor Rob: Maybe Andre was within 214 cm? Rob, can you argue for him the height of 7'0 and 1/4?
dicksock said on 24/Jun/17
Chaz said on 22/Jun/17
JT said on 20/Jun/17 Click Here (too bad the jockey’s not Willie Shoemaker)
No but Willie Carson was not much taller 5'tall,so gives a good idea.but that is a 50 year old Haystacks. Andre was only about 28-29 With Shoemaker.and clearly not 2' taller.
____________________
Old Haystacks was 6'6"-6'7" and old Andre was 6'10"-6'11". Peak Haystacks was 6'7"-6'8" and peak Andre was 6'11"-7' guaranteed.
Chaz said on 22/Jun/17
JT said on 20/Jun/17 Click Here (too bad the jockey’s not Willie Shoemaker)
No but Willie Carson was not much taller 5'tall,so gives a good idea.but that is a 50 year old Haystacks. Andre was only about 28-29 With Shoemaker.and clearly not 2' taller.
____________________
Old Haystacks was 6'6"-6'7" and old Andre was 6'10"-6'11". Peak Haystacks was 6'7"-6'8" and peak Andre was 6'11"-7' guaranteed.
JT said on 24/Jun/17
Chaz said on 22/Jun/17
JT said on 20/Jun/17 Click Here (too bad the jockey’s not Willie Shoemaker)
No but Willie Carson was not much taller 5'tall,so gives a good idea.but that is a 50 year old Haystacks. Andre was only about 28-29 With Shoemaker.and clearly not 2' taller.
Assuming Carson is legit 5'0" Click Here
Chaz said on 22/Jun/17
JT said on 20/Jun/17 Click Here (too bad the jockey’s not Willie Shoemaker)
No but Willie Carson was not much taller 5'tall,so gives a good idea.but that is a 50 year old Haystacks. Andre was only about 28-29 With Shoemaker.and clearly not 2' taller.
Assuming Carson is legit 5'0" Click Here
Chaz said on 22/Jun/17
JT said on 20/Jun/17 Click Here (too bad the jockey’s not Willie Shoemaker)
No but Willie Carson was not much taller 5'tall,so gives a good idea.but that is a 50 year old Haystacks. Andre was only about 28-29 With Shoemaker.and clearly not 2' taller.
JT said on 20/Jun/17 Click Here (too bad the jockey’s not Willie Shoemaker)
No but Willie Carson was not much taller 5'tall,so gives a good idea.but that is a 50 year old Haystacks. Andre was only about 28-29 With Shoemaker.and clearly not 2' taller.
mrtguy said on 21/Jun/17
Rob, do you believe Andre's head was a little near 13(like 12.75''-13'') as his death was coming closer, his chin certainly looked much elongated compared to Show's and Khali's and unlike Big Show he certainly had full head of hair so it would be harder to guess the distance from bottom his nose to the top of his head??
Editor Rob
Rob, do you believe Andre's head was a little near 13(like 12.75''-13'') as his death was coming closer, his chin certainly looked much elongated compared to Show's and Khali's and unlike Big Show he certainly had full head of hair so it would be harder to guess the distance from bottom his nose to the top of his head??
Editor Rob Andre's head size could be argued from 12 to 13 inches.
Duhon said on 20/Jun/17
How would Jaime Waylett's head compare to Andre's? Click Here
Editor Rob
How would Jaime Waylett's head compare to Andre's? Click Here
Editor Rob might not be much smaller, I think Waylett has a slightly bigger eye-top head range than Andre.
JT said on 20/Jun/17
Click Here with Jean Brisson (apparently a Canadian wrestling promoter)
Click Here with Briscoe Brothers
Giant Haystacks:
Click Here (too bad the jockey’s not Willie Shoemaker)
Click Here with Jean Brisson (apparently a Canadian wrestling promoter)
Click Here with Briscoe Brothers
Giant Haystacks:
Click Here (too bad the jockey’s not Willie Shoemaker)
62B said on 20/Jun/17
****sock said on 19/Jun/17
I came across a match of Hogan and Big Boss Man from 1995 and I found it strange that Boss Man looked the same height as Hogan:
Click Here
Pause at 8:53 for the perfect moment to judge their heights. In WWF Hogan looked at least an inch taller than Boss Man. I've always pegged Boss Man as 6'4" or a tad above. Hogan still looked like a solid 6'5" later in that same video when standing next to 6'3" Lex Luger. Luger was wearing cowboy boots and Hogan was still a 2"-2.5" taller.
___________________________________________________________________________--
Lugar wasn't the full 6'3", probably closer to 6'2 1/4" to 6'2 1/2" as I was taller than him. I do think that Lugar wore lifts at various points in his career though, as in a video I saw of him in the WWF he looked taller than Dibiase, but in person Dibiase was the taller of the two.
****sock said on 19/Jun/17
I came across a match of Hogan and Big Boss Man from 1995 and I found it strange that Boss Man looked the same height as Hogan:
Click Here
Pause at 8:53 for the perfect moment to judge their heights. In WWF Hogan looked at least an inch taller than Boss Man. I've always pegged Boss Man as 6'4" or a tad above. Hogan still looked like a solid 6'5" later in that same video when standing next to 6'3" Lex Luger. Luger was wearing cowboy boots and Hogan was still a 2"-2.5" taller.
___________________________________________________________________________--
Lugar wasn't the full 6'3", probably closer to 6'2 1/4" to 6'2 1/2" as I was taller than him. I do think that Lugar wore lifts at various points in his career though, as in a video I saw of him in the WWF he looked taller than Dibiase, but in person Dibiase was the taller of the two.
Steve said on 20/Jun/17
I love every time a photo comes up where Andre doesn't look a full 7ft barefoot, the photo is always 'tilted' in favour of the other person.
I love every time a photo comes up where Andre doesn't look a full 7ft barefoot, the photo is always 'tilted' in favour of the other person.
dicksock said on 19/Jun/17
I came across a match of Hogan and Big Boss Man from 1995 and I found it strange that Boss Man looked the same height as Hogan:
Click Here
Pause at 8:53 for the perfect moment to judge their heights. In WWF Hogan looked at least an inch taller than Boss Man. I've always pegged Boss Man as 6'4" or a tad above. Hogan still looked like a solid 6'5" later in that same video when standing next to 6'3" Lex Luger. Luger was wearing cowboy boots and Hogan was still a 2"-2.5" taller.
I came across a match of Hogan and Big Boss Man from 1995 and I found it strange that Boss Man looked the same height as Hogan:
Click Here
Pause at 8:53 for the perfect moment to judge their heights. In WWF Hogan looked at least an inch taller than Boss Man. I've always pegged Boss Man as 6'4" or a tad above. Hogan still looked like a solid 6'5" later in that same video when standing next to 6'3" Lex Luger. Luger was wearing cowboy boots and Hogan was still a 2"-2.5" taller.
dicksock said on 19/Jun/17
Here we have official confirmation that Ron Reis was taller than Big Show in WCW:
Click Here
I'm sure most of you already could have guessed he was a little taller, but it's nice to hear it from Wight's mouth.
Here we have official confirmation that Ron Reis was taller than Big Show in WCW:
Click Here
I'm sure most of you already could have guessed he was a little taller, but it's nice to hear it from Wight's mouth.
Danimal said on 18/Jun/17
Halb said on 14/Jun/17
Th first billed heights I saw for Elmer were 6'10, which would seem to indicate he was below.
Elmer was billed at 6'11" also.
Halb said on 14/Jun/17
Th first billed heights I saw for Elmer were 6'10, which would seem to indicate he was below.
Elmer was billed at 6'11" also.
dicksock said on 17/Jun/17
JT said on 16/Jun/17
Dicksock, I have not seen any evidence showing Frazier was ever 6’9” or even over 6’8” The high camera angle is why Frazier looks that much taller than Hillbilly Jim in your pic. That’s the same reason why Frazier here looks significantly taller than Andre Click Here Frazier does not even look 3 inches taller than Hillbilly Jim in the top screen cap and the camera angle favors him a bit. 6'8" is the most I'd ever give him and probably 2 inches shorter than Nash.
________
I didn't see 2" between Nash and 6'8" Tyler Mane. In fact, most of the time I didn't see anything between them. I'm still sticking with a 6'8" range Frazier. He may have been 6'8" on the nose, but I think he may have been a little more. He's a guy I could see losing quite a bit of height throughout the day because of his extreme girth.
JT said on 16/Jun/17
Dicksock, I have not seen any evidence showing Frazier was ever 6’9” or even over 6’8” The high camera angle is why Frazier looks that much taller than Hillbilly Jim in your pic. That’s the same reason why Frazier here looks significantly taller than Andre Click Here Frazier does not even look 3 inches taller than Hillbilly Jim in the top screen cap and the camera angle favors him a bit. 6'8" is the most I'd ever give him and probably 2 inches shorter than Nash.
________
I didn't see 2" between Nash and 6'8" Tyler Mane. In fact, most of the time I didn't see anything between them. I'm still sticking with a 6'8" range Frazier. He may have been 6'8" on the nose, but I think he may have been a little more. He's a guy I could see losing quite a bit of height throughout the day because of his extreme girth.
JT said on 16/Jun/17
Dicksock, I have not seen any evidence showing Frazier was ever 6’9” or even over 6’8” The high camera angle is why Frazier looks that much taller than Hillbilly Jim in your pic. That’s the same reason why Frazier here looks significantly taller than Andre Click Here Frazier does not even look 3 inches taller than Hillbilly Jim in the top screen cap and the camera angle favors him a bit. 6'8" is the most I'd ever give him and probably 2 inches shorter than Nash.
Cornette has referred to Frazier as 6’10” and 7’0” and Jon Harris (Silo Sam) as 7’8” so you have to consider anything he says with some skepticism, especially in shoot interviews where they still exaggerate or lie to make the interview more interesting.
Dicksock, I have not seen any evidence showing Frazier was ever 6’9” or even over 6’8” The high camera angle is why Frazier looks that much taller than Hillbilly Jim in your pic. That’s the same reason why Frazier here looks significantly taller than Andre Click Here Frazier does not even look 3 inches taller than Hillbilly Jim in the top screen cap and the camera angle favors him a bit. 6'8" is the most I'd ever give him and probably 2 inches shorter than Nash.
Cornette has referred to Frazier as 6’10” and 7’0” and Jon Harris (Silo Sam) as 7’8” so you have to consider anything he says with some skepticism, especially in shoot interviews where they still exaggerate or lie to make the interview more interesting.
Logic said on 16/Jun/17
Here is a photo of Elmer standing with former NFL player Tony Dorsett. Dorsett is listed at 5'11". Assuming Elmer had a face/head length of 10" then Elmer would be at least 10" taller than Dorsett.
Click Here
And here is Ed "To Tall" Jones standing with /Tony Dorsett. Ed is listed at 6'9"
Click Here
Here is a photo of Elmer with Jesse Ventura. You can't see their footwear but Ventura is probably wearing his cowboy boots. Ventura would probably be 6'4"- 6'4.5" in his cowboy boots. To me, Elmer appears to be at least 6'8" and possibly close to 6'9".
Click Here
Here is a photo of Andre and Jesse Ventura
Click Here
Click Here
Andre was wearing his stripped shorts in that video. When he was wearing shorts he normally wore snickers with them. So, he may have been wearing his sneakers in that photo.
Here is a photo of Elmer standing with former NFL player Tony Dorsett. Dorsett is listed at 5'11". Assuming Elmer had a face/head length of 10" then Elmer would be at least 10" taller than Dorsett.
Click Here
And here is Ed "To Tall" Jones standing with /Tony Dorsett. Ed is listed at 6'9"
Click Here
Here is a photo of Elmer with Jesse Ventura. You can't see their footwear but Ventura is probably wearing his cowboy boots. Ventura would probably be 6'4"- 6'4.5" in his cowboy boots. To me, Elmer appears to be at least 6'8" and possibly close to 6'9".
Click Here
Here is a photo of Andre and Jesse Ventura
Click Here
Click Here
Andre was wearing his stripped shorts in that video. When he was wearing shorts he normally wore snickers with them. So, he may have been wearing his sneakers in that photo.
Chaz said on 16/Jun/17
NCL said on 15/Jun/17 Apparently, Andre and Uncle Elmer did compete in several matches together, see the very bottom of this website: Click Here
Maybe we can track down these matches? You'll also see the writer is claiming Elmer was 6'10" and the same height as Andre
The photos I have seen of them,in the ring together, I am sure was out in the open.but they seem to be taken off the internet.
NCL said on 15/Jun/17 Apparently, Andre and Uncle Elmer did compete in several matches together, see the very bottom of this website: Click Here
Maybe we can track down these matches? You'll also see the writer is claiming Elmer was 6'10" and the same height as Andre
The photos I have seen of them,in the ring together, I am sure was out in the open.but they seem to be taken off the internet.
dicksock said on 16/Jun/17
JT said on 15/Jun/17
Dicksock, Frazier would occasionally wrestle and do promos in cowboy boots so we don’t know what his footwear was with Andy Kaufman. Nash was noticeably taller next to Lawler than Frazier ever was so 6’9” or close to it is out of the question for Frazier. Click Here
_______________
I disagree. I can promise you he was at least in the 6'8" range. Jim Cornette is around 6' tall himself. I doubt he would be that off on a guy he worked with closely. I've never seen him look under 6'8". Look at this shot of him and 6'5" Hillbilly Jim: Click Here
I can see around 4" between them. You also don't what kind of footwear Nash had in WWF. He looked taller there than he did in WCW. Lawler was around 5'10-5'11" in his prime and Frazier had a good 10" on him. I bet Nash and Elmer would be about the same height. He could have easily worn lifts/enhanced footwear in the WWF. I will never buy anything under 6'11" for a prime Andre. He was in the 6'11" range at his tallest and probably down in the 6'10" range towards the end. Elmer may have been 6'8", but I will never buy anything below that for him. Andre did seem significantly taller at his wedding in 1985. Either way, Elmer was 6'8-6'9" and Andre was 6'11" at his tallest. I guarantee it.
JT said on 15/Jun/17
Dicksock, Frazier would occasionally wrestle and do promos in cowboy boots so we don’t know what his footwear was with Andy Kaufman. Nash was noticeably taller next to Lawler than Frazier ever was so 6’9” or close to it is out of the question for Frazier. Click Here
_______________
I disagree. I can promise you he was at least in the 6'8" range. Jim Cornette is around 6' tall himself. I doubt he would be that off on a guy he worked with closely. I've never seen him look under 6'8". Look at this shot of him and 6'5" Hillbilly Jim: Click Here
I can see around 4" between them. You also don't what kind of footwear Nash had in WWF. He looked taller there than he did in WCW. Lawler was around 5'10-5'11" in his prime and Frazier had a good 10" on him. I bet Nash and Elmer would be about the same height. He could have easily worn lifts/enhanced footwear in the WWF. I will never buy anything under 6'11" for a prime Andre. He was in the 6'11" range at his tallest and probably down in the 6'10" range towards the end. Elmer may have been 6'8", but I will never buy anything below that for him. Andre did seem significantly taller at his wedding in 1985. Either way, Elmer was 6'8-6'9" and Andre was 6'11" at his tallest. I guarantee it.
Baba said on 15/Jun/17
JT said on 14/Jun/17
That would only hold true if the camera man were standing perpendicular to the light fixture, ceiling beam, etc., which he’s not.
Going by the vertical edge of the cinder blocks between Andre and Frazier, there does not look to be any camera tilt. Click Here Frazier’s definitely closer to the camera but it looks like he’s back on his heels and leaning to his right side. No more than a 2 inch difference if both were equidistant from the camera and standing erect.
--------------------------------------------
I will have to respectively disagree with you and I'll explain why down bellow.
Click here first Click Here and then I will explain further down bellow.
In my opinion, in your edited photo, what you are using as the vertical grout line between the cinder blocks or cinder block edges is not the actual vertical grout line or edges of the cinder blocks. Actually, you cannot really see any of the vertical grout lines in that photo. Although, you can slightly see the cinder block edge/grout line just above Andre's right shoulder but the shadow is covering it somewhat.
1). As you can see, the whitish line that you say is the vertical grout line DIRECTLY above Elmer's left elbow actually STOPS just a little over half way down the cinder block and it does not come all the way down the cinder block. An actual grout line goes the FULL length of the cinder block and it would not stop just above Elmer's elbow...... grout lines go the full length of the cinder block. And as you can clearly see that vertical line directly above Elmer's elbow does not come down the full length of the cinder block or to Elmer's elbow and therefore that whitish line is probably not the grout line. It looks to me like that white line is either a scratch in the photo or some sort of chalk/paint mark made on the cinder block........... it's most like not a grout mark.
2). You can easily see the grayish horizontal grout lines between the cinder blocks. So, why would that one vertical grout line be solid white and the horizontal grout lines be gray? They should be the same color.
3). Also, cinder blocks are almost always offset when they are put up. So, the vertical grout line of one cinder block will not line up with the vertical grout line that is either DIRECTLY above or bellow it. But as you can see in that photo, near the ceiling light, the white line that you are calling the grout line covers the length of one block and then it lines up directly with the white line on the cinder block directly above it. And that should NOT be the case because cinder blocks are staggered when they are layed and the vertical grout line of one block should NOT be in line with the vertical grout line of the block that is directly above or bellow it. So again, what you are calling a vertical grout line between the cinder blocks is most likely not a vertical grout line but rather it is either a scratch on the photo or a white chalk/paint line put on the cinder blocks by someone.
4). The only vertical grout line or cinder block edge that you can see somewhat clearly is the short corner vertical line that is located just slightly above Andre's right shoulder and just bellow the horizontal shadow. That vertical grout line is rather short because Andre is blocking most of it. But you can see enough of it to realize that corner vertical grout line looks to be tilted and thus that indicates that the photo is tilted/slanted in Elmer's favor.
In my opinion, there is a definite camera tilt in that photo that favors Elmer.
JT said on 14/Jun/17
That would only hold true if the camera man were standing perpendicular to the light fixture, ceiling beam, etc., which he’s not.
Going by the vertical edge of the cinder blocks between Andre and Frazier, there does not look to be any camera tilt. Click Here Frazier’s definitely closer to the camera but it looks like he’s back on his heels and leaning to his right side. No more than a 2 inch difference if both were equidistant from the camera and standing erect.
--------------------------------------------
I will have to respectively disagree with you and I'll explain why down bellow.
Click here first Click Here and then I will explain further down bellow.
In my opinion, in your edited photo, what you are using as the vertical grout line between the cinder blocks or cinder block edges is not the actual vertical grout line or edges of the cinder blocks. Actually, you cannot really see any of the vertical grout lines in that photo. Although, you can slightly see the cinder block edge/grout line just above Andre's right shoulder but the shadow is covering it somewhat.
1). As you can see, the whitish line that you say is the vertical grout line DIRECTLY above Elmer's left elbow actually STOPS just a little over half way down the cinder block and it does not come all the way down the cinder block. An actual grout line goes the FULL length of the cinder block and it would not stop just above Elmer's elbow...... grout lines go the full length of the cinder block. And as you can clearly see that vertical line directly above Elmer's elbow does not come down the full length of the cinder block or to Elmer's elbow and therefore that whitish line is probably not the grout line. It looks to me like that white line is either a scratch in the photo or some sort of chalk/paint mark made on the cinder block........... it's most like not a grout mark.
2). You can easily see the grayish horizontal grout lines between the cinder blocks. So, why would that one vertical grout line be solid white and the horizontal grout lines be gray? They should be the same color.
3). Also, cinder blocks are almost always offset when they are put up. So, the vertical grout line of one cinder block will not line up with the vertical grout line that is either DIRECTLY above or bellow it. But as you can see in that photo, near the ceiling light, the white line that you are calling the grout line covers the length of one block and then it lines up directly with the white line on the cinder block directly above it. And that should NOT be the case because cinder blocks are staggered when they are layed and the vertical grout line of one block should NOT be in line with the vertical grout line of the block that is directly above or bellow it. So again, what you are calling a vertical grout line between the cinder blocks is most likely not a vertical grout line but rather it is either a scratch on the photo or a white chalk/paint line put on the cinder blocks by someone.
4). The only vertical grout line or cinder block edge that you can see somewhat clearly is the short corner vertical line that is located just slightly above Andre's right shoulder and just bellow the horizontal shadow. That vertical grout line is rather short because Andre is blocking most of it. But you can see enough of it to realize that corner vertical grout line looks to be tilted and thus that indicates that the photo is tilted/slanted in Elmer's favor.
In my opinion, there is a definite camera tilt in that photo that favors Elmer.
Undertaker Frank said on 15/Jun/17
Elmer looks about 6ft 7 close to Takers Height in my opinion
Elmer looks about 6ft 7 close to Takers Height in my opinion
Niki84 said on 15/Jun/17
Mr. Editor Rob
Wich Heights are you giving Andre and Stan in this new Pictures?
Mr. Editor Rob
Wich Heights are you giving Andre and Stan in this new Pictures?
NCL said on 15/Jun/17
JT said on 13/Jun/17
NCL said on 11/Jun/17
Hi JT:
I don't watch basketball - can you tell me who the players are in this pic and what their heights are? Thanks. Click Here
That’s Dwight Howard (measured 6’9” at 18 but grew a bit more and is closer to 6’10” now) and Kobe Bryant (6’5”).
Click Here This is a legit 7’0”er (Pau Gasol) with Bryant.
Thanks, JT! Interesting photos. To throw in my take, I think that would still put Andre around 6'10"-6'11" considering the footwear advantage of the basketball players.
In regards to the Uncle Elmer/Andre pic, so cool! I definitely see a minimum of 1" difference, maybe closer 2", not to mention the camera angle issues.
Apparently, Andre and Uncle Elmer did compete in several matches together, see the very bottom of this website: Click Here
Maybe we can track down these matches? You'll also see the writer is claiming Elmer was 6'10" and the same height as Andre.
Personally, I'm wondering if Elmer was closer to 6'8"-6'9". It's hard to tell with pics. I'm trying to track down a good pic of him and Hill Billy Jim (who I'd put at a minimum 6'5") but so far I can only find ones where there heads were either titled back and/or they're wearing hats: Click Here and Click Here
Andre and Hillbilly Jim: Click Here
Haven't had a chance to look through any videos yet
JT said on 13/Jun/17
NCL said on 11/Jun/17
Hi JT:
I don't watch basketball - can you tell me who the players are in this pic and what their heights are? Thanks. Click Here
That’s Dwight Howard (measured 6’9” at 18 but grew a bit more and is closer to 6’10” now) and Kobe Bryant (6’5”).
Click Here This is a legit 7’0”er (Pau Gasol) with Bryant.
Thanks, JT! Interesting photos. To throw in my take, I think that would still put Andre around 6'10"-6'11" considering the footwear advantage of the basketball players.
In regards to the Uncle Elmer/Andre pic, so cool! I definitely see a minimum of 1" difference, maybe closer 2", not to mention the camera angle issues.
Apparently, Andre and Uncle Elmer did compete in several matches together, see the very bottom of this website: Click Here
Maybe we can track down these matches? You'll also see the writer is claiming Elmer was 6'10" and the same height as Andre.
Personally, I'm wondering if Elmer was closer to 6'8"-6'9". It's hard to tell with pics. I'm trying to track down a good pic of him and Hill Billy Jim (who I'd put at a minimum 6'5") but so far I can only find ones where there heads were either titled back and/or they're wearing hats: Click Here and Click Here
Andre and Hillbilly Jim: Click Here
Haven't had a chance to look through any videos yet
JT said on 15/Jun/17
Dicksock, Frazier would occasionally wrestle and do promos in cowboy boots so we don’t know what his footwear was with Andy Kaufman. Nash was noticeably taller next to Lawler than Frazier ever was so 6’9” or close to it is out of the question for Frazier. Click Here
Dicksock, Frazier would occasionally wrestle and do promos in cowboy boots so we don’t know what his footwear was with Andy Kaufman. Nash was noticeably taller next to Lawler than Frazier ever was so 6’9” or close to it is out of the question for Frazier. Click Here
Capt. Nobody said on 14/Jun/17
Logic said on 13/Jun/17
****sock said on 13/Jun/17
That picture is a bit deceiving, but Andre definitely has 2-3" on Elmer/Plowboy Fraizer. Andre looks about 1-1.5" taller if we just take that picture at face value. But, Elmer was significantly closer to the camera. He had a pretty big camera advantage. That is why his body and head look so much bigger than they should compared to Andre's. Just look at their feet. If Andre were actually lined up with him, I bet Andre would look up to 3" taller. I think Elmer was 6'8-6'8.5" and Andre was 6'11".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. There also appears to be a rather significant tilt in that photo in favor of Elmer. If you look at the ceiling column directly above Andre and Elmer's head then you can see that there is a a tilt in that photo. If you were to correct the tilt then Andre would probably have about 2"-2.5" on Elmer. Elmer is also closer to the camera than Andre so if you were to also correct for that then Andre probably had about 2.5"-3" on Elmer in that photo.
Here is the photo with the tilt corrected...... If you factor in the that Andre was further from the camera then the height difference was even more.
Click Here
Also what kind of footwear was Elmer wearing. Who had the footwear advantage?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's Andre in wrestling boots he'll most likely always be at the disadvantage. He had to have just about the thinnest heel for a wrestling boot ever. I think in the 80's there might have been a bit more bottom to it, but if these are the same red boots we've seen displayed then there is hardly any lift at all.
Click Here
Logic said on 13/Jun/17
****sock said on 13/Jun/17
That picture is a bit deceiving, but Andre definitely has 2-3" on Elmer/Plowboy Fraizer. Andre looks about 1-1.5" taller if we just take that picture at face value. But, Elmer was significantly closer to the camera. He had a pretty big camera advantage. That is why his body and head look so much bigger than they should compared to Andre's. Just look at their feet. If Andre were actually lined up with him, I bet Andre would look up to 3" taller. I think Elmer was 6'8-6'8.5" and Andre was 6'11".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. There also appears to be a rather significant tilt in that photo in favor of Elmer. If you look at the ceiling column directly above Andre and Elmer's head then you can see that there is a a tilt in that photo. If you were to correct the tilt then Andre would probably have about 2"-2.5" on Elmer. Elmer is also closer to the camera than Andre so if you were to also correct for that then Andre probably had about 2.5"-3" on Elmer in that photo.
Here is the photo with the tilt corrected...... If you factor in the that Andre was further from the camera then the height difference was even more.
Click Here
Also what kind of footwear was Elmer wearing. Who had the footwear advantage?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's Andre in wrestling boots he'll most likely always be at the disadvantage. He had to have just about the thinnest heel for a wrestling boot ever. I think in the 80's there might have been a bit more bottom to it, but if these are the same red boots we've seen displayed then there is hardly any lift at all.
Click Here
Oanh said on 14/Jun/17
Rob, it looks like Andre has 1.5-2" on Stan, but obviously Stan has an advantage being closer to the camera.
That being said, how much taller do you think Andre was than Stan?
Rob, it looks like Andre has 1.5-2" on Stan, but obviously Stan has an advantage being closer to the camera.
That being said, how much taller do you think Andre was than Stan?
Halb said on 14/Jun/17
Th first billed heights I saw for Elmer were 6'10, which would seem to indicate he was below.
Th first billed heights I saw for Elmer were 6'10, which would seem to indicate he was below.
JT said on 14/Jun/17
Click Here
Click Here
Frazier and Vince Click Here Frazier and Jerry Lawler Click Here
Baba said on 14/Jun/17
Camera tilt!!!
Click Here
Just look at the ceiling above their heads or use the top of the light fixture in the background and you can see the obvious tilt that favors Elmer in a rather big way….
That would only hold true if the camera man were standing perpendicular to the light fixture, ceiling beam, etc., which he’s not.
Going by the vertical edge of the cinder blocks between Andre and Frazier, there does not look to be any camera tilt. Click Here
Frazier’s definitely closer to the camera but it looks like he’s back on his heels and leaning to his right side. No more than a 2 inch difference if both were equidistant from the camera and standing erect.
Click Here
Click Here
Frazier and Vince Click Here Frazier and Jerry Lawler Click Here
Baba said on 14/Jun/17
Camera tilt!!!
Click Here
Just look at the ceiling above their heads or use the top of the light fixture in the background and you can see the obvious tilt that favors Elmer in a rather big way….
That would only hold true if the camera man were standing perpendicular to the light fixture, ceiling beam, etc., which he’s not.
Going by the vertical edge of the cinder blocks between Andre and Frazier, there does not look to be any camera tilt. Click Here
Frazier’s definitely closer to the camera but it looks like he’s back on his heels and leaning to his right side. No more than a 2 inch difference if both were equidistant from the camera and standing erect.
dicksock said on 14/Jun/17
Here is Plowboy Frazier with Andy Kaufman in the early 80s: Click Here
Rob has Kaufman listed at 6'0", and I see about 9" between them.
Here he is with a peak ~5'11" Jerry Lawler: Click Here
I think he was closer to 6'9" at his tallest. Here is an interview with Jim Cornette and Bobby Heenan, and Jim says Frazier was only a little shorter than Andre when the two were wrestling in Memphis. He claimed he was 6'10" and taller than Ernie Ladd. Click Here
I am changing my estimation slightly. I think Frazier was 6'8.5"-6'9" and Andre was 6'11"-6'11.5".
Here is Plowboy Frazier with Andy Kaufman in the early 80s: Click Here
Rob has Kaufman listed at 6'0", and I see about 9" between them.
Here he is with a peak ~5'11" Jerry Lawler: Click Here
I think he was closer to 6'9" at his tallest. Here is an interview with Jim Cornette and Bobby Heenan, and Jim says Frazier was only a little shorter than Andre when the two were wrestling in Memphis. He claimed he was 6'10" and taller than Ernie Ladd. Click Here
I am changing my estimation slightly. I think Frazier was 6'8.5"-6'9" and Andre was 6'11"-6'11.5".
Guanzo said on 14/Jun/17
You can lose 1 cm height in every 55 lbs weight gain
Young Andre in mid 1960's 220-275 lbs with 6'11.5'' 2.12cm he became overweight by years.
Andre hit 500 lbs in 1980s : 4 cm height loss 6'10''
6'9'' in 1990s
You can lose 1 cm height in every 55 lbs weight gain
Young Andre in mid 1960's 220-275 lbs with 6'11.5'' 2.12cm he became overweight by years.
Andre hit 500 lbs in 1980s : 4 cm height loss 6'10''
6'9'' in 1990s
62B said on 14/Jun/17
To me Andre definitely looks a few inches taller Than Frazier. Is there any proof that Frazier was 6'8"? Every source I find says he was billed 7'2" but was really 6'10"
To me Andre definitely looks a few inches taller Than Frazier. Is there any proof that Frazier was 6'8"? Every source I find says he was billed 7'2" but was really 6'10"
Baba said on 14/Jun/17
Camera tilt!!!
Click Here
Just look at the ceiling above their heads or use the top of the light fixture in the background and you can see the obvious tilt that favors Elmer in a rather big way.
If you were to straighten out the camera tilt and compensate for Elmer being closer to the camera then Andre was probably around 3" taller than Elmer. If Elmer was around 6'8" then Andre was probably 6'11" in that photo.
Camera tilt!!!
Click Here
Just look at the ceiling above their heads or use the top of the light fixture in the background and you can see the obvious tilt that favors Elmer in a rather big way.
If you were to straighten out the camera tilt and compensate for Elmer being closer to the camera then Andre was probably around 3" taller than Elmer. If Elmer was around 6'8" then Andre was probably 6'11" in that photo.
Steve said on 14/Jun/17
Again the new photo with Elmer shows Andre to be max 6'11". If Elmer was 6'8" or 204cm, Andre did not look more than 3 inches taller, that's being generous to Andre and taking into consideration that Elmer was slightly in front of Andre in the photo. Everything points to what I have been always saying, peak Andre 211 - 212cm max peak height.
Again the new photo with Elmer shows Andre to be max 6'11". If Elmer was 6'8" or 204cm, Andre did not look more than 3 inches taller, that's being generous to Andre and taking into consideration that Elmer was slightly in front of Andre in the photo. Everything points to what I have been always saying, peak Andre 211 - 212cm max peak height.
Chaz said on 14/Jun/17
Then if Andre is losing 2'' from being closer to the Camara, So is Wilt in their photos,you can't have it both ways.and there are a few photos of them in the ring,and there is no 3'' between them.but it seems they are missing of the Internet,if anyone can find them?
Then if Andre is losing 2'' from being closer to the Camara, So is Wilt in their photos,you can't have it both ways.and there are a few photos of them in the ring,and there is no 3'' between them.but it seems they are missing of the Internet,if anyone can find them?
62B said on 14/Jun/17
Chaz said on 13/Jun/17
If Andre was 7' Stan Frazier must of been 6'11'' and that is a good shape Andre only about 430lbs not your end of life 500lbs cannot walk far Andre.
___________________________________________
I'm with ****sock, Andre has Stan Frazier by 2 1/2" to 3" easy.
Chaz said on 13/Jun/17
If Andre was 7' Stan Frazier must of been 6'11'' and that is a good shape Andre only about 430lbs not your end of life 500lbs cannot walk far Andre.
___________________________________________
I'm with ****sock, Andre has Stan Frazier by 2 1/2" to 3" easy.
Guanzo said on 14/Jun/17
Uncle Elmer is 6'8'' right?
Uncle Elmer is 6'8'' right?
Kunoichi said on 13/Jun/17
This is an article in Japan around 1985. It said Stan Frazier's height listed at 204cm.
Click Here
When he came to Japan as The Convict ,he was billeded at 214 cm tall.
This is an article in Japan around 1985. It said Stan Frazier's height listed at 204cm.
Click Here
When he came to Japan as The Convict ,he was billeded at 214 cm tall.
Logic said on 13/Jun/17
****sock said on 13/Jun/17
That picture is a bit deceiving, but Andre definitely has 2-3" on Elmer/Plowboy Fraizer. Andre looks about 1-1.5" taller if we just take that picture at face value. But, Elmer was significantly closer to the camera. He had a pretty big camera advantage. That is why his body and head look so much bigger than they should compared to Andre's. Just look at their feet. If Andre were actually lined up with him, I bet Andre would look up to 3" taller. I think Elmer was 6'8-6'8.5" and Andre was 6'11".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. There also appears to be a rather significant tilt in that photo in favor of Elmer. If you look at the ceiling column directly above Andre and Elmer's head then you can see that there is a a tilt in that photo. If you were to correct the tilt then Andre would probably have about 2"-2.5" on Elmer. Elmer is also closer to the camera than Andre so if you were to also correct for that then Andre probably had about 2.5"-3" on Elmer in that photo.
Here is the photo with the tilt corrected...... If you factor in the that Andre was further from the camera then the height difference was even more.
Click Here
Also what kind of footwear was Elmer wearing. Who had the footwear advantage?
****sock said on 13/Jun/17
That picture is a bit deceiving, but Andre definitely has 2-3" on Elmer/Plowboy Fraizer. Andre looks about 1-1.5" taller if we just take that picture at face value. But, Elmer was significantly closer to the camera. He had a pretty big camera advantage. That is why his body and head look so much bigger than they should compared to Andre's. Just look at their feet. If Andre were actually lined up with him, I bet Andre would look up to 3" taller. I think Elmer was 6'8-6'8.5" and Andre was 6'11".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. There also appears to be a rather significant tilt in that photo in favor of Elmer. If you look at the ceiling column directly above Andre and Elmer's head then you can see that there is a a tilt in that photo. If you were to correct the tilt then Andre would probably have about 2"-2.5" on Elmer. Elmer is also closer to the camera than Andre so if you were to also correct for that then Andre probably had about 2.5"-3" on Elmer in that photo.
Here is the photo with the tilt corrected...... If you factor in the that Andre was further from the camera then the height difference was even more.
Click Here
Also what kind of footwear was Elmer wearing. Who had the footwear advantage?
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Jun/17
****sock said on 13/Jun/17
That picture is a bit deceiving, but Andre definitely has 2-3" on Elmer/Plowboy Fraizer...
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Agreed, I would say 3" considering Elmer is closer to the cam, He looks at Andres upperlip if his eyeline is normal position.
****sock said on 13/Jun/17
That picture is a bit deceiving, but Andre definitely has 2-3" on Elmer/Plowboy Fraizer...
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Agreed, I would say 3" considering Elmer is closer to the cam, He looks at Andres upperlip if his eyeline is normal position.
Chaz said on 13/Jun/17
If Andre was 7' Stan Frazier must of been 6'11'' and that is a good shape Andre only about 430lbs not your end of life 500lbs cannot walk far Andre.
If Andre was 7' Stan Frazier must of been 6'11'' and that is a good shape Andre only about 430lbs not your end of life 500lbs cannot walk far Andre.
JT said on 13/Jun/17
NCL said on 11/Jun/17
Hi JT:
I don't watch basketball - can you tell me who the players are in this pic and what their heights are? Thanks. Click Here
That’s Dwight Howard (measured 6’9” at 18 but grew a bit more and is closer to 6’10” now) and Kobe Bryant (6’5”).
Click Here This is a legit 7’0”er (Pau Gasol) with Bryant.
NCL said on 11/Jun/17
Hi JT:
I don't watch basketball - can you tell me who the players are in this pic and what their heights are? Thanks. Click Here
That’s Dwight Howard (measured 6’9” at 18 but grew a bit more and is closer to 6’10” now) and Kobe Bryant (6’5”).
Click Here This is a legit 7’0”er (Pau Gasol) with Bryant.
Halb said on 12/Jun/17
Not much in it at 1:37, 1 inch maybe? Not above 2.
Not much in it at 1:37, 1 inch maybe? Not above 2.
LG69 said on 12/Jun/17
My bad. Just realized it's a video. Anyway, Andre had 4" on Ladd
My bad. Just realized it's a video. Anyway, Andre had 4" on Ladd
LG69 said on 12/Jun/17
Guanzo, you picked the worst possible comparison photo. LOL
Guanzo, you picked the worst possible comparison photo. LOL
Chaz said on 12/Jun/17
62B said on 11/Jun/17
Chaz said on 11/Jun/17
Guanzo said on 1/Jun/17
Can somebody explain this?
Click Here
Yes Andre was about 6'10'' and Shaq was about 7'.6''
_______________________________________________________________-
It's funny how you are Okay with a 40 year old Andre being 6"10 evening and apparently never taller, but its Okay for a 45 year old Big Show to have lost an inch and a half. Again, a 1988 Andre was 6'10" to 6'11" depending on the time of day. Peak Andre was probably somewhere between 6'11" and 7", depending on the time of day.
I have always said Andre was about 6'11'' morning 6'10'' evening,so should be listed at 6'10.5'' same with Big Show if he was 7' would have been in the morning,he should be listed at no more than 6'11.5'' because it's clear Shaq was at least 1'' taller,
62B said on 11/Jun/17
Chaz said on 11/Jun/17
Guanzo said on 1/Jun/17
Can somebody explain this?
Click Here
Yes Andre was about 6'10'' and Shaq was about 7'.6''
_______________________________________________________________-
It's funny how you are Okay with a 40 year old Andre being 6"10 evening and apparently never taller, but its Okay for a 45 year old Big Show to have lost an inch and a half. Again, a 1988 Andre was 6'10" to 6'11" depending on the time of day. Peak Andre was probably somewhere between 6'11" and 7", depending on the time of day.
I have always said Andre was about 6'11'' morning 6'10'' evening,so should be listed at 6'10.5'' same with Big Show if he was 7' would have been in the morning,he should be listed at no more than 6'11.5'' because it's clear Shaq was at least 1'' taller,
62B said on 11/Jun/17
Chaz said on 11/Jun/17
Guanzo said on 1/Jun/17
Can somebody explain this?
Click Here
Yes Andre was about 6'10'' and Shaq was about 7'.6''
_______________________________________________________________-
It's funny how you are Okay with a 40 year old Andre being 6"10 evening and apparently never taller, but its Okay for a 45 year old Big Show to have lost an inch and a half. Again, a 1988 Andre was 6'10" to 6'11" depending on the time of day. Peak Andre was probably somewhere between 6'11" and 7", depending on the time of day.
Chaz said on 11/Jun/17
Guanzo said on 1/Jun/17
Can somebody explain this?
Click Here
Yes Andre was about 6'10'' and Shaq was about 7'.6''
_______________________________________________________________-
It's funny how you are Okay with a 40 year old Andre being 6"10 evening and apparently never taller, but its Okay for a 45 year old Big Show to have lost an inch and a half. Again, a 1988 Andre was 6'10" to 6'11" depending on the time of day. Peak Andre was probably somewhere between 6'11" and 7", depending on the time of day.
Logic said on 11/Jun/17
Here is a photo of Baba and Andre that I hadn't seen before. You can't see their legs so I don't know how straight their legs are but they are wearing their wrestling gear. Baba usually didn't slouch but he did tend to stand with his head tilted down. And Andre, especially at this point in his life, was notorious for bad posture. Nonetheless.......
Click Here
And I wonder if there is any video footage of this meeting between Baba and Andre
Click Here
.
Here is a photo of Baba and Andre that I hadn't seen before. You can't see their legs so I don't know how straight their legs are but they are wearing their wrestling gear. Baba usually didn't slouch but he did tend to stand with his head tilted down. And Andre, especially at this point in his life, was notorious for bad posture. Nonetheless.......
Click Here
And I wonder if there is any video footage of this meeting between Baba and Andre
Click Here
.
NCL said on 11/Jun/17
Hi JT:
I don't watch basketball - can you tell me who the players are in this pic and what their heights are? Thanks. Click Here
Hi JT:
I don't watch basketball - can you tell me who the players are in this pic and what their heights are? Thanks. Click Here
RP said on 11/Jun/17
Peak; 7'0.25" to 7'0.5"(max)...7'1.5-ish in wrestling boots
At time of death: 6'10.5" (his horrible posture & failing health gave the impression of 6'9.75" to 6'10" from 1988-1993.
Peak; 7'0.25" to 7'0.5"(max)...7'1.5-ish in wrestling boots
At time of death: 6'10.5" (his horrible posture & failing health gave the impression of 6'9.75" to 6'10" from 1988-1993.
er4smiths said on 11/Jun/17
Hey I've got a pic to show proper perspective - can someone help me?
Hey I've got a pic to show proper perspective - can someone help me?
Chaz said on 11/Jun/17
Guanzo said on 1/Jun/17
Can somebody explain this?
Click Here
Yes Andre was about 6'10'' and Shaq was about 7'.6''
Guanzo said on 1/Jun/17
Can somebody explain this?
Click Here
Yes Andre was about 6'10'' and Shaq was about 7'.6''
JT said on 10/Jun/17
Click Here
Guanzo said on 1/Jun/17
Can somebody explain this?
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Guanzo said on 1/Jun/17
Can somebody explain this?
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Undertaker Frank said on 6/Jun/17
I doubt Studd wore 4 inch Lifts and he never looked close to Andres Height always looked 3 to 4 inches shorter
I doubt Studd wore 4 inch Lifts and he never looked close to Andres Height always looked 3 to 4 inches shorter
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 6/Jun/17
Guanzo said on 1/Jun/17
Can somebody explain this?
Click Here
Shaq in hoverboardboots ?!
Guanzo said on 1/Jun/17
Can somebody explain this?
Click Here
Shaq in hoverboardboots ?!
Telamonas said on 5/Jun/17
Another source about Andre's height (as Big John Studd)
Click Here
In a few words it said that Andre was about 7'0 and Big John Studd 6'7.
Another source about Andre's height (as Big John Studd)
Click Here
In a few words it said that Andre was about 7'0 and Big John Studd 6'7.
dicksock said on 3/Jun/17
iconjj said on 1/Jun/17
If Andre stated 7'0.25 he most likely embellished it by two inches which is a standard practice in wrestling.
____________________
Remember though that height was given in centimeters, not inches. He claimed 214 cm, so he was not thinking in terms of inches and feet. It was probably either his absolute peak morning measurement or his height in shoes. Also, one thing I've learned is that there is no standard practice when it comes to billed heights. It has varied throughout the years and is different from one country to the next. Look at guys like Randy Orton and Bob Backlund. They are billed at their legit heights. Even Big Show has been billed at 7' when that was very close to legit height. Many just have a billing only 1" beyond their legit heights. Then there are those who are billed way above their legit heights, like Batista at 6'6", Kane as 7', John Studd as 6'10, Giant Haystacks at 6'11", and even Kurt Angle at 6'2".
Aside from that, one thing I've been thinking about is the suit measurements we have from a young Andre. It was said that the collar area of his jacket was 72" or 6'2". I think I believe this.
Here is Andre from 1987 standing to his absolute full height and probably not in cowboy boots: Click Here
If you look closely, you'll see that his collar is about 2" above Bobby Heenan. Bobby would have been about 6' in shoes. If you look where his collar lines up with on his face, you'll see that there is maybe 10" from the top of the collar to the top of Andre's head, assuming his head was about 12". This would mean that in 1987 standing as straight is possible in the daytime, he was about 7' in shoes (probably not cowboy boots). So he was around 6'11" or so barefoot. In that video, you have 5'8" Gene, 5'11" Heenan, and 6'11" Andre.
iconjj said on 1/Jun/17
If Andre stated 7'0.25 he most likely embellished it by two inches which is a standard practice in wrestling.
____________________
Remember though that height was given in centimeters, not inches. He claimed 214 cm, so he was not thinking in terms of inches and feet. It was probably either his absolute peak morning measurement or his height in shoes. Also, one thing I've learned is that there is no standard practice when it comes to billed heights. It has varied throughout the years and is different from one country to the next. Look at guys like Randy Orton and Bob Backlund. They are billed at their legit heights. Even Big Show has been billed at 7' when that was very close to legit height. Many just have a billing only 1" beyond their legit heights. Then there are those who are billed way above their legit heights, like Batista at 6'6", Kane as 7', John Studd as 6'10, Giant Haystacks at 6'11", and even Kurt Angle at 6'2".
Aside from that, one thing I've been thinking about is the suit measurements we have from a young Andre. It was said that the collar area of his jacket was 72" or 6'2". I think I believe this.
Here is Andre from 1987 standing to his absolute full height and probably not in cowboy boots: Click Here
If you look closely, you'll see that his collar is about 2" above Bobby Heenan. Bobby would have been about 6' in shoes. If you look where his collar lines up with on his face, you'll see that there is maybe 10" from the top of the collar to the top of Andre's head, assuming his head was about 12". This would mean that in 1987 standing as straight is possible in the daytime, he was about 7' in shoes (probably not cowboy boots). So he was around 6'11" or so barefoot. In that video, you have 5'8" Gene, 5'11" Heenan, and 6'11" Andre.
day day said on 2/Jun/17
He was a good bit taller than 6'7 bjs who in wrestling boots was close to 6'9 bjs was taller than 6'5-6 guys like jake hogan omg so andre was still 7ft 1985 i think a fair breakdown of andre is 1972 216cm 1982 214cm 85 213cm 1987 211cm 93 209cm its not so much he shrank its bad posture crippling back bad knees alcohol and massive weight gain
He was a good bit taller than 6'7 bjs who in wrestling boots was close to 6'9 bjs was taller than 6'5-6 guys like jake hogan omg so andre was still 7ft 1985 i think a fair breakdown of andre is 1972 216cm 1982 214cm 85 213cm 1987 211cm 93 209cm its not so much he shrank its bad posture crippling back bad knees alcohol and massive weight gain
Telamonas said on 2/Jun/17
iconjj your argument is logical, however at 1971 (for details see: Click Here) he wasn't yet at WWF so he didn't need to exaggerate at all. (or WWWF I don't know the exact name). Again I don't have personal opinion (as I never met him) but many people who spent time with him like Terry Todd, Ernie Ladd, Tony Lister either said many years after his death (so no kayfabe) that he was 7'1 (Lister), at least 7' and maybe more (Todd), taller than me by far( Ernie Ladd being 6'9).
iconjj your argument is logical, however at 1971 (for details see: Click Here) he wasn't yet at WWF so he didn't need to exaggerate at all. (or WWWF I don't know the exact name). Again I don't have personal opinion (as I never met him) but many people who spent time with him like Terry Todd, Ernie Ladd, Tony Lister either said many years after his death (so no kayfabe) that he was 7'1 (Lister), at least 7' and maybe more (Todd), taller than me by far( Ernie Ladd being 6'9).
iconjj said on 1/Jun/17
If Andre stated 7'0.25 he most likely embellished it by two inches which is a standard practice in wrestling. Vince J gave him a 6 inch boost hence the 7'4-7'5 listing....which would make him 6'10-6'11; more than likely that's a barefoot estimate.
If Andre stated 7'0.25 he most likely embellished it by two inches which is a standard practice in wrestling. Vince J gave him a 6 inch boost hence the 7'4-7'5 listing....which would make him 6'10-6'11; more than likely that's a barefoot estimate.
YG said on 1/Jun/17
Rob, If Andre was still present now, how'd tall do you think he would be and taller or not taller than Big Show??
Editor Rob
Rob, If Andre was still present now, how'd tall do you think he would be and taller or not taller than Big Show??
Editor Rob alive today and he might have been down to 6ft 7-8, if he still could stand up.
Dan Chernau said on 30/May/17
No less than 7 feet, I'm positive.
No less than 7 feet, I'm positive.
Telamonas said on 30/May/17
HeightcrazyRed6ft I think a 6'5 guy can tell the difference between a 6'11 and a 7'1 guy. Furthermore being in WWF he would have information about Andre. However even Andre claimed 214cm (7'0.25) when he was 25 years old and I found his claim very close to the truth.
HeightcrazyRed6ft I think a 6'5 guy can tell the difference between a 6'11 and a 7'1 guy. Furthermore being in WWF he would have information about Andre. However even Andre claimed 214cm (7'0.25) when he was 25 years old and I found his claim very close to the truth.
62B said on 30/May/17
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/May/17
Pretty much all the guys Andre shared the ring with have stated he was 7ft4-5!
__________________________________________________________________________-
The Andre I stood next to was several inches shorter than the listed 7'4" Rik Smits who I also stood next to. I don't see Andre ever being over 7'. If he was it would have only been by a fraction of an inch.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/May/17
Pretty much all the guys Andre shared the ring with have stated he was 7ft4-5!
__________________________________________________________________________-
The Andre I stood next to was several inches shorter than the listed 7'4" Rik Smits who I also stood next to. I don't see Andre ever being over 7'. If he was it would have only been by a fraction of an inch.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 30/May/17
Telamonas said on 30/May/17
Yes ****sock Tony Lister said he was the same height as Hogan at 6'5 but he also said that Andre was 7'1!!
For details see : Click Here
At 4:37 he said that Andre was 7'1 and 505 pounds. So he says the truth about Hogan but lies for Andre?
************************************************************************************************************************
It would be much harder for him to guess the height of a guy like Andre, than seeing if a guy like Hogan was the same height as him ....
He clearly said they were both 6´5", he said he was 6´7" in special made boots and he measured easy an inch taller in this boots than Hogan in wrestlingboots, so it all adds up.
Telamonas said on 30/May/17
Yes ****sock Tony Lister said he was the same height as Hogan at 6'5 but he also said that Andre was 7'1!!
For details see : Click Here
At 4:37 he said that Andre was 7'1 and 505 pounds. So he says the truth about Hogan but lies for Andre?
************************************************************************************************************************
It would be much harder for him to guess the height of a guy like Andre, than seeing if a guy like Hogan was the same height as him ....
He clearly said they were both 6´5", he said he was 6´7" in special made boots and he measured easy an inch taller in this boots than Hogan in wrestlingboots, so it all adds up.
Telamonas said on 30/May/17
Yes ****sock Tony Lister said he was the same height as Hogan at 6'5 but he also said that Andre was 7'1!!
For details see : Click Here
At 4:37 he said that Andre was 7'1 and 505 pounds. So he says the truth about Hogan but lies for Andre? Terry Todd also said that Andre was 7' and maybe more. I have no personal opinion but we should not take into account only what we like to hear.
Yes ****sock Tony Lister said he was the same height as Hogan at 6'5 but he also said that Andre was 7'1!!
For details see : Click Here
At 4:37 he said that Andre was 7'1 and 505 pounds. So he says the truth about Hogan but lies for Andre? Terry Todd also said that Andre was 7' and maybe more. I have no personal opinion but we should not take into account only what we like to hear.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/May/17
Pretty much all the guys Andre shared the ring with have stated he was 7ft4-5!
Pretty much all the guys Andre shared the ring with have stated he was 7ft4-5!
mrtguy said on 29/May/17
7 ft for Andre at peak is no question, but Andre did appear to have much more pronounced chin and jaws compared to Big Show
7 ft for Andre at peak is no question, but Andre did appear to have much more pronounced chin and jaws compared to Big Show
Logan said on 28/May/17
No way he's 7,4-7,5 my guess is 6,11
No way he's 7,4-7,5 my guess is 6,11
Logan said on 28/May/17
I think Andre is 6,11 possible even 6,10.5
I think Andre is 6,11 possible even 6,10.5
Kunoichi said on 28/May/17
****sock said on 28/May/17
Here is Baba and Andre from 1979:Click Here
According to the Japanese magazine, it is detailed, it is said that it is a picture in Hawaii on June 22, 1977.
Click Here
Click Here
****sock said on 28/May/17
Here is Baba and Andre from 1979:Click Here
According to the Japanese magazine, it is detailed, it is said that it is a picture in Hawaii on June 22, 1977.
Click Here
Click Here
dicksock said on 28/May/17
aaronious said on 28/May/17
****sock, unless you can see the footwear, video is unreliable, especially one involving Baba, who was known to stand on small boxes in his interviews, in the same way McMahon used to have Andre stand on boxes to make him look 7'4". Also, you can tell Andre is leaning forward in that video, not really standing at his full height, whereas Baa is stretched to his maximum height. Andre was no doubt about 6'10"-6'11" towards his death, i dont think anyone argues that. Andre's posture has always been ****, and MUCH worse in his later years from 86 onward, and progressively much worse each successive year, this has been proven time and again by many forum posters over the years, i don't think even you can't deny that. Additionally, the pronating of the neck forward, continuing spinal curvature(scoliosis), and the "hunch", are all well documented conditions of people with gigantism/acromegaly that develops in their later years, and advanced rapidly towards the end. Look at Sandy Allen, the female giant who was on Howard Stern. she once stood 7'7 1/4", as measured by the guiness book, and by the time she died, she stood around 7 feet tall, due to advancing scoliosis from her acromegaly.
_______________________
I've never read such rubbish in all my life. Baba was known for standing on boxes? Not really. Both guys were in their ring gear. It's obvious. The difference between them in that interview was the same as when they were in the ring together. Baba was about 6'8" and Andre was maybe 6'10.5" there. Andre's posture was perfect. He wasn't leaning in at all. At one point in the segment, he stands as straight as humanly possible and the difference between them doesn't change. Andre was never more than a solid 6'11". The picture of him with Baba from 1982 is useless. He obviously wasn't that tall next to Baba. Andre didn't just have an inch of footwear advantage. It was more like 2". Those heels gave him well over 2" of lift. Baba's shoes had a very modest heel, probably giving him about half an inch. And his head was tilted down. Take away the 2" footwear advantage and the posture advantage and we're left with about a 3" difference. This fits perfectly with Andre being 6'11"/6'11.5" in his prime. Obviously, he hadn't lost any height by 1982 as he was only 36 years old by that point.
Here is Baba and Andre from 1979:Click Here
Andre would have been in his cowboy boots with that outfit, and yet appears to have about 3" on Baba.
We know 6'5"-6'6" guys like Hogan pretty much came up to his eyes in 1980. We know he was no more than 8-9" taller than 6'3" Bill Watts when both guys were in cowboy boots, but Andre's heels were bigger. Hogan was more like 6'5.5", he was never a solid 6'6". This has been stated by 6'5" Tiny Lister who worked very closely with Hogan in 1988/1989. Plus, all the visual evidence in the world supports it.
aaronious said on 28/May/17
****sock, unless you can see the footwear, video is unreliable, especially one involving Baba, who was known to stand on small boxes in his interviews, in the same way McMahon used to have Andre stand on boxes to make him look 7'4". Also, you can tell Andre is leaning forward in that video, not really standing at his full height, whereas Baa is stretched to his maximum height. Andre was no doubt about 6'10"-6'11" towards his death, i dont think anyone argues that. Andre's posture has always been ****, and MUCH worse in his later years from 86 onward, and progressively much worse each successive year, this has been proven time and again by many forum posters over the years, i don't think even you can't deny that. Additionally, the pronating of the neck forward, continuing spinal curvature(scoliosis), and the "hunch", are all well documented conditions of people with gigantism/acromegaly that develops in their later years, and advanced rapidly towards the end. Look at Sandy Allen, the female giant who was on Howard Stern. she once stood 7'7 1/4", as measured by the guiness book, and by the time she died, she stood around 7 feet tall, due to advancing scoliosis from her acromegaly.
_______________________
I've never read such rubbish in all my life. Baba was known for standing on boxes? Not really. Both guys were in their ring gear. It's obvious. The difference between them in that interview was the same as when they were in the ring together. Baba was about 6'8" and Andre was maybe 6'10.5" there. Andre's posture was perfect. He wasn't leaning in at all. At one point in the segment, he stands as straight as humanly possible and the difference between them doesn't change. Andre was never more than a solid 6'11". The picture of him with Baba from 1982 is useless. He obviously wasn't that tall next to Baba. Andre didn't just have an inch of footwear advantage. It was more like 2". Those heels gave him well over 2" of lift. Baba's shoes had a very modest heel, probably giving him about half an inch. And his head was tilted down. Take away the 2" footwear advantage and the posture advantage and we're left with about a 3" difference. This fits perfectly with Andre being 6'11"/6'11.5" in his prime. Obviously, he hadn't lost any height by 1982 as he was only 36 years old by that point.
Here is Baba and Andre from 1979:Click Here
Andre would have been in his cowboy boots with that outfit, and yet appears to have about 3" on Baba.
We know 6'5"-6'6" guys like Hogan pretty much came up to his eyes in 1980. We know he was no more than 8-9" taller than 6'3" Bill Watts when both guys were in cowboy boots, but Andre's heels were bigger. Hogan was more like 6'5.5", he was never a solid 6'6". This has been stated by 6'5" Tiny Lister who worked very closely with Hogan in 1988/1989. Plus, all the visual evidence in the world supports it.
aaronious said on 28/May/17
****sock, unless you can see the footwear, video is unreliable, especially one involving Baba, who was known to stand on small boxes in his interviews, in the same way McMahon used to have Andre stand on boxes to make him look 7'4". Also, you can tell Andre is leaning forward in that video, not really standing at his full height, whereas Baa is stretched to his maximum height. Andre was no doubt about 6'10"-6'11" towards his death, i dont think anyone argues that. Andre's posture has always been ****, and MUCH worse in his later years from 86 onward, and progressively much worse each successive year, this has been proven time and again by many forum posters over the years, i don't think even you can't deny that. Additionally, the pronating of the neck forward, continuing spinal curvature(scoliosis), and the "hunch", are all well documented conditions of people with gigantism/acromegaly that develops in their later years, and advanced rapidly towards the end. Look at Sandy Allen, the female giant who was on Howard Stern. she once stood 7'7 1/4", as measured by the guiness book, and by the time she died, she stood around 7 feet tall, due to advancing scoliosis from her acromegaly.
i agree, Baba was a solid 6'8", hes had many full photo shots with other wrestlers of known height to prove that.. but to say Hogan was 6'5.5", well, i would disagree, having met the man both in the mid eighties and later in life in the 2000's. in the 80's, he stood next to my father, whom is every bit of 6'4", and he had two inches on him, solid. there was no 'weak 6'6", he was a solid 6'6", all day long. in fact, my father had on work boots, and hogan had his wrestling boots on, so i would even say that my father had a slight footwear advantage.
Now, when we saw him again in 2005, he was barely 6'4.5" himself, just a half inch taller than my father. My father was shocked at how much he shrank.
There is a photo of Hogan with Baba, they are about two inches apart, but you can't be certain, because their footwear isn't seen:
Click Here
heres a photo of Andre and Baba. and while Andre is past his prime here, i would say most of his height is preserved, and hes probably within a half inch of his peak height. He has on cowboy boots, and baba has sneakers on, so Andre has about a 1" footwear advantage, which puts him around 4 inches taller than Baba, rather than the apparent 5 inches. at a time frame where Andre isnt young with a fully straight spine, he still has 4 inches, or close to it, on a 6'8" Baba.
Click Here
****sock, unless you can see the footwear, video is unreliable, especially one involving Baba, who was known to stand on small boxes in his interviews, in the same way McMahon used to have Andre stand on boxes to make him look 7'4". Also, you can tell Andre is leaning forward in that video, not really standing at his full height, whereas Baa is stretched to his maximum height. Andre was no doubt about 6'10"-6'11" towards his death, i dont think anyone argues that. Andre's posture has always been ****, and MUCH worse in his later years from 86 onward, and progressively much worse each successive year, this has been proven time and again by many forum posters over the years, i don't think even you can't deny that. Additionally, the pronating of the neck forward, continuing spinal curvature(scoliosis), and the "hunch", are all well documented conditions of people with gigantism/acromegaly that develops in their later years, and advanced rapidly towards the end. Look at Sandy Allen, the female giant who was on Howard Stern. she once stood 7'7 1/4", as measured by the guiness book, and by the time she died, she stood around 7 feet tall, due to advancing scoliosis from her acromegaly.
i agree, Baba was a solid 6'8", hes had many full photo shots with other wrestlers of known height to prove that.. but to say Hogan was 6'5.5", well, i would disagree, having met the man both in the mid eighties and later in life in the 2000's. in the 80's, he stood next to my father, whom is every bit of 6'4", and he had two inches on him, solid. there was no 'weak 6'6", he was a solid 6'6", all day long. in fact, my father had on work boots, and hogan had his wrestling boots on, so i would even say that my father had a slight footwear advantage.
Now, when we saw him again in 2005, he was barely 6'4.5" himself, just a half inch taller than my father. My father was shocked at how much he shrank.
There is a photo of Hogan with Baba, they are about two inches apart, but you can't be certain, because their footwear isn't seen:
Click Here
heres a photo of Andre and Baba. and while Andre is past his prime here, i would say most of his height is preserved, and hes probably within a half inch of his peak height. He has on cowboy boots, and baba has sneakers on, so Andre has about a 1" footwear advantage, which puts him around 4 inches taller than Baba, rather than the apparent 5 inches. at a time frame where Andre isnt young with a fully straight spine, he still has 4 inches, or close to it, on a 6'8" Baba.
Click Here
aaronious said on 28/May/17
theres a bronze casting of Andre's hands by a famous hand surgeon in texas, at a medical museum
theres a bronze casting of Andre's hands by a famous hand surgeon in texas, at a medical museum
Wrestling Fan said on 26/May/17
It's well known he peaked at 6ft 10 inches tall
It's well known he peaked at 6ft 10 inches tall
MJKoP said on 26/May/17
It's pretty hard to tell when somebody has literal Gigantism, but what makes you think he was a good five inches shorter than what he was purportedly measured at? Don't they ascertain this info barefoot in preparation for the Wrestlemania events? And wouldn't they especially want to do this with such an exceptionally strapping and notable contender?
It's pretty hard to tell when somebody has literal Gigantism, but what makes you think he was a good five inches shorter than what he was purportedly measured at? Don't they ascertain this info barefoot in preparation for the Wrestlemania events? And wouldn't they especially want to do this with such an exceptionally strapping and notable contender?
LG69 said on 25/May/17
@Guanzo,
You're being too conservative with those heights. At death, the coroners report stated 6'10"
@Guanzo,
You're being too conservative with those heights. At death, the coroners report stated 6'10"
day day said on 25/May/17
Didnt think they bill heights for wsm
Didnt think they bill heights for wsm
Guanzo said on 23/May/17
6'10.5''(1970s)
6'9.5''(1980s)
6'8''(1990s)
6'10.5''(1970s)
6'9.5''(1980s)
6'8''(1990s)
Oanh said on 19/May/17
day day said on 17/May/17
Look at 6'8 brian shaw to an older arnie then look at andre
Yeah, Brian is not 6'8". He's shorter than 6'7.5" Hafthor Bjornsson.
day day said on 17/May/17
Look at 6'8 brian shaw to an older arnie then look at andre
Yeah, Brian is not 6'8". He's shorter than 6'7.5" Hafthor Bjornsson.
day day said on 19/May/17
71 happy bday
71 happy bday
day day said on 17/May/17
Look at 6'8 brian shaw to an older arnie then look at andre
Look at 6'8 brian shaw to an older arnie then look at andre
62B said on 17/May/17
andre said on 16/May/17
rob did andre the giant ever weighted 300 kilos , at least hulk hogan says he did weighted what is your opinion what was the max he ever weighted ?
__________________________________________-
I'm not Rob, but from what I saw 660lbs looked believable, but it doesn't seem probable as I don't believe he was ever billed that heavy. He could have been 575lbs at his heaviest. Weight though can be trickier than height.
andre said on 16/May/17
rob did andre the giant ever weighted 300 kilos , at least hulk hogan says he did weighted what is your opinion what was the max he ever weighted ?
__________________________________________-
I'm not Rob, but from what I saw 660lbs looked believable, but it doesn't seem probable as I don't believe he was ever billed that heavy. He could have been 575lbs at his heaviest. Weight though can be trickier than height.
andre said on 16/May/17
rob did andre the giant ever weighted 300 kilos , at least hulk hogan says he did weighted what is your opinion what was the max he ever weighted ?
rob did andre the giant ever weighted 300 kilos , at least hulk hogan says he did weighted what is your opinion what was the max he ever weighted ?
JT said on 10/May/17
Click Here Andre's boots definitely do not have the usual sized cowboy boot heels I believe Bill Watts was billed at 6'3" but he did look around that height. This football site has him at 6'2" Click Here There's no reason why they would not be in their respective cowboy boots when standing side by side as they would have wanted to make Andre look as tall as possible. Watts would not have looked that tall if just in his socks like Vince used to do.
Watts probably is in cowboy boots here as the height difference with Andre in wrestling boots is not that much Click Here
RoelC, those could be the same boots. Click Here The Andre/Wilt photo (~ Oct. 1983?) is not of as good a quality as the video (from Sept. 1983), which I lightened, but the left boot has a similar worn area at the tip of the sole,, same creases, etc. if they are not the same, the manufacturer (Tony Lama) presumably would have used a similar size heel in all of the boots that were custom made for Andre so the boot looked in proportion.
Click Here Andre's boots definitely do not have the usual sized cowboy boot heels I believe Bill Watts was billed at 6'3" but he did look around that height. This football site has him at 6'2" Click Here There's no reason why they would not be in their respective cowboy boots when standing side by side as they would have wanted to make Andre look as tall as possible. Watts would not have looked that tall if just in his socks like Vince used to do.
Watts probably is in cowboy boots here as the height difference with Andre in wrestling boots is not that much Click Here
RoelC, those could be the same boots. Click Here The Andre/Wilt photo (~ Oct. 1983?) is not of as good a quality as the video (from Sept. 1983), which I lightened, but the left boot has a similar worn area at the tip of the sole,, same creases, etc. if they are not the same, the manufacturer (Tony Lama) presumably would have used a similar size heel in all of the boots that were custom made for Andre so the boot looked in proportion.
Capt. Nobody said on 9/May/17
****sock said on 8/May/17
Lawrence said on 7/May/17
****sock said on 2/May/17
Here is a pretty shocking video of 6'8/6'9" billed Big Guido (Mike Fury) and Giant Haystacks from 1994:
Click Here
Haystacks was clearly several inches shorter than Mike. No way was he above 6'6" there. Crazy to see Haystacks looking so small next to someone who was billed 3" shorter than Haystacks' billed height.
They look the same height to me next to each other.how tall is the other guy ment to be?
________________
Well, I already included in the post you responded to that the other guy is billed at 6'8" or 6'9" and no they are not the same height. Mike Fury was clearly at least 2" taller. It is very obvious Haystacks was shorter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He should be, Big Guido measured up to Big Show better than Haystacks did. Haystacks looked around the same height as Tenta when Tenta held him back from getting in the cage against Hogan when Loch Ness debuted at Superbrawl (?). I'd say Haystacks and Tenta are a bit under OMG and Studd height wise by a half inch or inch or something like that. Big Guido looked around Kurgan's height to me.
****sock said on 8/May/17
Lawrence said on 7/May/17
****sock said on 2/May/17
Here is a pretty shocking video of 6'8/6'9" billed Big Guido (Mike Fury) and Giant Haystacks from 1994:
Click Here
Haystacks was clearly several inches shorter than Mike. No way was he above 6'6" there. Crazy to see Haystacks looking so small next to someone who was billed 3" shorter than Haystacks' billed height.
They look the same height to me next to each other.how tall is the other guy ment to be?
________________
Well, I already included in the post you responded to that the other guy is billed at 6'8" or 6'9" and no they are not the same height. Mike Fury was clearly at least 2" taller. It is very obvious Haystacks was shorter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He should be, Big Guido measured up to Big Show better than Haystacks did. Haystacks looked around the same height as Tenta when Tenta held him back from getting in the cage against Hogan when Loch Ness debuted at Superbrawl (?). I'd say Haystacks and Tenta are a bit under OMG and Studd height wise by a half inch or inch or something like that. Big Guido looked around Kurgan's height to me.
dicksock said on 9/May/17
aaronious said on 8/May/17
Dicksock.. a 1990 Andre was a hunched over bloated and nearly dead version of a much younger Andre, and yes, he still had about 2" + on Tyler Mane ( 6'8"). there have been many picture of Andre from his later years, superimposed with all matching points on the legs and lower body , and his torso in later years is shorter, especially in the neck area, Andre having developed a 'hunchback' and easily having lost two inches. his chin used to be several inches above his shoulders, but in later years his head is hunched forward and his chin is below his shoulder level most days
and FYI, Andre's wrists were measured by that hand surgeon in texas over 12" in circumference ;)
____________________
I question the validity of those superimposed pictures. I just don't see any significant height loss for Andre. I doubt he even lost 1". I never really saw him look any taller than 6'11.5" barefoot, and he still looked around 6'11" or close to it by the end.
Here he is in 1990 with the solid 6'8" Giant Baba: Click Here
He was standing to his full height there and looked about 2.5" taller. So, he was a minimum of 6'10.5" there. Again, he was no more than 8" taller than 6'3" Bill Watts in 1983, and he was never more than 6" taller than 6'5.5" Hulk Hogan. Even in 1974, he didn't look any more than 10" taller than 6'1" Frank Valois. I think he was maybe 6'11"/6'11.5" peak and still very close to 6'11" towards the end.
Also, where did you see that Andre had his wrists measured by a hand surgeon? I find it hard to believe his wrists were quite that big considering his WM III stats listed his wrists as 11". I would guess they were 10-11" around - which is huge.
aaronious said on 8/May/17
Dicksock.. a 1990 Andre was a hunched over bloated and nearly dead version of a much younger Andre, and yes, he still had about 2" + on Tyler Mane ( 6'8"). there have been many picture of Andre from his later years, superimposed with all matching points on the legs and lower body , and his torso in later years is shorter, especially in the neck area, Andre having developed a 'hunchback' and easily having lost two inches. his chin used to be several inches above his shoulders, but in later years his head is hunched forward and his chin is below his shoulder level most days
and FYI, Andre's wrists were measured by that hand surgeon in texas over 12" in circumference ;)
____________________
I question the validity of those superimposed pictures. I just don't see any significant height loss for Andre. I doubt he even lost 1". I never really saw him look any taller than 6'11.5" barefoot, and he still looked around 6'11" or close to it by the end.
Here he is in 1990 with the solid 6'8" Giant Baba: Click Here
He was standing to his full height there and looked about 2.5" taller. So, he was a minimum of 6'10.5" there. Again, he was no more than 8" taller than 6'3" Bill Watts in 1983, and he was never more than 6" taller than 6'5.5" Hulk Hogan. Even in 1974, he didn't look any more than 10" taller than 6'1" Frank Valois. I think he was maybe 6'11"/6'11.5" peak and still very close to 6'11" towards the end.
Also, where did you see that Andre had his wrists measured by a hand surgeon? I find it hard to believe his wrists were quite that big considering his WM III stats listed his wrists as 11". I would guess they were 10-11" around - which is huge.
Halb said on 9/May/17
I think you're spot on there, Dicksock.
I think you're spot on there, Dicksock.
aaronious said on 8/May/17
Dicksock.. a 1990 Andre was a hunched over bloated and nearly dead version of a much younger Andre, and yes, he still had about 2" + on Tyler Mane ( 6'8"). there have been many picture of Andre from his later years, superimposed with all matching points on the legs and lower body , and his torso in later years is shorter, especially in the neck area, Andre having developed a 'hunchback' and easily having lost two inches. his chin used to be several inches above his shoulders, but in later years his head is hunched forward and his chin is below his shoulder level most days
and FYI, Andre's wrists were measured by that hand surgeon in texas over 12" in circumference ;)
Dicksock.. a 1990 Andre was a hunched over bloated and nearly dead version of a much younger Andre, and yes, he still had about 2" + on Tyler Mane ( 6'8"). there have been many picture of Andre from his later years, superimposed with all matching points on the legs and lower body , and his torso in later years is shorter, especially in the neck area, Andre having developed a 'hunchback' and easily having lost two inches. his chin used to be several inches above his shoulders, but in later years his head is hunched forward and his chin is below his shoulder level most days
and FYI, Andre's wrists were measured by that hand surgeon in texas over 12" in circumference ;)
RoelC said on 8/May/17
JT said on 7/May/17
Click Here This is within a month or so of Andre being in the Conan movie so those are probably the brown cowboy boots he wore with Wilt and Arnold and with Letterman in early 1984.
Nice find, although it's still speculating if the boots on display are the same ones that Andre wore with Wilt & Arnold. Andre was the highest paid wrestler in the world, so I'm sure he could afford more than one pair of cowboy boots. He could've owned dozens of pairs for all we know. Most of them seem to have been made by Tony Lama from El Paso, Texas.
The boots on display don't seem to be the ones he wore with Wilt & Arnold though. The colour of the sole on those boots was the same colour as the rest of the boot, whereas the sole on the boots on display have a different colour.
Click Here
Needless to say the heels on those boots are huge! Easily 2.5 inches.
JT said on 7/May/17
Click Here This is within a month or so of Andre being in the Conan movie so those are probably the brown cowboy boots he wore with Wilt and Arnold and with Letterman in early 1984.
Nice find, although it's still speculating if the boots on display are the same ones that Andre wore with Wilt & Arnold. Andre was the highest paid wrestler in the world, so I'm sure he could afford more than one pair of cowboy boots. He could've owned dozens of pairs for all we know. Most of them seem to have been made by Tony Lama from El Paso, Texas.
The boots on display don't seem to be the ones he wore with Wilt & Arnold though. The colour of the sole on those boots was the same colour as the rest of the boot, whereas the sole on the boots on display have a different colour.
Click Here
Needless to say the heels on those boots are huge! Easily 2.5 inches.
dicksock said on 8/May/17
Lawrence said on 7/May/17
****sock said on 2/May/17
Here is a pretty shocking video of 6'8/6'9" billed Big Guido (Mike Fury) and Giant Haystacks from 1994:
Click Here
Haystacks was clearly several inches shorter than Mike. No way was he above 6'6" there. Crazy to see Haystacks looking so small next to someone who was billed 3" shorter than Haystacks' billed height.
They look the same height to me next to each other.how tall is the other guy ment to be?
________________
Well, I already included in the post you responded to that the other guy is billed at 6'8" or 6'9" and no they are not the same height. Mike Fury was clearly at least 2" taller. It is very obvious Haystacks was shorter.
Lawrence said on 7/May/17
****sock said on 2/May/17
Here is a pretty shocking video of 6'8/6'9" billed Big Guido (Mike Fury) and Giant Haystacks from 1994:
Click Here
Haystacks was clearly several inches shorter than Mike. No way was he above 6'6" there. Crazy to see Haystacks looking so small next to someone who was billed 3" shorter than Haystacks' billed height.
They look the same height to me next to each other.how tall is the other guy ment to be?
________________
Well, I already included in the post you responded to that the other guy is billed at 6'8" or 6'9" and no they are not the same height. Mike Fury was clearly at least 2" taller. It is very obvious Haystacks was shorter.
dicksock said on 7/May/17
JT said on 7/May/17
Click Here
Click Here This is within a month or so of Andre being in the Conan movie so those are probably the brown cowboy boots he wore with Wilt and Arnold and with Letterman in early 1984.
________________
Great footage. The one thing that stood out to me was the size of Andre's wrists. He probably had the biggest wrists I've ever seen. They had to be about 10" around, at least. Mine are a little over 8" and his were definitely way bigger. As far as his height, he was for 100% fact no more than 8" taller than 6'3" Bill Watts. Both were presumably in cowboy boots. I honestly don't understand why it's so hard for some people to tell he was about 6'11". It's so obvious that was his true height. He always looked about 6'11" and that is what Adrian Street said he was in 1969 when he left the UK. That is also what Sam Muchnick said he was. For those that don't know, Sam Muchnick was one of biggest NWA promoters ever and worked with Andre for many years. I can't find the interview, but when asked about Andre's height, he said Andre was about 6'10/6'11" legit. It's obvious at this point that's what he was. I think his height should be changed to 6'11" and there is little evidence he lost any real height. Even in 1990, he looked about 2.5" taller than the solid 6'8" Giant Baba. There is a point in their match with Tyler Mane where you can see Baba was the same height or taller than Tyler Mane. This also means Baba would have been about the same height as Kevin Nash because Nash was clearly about the same height as Mane. Bottom line is that Andre was about 6'11" or a tad over at his tallest and maybe lost .5" or something with age.
JT said on 7/May/17
Click Here
Click Here This is within a month or so of Andre being in the Conan movie so those are probably the brown cowboy boots he wore with Wilt and Arnold and with Letterman in early 1984.
________________
Great footage. The one thing that stood out to me was the size of Andre's wrists. He probably had the biggest wrists I've ever seen. They had to be about 10" around, at least. Mine are a little over 8" and his were definitely way bigger. As far as his height, he was for 100% fact no more than 8" taller than 6'3" Bill Watts. Both were presumably in cowboy boots. I honestly don't understand why it's so hard for some people to tell he was about 6'11". It's so obvious that was his true height. He always looked about 6'11" and that is what Adrian Street said he was in 1969 when he left the UK. That is also what Sam Muchnick said he was. For those that don't know, Sam Muchnick was one of biggest NWA promoters ever and worked with Andre for many years. I can't find the interview, but when asked about Andre's height, he said Andre was about 6'10/6'11" legit. It's obvious at this point that's what he was. I think his height should be changed to 6'11" and there is little evidence he lost any real height. Even in 1990, he looked about 2.5" taller than the solid 6'8" Giant Baba. There is a point in their match with Tyler Mane where you can see Baba was the same height or taller than Tyler Mane. This also means Baba would have been about the same height as Kevin Nash because Nash was clearly about the same height as Mane. Bottom line is that Andre was about 6'11" or a tad over at his tallest and maybe lost .5" or something with age.
Lawrence said on 7/May/17
****sock said on 2/May/17
Here is a pretty shocking video of 6'8/6'9" billed Big Guido (Mike Fury) and Giant Haystacks from 1994:
Click Here
Haystacks was clearly several inches shorter than Mike. No way was he above 6'6" there. Crazy to see Haystacks looking so small next to someone who was billed 3" shorter than Haystacks' billed height.
They look the same height to me next to each other.how tall is the other guy ment to be?
****sock said on 2/May/17
Here is a pretty shocking video of 6'8/6'9" billed Big Guido (Mike Fury) and Giant Haystacks from 1994:
Click Here
Haystacks was clearly several inches shorter than Mike. No way was he above 6'6" there. Crazy to see Haystacks looking so small next to someone who was billed 3" shorter than Haystacks' billed height.
They look the same height to me next to each other.how tall is the other guy ment to be?
JT said on 7/May/17
Click Here
Click Here This is within a month or so of Andre being in the Conan movie so those are probably the brown cowboy boots he wore with Wilt and Arnold and with Letterman in early 1984.
Click Here
Click Here This is within a month or so of Andre being in the Conan movie so those are probably the brown cowboy boots he wore with Wilt and Arnold and with Letterman in early 1984.
LG69 said on 3/May/17
7'0(1970s)
6'11(1980s)
6'10(1990s)
7'0(1970s)
6'11(1980s)
6'10(1990s)
dicksock said on 2/May/17
Here is a pretty shocking video of 6'8/6'9" billed Big Guido (Mike Fury) and Giant Haystacks from 1994:
Click Here
Haystacks was clearly several inches shorter than Mike. No way was he above 6'6" there. Crazy to see Haystacks looking so small next to someone who was billed 3" shorter than Haystacks' billed height.
Here is a pretty shocking video of 6'8/6'9" billed Big Guido (Mike Fury) and Giant Haystacks from 1994:
Click Here
Haystacks was clearly several inches shorter than Mike. No way was he above 6'6" there. Crazy to see Haystacks looking so small next to someone who was billed 3" shorter than Haystacks' billed height.
JT said on 2/May/17
Click Here Mil Mascaras was around 5’9”.
MelvinJones said on 26/Apr/17
What do you think Andre's real chest measurement was? 71 inches seems difficult to believe.
That may be the only time a claimed measurement of Andre was close to reality, especially when he was over 500 lbs.
Click Here Mil Mascaras was around 5’9”.
MelvinJones said on 26/Apr/17
What do you think Andre's real chest measurement was? 71 inches seems difficult to believe.
That may be the only time a claimed measurement of Andre was close to reality, especially when he was over 500 lbs.
RP said on 29/Apr/17
With Andre's chest being measured a relaxed 65" @ 425-430 lbs? Then...70" to 71" is very possible once he hit 500-520 lbs'
With Andre's chest being measured a relaxed 65" @ 425-430 lbs? Then...70" to 71" is very possible once he hit 500-520 lbs'
dicksock said on 28/Apr/17
MelvinJones said on 26/Apr/17
What do you think Andre's real chest measurement was? 71 inches seems difficult to believe.
_____________
I think he was that big or very close to it at his biggest. He was just so wide. I would say he was deceptively wide. I'm sure Hogan's chest was at least 56" at his biggest and probably bigger. Andre did have his suit measurements listed from the early 70s, his chest measurement was 65" I believe. He was far from his biggest at that point. 71" was probably pretty accurate.
Just look at Andre from behind when he's walking backstage:
Click Here
He was beyond gigantic at that point.
MelvinJones said on 26/Apr/17
What do you think Andre's real chest measurement was? 71 inches seems difficult to believe.
_____________
I think he was that big or very close to it at his biggest. He was just so wide. I would say he was deceptively wide. I'm sure Hogan's chest was at least 56" at his biggest and probably bigger. Andre did have his suit measurements listed from the early 70s, his chest measurement was 65" I believe. He was far from his biggest at that point. 71" was probably pretty accurate.
Just look at Andre from behind when he's walking backstage:
Click Here
He was beyond gigantic at that point.
Jordan87 said on 28/Apr/17
Melvin Jones,
I think Big SHow's was a 64". Andre may have been around the same, Not Sure as big as a 71". Big Show had a good deal more muscle mass than Andre who was never really all that Muscular. His Size gave him the power the throw guys around, same as Big Show, but Show had alot more Muscle to his frame. ( Andre Did not Work out like the Wrestlers of the 90's and 2000's.)
Melvin Jones,
I think Big SHow's was a 64". Andre may have been around the same, Not Sure as big as a 71". Big Show had a good deal more muscle mass than Andre who was never really all that Muscular. His Size gave him the power the throw guys around, same as Big Show, but Show had alot more Muscle to his frame. ( Andre Did not Work out like the Wrestlers of the 90's and 2000's.)
MelvinJones said on 26/Apr/17
What do you think Andre's real chest measurement was? 71 inches seems difficult to believe.
What do you think Andre's real chest measurement was? 71 inches seems difficult to believe.
Gunner said on 24/Apr/17
Ian C said on 22/Apr/17
I wonder if this man had the largest head of any human being during his lifetime.
He certainly did
Ian C said on 22/Apr/17
I wonder if this man had the largest head of any human being during his lifetime.
He certainly did
Logic said on 24/Apr/17
Here is a photo of wrestler Steven Regal (William Regal) standing with Giant Haystacks.
Click Here
Steven Regal is probably around 6'2" And Haystacks does not look to be 6" taller than him. In my opinion, he was probably around 6'7" or a tad over at his peak.
Here is a photo of wrestler Steven Regal (William Regal) standing with Giant Haystacks.
Click Here
Steven Regal is probably around 6'2" And Haystacks does not look to be 6" taller than him. In my opinion, he was probably around 6'7" or a tad over at his peak.
Ian C said on 22/Apr/17
I wonder if this man had the largest head of any human being during his lifetime.
I wonder if this man had the largest head of any human being during his lifetime.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 20/Apr/17
Paul Wight the Big Show age 37 in 2-2.5" Cowboyboots was an inch shorter than Shaq age 37 in dressshoes Click Here
Andre the Giant age 37 in 2-2.5" Cowboyboots was the same height as Wilt Chamberlain age 47 in 0.75-1" boots Click Here
Even old Wilt never looked shorter than Shaq who was in big basketball shoes in the most of their pics...
So these wrestling backstage pic comparison only proof that Big Show had a massive footwear advantage over Andre in ring gear.
Paul Wight the Big Show age 37 in 2-2.5" Cowboyboots was an inch shorter than Shaq age 37 in dressshoes Click Here
Andre the Giant age 37 in 2-2.5" Cowboyboots was the same height as Wilt Chamberlain age 47 in 0.75-1" boots Click Here
Even old Wilt never looked shorter than Shaq who was in big basketball shoes in the most of their pics...
So these wrestling backstage pic comparison only proof that Big Show had a massive footwear advantage over Andre in ring gear.
Jordan87 said on 20/Apr/17
Undertaker Frank,
Correct, and either Way Andre would have the higher shoulder level than Show.
Undertaker Frank,
Correct, and either Way Andre would have the higher shoulder level than Show.
Guanzo said on 19/Apr/17
7'1'' NBA listed players are with shoes without them 6'11.5''
7'1'' NBA listed players are with shoes without them 6'11.5''
Undertaker Frank said on 19/Apr/17
Jordan, Big Show would have been taller with his Boots with a big sole but both men barefoot would be close
Jordan, Big Show would have been taller with his Boots with a big sole but both men barefoot would be close
Jordan87 said on 19/Apr/17
Click Here
The video is sketchy at best but the Photos at the end of the Video Show Andre and Show next to Mean gene. What Strikes me is the Big Show seems to have a much longer neck in proportion to Andre who seemed to have a higher Shoulder level ( Around WM 3)but much shorter neck.
If they faced off, It would be a bit weird b/c you would have Big Show who would be an inch taller, but Andre who's chest and Shoulders would be higher than the Big Shows.
Click Here
The video is sketchy at best but the Photos at the end of the Video Show Andre and Show next to Mean gene. What Strikes me is the Big Show seems to have a much longer neck in proportion to Andre who seemed to have a higher Shoulder level ( Around WM 3)but much shorter neck.
If they faced off, It would be a bit weird b/c you would have Big Show who would be an inch taller, but Andre who's chest and Shoulders would be higher than the Big Shows.
dicksock said on 18/Apr/17
Danimal: Yes, Big Show may have been 7' at his tallest. But, college listings aren't always reliable. The Rock had 6'4" and 6'5" listings in football. I can pretty much guarantee he was always shorter than 7'1" tops Shaq.
Danimal: Yes, Big Show may have been 7' at his tallest. But, college listings aren't always reliable. The Rock had 6'4" and 6'5" listings in football. I can pretty much guarantee he was always shorter than 7'1" tops Shaq.
Bruce Prichard said on 17/Apr/17
Andre was genuinely a GIANT. Rumor and innuendo aside that mother-f'er may have been 7'6'. I remember standing next to him many times trying to look him in the face during a conversation and ending up with a sore neck. GIANT.
Andre was genuinely a GIANT. Rumor and innuendo aside that mother-f'er may have been 7'6'. I remember standing next to him many times trying to look him in the face during a conversation and ending up with a sore neck. GIANT.
Danimal said on 17/Apr/17
dicksock said on 15/Apr/17
Where have you seen Hogan tip toeing? Haystacks was easily 3.5" taller than 6'4.5" Pat Roach. Haystacks was around 6'8" at his tallest and Andre was 6'11" at his tallest. By the time Haystacks got to WCW, he was about 6'6.5" and "The Giant" was about 6'11.5" with about 1" of footwear advantage. Andre was never more than 6" taller than 6'5.5" MAX Hogan, and that is a fact. That is before any alleged height loss. Andre was 7' MAX out of bed and 6'11" at night. Game over.
The Giant from 1995-1999 was bare minimum 7'0" barefoot. Imo, he was 7'0.5" (listed as 7'1" in college).
dicksock said on 15/Apr/17
Where have you seen Hogan tip toeing? Haystacks was easily 3.5" taller than 6'4.5" Pat Roach. Haystacks was around 6'8" at his tallest and Andre was 6'11" at his tallest. By the time Haystacks got to WCW, he was about 6'6.5" and "The Giant" was about 6'11.5" with about 1" of footwear advantage. Andre was never more than 6" taller than 6'5.5" MAX Hogan, and that is a fact. That is before any alleged height loss. Andre was 7' MAX out of bed and 6'11" at night. Game over.
The Giant from 1995-1999 was bare minimum 7'0" barefoot. Imo, he was 7'0.5" (listed as 7'1" in college).
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 15/Apr/17
dicksock said on 15/Apr/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 14/Apr/17
Where have you seen Hogan tip toeing?
***********************************************************************
Hogan clearly goes slightly on his tip toes in this ne wm3 pic JT provided, the boots don´t stay in this angle during the match so he gains around a half inch to his normal height in footwear.
I agree Andre was 6´11" evening, but out of bed could´ve been near 7´1".
I lost a full inch from 6´1" to 6ftflat out of bed/evening before disc surgery, so Andre could easy lose up to 2 inches.
Haystacks was not 6´8"evening, he looked 1.5" under 6´8.5" Giant Baba, hope someone puts the match up again, Baba had 3" on peak Hogan
wich makes Haystacks 6´7" with a chance of 6´7.5".
Haystacks looked still 1.5" taller than Hogan in JT´s WCW comparison, so they had pretty much the same heightloss of 0.5-1" from their prime to mid nineties.
For the Haystacks/ Roach comparison
The high camera angle with roach makes the gap look bigger than it actually is, 3 inches maximum.
dicksock said on 15/Apr/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 14/Apr/17
Where have you seen Hogan tip toeing?
***********************************************************************
Hogan clearly goes slightly on his tip toes in this ne wm3 pic JT provided, the boots don´t stay in this angle during the match so he gains around a half inch to his normal height in footwear.
I agree Andre was 6´11" evening, but out of bed could´ve been near 7´1".
I lost a full inch from 6´1" to 6ftflat out of bed/evening before disc surgery, so Andre could easy lose up to 2 inches.
Haystacks was not 6´8"evening, he looked 1.5" under 6´8.5" Giant Baba, hope someone puts the match up again, Baba had 3" on peak Hogan
wich makes Haystacks 6´7" with a chance of 6´7.5".
Haystacks looked still 1.5" taller than Hogan in JT´s WCW comparison, so they had pretty much the same heightloss of 0.5-1" from their prime to mid nineties.
For the Haystacks/ Roach comparison
The high camera angle with roach makes the gap look bigger than it actually is, 3 inches maximum.
Halb said on 15/Apr/17
Chaz said on 14/Apr/17
"...you will see Haystacks standing upright,and looking at 6'4.5'' Pat Roach about the only time in the match.he's a forehead taller draw a line? and Hogan was not more than 2cm taller than Roach."
SO Hogan was probably between 6'5" and 6'5½".
Chaz said on 14/Apr/17
"...you will see Haystacks standing upright,and looking at 6'4.5'' Pat Roach about the only time in the match.he's a forehead taller draw a line? and Hogan was not more than 2cm taller than Roach."
SO Hogan was probably between 6'5" and 6'5½".
dicksock said on 15/Apr/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 14/Apr/17
Chaz said on 14/Apr/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Apr/17
Comparing the two pics by putting Andres face at the same size.
________________________________________________________________
So Andre's head is at the top of he's hair now? go down 1'' and you may be nere the mark and has I said Both Andre and Hogan have thicker heels in that photo,
_____________________________
read right and you don´t need to argue, I said putting his face at the same size.
Andres posture is crap and he´s already a couple of inches taller than Haystacks.
It´s not the same camera angle like the Andre Hogan pic, so it´s not 100% comparable
Andre has the lowest footwear facing Haystacks and about 1cm sole facing Hogan who´s tip toeing.
Haystacks looks 6´7"-6´7.5" facing Roach but its a high cam angle... but I would go with this mark.
Haystacks would be max 6´8" flat in his thin boots, Hogan with solid 1" boots and tiptoeing near 6´6.75-6´7"
Hogan was a full inch taller than Hillbilly Jim, so he would have a full inch on Pat Roach barefoot.
Peak Haystacks comes out out same height as peak Undertaker.
_________________-
Where have you seen Hogan tip toeing? Haystacks was easily 3.5" taller than 6'4.5" Pat Roach. Haystacks was around 6'8" at his tallest and Andre was 6'11" at his tallest. By the time Haystacks got to WCW, he was about 6'6.5" and "The Giant" was about 6'11.5" with about 1" of footwear advantage. Andre was never more than 6" taller than 6'5.5" MAX Hogan, and that is a fact. That is before any alleged height loss. Andre was 7' MAX out of bed and 6'11" at night. Game over.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 14/Apr/17
Chaz said on 14/Apr/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Apr/17
Comparing the two pics by putting Andres face at the same size.
________________________________________________________________
So Andre's head is at the top of he's hair now? go down 1'' and you may be nere the mark and has I said Both Andre and Hogan have thicker heels in that photo,
_____________________________
read right and you don´t need to argue, I said putting his face at the same size.
Andres posture is crap and he´s already a couple of inches taller than Haystacks.
It´s not the same camera angle like the Andre Hogan pic, so it´s not 100% comparable
Andre has the lowest footwear facing Haystacks and about 1cm sole facing Hogan who´s tip toeing.
Haystacks looks 6´7"-6´7.5" facing Roach but its a high cam angle... but I would go with this mark.
Haystacks would be max 6´8" flat in his thin boots, Hogan with solid 1" boots and tiptoeing near 6´6.75-6´7"
Hogan was a full inch taller than Hillbilly Jim, so he would have a full inch on Pat Roach barefoot.
Peak Haystacks comes out out same height as peak Undertaker.
_________________-
Where have you seen Hogan tip toeing? Haystacks was easily 3.5" taller than 6'4.5" Pat Roach. Haystacks was around 6'8" at his tallest and Andre was 6'11" at his tallest. By the time Haystacks got to WCW, he was about 6'6.5" and "The Giant" was about 6'11.5" with about 1" of footwear advantage. Andre was never more than 6" taller than 6'5.5" MAX Hogan, and that is a fact. That is before any alleged height loss. Andre was 7' MAX out of bed and 6'11" at night. Game over.
aaronious said on 14/Apr/17
those John Tenta comparisons make a very strong case for a 6'6" prime Hogan
those John Tenta comparisons make a very strong case for a 6'6" prime Hogan
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 14/Apr/17
Chaz said on 14/Apr/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Apr/17
Comparing the two pics by putting Andres face at the same size.
________________________________________________________________
So Andre's head is at the top of he's hair now? go down 1'' and you may be nere the mark and has I said Both Andre and Hogan have thicker heels in that photo,
_____________________________
read right and you don´t need to argue, I said putting his face at the same size.
Andres posture is crap and he´s already a couple of inches taller than Haystacks.
It´s not the same camera angle like the Andre Hogan pic, so it´s not 100% comparable
Andre has the lowest footwear facing Haystacks and about 1cm sole facing Hogan who´s tip toeing.
Haystacks looks 6´7"-6´7.5" facing Roach but its a high cam angle... but I would go with this mark.
Haystacks would be max 6´8" flat in his thin boots, Hogan with solid 1" boots and tiptoeing near 6´6.75-6´7"
Hogan was a full inch taller than Hillbilly Jim, so he would have a full inch on Pat Roach barefoot.
Peak Haystacks comes out out same height as peak Undertaker.
Chaz said on 14/Apr/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Apr/17
Comparing the two pics by putting Andres face at the same size.
________________________________________________________________
So Andre's head is at the top of he's hair now? go down 1'' and you may be nere the mark and has I said Both Andre and Hogan have thicker heels in that photo,
_____________________________
read right and you don´t need to argue, I said putting his face at the same size.
Andres posture is crap and he´s already a couple of inches taller than Haystacks.
It´s not the same camera angle like the Andre Hogan pic, so it´s not 100% comparable
Andre has the lowest footwear facing Haystacks and about 1cm sole facing Hogan who´s tip toeing.
Haystacks looks 6´7"-6´7.5" facing Roach but its a high cam angle... but I would go with this mark.
Haystacks would be max 6´8" flat in his thin boots, Hogan with solid 1" boots and tiptoeing near 6´6.75-6´7"
Hogan was a full inch taller than Hillbilly Jim, so he would have a full inch on Pat Roach barefoot.
Peak Haystacks comes out out same height as peak Undertaker.
Chaz said on 14/Apr/17
Click Here pause that at 0:07 secs and you will see Haystacks standing upright,and looking at 6'4.5'' Pat Roach about the only time in the match.he's a forehead taller draw a line? and Hogan was not more than 2cm taller than Roach.
Click Here pause that at 0:07 secs and you will see Haystacks standing upright,and looking at 6'4.5'' Pat Roach about the only time in the match.he's a forehead taller draw a line? and Hogan was not more than 2cm taller than Roach.
Chaz said on 14/Apr/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Apr/17
Click Here
Comparing the two pics by putting Andres face at the same size.
Hogan with bigger boots and noticable tiptoeing is not much under Haystacks.
So Andre's head is at the top of he's hair now? go down 1'' and you may be nere the mark and has I said Both Andre and Hogan have thicker heels in that photo,
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Apr/17
Click Here
Comparing the two pics by putting Andres face at the same size.
Hogan with bigger boots and noticable tiptoeing is not much under Haystacks.
So Andre's head is at the top of he's hair now? go down 1'' and you may be nere the mark and has I said Both Andre and Hogan have thicker heels in that photo,
realseagal said on 14/Apr/17
Jt you always make comparison pictures where wrestlers are backstage And you cant see their feet, but when it makes andre look Tall it doesnt count?? You And chaz are too biased to take serious, andre was roughly Same height or an inch shorter than wilt, wilt was taller than shaq, big show was shorter than shaq, those are facts.
Jt you always make comparison pictures where wrestlers are backstage And you cant see their feet, but when it makes andre look Tall it doesnt count?? You And chaz are too biased to take serious, andre was roughly Same height or an inch shorter than wilt, wilt was taller than shaq, big show was shorter than shaq, those are facts.
Chaz said on 13/Apr/17
JT said on 13/Apr/17
Backstage photos or screen caps of Andre can never be trusted Click Here
Chaz said on 11/Apr/17
….There is a much more clear shot of that photo were you can see more,if someone can post it.
Click Here Similar camera angle to the Andre-Hogan staredown Click Here
Thank's JT for posting that.and going by that a old Andre was taller than a Younger Andre next to Okerland,I wonder what is under he's feet?
And it's no good anyone saying about heels with Haystacks in that photo they are just has flat as each others,in the Hogan Andre one they both have thiker heels. if Haystacks lifted he's head up.I can't see anymore than 2-2.5'' between them.
JT said on 13/Apr/17
Backstage photos or screen caps of Andre can never be trusted Click Here
Chaz said on 11/Apr/17
….There is a much more clear shot of that photo were you can see more,if someone can post it.
Click Here Similar camera angle to the Andre-Hogan staredown Click Here
Thank's JT for posting that.and going by that a old Andre was taller than a Younger Andre next to Okerland,I wonder what is under he's feet?
And it's no good anyone saying about heels with Haystacks in that photo they are just has flat as each others,in the Hogan Andre one they both have thiker heels. if Haystacks lifted he's head up.I can't see anymore than 2-2.5'' between them.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Apr/17
Click Here
Comparing the two pics by putting Andres face at the same size.
Hogan with bigger boots and noticable tiptoeing is not much under Haystacks.
Click Here
Comparing the two pics by putting Andres face at the same size.
Hogan with bigger boots and noticable tiptoeing is not much under Haystacks.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 13/Apr/17
JT said on 13/Apr/17
Backstage photos or screen caps of Andre can never be trusted Click Here
Chaz said on 11/Apr/17
….There is a much more clear shot of that photo were you can see more,if someone can post it.
Click Here Similar camera angle to the Andre-Hogan staredown Click Here
****************************************************************************
LOL JT´s Andre comparisons can never be trusted
How comes Andre with straight legs has the same shoulderheight as Andre with bend legs...
oh would Haystacks be shorter than you want him????
Your backstage comparison of a straight as hell Andre and a younger slouching as hell Andre does prove whatttt???
JT said on 13/Apr/17
Backstage photos or screen caps of Andre can never be trusted Click Here
Chaz said on 11/Apr/17
….There is a much more clear shot of that photo were you can see more,if someone can post it.
Click Here Similar camera angle to the Andre-Hogan staredown Click Here
****************************************************************************
LOL JT´s Andre comparisons can never be trusted
How comes Andre with straight legs has the same shoulderheight as Andre with bend legs...
oh would Haystacks be shorter than you want him????
Your backstage comparison of a straight as hell Andre and a younger slouching as hell Andre does prove whatttt???
Jordan87 said on 13/Apr/17
That Haystacks Pic really does Shed Some Light. I have never seen that Pic But Andre being over 7'0 really doesn't look like it was the case.
Haystacks was Billed at 6'11 but The Big Show had him by Over 4" ( See Video). Big Show looked taller next to Haystacks than Andre did if we use that pic of Andre and Haystacks. Problem is that's the only Pic Available of the two together it would seem. Big Show I believe was 6'11" when Younger, Putting Giant Haystacks around 6'7". Andre if Straightened up would be around 6'10 tops with Haystacks.
Click Here
That Haystacks Pic really does Shed Some Light. I have never seen that Pic But Andre being over 7'0 really doesn't look like it was the case.
Haystacks was Billed at 6'11 but The Big Show had him by Over 4" ( See Video). Big Show looked taller next to Haystacks than Andre did if we use that pic of Andre and Haystacks. Problem is that's the only Pic Available of the two together it would seem. Big Show I believe was 6'11" when Younger, Putting Giant Haystacks around 6'7". Andre if Straightened up would be around 6'10 tops with Haystacks.
Click Here
JT said on 13/Apr/17
Backstage photos or screen caps of Andre can never be trusted Click Here
Chaz said on 11/Apr/17
….There is a much more clear shot of that photo were you can see more,if someone can post it.
Click Here Similar camera angle to the Andre-Hogan staredown Click Here
Backstage photos or screen caps of Andre can never be trusted Click Here
Chaz said on 11/Apr/17
….There is a much more clear shot of that photo were you can see more,if someone can post it.
Click Here Similar camera angle to the Andre-Hogan staredown Click Here
Chaz said on 11/Apr/17
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 10/Apr/17 What??? Andre is not close to standing straight in this pic and still looking down at Haystacks...
Andre is not looking down at Haystacks,Haystacks has got he's head down looking at the ref.whos pointing up at him,they attacked each other and the ref got in to break them up,and disqualified, them both.
There is a much more clear shot of that photo were you can see more,if someone can post it.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 10/Apr/17 What??? Andre is not close to standing straight in this pic and still looking down at Haystacks...
Andre is not looking down at Haystacks,Haystacks has got he's head down looking at the ref.whos pointing up at him,they attacked each other and the ref got in to break them up,and disqualified, them both.
There is a much more clear shot of that photo were you can see more,if someone can post it.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 10/Apr/17
Rob, regarding other giant wrestlers, whats your estimation for:
Giant Silva
Ron Reis
Silo Sam
Giant Baba
?
Rob, regarding other giant wrestlers, whats your estimation for:
Giant Silva
Ron Reis
Silo Sam
Giant Baba
?
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 10/Apr/17
Dub said on 6/Apr/17
He looks similiar height to a peak Giant Haystacks so he clearly wasn't anywhere near 7 foot Click Here
************************
What??? Andre is not close to standing straight in this pic and still looking down at Haystacks...
Both past their prime with the same guy Click Here
Dub said on 6/Apr/17
He looks similiar height to a peak Giant Haystacks so he clearly wasn't anywhere near 7 foot Click Here
************************
What??? Andre is not close to standing straight in this pic and still looking down at Haystacks...
Both past their prime with the same guy Click Here
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 10/Apr/17
IMO Andre and Big Show were the same height in their prime.
7´0.25"-7´0.5" morning, 6´11"-6´11.25" evening
It´s a case closed thing to me, solid 6´11"ers in my book
IMO Andre and Big Show were the same height in their prime.
7´0.25"-7´0.5" morning, 6´11"-6´11.25" evening
It´s a case closed thing to me, solid 6´11"ers in my book
6'0 said on 6/Apr/17
Rob, what do you think is more likely for Andre? 6'11", or 7'1"?
Editor Rob
Rob, what do you think is more likely for Andre? 6'11", or 7'1"?
Editor Rob I'd say my estimate is still roughly around 7ft, I'd be more surprised with 7ft 1 than 6ft 11, but really wouldn't go with either mark.
Chaz said on 6/Apr/17
Dub said on 6/Apr/17
He looks similiar height to a peak Giant Haystacks so he clearly wasn't anywhere near 7 foot Click Here
You can't really tell from that,the camara is over Haystacks side and he's bigger so nera the camara,like in the Wilt Andre photos.and Andre has he's knees bent.or tho Haystacks has got he's head down looking at the ref.the only thing you can tell for sure is there feet are about the same size,and they both have low heels.
They were both disqualified,for fighting befor the Bell,that is all I can find out about the fight.
Dub said on 6/Apr/17
He looks similiar height to a peak Giant Haystacks so he clearly wasn't anywhere near 7 foot Click Here
You can't really tell from that,the camara is over Haystacks side and he's bigger so nera the camara,like in the Wilt Andre photos.and Andre has he's knees bent.or tho Haystacks has got he's head down looking at the ref.the only thing you can tell for sure is there feet are about the same size,and they both have low heels.
They were both disqualified,for fighting befor the Bell,that is all I can find out about the fight.
Dub said on 6/Apr/17
He looks similiar height to a peak Giant Haystacks so he clearly wasn't anywhere near 7 foot Click Here
He looks similiar height to a peak Giant Haystacks so he clearly wasn't anywhere near 7 foot Click Here
62B said on 5/Apr/17
Chaz said on 5/Apr/17
62B said on 4/Apr/17
JT said on 3/Apr/17
Click Here What 7 ft (plus) actually looks like next to 6'5".
_________________________________________
When will you understand, that nobody gives 2 shigoogles about your biased home made pictures?
When are you going to understand Shaq is Taller than Both Andre and Big Show,you can see him younger standing 7'2'' with relaxed posture.in shoes.
And sorry NCL I ment 2.5''and those photos you have posted of Hogan Tenta all have Hogan streching up.with Tenta in relaxed pose,look at the fight Tenta looks slightly taller most of the time,Not by much,I think Hogan was 196cm Tenta 197cm.
And @HeightcrazyRed6ft Andre has not got 6'' on Hogan even if he was 6'6' he would come to just over the tip of Andre's nose,if Andre was 7' he comes up to he's eyes.
____________________________
Yes a young Shaq was taller than an old Andre. Young Shaq probably a little over 7' maybe even close to 7'1" barefoot, late 80's Andre 6'10"-6'11" barefoot. A young Hogan would have been a little taller than a young Kobe and a young Andre probably would have been a little shorter than a Young Shaq. JT's pictures are always meant to be deceiving, so I stand by my statement that nobody cares about his pictures anymore.
Chaz said on 5/Apr/17
62B said on 4/Apr/17
JT said on 3/Apr/17
Click Here What 7 ft (plus) actually looks like next to 6'5".
_________________________________________
When will you understand, that nobody gives 2 shigoogles about your biased home made pictures?
When are you going to understand Shaq is Taller than Both Andre and Big Show,you can see him younger standing 7'2'' with relaxed posture.in shoes.
And sorry NCL I ment 2.5''and those photos you have posted of Hogan Tenta all have Hogan streching up.with Tenta in relaxed pose,look at the fight Tenta looks slightly taller most of the time,Not by much,I think Hogan was 196cm Tenta 197cm.
And @HeightcrazyRed6ft Andre has not got 6'' on Hogan even if he was 6'6' he would come to just over the tip of Andre's nose,if Andre was 7' he comes up to he's eyes.
____________________________
Yes a young Shaq was taller than an old Andre. Young Shaq probably a little over 7' maybe even close to 7'1" barefoot, late 80's Andre 6'10"-6'11" barefoot. A young Hogan would have been a little taller than a young Kobe and a young Andre probably would have been a little shorter than a Young Shaq. JT's pictures are always meant to be deceiving, so I stand by my statement that nobody cares about his pictures anymore.
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 5/Apr/17
Click Here
Andre still has the lowest footwear, so much closer to 1.5" than 2" between Andre WM3 and 7´0.5" Shaq
Click Here
Andre still has the lowest footwear, so much closer to 1.5" than 2" between Andre WM3 and 7´0.5" Shaq
NCL said on 5/Apr/17
Chaz said on 5/Apr/17
And sorry NCL I ment 2.5''and those photos you have posted of Hogan Tenta all have Hogan streching up.with Tenta in relaxed pose,look at the fight Tenta looks slightly taller most of the time,Not by much,I think Hogan was 196cm Tenta 197cm
No worries man!
Chaz said on 5/Apr/17
And sorry NCL I ment 2.5''and those photos you have posted of Hogan Tenta all have Hogan streching up.with Tenta in relaxed pose,look at the fight Tenta looks slightly taller most of the time,Not by much,I think Hogan was 196cm Tenta 197cm
No worries man!
Chaz said on 5/Apr/17
62B said on 4/Apr/17
JT said on 3/Apr/17
Click Here What 7 ft (plus) actually looks like next to 6'5".
_________________________________________
When will you understand, that nobody gives 2 shigoogles about your biased home made pictures?
When are you going to understand Shaq is Taller than Both Andre and Big Show,you can see him younger standing 7'2'' with relaxed posture.in shoes.
And sorry NCL I ment 2.5''and those photos you have posted of Hogan Tenta all have Hogan streching up.with Tenta in relaxed pose,look at the fight Tenta looks slightly taller most of the time,Not by much,I think Hogan was 196cm Tenta 197cm.
And @HeightcrazyRed6ft Andre has not got 6'' on Hogan even if he was 6'6' he would come to just over the tip of Andre's nose,if Andre was 7' he comes up to he's eyes.
62B said on 4/Apr/17
JT said on 3/Apr/17
Click Here What 7 ft (plus) actually looks like next to 6'5".
_________________________________________
When will you understand, that nobody gives 2 shigoogles about your biased home made pictures?
When are you going to understand Shaq is Taller than Both Andre and Big Show,you can see him younger standing 7'2'' with relaxed posture.in shoes.
And sorry NCL I ment 2.5''and those photos you have posted of Hogan Tenta all have Hogan streching up.with Tenta in relaxed pose,look at the fight Tenta looks slightly taller most of the time,Not by much,I think Hogan was 196cm Tenta 197cm.
And @HeightcrazyRed6ft Andre has not got 6'' on Hogan even if he was 6'6' he would come to just over the tip of Andre's nose,if Andre was 7' he comes up to he's eyes.
Halb said on 5/Apr/17
JT said on 3/Apr/17
Click Here What 7 ft (plus) actually looks like next to 6'5".
------------------
Excellent, ta JT.
JT said on 3/Apr/17
Click Here What 7 ft (plus) actually looks like next to 6'5".
------------------
Excellent, ta JT.
Capt. Nobody said on 4/Apr/17
JT said on 3/Apr/17
Click Here What 7 ft (plus) actually looks like next to 6'5".
---------------------------------------------------------------
These new, flatter shots of Hogan are interesting. I wonder if indeed he may have been wearing some enhancing boots. I thought his boots were always pretty flat but I'm seeing a decent amount of arch in that boot.
JT said on 3/Apr/17
Click Here What 7 ft (plus) actually looks like next to 6'5".
---------------------------------------------------------------
These new, flatter shots of Hogan are interesting. I wonder if indeed he may have been wearing some enhancing boots. I thought his boots were always pretty flat but I'm seeing a decent amount of arch in that boot.
62B said on 4/Apr/17
JT said on 3/Apr/17
Click Here What 7 ft (plus) actually looks like next to 6'5".
_________________________________________
When will you understand, that nobody gives 2 shigoogles about your biased home made pictures?
JT said on 3/Apr/17
Click Here What 7 ft (plus) actually looks like next to 6'5".
_________________________________________
When will you understand, that nobody gives 2 shigoogles about your biased home made pictures?
@HeightcrazyRed6ft said on 3/Apr/17
Rob recently said the lowest he would argue for Hogan is 6´5.5". To me it´s the maximum I would argue.
In JT´s pic Hogan has not only bigger sole than Andre, it´s clear to see Hogan tip toeing a bit.
Hogan therefore has about 2cm advantage over Andre who´s still solid 5 inches taller.
Andre at WM3 had very close to 6" on Hogan both barefoot, so noway under 6´11" flat.
Rob recently said the lowest he would argue for Hogan is 6´5.5". To me it´s the maximum I would argue.
In JT´s pic Hogan has not only bigger sole than Andre, it´s clear to see Hogan tip toeing a bit.
Hogan therefore has about 2cm advantage over Andre who´s still solid 5 inches taller.
Andre at WM3 had very close to 6" on Hogan both barefoot, so noway under 6´11" flat.
NCL said on 3/Apr/17
Chaz said on 3/Apr/17
Can we stop with this Rubbish about Hogan 6'6.5''in boots,he's no taller than Kamala,and Jim Harris.has said he was only 6'4''.and Hogan is no taller than Harris who's barefoot.he would need to be 3.5'' taller in boots,than Harris,any one see 3.5''?Click Here lol I don't think so. Hogan was 195-6cm and Harris was 193-4cm. they were both billed the same height,6'7''.
Misunderstanding maybe? I was saying possibly pegging Hogan at 6'6.5" in boots and that would make him 2.5" taller than a barefoot 6'4" Jim Harris, not 3.5"
I unfortunately can't seem to find a good staredown between the two but see this video from 2:34 and on: Click Here to be fair I don't think your video or mine has the best angles. The only other I could find is this, look at about 4:54 Click Here
Article saying John Tenta was measured at 6'5.75" during his sumo wrestling days (I think he was billed 6'7" in pro wrestling). Click Here
Several photos of Tenta and Hogan, including some where footwear can be seen
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Other thoughts from other posters on Hogan's height? My point with my last two posts was to do the height chart thing to see how many inches there were between Hogan and Andre
Chaz said on 3/Apr/17
Can we stop with this Rubbish about Hogan 6'6.5''in boots,he's no taller than Kamala,and Jim Harris.has said he was only 6'4''.and Hogan is no taller than Harris who's barefoot.he would need to be 3.5'' taller in boots,than Harris,any one see 3.5''?Click Here lol I don't think so. Hogan was 195-6cm and Harris was 193-4cm. they were both billed the same height,6'7''.
Misunderstanding maybe? I was saying possibly pegging Hogan at 6'6.5" in boots and that would make him 2.5" taller than a barefoot 6'4" Jim Harris, not 3.5"
I unfortunately can't seem to find a good staredown between the two but see this video from 2:34 and on: Click Here to be fair I don't think your video or mine has the best angles. The only other I could find is this, look at about 4:54 Click Here
Article saying John Tenta was measured at 6'5.75" during his sumo wrestling days (I think he was billed 6'7" in pro wrestling). Click Here
Several photos of Tenta and Hogan, including some where footwear can be seen
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Other thoughts from other posters on Hogan's height? My point with my last two posts was to do the height chart thing to see how many inches there were between Hogan and Andre
Chaz said on 3/Apr/17
Can we stop with this Rubbish about Hogan 6'6.5''in boots,he's no taller than Kamala,and Jim Harris.has said he was only 6'4''.and Hogan is no taller than Harris who's barefoot.he would need to be 3.5'' taller in boots,than Harris,any one see 3.5''?Click Here lol I don't think so. Hogan was 195-6cm and Harris was 193-4cm. they were both billed the same height,6'7''.
Can we stop with this Rubbish about Hogan 6'6.5''in boots,he's no taller than Kamala,and Jim Harris.has said he was only 6'4''.and Hogan is no taller than Harris who's barefoot.he would need to be 3.5'' taller in boots,than Harris,any one see 3.5''?Click Here lol I don't think so. Hogan was 195-6cm and Harris was 193-4cm. they were both billed the same height,6'7''.
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.