Add a Comment7599 comments
Average Guess (748 Votes)
Peak: 7ft 0.06in (213.5cm)
Current: 6ft 10.39in (209.3cm)
Peak: 7ft 0.06in (213.5cm)
Current: 6ft 10.39in (209.3cm)
KingNick said on 14/Mar/09
Anonymous says on 14/Mar/09
They just talk out of their asses all the time. It was also hilarious how the Big Show went from 7,2" to 7,0" in the space of a few months back in 2002.
I know! I never understood that. Show could easily get away with being billed 7'2" especially now if Khali is billed 7'3". What benefit did they gain by downgrading them 2"?
hs2009 says on 14/Mar/09
I was wondering how tall Tatanka was! Just the other day I watched an old tape of some match of his & he stood near Shawn Michaels & was like 2" shorter despite being billed taller.
yeah I concure with you and topdweeb. Tatanka 5'10", maybe 5'11" tops. He was always a favorite of mine. I enjoyed his run when he came back briefly a few years ago.
Anonymous says on 14/Mar/09
They just talk out of their asses all the time. It was also hilarious how the Big Show went from 7,2" to 7,0" in the space of a few months back in 2002.
I know! I never understood that. Show could easily get away with being billed 7'2" especially now if Khali is billed 7'3". What benefit did they gain by downgrading them 2"?
hs2009 says on 14/Mar/09
I was wondering how tall Tatanka was! Just the other day I watched an old tape of some match of his & he stood near Shawn Michaels & was like 2" shorter despite being billed taller.
yeah I concure with you and topdweeb. Tatanka 5'10", maybe 5'11" tops. He was always a favorite of mine. I enjoyed his run when he came back briefly a few years ago.
hs2009 said on 14/Mar/09
I was wondering how tall Tatanka was! Just the other day I watched an old tape of some match of his & he stood near Shawn Michaels & was like 2" shorter despite being billed taller.
I was wondering how tall Tatanka was! Just the other day I watched an old tape of some match of his & he stood near Shawn Michaels & was like 2" shorter despite being billed taller.
Anonymous said on 14/Mar/09
The WWE's height billings are ridiculous. It's not worth even paying attention to them.
They spent years trying to tell us Kane was taller than Taker, then a couple of years ago when they did the whole Brothers of Destruction reunion thing, I heard Michael Cole say something like "Kane is the heavier of the two, while the Undertaker is a little taller".
They just talk out of their asses all the time. It was also hilarious how the Big Show went from 7,2" to 7,0" in the space of a few months back in 2002.
The WWE's height billings are ridiculous. It's not worth even paying attention to them.
They spent years trying to tell us Kane was taller than Taker, then a couple of years ago when they did the whole Brothers of Destruction reunion thing, I heard Michael Cole say something like "Kane is the heavier of the two, while the Undertaker is a little taller".
They just talk out of their asses all the time. It was also hilarious how the Big Show went from 7,2" to 7,0" in the space of a few months back in 2002.
dicksock said on 13/Mar/09
I just saw Paul Wight vs max 6'6 Earthquake and he didn't appear to have much height at all on him. I'd say 4.5-5.5" max. There is no way he was over 7'. Usually the "Giant" looked pretty tall. But, I must say he was very unimpressive looking.
I just saw Paul Wight vs max 6'6 Earthquake and he didn't appear to have much height at all on him. I'd say 4.5-5.5" max. There is no way he was over 7'. Usually the "Giant" looked pretty tall. But, I must say he was very unimpressive looking.
Alex said on 13/Mar/09
Hockey listings seem pretty accurate like NFL.
Hockey listings seem pretty accurate like NFL.
Clay said on 13/Mar/09
They only really do it with the giants or the big men like Kane and Taker. Other than that their height listings for the wrestlers are no worse than UFC, baseball, basically any sport other than hockey and football.
They only really do it with the giants or the big men like Kane and Taker. Other than that their height listings for the wrestlers are no worse than UFC, baseball, basically any sport other than hockey and football.
MK said on 13/Mar/09
topdweeb says on 13/Mar/09
I get really tired of how hokey wrestling is with height. The Big Show used to be billed at 7' 4 and at times he was claimed to be 7' 5. But he went from that, to 7' 2 to 7' and now it seems like he might even be as low as 6' 10. It's so ridiculous.
This could be for the best, Big Show looks ALOT nearer to 7' than 7'4-5'', which would somewhat indicate that the wwe seem to be getting more realistic with their 'superstars' billings(remember UT was 6'11'' two years ago and then a few weeks back 6'9'' as quoted by Michael Cole) as opposed to tna who still seem use the old method ie. Matt Morgan.
topdweeb says on 13/Mar/09
I get really tired of how hokey wrestling is with height. The Big Show used to be billed at 7' 4 and at times he was claimed to be 7' 5. But he went from that, to 7' 2 to 7' and now it seems like he might even be as low as 6' 10. It's so ridiculous.
This could be for the best, Big Show looks ALOT nearer to 7' than 7'4-5'', which would somewhat indicate that the wwe seem to be getting more realistic with their 'superstars' billings(remember UT was 6'11'' two years ago and then a few weeks back 6'9'' as quoted by Michael Cole) as opposed to tna who still seem use the old method ie. Matt Morgan.
topdweeb said on 13/Mar/09
JT: to me, it looks like that head piece is simply a thin cloth wrapped around the Yeti's head. If that's the case, then the height he gets from it would be negligible, about as much of a height increase that wearing socks would give. Too small to measure basically.
JT: to me, it looks like that head piece is simply a thin cloth wrapped around the Yeti's head. If that's the case, then the height he gets from it would be negligible, about as much of a height increase that wearing socks would give. Too small to measure basically.
Halb said on 13/Mar/09
Here are mine;
Singh - 7'1
Reis - 7'1
Show - 7'0
Andre - 6'11
Here are mine;
Singh - 7'1
Reis - 7'1
Show - 7'0
Andre - 6'11
topdweeb said on 13/Mar/09
I get really tired of how hokey wrestling is with height. The Big Show used to be billed at 7' 4 and at times he was claimed to be 7' 5. But he went from that, to 7' 2 to 7' and now it seems like he might even be as low as 6' 10. It's so ridiculous.
I get really tired of how hokey wrestling is with height. The Big Show used to be billed at 7' 4 and at times he was claimed to be 7' 5. But he went from that, to 7' 2 to 7' and now it seems like he might even be as low as 6' 10. It's so ridiculous.
JT said on 13/Mar/09
Topdweeb, I don
Topdweeb, I don
Clay said on 12/Mar/09
willy79 says on 12/Mar/09
I figure peak goes....
Silva 7'2.5
Khali 7'1.5
Reis 7'1
Big Show 7'0
Silva an inch taller than Singh? You couldn't see a height difference when they were tag teaming in Japan and Singh was in sneakers, Silva in boots. Here's my peaks for the giants:
Silva - 7'2
Singh - 7'1.5
Reis - 7'1
Andre - 7'0.5
Show - 7'0
willy79 says on 12/Mar/09
I figure peak goes....
Silva 7'2.5
Khali 7'1.5
Reis 7'1
Big Show 7'0
Silva an inch taller than Singh? You couldn't see a height difference when they were tag teaming in Japan and Singh was in sneakers, Silva in boots. Here's my peaks for the giants:
Silva - 7'2
Singh - 7'1.5
Reis - 7'1
Andre - 7'0.5
Show - 7'0
topdweeb said on 12/Mar/09
Vegas: ok, I didn't know you didn't think Big Show was 7' 1 at one point. I'm honestly going to say now that I don't think he ever was either... I think Big Show might have been 7' 1 or slightly over in shoes, but not barefooted. I don't think Big Show was ever as tall as Khali.
Vegas: ok, I didn't know you didn't think Big Show was 7' 1 at one point. I'm honestly going to say now that I don't think he ever was either... I think Big Show might have been 7' 1 or slightly over in shoes, but not barefooted. I don't think Big Show was ever as tall as Khali.
willy79 said on 12/Mar/09
I figure peak goes....
Silva 7'2.5
Khali 7'1.5
Reis 7'1
Big Show 7'0
I figure peak goes....
Silva 7'2.5
Khali 7'1.5
Reis 7'1
Big Show 7'0
Alex said on 12/Mar/09
AT WM 24 HHH vs Orton vs Cena wasn't last and HHH for once wasn't in the final title match. They had the World title between Edge and UT last.
I didn't know HHH said Angle was too short for be champ and Patterson said who would be between him and Angle and HHH sat down, lol.
AT WM 24 HHH vs Orton vs Cena wasn't last and HHH for once wasn't in the final title match. They had the World title between Edge and UT last.
I didn't know HHH said Angle was too short for be champ and Patterson said who would be between him and Angle and HHH sat down, lol.
TELLEM said on 12/Mar/09
Danimal says on 11/Mar/09
The year was 1995 and we have a 7'2" Yeti standing side by side with the BIG SHOW with arms raised (starting at 1:46). Imagine THAT 23 year old Big Show standing next to Khali TODAY! He would be his EXACT height imo: Click Here
and soon after the YETEEEEEEEEEI disappeared...what a horrible wrestling moment...but yea he was taller than big show
Danimal says on 11/Mar/09
The year was 1995 and we have a 7'2" Yeti standing side by side with the BIG SHOW with arms raised (starting at 1:46). Imagine THAT 23 year old Big Show standing next to Khali TODAY! He would be his EXACT height imo: Click Here
and soon after the YETEEEEEEEEEI disappeared...what a horrible wrestling moment...but yea he was taller than big show
Vegas said on 12/Mar/09
i don't believe big show was ever 7'1 topdweeb; being listed at 7'1 in ncaa basketball doesn't mean he was legit 7'1 barefoot, i originally posted those big show listings because people like jason and one or two others claimed he was listed at 6'10 and 6'11 in college and played at power-forward and not center, claims which were wrong btw, reis i believe is a legit 7'1
HHH will be on raw after mania, there is draft either the night after mania or the week after on raw, HHH was moved to smackdown to help increase ratings when smackdown moved to mynetworktv, the move has proved to be a disaster as HHH is not the draw he believes he is
i don't believe big show was ever 7'1 topdweeb; being listed at 7'1 in ncaa basketball doesn't mean he was legit 7'1 barefoot, i originally posted those big show listings because people like jason and one or two others claimed he was listed at 6'10 and 6'11 in college and played at power-forward and not center, claims which were wrong btw, reis i believe is a legit 7'1
HHH will be on raw after mania, there is draft either the night after mania or the week after on raw, HHH was moved to smackdown to help increase ratings when smackdown moved to mynetworktv, the move has proved to be a disaster as HHH is not the draw he believes he is
topdweeb said on 12/Mar/09
Vegas: I understand, but it just seems like the WWE title would be on RAW, Triple H would be the WWE title holder and his matches would be last.
BTW, I know you also have documented that the Big Show was listed as 7' 1 in basketball too. So Ron Reis seems to have an inch or so on him, and this was definitely when the Big Show was in his prime (it'd be pretty bad if he was already out of his prime at 24). So how do you explain the discrepancy?
Vegas: I understand, but it just seems like the WWE title would be on RAW, Triple H would be the WWE title holder and his matches would be last.
BTW, I know you also have documented that the Big Show was listed as 7' 1 in basketball too. So Ron Reis seems to have an inch or so on him, and this was definitely when the Big Show was in his prime (it'd be pretty bad if he was already out of his prime at 24). So how do you explain the discrepancy?
topdweeb said on 11/Mar/09
Alex: pretty much the title match that happens last is dependent on who the "bigger" champion is. Like if the champion is Triple H, then his match will be last if the other champion is some loser like JBL.
I used to find it kinda weird when the World Heavyweight title was on RAW and Triple H was the champion, and his matches would be the last match, while the WWE title holder's be like the 3rd to the last. I find it weird because RAW is the WWE's top show, and you'd think that the WWE title would be on RAW and be considered the "higher" of the two titles especially since the WWE title is the WWE title, and the World Heavyweight title is WCW's former title.
Alex: pretty much the title match that happens last is dependent on who the "bigger" champion is. Like if the champion is Triple H, then his match will be last if the other champion is some loser like JBL.
I used to find it kinda weird when the World Heavyweight title was on RAW and Triple H was the champion, and his matches would be the last match, while the WWE title holder's be like the 3rd to the last. I find it weird because RAW is the WWE's top show, and you'd think that the WWE title would be on RAW and be considered the "higher" of the two titles especially since the WWE title is the WWE title, and the World Heavyweight title is WCW's former title.
Danimal said on 11/Mar/09
The year was 1995 and we have a 7'2" Yeti standing side by side with the BIG SHOW with arms raised (starting at 1:46). Imagine THAT 23 year old Big Show standing next to Khali TODAY! He would be his EXACT height imo: Click Here
The year was 1995 and we have a 7'2" Yeti standing side by side with the BIG SHOW with arms raised (starting at 1:46). Imagine THAT 23 year old Big Show standing next to Khali TODAY! He would be his EXACT height imo: Click Here
Alex said on 11/Mar/09
Topdweeb, I dont have a problem with triple threat matches for big titles but at WM I do. For example at WM 22, Angle vs Orton vs Mysterio. Could have been longer than just 10 mins. Also lately the have the winner of the RR have his title match not as the last match. I think the RR winner should have his title match at the end. This year it'll be like that because Orton vs HHH is def going to be last.
Topdweeb, I dont have a problem with triple threat matches for big titles but at WM I do. For example at WM 22, Angle vs Orton vs Mysterio. Could have been longer than just 10 mins. Also lately the have the winner of the RR have his title match not as the last match. I think the RR winner should have his title match at the end. This year it'll be like that because Orton vs HHH is def going to be last.
topdweeb said on 11/Mar/09
KingNick says on 10/Mar/09
"Anyone see Raw last night? I knew they were going to weasle Cena into that match"
I don't think anyone is surprised, and Alex and I brought that up a while ago. And this sucks. I hate triple threat matches, because like I said before, they are a way for the champion to be "beaten" without suffering a one-on-one loss. Also, I think they are cheap to the fans who want to see a one-on-one competition. Plus, Cena needs to just go away and get a life. He'll definitely be the type who sticks around long past his prime and welcome.
KingNick says on 10/Mar/09
"Anyone see Raw last night? I knew they were going to weasle Cena into that match"
I don't think anyone is surprised, and Alex and I brought that up a while ago. And this sucks. I hate triple threat matches, because like I said before, they are a way for the champion to be "beaten" without suffering a one-on-one loss. Also, I think they are cheap to the fans who want to see a one-on-one competition. Plus, Cena needs to just go away and get a life. He'll definitely be the type who sticks around long past his prime and welcome.
hs2009 said on 11/Mar/09
More Edge & Orton pics:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
More Edge & Orton pics:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Shock of Electric said on 11/Mar/09
I don't understand why Big Shoes just gets 7' even. It really ruins the trend of short changing people, particularly wrestlers. He was definitely about that over 10 years, maybe even slightly more, but today he is closer to 6'11" than 7'. His lifts compensate for that. Other guys have specifically said their height who are in the upper end of 6' yet they don't get that honor.
I don't understand why Big Shoes just gets 7' even. It really ruins the trend of short changing people, particularly wrestlers. He was definitely about that over 10 years, maybe even slightly more, but today he is closer to 6'11" than 7'. His lifts compensate for that. Other guys have specifically said their height who are in the upper end of 6' yet they don't get that honor.
topdweeb said on 10/Mar/09
Alex: well looks like it happened, the Edge vs Big Show match turned into a triple threat. As for the Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels... you want the Undertaker to keep the streak alive and he probably will. I've heard that he will probably never lose at WM... but honestly, I'm not much of an Undertaker fan, so I don't really care if he loses.
Alex: well looks like it happened, the Edge vs Big Show match turned into a triple threat. As for the Undertaker vs. Shawn Michaels... you want the Undertaker to keep the streak alive and he probably will. I've heard that he will probably never lose at WM... but honestly, I'm not much of an Undertaker fan, so I don't really care if he loses.
KingNick said on 10/Mar/09
Edge IMO is a MINIMUM of 6'3", I'd say 6'3.5" . The only reason I wouldn't say 6'4" is because he's usually shorter than Orton. I do consider Orton to be a legit 6'4" but he always wears chunky boots in the ring. I think he may be over 6'5" in his ring gear. Edge's boots seem to be a little smaller. When Edge is in street clothes he usually wears large boots, but not when wrestling.
Anyone see Raw last night? I knew they were going to weasle Cena into that match :>)
KingNick says on 5/Mar/09
I'm also very excited that Big Show is finally being given the spotlight at Wrestlemania again. I thought the Mayweather match was atrocious. I'm sure they're going to find a way to weasle Cena into it tho.
Edge IMO is a MINIMUM of 6'3", I'd say 6'3.5" . The only reason I wouldn't say 6'4" is because he's usually shorter than Orton. I do consider Orton to be a legit 6'4" but he always wears chunky boots in the ring. I think he may be over 6'5" in his ring gear. Edge's boots seem to be a little smaller. When Edge is in street clothes he usually wears large boots, but not when wrestling.
Anyone see Raw last night? I knew they were going to weasle Cena into that match :>)
KingNick says on 5/Mar/09
I'm also very excited that Big Show is finally being given the spotlight at Wrestlemania again. I thought the Mayweather match was atrocious. I'm sure they're going to find a way to weasle Cena into it tho.
hs2009 said on 10/Mar/09
Also, check out this face-off with Edge & JBL from RAW last night. It's at 6.06 on this video:
Click Here
Also, check out this face-off with Edge & JBL from RAW last night. It's at 6.06 on this video:
Click Here
hs2009 said on 10/Mar/09
Some more Egde & Orton pics. I still don't see 1" advantage for Orton: Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Some more Egde & Orton pics. I still don't see 1" advantage for Orton: Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Ray said on 10/Mar/09
Yeah, I'd have to agree Edge is at least 6'3"; he seems closer to Orton than Triple H. Actually 6'2" for Triple H sounds very reasonable since he has been looking pretty close to Orton lately.
Yeah, I'd have to agree Edge is at least 6'3"; he seems closer to Orton than Triple H. Actually 6'2" for Triple H sounds very reasonable since he has been looking pretty close to Orton lately.
MK said on 10/Mar/09
How can most people on here agree that Orton is 6'4', yet cannot see 6'3'' for Edge? There was a noticeable 1'' differance between the two during their 'rated RKO' stinth. 6'3'' makes perfect sense for Edge.
How can most people on here agree that Orton is 6'4', yet cannot see 6'3'' for Edge? There was a noticeable 1'' differance between the two during their 'rated RKO' stinth. 6'3'' makes perfect sense for Edge.
Ghost said on 10/Mar/09
Edge is ATLEAST 6'3.
Edge is ATLEAST 6'3.
Clay said on 9/Mar/09
No more than 8 inches between Edge and Show - roughly 7'0 and 6'4 respectively.
No more than 8 inches between Edge and Show - roughly 7'0 and 6'4 respectively.
hs2009 said on 9/Mar/09
Clay, I though that as well. He's MAX 2" shorter than B.J. Ryan who's listed at 6'6", although I wasn't sure if that was his legit height. He certainly looks that tall though. Shows that Edge isn't under 6'3.5"-6'4" which he also looks with Big Show.
Punk is a legit tall guy, another that's billed pretty accurately by WWE (height wise at least). Edge had 3"-3.5" on him:
Click Here
Punk's listed weight is 222lbs, how much do you guys think he weighs legit? He certainly doesn't weigh as much as Santino IMO, who does look like a legit 220lbs with DiPietro as Vegas said.
Clay, I though that as well. He's MAX 2" shorter than B.J. Ryan who's listed at 6'6", although I wasn't sure if that was his legit height. He certainly looks that tall though. Shows that Edge isn't under 6'3.5"-6'4" which he also looks with Big Show.
Punk is a legit tall guy, another that's billed pretty accurately by WWE (height wise at least). Edge had 3"-3.5" on him:
Click Here
Punk's listed weight is 222lbs, how much do you guys think he weighs legit? He certainly doesn't weigh as much as Santino IMO, who does look like a legit 220lbs with DiPietro as Vegas said.
Clay said on 9/Mar/09
Edge isnt too far under BJ Ryan, who is legit 6'6.
hs2009 says on 8/Mar/09
Also, some pics of other WWE guys with Rick DiPietro:
Click Here
Wow. CM Punk is legitimately 6'0.5-6'1 seeing him there next to Dipietro. Whats odd is Jerihco and him looked right on the same height a couple months ago. But accoring to 4 year veteran Danimal Jericho struggles with 5'8??
Edge isnt too far under BJ Ryan, who is legit 6'6.
hs2009 says on 8/Mar/09
Also, some pics of other WWE guys with Rick DiPietro:
Click Here
Wow. CM Punk is legitimately 6'0.5-6'1 seeing him there next to Dipietro. Whats odd is Jerihco and him looked right on the same height a couple months ago. But accoring to 4 year veteran Danimal Jericho struggles with 5'8??
mike said on 8/Mar/09
big show 6'11" edge around 6-7 inches shorter at 6'4" or so.
big show 6'11" edge around 6-7 inches shorter at 6'4" or so.
Rusty said on 8/Mar/09
Mike is standing straight and Big Show is slouching a little, but still he looks more 6'10" in this photo than 7'. Still a very tall man.
Mike is standing straight and Big Show is slouching a little, but still he looks more 6'10" in this photo than 7'. Still a very tall man.
Vegas said on 8/Mar/09
DiPietro is 185lb and santino looks huge beside him, looks the 220lb that the police said in the report
DiPietro is 185lb and santino looks huge beside him, looks the 220lb that the police said in the report
Anonymous said on 8/Mar/09
Edge always looked just a shade under Randy Orton, who is nothing less than 6,4" in ring gear.
I'd agree with Edge 6,3.5" barefoot. He always looked as tall as The Rock in staredowns.
Edge always looked just a shade under Randy Orton, who is nothing less than 6,4" in ring gear.
I'd agree with Edge 6,3.5" barefoot. He always looked as tall as The Rock in staredowns.
hs2009 said on 8/Mar/09
Oh Danimal, PLEASE! Edge is not MAX 6'3" at all :P
He has 3" on Jeff Hardy (same difference Randy Orton had on him), 2" on Triple H, at least 3" on John Cena. He's also only about 7" shorter than Big Show, who's not as low as 6'10". He's also marginally taller than Hulk Hogan in street clothes, the man is 6'3.5" at least IMO :D
Oh Danimal, PLEASE! Edge is not MAX 6'3" at all :P
He has 3" on Jeff Hardy (same difference Randy Orton had on him), 2" on Triple H, at least 3" on John Cena. He's also only about 7" shorter than Big Show, who's not as low as 6'10". He's also marginally taller than Hulk Hogan in street clothes, the man is 6'3.5" at least IMO :D
Danimal said on 7/Mar/09
Jesse Hughes says on 7/Mar/09
big Show 6'11 3/4"
Undertaker 6'8"
Edge 6'4 1/2"
John Cena 6'1"
Jesse Hughes 5'9"
these are my listed heights, let's leave it at that.
Edge is MAX 6'3".
Jesse Hughes says on 7/Mar/09
big Show 6'11 3/4"
Undertaker 6'8"
Edge 6'4 1/2"
John Cena 6'1"
Jesse Hughes 5'9"
these are my listed heights, let's leave it at that.
Edge is MAX 6'3".
Jesse Hughes said on 7/Mar/09
big Show 6'11 3/4"
Undertaker 6'8"
Edge 6'4 1/2"
John Cena 6'1"
Jesse Hughes 5'9"
these are my listed heights, let's leave it at that.
big Show 6'11 3/4"
Undertaker 6'8"
Edge 6'4 1/2"
John Cena 6'1"
Jesse Hughes 5'9"
these are my listed heights, let's leave it at that.
Anonymous said on 7/Mar/09
what was edge wearing last night those boots were huge, last week side by side
Click Here
what was edge wearing last night those boots were huge, last week side by side
Click Here
JT said on 7/Mar/09
topdweeb says on 7/Mar/09
JT says on 7/Mar/09
"Dale Wolfe, Iron Mike Sharpe, Rusty Brooks, AJ Petruzzi..."
Eh... ok, the fact that Funaki's name is known AND that he comes out to entrance music. That's what I meant to say...
I know. I just wanted to throw out some jobber names from the past.
topdweeb says on 7/Mar/09
JT says on 7/Mar/09
"Dale Wolfe, Iron Mike Sharpe, Rusty Brooks, AJ Petruzzi..."
Eh... ok, the fact that Funaki's name is known AND that he comes out to entrance music. That's what I meant to say...
I know. I just wanted to throw out some jobber names from the past.
Alex said on 7/Mar/09
Edge looks 6'3 there.
Edge looks 6'3 there.
hs2009 said on 7/Mar/09
Here's a picture of Edge & Big Show facing off on Smackdown:
Click Here
Click Here
Also, a video:
Click Here
Here's a picture of Edge & Big Show facing off on Smackdown:
Click Here
Click Here
Also, a video:
Click Here
topdweeb said on 7/Mar/09
JT says on 7/Mar/09
"Dale Wolfe, Iron Mike Sharpe, Rusty Brooks, AJ Petruzzi..."
Eh... ok, the fact that Funaki's name is known AND that he comes out to entrance music. That's what I meant to say...
JT says on 7/Mar/09
"Dale Wolfe, Iron Mike Sharpe, Rusty Brooks, AJ Petruzzi..."
Eh... ok, the fact that Funaki's name is known AND that he comes out to entrance music. That's what I meant to say...
JT said on 7/Mar/09
topdweeb says on 6/Mar/09
....The fact that you even know his name means he's not a true jobber. Alex is talking about those guys back in the 80's and early 90's where you didn't even know their name, they were already shown as being in the ring before the superstar came out....
Dale Wolfe, Iron Mike Sharpe, Rusty Brooks, AJ Petruzzi...
topdweeb says on 6/Mar/09
....The fact that you even know his name means he's not a true jobber. Alex is talking about those guys back in the 80's and early 90's where you didn't even know their name, they were already shown as being in the ring before the superstar came out....
Dale Wolfe, Iron Mike Sharpe, Rusty Brooks, AJ Petruzzi...
ancient Aztec Guy said on 6/Mar/09
I remember big show being over a head taller than 6'2.5"-6'4" Goldberg back in WCW.
I remember big show being over a head taller than 6'2.5"-6'4" Goldberg back in WCW.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 6/Mar/09
I'll give him 7ft now and maybe 7'1" in the 90's.
I'll give him 7ft now and maybe 7'1" in the 90's.
Big Show said on 6/Mar/09
topdweeb says on 6/Mar/09
Big Show says on 6/Mar/09
"I think Funaki is also a true jobber. Did this guy ever win a match?"
The fact that you even know his name means he's not a true jobber. Alex is talking about those guys back in the 80's and early 90's where you didn't even know their name, they were already shown as being in the ring before the superstar came out. And pretty much every match with them was a complete squash with very little to no-offense at all given by the jobber.
So when you're referring to true jobbers, you mean guys like this.
Click Here
They're mostly not WWE wrestlers and are simply brought in to job (also mostly against the stars). These jobbers are often people from the independent cirquits and can very well be a champion there. A independent wrestler named Joey Ryans was a world champion at PWG wrestling. He also wrestled a few times in the WWE jobbing to guys like Big Show, Rosey, Sylvain Grenier, John Morrison.
I can't recall Funaki ever being a jobber to the stars. He was a jobber to the jobber of the stars.
topdweeb says on 6/Mar/09
Big Show says on 6/Mar/09
"I think Funaki is also a true jobber. Did this guy ever win a match?"
The fact that you even know his name means he's not a true jobber. Alex is talking about those guys back in the 80's and early 90's where you didn't even know their name, they were already shown as being in the ring before the superstar came out. And pretty much every match with them was a complete squash with very little to no-offense at all given by the jobber.
So when you're referring to true jobbers, you mean guys like this.
Click Here
They're mostly not WWE wrestlers and are simply brought in to job (also mostly against the stars). These jobbers are often people from the independent cirquits and can very well be a champion there. A independent wrestler named Joey Ryans was a world champion at PWG wrestling. He also wrestled a few times in the WWE jobbing to guys like Big Show, Rosey, Sylvain Grenier, John Morrison.
I can't recall Funaki ever being a jobber to the stars. He was a jobber to the jobber of the stars.
KingNick said on 6/Mar/09
Vegas says on 6/Mar/09
the mayweather match was actually one of big shows better matches in the last year, it was great fun to watch live, mayweather did a great job
Actually I would agree with that to an extent. I think the way I wrote my last post was misleading. What I meant was that I thought it was atrocious that Big Show LOST to Mayweather, like it was atrocious that Bam Bam lost to LT, even tho that was a great match too. I just don't agree with a celebrity winning a wrestling match. I think it's unrealistic and it hurts the business more. It ruins that credibility of how the WWE promotes their wrestlers as unstoppable monsters when some random celebrity, even if they are an athlete, comes in to beat them. After WM 11, the WWE was doing very poorly. I don't think WWE is necessarily doing badly now, but the Mayweather storyline didn't help. The WWE is about as popular as it was last year IMO.
Vegas says on 6/Mar/09
the mayweather match was actually one of big shows better matches in the last year, it was great fun to watch live, mayweather did a great job
Actually I would agree with that to an extent. I think the way I wrote my last post was misleading. What I meant was that I thought it was atrocious that Big Show LOST to Mayweather, like it was atrocious that Bam Bam lost to LT, even tho that was a great match too. I just don't agree with a celebrity winning a wrestling match. I think it's unrealistic and it hurts the business more. It ruins that credibility of how the WWE promotes their wrestlers as unstoppable monsters when some random celebrity, even if they are an athlete, comes in to beat them. After WM 11, the WWE was doing very poorly. I don't think WWE is necessarily doing badly now, but the Mayweather storyline didn't help. The WWE is about as popular as it was last year IMO.
topdweeb said on 6/Mar/09
Big Show says on 6/Mar/09
"I think Funaki is also a true jobber. Did this guy ever win a match?"
The fact that you even know his name means he's not a true jobber. Alex is talking about those guys back in the 80's and early 90's where you didn't even know their name, they were already shown as being in the ring before the superstar came out. And pretty much every match with them was a complete squash with very little to no-offense at all given by the jobber.
Guys that you know their name, and even put up a good fight at times, at called "jobbers to the stars" they are just one notch ahead of the true jobbers. Guys like this sometimes put up a good fight, but they are essentially only used as stepping stones. When I think of JTTS, the names Tito Santana and Hercules come to mind. Snitsky got turned into a JTTS before his release, Val Venis is also a JTTS, and Vladimir Kozlov is well on his way. It seems almost universal that in the WWE, if you start off with a really impressive win streak, you end up becoming a JTTS wrestler sooner or later. It happened with Honky, it happened with Tatanka, and I'm betting it will happen to Kozlov. On that not, I have to agree with hs2009. As much as it sucks to wreck his impressive win streak, I knew it wouldn't last. I could tell this guy has JTTS written all over him. He's boring, has no mic skills, and is just plain dull. I don't even know what the WWE was thinking originally when he had no entrance music. Just made him even more bland and boring.
Big Show says on 6/Mar/09
"I think Funaki is also a true jobber. Did this guy ever win a match?"
The fact that you even know his name means he's not a true jobber. Alex is talking about those guys back in the 80's and early 90's where you didn't even know their name, they were already shown as being in the ring before the superstar came out. And pretty much every match with them was a complete squash with very little to no-offense at all given by the jobber.
Guys that you know their name, and even put up a good fight at times, at called "jobbers to the stars" they are just one notch ahead of the true jobbers. Guys like this sometimes put up a good fight, but they are essentially only used as stepping stones. When I think of JTTS, the names Tito Santana and Hercules come to mind. Snitsky got turned into a JTTS before his release, Val Venis is also a JTTS, and Vladimir Kozlov is well on his way. It seems almost universal that in the WWE, if you start off with a really impressive win streak, you end up becoming a JTTS wrestler sooner or later. It happened with Honky, it happened with Tatanka, and I'm betting it will happen to Kozlov. On that not, I have to agree with hs2009. As much as it sucks to wreck his impressive win streak, I knew it wouldn't last. I could tell this guy has JTTS written all over him. He's boring, has no mic skills, and is just plain dull. I don't even know what the WWE was thinking originally when he had no entrance music. Just made him even more bland and boring.
Big Show said on 6/Mar/09
Vegas says on 6/Mar/09
the mayweather match was actually one of big shows better matches in the last year, it was great fun to watch live, mayweather did a great job
i have zero interest in edge/big show at mania, thats a smackdown match in truth not a mania main event, no buildup either, at least orton and HHH has been built up well over the last few weeks, loads of people bought mania to see mayweather; how many people are going to buy mania to see edge/big show??
Couldn't agree with you more. I thought Big Show's angle with Mayweather was by far the best angle I've seen Big Show in since his return (even though it was handled poorly at first). The build up was excellent and the crowd was really into the match. Could you here the crowd response when it was announced that Big Show will face Edge at Wrestlemania. I don't think so as there wasn't any. Like Vegas hardly anyone cares about such a match-up. If John Cena is added to that group I think Big Show will be just a third wheel in the match (he's probably going to turn face in the match or in the build-up).
Btw Alex I think Funaki is also a true jobber. Did this guy ever win a match?
Vegas says on 6/Mar/09
the mayweather match was actually one of big shows better matches in the last year, it was great fun to watch live, mayweather did a great job
i have zero interest in edge/big show at mania, thats a smackdown match in truth not a mania main event, no buildup either, at least orton and HHH has been built up well over the last few weeks, loads of people bought mania to see mayweather; how many people are going to buy mania to see edge/big show??
Couldn't agree with you more. I thought Big Show's angle with Mayweather was by far the best angle I've seen Big Show in since his return (even though it was handled poorly at first). The build up was excellent and the crowd was really into the match. Could you here the crowd response when it was announced that Big Show will face Edge at Wrestlemania. I don't think so as there wasn't any. Like Vegas hardly anyone cares about such a match-up. If John Cena is added to that group I think Big Show will be just a third wheel in the match (he's probably going to turn face in the match or in the build-up).
Btw Alex I think Funaki is also a true jobber. Did this guy ever win a match?
Vegas said on 6/Mar/09
the mayweather match was actually one of big shows better matches in the last year, it was great fun to watch live, mayweather did a great job
i have zero interest in edge/big show at mania, thats a smackdown match in truth not a mania main event, no buildup either, at least orton and HHH has been built up well over the last few weeks, loads of people bought mania to see mayweather; how many people are going to buy mania to see edge/big show??
the mayweather match was actually one of big shows better matches in the last year, it was great fun to watch live, mayweather did a great job
i have zero interest in edge/big show at mania, thats a smackdown match in truth not a mania main event, no buildup either, at least orton and HHH has been built up well over the last few weeks, loads of people bought mania to see mayweather; how many people are going to buy mania to see edge/big show??
Big Show said on 6/Mar/09
Big Show says on 5/Mar/09
Undertaker is known for his winning streak whilst I am known for my losing streak at Wrestlemania.
This username is already spoken for. Use another one!
Big Show says on 5/Mar/09
Undertaker is known for his winning streak whilst I am known for my losing streak at Wrestlemania.
This username is already spoken for. Use another one!
Big Show said on 5/Mar/09
Undertaker is known for his winning streak whilst I am known for my losing streak at Wrestlemania.
Undertaker is known for his winning streak whilst I am known for my losing streak at Wrestlemania.
Alex said on 5/Mar/09
Topdweeb, I remember those true jobbers back in the day. The guys who would already be in the ring waiting with no entrance for their opponent to come out. Those were real jobbers which they dont have anymore but now you'll have "jobber to the stars" like you say.
Topdweeb, I remember those true jobbers back in the day. The guys who would already be in the ring waiting with no entrance for their opponent to come out. Those were real jobbers which they dont have anymore but now you'll have "jobber to the stars" like you say.
KingNick said on 5/Mar/09
I can't begin to tell you guys how upset I was that Kozlov got a clean victory over Undertaker. There's a only a few guys in the company that I can see realistically beating Undertaker. Kozlov hasn't been around a year yet, I don't think it was a good choice. It damages the creditbility of both wrestlers. The same thing happend with Great Khali.
I'm really looking forward to UT facing HBK tho. That's going to be an amazing match if not the best match on the card.
I'm also very excited that Big Show is finally being given the spotlight at Wrestlemania again. I thought the Mayweather match was atrocious. I'm sure they're going to find a way to weasle Cena into it tho.
It's not so much that I have a problem with certain wrestlers as it is that I have a problem with the WWE shoving them down the fans throats. I feel that's what they did with Khali and that's what they've been doing with Cena and Kozlov
I can't begin to tell you guys how upset I was that Kozlov got a clean victory over Undertaker. There's a only a few guys in the company that I can see realistically beating Undertaker. Kozlov hasn't been around a year yet, I don't think it was a good choice. It damages the creditbility of both wrestlers. The same thing happend with Great Khali.
I'm really looking forward to UT facing HBK tho. That's going to be an amazing match if not the best match on the card.
I'm also very excited that Big Show is finally being given the spotlight at Wrestlemania again. I thought the Mayweather match was atrocious. I'm sure they're going to find a way to weasle Cena into it tho.
It's not so much that I have a problem with certain wrestlers as it is that I have a problem with the WWE shoving them down the fans throats. I feel that's what they did with Khali and that's what they've been doing with Cena and Kozlov
hs2009 said on 5/Mar/09
Apparently WWE has really soured on Kozlov. Not surprising really since he's such a boring wrestler. I think WWE should put more time into pushing really talented wrestlers like MVP, Shelton Benjamin & Brian Kendrick than no-hopers like Kozlov. Kozlov may be big, but he doesn't have 'it' IMO & I highly doubt he'll ever get over with the audience.
Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker will no doubt be entertaining, it would be a total shock if you're suggestion happened Danimal! I personally would have Shawn Michaels face Edge, then it's like Rated-RKO vs. DX again, that feud never had a chance to finish because of Triple H's quad injury.
I'd save HBK-Taker for Shawn's retirement match, then it could be Streak vs. Career.
Apparently WWE has really soured on Kozlov. Not surprising really since he's such a boring wrestler. I think WWE should put more time into pushing really talented wrestlers like MVP, Shelton Benjamin & Brian Kendrick than no-hopers like Kozlov. Kozlov may be big, but he doesn't have 'it' IMO & I highly doubt he'll ever get over with the audience.
Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker will no doubt be entertaining, it would be a total shock if you're suggestion happened Danimal! I personally would have Shawn Michaels face Edge, then it's like Rated-RKO vs. DX again, that feud never had a chance to finish because of Triple H's quad injury.
I'd save HBK-Taker for Shawn's retirement match, then it could be Streak vs. Career.
topdweeb said on 5/Mar/09
From what I read, Kozlov just lost on SmackDown to the Undertaker. From what you said, Big Show, if Kozlov is losing at House Shows and just now lost twice in the same week on TV, I think it's safe to say that Kozlov is going to be down graded to "jobber to the stars" status.
From what I read, Kozlov just lost on SmackDown to the Undertaker. From what you said, Big Show, if Kozlov is losing at House Shows and just now lost twice in the same week on TV, I think it's safe to say that Kozlov is going to be down graded to "jobber to the stars" status.
Alex said on 5/Mar/09
I was thinking the same thing with Cena being added to the Edge vs Big Show match making it a tripe threat match for the World title. But I've heard of Cena vs Batista one on one which would be fine with me.
I have no problem with HBK really but UT has to keep the streak alive.
I was thinking the same thing with Cena being added to the Edge vs Big Show match making it a tripe threat match for the World title. But I've heard of Cena vs Batista one on one which would be fine with me.
I have no problem with HBK really but UT has to keep the streak alive.
Danimal said on 5/Mar/09
Big Show says on 4/Mar/09
Can't say I'm really looking forward to this year's Wrestlemania. Most matches we've already seen dozens of times before. Triple H vs. Orton, Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker, the Money-in-the-Bank match with people like Kane and Mark Henry. Other matches that are bound to show up are Jeff vs. Matt Hardy (seen that one before), Beth Phoenix vs. Melina, Stone Cold vs. Chris Jericho (Looking forward to that one if it's going to happen).
Big Show vs. Edge is bound to change. John Cena is WWE's cash cow and he's bound to be at Wrestlemania.
I agree with Topdweeb about Kozlov's undefeated streak (although he's lost a few matches cleanly on house show's). Losing to Shawn Michaels might make Shawn look more intimidating going into his match with Taker, it really doesn't do much else for him, while Kozlov's character has taken a huge bump. WWE always had a problem with ending impressive winning streaks. Honky Tonk Man's 14 month reign as Intercontinental Champion was ended in 11 seconds by Ultimate Warrior.
Not that it's going to happen, but what if in the Michaels/Undertaker match, at the beginning when Undertaker removes his hat (not paying attention to his opponent) and Michaels superkicks him in the face, tells the referee to ring the bell and pins the Undertaker in less than 5 seconds to end his undefeated streak. That would destroy Undertaker's streak.
If you're putting so much effort into creating an impressive streak it would be nice if the streak also ended with a bang.
Kind of like Mike Tyson's did to Buster Douglas ;).
Big Show says on 4/Mar/09
Can't say I'm really looking forward to this year's Wrestlemania. Most matches we've already seen dozens of times before. Triple H vs. Orton, Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker, the Money-in-the-Bank match with people like Kane and Mark Henry. Other matches that are bound to show up are Jeff vs. Matt Hardy (seen that one before), Beth Phoenix vs. Melina, Stone Cold vs. Chris Jericho (Looking forward to that one if it's going to happen).
Big Show vs. Edge is bound to change. John Cena is WWE's cash cow and he's bound to be at Wrestlemania.
I agree with Topdweeb about Kozlov's undefeated streak (although he's lost a few matches cleanly on house show's). Losing to Shawn Michaels might make Shawn look more intimidating going into his match with Taker, it really doesn't do much else for him, while Kozlov's character has taken a huge bump. WWE always had a problem with ending impressive winning streaks. Honky Tonk Man's 14 month reign as Intercontinental Champion was ended in 11 seconds by Ultimate Warrior.
Not that it's going to happen, but what if in the Michaels/Undertaker match, at the beginning when Undertaker removes his hat (not paying attention to his opponent) and Michaels superkicks him in the face, tells the referee to ring the bell and pins the Undertaker in less than 5 seconds to end his undefeated streak. That would destroy Undertaker's streak.
If you're putting so much effort into creating an impressive streak it would be nice if the streak also ended with a bang.
Kind of like Mike Tyson's did to Buster Douglas ;).
topdweeb said on 4/Mar/09
Big Show: well, in the world of pro-wrestling, if it doesn't happen on TV, then it never happened. Although I think it's dumb to make Kozlov lose at house shows because it only makes wrestling seem more hokey to those who witnessed it.
Shawn could have defeated anyone else on RAW to qualify to face the Undertaker, it didn't have to be Kozlov and Kozlov could still be undefeated. But it's like you say, WWE blows it when it comes to undefeated streak. It's like the Tatanka thing. After 2 years of being undefeated, Tatanka loses to Ludvig Borga who pins him with one fingers on Superstars, not even RAW, but should have been on a PPV event.
Kozlov losing should have been at a PPV. At least Honkey's loss was.
Big Show: well, in the world of pro-wrestling, if it doesn't happen on TV, then it never happened. Although I think it's dumb to make Kozlov lose at house shows because it only makes wrestling seem more hokey to those who witnessed it.
Shawn could have defeated anyone else on RAW to qualify to face the Undertaker, it didn't have to be Kozlov and Kozlov could still be undefeated. But it's like you say, WWE blows it when it comes to undefeated streak. It's like the Tatanka thing. After 2 years of being undefeated, Tatanka loses to Ludvig Borga who pins him with one fingers on Superstars, not even RAW, but should have been on a PPV event.
Kozlov losing should have been at a PPV. At least Honkey's loss was.
Big Show said on 4/Mar/09
Can't say I'm really looking forward to this year's Wrestlemania. Most matches we've already seen dozens of times before. Triple H vs. Orton, Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker, the Money-in-the-Bank match with people like Kane and Mark Henry. Other matches that are bound to show up are Jeff vs. Matt Hardy (seen that one before), Beth Phoenix vs. Melina, Stone Cold vs. Chris Jericho (Looking forward to that one if it's going to happen).
Big Show vs. Edge is bound to change. John Cena is WWE's cash cow and he's bound to be at Wrestlemania.
I agree with Topdweeb about Kozlov's undefeated streak (although he's lost a few matches cleanly on house show's). Losing to Shawn Michaels might make Shawn look more intimidating going into his match with Taker, it really doesn't do much else for him, while Kozlov's character has taken a huge bump. WWE always had a problem with ending impressive winning streaks. Honky Tonk Man's 14 month reign as Intercontinental Champion was ended in 11 seconds by Ultimate Warrior.
Not that it's going to happen, but what if in the Michaels/Undertaker match, at the beginning when Undertaker removes his hat (not paying attention to his opponent) and Michaels superkicks him in the face, tells the referee to ring the bell and pins the Undertaker in less than 5 seconds to end his undefeated streak. That would destroy Undertaker's streak.
If you're putting so much effort into creating an impressive streak it would be nice if the streak also ended with a bang.
Can't say I'm really looking forward to this year's Wrestlemania. Most matches we've already seen dozens of times before. Triple H vs. Orton, Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker, the Money-in-the-Bank match with people like Kane and Mark Henry. Other matches that are bound to show up are Jeff vs. Matt Hardy (seen that one before), Beth Phoenix vs. Melina, Stone Cold vs. Chris Jericho (Looking forward to that one if it's going to happen).
Big Show vs. Edge is bound to change. John Cena is WWE's cash cow and he's bound to be at Wrestlemania.
I agree with Topdweeb about Kozlov's undefeated streak (although he's lost a few matches cleanly on house show's). Losing to Shawn Michaels might make Shawn look more intimidating going into his match with Taker, it really doesn't do much else for him, while Kozlov's character has taken a huge bump. WWE always had a problem with ending impressive winning streaks. Honky Tonk Man's 14 month reign as Intercontinental Champion was ended in 11 seconds by Ultimate Warrior.
Not that it's going to happen, but what if in the Michaels/Undertaker match, at the beginning when Undertaker removes his hat (not paying attention to his opponent) and Michaels superkicks him in the face, tells the referee to ring the bell and pins the Undertaker in less than 5 seconds to end his undefeated streak. That would destroy Undertaker's streak.
If you're putting so much effort into creating an impressive streak it would be nice if the streak also ended with a bang.
topdweeb said on 4/Mar/09
Alex: honestly, I'm glad it isn't John Cena vs Edge but I am almost willing to bet money that this will turn into a triple threat match between Edge, the Big Show, and John Cena.
I think Cena has the spotlight way too much (him and Triple H). So I'm just glad that it will be the Big Show vs. Edge, but I do know what you mean that it is weird to have two heels face off, especially since the two didn't have much build up, at least I didn't think so.
But I really hope it doesn't turn into a triple threat. I think triple threats are really cheap and it's a way for the champ to lose the title without actually losing to an opponent. And it's cheap to the fans who want to see two wrestlers go at it one on one.
On a side note: I thought Vladimir Kozlov might go to WM to face the Undertaker because I thought it would be Kozlov's undefeated streak vs. the Undertaker's undefeated WM streak, and I thought this would be where Kozlov finally loses. But Shawn Michaels is a better opponent for him so I do understand why.
What I don't get, is why make Kozlov suddenly lose his undefeated streak, and fairly easily after all this time? Kinda feel let down... kinda like how Tatanka went undefeated for 2 years and when he finally gets beat, it's by Ludvig Borga pinning him with one finger.
Alex: honestly, I'm glad it isn't John Cena vs Edge but I am almost willing to bet money that this will turn into a triple threat match between Edge, the Big Show, and John Cena.
I think Cena has the spotlight way too much (him and Triple H). So I'm just glad that it will be the Big Show vs. Edge, but I do know what you mean that it is weird to have two heels face off, especially since the two didn't have much build up, at least I didn't think so.
But I really hope it doesn't turn into a triple threat. I think triple threats are really cheap and it's a way for the champ to lose the title without actually losing to an opponent. And it's cheap to the fans who want to see two wrestlers go at it one on one.
On a side note: I thought Vladimir Kozlov might go to WM to face the Undertaker because I thought it would be Kozlov's undefeated streak vs. the Undertaker's undefeated WM streak, and I thought this would be where Kozlov finally loses. But Shawn Michaels is a better opponent for him so I do understand why.
What I don't get, is why make Kozlov suddenly lose his undefeated streak, and fairly easily after all this time? Kinda feel let down... kinda like how Tatanka went undefeated for 2 years and when he finally gets beat, it's by Ludvig Borga pinning him with one finger.
Alex said on 4/Mar/09
I am a big fan of Big Show. Always been but him vs Edge at WM 25 for the World title seems a bit odd. 2 heels facing off one on one. Very rare you'll see that at WM for a title. What do you guys think?
I am a big fan of Big Show. Always been but him vs Edge at WM 25 for the World title seems a bit odd. 2 heels facing off one on one. Very rare you'll see that at WM for a title. What do you guys think?
Paul said on 4/Mar/09
kingNick
Honestly Big Show really was 7'1 once. WCW had him down variously as 7'2, 7'4.
I remember around 1996 he even wore boots such that he was just over 7'3 in them. Towered Martin Ruane by 6 inches. These days Show is likely just over 6'11, maybe 6'11.5, I doubt 7'0.
kingNick
Honestly Big Show really was 7'1 once. WCW had him down variously as 7'2, 7'4.
I remember around 1996 he even wore boots such that he was just over 7'3 in them. Towered Martin Ruane by 6 inches. These days Show is likely just over 6'11, maybe 6'11.5, I doubt 7'0.
KingNick said on 3/Mar/09
Paul says on 2/Mar/09
On Big Show
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Big Show: 6'11" barefoot (7' peak barefoot), 7'0.5" wrestling boots
KingNick you should know Big Show was actually 7'1 in the mid-latter 90's legitimately. These days he isn't that much over 6'11.
On Khali
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Khali: 7'1" barefoot, 7'1.5" - 7'1.75" wrestling boots
The first estimate is essentially correct but wrestling boots that add maybe only 0.5 of an inch for Khali ? Trust me those boots have more in them than you think.
sorry dude, I disagree. But there's evidence to support your therios too. No problem, we're all entitled to our opinions :>D
Paul says on 2/Mar/09
On Big Show
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Big Show: 6'11" barefoot (7' peak barefoot), 7'0.5" wrestling boots
KingNick you should know Big Show was actually 7'1 in the mid-latter 90's legitimately. These days he isn't that much over 6'11.
On Khali
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Khali: 7'1" barefoot, 7'1.5" - 7'1.75" wrestling boots
The first estimate is essentially correct but wrestling boots that add maybe only 0.5 of an inch for Khali ? Trust me those boots have more in them than you think.
sorry dude, I disagree. But there's evidence to support your therios too. No problem, we're all entitled to our opinions :>D
Alex said on 3/Mar/09
Big Show looks in the 425-450lb range for sure. Though when he was 420lbs in 1999 he was leaner than he is now and 430lbs in early 2000. Khali is 400-410lbs I think.
Big Show looks in the 425-450lb range for sure. Though when he was 420lbs in 1999 he was leaner than he is now and 430lbs in early 2000. Khali is 400-410lbs I think.
mike said on 3/Mar/09
big show 441 1bs and khali i,d say 385 1bs.
big show 441 1bs and khali i,d say 385 1bs.
Alex said on 2/Mar/09
In those pics Nick posted Big Show's boots look a bit bigger than Khalis but when they faced off the boots may have not been like that.
In those pics Nick posted Big Show's boots look a bit bigger than Khalis but when they faced off the boots may have not been like that.
Paul said on 2/Mar/09
On Big Show
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Big Show: 6'11" barefoot (7' peak barefoot), 7'0.5" wrestling boots
KingNick you should know Big Show was actually 7'1 in the mid-latter 90's legitimately. These days he isn't that much over 6'11.
On Khali
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Khali: 7'1" barefoot, 7'1.5" - 7'1.75" wrestling boots
The first estimate is essentially correct but wrestling boots that add maybe only 0.5 of an inch for Khali ? Trust me those boots have more in them than you think.
On Big Show
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Big Show: 6'11" barefoot (7' peak barefoot), 7'0.5" wrestling boots
KingNick you should know Big Show was actually 7'1 in the mid-latter 90's legitimately. These days he isn't that much over 6'11.
On Khali
KingNick says on 28/Feb/09
Khali: 7'1" barefoot, 7'1.5" - 7'1.75" wrestling boots
The first estimate is essentially correct but wrestling boots that add maybe only 0.5 of an inch for Khali ? Trust me those boots have more in them than you think.
Clay said on 2/Mar/09
Oh my god Khali looks scary huge in pic 8.
Oh my god Khali looks scary huge in pic 8.
Alex said on 2/Mar/09
I barely see a 1 inch difference at the 2:33 mark.
I barely see a 1 inch difference at the 2:33 mark.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 28/Feb/09
Take a look at this
Click Here
Big show appears to be easily 4.5 inches above Undertaker in 1999. Undertaker comes out during big show v.s Vicera match.
Take a look at this
Click Here
Big show appears to be easily 4.5 inches above Undertaker in 1999. Undertaker comes out during big show v.s Vicera match.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 28/Feb/09
Take a look at this
Click Here
Big show appears to be easily 4.5 inches above Undertaker in 1999.
Take a look at this
Click Here
Big show appears to be easily 4.5 inches above Undertaker in 1999.
KingNick said on 28/Feb/09
In wrestling gear, I think there's a 1" or tops 1.25" difference between Big Show and Khali. Alex's video is a good reference for that. If you notice in the staredown, Show doesn't even have his neck completely straight.
Barefoot, I think there's 2" between them. I don't agree in the least bit that the footwear for Khali and Show is the same.
Here are some photos of Show's footwear look particularly at pics 1 and 23 Click Here
Here are some photos of Khali's footwear look particularly at pic 18 Click Here
I think Show has a clear footwear advantage over Khali.
Big Show: 6'11" barefoot (7' peak barefoot), 7'0.5" wrestling boots
Khali: 7'1" barefoot, 7'1.5" - 7'1.75" wrestling boots
In wrestling gear, I think there's a 1" or tops 1.25" difference between Big Show and Khali. Alex's video is a good reference for that. If you notice in the staredown, Show doesn't even have his neck completely straight.
Barefoot, I think there's 2" between them. I don't agree in the least bit that the footwear for Khali and Show is the same.
Here are some photos of Show's footwear look particularly at pics 1 and 23 Click Here
Here are some photos of Khali's footwear look particularly at pic 18 Click Here
I think Show has a clear footwear advantage over Khali.
Big Show: 6'11" barefoot (7' peak barefoot), 7'0.5" wrestling boots
Khali: 7'1" barefoot, 7'1.5" - 7'1.75" wrestling boots
Clay said on 27/Feb/09
Another thing you guys are doing is assuming. If you're going strictly by the top of Khali's hair you can see the 2 inch gap. Now, lets ASSUME - there I go doing it myself, that Khali's poofed hair is giving him a .5-.75 of an inch advantage, that still leaves Khali skull 1.25-1.5 above Big Show's. Just my observation. :)
And lord knows about the Show's boots.
Another thing you guys are doing is assuming. If you're going strictly by the top of Khali's hair you can see the 2 inch gap. Now, lets ASSUME - there I go doing it myself, that Khali's poofed hair is giving him a .5-.75 of an inch advantage, that still leaves Khali skull 1.25-1.5 above Big Show's. Just my observation. :)
And lord knows about the Show's boots.
mike said on 27/Feb/09
giant gonzales ,the tallest wrestler i,d ever seen at 7'6".
giant gonzales ,the tallest wrestler i,d ever seen at 7'6".
Clay said on 27/Feb/09
I see an inch there, but when the camera shifts its angles at times you can see 1.5. I never see Big Show as close as under an inch of Khali.
I see an inch there, but when the camera shifts its angles at times you can see 1.5. I never see Big Show as close as under an inch of Khali.
Anonymous said on 27/Feb/09
There's MAX an inch of difference there.
There's MAX an inch of difference there.
topdweeb said on 27/Feb/09
Alex: pause it at 2:33 and you see a close up of the two. Once again, it doesn't even look like a full inch, like mike says, it looks more like 0.5 inch. Khali is NOT 1.5 inches taller than Big Show.
Alex: pause it at 2:33 and you see a close up of the two. Once again, it doesn't even look like a full inch, like mike says, it looks more like 0.5 inch. Khali is NOT 1.5 inches taller than Big Show.
mike said on 27/Feb/09
i have to agree with you Alex,imo it looks more like maybe.05 inch.Show looks more like 7'0" there than anything.
i have to agree with you Alex,imo it looks more like maybe.05 inch.Show looks more like 7'0" there than anything.
Alex said on 26/Feb/09
Here at the 2:30 mark and on you can see them face off and the very most you can say is 1.5 inches and that looks to be even stretching it a bit. I think 2 inches is def out of the question. Their footwear looks the same to me.
Click Here
Here at the 2:30 mark and on you can see them face off and the very most you can say is 1.5 inches and that looks to be even stretching it a bit. I think 2 inches is def out of the question. Their footwear looks the same to me.
Click Here
Alex said on 26/Feb/09
The times that Khali looked 2 inches or so taller than Big Show were due to camera angles to make Khali look even taller than Big Show but face to face with normal angles there was roughly an inch difference.
The times that Khali looked 2 inches or so taller than Big Show were due to camera angles to make Khali look even taller than Big Show but face to face with normal angles there was roughly an inch difference.
topdweeb said on 26/Feb/09
Who cares how tall the short wrestlers are. Only the tall ones are interesting.
Who cares how tall the short wrestlers are. Only the tall ones are interesting.
TELLEM said on 26/Feb/09
sting IS 6'2...he has/had 3 inches over 5'11 scott steiner, 4 inches over 5'10 kurt angle, 1 inch shorter than 6'3 lex luger, and that puts jesse ventura at about 6'3 at that time in WCW.
sting IS 6'2...he has/had 3 inches over 5'11 scott steiner, 4 inches over 5'10 kurt angle, 1 inch shorter than 6'3 lex luger, and that puts jesse ventura at about 6'3 at that time in WCW.
Anonymous said on 26/Feb/09
its difficult to tell anything from that sting/ventura video, camera angle is too high and we get no full body shots
its difficult to tell anything from that sting/ventura video, camera angle is too high and we get no full body shots
Clay said on 25/Feb/09
Thanks Alex. So you agree at times there appears more than an inch, at times an inch. I think we can all agree Big Show's boots look a little suspect as well.
Danimal, well lately you have been very Jason/Viper esque. You have seemingly just been out to uncover that these people are shorter than everyone thinks - what with trying to go on with the Will Smith 5'11 possibility, Jericho looking 5'8 and no more? And now with undertaker 6'6/6'6.5 - I dont think you should be Banned man its just annoying!
Thanks Alex. So you agree at times there appears more than an inch, at times an inch. I think we can all agree Big Show's boots look a little suspect as well.
Danimal, well lately you have been very Jason/Viper esque. You have seemingly just been out to uncover that these people are shorter than everyone thinks - what with trying to go on with the Will Smith 5'11 possibility, Jericho looking 5'8 and no more? And now with undertaker 6'6/6'6.5 - I dont think you should be Banned man its just annoying!
Anonymous said on 25/Feb/09
"OLAAAAAAAA, I'm calling you out. Here is PROOF that Jesse Ventura was taller than 6'2". Here he is next to 6'2" Sting: Click Here"
standing next to sting who himself is not 6'2 lol
"OLAAAAAAAA, I'm calling you out. Here is PROOF that Jesse Ventura was taller than 6'2". Here he is next to 6'2" Sting: Click Here"
standing next to sting who himself is not 6'2 lol
Danimal said on 25/Feb/09
OLAAAAAAAA, I'm calling you out. Here is PROOF that Jesse Ventura was taller than 6'2". Here he is next to 6'2" Sting: Click Here
OLAAAAAAAA, I'm calling you out. Here is PROOF that Jesse Ventura was taller than 6'2". Here he is next to 6'2" Sting: Click Here
Danimal said on 25/Feb/09
GET AWAY with Clay? What, you want me Banned, because I've stated I think it's POSSIBLE that Taker is 6'6"-6'6.5"?? Get over yourself Clay. I am entitled to my opinion. I am not known for exaggerating or minimizing people's heights. I call it as I see it and have been doing so on here CONSISTENTLY for well over 4 years. Don't lose anymore sleep over it please.
GET AWAY with Clay? What, you want me Banned, because I've stated I think it's POSSIBLE that Taker is 6'6"-6'6.5"?? Get over yourself Clay. I am entitled to my opinion. I am not known for exaggerating or minimizing people's heights. I call it as I see it and have been doing so on here CONSISTENTLY for well over 4 years. Don't lose anymore sleep over it please.
Alex said on 25/Feb/09
MOST of the time I seen an inch between Khali and Big Show but a few times I saw maybe 1.5 inches. Never seen 2 inches.
MOST of the time I seen an inch between Khali and Big Show but a few times I saw maybe 1.5 inches. Never seen 2 inches.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 24/Feb/09
I highly doubt Undertaker was ever under 6'7". I would say there may have been a time back in the 90's maybe when big Show stood maybe a pinch over the 7ft mark. I would say there is maybe 2 inches between big show and Khali, maybe 1.5 inches. I would say Khali is about 7'1.5" or 7'2". Khali in my opionion appears to be taller than Shaq.
I highly doubt Undertaker was ever under 6'7". I would say there may have been a time back in the 90's maybe when big Show stood maybe a pinch over the 7ft mark. I would say there is maybe 2 inches between big show and Khali, maybe 1.5 inches. I would say Khali is about 7'1.5" or 7'2". Khali in my opionion appears to be taller than Shaq.
Clay said on 24/Feb/09
Whatever. Im positive its more like 1.5 between them instead of just 1 inch, thats all I argue - not a big deal. A lot of folks agree with me on that too, not to mention anyone who has seen them live says Khali is noticably taller.
Whatever. Im positive its more like 1.5 between them instead of just 1 inch, thats all I argue - not a big deal. A lot of folks agree with me on that too, not to mention anyone who has seen them live says Khali is noticably taller.
Alex said on 24/Feb/09
At least the 6'6 claims for UT aren't as bad as that one 6'2 claim for him.
I think giving UT 6'7 is fair but I wouldn't go more than that.
At least the 6'6 claims for UT aren't as bad as that one 6'2 claim for him.
I think giving UT 6'7 is fair but I wouldn't go more than that.
topdweeb said on 23/Feb/09
Clay says on 23/Feb/09
"To be fair there is only a couple people argueing for a 6'6 Taker. How Danimal gets away with some of the stuff he says is beyond me."
I don't know specifically what you're talking about, but I wouldn't say he "gets away" with anything. I just think that most of the times when we disagree with each other, we just kinda let it go, but I wouldn't really call that getting away with it.
Like you and I disagree about the Big Show. I see one inch between him and Khali, and you see more. The difference here is that I look at the facts and go by the facts while you constantly try to make Khali out to be Robert Wadlow or something. And even though you're dead wrong (and you usually are when it comes to Khali, no offense) I usually don't say anything because unless I personally see Khali measured I can't ever know for sure if I am right or wrong, but let's just face simple facts: the chances of you being right isn't very good.
Clay says on 23/Feb/09
"To be fair there is only a couple people argueing for a 6'6 Taker. How Danimal gets away with some of the stuff he says is beyond me."
I don't know specifically what you're talking about, but I wouldn't say he "gets away" with anything. I just think that most of the times when we disagree with each other, we just kinda let it go, but I wouldn't really call that getting away with it.
Like you and I disagree about the Big Show. I see one inch between him and Khali, and you see more. The difference here is that I look at the facts and go by the facts while you constantly try to make Khali out to be Robert Wadlow or something. And even though you're dead wrong (and you usually are when it comes to Khali, no offense) I usually don't say anything because unless I personally see Khali measured I can't ever know for sure if I am right or wrong, but let's just face simple facts: the chances of you being right isn't very good.
Clay said on 23/Feb/09
To be fair there is only a couple people argueing for a 6'6 Taker. How Danimal gets away with some of the stuff he says is beyond me.
To be fair there is only a couple people argueing for a 6'6 Taker. How Danimal gets away with some of the stuff he says is beyond me.
hs2009 said on 23/Feb/09
Good pics Vegas, Jericho's boots look pretty standard these days. They're thicker than Shawn Michaels boots, who has really thin soles these days, but they still look like a 1.25" standard sole.
Like you say Vegas, the size of his wrestling boots are pretty irrelevant since he looks 5'10" in dress shoes next to everyone he has stood next to.
Good find Tuga, Taker towers everyone else in that photo! Chavo Guerrero is at least 5'7" & Taker has over a head size on him. No way he is only 6'6" these days.
Good pics Vegas, Jericho's boots look pretty standard these days. They're thicker than Shawn Michaels boots, who has really thin soles these days, but they still look like a 1.25" standard sole.
Like you say Vegas, the size of his wrestling boots are pretty irrelevant since he looks 5'10" in dress shoes next to everyone he has stood next to.
Good find Tuga, Taker towers everyone else in that photo! Chavo Guerrero is at least 5'7" & Taker has over a head size on him. No way he is only 6'6" these days.
Ghost said on 22/Feb/09
tuga says on 22/Feb/09
Sorry Ed. Rob, I posted anonymous...
Here goes again:
Click Here
Taker with chavo guerrero and michelle mcool.
Taker looks enourmous there, even though he is slouching big time. That is not a 6'6 man.
tuga says on 22/Feb/09
Sorry Ed. Rob, I posted anonymous...
Here goes again:
Click Here
Taker with chavo guerrero and michelle mcool.
Taker looks enourmous there, even though he is slouching big time. That is not a 6'6 man.
tuga said on 22/Feb/09
Sorry Ed. Rob, I posted anonymous...
Here goes again:
Click Here
Taker with chavo guerrero and michelle mcool.
Sorry Ed. Rob, I posted anonymous...
Here goes again:
Click Here
Taker with chavo guerrero and michelle mcool.
Clay said on 22/Feb/09
Eddie - 5'7
Chavo - 5'8
Eddie - 5'7
Chavo - 5'8
hs2009 said on 21/Feb/09
I still think that Jericho is 5'9.5"-5'10".
He had 3"-3.5" in street clothes on Chavo Jr. & Eddie Guerrero in the pictures in Y2J's book. I think most people would agree that they are 5'6.5"-5'7". Eddie was also just marginally taller than 5'6" referee Brian Hildebrand (RIP), so for me that adds up to solid 5'9.5"-5'10" Jericho.
I still think that Jericho is 5'9.5"-5'10".
He had 3"-3.5" in street clothes on Chavo Jr. & Eddie Guerrero in the pictures in Y2J's book. I think most people would agree that they are 5'6.5"-5'7". Eddie was also just marginally taller than 5'6" referee Brian Hildebrand (RIP), so for me that adds up to solid 5'9.5"-5'10" Jericho.
Paul said on 20/Feb/09
Clay says on 19/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 19/Feb/09
JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9.
Failed miserably. Funny though....
Clay says on 19/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 19/Feb/09
JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9.
Failed miserably. Funny though....
Alex said on 20/Feb/09
JBL is a lift wearer I think. He appears taller next to taller wrestler and shorter next to guys who aren't tall. I'd say no more than 6'5 for him though.
JBL is a lift wearer I think. He appears taller next to taller wrestler and shorter next to guys who aren't tall. I'd say no more than 6'5 for him though.
Clay said on 20/Feb/09
Jericho has held his own against Shawn Michaels, CM Punk, and now Rowdy Roddy. I guess Jericho strutts out to the ring in 4 inch lifts every night?
Jericho has held his own against Shawn Michaels, CM Punk, and now Rowdy Roddy. I guess Jericho strutts out to the ring in 4 inch lifts every night?
Danimal said on 20/Feb/09
I can live with 5'9" for Jericho, but not over that. He wore space boots a la HBK for YEARS. Piper was a legit tall man in the 1980's. He stood toe to toe with Vince in the mid 80's and was NOT shorter than him. There are a TON of Piper's Pits on dailymotion, where he looks every bit 6'1"+ in ALL of them next to legit tall men. He had spinal surgery years back, as well as an entire hip replacement. BEFORE YOUR time on celebheights, there was an article floating around (2004) where Piper stated he went from 6'1" to 5'9".
I can live with 5'9" for Jericho, but not over that. He wore space boots a la HBK for YEARS. Piper was a legit tall man in the 1980's. He stood toe to toe with Vince in the mid 80's and was NOT shorter than him. There are a TON of Piper's Pits on dailymotion, where he looks every bit 6'1"+ in ALL of them next to legit tall men. He had spinal surgery years back, as well as an entire hip replacement. BEFORE YOUR time on celebheights, there was an article floating around (2004) where Piper stated he went from 6'1" to 5'9".
Vegas said on 20/Feb/09
Danimal says on 19/Feb/09
I do not give Jericho more than 5'9" and YES VEGAS, it has been proven that Piper (who I know you LOVEEEEEEE so much) has lost SIGNIFICANT height over the years and not is NOT up for debate.
jericho is actually edging out piper there in dress shoes, surely piper isn't in the 5'8 range?? thats really what you are contemplating, if jericho is 5'8 then piper is max 5'8 today and more possibly 5'7.5, thats just silly
piper was taller than jimmy kimmel only a few months ago on smackdown, jericho has looked ~5'10 in everything since his return, he looked 5'10 next to vince, next to hbk, next to flair, next to orton, next to jbl, next to big show, next to steamboat, next to eli roth, next to batista
Danimal says on 19/Feb/09
I do not give Jericho more than 5'9" and YES VEGAS, it has been proven that Piper (who I know you LOVEEEEEEE so much) has lost SIGNIFICANT height over the years and not is NOT up for debate.
jericho is actually edging out piper there in dress shoes, surely piper isn't in the 5'8 range?? thats really what you are contemplating, if jericho is 5'8 then piper is max 5'8 today and more possibly 5'7.5, thats just silly
piper was taller than jimmy kimmel only a few months ago on smackdown, jericho has looked ~5'10 in everything since his return, he looked 5'10 next to vince, next to hbk, next to flair, next to orton, next to jbl, next to big show, next to steamboat, next to eli roth, next to batista
mike said on 19/Feb/09
i give big show 6'11.5" and khali 7'1". i say an inch and a half difference between the two.big show may have indeed been 7'1" during highschool ,but with the weight gain and all i thinks it,s very possible he shrunk.
i give big show 6'11.5" and khali 7'1". i say an inch and a half difference between the two.big show may have indeed been 7'1" during highschool ,but with the weight gain and all i thinks it,s very possible he shrunk.
Clay said on 19/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 19/Feb/09
JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9.
Failed miserably.
Anonymous says on 19/Feb/09
JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9.
Failed miserably.
topdweeb said on 19/Feb/09
Anonymous says on 19/Feb/09
"JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9."
I swear, some people like this guy, just don't ever want to give it up.
Anonymous says on 19/Feb/09
"JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9."
I swear, some people like this guy, just don't ever want to give it up.
Danimal said on 19/Feb/09
I do not give Jericho more than 5'9" and YES VEGAS, it has been proven that Piper (who I know you LOVEEEEEEE so much) has lost SIGNIFICANT height over the years and not is NOT up for debate.
I do not give Jericho more than 5'9" and YES VEGAS, it has been proven that Piper (who I know you LOVEEEEEEE so much) has lost SIGNIFICANT height over the years and not is NOT up for debate.
Anonymous said on 19/Feb/09
JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9.
JBL is just around 6'4.5, Taker 6'6. They use all the tricks of the trade to appear taller. Big boots, buoffant hair, they will putting some of these guys in Simon Cowell trousers next to appear taller and Jericho is 5'9.
Ghost said on 19/Feb/09
tuga says on 18/Feb/09
Click Here
Taker and Jbl, side by side, no camera tilt as we can see from the door frame and painting in the wall.
I would love people who say Taker is 6'6 or 6'6,5 today to comment on this photo with JBL who was just proven to be atleast 6'5.
Also 5'8 at best for Jericho is simply ridiculous.
tuga says on 18/Feb/09
Click Here
Taker and Jbl, side by side, no camera tilt as we can see from the door frame and painting in the wall.
I would love people who say Taker is 6'6 or 6'6,5 today to comment on this photo with JBL who was just proven to be atleast 6'5.
Also 5'8 at best for Jericho is simply ridiculous.
hs2009 said on 19/Feb/09
Face-off between Big Show & Edge on Smackdown:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Face-off between Big Show & Edge on Smackdown:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
topdweeb said on 18/Feb/09
Danimal says on 17/Feb/09
"Surprised how NO ONE mentioned how SHORT Jericho looks in that group photo with the General. Definitely NOT 5'10" there. 5'8" if he's lucky. Randy Orton also NOT looking 6'4" next to The General (he is RIGHT BESIDE HIM in a hat)."
I know I didn't mention it because Jericho looks no shorter than I would have expected him to look. I mean, someone who is like 5' 9.5 isn't exactly a lumbering giant or anything. As for Randy Orton, c'mon, you can easily tell he has a very casual stance while the General has a very erect posture.
cantstop25 says on 17/Feb/09
"Why does big show look so tall in that group photo? I mean hes looking easily over 7'"
Well, someone who stands 7' will look really tall compared to those guys who aren't even close to that height. Plus, Big Show is probably standing as straight as he can (for what he can pull off nowadays) because he is getting his pic taken with other wrestlers and a tall General, so he probably wanted to show his true height. Big Show is every bit a 7'. And he probably actually is a little over 7' considering he's probably 7' in barefeet and obviously a little more with shoes.
Danimal says on 17/Feb/09
"Surprised how NO ONE mentioned how SHORT Jericho looks in that group photo with the General. Definitely NOT 5'10" there. 5'8" if he's lucky. Randy Orton also NOT looking 6'4" next to The General (he is RIGHT BESIDE HIM in a hat)."
I know I didn't mention it because Jericho looks no shorter than I would have expected him to look. I mean, someone who is like 5' 9.5 isn't exactly a lumbering giant or anything. As for Randy Orton, c'mon, you can easily tell he has a very casual stance while the General has a very erect posture.
cantstop25 says on 17/Feb/09
"Why does big show look so tall in that group photo? I mean hes looking easily over 7'"
Well, someone who stands 7' will look really tall compared to those guys who aren't even close to that height. Plus, Big Show is probably standing as straight as he can (for what he can pull off nowadays) because he is getting his pic taken with other wrestlers and a tall General, so he probably wanted to show his true height. Big Show is every bit a 7'. And he probably actually is a little over 7' considering he's probably 7' in barefeet and obviously a little more with shoes.
Vegas said on 18/Feb/09
Danimal says on 17/Feb/09
Surprised how NO ONE mentioned how SHORT Jericho looks in that group photo with the General. Definitely NOT 5'10" there. 5'8" if he's lucky. Randy Orton also NOT looking 6'4" next to The General (he is RIGHT BESIDE HIM in a hat).
this will surprise you so Danimal, from monday night, jericho in dress shoes, if jericho is "5'8 if he is lucky" what height piper?? need to watch the whole thing Click Here
btw jericho is only about 4 inches shorter than batista in that group shot and towers lillian garcia (who isn't that short i have a photo with her she is about 5'5-5'6) orton is behind the general
Danimal says on 17/Feb/09
Surprised how NO ONE mentioned how SHORT Jericho looks in that group photo with the General. Definitely NOT 5'10" there. 5'8" if he's lucky. Randy Orton also NOT looking 6'4" next to The General (he is RIGHT BESIDE HIM in a hat).
this will surprise you so Danimal, from monday night, jericho in dress shoes, if jericho is "5'8 if he is lucky" what height piper?? need to watch the whole thing Click Here
btw jericho is only about 4 inches shorter than batista in that group shot and towers lillian garcia (who isn't that short i have a photo with her she is about 5'5-5'6) orton is behind the general
tuga said on 18/Feb/09
Click Here
Taker and Jbl, side by side, no camera tilt as we can see from the door frame and painting in the wall.
Click Here
Taker and Jbl, side by side, no camera tilt as we can see from the door frame and painting in the wall.
nick said on 18/Feb/09
Remember you cant always trust pictures, so many factors, footwear, and posture along with angles.
Take a look at this photo. The guy on the absolute left is 6'0.5 measured by myself midday. The guy next to him is 6'3.25 measured midday. If you look at the photo next to it, the guy on the left appears the same height as the 6'3.25 guy. Now if i posted the photo next to the first one initially and said that the guy on the right was 6'0.5 you would all claim with absolute certainty the in the green would never be over 6'2. The guy on the left has the footwear advantage (slightly over 1.75) over the green who has .75 and camera angle advantage as well as posture.
Now they next set of photos. Same guy 6'3 .25 with his brother, he seems to be taller in the photo, however if you go to the next photo you see that his brother is comfortably taller, which he is at slightly over 6'4.5 midday.
Now to the thing that made me post all of this. That photo with batista and the 6'5 man. Batista is 6'2 in the photo at the top of his head but he is giving up over* an inch posture while the other guy isnt. I know exactly the way he is standing and i myself with similiar height to batista lose over an inch using that posture. If he stood very straight he would bear near an inch shorter than that guy.
Remember you cant always trust pictures, so many factors, footwear, and posture along with angles.
Take a look at this photo. The guy on the absolute left is 6'0.5 measured by myself midday. The guy next to him is 6'3.25 measured midday. If you look at the photo next to it, the guy on the left appears the same height as the 6'3.25 guy. Now if i posted the photo next to the first one initially and said that the guy on the right was 6'0.5 you would all claim with absolute certainty the in the green would never be over 6'2. The guy on the left has the footwear advantage (slightly over 1.75) over the green who has .75 and camera angle advantage as well as posture.
Now they next set of photos. Same guy 6'3 .25 with his brother, he seems to be taller in the photo, however if you go to the next photo you see that his brother is comfortably taller, which he is at slightly over 6'4.5 midday.
Now to the thing that made me post all of this. That photo with batista and the 6'5 man. Batista is 6'2 in the photo at the top of his head but he is giving up over* an inch posture while the other guy isnt. I know exactly the way he is standing and i myself with similiar height to batista lose over an inch using that posture. If he stood very straight he would bear near an inch shorter than that guy.
Danimal said on 17/Feb/09
Surprised how NO ONE mentioned how SHORT Jericho looks in that group photo with the General. Definitely NOT 5'10" there. 5'8" if he's lucky. Randy Orton also NOT looking 6'4" next to The General (he is RIGHT BESIDE HIM in a hat).
Surprised how NO ONE mentioned how SHORT Jericho looks in that group photo with the General. Definitely NOT 5'10" there. 5'8" if he's lucky. Randy Orton also NOT looking 6'4" next to The General (he is RIGHT BESIDE HIM in a hat).
Danimal said on 17/Feb/09
I think a prime Hogan would have been the EXACT same height as JBL. Big Show is looking to be close to that 7'0" mark there.
I think a prime Hogan would have been the EXACT same height as JBL. Big Show is looking to be close to that 7'0" mark there.
cantstop25 said on 17/Feb/09
Why does big show look so tall in that group photo? I mean hes looking easily over 7'
Why does big show look so tall in that group photo? I mean hes looking easily over 7'
willy79 said on 17/Feb/09
Great pics Vegas! I must say though, JBL is not standing as erect as the General, they'd be about an inch difference, also JBL still looks taller.
Great pics Vegas! I must say though, JBL is not standing as erect as the General, they'd be about an inch difference, also JBL still looks taller.
Big Show said on 17/Feb/09
topdweeb says on 15/Feb/09
I could be wrong and the hair could be throwing me off, but I really think JBL looks slightly taller. I didn't realize that that big guy (forgot his name) from Cryme Time was so tall. He's billed at 6' 7 and it looks like it might be legit.
Shad from Cryme Tyme looked 3-4 inches shorter than Kane a few weeks ago on RAW. I posted a pic of this on the Kane board.
topdweeb says on 15/Feb/09
I could be wrong and the hair could be throwing me off, but I really think JBL looks slightly taller. I didn't realize that that big guy (forgot his name) from Cryme Time was so tall. He's billed at 6' 7 and it looks like it might be legit.
Shad from Cryme Tyme looked 3-4 inches shorter than Kane a few weeks ago on RAW. I posted a pic of this on the Kane board.
me said on 16/Feb/09
Really good find Vegas.
I think JBL could be upto 6'5.5" but definitely a solid 6'5".
Big Show, that is Randy Orton in the hat next to the General. He has pretty loose posture, but looks a good 6'4".
Really good find Vegas.
I think JBL could be upto 6'5.5" but definitely a solid 6'5".
Big Show, that is Randy Orton in the hat next to the General. He has pretty loose posture, but looks a good 6'4".
tuga said on 16/Feb/09
Great find Vegas.
This rules out anything less than 6'5 for JBL and he could be even a little taller as he is leaning a bit.
I agree with JT, if Batista stood like cena he would be at the 6'3 mark.
Funny, in the group photo JBL looks even taller, I tought he was closer to the camera but batista is much closer and Jbl has still arond 4 inches on him, JBl actually looks taller than the General there...
Great find Vegas.
This rules out anything less than 6'5 for JBL and he could be even a little taller as he is leaning a bit.
I agree with JT, if Batista stood like cena he would be at the 6'3 mark.
Funny, in the group photo JBL looks even taller, I tought he was closer to the camera but batista is much closer and Jbl has still arond 4 inches on him, JBl actually looks taller than the General there...
Big Show said on 16/Feb/09
Nice find Vegas. In that group photo is that Randy Orton (with a hat on)standing next to the general?
Nice find Vegas. In that group photo is that Randy Orton (with a hat on)standing next to the general?
topdweeb said on 15/Feb/09
I could be wrong and the hair could be throwing me off, but I really think JBL looks slightly taller. I didn't realize that that big guy (forgot his name) from Cryme Time was so tall. He's billed at 6' 7 and it looks like it might be legit.
I could be wrong and the hair could be throwing me off, but I really think JBL looks slightly taller. I didn't realize that that big guy (forgot his name) from Cryme Time was so tall. He's billed at 6' 7 and it looks like it might be legit.
JT said on 15/Feb/09
Great find Vegas. I think Batista could eek out another inch if he stood straight to get to around 6'3". JBL and General Odierno look the identical height to me in that one pic.
Here's a video of the WWE with General Odierno that includes a few more pics Click Here
Great find Vegas. I think Batista could eek out another inch if he stood straight to get to around 6'3". JBL and General Odierno look the identical height to me in that one pic.
Here's a video of the WWE with General Odierno that includes a few more pics Click Here
Vegas said on 15/Feb/09
jbls big head of hair is giving the illusion of being taller however his eye-line is level with the generals, jbl imo is 6'5, thats what he was listed at in pro-football in both the nfl with the la raiders and the world league of american football with the san antonio riders, he was listed at 6'6 in college football
jbls big head of hair is giving the illusion of being taller however his eye-line is level with the generals, jbl imo is 6'5, thats what he was listed at in pro-football in both the nfl with the la raiders and the world league of american football with the san antonio riders, he was listed at 6'6 in college football
topdweeb said on 15/Feb/09
Vegas: nice find! And I know from being in the U.S. Air Force myself, that the military takes very accurate measurements of height. So there is no dispute that that General is a legitimate 6' 5. I think based on these pics, it also confirms that JBL is a legit 6' 6. Man, I wish Jason were still around to see how wrong he was for pegging Big Show at 6' 8. Again, the General height is about as much fact as you can get considering that this is the military measuring. And incase anyone is wondering, the military measures us in barefeet, not in our boots.
Vegas: nice find! And I know from being in the U.S. Air Force myself, that the military takes very accurate measurements of height. So there is no dispute that that General is a legitimate 6' 5. I think based on these pics, it also confirms that JBL is a legit 6' 6. Man, I wish Jason were still around to see how wrong he was for pegging Big Show at 6' 8. Again, the General height is about as much fact as you can get considering that this is the military measuring. And incase anyone is wondering, the military measures us in barefeet, not in our boots.
Alex said on 15/Feb/09
Batista looks barely taller than Cena who I believe is 6'0 1/2. Even if Cena was 6'1 like some say that puts Batista at 6'1 1/2. That is not even an inch between the 2. I dont think Batista is that short but shows how some pictures show other things. I've seen Batista as much as 2 inches taller than Cena before too.
Batista looks barely taller than Cena who I believe is 6'0 1/2. Even if Cena was 6'1 like some say that puts Batista at 6'1 1/2. That is not even an inch between the 2. I dont think Batista is that short but shows how some pictures show other things. I've seen Batista as much as 2 inches taller than Cena before too.
Atoadaso said on 15/Feb/09
If Mike is standing on flat feet, and is actually 6'1.5", then I would be only about 3.5" inches shorter than Big Show... yeah right. In the REAL world, this is not the case. I think it's fairly clear this photo is not an accurate representation of Big Show's height. In my opinion, he is on his toes, based on the composition of their bodies within view. Mike would have disproportionately long legs, for as you can see their inseams are more or less lined up equally. There is many other photos that can be used to demonstrate what his true height is that hold much more validity, so one of those should be used. This page is mostly in regards to a debate on this photo.
If Mike is standing on flat feet, and is actually 6'1.5", then I would be only about 3.5" inches shorter than Big Show... yeah right. In the REAL world, this is not the case. I think it's fairly clear this photo is not an accurate representation of Big Show's height. In my opinion, he is on his toes, based on the composition of their bodies within view. Mike would have disproportionately long legs, for as you can see their inseams are more or less lined up equally. There is many other photos that can be used to demonstrate what his true height is that hold much more validity, so one of those should be used. This page is mostly in regards to a debate on this photo.
Clay said on 14/Feb/09
Im saying this photo is just deceiving thats all Mike is slightly closer to the camera, is OBVIOUSLY standing at least on one foot only, which adds an inch - if not his tippy toes all together. Big Show is standing straight either, as always.
Im saying this photo is just deceiving thats all Mike is slightly closer to the camera, is OBVIOUSLY standing at least on one foot only, which adds an inch - if not his tippy toes all together. Big Show is standing straight either, as always.
topdweeb said on 14/Feb/09
Alex: Vegas said that the picture isn't up here because he doesn't have permission from his friend to put it on here. I'm actually surprised with as much controversy there is of the pic of mike and the Big Show, that it still remains. I mean, can anyone truly just simply send Rob some random pic with the celeb, claim an unverified height and he'll post it? What kind of screening for accuracy is that? mike isn't even in the very least around anymore to answer anything.
Alex: Vegas said that the picture isn't up here because he doesn't have permission from his friend to put it on here. I'm actually surprised with as much controversy there is of the pic of mike and the Big Show, that it still remains. I mean, can anyone truly just simply send Rob some random pic with the celeb, claim an unverified height and he'll post it? What kind of screening for accuracy is that? mike isn't even in the very least around anymore to answer anything.
Alex said on 14/Feb/09
Mike would be 6'4-6'4.5 when you compare it to the picture of Big Show and Vegas's 6'4 friend. I am suprised that the picture of Big Show and Vegas' 6'4 friend isn't on top of this page too.
Mike would be 6'4-6'4.5 when you compare it to the picture of Big Show and Vegas's 6'4 friend. I am suprised that the picture of Big Show and Vegas' 6'4 friend isn't on top of this page too.
topdweeb said on 14/Feb/09
JT: my comment was meant to be taken in sarcasm. Meaning that if mike is really only about 6' 1.75 and he stands this tall to the Big Show, then I'd love to see how tall a 6' 8 man would stand. The comparison you did assumes an approx 6' 5 mike, as Tenta is barely taller than him.
JT: my comment was meant to be taken in sarcasm. Meaning that if mike is really only about 6' 1.75 and he stands this tall to the Big Show, then I'd love to see how tall a 6' 8 man would stand. The comparison you did assumes an approx 6' 5 mike, as Tenta is barely taller than him.
JT said on 13/Feb/09
topdweeb says on 13/Feb/09
Clay: if that's how tall a 6' 2 man stands to someone who is 6' 11.5, then I would love to see how a 6' 8 man would have stacked up
topdweeb says on 13/Feb/09
Clay: if that's how tall a 6' 2 man stands to someone who is 6' 11.5, then I would love to see how a 6' 8 man would have stacked up
Clay said on 13/Feb/09
I think Mike may be on his tippy toes on his right foot, while his left foot is flat on the ground, but that still adds height.
I think Mike may be on his tippy toes on his right foot, while his left foot is flat on the ground, but that still adds height.
topdweeb said on 13/Feb/09
Clay: if that's how tall a 6' 2 man stands to someone who is 6' 11.5, then I would love to see how a 6' 8 man would have stacked up. Besides, JT has already down a comparison between this photo and the one of Vegas' 6' 4 friend, and the Big Show has the same posture in both pics, and mike edged the 6' 4 guy out by about an inch. mike has to be on his toes if he is only the described height or the ground isn't level.
Clay: if that's how tall a 6' 2 man stands to someone who is 6' 11.5, then I would love to see how a 6' 8 man would have stacked up. Besides, JT has already down a comparison between this photo and the one of Vegas' 6' 4 friend, and the Big Show has the same posture in both pics, and mike edged the 6' 4 guy out by about an inch. mike has to be on his toes if he is only the described height or the ground isn't level.
topdweeb said on 13/Feb/09
Danimal: mike also said he was flat footed, the ground was level, and there's nothing suspicious about the photo. I don't see why we can believe him when he says he is 6' 1.75" if he is obviously lying about the photo not being suspicious.
Danimal: mike also said he was flat footed, the ground was level, and there's nothing suspicious about the photo. I don't see why we can believe him when he says he is 6' 1.75" if he is obviously lying about the photo not being suspicious.
Danimal said on 12/Feb/09
Mike also claimed to be 6'1 3/4", not 6'1.5". I don't know why Rob hasn't changed his height. Anyways, just by looking at the picture, it looks obvious to me that Mike is standing on his tippy toes.
Mike also claimed to be 6'1 3/4", not 6'1.5". I don't know why Rob hasn't changed his height. Anyways, just by looking at the picture, it looks obvious to me that Mike is standing on his tippy toes.
Clay said on 12/Feb/09
This really isnt that big of a deal. Even if Mike is 6'2, I still see the Showster at 6'11-6'11.5 in this photo which is what I think he is anyways.
This really isnt that big of a deal. Even if Mike is 6'2, I still see the Showster at 6'11-6'11.5 in this photo which is what I think he is anyways.
Big Show said on 12/Feb/09
Alex says on 11/Feb/09
See anybody can post a picture with someone and claim a random height that they want. For all we know Mike can be downgrading himself by a few inches to make Big Show seem shorter than he really is. You never know.
Yet Mike claimed Big Show looked 6'11, so it's not like he was deliberately trying to downgrade him. If he wanted to do that he could just claim Big Show looked 6'9. His picture would then confirm his claim. Now his picture defies his own claim, so I don't think Mike was lying about his height. I think there are other factors at play which made Big Show look shorter than he is and are simply unnoticed by Mike.
Alex says on 11/Feb/09
See anybody can post a picture with someone and claim a random height that they want. For all we know Mike can be downgrading himself by a few inches to make Big Show seem shorter than he really is. You never know.
Yet Mike claimed Big Show looked 6'11, so it's not like he was deliberately trying to downgrade him. If he wanted to do that he could just claim Big Show looked 6'9. His picture would then confirm his claim. Now his picture defies his own claim, so I don't think Mike was lying about his height. I think there are other factors at play which made Big Show look shorter than he is and are simply unnoticed by Mike.
Alex said on 11/Feb/09
See anybody can post a picture with someone and claim a random height that they want. For all we know Mike can be downgrading himself by a few inches to make Big Show seem shorter than he really is. You never know.
See anybody can post a picture with someone and claim a random height that they want. For all we know Mike can be downgrading himself by a few inches to make Big Show seem shorter than he really is. You never know.
topdweeb said on 11/Feb/09
Red: no mike claimed that they were on level ground, he was being truthful about his height, and he also claims that he was in no way raising up or anything. In other words, mike claimed that there is nothing to be suspicious about.
Red: no mike claimed that they were on level ground, he was being truthful about his height, and he also claims that he was in no way raising up or anything. In other words, mike claimed that there is nothing to be suspicious about.
topdweeb said on 11/Feb/09
nick: we are missing much more than an inch considering that fact that in the comparison, Mike edges out Vegas' 6' 4 friend in height by about an inch. So, even if we were to round mike up to 6' 2, we still have 3 inches that are unaccounted for. Heck, if I only knew that Vegas' friend was 6' 4 and knew nothing about mike, I would have said that mike was about 6' 5.
JT is absolutely right, Big Show posture is virtually identical in both pics. Again, the fundamental flaw in your Photoshopped pics is that they aren't the originals, they are your interpretation of what you think a legit comparison between the two would look like. Only problem is, that pic with Vegas' friend shows Big Show's posture is virtually identical, so we can logically conclude that either mike is lying about his height, or he is on his toes, or the ground isn't level.
Taking the pic for what it is, there is no way a 6' 1.5 or even 6' 2 would stand that tall to a 7' man if the the ground was level and both were standing flat footed... I don't even care if Big Show is slouching, he should not be that short to someone he is supposed to be more than 10 inches taller than.
nick: we are missing much more than an inch considering that fact that in the comparison, Mike edges out Vegas' 6' 4 friend in height by about an inch. So, even if we were to round mike up to 6' 2, we still have 3 inches that are unaccounted for. Heck, if I only knew that Vegas' friend was 6' 4 and knew nothing about mike, I would have said that mike was about 6' 5.
JT is absolutely right, Big Show posture is virtually identical in both pics. Again, the fundamental flaw in your Photoshopped pics is that they aren't the originals, they are your interpretation of what you think a legit comparison between the two would look like. Only problem is, that pic with Vegas' friend shows Big Show's posture is virtually identical, so we can logically conclude that either mike is lying about his height, or he is on his toes, or the ground isn't level.
Taking the pic for what it is, there is no way a 6' 1.5 or even 6' 2 would stand that tall to a 7' man if the the ground was level and both were standing flat footed... I don't even care if Big Show is slouching, he should not be that short to someone he is supposed to be more than 10 inches taller than.
nick said on 11/Feb/09
nice comparsisn although i still thin their is a lafd inch andvanchage to the mike polture if stiiod strainght and vegas's firend looks like he can squeeze an in + if he has mikes pocture, all we are missing is is anch, which can come from fotwear etc
nice comparsisn although i still thin their is a lafd inch andvanchage to the mike polture if stiiod strainght and vegas's firend looks like he can squeeze an in + if he has mikes pocture, all we are missing is is anch, which can come from fotwear etc
topdweeb said on 11/Feb/09
JT: ahh, good point, yes, you're right, his posture is very similar to the pic with Vegas' 6' 4 friend. Quite simply that pic above just isn't accurate. Either mike is raised up on his toes, or the ground isn't level, or something.
JT: ahh, good point, yes, you're right, his posture is very similar to the pic with Vegas' 6' 4 friend. Quite simply that pic above just isn't accurate. Either mike is raised up on his toes, or the ground isn't level, or something.
JT said on 10/Feb/09
Nick, there's no indication that Big Show is slouching in the photo with "Mike." His posture is similar to that in the photo with Vegas's 6'4" friend Click Here
Nick, there's no indication that Big Show is slouching in the photo with "Mike." His posture is similar to that in the photo with Vegas's 6'4" friend Click Here
mike said on 10/Feb/09
want to see tall check out igor vavinsky,he,s 7'8" a true giant.
want to see tall check out igor vavinsky,he,s 7'8" a true giant.
nick said on 9/Feb/09
sorry JT but that photo you did is really inaccurate. You actually made the slouching big show taller than the big show with his chin up, which only brings mike up taller in comparison to vince. If you made the slouching big show (photo with mike) and the top of his head roughly a half inch below the erect posture bigshows hairline mike would climb down and be alsmost vinces height but about an inch taller. Mike is already a half inch taller than vince anyway so it proves nothing. Try comparing the erect photoshopped photo i made that logically assumes big shows height if he stood really straight Click Here
Also i have a another photo to show all of you.
Here is a 6'2 man compared to the 7'1 great khali. The great khali has weak posture much like the big show and look how high he comes on his face. Click Here
Remember you cannot even make a direct comparison with those two photos, however,in my opionion my photo is the best comparison you can make. JT you probobly did yours fairly quickly without calculating his near 2 inch loss of posture and also the half inch you actually gave the slouching big show (which makes mike appear taller) and the half inch may actually have over vince in the first place. It really is a tricky photo, but its real.
sorry JT but that photo you did is really inaccurate. You actually made the slouching big show taller than the big show with his chin up, which only brings mike up taller in comparison to vince. If you made the slouching big show (photo with mike) and the top of his head roughly a half inch below the erect posture bigshows hairline mike would climb down and be alsmost vinces height but about an inch taller. Mike is already a half inch taller than vince anyway so it proves nothing. Try comparing the erect photoshopped photo i made that logically assumes big shows height if he stood really straight Click Here
Also i have a another photo to show all of you.
Here is a 6'2 man compared to the 7'1 great khali. The great khali has weak posture much like the big show and look how high he comes on his face. Click Here
Remember you cannot even make a direct comparison with those two photos, however,in my opionion my photo is the best comparison you can make. JT you probobly did yours fairly quickly without calculating his near 2 inch loss of posture and also the half inch you actually gave the slouching big show (which makes mike appear taller) and the half inch may actually have over vince in the first place. It really is a tricky photo, but its real.
Anonymous said on 9/Feb/09
big show, foley and rock, if show is only 6ft 7 like jason says what height rock 5'10?? Click Here
big show, foley and rock, if show is only 6ft 7 like jason says what height rock 5'10?? Click Here
Red said on 9/Feb/09
Cena is not shorter than 6
Cena is not shorter than 6
Ghost said on 9/Feb/09
I don't think Vince is even 6'1 today, he is the same height as Cena.
I don't think Vince is even 6'1 today, he is the same height as Cena.
JT said on 8/Feb/09
Here was Chris
Here was Chris
topdweeb said on 8/Feb/09
Alex: you know what, now that you mention it, mike does look like he is on his toes. And, just as an experiment, I measured myself on my toes and I am approximately 3 inches taller if I do that. If you remember, JT has compared the pic above with the one of Vegas's 6' 4 friend, and mike was about an inch taller than Vegas's friend, making mike appear to be 6' 5. mike claims that he wasn't on his toes, but I think he was. His posture looks weird. And it's not uncommon for people to try to raise up to get as much height as possible when they are getting their pic taken with someone who is so much taller.
Alex: you know what, now that you mention it, mike does look like he is on his toes. And, just as an experiment, I measured myself on my toes and I am approximately 3 inches taller if I do that. If you remember, JT has compared the pic above with the one of Vegas's 6' 4 friend, and mike was about an inch taller than Vegas's friend, making mike appear to be 6' 5. mike claims that he wasn't on his toes, but I think he was. His posture looks weird. And it's not uncommon for people to try to raise up to get as much height as possible when they are getting their pic taken with someone who is so much taller.
Danimal said on 8/Feb/09
ancient Aztec Guy says on 7/Feb/09
Well JT I am not sure if show did have the footwear advantage over Vince, because Vince was wearing those thick dress shoes, unless show's shoes are thicker than I thought they were. But in that pic with vince (around 1999, with big show at his peak) I would say 7'1" if not then he was very close to it.
Wow, I actually agree with this.
ancient Aztec Guy says on 7/Feb/09
Well JT I am not sure if show did have the footwear advantage over Vince, because Vince was wearing those thick dress shoes, unless show's shoes are thicker than I thought they were. But in that pic with vince (around 1999, with big show at his peak) I would say 7'1" if not then he was very close to it.
Wow, I actually agree with this.
KingNick said on 7/Feb/09
JT, excellent pics. That shot with Show and Vince is especially good b/c there are no camera advantages for either one.
To me, Show was a 7' peak. He was billed 7'4" in WCW and I do believe his shoes gave him an extra boost to make him appear closer to the billing.
Now I think he's 6'11" and his boots make him around 7'0.5". I'm open to him possibly being a full 7' still. It's just hard to tell b/c he has such bad posture.
JT, excellent pics. That shot with Show and Vince is especially good b/c there are no camera advantages for either one.
To me, Show was a 7' peak. He was billed 7'4" in WCW and I do believe his shoes gave him an extra boost to make him appear closer to the billing.
Now I think he's 6'11" and his boots make him around 7'0.5". I'm open to him possibly being a full 7' still. It's just hard to tell b/c he has such bad posture.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 7/Feb/09
Well JT I am not sure if show did have the footwear advantage over Vince, because Vince was wearing those thick dress shoes, unless show's shoes are thicker than I thought they were. But in that pic with vince (around 1999, with big show at his peak) I would say 7'1" if not then he was very close to it.
Well JT I am not sure if show did have the footwear advantage over Vince, because Vince was wearing those thick dress shoes, unless show's shoes are thicker than I thought they were. But in that pic with vince (around 1999, with big show at his peak) I would say 7'1" if not then he was very close to it.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 7/Feb/09
In the picture JT sent of vince and big show, show is easily a head taller than vince, or maybe more. How tall is vince 6'1 ish maybe 6'1.5".
In the picture JT sent of vince and big show, show is easily a head taller than vince, or maybe more. How tall is vince 6'1 ish maybe 6'1.5".
topdweeb said on 7/Feb/09
JT: exactly, Vince is just about as tall as "mike" is. And look how much taller Big Show is than Vince, AND Big Show is slouching in that pic too. So, it's pretty obvious that there is something wrong with the pic above. What's funny is how much mental gymnastics people are doing to try to salvage that pic above. There is no salvaging it except to say that there is something inaccurate about its description which makes it so that we are not getting an accurate idea of the height of the Big Show.
JT: exactly, Vince is just about as tall as "mike" is. And look how much taller Big Show is than Vince, AND Big Show is slouching in that pic too. So, it's pretty obvious that there is something wrong with the pic above. What's funny is how much mental gymnastics people are doing to try to salvage that pic above. There is no salvaging it except to say that there is something inaccurate about its description which makes it so that we are not getting an accurate idea of the height of the Big Show.
Alex said on 7/Feb/09
Topdweeb, something is fishy. Mike could be on his tippy toes maybe. It also could be Mike is taller but is downgrading himself to make Big Show seem shorter. I could be wrong just a possibility. With Big Show at 7'0 I would have said Mike is more 6'4-6'5.
Topdweeb, something is fishy. Mike could be on his tippy toes maybe. It also could be Mike is taller but is downgrading himself to make Big Show seem shorter. I could be wrong just a possibility. With Big Show at 7'0 I would have said Mike is more 6'4-6'5.
JT said on 7/Feb/09
Vince is roughly the height of Mike in the photo above. Click Here Big Show probably has at most a 1/2
Vince is roughly the height of Mike in the photo above. Click Here Big Show probably has at most a 1/2
topdweeb said on 6/Feb/09
There's one major problem with that pic nick photoshopped: it's not the original. That's how he *THINKS* it would be if the Big Show was standing straight. Like it or not, Big Show simply does not look 7' in the picture above. I do think he is 7' in real life, but there's something fishy about that pic and I think there is something else at play other than Big Show simply slouching.
There's one major problem with that pic nick photoshopped: it's not the original. That's how he *THINKS* it would be if the Big Show was standing straight. Like it or not, Big Show simply does not look 7' in the picture above. I do think he is 7' in real life, but there's something fishy about that pic and I think there is something else at play other than Big Show simply slouching.
KingNick said on 5/Feb/09
John Tenta and Typhoon Click Here
Not sure if this is photoshopped or legit but here's another pic Click Here
Jake the Snake vs. Earthquake Click Here
Hulk Hogan vs. Earthquake Click Here there's also a VERY interesting height comparison between Hulk and Boss Man in the beginning (another one at 8:28)
Hulk Hogan and Tugboat/Typhoon Click Here
John Tenta and Typhoon Click Here
Not sure if this is photoshopped or legit but here's another pic Click Here
Jake the Snake vs. Earthquake Click Here
Hulk Hogan vs. Earthquake Click Here there's also a VERY interesting height comparison between Hulk and Boss Man in the beginning (another one at 8:28)
Hulk Hogan and Tugboat/Typhoon Click Here
Ray said on 5/Feb/09
Nick: nice pics; the middle one is how it would be if Show was in proper posture. I can't believe that above photo with Mike caused so much stir since it's obvious to me Show is leaning down and back and probably has knee bent.
Nick: nice pics; the middle one is how it would be if Show was in proper posture. I can't believe that above photo with Mike caused so much stir since it's obvious to me Show is leaning down and back and probably has knee bent.
tuga said on 5/Feb/09
Ola says on 31/Jan/09
tuga, sting was shorter than the 6'1 1/2 warrior, not much but still shorter.
Ola, you
Ola says on 31/Jan/09
tuga, sting was shorter than the 6'1 1/2 warrior, not much but still shorter.
Ola, you
mike said on 5/Feb/09
andre was very athletic during his younger years but slowed down cosiderably later on due to back surjery and acromegaly.
andre was very athletic during his younger years but slowed down cosiderably later on due to back surjery and acromegaly.
nick said on 4/Feb/09
matt, if the guy in the above photo was 6'4 show would be at around 7'1+. Mike is close to 6'2 and in the photo big show is at 6'10. This is because of his posture if he stood up straight with his chin up he would clear the top of the photo and mike would be about at mid lip. Just look at how much taller the top of the photo is than mike, its about 10 inches taller. It really is an illusion, iv posted this picture of a projected big show standing straight like 50 times already lol. Also from a distance you can really respect ow much taller the big show is than a near 6'2 man better than when the picture is so large like it is on this site.
The photo shows the original picture with mike and at a distance (picture being smaller) you get a better idea of how much taller he is than a near 6'2 mike. Then i have a projected situation where if the big show stood as straight as possible you can clearly see he is a 7 footer, then there is a photo with a 6'6 big show next to mike. Remember the big show is leaning in and bending down slightly, also i believe he is leaning on is back foot (his right leg) diminishing a little more height. I took all of this into account when making the projected height.
matt, if the guy in the above photo was 6'4 show would be at around 7'1+. Mike is close to 6'2 and in the photo big show is at 6'10. This is because of his posture if he stood up straight with his chin up he would clear the top of the photo and mike would be about at mid lip. Just look at how much taller the top of the photo is than mike, its about 10 inches taller. It really is an illusion, iv posted this picture of a projected big show standing straight like 50 times already lol. Also from a distance you can really respect ow much taller the big show is than a near 6'2 man better than when the picture is so large like it is on this site.
The photo shows the original picture with mike and at a distance (picture being smaller) you get a better idea of how much taller he is than a near 6'2 mike. Then i have a projected situation where if the big show stood as straight as possible you can clearly see he is a 7 footer, then there is a photo with a 6'6 big show next to mike. Remember the big show is leaning in and bending down slightly, also i believe he is leaning on is back foot (his right leg) diminishing a little more height. I took all of this into account when making the projected height.
mike said on 4/Feb/09
big show imo is at least 6'11",he,s about 4 inches or so taller than kane and taker,and about 1 1/2 inches shorter than khali.
big show imo is at least 6'11",he,s about 4 inches or so taller than kane and taker,and about 1 1/2 inches shorter than khali.
Matt said on 3/Feb/09
From this picture alone, I would not say th ebig show was 7'
Maybe 6'9'-10
I think if the big show is 7', then your Mike is 6'4..which isnt the case
From this picture alone, I would not say th ebig show was 7'
Maybe 6'9'-10
I think if the big show is 7', then your Mike is 6'4..which isnt the case
Ghost said on 3/Feb/09
Click Here
Tenta vs Yokozuna
From 3:35 on it's obvious Tenta has the 6'1-6'2 Yokozuna by 4-5 inches. Tenta looks easily his measured height there.
Click Here
Tenta vs Yokozuna
From 3:35 on it's obvious Tenta has the 6'1-6'2 Yokozuna by 4-5 inches. Tenta looks easily his measured height there.
Alex said on 2/Feb/09
The FU and F5 seems legit but some will say they jump onto the opponents shoulder. I believe that can def be done with pure strength as long as the other wrestler just stands there without holding any of his weight down. I FUed one of my heavy friends who at the time was 320-330lbs without any assist with him just letting me do it so I'm sure Cena and Lesnar can do the same to Big Show.
The FU and F5 seems legit but some will say they jump onto the opponents shoulder. I believe that can def be done with pure strength as long as the other wrestler just stands there without holding any of his weight down. I FUed one of my heavy friends who at the time was 320-330lbs without any assist with him just letting me do it so I'm sure Cena and Lesnar can do the same to Big Show.
topdweeb said on 1/Feb/09
Alex: Press slams are not unassisted either. If you noticed, the person being press always supposed their weight by putting their hands on the performer's shoulders and uses their arms to support themselves. It takes a great deal of strength, don't get me wrong, but they are not pure strength. Powerslams depend. If they are the type that the British Bulldog did, then they do require some good amount of strength. If they are the type that uses a ton of momentum, then not so much (i.e. throw the person to the rope, they come back and get powerslammed-type). Suplexes hardly require any strength and in fact, the person getting suplexed puts in more work than the person performing.
Alex: Press slams are not unassisted either. If you noticed, the person being press always supposed their weight by putting their hands on the performer's shoulders and uses their arms to support themselves. It takes a great deal of strength, don't get me wrong, but they are not pure strength. Powerslams depend. If they are the type that the British Bulldog did, then they do require some good amount of strength. If they are the type that uses a ton of momentum, then not so much (i.e. throw the person to the rope, they come back and get powerslammed-type). Suplexes hardly require any strength and in fact, the person getting suplexed puts in more work than the person performing.
Alex said on 31/Jan/09
They allow it but most of that is real strength. For example press slams, suplexes, powerslams.
They allow it but most of that is real strength. For example press slams, suplexes, powerslams.
topdweeb said on 31/Jan/09
Ola, Mark Henry is a former power-lifter. He holds the world record for the heaviest squat unassisted. Don't try to act like the man isn't strong, he is.
Ola, Mark Henry is a former power-lifter. He holds the world record for the heaviest squat unassisted. Don't try to act like the man isn't strong, he is.
Alex said on 30/Jan/09
Clay, I agree but I think Mark Henry may be the only one who is stronger than Big Show.
Clay, I agree but I think Mark Henry may be the only one who is stronger than Big Show.
topdweeb said on 30/Jan/09
Da Man says on 30/Jan/09
"Mainly because they allow themselves to be tossed."
Exactly. How on earth does anyone who is older than 5, not know that the only reason Khali can toss Kane and the Undertaker out with one hand is because wrestling is scripted and they allowed it?
Da Man says on 30/Jan/09
"Mainly because they allow themselves to be tossed."
Exactly. How on earth does anyone who is older than 5, not know that the only reason Khali can toss Kane and the Undertaker out with one hand is because wrestling is scripted and they allowed it?
Da Man said on 30/Jan/09
Clay says on 29/Jan/09
"Khali is a strong giant who can toss Kane and the Undertaker out of the ring with one hand with tons of whip"
Mainly because they allow themselves to be tossed.
Clay says on 29/Jan/09
"Khali is a strong giant who can toss Kane and the Undertaker out of the ring with one hand with tons of whip"
Mainly because they allow themselves to be tossed.
Clay said on 29/Jan/09
Khali is a strong giant who can toss Kane and the Undertaker out of the ring with one hand with tons of whip, but I agree no one is as strong as the Show.
Khali is a strong giant who can toss Kane and the Undertaker out of the ring with one hand with tons of whip, but I agree no one is as strong as the Show.
Danimal said on 29/Jan/09
Ola says on 29/Jan/09
can we be realistic here plz, Tenta wasnt any 6'6. he had sting by only 3 inches, and sid had sting by 5-6... i give tenta tops 6'4 1/2
Realistic?? haha. He was OFFICIALLY measured during his sumo days. He FORE sure shrunk throughout the years seeing Hilbilly Jim was taller than Tenta on Hilbilly Jim's site. He probably shrunk an inch from his sumo days, seeing he was well over 400 pounds for YEARS. Same thing applies to Andre, Big Show and Haystacks. Peak Tenta = 6'5 3/4".. Closer to his death = an inch shorter.
Ola says on 29/Jan/09
can we be realistic here plz, Tenta wasnt any 6'6. he had sting by only 3 inches, and sid had sting by 5-6... i give tenta tops 6'4 1/2
Realistic?? haha. He was OFFICIALLY measured during his sumo days. He FORE sure shrunk throughout the years seeing Hilbilly Jim was taller than Tenta on Hilbilly Jim's site. He probably shrunk an inch from his sumo days, seeing he was well over 400 pounds for YEARS. Same thing applies to Andre, Big Show and Haystacks. Peak Tenta = 6'5 3/4".. Closer to his death = an inch shorter.
tuga said on 29/Jan/09
Ola says on 29/Jan/09
can we be realistic here plz, Tenta wasnt any 6'6. he had sting by only 3 inches, and sid had sting by 5-6... i give tenta tops 6'4 1/2
Click Here
Discount sting hair and tenta
Ola says on 29/Jan/09
can we be realistic here plz, Tenta wasnt any 6'6. he had sting by only 3 inches, and sid had sting by 5-6... i give tenta tops 6'4 1/2
Click Here
Discount sting hair and tenta
Anonymous said on 29/Jan/09
cena is same height as craig ferguson Click Here
tenta was just as tall next to big boss man as sid was
cena is same height as craig ferguson Click Here
tenta was just as tall next to big boss man as sid was
Danimal said on 28/Jan/09
says on 23/Jan/09
here are the heights of wrestlers
John Layfield 6'5.5"
Shawn Michaels 6'0"
John Cena 6'1"
I have studied the RAW video from the three standing together. Cena has an inch on HBK. So HBK is NOT his listed 6'1" John Cena actually IS 6'1"
No, HBK is definitely not over 5'11" and probably just shy of that today. Cena is 6'0" (same height as Austin).
says on 23/Jan/09
here are the heights of wrestlers
John Layfield 6'5.5"
Shawn Michaels 6'0"
John Cena 6'1"
I have studied the RAW video from the three standing together. Cena has an inch on HBK. So HBK is NOT his listed 6'1" John Cena actually IS 6'1"
No, HBK is definitely not over 5'11" and probably just shy of that today. Cena is 6'0" (same height as Austin).
ancient Aztec Guy said on 27/Jan/09
Just to comment, Big show is incredibly strong. I remember during the WCW Big show deadlifted 300lb stevie ray for the chokeslam. Just incredible, never saw a giant toss 300 pounders around like this man. I also would not doubt a 7'1" peak height.
Just to comment, Big show is incredibly strong. I remember during the WCW Big show deadlifted 300lb stevie ray for the chokeslam. Just incredible, never saw a giant toss 300 pounders around like this man. I also would not doubt a 7'1" peak height.
ancient Aztec Guy said on 27/Jan/09
Just if some of you were wondering, I could be wrong here, but I vaguely recall Andre being billed as heavy as 560lbs shortly before the end of his career.
Just if some of you were wondering, I could be wrong here, but I vaguely recall Andre being billed as heavy as 560lbs shortly before the end of his career.
Alex said on 27/Jan/09
Some listings will say both barefoot and and listed heights.
Some listings will say both barefoot and and listed heights.
said on 23/Jan/09
here are the heights of wrestlers
John Layfield 6'5.5"
Shawn Michaels 6'0"
John Cena 6'1"
I have studied the RAW video from the three standing together. Cena has an inch on HBK. So HBK is NOT his listed 6'1" John Cena actually IS 6'1"
here are the heights of wrestlers
John Layfield 6'5.5"
Shawn Michaels 6'0"
John Cena 6'1"
I have studied the RAW video from the three standing together. Cena has an inch on HBK. So HBK is NOT his listed 6'1" John Cena actually IS 6'1"
Alex said on 21/Jan/09
There was one poster who was a legit 6'7.5 and he did post pics of himself on here. Haven't seen him on here in over a year.
There was one poster who was a legit 6'7.5 and he did post pics of himself on here. Haven't seen him on here in over a year.
topdweeb said on 21/Jan/09
Rantsrob says on 20/Jan/09
"We all know colleges beef up their players to make them look good for scouts going into the nba/nfl. I bet show was 7'.05'' back in the day but bball listings are shady at most."
Well if that's the case where we can't even believe the listings from a legit sport, then we've really got nothing to build from. This is analogous to saying that everything we know of in history is wrong because we don't know that anyone ever kept a reliable record.
Rantsrob says on 20/Jan/09
"We all know colleges beef up their players to make them look good for scouts going into the nba/nfl. I bet show was 7'.05'' back in the day but bball listings are shady at most."
Well if that's the case where we can't even believe the listings from a legit sport, then we've really got nothing to build from. This is analogous to saying that everything we know of in history is wrong because we don't know that anyone ever kept a reliable record.
said on 21/Jan/09
I really do question peoples claims of heights of 6'7 or taller on this site. There was one guy who was a legit 6'7.5 and had pics of himself on here.
I really do question peoples claims of heights of 6'7 or taller on this site. There was one guy who was a legit 6'7.5 and had pics of himself on here.
Rantsrob said on 20/Jan/09
topdweeb says on 19/Jan/09
Clay says on 18/Jan/09
"We dont know for sure If Show ever was 7'1''."
Guess you don't think this basketball listings mean anything?
We all know colleges beef up their players to make them look good for scouts going into the nba/nfl. I bet show was 7'.05'' back in the day but bball listings are shady at most.
topdweeb says on 19/Jan/09
Clay says on 18/Jan/09
"We dont know for sure If Show ever was 7'1''."
Guess you don't think this basketball listings mean anything?
We all know colleges beef up their players to make them look good for scouts going into the nba/nfl. I bet show was 7'.05'' back in the day but bball listings are shady at most.
topdweeb said on 20/Jan/09
Alex says on 19/Jan/09
"And some people also dont realize how someone can be bigger than someone even though they weigh less because muscle is more than fat! You can have a guy 6'0 190lbs bigger than someone 5'11 210lbs."
And it's for reasons like these I don't take it too seriously when people tend to try to guess the weight of the wrestlers, it's so much harder than guessing height.
Alex says on 19/Jan/09
"And some people also dont realize how someone can be bigger than someone even though they weigh less because muscle is more than fat! You can have a guy 6'0 190lbs bigger than someone 5'11 210lbs."
And it's for reasons like these I don't take it too seriously when people tend to try to guess the weight of the wrestlers, it's so much harder than guessing height.
Danimal said on 20/Jan/09
Alex says on 19/Jan/09
7'1 wouldn't mean he was that barefoot for sure but I believe he was close to it at his peak. I still dont think he's lost any more than 1/2 inch since back then. More because of his weight he looks a bit shorter.
Andre was def heavier at his heaviest than Big Show was. Andre could have been 550lbs by 1990-1992.
I agree. Some people dont understand. Bigger means weight/mass/muscle, not height. And some people also dont realize how someone can be bigger than someone even though they weigh less because muscle is more than fat! You can have a guy 6'0 190lbs bigger than someone 5'11 210lbs.
I see Big Show having lost minimum 1". He was 7'0.5"-7'1" in the 1990's and 6'11"-7'0" today.
Alex says on 19/Jan/09
7'1 wouldn't mean he was that barefoot for sure but I believe he was close to it at his peak. I still dont think he's lost any more than 1/2 inch since back then. More because of his weight he looks a bit shorter.
Andre was def heavier at his heaviest than Big Show was. Andre could have been 550lbs by 1990-1992.
I agree. Some people dont understand. Bigger means weight/mass/muscle, not height. And some people also dont realize how someone can be bigger than someone even though they weigh less because muscle is more than fat! You can have a guy 6'0 190lbs bigger than someone 5'11 210lbs.
I see Big Show having lost minimum 1". He was 7'0.5"-7'1" in the 1990's and 6'11"-7'0" today.
KingNick said on 20/Jan/09
Clay, I agree with that estimate too.
Clay, I agree with that estimate too.
Alex said on 19/Jan/09
7'1 wouldn't mean he was that barefoot for sure but I believe he was close to it at his peak. I still dont think he's lost any more than 1/2 inch since back then. More because of his weight he looks a bit shorter.
Andre was def heavier at his heaviest than Big Show was. Andre could have been 550lbs by 1990-1992.
I agree. Some people dont understand. Bigger means weight/mass/muscle, not height. And some people also dont realize how someone can be bigger than someone even though they weigh less because muscle is more than fat! You can have a guy 6'0 190lbs bigger than someone 5'11 210lbs.
7'1 wouldn't mean he was that barefoot for sure but I believe he was close to it at his peak. I still dont think he's lost any more than 1/2 inch since back then. More because of his weight he looks a bit shorter.
Andre was def heavier at his heaviest than Big Show was. Andre could have been 550lbs by 1990-1992.
I agree. Some people dont understand. Bigger means weight/mass/muscle, not height. And some people also dont realize how someone can be bigger than someone even though they weigh less because muscle is more than fat! You can have a guy 6'0 190lbs bigger than someone 5'11 210lbs.
Clay said on 19/Jan/09
Oh, he was easily taller in WCW im agreeing there but I think he's more 6'11-6'11.5 today without his boots to be honest.
Oh, he was easily taller in WCW im agreeing there but I think he's more 6'11-6'11.5 today without his boots to be honest.
topdweeb said on 19/Jan/09
Clay says on 18/Jan/09
"We dont know for sure If Show ever was 7'1''."
Guess you don't think this basketball listings mean anything?
Clay says on 18/Jan/09
"We dont know for sure If Show ever was 7'1''."
Guess you don't think this basketball listings mean anything?
Danimal said on 18/Jan/09
Clay says on 18/Jan/09
We dont know for sure If Show ever was 7'1''.
Minimum 7'0.5". Watch WCW matches. He looked more like 7'2"! He had 3" on 6'10" Kevin Nash and his posture was like Frankensteins. He was ALSO listed at 7'1" in basketball. MINIMUM 7'0.5" back then.
Clay says on 18/Jan/09
We dont know for sure If Show ever was 7'1''.
Minimum 7'0.5". Watch WCW matches. He looked more like 7'2"! He had 3" on 6'10" Kevin Nash and his posture was like Frankensteins. He was ALSO listed at 7'1" in basketball. MINIMUM 7'0.5" back then.
Clay said on 18/Jan/09
We dont know for sure If Show ever was 7'1''.
We dont know for sure If Show ever was 7'1''.
Ghost said on 18/Jan/09
Danimal says on 17/Jan/09
Big Show says on 14/Jan/09
Click Here
Here's that shoot interview with Ric Flair (I've only capped the part where he talks about Andre and Big Show).
You should listen again to what he says. He states that Andre was being "BILLED" bigger than The Giant.
You should listen to it again. What he says is that they billed Big Show as as big as Andre. "He's not as big, they billed him as being as big" is what he says.
I think Show was atleast an inch or so taller than peak Andre. But Andre at his heaviest (near the end) was heavier than Big Show ever was.
Danimal says on 17/Jan/09
Big Show says on 14/Jan/09
Click Here
Here's that shoot interview with Ric Flair (I've only capped the part where he talks about Andre and Big Show).
You should listen again to what he says. He states that Andre was being "BILLED" bigger than The Giant.
You should listen to it again. What he says is that they billed Big Show as as big as Andre. "He's not as big, they billed him as being as big" is what he says.
I think Show was atleast an inch or so taller than peak Andre. But Andre at his heaviest (near the end) was heavier than Big Show ever was.
Danimal said on 18/Jan/09
Anonymous says on 18/Jan/09
Big Show is a legit 441, or at least he was when he was weighed for his match against Floyd Mayweather at Wrestlemania last year.
He was also a legit 490 something pounds for his WEIGH for his sumo match a few years ago and he was a legit 420, 430, 507, 525 pounds, etc..... He is a YOYO. We know his weigh goes down and climbs back up, but we also know that his height has only gone one direction since the mid-late 90's and that being DOWN from a LEGIT 7'1" barefoot man to about 6'11.5" imo.
Anonymous says on 18/Jan/09
Big Show is a legit 441, or at least he was when he was weighed for his match against Floyd Mayweather at Wrestlemania last year.
He was also a legit 490 something pounds for his WEIGH for his sumo match a few years ago and he was a legit 420, 430, 507, 525 pounds, etc..... He is a YOYO. We know his weigh goes down and climbs back up, but we also know that his height has only gone one direction since the mid-late 90's and that being DOWN from a LEGIT 7'1" barefoot man to about 6'11.5" imo.
Anonymous said on 18/Jan/09
Big Show is a legit 441, or at least he was when he was weighed for his match against Floyd Mayweather at Wrestlemania last year.
Big Show is a legit 441, or at least he was when he was weighed for his match against Floyd Mayweather at Wrestlemania last year.
said on 17/Jan/09
I say Big Show 410-420 lbs. and 6'11 1/2" tall.
I say Big Show 410-420 lbs. and 6'11 1/2" tall.
topdweeb said on 17/Jan/09
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Andre was bigger, i.e. heavier than the Big Show. Although, at Show's heaviest, Andre probably would be much heavier, but I still wouldn't be surprised. And I agree with you Danimal. Usually "bigger" is referring to overall mass, not height.
I don't think it is talking about who the bigger star is as in who was more famous. That would definitely be hands down Andre. Andre was around during a time when pro-wrestling was in its heyday with such iconic stars as Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan (I don't consider Ultimate Warrior iconic). Even people who aren't wrestling fans usually know who these guys are.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Andre was bigger, i.e. heavier than the Big Show. Although, at Show's heaviest, Andre probably would be much heavier, but I still wouldn't be surprised. And I agree with you Danimal. Usually "bigger" is referring to overall mass, not height.
I don't think it is talking about who the bigger star is as in who was more famous. That would definitely be hands down Andre. Andre was around during a time when pro-wrestling was in its heyday with such iconic stars as Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan (I don't consider Ultimate Warrior iconic). Even people who aren't wrestling fans usually know who these guys are.
Danimal said on 17/Jan/09
Andre was between 520-565 pounds at his heaviest. Take a look at his 1992 tag team match. He was MORBIDLY obese and still hovering at around 6'10" give or take.
Andre was between 520-565 pounds at his heaviest. Take a look at his 1992 tag team match. He was MORBIDLY obese and still hovering at around 6'10" give or take.
Danimal said on 17/Jan/09
Annoyed says on 15/Jan/09
I assumed he meant "bigger" in the sense of a bigger star who got more push and a higher billing..........maybe he did mean Height though.
Bigger doesn't mean HEIGHT. Bigger means WEIGHT. TALLER means height.
Annoyed says on 15/Jan/09
I assumed he meant "bigger" in the sense of a bigger star who got more push and a higher billing..........maybe he did mean Height though.
Bigger doesn't mean HEIGHT. Bigger means WEIGHT. TALLER means height.
Danimal said on 17/Jan/09
Big Show says on 14/Jan/09
Click Here
Here's that shoot interview with Ric Flair (I've only capped the part where he talks about Andre and Big Show).
You should listen again to what he says. He states that Andre was being "BILLED" bigger than The Giant.
Big Show says on 14/Jan/09
Click Here
Here's that shoot interview with Ric Flair (I've only capped the part where he talks about Andre and Big Show).
You should listen again to what he says. He states that Andre was being "BILLED" bigger than The Giant.
Rock said on 17/Jan/09
Flair is not the only one to say Andre was bigger. Hacksaw states in a shoot Andre was bigger & taller than Show. Heenan Hogan & Big Show himself all state Andre was taller. Show's boots had over an inch advantage on Andre's boots and had much better posture than Andre which has to be taken into comparing the 2. Also Hogan had lost 2 inches in height from surgery by the time he met a young in prime Show as opposed to Andre who lost height from multiple surgeries, major back problems, poor posture. Also Big Show was said to have worn lifts in wcw.
Flair is not the only one to say Andre was bigger. Hacksaw states in a shoot Andre was bigger & taller than Show. Heenan Hogan & Big Show himself all state Andre was taller. Show's boots had over an inch advantage on Andre's boots and had much better posture than Andre which has to be taken into comparing the 2. Also Hogan had lost 2 inches in height from surgery by the time he met a young in prime Show as opposed to Andre who lost height from multiple surgeries, major back problems, poor posture. Also Big Show was said to have worn lifts in wcw.
Marble said on 17/Jan/09
Andre could have been 550 when he wrestled in spain in his last years .
Andre could have been 550 when he wrestled in spain in his last years .
hs2009 said on 17/Jan/09
KingNick, I also got the impression that he meant weight & girth.
Andre definitely looked broader & had bigger hands & feet than Big Show, but was probably slightly shorter.
KingNick, I also got the impression that he meant weight & girth.
Andre definitely looked broader & had bigger hands & feet than Big Show, but was probably slightly shorter.
Big Show said on 17/Jan/09
Annoyed says on 15/Jan/09
I assumed he meant "bigger" in the sense of a bigger star who got more push and a higher billing..........maybe he did mean Height though.
I think Flair meant Andre to be bigger (wheter that was size or height is up to debate), but seeing as Flair is referring to Don Leo Jonathan as 6'9 (who's listed in the Canadian Wrestling Hall of Fame as 6'5) makes me think he's more referring to their billed sizes rather than their actual sizes. Jonathan was billed 6'9 when he wrestled Andre in the early 70's. Kinda wonder if Flair even knew Andre's real height. Most people would probably take his 7'4 height for granted.
Annoyed says on 15/Jan/09
I assumed he meant "bigger" in the sense of a bigger star who got more push and a higher billing..........maybe he did mean Height though.
I think Flair meant Andre to be bigger (wheter that was size or height is up to debate), but seeing as Flair is referring to Don Leo Jonathan as 6'9 (who's listed in the Canadian Wrestling Hall of Fame as 6'5) makes me think he's more referring to their billed sizes rather than their actual sizes. Jonathan was billed 6'9 when he wrestled Andre in the early 70's. Kinda wonder if Flair even knew Andre's real height. Most people would probably take his 7'4 height for granted.
Hugh said on 17/Jan/09
182cm in boots.
182cm in boots.
KingNick said on 16/Jan/09
Annoyed says on 15/Jan/09
I assumed he meant "bigger" in the sense of a bigger star who got more push and a higher billing..........maybe he did mean Height though.
Could be. Could be also he just meant weight wise and over all girth.
Annoyed says on 15/Jan/09
I assumed he meant "bigger" in the sense of a bigger star who got more push and a higher billing..........maybe he did mean Height though.
Could be. Could be also he just meant weight wise and over all girth.
Alex said on 16/Jan/09
Andre looked well over 500lbs in 1990 at WM 6. He was bigger there then he was in the late 80's. As heavy Big Show was he still had more muscle than Andre had. Big Show was 525lbs legit I read in late 2006.
Andre looked well over 500lbs in 1990 at WM 6. He was bigger there then he was in the late 80's. As heavy Big Show was he still had more muscle than Andre had. Big Show was 525lbs legit I read in late 2006.
Willy79 said on 15/Jan/09
Don Leo Jonathan 6'6 a lttle taller than Kawaski.
Don Leo Jonathan 6'6 a lttle taller than Kawaski.
Clay said on 15/Jan/09
Big Show in late 2006 was closing in on 550 pounds I dont think Andre was ever that huge while he was wrestling.
Big Show in late 2006 was closing in on 550 pounds I dont think Andre was ever that huge while he was wrestling.
Annoyed said on 15/Jan/09
I assumed he meant "bigger" in the sense of a bigger star who got more push and a higher billing..........maybe he did mean Height though.
I assumed he meant "bigger" in the sense of a bigger star who got more push and a higher billing..........maybe he did mean Height though.
Frank said on 15/Jan/09
Flair says Andre was Bigger but he also says Don Leo Jonathan was 6ft 9 which is BS He was about 6ft 5
Flair says Andre was Bigger but he also says Don Leo Jonathan was 6ft 9 which is BS He was about 6ft 5
topdweeb said on 15/Jan/09
Well, I'm not surprised if Andre was "bigger" than the Big Show. He definitely looked heavier. But I think Big Show would have at least a solid inch over Andre in height.
Well, I'm not surprised if Andre was "bigger" than the Big Show. He definitely looked heavier. But I think Big Show would have at least a solid inch over Andre in height.
Big Show said on 14/Jan/09
Click Here
Here's that shoot interview with Ric Flair (I've only capped the part where he talks about Andre and Big Show).
Click Here
Here's that shoot interview with Ric Flair (I've only capped the part where he talks about Andre and Big Show).
Danimal said on 14/Jan/09
topdweeb says on 14/Jan/09
Danimal: I have every right to say that I am unimpressed by Andre as much as people say they are unimpressed by Khali. It seems like just because Andre is consider a legend, fans such as yourself, get upset when people like me say the exact same things about him as you would say about Khali. I've watched a couple of his '70's matches and I'm still not that impressed by his athleticism or his mic skills.
Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.
topdweeb says on 14/Jan/09
Danimal: I have every right to say that I am unimpressed by Andre as much as people say they are unimpressed by Khali. It seems like just because Andre is consider a legend, fans such as yourself, get upset when people like me say the exact same things about him as you would say about Khali. I've watched a couple of his '70's matches and I'm still not that impressed by his athleticism or his mic skills.
Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.
topdweeb said on 14/Jan/09
Danimal: I have every right to say that I am unimpressed by Andre as much as people say they are unimpressed by Khali. It seems like just because Andre is consider a legend, fans such as yourself, get upset when people like me say the exact same things about him as you would say about Khali. I've watched a couple of his '70's matches and I'm still not that impressed by his athleticism or his mic skills.
Danimal: I have every right to say that I am unimpressed by Andre as much as people say they are unimpressed by Khali. It seems like just because Andre is consider a legend, fans such as yourself, get upset when people like me say the exact same things about him as you would say about Khali. I've watched a couple of his '70's matches and I'm still not that impressed by his athleticism or his mic skills.
Anonymous said on 14/Jan/09
Big Show says on 8/Jan/09
Ok since my post from yesterday apparently didn't went through. Here's another try.
Click Here
This is a match between The Giant and John Tenta from Nitro July 1, 1996. Big Show (Giant) is looking tall here.
Wow 6'6 Tenta comes up to Shows eyes! Almost the same as 6'6 Hogan and Andre from wm3
Big Show says on 8/Jan/09
Ok since my post from yesterday apparently didn't went through. Here's another try.
Click Here
This is a match between The Giant and John Tenta from Nitro July 1, 1996. Big Show (Giant) is looking tall here.
Wow 6'6 Tenta comes up to Shows eyes! Almost the same as 6'6 Hogan and Andre from wm3
Drexyl said on 13/Jan/09
I remember Show being billed at 540 lbs at Roadwild '98 (I think), when Goldberg got him up for the jackhammer.
He wouldn't have been near that weight at the time, but he was legitimately well over 500 lbs around late '06 to early '07 before he left wrestling for a while and lost some weight.
I remember Show being billed at 540 lbs at Roadwild '98 (I think), when Goldberg got him up for the jackhammer.
He wouldn't have been near that weight at the time, but he was legitimately well over 500 lbs around late '06 to early '07 before he left wrestling for a while and lost some weight.
Danimal said on 13/Jan/09
Big Show says on 13/Jan/09
topdweeb says on 12/Jan/09
A bump on a log would be more athletic than Andre.
Topdweeb I've said this before, start watching Andre from the 70's (preferably the early 70's) as Andre from the 80's wasn't even a shadow of his former self anymore. If you only watch Andre from the 80's and claim he was about as athletic as an elephant is injustice to the man himself. It's like people who watch Muhammed Ali today and not during his prime and then claim they don't understand why people think he's the greatest boxer ever.
Andre was very agile for a guy his size and paved the way for the giant wrestlers that followed him. It's because of Andre's legacy and his huge success that I believe many giant wrestlers are given the opportunities they get. Because let's face it. How many succesful giant wrestlers have there been. You have Andre and Big Show in the US, Haystacks in the UK and Giant Baba in Japan and that's about it. Besides them most of the giant wrestlers have failed horribly.
I couldn't have said it better myself Big Show. It's quite disrespectful of Topweed to make comments like that. A PRIME Andre was capable of jumping off the ropes and many other moves. He was agile up until the early 1980's. Your comments are unnecessary Topweed and quite trollish to put a man who is dead down like that.
Big Show says on 13/Jan/09
topdweeb says on 12/Jan/09
A bump on a log would be more athletic than Andre.
Topdweeb I've said this before, start watching Andre from the 70's (preferably the early 70's) as Andre from the 80's wasn't even a shadow of his former self anymore. If you only watch Andre from the 80's and claim he was about as athletic as an elephant is injustice to the man himself. It's like people who watch Muhammed Ali today and not during his prime and then claim they don't understand why people think he's the greatest boxer ever.
Andre was very agile for a guy his size and paved the way for the giant wrestlers that followed him. It's because of Andre's legacy and his huge success that I believe many giant wrestlers are given the opportunities they get. Because let's face it. How many succesful giant wrestlers have there been. You have Andre and Big Show in the US, Haystacks in the UK and Giant Baba in Japan and that's about it. Besides them most of the giant wrestlers have failed horribly.
I couldn't have said it better myself Big Show. It's quite disrespectful of Topweed to make comments like that. A PRIME Andre was capable of jumping off the ropes and many other moves. He was agile up until the early 1980's. Your comments are unnecessary Topweed and quite trollish to put a man who is dead down like that.
Big Show said on 13/Jan/09
topdweeb says on 12/Jan/09
A bump on a log would be more athletic than Andre.
Topdweeb I've said this before, start watching Andre from the 70's (preferably the early 70's) as Andre from the 80's wasn't even a shadow of his former self anymore. If you only watch Andre from the 80's and claim he was about as athletic as an elephant is injustice to the man himself. It's like people who watch Muhammed Ali today and not during his prime and then claim they don't understand why people think he's the greatest boxer ever.
Andre was very agile for a guy his size and paved the way for the giant wrestlers that followed him. It's because of Andre's legacy and his huge success that I believe many giant wrestlers are given the opportunities they get. Because let's face it. How many succesful giant wrestlers have there been. You have Andre and Big Show in the US, Haystacks in the UK and Giant Baba in Japan and that's about it. Besides them most of the giant wrestlers have failed horribly.
topdweeb says on 12/Jan/09
A bump on a log would be more athletic than Andre.
Topdweeb I've said this before, start watching Andre from the 70's (preferably the early 70's) as Andre from the 80's wasn't even a shadow of his former self anymore. If you only watch Andre from the 80's and claim he was about as athletic as an elephant is injustice to the man himself. It's like people who watch Muhammed Ali today and not during his prime and then claim they don't understand why people think he's the greatest boxer ever.
Andre was very agile for a guy his size and paved the way for the giant wrestlers that followed him. It's because of Andre's legacy and his huge success that I believe many giant wrestlers are given the opportunities they get. Because let's face it. How many succesful giant wrestlers have there been. You have Andre and Big Show in the US, Haystacks in the UK and Giant Baba in Japan and that's about it. Besides them most of the giant wrestlers have failed horribly.
Big Show said on 13/Jan/09
gazz says on 12/Jan/09
cool yeh i found it on a shoot interview forum, and someone had sent a link to the recent flair interview in 4 parts...if anyone finds it download the 3rd part and literally the first words said are 'paul wight' and he talks about him for 2 or 3 mins. its hard to fully understand what flair says cuz of his gravelly voice but i listened to that part 3 or 4 times and the impression i got was that he said andre was bigger but big show is far more athletic.
Thanks for pointing out it's the 3rd part. I've downloaded it yesterday and have seen it. Too bad that the videosharing site of Daily##### was down yesterday, so I couldn't upload that part. I will do this at the end of the week.
Flair indeed said that Andre was bigger, but I have the feeling he was using their billings as reference as he also called Don Leo Jonathan 6'9 and he's 6'5. Not sure if Flair said Big Show was being billed to be bigger, because like you've said, you sometimes don't understand a word he's saying.
gazz says on 12/Jan/09
cool yeh i found it on a shoot interview forum, and someone had sent a link to the recent flair interview in 4 parts...if anyone finds it download the 3rd part and literally the first words said are 'paul wight' and he talks about him for 2 or 3 mins. its hard to fully understand what flair says cuz of his gravelly voice but i listened to that part 3 or 4 times and the impression i got was that he said andre was bigger but big show is far more athletic.
Thanks for pointing out it's the 3rd part. I've downloaded it yesterday and have seen it. Too bad that the videosharing site of Daily##### was down yesterday, so I couldn't upload that part. I will do this at the end of the week.
Flair indeed said that Andre was bigger, but I have the feeling he was using their billings as reference as he also called Don Leo Jonathan 6'9 and he's 6'5. Not sure if Flair said Big Show was being billed to be bigger, because like you've said, you sometimes don't understand a word he's saying.
Big Show said on 13/Jan/09
Alex says on 12/Jan/09
I remember Big Show being billed at 540lbs but he was still smaller I think then when he was billed at 500lbs in WWF/WWE.
When he had his last match in WCW on January 11, 1999 he was overweight and had a huge gut. When he entered WWF a month later on February 14 he seemed a lot leaner, without losing any of that muscle mass he had. Rumour has it he had some liposuction to remove some of that fat.
Alex says on 12/Jan/09
I remember Big Show being billed at 540lbs but he was still smaller I think then when he was billed at 500lbs in WWF/WWE.
When he had his last match in WCW on January 11, 1999 he was overweight and had a huge gut. When he entered WWF a month later on February 14 he seemed a lot leaner, without losing any of that muscle mass he had. Rumour has it he had some liposuction to remove some of that fat.
Alex said on 12/Jan/09
I remember Big Show being billed at 540lbs but he was still smaller I think then when he was billed at 500lbs in WWF/WWE.
I remember Big Show being billed at 540lbs but he was still smaller I think then when he was billed at 500lbs in WWF/WWE.
Danimal said on 12/Jan/09
topdweeb says on 12/Jan/09
Big Show: I don't remember Wight ever being billed as heavy as 553 lbs in WCW. Ar you sure?
YES, youtube his match again Goldberg (550 pounds).
topdweeb says on 12/Jan/09
Big Show: I don't remember Wight ever being billed as heavy as 553 lbs in WCW. Ar you sure?
YES, youtube his match again Goldberg (550 pounds).
topdweeb said on 12/Jan/09
A bump on a log would be more athletic than Andre.
A bump on a log would be more athletic than Andre.
Danimal said on 12/Jan/09
topdweeb says on 11/Jan/09
gazz: well until you can document that, that falls into the category of hearsay. To top it off, it's not even true. Big Show was billed at 7' 4 and less than 500 pounds in WCW. Andre was billed as 7' 4 (and sometimes even 7' 5) and 528 lbs. In WWE, the Big Show's max height billing was 7' 2 and his max weight billing was 500 lbs. At no time was Big Show ever billed bigger than Andre. So either you misunderstood, or Flair is just growing more delirious with age.
Sorry, but The Giant (Big Show) was being billed at 550 pounds in 1998 ( they state that weight during the match when Goldberg spears and jacknife's him) in the WCW. They constantly increased his weight as the years went by.
topdweeb says on 11/Jan/09
gazz: well until you can document that, that falls into the category of hearsay. To top it off, it's not even true. Big Show was billed at 7' 4 and less than 500 pounds in WCW. Andre was billed as 7' 4 (and sometimes even 7' 5) and 528 lbs. In WWE, the Big Show's max height billing was 7' 2 and his max weight billing was 500 lbs. At no time was Big Show ever billed bigger than Andre. So either you misunderstood, or Flair is just growing more delirious with age.
Sorry, but The Giant (Big Show) was being billed at 550 pounds in 1998 ( they state that weight during the match when Goldberg spears and jacknife's him) in the WCW. They constantly increased his weight as the years went by.
Big Show said on 12/Jan/09
topdweeb says on 12/Jan/09
Big Show: I don't remember Wight ever being billed as heavy as 553 lbs in WCW. Ar you sure?
Most definately. He started being billed at over 500 lbs in May/June 1998 and after that his billed weighed increased by 5-10 lbs at every PPV. At Starrcade 1998 in his match with DDP he's billed at 553 lbs. Btw in his last match in WCW in January 1999, Michael Buffer announces him as 7'5 and over 500 lbs.
The lowest Big Show has ever been called is in that video I've posted a few days ago (against John Tenta). Mean Gene exposes Big Show's real height by calling him 6'4 lol.
topdweeb says on 12/Jan/09
Big Show: I don't remember Wight ever being billed as heavy as 553 lbs in WCW. Ar you sure?
Most definately. He started being billed at over 500 lbs in May/June 1998 and after that his billed weighed increased by 5-10 lbs at every PPV. At Starrcade 1998 in his match with DDP he's billed at 553 lbs. Btw in his last match in WCW in January 1999, Michael Buffer announces him as 7'5 and over 500 lbs.
The lowest Big Show has ever been called is in that video I've posted a few days ago (against John Tenta). Mean Gene exposes Big Show's real height by calling him 6'4 lol.
gazz said on 12/Jan/09
cool yeh i found it on a shoot interview forum, and someone had sent a link to the recent flair interview in 4 parts...if anyone finds it download the 3rd part and literally the first words said are 'paul wight' and he talks about him for 2 or 3 mins. its hard to fully understand what flair says cuz of his gravelly voice but i listened to that part 3 or 4 times and the impression i got was that he said andre was bigger but big show is far more athletic.
cool yeh i found it on a shoot interview forum, and someone had sent a link to the recent flair interview in 4 parts...if anyone finds it download the 3rd part and literally the first words said are 'paul wight' and he talks about him for 2 or 3 mins. its hard to fully understand what flair says cuz of his gravelly voice but i listened to that part 3 or 4 times and the impression i got was that he said andre was bigger but big show is far more athletic.
Big Show said on 12/Jan/09
gazz says on 11/Jan/09
on ric flairs recent shoot interview he claims that even though big show was billed bigger than andre he actually wasnt, he doesnt give any exact measurements or anything but i just thought it was interesting
Do you know which shoot interview this was. There's a 4 hour shoot (4 dvd's) interview I can download of him, but if you could give me some more details, I might know which one I should download.
gazz says on 11/Jan/09
on ric flairs recent shoot interview he claims that even though big show was billed bigger than andre he actually wasnt, he doesnt give any exact measurements or anything but i just thought it was interesting
Do you know which shoot interview this was. There's a 4 hour shoot (4 dvd's) interview I can download of him, but if you could give me some more details, I might know which one I should download.
topdweeb said on 12/Jan/09
Big Show: I don't remember Wight ever being billed as heavy as 553 lbs in WCW. Ar you sure?
Big Show: I don't remember Wight ever being billed as heavy as 553 lbs in WCW. Ar you sure?
Alex said on 12/Jan/09
Some people are comparing Big Show's head length to a normal persons. If someone comes up to the bottom of a normal guys nose it would be roughly 6.5 inches but with Big Show its going to be more.
Some people are comparing Big Show's head length to a normal persons. If someone comes up to the bottom of a normal guys nose it would be roughly 6.5 inches but with Big Show its going to be more.
Big Show said on 12/Jan/09
gazz says on 11/Jan/09
on ric flairs recent shoot interview he claims that even though big show was billed bigger than andre he actually wasnt, he doesnt give any exact measurements or anything but i just thought it was interesting
Did Flair say that Big Show wasn't actually taller than Andre or the other way around? Big Show has never been billed as being bigger than Andre (at least not in the WWF). The tallest height he's ever been billed at in the WWE was 7'2 and the heaviest weight was 507 lbs. Andre's peaks were 7'5 and 528 lbs (not sure if he was billed heavier in 1989 and 1990).
In WCW Big Show's peaks were 7'4 and around 553 lbs.
I'll have a look and see if I can find that shoot interview.
gazz says on 11/Jan/09
on ric flairs recent shoot interview he claims that even though big show was billed bigger than andre he actually wasnt, he doesnt give any exact measurements or anything but i just thought it was interesting
Did Flair say that Big Show wasn't actually taller than Andre or the other way around? Big Show has never been billed as being bigger than Andre (at least not in the WWF). The tallest height he's ever been billed at in the WWE was 7'2 and the heaviest weight was 507 lbs. Andre's peaks were 7'5 and 528 lbs (not sure if he was billed heavier in 1989 and 1990).
In WCW Big Show's peaks were 7'4 and around 553 lbs.
I'll have a look and see if I can find that shoot interview.
topdweeb said on 11/Jan/09
gazz: well until you can document that, that falls into the category of hearsay. To top it off, it's not even true. Big Show was billed at 7' 4 and less than 500 pounds in WCW. Andre was billed as 7' 4 (and sometimes even 7' 5) and 528 lbs. In WWE, the Big Show's max height billing was 7' 2 and his max weight billing was 500 lbs. At no time was Big Show ever billed bigger than Andre. So either you misunderstood, or Flair is just growing more delirious with age.
gazz: well until you can document that, that falls into the category of hearsay. To top it off, it's not even true. Big Show was billed at 7' 4 and less than 500 pounds in WCW. Andre was billed as 7' 4 (and sometimes even 7' 5) and 528 lbs. In WWE, the Big Show's max height billing was 7' 2 and his max weight billing was 500 lbs. At no time was Big Show ever billed bigger than Andre. So either you misunderstood, or Flair is just growing more delirious with age.
gazz said on 11/Jan/09
on ric flairs recent shoot interview he claims that even though big show was billed bigger than andre he actually wasnt, he doesnt give any exact measurements or anything but i just thought it was interesting
on ric flairs recent shoot interview he claims that even though big show was billed bigger than andre he actually wasnt, he doesnt give any exact measurements or anything but i just thought it was interesting
Gretz said on 11/Jan/09
Wasn`t Tenta measured at 6'5.75" as a sumo wrestler? Big Show looks 6 or 7 inches taller than Tenta in that video,that would put him between 7'0" and 7'1" at the time,and maybe an inch less than that today.
Wasn`t Tenta measured at 6'5.75" as a sumo wrestler? Big Show looks 6 or 7 inches taller than Tenta in that video,that would put him between 7'0" and 7'1" at the time,and maybe an inch less than that today.
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.