How tall was Sarah Harding

Leesheff85 said on 21/Aug/22
Not sure why she claimed 5ft 4 when she looked 5ft 6 and nearly 6 foot in those huge heels. I knew she wasn't 5ft 7 but under 5ft 6 was unlikely

Arch Stanton said on 7/Sep/21
Click Here There, I would have thought low end of tall range but there you go!

Arch Stanton said on 7/Sep/21
RIP indeed Nik, very sad. Another big personality/senstive soul lost by 40. Similar to Caroline Flack in some respects though it was breast cancer. I think she was on Big Brother once and remember thinking she seemed a nice person, but vulnerable. I thought she looked on the tall side, I would have though about 5 ft 7! from her proportions, but she was athletic frame and obviously looked taller than she really was. I wouldn't have guessed her under 5 ft 6, and our celeb heights viewers think about that!

Nik Ashton said on 6/Sep/21
R.I.P Sarah Harding.

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 5/Sep/21
Shocking news. Young, vibrant Sarah has lost her battle with cancer, aged only 39. 😢

RIP Sarah XXX 🕯️💐
17th November 1981 - 5th September 2021

Leesheff85 said on 16/Mar/21
5ft 5 3/4 more like sandy but yeah sad to hear of her prognosis

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 13/Mar/21
What dreadful news to hear that Sarah has got breast cancer, which has spread to other parts of her body.

I pray that Sarah overcomes this terrifying illness and makes a full recovery. 💐💕

5ft6.75, though I doubt right now that it's very important to her. 😢

Nik said on 21/Oct/19
11 voters think she is close to 5'6"!

khaled taban said on 23/May/19
A chance that she falls into weak 5'6" range.

Littlelee5ft6 said on 11/May/19
Well she said 5ft 5.5 on big brother but she doesn't wear kitten heels they look to give at least 4 inches making her nearly 5ft 10. Still I'd believe 5ft 6 for her not 5ft 7 though

Nik said on 9/May/19
It bemuses me that she claims to be "only Five-Five"!

Nik said on 8/May/19
Her comments above are interesting!

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 28/Apr/19
I really, really believed that Sarah was 5ft7 when I read it in a magazine, along with the heights of the other Girls Aloud members. They were pictured as well, and Cheryl, at 5ft3, was the shrimp!

5ft6.75. 😊👍🎶

anyonmious said on 15/Oct/17
may be 5'4" without heels

Flygod said on 13/Oct/17
Always thought she was taller.

JINNY90 said on 16/Aug/17
Rob on Celebrity Big Brother she actually said she was 5'5".5". So she is rounding down . Did you watch the video i posted of 5'7" Davina Mccall and Sarah . They look very close in height . Davina might be taller by half an inch . But in my opinion it destroys Davina's 5'7" claim . I think Davina should be downgraded to 5'6" . What do you think?.

JINNY90 said on 16/Aug/17
Rob i am very surprised by Harding being only 5ft 5ins. I found a video of Harding on Pop Stars which was presented by 5'7" Davina Mccall . Interestingly Davina towers all the other Girls Aloud girls but her and Harding look the same height . Actually who do you think is taller in the video between Davina and Sarah. I think Sarah might be. Wind forward to 38.30 minutes.

Click Here

Random said on 4/Aug/17
She mentioned in a segment of Celebrity Big Brother that she is 5'5" and would look much taller when she'd wear heels. Next to Cheryl Cole, she admittedly said that she'd tower over her.

Sandy Cowell said on 10/Apr/17
Sarah is, at 5ft7, the tallest of the 'Girls Aloud' troupe, and when at first I saw them dancing, she stood out for me more than the others because she was the only one brave enough to sport a short hairstyle and also - she was the tallest!
It's good to see Sarah has drifted into acting now, having been in the second 'St Trinian's' film, a TV play and also in 'Coronation Street'!

Anonymous said on 26/May/09
BDV he's a real fattie. Kane isn't 6'9. He is the same height as Taker. They are all 6'6.5. Kane maybe 6'7. BDV weighs about the same as Taker and Kane put together. BDV over 500, Taker 260 Kane 275 my guess. Taker is still tall but thin.

Jake said on 18/May/09
I think he's a huge man...about 6'6.5" without lifts, and about 6'8" with lifts. BDV was gigantic!! He looked about 1 inch shorter than Kane in his big boots, so Kane is around the 6'9" mark.

James S said on 28/Mar/09
Compared to 7 footers like Big Show and Khali he looks about 6 ft 5 or maybe 6, i'd say 6 ft 4 barefoot.

Shock of Electric said on 24/Mar/09
nick I mentioned that staredown recently. Both men wearing pretty hefty boots, possibly the biggest Nelson's ever had and essentially the same as Kane's here.

This is more evidence that Taker comes out, at the minimum, the same height as Kane in his current boots, which are thicker than Taker's. BDV would have to be as tall, or taller than Taker for Taker and Kane to be the same height, or for Kane to be taller. I have not been able to find a video showing any good comparison's of BDV and Taker from last year. Just judging by the 1995 comparison, Taker was unquestionably taller then, than Kane is today.

nick said on 21/Mar/09
Click Here
oooo

Shock of Electric said on 21/Mar/09
I don't think I've ever seen that Fake Diesel Taker, match but it'd be interesting. Also rereading what I posted, in the comment about Taker/Big Show, I mean the 1999 boots were .25"-.5" less in 99 than they are now.

tuga said on 21/Mar/09
Shock of Electric says on 21/Mar/09
OK that didn't take as long as I thought:

Great work, I agree with you, at least 1, 1

Shock of Electric said on 21/Mar/09
Kane as of last year was not as much taller than BDV with even footwear, as Taker was than Mabel in uneven footwear in 1995. I think the only person who's really lost any significant height of those three is Kane, as I believe they were nearly, if not identical height to Taker in 1995. Taker has lost no more than 1/4" if any height at all. Is there a single example of Taker compared with two people over the course of the last 18 years where he comes out shorter than he did earlier? I think he comes out taller in every instance I can think of.

In the early 90s, Taker came out about .75" taller than Sid, and that was in uneven and even suspect footwear on Sid's part, it was probably more than that barefoot. At WM13 and other close up shots from late RAWs, in even footwear but Sid with some kind of internal lifts if you look at the height of his heel, is still definitely 1" shorter which leads me to believe Sid is as much as 1.25" shorter. So there's 5 years of time where it's unlikely Taker lost any height, he comes out as much taller as he should with the even boots.

Taker compared to Big Show today is closer in height partially because Taker's boots are .25"-.5" in 1999, but Big Show still has an advantage in footwear regardless. I see their barefoot height difference currently at no more than 3"-3.25". In 1999 it looks like 4.5" but Big Show's boots were double the thickness of Taker's, breaking that down to more like 3.75".

In any event, Taker is still coming up to the first 1/4" of his forehead essentially. Kane in 99/2000 is about .5" taller compared to Big Show than last year. Kane in .5" smaller footwear, both men I think safe to assume, have lost height being posture, surgery, excess weight, what have you. Big Show nearly 7' in '99, maybe 6'11.25-0.5" now.

Taker compared to Hogan in 1991 and 2002...no contest, at least 2" more taller, and he's just as much taller than Shawn Michaels as he was in 97-98 as we've seen recently.

The staredown with JBL from SD I posted on the other page, who I really feel cannot be any shorter than 6'5.5" (claims 6'6.25") shows Taker clearly still around 6'8". The same angle is used in a pic with Taker and Big Show, and I was once told on here it made the height difference look like *less* than it was. I never go by pics' direct visual difference when there are angle issues, but more an approximation of where they come up to on someone, and how much above that point there is based on their given size, and logically how big their head can be and previous knowledge. So Taker coming up to the top of Big Show's eyebrows means he's about 4.5" taller since Big Show has a normally proportioned forehead but is much larger than most people with a foot tall skull approximately. When you knock off the boot advantage it's more like 3.75", not the 5" some people claim. Big Show would have a 14" tall head if that was the case.

I wanted to clarify it since that would mean Taker's even more taller than JBL than it looks, and to dismiss anyone claiming that the angle in fact somehow has the opposite affect when Taker would not benefit. Taker I will say possibly .25" boot advantage because JBL's are still smaller than today's standard. Taker's mouth, nose, eyes are 2" above JBL's and Taker's forehead gives him a big more as well. The reason why Taker comes out so well is because he's looking at the IC belt, and not slouching like he usually does with shorter people. He reclaims all the height many people suggest he's lost simply by "standing up straight." If anything, he looks more taller than JBL today...than he did in 1996, which is possible since JBL has had surgeries that can cause some height loss.

So in the end, I don't see how there's any less difference between BDV and Taker then and now, except where the boots changed here and there. I think, based on Max Starks at 6'7.1", 6'6.75" no less for BDV, and up to 6'8.25" Undertaker, but no less than 6'8" even. It's not 2" but it's more than 1" without compensating for boots. I also think 6'7.75" is possible for Kane since he is slightly less than 1" taller than Starks if you line them up with Big Ben. I don't know how much Kane can make up for with better posture today. People will obviously think the 6'8.25" is ludicrously high for Taker based on some misguided evidence, but really, he almost always has his head gimmick-tilted down, and his wrestling stance is extremely low. These things always seem to be ignored.

Shock of Electric said on 21/Mar/09
OK that didn't take as long as I thought:

Click Here - 11.3 meg, 12 second avi file using a standard mp43 compressor.

I'd say there's a 1" - 1.25" difference during the zoom to the frame before Mabel begins to tilt his head, and on the frame before the camera flash to the right of Mabel at 7 seconds, he is about the same neck posture as Taker. Then you have to consider the boot advantage, and Taker is leaning into his face, and has a wider stance. The real barefoot difference could be as high as 1.75"

Shock of Electric said on 20/Mar/09
I have the match on tape, but of course my video grabbing software doesn't work and I think it's because of XP SP3. I will see what I can do.

tuga said on 20/Mar/09
Da Man says on 18/Mar/09
You knew after the BDV/Kane staredown I would never see more than an inch? Get off it, tuga!

Sorry, but if you only see one inch there...

The often referenced pic from around 4:42-4:43, Taker is heavily, HEAVILY favored by camera perspective AND posture and the difference still only looks a bit more than 2"! No way does Taker have 2" on Mabel at 4:37-4:38 in that video.

What? Look again...at 4:42 its about 3 inches...taker has at around 1 1/2 before and footware, posture and camera disavantage, EASY, EASY 2 inches.

Besides, if Taker legitimately had 2" on Mabel, that would indicate Taker is closing in on a legit 6'9", and there is absolutely NO case for that. None at all.

You

Da Man said on 20/Mar/09
Actually, it isn't obvious at all, and they aren't "excuses", this is how we analyze evidence.

Once again, is there a better quality version of this match anywhere? I want to see a clear shot of 4:36-4:38 of that video. 4:40 is useless for comparison, 4:42-4:43 is even more useless for comparison. From what I can actually see of the legit face-off at 4:38, they look to be within 1" before Mabel begins slumping.

Shock of Electric said on 19/Mar/09
Ya know, I've looked at that comparison so many times and it's baffling, mostly because of how much people deny the height difference. At KotR 95, Undertaker has a solid 2" on Mabel. Mabel has some fairly large footwear on for the time, his head is leaning but then he straightens up. Yes the camera angle is in Taker's favor, but how much is it going to change really? That's a LOT of height difference to compensate for simply by sliding the camera and not tilting it. The height difference as is looks like at least 3". If you compensate for Mabel's head lean, then you have to compensate for the faithful "shoulder width apart" stance Taker has, which closes the gap some, but then widens it a bit again, and the boot difference which is 0.5"ish. I mean, it's really truly clear in that match that Taker is significantly taller than Mabel. Big Daddy Lifts comes close, but not flat boots Mabel. As of last year, in equal footwear (being 1.5" lifts), Kane and BDV are within an inch in height, with Kane being taller. Taker is definitely more taller than V with a boot disadvantage there, than Kane is in even footwear as of last year. I know I'm going to hear "No no camera angle favors Taker, his boots are just as big if not bigger" and all kinds of excuses, but it's right there. It's obvious.

Da Man said on 18/Mar/09
You knew after the BDV/Kane staredown I would never see more than an inch? Get off it, tuga!

Please explain to me HOW you see 2" at 4:40? Posture is not even remotely comparable (in Taker's advantage) and there still isn't a 2" difference there.

The often referenced pic from around 4:42-4:43, Taker is heavily, HEAVILY favored by camera perspective AND posture and the difference still only looks a bit more than 2"! No way does Taker have 2" on Mabel at 4:37-4:38 in that video.

Besides, if Taker legitimately had 2" on Mabel, that would indicate Taker is closing in on a legit 6'9", and there is absolutely NO case for that. None at all.

tuga said on 18/Mar/09
Da Man, there

Da Man said on 17/Mar/09
Click Here
At around 4:40 in the youtube video when the camera gets close enough to begin telling anything at all, Mabel/Vis has already begun slumping. It's plainly obvious most are being severely fooled by posture. After 4:40 Vis/Mabel sags even lower. When the over the shoulder shot occurs at around 4:42, the camera HEAVILY favors Taker, as does Vis's posture, as the camera is at their shoulder level and Mabel is much further from the camera. The high perspective ring tilt advantage is gone in this frame.

Is there a higher quality vid of this encounter? At around 4:36 there looks to be a decent face-off. Yes Mabel had the camera and perspective advantage, but not enough of one to throw the comparison off by an entire inch! If that's the case, then Yankem looked over an inch taller than Taker in their staredown.

I'm pretty close to positive Taker had Mabel by 1" tops in that video.

tuga said on 17/Mar/09
Da Man says on 16/Mar/09
Only after he drooped his shoulders and begin hanging his head. Taker was never 2" taller than Vis. That's flat out wishful thinking.

No wishful thinking, people mentioned 2 inches that until they saw viscera taller than 6

Da Man said on 16/Mar/09
"Actually it was a good 2 inches."

Only after he drooped his shoulders and begin hanging his head. Taker was never 2" taller than Vis. That's flat out wishful thinking.

tuga said on 16/Mar/09
Da Man says on 15/Mar/09
Who said Vis is as tall as or taller than Taker? Vis was a good 1" shorter than a peak Taker but probably within 0.5" of Taker today.

Actually it was a good 2 inches.
He may me within half an inch from taker today, but only wearing his BDV boots.

I agree that BDV is near 6'7, at least he is not shorter than 6'6 1/2 imo.

Shock of Electric said on 16/Mar/09
Someone without a given name said he was as tall or taller. Another annoymous posted asked who is taller. He's still as much shorter than Taker as he was over 10 years ago.

Why would Taker lose height and not Vis? That makes very little sense as Taker hasn't reached age related height loss, and if anything Vis carrying double his ideal body weight is more probable cause for him to lose height since 1995. In lifts V is still about 1" shorter than Taker today.

By my estimation, V is basically 6'6.8" compared to Starks, Kane is approximately 1" taller than V in even lifts. Comparing Kane's pic with Ben and Ben with Starks, Kane seemed to touch the top of Stark's cap putting him at a little less than 1" taller than Starks, basically 6'7.8". I don't think we know the footwear situation for anyone, or if Kane and V were in their typical wrestling footwear for the time or casual but their approximate height difference seems accurate since they wear the same lifts and they come out about 1" apart with that. Is it safe to assume Ben and Max are in some kind of standard sneakers?

Da Man said on 15/Mar/09
Who said Vis is as tall as or taller than Taker? Vis was a good 1" shorter than a peak Taker but probably within 0.5" of Taker today.

Vis is clearly; however, extremely close in height to barefoot measured and confirmed 6'7.1" Max Starks. There is undoubtedly LESS than 1/2" between these two.

Vis at 6'6.75" is actually very believable.

Shock of Electric said on 15/Mar/09
The only time V comes within 1" of Taker is when he's rocking the lifts. He is absolutely in no way shape or form as tall or taller than Taker. V is more than likely 6'6.75" which he has stated himself and it agrees with many comparisons.

Da Man said on 12/Mar/09
Jake, the only way Vis looks 6'6" next to confirmed 6'7.1" Max Starks is if you think he had a 1" footwear advantage.

said on 11/Mar/09
Big Daddy V is 6'7 tall, same as Taker or just taller. The difference is that Big Daddy V is also 6'7 wide so most of the WWE roster give him a wide berth.

Jake said on 10/Mar/09
When he was in his Big Daddy V gimmick, he wore 3 inch heel lifts, and he looked 6'8"- 6'9", almost eye level with Kane who is 6'9" in his boots.

I think without the boots he's a legit 6'6" as confirmed standing next to Ben Roethlisberger and Max Starks.

Da Man said on 27/Feb/09
Click Here

Viscera (pre-Big Daddy V) next to confirmed 6'7.1" Max Starks and confirmed 6'4.8" "Big" Ben Roethlisberger.

I think a flat 6'7" is feasible, if not just a shade under.

Danimal said on 24/Feb/09
Just to update ROB'S description on the top of the page, J.R. called Viscera 6'10" at one point as well, so he jumped from 6'6" and eventually reached 6'10".

The man's 6'6". Taker WAS taller than him in 1999.

Anonymous said on 23/Feb/09
Who is taller these days... Undertaker or Big Daddy V ?

Jake said on 17/Feb/09
Big Daddy V aka Viscera was wearing shoe lifts in his last run in WWE. I saw him stand toe to toe with a legit 6'2" Boogeyman, and he was a good 7 inches taller. So he's 6'9" wearing the lifts, but 6'6" is his real height.

Haze said on 15/Feb/09
but mybe gamma is right and hes really 6'2 that would make triple h a stout 5'9 or 10. that would make big show 6'7.and mysterio 4'11 eeeeee haha.

that guy is obviously not crazy ;)

Haze said on 15/Feb/09
actually in the line up i think that holly and show are the only ones in proportion. kane, taker and vis have all been blown up.

but after seeing the pics im guessing vis is 6'6 flat. his shoes are helpin him out. and hes super fat.

Drexyl said on 19/Oct/08
They've obviously all been photoshopped into that height chart. It's not even a proper chart. If you measure how tall a foot appears to be on it, the ground would be off the bottom of the page and not where they are standing.

I'm also fairly sure Holly wouldn't look quite that small next to all those guys.

KingNick said on 11/Oct/08
dicksock, that's MiveV10's page, he has the most awesome photos. I have that photo from the actual magazine. I think the height chart is exaggerated and I think they were all photoshopped in as opposed to lining up together for the pic. It's hard to see but if you look closely, Big Show's head is pointed down as if he were trying to fit in the picture.

Shock of Electric said on 11/Oct/08
I always thought that stare down with Taker from King of the Ring '95 was interesting because of the obvious height difference that was later never really present. He also didn't wear lifts in the mid '90s but did as of the Big Daddy V gimmick which is why he looks closer in height to him and Kane. He is however inarguably a minimum of 2" shorter there compensating for his head lean, as it appears he is 3" shorter in the pic itself. This poses a problem, because I believe there is no way BDV is under 6'6.5" but clearly there's gotta be about a 2" legit difference between him and Taker, thus meaning Taker is definitely taller than his listed height here. Mabel's very first bill was 6'9" 495 lbs in M.o.M. with the occasional 6'8" from commentators, and then inexpcliably down to 6'6" during his singles run as Viscera, back up to 6'9" as BDV.

As for that pic with the guys and the height chart, all those pics were take at different times and pasted in later. None of those height comparisons are true to life, just billed adjusted. His random height bill range is weird, similar to John Tenta's was all over the place from 6'4 - 6'8", and he was right smack in the middle.

dicksock said on 11/Oct/08
KingNick you are the man. How on earth did you find that? I wonder if that is a real height chart or do Kane and Taker just have big boots on.

KingNick said on 5/Oct/08
dicksock, is this it?

Click Here

Here's UT/Viscera staredown (I think well before Vis had big boots):

Click Here

dicksock said on 4/Oct/08
Vicera is 6'8 in boots. I used to have a WWF magizine where they had a police line up photo with all the tallest people in the WWF and he was about 6'8 in boots. Besides he was about the same height as the undertaker in a match I saw on youtube. I'd give him a max of 6'8 and min of 6'7.5. He was also weighed on TV about 8 years ago. He weighed 480 lbs legit. I wish I could find the magizine because I'd post it.

M.o.r.g said on 2/Oct/08
Mattiew_- says on 30/Apr/08
IF you really think he wasn't much bigger than King Kong Bundy you should rewatch the Survivor Series where they were each in opposite teams ...

Btw it is funny how half of the posters here are 6'6+ 250 ---> Is the whole WWE posting on the Viscera page ???

LOL yeah theyre all "big hard men" on this site.They must all be like 6'10 at least XD

Clay said on 22/Aug/08
He was released 2 weeks ago.

Alex2 said on 15/Aug/08
Viscera is 6'7" no more no less, havnt sene him on WWE in ages.

Anonymous said on 30/Apr/08
Danimal says on 30/Apr/08


I never said it does.
True, billed weights does not mean 100% accuracy.

Danimal said on 30/Apr/08
Ghost says on 17/Apr/08
Danimal,

V being billed as 568 lbs doesn't make it a fact.

I never said it does.

Mattiew_- said on 30/Apr/08
IF you really think he wasn't much bigger than King Kong Bundy you should rewatch the Survivor Series where they were each in opposite teams ...

Btw it is funny how half of the posters here are 6'6+ 250 ---> Is the whole WWE posting on the Viscera page ???

Alex2 said on 17/Apr/08
Oh Jeremy your back! So do you finally have any proof to claim your height? Thanks,

Ghost said on 17/Apr/08
Danimal,

V being billed as 568 lbs doesn't make it a fact.

Jeremy said on 16/Apr/08
Big Show and Viscera are headed for an early grave at their weight, come on, I agree with this Ryan person. I am taller than Ryan and I now weigh 297 lbs. as of today. And at just close to 300 I already look big for my height.

MK said on 11/Apr/08
Danimal says on 10/Apr/08
Remember how Yokozuna's weight jumped from 505 pounds to 660 pounds?

Was'nt that (ironically) just after Yokozuna had been given time off because of his exesive weight gain, which as we all know was the begining of the end for him.

Danimal said on 10/Apr/08
495 pounds was before the king of the ring.

Remember how Yokozuna's weight jumped from 505 pounds to 660 pounds?

MK said on 10/Apr/08
Danimal says on 9/Apr/08
Actually, he went from 495 to 568 as Mabel.

Was that before or after King of the ring '95 though, befre that he was always billed around 500lbs, yet after he became 'King' Mable suddenly he was 568lbs. I suppose its better for heels to weigh even more (excluding Mark Henry bizzarly).

Danimal said on 9/Apr/08
Actually, he went from 495 to 568 as Mabel.

MK said on 9/Apr/08
Yes he has gone from 503lbs to 568lbs as Mable, then 556lbs as Viscera, then 497 as 'the worlds largest love machine' and now 487 as BBV. I dont personally think there's been more than a 20 pound shift either way through the whole course of his career.

Danimal said on 8/Apr/08
brother_h says on 8/Apr/08
his heaviest was 530lbs =O!

Wrong. He was being billed as 569 pounds in his later stages of being Mabel.

brother_h said on 8/Apr/08
his heaviest was 530lbs =O!

Danimal said on 7/Apr/08
He has also been billed at 6'10". I give him 6'6".

MK said on 7/Apr/08
Ryan Ennis says on 6/Apr/08
i am 6'7" 242 lbs. Viscera could die at over 450 lbs. and at 6'7" himself. No man should weigh 450 or more pounds.


Nor should any woman;)

Alex2 said on 1/Apr/08
6'6.5 sounds fair, though could be 6'7

Paul Roadman said on 6/Mar/08
6'6.5" 250 lbs. here , Viscera needs to lose at least 200 lbs. he is obese! I peaked at 328 in 2001. And I agree with 6'6 1/2" I saw Viscera, same height as me but about twice my current weight

vinnie beere said on 18/Feb/08
im 6'5 340lbs in real life i guess that makes me the next big show by wrestling inflation huh by average they jack up the height about 2 inches and the weight by 40 lbs for bigger guys so im 6'7 almost 400lbs and im a bodybuilder/powerlifter so jeeze im a monster in the WWE

Danimal said on 20/Dec/07
Gamma_2008 is called both a "gimmick" account and/or a "troll". Those people are bored (like us) and wants to cause controversy for the sake of bothering me.

brother_h said on 20/Dec/07
wow...6'2....so i guess if i became a wrestler ill be 6'8 =O! and then put down as 6'6 =O!! but im really 6'5.5 =O!!! and then we find out im really 6'1 =O!!!!
weird....hold me mummy

Anonymous said on 26/Nov/07
Gamma, I think you need some glasses urgently. There

elliot said on 16/Nov/07
well kane is about 6'8 to 6'9 and viscera next to him is about 2 to 3 inches less not much of a difference so vis is bout 6'5 to 6'6 maybe at most almost 6'7 no more than at

Gamma_2008 said on 2/Nov/07
Big Daddy V is around a good 6'2 barefoot. Kane (6'3.5) edges him, possible Big daddy V wore lifts to give him more of monster heel stance against his opponents.

JT said on 31/Aug/06
Viscera looks as tall as 6'7" or 6'8" Max Starks (Click Here). The soles on Viscera's boots are pretty big but are probably no thicker than the soles on an average casual shoe or tennis shoe, which is what Starks and Big Ben are probably wearing in that photo.

James said on 26/Feb/06
Cena is around 6 foot, www.myspace.com/johncenasspace he puts himself as a body type of 6 foot.

Alex said on 13/Feb/06
Jason, look at this picture. Cena could only be 6'0 I think, but nothing under that though. Also in this picture this is before his rapper gimmick and hes in boots too, not sneakers. But Angle could have bigger footwear though...
http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/02/cenaangle.jpg