Would you rather be 5'7" or 6'7" tall?

6'7'', easy. i'd dunk over people all day. girls also love tall guys.

benefits of being short: more agile and quicker. but then again, look at mottram

So Tom Cruise or RuPaul?

5'7" is in the normal human range 6'7" is an outlier but not an abnormal height... going with 5'7" on this one.

5'8.4 was the average height for US males when I was born.

PhysicianByTrade wrote:

Discuss.

First of all, on a RUNNING site, you SHOULD expect people to answer 5'7", for SURELY your distance running is affected if you are 6'7" (though I know there are some good tall runners out there).

Besides that though, as a short guy myself, let me tell you all the problems I just don't have that I hear tall people complain about all the time:

1) My queen-sized bed is plenty big for my wife and me. So, we're comfortable in it, AND since we don't NEED a King-sized bed, we have more usable space in our bedroom.

2) I can easily fit in ANY car...sports car, tiny econo car, whatever.

3) I'm NEVER cramped on an airplane. My wife has a cousin who is 6'10', and he has to duck to enter rooms, must fly first class to be even remotely comfortable, has to drive big vehicles, and on and on, and his feet STILL hang over the end of his king-sized bed. No thanks.

5'7" all day every day over 6'7".

I'm 5'11" and being the spoiled American that I am I always wish to be taller. 6'2" would be optimal. Considering I probably won't run competitively after college, I'm going to have to go with 6'7".

Can we abstain if need be?

Around 6'2 is probably the optimum height. At 6'7, you are at the level where you just don't fit into most stuff.

t94bell wrote:

I'm 5'11" and being the spoiled American that I am I always wish to be taller. 6'2" would be optimal. Considering I probably won't run competitively after college, I'm going to have to go with 6'7".

Can we abstain if need be?

Flagpole wrote:

5'7" all day every day over 6'7".

Yeah, but wouldn't that be gaining a foot in height for you?

Easy for you to pick that height.

I would choose 6'7" but that is only due to the money one can make in pro basketball.

If there was no big $ NBA (or decent $ Euro League) and/or if the height came with the condition that my ball skills would decrease such that the new height would still not take me to the pros, then I would choose the shorter height as there is not much benefit to being a giant if you can't profit from it and at that point the negatives would outweigh the positives.

So you are saying that if you were 6'7" you would be playing pro basketball?

* wrote:

So you are saying that if you were 6'7" you would be playing pro basketball?

Yes, again assuming of course I got this extra foot in height without trading in any of my speed, agility or coordination to get it.

2012xxx wrote:

* wrote:

So you are saying that if you were 6'7" you would be playing pro basketball?

Yes, again assuming of course I got this extra foot in height without trading in any of my speed, agility or coordination to get it.

I'm assuming you played D1 in a major conference then? To have the skills needed to be a pro at 6'7", you would need to at least be that talented. MJ was 6'6", LBJ is 6'8" - you are not a physical freak in the NBA at 6'7" by any stretch.

oatmeal + water wrote:

6'7'', easy. i'd dunk over people all day. girls also love tall guys.

benefits of being short: more agile and quicker. but then again, look at mottram

Why look at Mottram? Is he quick and agile?

rger wrote:

2012xxx wrote:

Yes, again assuming of course I got this extra foot in height without trading in any of my speed, agility or coordination to get it.

I'm assuming you played D1 in a major conference then? To have the skills needed to be a pro at 6'7", you would need to at least be that talented. MJ was 6'6", LBJ is 6'8" - you are not a physical freak in the NBA at 6'7" by any stretch.

Why would you assume that knowing that I am 5'7"? And no, not every 6'7" NBA player is as good as MJ or LBJ. And not every one of them would have been good enough to play D1 major conference ball if they lost a foot in height. The skills needed to be successful as a 5'7" PG in D1 ball is much different that that needed to be a 6'7" SG or SF in the NBA. Do you really think Josh Howard or Shawn Marion or Gerald Wallace would have been able to make a D1 Big conference team if they were a full foot shorter? More likely they would have chosen another sport.

Maybe he was only like 5'2? 6'7 (or even 6'10) isn't enough to really stand out in basketball.

rger wrote:

2012xxx wrote:

Yes, again assuming of course I got this extra foot in height without trading in any of my speed, agility or coordination to get it.

I'm assuming you played D1 in a major conference then? To have the skills needed to be a pro at 6'7", you would need to at least be that talented. MJ was 6'6", LBJ is 6'8" - you are not a physical freak in the NBA at 6'7" by any stretch.

Delusions of grandeur.

I'm 6'2". Happy with my height, its perfect.

6'7" easily

Bad

Your life span will be shorter

Trouble with clothes

You could be a big dufus (much depends on your build and looks)

Clothes, cars, seats generally not suited for you. Ergonomics would suck

Good

Potentail for physical prowess in major sports( b-ball, NFL, MLB)

Your Johnson would be proportional to height

Commanding presence

You could be a major stud (much depends on your build and looks)

grim wrote:

I'm 6'2". Happy with my height, its perfect.

And your point? OP said 5'7" or 6'7" ...clearly you cannot read.

You are asking me if I'd rather be four inches taller or 8 inches shorter. I'm going to have to go with taller, Bob.