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

Hear me out bro wrote:

I'll take 5'7" with the extra 12" down in my pants.

And what animal are you gonna use that extra 12 on? Sure isn't gonna be a human female

I wouldn't want to be either, but if I had to pick I would rather be 6'7. At 5'7 you are generally going to be limited to girls 5'6 or less. Probably a good bit less because girls still want to wear heels and be shorter than their dude. So you are really looking at girls 5'4 or less. I see way more girls that are taller say 5'9-6' that I want to bang compared to 5'4 or less.

Agreed that like 6'2-6'3 is the ideal height.

PhysicianByTrade wrote:

Discuss.

male or female?

grim wrote:

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

I say 6'1", but I'd love to be your height. (I'm not 6'1", sadly)

To the OP, probably 5'7" because when you are 6'7", everybody notices your height and I imagine that it would get pretty annoying after a while.

If you said 5'5" or 6'7", however, I may pick 6'7".

6'7" no doubt. 5'7" is pretty short. Short enough that a lot of women are taller than you.

6'7" you can still drive a normal car, buy normal clothes, and sleep in a king size bed. You would also get way more ladies.

Rainy Day wrote:

5'7" is pretty short. Short enough that a lot of women are taller than you.

I don't know where all you guys are hanging out. 5'7" is taller than ~80% and only 1" away from being as tall as 95% of women.

If you're 6'7 with decent basketball skills you don't even have to put your name out there, a scholarship will come find you.

As someone who comes in at a legit 6'4 (not like most who claim these types of heights), I think people are underestimating how tall 6'7 really is. For example, I see someone taller than me maybe once every month. Even if I'm walking around in NYC I may only see 1-2 people in a whole day who are taller than me. The majority of people who ask me how tall I am are shocked to learn that I'm "only" 6'4 because of how most people think they're taller than they really are.

6'7 is f*cking tall.

Easy one... wrote:

As someone who comes in at a legit 6'4 (not like most who claim these types of heights), I think people are underestimating how tall 6'7 really is. For example, I see someone taller than me maybe once every month. Even if I'm walking around in NYC I may only see 1-2 people in a whole day who are taller than me. The majority of people who ask me how tall I am are shocked to learn that I'm "only" 6'4 because of how most people think they're taller than they really are.

6'7 is f*cking tall.

6'7" (79 inches) isn't even on the chart - it blows way past the 95th percentile.

5'7" because that would be better for running than 6'7".

XY wrote:

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)

height doesn't effect life span in any way, especially in America where everyone can get all the calories they need. Show me all the midgets living over 100...

So I am about 6'7" (probably closer to 6'6") but because I don't measure myself, let us say that I am 6'7". I would like to go ahead and correct some statements and add my own.

First to 2012xxx, no you couldn't make the NBA. You might have a point that at 1 foot shorter they have made it, but I bet they would have. I am reasonably athletic and have played a bit of basketball. I use to play with some of the players on our basketball team. Even though they were 6-8 inches shorter than I was, they scored on me at will. I figure if I had dedicated myself to playing basketball rather than running I could have played mid-major D1. Those guys are really, really, really good.

Yes you can fit into normal cars, kind of. I have issues with my knees because I have to twist them a little to drive my truck, essentially all vehicles have this problem (the knees go to the side of the steering wheel instead of under it).

I fit on a queen size bed.

As far as dick size, I don't think it scales as I am still slightly below average.

Airplanes suck.

The physical presence is very nice, ladies are attracted by it and people are more likely to treat you respectfully because of it.

I am reasonably certain it hurt my running. I managed to run 15:25 5k in spite of the height, but if I had weighed less, I probably would have been injured less and faster (my guess is I would have gotten into the 14's but not past. I probably also would not have quit due to nagging injuries.

It is a little bit weird trying to kiss girls that are a full foot shorter than you. Usually I physically pick them up.

Physically it is going to be more difficult as I get older. Tall people have a tendency to have worse knee, lower back and neck problems (these can be worked on to make better i.e. good posture). For instance I don't ever play basketball because my knees always hurt for the next two days afterwards.

With all that being said, I would pick 6'7" over anything under 6'.

Interesting question. I'm 5'11 (well I used to be, might have shrunk a bit with age) 5'7" is in the average range and 6'7" is more of a freak.

Up to age 35 I would pick 6'7" because of social advantages and career advantages. After age 45, 5'7" for general comfort and because socially and career-wise you are pretty set.

Between 35 and 45 a toss up.

I choose 6'7", not close.

lol @ thinking being 6'7" gets you some kind of a pass into the NBA.

If you're 7'2" and highly athletic, then you have a great shot, but there are a million 6'7" guys that will never be good enough.

I'm actually about 6'1" and I've spent a lot more time trying to improve my basketball game than I have running. I'm fairly confident that if I had been 6'7" in high school, I would have developed into a pretty decent college player. Maybe I could have even played professionally in one of the minor leagues overseas. But I would not have sniffed the NBA--even at 6'7"--and I used to be DAMN good at basketball.

quack caller outer wrote:

XY wrote:

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)

height doesn't effect life span in any way, especially in America where everyone can get all the calories they need. Show me all the midgets living over 100...

Height does effect lifespan, it's just not uni-directional.

Very short or very tall people tend to have shorter lifespans than average height people. The difference isn't really noticeable until you're a couple standard deviations away from norm though (so just because you're 6'4 doesn't mean you won't live longer than someone 5'6... but if you're near 7' or 4'6, you probably aren't going to outlive the Average Joe).

rger wrote:

2012xxx wrote:

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.

Delusions of grandeur.

The one that is delusional is you if you don't think a foot in height makes a huge difference in whether one can be competitive in basketball. But go on believing the LBJ would be just as coveted if he were 5'8" if that does anything for you.

As a skinny dude, I'd pick 5'7. If I had a more athletic build, I'd go with 6'7.

6'7 and really skinny = too many negatives and I don't see the positives. I don't think the giraffe build commands as much respect from other men and interest from women as, say, the LeBron James build, or the slimmer but still jacked Kobe Bryant build.

Because I've coped with being 5'5" for such a long time, I would be eternally grateful for two more vertical inches. Being 6'7" would be flat-out inconvenient.

2012xxx wrote:

rger wrote:

Delusions of grandeur.

The one that is delusional is you if you don't think a foot in height makes a huge difference in whether one can be competitive in basketball. But go on believing the LBJ would be just as coveted if he were 5'8" if that does anything for you.

No one said that height doesn't influence your ability to play basketball.

I am pretty sure what the guy meant was that simply being 6'7 and coordinated does not mean you can sign an NBA contract, as 6'7 is very "average" for NBA players -- so you'll have to outshine them in some other area in order to be able to play.

Being 6'7 and coordinated will probably be enough to get you onto the court in college. But you won't get drafted on that alone - you'd probably have to play SG or SF, which means you have to be a good defender and shooter (or great at one or the other) with great basketball skills - all relative to other basketball players of the same height - to get anywhere near the pros.

Just being tall (even if you're still coordinated) isn't enough to play professional basketball.