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

(realized I never actually answered the topic of the thread)Though I'd prefer my own height (~6') I'd say the same as this guy, he wraps it up pretty nicely:

HaileUnlikely wrote:

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.

Of course, I agree with everything you said. And in my personal case that extra foot of height would be what I'd need to get into the NBA. I know plenty of other 5'7" guys that have more average levels of athleticism that even a foot more would not make the difference so my point was not that all 5'7" people would make the NBA if they were 6'7". Was just talking about myself when I answered the OP's question originally. I can run faster than most of them, my vertical is similar (can dunk even today, though my smaller palms prevent me from impressive dunks) and my strength is fine for a guard. Now I can't shoot as well as SGs or SFs in the NBA but it's not my job so I don't work on it. If I was 6'7", I'd work like crazy at it and probably get quite good at it (maybe not Reggie Miller/Larry Bird good, but probably Richard Jefferson good which is good enough to make it).

grim wrote:

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

That's not the question, idiot. Obviously most of us would keep out current height. You are a boob and a retard.

To answer the question: I'd take 6'7".

Funny enough, I'm five seven and my friend is six seven. When we hang out we probably look like a circus show. Anyway, when I was young I hated being short. Now in my 30s I don't care as much. When he was young he didn't care about being super tall, and now he hates it. He probably works it in his favor with the ladies, but overall he hates it. Five seven wins.

2012xxx wrote:

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 believes that LBJ would be as good at 5'8", they are just saying the OP wouldn't be in the NBA if he was 6'7".

So absurd. No one has any reason to believe your outlandish claims unless you are holding back on us. Have you played basketball at a high level before?

5'7'' for sure. 6'7'' is freak show status. Plus I don't want to have to go through the hassle of finding pants that fit at that height. Clothing shopping must be a PITA.

BAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHA

FEEEEEE FIIIIIIII FOOOOOOOO FUUUUMMMMMMM

5-7 for sure. It might make getting women MARGINALLY harder, but at least you won't have crippling joint problems when you're older. I went to high school with a guy who was 7-1 by his junior year. He won a D1 championship but had tons of injury problems from his size, and had to retire after college.

And by the way, increased height is correlated with shorter life span. Check this out:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071721/figure/fig1/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071721/

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.

This.

At 6'7" is the AVERAGE height in the NBA. You have to be an incredibly elite athlete at 6'7" to even be a bench player. Every guy in the NBA at that height can handle the ball at an elite level, shoot, and run. For your height to really be a factor, you need to be a 7 footer.

Fun discussion. First, 6'7" is a little extra tall for normal life. If it were 6'4", it would be a no brainer because we could theoretically run well, get promoted at work and score with the ladies. 6'7" assumes we play basketball.

Now, 6'7" in high school with reasonable/good coordination makes you a good basketball player and will likely get you to play in college. If you utilize those opportunities well, you could certainly use that above average level of success for job opportunities, etc...

If we were 6'7", we wouldn't pick running as our pursuit.

The caveat is that if you are 6'7" and not athletic, you are fairly awkward and gangly. It is assumed, just as we have, that height makes you athletic in certain arenas. That height without any athleticism is not so good.

As far as chicks go, don't underestimate the Napoleon Complex. Running wise, I'm average height, even a bit tall. I think my taller friends envy my height I when it comes to running.

When you're around a lot of other athletes of different disciplines, there is a mutual respect even though we all have different body types optimized for our specific sport

Well it took 3 pages but finally someone came up with the major downside to being 6-7. Back and joint problems. Just about all the over 6-2 guys I know have real issues even in early middle age.

So, I would much rather be 6-7 IF no long-term height related injuries. I could easily live with the head-bumping, cramped car stuff just to have the prescence of a tall guy. In general ife would be easier than a 5-7.

This guy didn't answer the question. Let's move him down to 5-7

Lettuce Run wrote:

I went to high school with a guy who was 7-1 by his junior year. He won a D1 championship but had tons of injury problems from his size, and had to retire after college.

Brian Zoubek?

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

Mottram is 6'2", not 6'7". So not overly tall, but not overly short. Just looks like a giant against the rest who are 5'10" or under.

Just an FYI, height in the NBA is generally measured with shoes on. To get the actual height of an NBA player, you should subtract an inch and a half. So Kobe is more like 6'4.5", and Lebron is 6'6.5". So yeah, 6'7" is pretty damn tall. I'd prefer 5'7", which really isn't that short.

Outlandish claims - ok, an annonymous poster who has never met me and doesn't even know who I am knows more about me than I know about myself. Fine I give up so feel free to disregard my reason/caveat-based answer to the OP if you like. As to your question, no I was a football/track guy in college.

Going out on a limb wrote:

Lettuce Run wrote:

I went to high school with a guy who was 7-1 by his junior year. He won a D1 championship but had tons of injury problems from his size, and had to retire after college.

Brian Zoubek?

Wow, that's an impressive guess. He now owns a cream puff bakery, by the way. It's called Dream Puffz.