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

Sand Dunes wrote:

Think about it, women love tall men.

No. Women love men between 6'1" and 6'4". Any taller and they get progressively more frightening with every inch.

Sand Dunes wrote:And, you could still be a competitive runner look at Jack Bacheler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Bacheler

No. That is like saying you could be Bekele because you are 5'6". Stupid thing to say.

For the record, I am 6'9"

Bringer of the Tall Truuuuth wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

Think about it, women love tall men.

No. Women love men between 6'1" and 6'4". Any taller and they get progressively more frightening with every inch.

Sand Dunes wrote:And, you could still be a competitive runner look at Jack Bacheler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Bacheler

No. That is like saying you could be Bekele because you are 5'6". Stupid thing to say.

For the record, I am 6'9"

Well actually Bekele is closer to 5'4.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Well actually Bekele is closer to 5'4.

https://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/be/kenenisa-bekele-1.html

Wiki had him at 5'6" but I am inclined to believe you.

Do you think Bacheler was really 6'7"? I see him documented on Wiki as 6'7" but if you look at pics of him with Pre and Shorter, he doesn't look that tall. He looks closer to 6'3".

Bringer of the Tall Truuuuth wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

Well actually Bekele is closer to 5'4.

https://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/be/kenenisa-bekele-1.html

Wiki had him at 5'6" but I am inclined to believe you.

Do you think Bacheler was really 6'7"? I see him documented on Wiki as 6'7" but if you look at pics of him with Pre and Shorter, he doesn't look that tall. He looks closer to 6'3".

Let's settle this:

I'm another 5'7" guy in his 50s, but I'm built more like an all around athlete than a runner. When I was in my 20s folks often guessed I was a gymnast or running back because of big thighs and a broad back. Always had nice hair and a great smile. Never had a problem with women, jobs, clothes, bullies, etc.

At my age, I really appreciate my size as I seem to have a lot less joint problems than my old teammates from soccer, basketball and football. Airline travel is easy. Doing chores like working in the attic or under the house is no big deal.

My best friend is 6'3" and I would have no interest in ever being taller than that, as he right at the cusp of where height becomes an issue.

If I had to choose between the two I would go with 6'7". I have no idea what it's like being 5'7". I think I might have been that tall in the 3rd grade, not sure. I didn't get to ride a lot of kiddy rides when I was small because I was too big. On the other hand I got to ride some really cool rides where you had to be 4' tall but my friends couldn't go with me. Yes, two inches shorter at 6'7" would be nice. There are a lot of obstacles to being too tall. One of them is finding shoes that fit. "Do you have these in a size 17?" is often met with blank stares. (I'm really a 16.5 but no one has those) I made my own bed as it was much cheaper to do and it's 8' long. It's so nice to stretch out my legs. Hotel beds are a problem. Airline seats are just terrible. Uber is a great idea but they all drive Priuses. Why can't doorways be a standard 7'0" as a lot of buildings have 8'0" ceilings? Store bought furniture is always awkward and the tables are never high enough. Forget computer desks, they are completely useless and keyboards are too small as well. Using the functions on an iPhone isn't that fun either.

I think 6'2" would be ideal with size 12 feet.

6'7'' and you look like a circus animal. I would go 5'7''

I'm 6'4" and am very happy with my height. I really do feel being tall commands some degree of respect from people, whether merited or not. I haven't been 5'7" since I was 12, and can't imagine being that short now.

To answer the question though, I'd say 6'7". Adding another 3 inches to my height wouldn't be ideal, but seems far, far better than losing 9 inches...

Well, I'm 6'6". I'm also old - 61. 6'4" might be a bit more manageable but I have to believe being taller is way better then being short. I've been stared at my whole life, so I'm thoroughly used to it. Buying clothes and sometimes shoes can be a pain it's true. And airplane seats - forget it.

I am not a graceful runner though I've had a good and lengthy "career". Only one knee issue in all these years. One of my closest friends is 5'5" at most. I admire him on many levels. He has none of the Napoleonic issues you often see in a short guy. We never talk about our height differential. It's not an issue for me and I don't think it is for him either.

I'm 6'1", so exactly in between those two heights.

For me it's 6'7" for sure, not close. It might hamper my running, sure, but I would have been SICKO at basketball. I was already really good in my prime at 6'1".

5 Foot Nothin, 100 and Nothin wrote:

However, the question is, does a 38" run and jump vert give you a serious shot at playing in the NBA at 6'7"?

No, not without world-class shooting, passing, and defensive skills to go with it.

If you dedicated your life to bball from a young age AND had those athletic abilities, you have maybe a 1% chance.

in terms of social interaction at 5'7" about 70% of women are your height or shorter.

may 2018 publication

In the United States, the average adult female height is 63.7 inches (approximately 5 feet 3 inches) and 168.5 pounds, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). We have seen a significant increase in the average height and weight of women since 1960 when the American woman weighed 140.2 pounds.

The average height increased during that time period, but by a much smaller margin — 63.1 to 63.7 inches. As a result of this disproportionate increase in weight, the average body mass index of women is now 29.8, which falls into the category of overweight. By comparison, the average body mass index of women in 1960 was 24.9, which is on the high end of normal.

Slow Bro wrote:

5 Foot Nothin, 100 and Nothin wrote:

However, the question is, does a 38" run and jump vert give you a serious shot at playing in the NBA at 6'7"?

No, not without world-class shooting, passing, and defensive skills to go with it.

If you dedicated your life to bball from a young age AND had those athletic abilities, you have maybe a 1% chance.

Indeed. Kobe Bryant was that height. Basketball is now an extremely satured world wide sport with tons of talent. Consider how obsessed with basketball Kobe Bryant was (and still is). Knowledgeable fans of the sport can attest.

Size informs but it’s not about the dog in the fight, but the fight in the dog.

(“The little corporal” was 5’7”)

How about 5'7" tall with 8"

or

6'7" with only 6"

Males Only

othersizemattersalso wrote:

How about 5'7" tall with 8"

or

6'7" with only 6"

Males Only

Flaccid or not?

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 NBA minimum for a player with 0 years of experience is ~$840K annually. 2012xxx isn't saying that he would be LeBron at 6'7", but a very athletic person at 6'7" could be the last bench rider on a bad team and make almost a million a year. So, by that logic it is profitible to be 6'7" and athletic since most people that tall aren't. Also, this is a running site and I am assuming he has good quickness and stamina which most 6'7" guys lack which would give him a huge advantage.

Also, if he wasn't good enough to be a bench rider in the NBA, the Euro League still pays a median of about 65K which for most professions is above average starting.

You are vastly over estimating the athleticism of the average 6'7" male. A person with state level track athleticism if given a height of 6'7" would crush most guys that tall. there is a reason Usain Bolt is an outlier being 6'5", guys that tall usually aren't overly athletic.

I had a high school teammate, Vic Beasley, who plays DE for the Falcons now. He was fundamentally not that good at basketball, meaning dribbling and shooting were sub-par. However, he was 6'4" 210 with a 40 something vertical. He still got offered D1 scholarships for basketball and had he been 6'7"-6'9" I guarantee he would be in the NBA cause his athleticism is on par with LeBron's.

I had another high school teammate who was 6'10" and maybe 200. He couldn't even dunk. There were plenty of other people in football, basketball, and track that were more average (5'6"-5'9") height that were way more athletic than guys I know that got scholarships to play college ball, the difference was that the guys who got scholarships were 6'2"-6'5". Think back to the people you saw compete and competed with and who was more athletic, from what I've seen guys over 6'4" are generally very un-athletic

Athleticism with height is very rare.