How much hyperbole is involved...

[NotReallyaGoodUN]

When WWE makes claims about the stats (height and weight specifically speaking) of their wrestlers?

I know it's an odd question and I thought it fits best here, but it's been lingering on the back of my mind for a while now as I've been getting back into wrestling and watching older PPVs.

I know for certain that Taker and Kane's stats were ridiculously exaggerated when they were at the peak of their popularity in the 90's. I was pretty young back then and I don't recall the details, and as I was about 8-10 then I still didn't know wrestling was scripted. (Ah....the innocent days.) I remember thinking sometime in 2002, when they said one or the other was 7 foot or something. I remember thinking..."Yeah, that's a big pile of bullshit right there."

Was/Is Batista seriously 6'6? Orton 6'4? I have a very difficult time believing HBK was/is anywhere near 6 foot 1 inches.

Looking back at Hell in a Cell 2009, I cannot envision Orton being anything more than 6'2, somewhere around 210-215 pounds max. He seemed to have shed a lot of weight during that time.

What do you guys think? Just how much hyperbole is involved? What are the actual stats of the wrestlers, if available?

 

[Weez]

Oh, they've exaggerated stats for a while now, but.. not as bad as they used to. Like... Seeing Shaq stand eye to eye with Big show, you know they're not bullshitting his height, but (as much as I hate to bring this guy up) Benoit was billed as 6' I believe, and iirc, he was actually like 5'9"

 

[Mick Donalds]

Seems like they always make the height adjustments for damn near everybody. The Rock ain't no 6'7 and Batista isn't 6'6.

 

[Deezy]

Larger than life status needs inflated numbers, Andre wasn't 7' 4", Giant Gonzales wasn't 8'. HBK was never near 200 lbs. it's like wrestling is based of hyperbole isn't it?!?!