///Vega+++
All Star
*reminisces about Barkley being 6'6"
Bball reference will never tell you how "big" players from the 60s vs now were/are:
- Thread starter dantheman9758
- Start date
dantheman9758
All Star
Go to 1 minute mark, he says he's "about 6-4 and 3/4's" and I think he's right, 1992 Olympics also measured him a bit more precisely at 6-4 and 5/8ths. He had very long arms and was HEAVY though. 250lbs at his absolute lightest (when he slimmed down in his prime), 300lbs at his heaviest. As a rookie, he was 286lbs.
Now, there's this misleading pic of his mugshot floating around but let me explain why his height cannot be deduced from this:
1.) He's probably wearing shoes
2.) Notice how his side profile indicates his height at 6-8, than facing the camera it indicates 6-7? Why'd he shrink an inch? (see below)...
Because of the optical effect that can be clearly seen here in this pic of Oscar:
If the ruler being held by his trainer wasn't in the pic how tall do you think Oscar would be? 6-6 right? But he ISN'T 6-6, the ruler is needed to show where his head's height actually is in relation to the scale chart. The fact that he's closer to the camera makes him look "taller" against his backdrop. It's just an illusion. Same optical trick is going on with the Barkley police height-chart. That's why when he's turned to his side his height increases by another inch... cause he get's even further from the backdrop and closer to the camera.
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you really not see what the camera lenses are doing to subjects? - filling them out proportionately more and more the greater the level of zoom? I know Dwight is big but he's not cartoon-like big like some those 30,000 dollar NBA 600mm zoom lenses make him out to be, nor was Bill Russell stick figure skinny like the crude 60's 35 and 50mm lenses make him out to be. That's my underlying point.
Take a pic of Dwight with a normal point and shoot camera with no better lens technology than the old 1960's lenses and suddenly he looks human again. He's still 270lbs... but the lens changes how filled out he appears.
I'm just trying to point these things out because they aren't immediately obvious to everyone and they can greatly influence our perception of things if we aren't aware of them.
bruh... I cant even remember the last time someone has brought up how "big" (pause) dwight is... everyone says hes too small to even play his position and would be a PF if he played in another era.. so I have absolutely no idea why you tryna shyt on Dwight comparing him to Wilt size wise and using the camera angles as your point..
People just say he has big shoulders, thats it..
Like I said Dwight is more similiar to Lebron James size than someone like Hibbert.. You dont think its not right to compare a 6'9 270 lb to a 7'1 305 lb? I mean why not compare Lebron to Kobe size wise then ?? Or Kobe to John Wall size then? The difference would be the same as comparing Dwight to Wilt, the only similarities they share is they played the same position..
the rest of your post might be on point, but comparing Wilt to Dwight and using camera zooms for your arguments is just
status to me right now.. its just a horrible example
dantheman9758
All Star
This thread is about the how pictures and and list info from the 1960's is misleading when compared directly to pictures and list info of the current era. I don't give a crap about Dwight - he just happend to be in a pic I used as an example. I coulda posted a pic of anyone and my two points remain the same. The only one caught up in a comparison of Wilt and Dwight is you, that isn't what I was on about at all.bruh... I cant even remember the last time someone has brought up how "big" (pause) dwight is... everyone says hes too small to even play his position and would be a PF if he played in another era.. so I have absolutely no idea why you tryna shyt on Dwight comparing him to Wilt size wise and using the camera angles as your point..
People just say he has big shoulders, thats it..
Like I said Dwight is more similiar to Lebron James size than someone like Hibbert.. You dont think its not right to compare a 6'9 270 lb to a 7'1 305 lb? I mean why not compare Lebron to Kobe size wise then ?? Or Kobe to John Wall size then? The difference would be the same as comparing Dwight to Wilt, the only similarities they share is they played the same position..
the rest of your post might be on point, but comparing Wilt to Dwight and using camera zooms for your arguments is just
EA
A Pound & A Prayer
Dan is right. Dwight Howard isn't as brolic as the camera makes him appear. I'm 6'5 (6'4 w/o shoes) and 260 and I looked just as big as him when I met him. My parents were confused when they saw me standing next to him because they were expecting dude to look Herculean lol.