Add a Comment282 comments
Average Guess (72 Votes)
5ft 10.54in (179.2cm)
5ft 10.54in (179.2cm)
Alex said on 5/Apr/06
Jason, my friend met Torrie and estimated her and said she was up to my eyebrow. That would put her at 5'9 but he could been off a bit and she could be shorter. 5'8 minimum though. She was a good 5 inches taller than 5'4 Trish Stratus everytime I see them though so 5'9 is pretty possible. Stacy 5'11 maybe? She could be 6'0 though.
Jason, my friend met Torrie and estimated her and said she was up to my eyebrow. That would put her at 5'9 but he could been off a bit and she could be shorter. 5'8 minimum though. She was a good 5 inches taller than 5'4 Trish Stratus everytime I see them though so 5'9 is pretty possible. Stacy 5'11 maybe? She could be 6'0 though.
Picky fellow. said on 1/Mar/06
Looking at her on dancing with the stars you can see she has a relatively long torso therfore it would be fair to say that her 41", 41.5", or 42" legs are based on going from the top of her hips/pelvis to the ground. Which generally translates into a 32" inseam if you are a guy and a 35" inseam if you are a woman.
So she still does have long legs. Quite nice.
Looking at her on dancing with the stars you can see she has a relatively long torso therfore it would be fair to say that her 41", 41.5", or 42" legs are based on going from the top of her hips/pelvis to the ground. Which generally translates into a 32" inseam if you are a guy and a 35" inseam if you are a woman.
So she still does have long legs. Quite nice.
SammyJ said on 26/Feb/06
I'm 6' tall and have a 36" inseam, my husband is 6'4" and has a 36" inseam so anything is possible.
I'm 6' tall and have a 36" inseam, my husband is 6'4" and has a 36" inseam so anything is possible.
Jason said on 25/Feb/06
You can't figure out all the hoopla over her, Nomi??? Most of us are male lol!
Stacy isn't taller than 5'11''.
Torrie 5'9''? Hmmm, I saw her in person close up at the show I went to last year (though not on level ground cuz of the ramp this time) and she appeared closer to 5'7-5'8''. Could be off because I wasn't on level ground with her, but she didn't appear to be all that tall.
You can't figure out all the hoopla over her, Nomi??? Most of us are male lol!
Stacy isn't taller than 5'11''.
Torrie 5'9''? Hmmm, I saw her in person close up at the show I went to last year (though not on level ground cuz of the ramp this time) and she appeared closer to 5'7-5'8''. Could be off because I wasn't on level ground with her, but she didn't appear to be all that tall.
Alex said on 16/Feb/06
Rob you could add a Torrie Wilson page maybe.
Rob you could add a Torrie Wilson page maybe.
Alex said on 16/Feb/06
Stacy is no way under 5'11. But she can look a solid 6'0 though, maybe because of her thin build. Stacy at 5'11, then that puts Torrie at about 5'9 I'd say.
Stacy is no way under 5'11. But she can look a solid 6'0 though, maybe because of her thin build. Stacy at 5'11, then that puts Torrie at about 5'9 I'd say.
carrigall said on 7/Feb/06
Keibler is 5'11 1/4, and her limbs are very long in proportion to her small head and torso. Add 3" heels to this (or 5" heels in WWE). Add to this, her pants usually have a flare, and her shoes are pointy, all of which augments the effect of her long leg length.
BTW, the beautiful 6'1 model Adriana Sklenarikova's 'leg length' is 48" (124 cm), but her inseam is probably only 40-42", depending on her shoes. Her bones are extremely long. She may have a benign variant of Marfan's syndrome, a disorder of collagen.
Keibler is 5'11 1/4, and her limbs are very long in proportion to her small head and torso. Add 3" heels to this (or 5" heels in WWE). Add to this, her pants usually have a flare, and her shoes are pointy, all of which augments the effect of her long leg length.
BTW, the beautiful 6'1 model Adriana Sklenarikova's 'leg length' is 48" (124 cm), but her inseam is probably only 40-42", depending on her shoes. Her bones are extremely long. She may have a benign variant of Marfan's syndrome, a disorder of collagen.
Anonymous said on 7/Feb/06
She's 5-11 on the button... wearing 3 inch heels or so with 6-2 Jerry Rice and 6-3 Master P (who you can give an inch to for their shoes)
http://www.stacymariekeibler.com/gallery/data/media/285/016.jpg
http://www.stacymariekeibler.com/gallery/data/media/285/071.jpg (shot of heels she's wearing in that picture).
She's 5-11 on the button... wearing 3 inch heels or so with 6-2 Jerry Rice and 6-3 Master P (who you can give an inch to for their shoes)
http://www.stacymariekeibler.com/gallery/data/media/285/016.jpg
http://www.stacymariekeibler.com/gallery/data/media/285/071.jpg (shot of heels she's wearing in that picture).
Alex said on 6/Feb/06
I am 6'0 a wear s size 34 inseam pants. Stacy could be 6'0, but 5'11 at the very minimum but I still see her at 6'0 possibly though. We almost never see her barefoot and shes in 3-4 inch heels often.
I am 6'0 a wear s size 34 inseam pants. Stacy could be 6'0, but 5'11 at the very minimum but I still see her at 6'0 possibly though. We almost never see her barefoot and shes in 3-4 inch heels often.
starwars23 said on 1/Feb/06
I am a 5'11.5" guy and I have 36 inch inseam, which is very long becuase I have a friend who is 6'2" with a 34 and another big ass friend who is 6'6" and a 36. Though I think that stacys legs have got to be longer then mine.
I am a 5'11.5" guy and I have 36 inch inseam, which is very long becuase I have a friend who is 6'2" with a 34 and another big ass friend who is 6'6" and a 36. Though I think that stacys legs have got to be longer then mine.
Xhavier said on 19/Jan/06
But it is possible that she does have a 41" inseam, just highly doubtful.
But it is possible that she does have a 41" inseam, just highly doubtful.
Xhavier said on 18/Jan/06
To: Raz and Anonymous
Some comments on legs.
Average male inseam is 30" and average female inseam is 31" (not accounting for the 2" to 3" difference in where the inseam is taken from on men vs. women).
Firsr we have Ms. Keibler's 41" legs. From what I can tell they do not mean that she has a 41" inseam, which is measured from the crotch to the ground. I would think it is from the top of her hips to the ground or from the top of her pelvis to the ground. I would ballpark that she has a 34" inseam, 35" at most.
Also in terms of measuring leg length, when I had my leg's x-rayed, doctor's x-rayed from the top of my pelvis to the ground.
My measured inseam is 37". I'm 6'3" so taking my measured inseam and dividing it by my height gives 49.3%, this proves your theory to some extent.
Now if I could actually straighten my legs, I'd have at least a 38" inseam and be 6'4", so an even 50% but that won't happen, also, if I were a woman my inseam would be 40" or 53.3% but thankfully I am not a woman--but I figured I would point that out just to show you that there are people with legs above your range.
Also to comment about pants sizes versus inseam. As I said my measured inseam is a 37". Usually I purchase a 36" inseam in pants and it fits perfectly, if they put the crotch incredibly low I could wear a 35" but that's rare, my dress pants are usually 36" or 36.5", with more fitted clothing I need a 37", and occassionally in pants I need a 38" (I tried some on recently that were a 36" leg and it was above my ankle). It all depends on the brand, the style, the fit, how they are made, and how much of the fabric you take up (I know someone who is a 32", who should wear a 32" or even 30" at times, but wears a 34"--big thighs).
And just to comment about the women with legs like anonymous was talking about-- :) just wonderful and I'd love to see pictures of these beautiful long legged tall women.
Have a nice day.
To: Raz and Anonymous
Some comments on legs.
Average male inseam is 30" and average female inseam is 31" (not accounting for the 2" to 3" difference in where the inseam is taken from on men vs. women).
Firsr we have Ms. Keibler's 41" legs. From what I can tell they do not mean that she has a 41" inseam, which is measured from the crotch to the ground. I would think it is from the top of her hips to the ground or from the top of her pelvis to the ground. I would ballpark that she has a 34" inseam, 35" at most.
Also in terms of measuring leg length, when I had my leg's x-rayed, doctor's x-rayed from the top of my pelvis to the ground.
My measured inseam is 37". I'm 6'3" so taking my measured inseam and dividing it by my height gives 49.3%, this proves your theory to some extent.
Now if I could actually straighten my legs, I'd have at least a 38" inseam and be 6'4", so an even 50% but that won't happen, also, if I were a woman my inseam would be 40" or 53.3% but thankfully I am not a woman--but I figured I would point that out just to show you that there are people with legs above your range.
Also to comment about pants sizes versus inseam. As I said my measured inseam is a 37". Usually I purchase a 36" inseam in pants and it fits perfectly, if they put the crotch incredibly low I could wear a 35" but that's rare, my dress pants are usually 36" or 36.5", with more fitted clothing I need a 37", and occassionally in pants I need a 38" (I tried some on recently that were a 36" leg and it was above my ankle). It all depends on the brand, the style, the fit, how they are made, and how much of the fabric you take up (I know someone who is a 32", who should wear a 32" or even 30" at times, but wears a 34"--big thighs).
And just to comment about the women with legs like anonymous was talking about-- :) just wonderful and I'd love to see pictures of these beautiful long legged tall women.
Have a nice day.
TheMan said on 7/Jan/06
Yeah 5,11 seems spot on i thougth she might have been 6,0 but 5,11 must be right then.
Yeah 5,11 seems spot on i thougth she might have been 6,0 but 5,11 must be right then.
175cm16andgrowing said on 7/Jan/06
Yes, WWE makes Lita 5'6'', Amy Dumas is 5'7''.
Yes, WWE makes Lita 5'6'', Amy Dumas is 5'7''.
Raz said on 7/Jan/06
Well, technically, you're somewhat correct. The leg, measured internally in the body (regardless of what's visible) is from the hip joint to the heel, but no-one would propose that someone with hips up to their ears, but with short inseam, has long legs. That's just silly!
Even sillier is the fact that the leg lengths reported for models aren't even for the actual leg length (hip joint to heel) but for the distance from the ilium (the top/outer part of the pelvis) to the heel. This distance is roughly 30% longer than the inseam.
And for the 41" inseam on a 6'4" body to be true, the inseam would have to be 54% of the body length. Even the models with reported longest legs (using the ultra-false ilium-to-heel measurement) don't have inseams longer than about 90 cm, at heights of around 185 cm. That's around 49% of the body length, and most long-legged people end up below 50%. I've never seen anyone with legs much longer than that, except maybe for freaks of nature like Alek Wek, whose inseam seems to be 51-52% of her 181 cm. You have to remember that when the inseam increases by 1%, the rest of the body decreases by 1%, so the difference in upper-body length between 49% and 54% inseam is 10%!!! That's a lot, considering pelvis and head are usually pretty much the same size between people of the same height. Not to mention what it looks like. We tend to see ratios rather than absolute lengths in cases like these, so if the legs become 1% longer, the ratio increases by an apparent 2%.
Also, don't mix up pant sizes used and the actual inseam. I don't doubt your female roomie needed pants with a 38" inseam, but I doubt that her legs were that long. It's possible, but that's so rare that it's unlikely.
I remember that I was suprised back in high school when a girl of average height (168-170 maybe) wore 34" Levi's. And they weren't too long or cut off. Yet she didn't have long legs at all. Maybe 76-78 cm or so. That's about 30" legs! I find that in general, actual inseam and inseam of pants differ by at least an inch or two for most people.
Well, technically, you're somewhat correct. The leg, measured internally in the body (regardless of what's visible) is from the hip joint to the heel, but no-one would propose that someone with hips up to their ears, but with short inseam, has long legs. That's just silly!
Even sillier is the fact that the leg lengths reported for models aren't even for the actual leg length (hip joint to heel) but for the distance from the ilium (the top/outer part of the pelvis) to the heel. This distance is roughly 30% longer than the inseam.
And for the 41" inseam on a 6'4" body to be true, the inseam would have to be 54% of the body length. Even the models with reported longest legs (using the ultra-false ilium-to-heel measurement) don't have inseams longer than about 90 cm, at heights of around 185 cm. That's around 49% of the body length, and most long-legged people end up below 50%. I've never seen anyone with legs much longer than that, except maybe for freaks of nature like Alek Wek, whose inseam seems to be 51-52% of her 181 cm. You have to remember that when the inseam increases by 1%, the rest of the body decreases by 1%, so the difference in upper-body length between 49% and 54% inseam is 10%!!! That's a lot, considering pelvis and head are usually pretty much the same size between people of the same height. Not to mention what it looks like. We tend to see ratios rather than absolute lengths in cases like these, so if the legs become 1% longer, the ratio increases by an apparent 2%.
Also, don't mix up pant sizes used and the actual inseam. I don't doubt your female roomie needed pants with a 38" inseam, but I doubt that her legs were that long. It's possible, but that's so rare that it's unlikely.
I remember that I was suprised back in high school when a girl of average height (168-170 maybe) wore 34" Levi's. And they weren't too long or cut off. Yet she didn't have long legs at all. Maybe 76-78 cm or so. That's about 30" legs! I find that in general, actual inseam and inseam of pants differ by at least an inch or two for most people.
Anonymous said on 7/Jan/06
Raz, you're totally off base as the inseam measurement isn't the measurement they use for "leg length". It's outseam which is heel to hip.
Furthermore, there are a good number of women in the 6'-6'3" range who take a 38" inch inseam (I actually roomed with a 6'1" woman in college who took a 38"). And some in the 6'4" and up range who even take a 40" or 41"!
Raz, you're totally off base as the inseam measurement isn't the measurement they use for "leg length". It's outseam which is heel to hip.
Furthermore, there are a good number of women in the 6'-6'3" range who take a 38" inch inseam (I actually roomed with a 6'1" woman in college who took a 38"). And some in the 6'4" and up range who even take a 40" or 41"!
Raz said on 5/Jan/06
Being a lover of long legs, I can tell you that her legs are nowehere near the absurd 104 cm stated eariler (not to mention 117 cm!). It's actually quite simple to find someone's leg length, if you have a full-body picture with feet visible, and where the person is standing up properly. Oh, the perspective has to be fairly level (no obvious bird's-eye or frog perspective). Then, measure from bottom of feet to crotch, and divide that by the measurement from feet to top of head. In Keibler's case, using 181 cm as her height, I find her legs to be approximately 88-90 cm (around 35 inches). Which is normal for a tall, leggy girl like her.
I don't think a single female exists, except for those who suffer from giant growth due to genetic problems or brain tumours, with legs as long as 104 cm. The girl would probably have to be 215-220 cm tall for that to be possible.
Being a lover of long legs, I can tell you that her legs are nowehere near the absurd 104 cm stated eariler (not to mention 117 cm!). It's actually quite simple to find someone's leg length, if you have a full-body picture with feet visible, and where the person is standing up properly. Oh, the perspective has to be fairly level (no obvious bird's-eye or frog perspective). Then, measure from bottom of feet to crotch, and divide that by the measurement from feet to top of head. In Keibler's case, using 181 cm as her height, I find her legs to be approximately 88-90 cm (around 35 inches). Which is normal for a tall, leggy girl like her.
I don't think a single female exists, except for those who suffer from giant growth due to genetic problems or brain tumours, with legs as long as 104 cm. The girl would probably have to be 215-220 cm tall for that to be possible.
Anonymous said on 27/Dec/05
Keibler is going to be a "celebrity" on Dancing with the Stars 2 in January, so any doubts should be put to rest since we'll have a lot of celebrities to compare her with.
Keibler is going to be a "celebrity" on Dancing with the Stars 2 in January, so any doubts should be put to rest since we'll have a lot of celebrities to compare her with.
Derek said on 8/Dec/05
Okay. 5'11" I would believe. But definitely no taller than that.
Okay. 5'11" I would believe. But definitely no taller than that.
tybor said on 7/Dec/05
Well I remember when torrie used to compete in fitness/figure competitions where they were officially measured (due to the classes being divided by height) and she was always listed as 5'9.5" She was one of the tallest competitors. I'm sure Stacy has at least a couple inches on torrie so 5'11 is not out of the question. And that being said it also shows wwe does tend to downgrade their taller divas.
Well I remember when torrie used to compete in fitness/figure competitions where they were officially measured (due to the classes being divided by height) and she was always listed as 5'9.5" She was one of the tallest competitors. I'm sure Stacy has at least a couple inches on torrie so 5'11 is not out of the question. And that being said it also shows wwe does tend to downgrade their taller divas.
Derek said on 6/Dec/05
Stacy over 6'0"? You're so funny. I bet you'd be a great comedian. There's no way Stacy is over 6'0". She's lucky if she's even 5'11". I think it's probably the high heels. Did you also think that maybe the wrestlers that claim to be over 6'0" might actually be around 5'9"-5'10"-ish?
Stacy over 6'0"? You're so funny. I bet you'd be a great comedian. There's no way Stacy is over 6'0". She's lucky if she's even 5'11". I think it's probably the high heels. Did you also think that maybe the wrestlers that claim to be over 6'0" might actually be around 5'9"-5'10"-ish?
mr. kennedy said on 25/Nov/05
You often see that stacey is usualy taller than plenty of the wrestlers that are claimed to be over 6'. I think shes over 6' because they seem to lie about all of the divas heights and list them as shorter than they really are. I think they also tweek the heights of the wrestlers a little bit.
You often see that stacey is usualy taller than plenty of the wrestlers that are claimed to be over 6'. I think shes over 6' because they seem to lie about all of the divas heights and list them as shorter than they really are. I think they also tweek the heights of the wrestlers a little bit.
cantstop25 said on 16/Nov/05
I noticed a poster said that keibler was only like an inch or two taller then torrie when she is clearly atleast 3 inches taller. I do agree thoguh that torrie is more around 5'9"
I noticed a poster said that keibler was only like an inch or two taller then torrie when she is clearly atleast 3 inches taller. I do agree thoguh that torrie is more around 5'9"
Anonymous said on 13/Nov/05
Stacy Keibler doesn't have a MySpace. Most of the profiles of celebreties you see on there are fake.
Stacy Keibler doesn't have a MySpace. Most of the profiles of celebreties you see on there are fake.
Anonymous said on 28/Oct/05
They don't inflate the heights for the women, bizarrely enough. Probably because a lot of them were models with their heights publicly available. However, on Raw she does get the height inflation (Jim Ross has said she's 6-foot or "over 6 feet tall" on the air).
Keibler does the hip sway like crazy (and has her legs spread apart), so I can see why people think she's shorter or taller than she is. 5-11 seems right until we hear otherwise.
They don't inflate the heights for the women, bizarrely enough. Probably because a lot of them were models with their heights publicly available. However, on Raw she does get the height inflation (Jim Ross has said she's 6-foot or "over 6 feet tall" on the air).
Keibler does the hip sway like crazy (and has her legs spread apart), so I can see why people think she's shorter or taller than she is. 5-11 seems right until we hear otherwise.
John B said on 26/Oct/05
I met Keibler March 2000 London when WCW held a show there, She was a good 5' 11'' That was in high heels, which looked to be 3 to 4 inches high. take them away what do you get ?
I met Keibler March 2000 London when WCW held a show there, She was a good 5' 11'' That was in high heels, which looked to be 3 to 4 inches high. take them away what do you get ?
Derek said on 24/Oct/05
Actually, I read on another forum that somebody who met her was 5'9.5 and she was the same size as him or maybe even a half inch shorter. I believe that person was probably correct. It's obvious to me from seeing her stand next to other wrestlers. And when I've seen her stand next to Torrie Wilson who probably IS about 5'7"(maybe 5'8'), Stacy looks only about 1-2 inches taller. When I estimated all that I came up with 5'9". So I'd say Stacy is about 5'9"-5'10".
Actually, I read on another forum that somebody who met her was 5'9.5 and she was the same size as him or maybe even a half inch shorter. I believe that person was probably correct. It's obvious to me from seeing her stand next to other wrestlers. And when I've seen her stand next to Torrie Wilson who probably IS about 5'7"(maybe 5'8'), Stacy looks only about 1-2 inches taller. When I estimated all that I came up with 5'9". So I'd say Stacy is about 5'9"-5'10".
Anonymous said on 23/Oct/05
In regardes to somebody be listed shorter than they really are, it's not all that unbelievable for the female workers (especially since the company may not want people to know the females are taller than the males). Afterall, Torrie Wilson is listed as being 5'7" on her WWE bio, when EVERYWHERE else (and on the old WCW page) she's listed as being 5'9". I'd say Torrie WIlson is EASILY 5'9", yet for some reason she's listed as 5'7" on the WWE website.
In regardes to somebody be listed shorter than they really are, it's not all that unbelievable for the female workers (especially since the company may not want people to know the females are taller than the males). Afterall, Torrie Wilson is listed as being 5'7" on her WWE bio, when EVERYWHERE else (and on the old WCW page) she's listed as being 5'9". I'd say Torrie WIlson is EASILY 5'9", yet for some reason she's listed as 5'7" on the WWE website.
Anshelm said on 22/Oct/05
Hard to believe that a WWE person would be listed shorter than reality... and her legs are 41" (104 cm), not 46" (117 cm).
Hard to believe that a WWE person would be listed shorter than reality... and her legs are 41" (104 cm), not 46" (117 cm).
Anonymous said on 12/Oct/05
im sure that she is taller then this I mean all women who are 6"-6'1" will say that there 5'11"
im sure that she is taller then this I mean all women who are 6"-6'1" will say that there 5'11"
Bigg said on 8/Jul/05
I saw she was listed as 6 foot 1 inch ..I mean I also heard she has like 46 inches legs by the commentor thats soo long ...theres probably ppl taller than her that dont have that long legs then she has a short body length ..
I saw she was listed as 6 foot 1 inch ..I mean I also heard she has like 46 inches legs by the commentor thats soo long ...theres probably ppl taller than her that dont have that long legs then she has a short body length ..
ChickKick said on 23/Jun/05
This woman is very tall. I didn't think that 5'11 was that tall but then I met her and she completely towered over me and I'm 5'6. Plus she was wearing heels.
This woman is very tall. I didn't think that 5'11 was that tall but then I met her and she completely towered over me and I'm 5'6. Plus she was wearing heels.
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.