Julius Erving basically invented the modern flight path. Long before Michael Jordan took off from the free-throw line, Dr. J was already there, gliding through the air with a grace that made physics look like a suggestion. But whenever fans start debating his legacy, the same question pops up: how tall was julius erving really?
You'll see different numbers depending on where you look. Some official NBA records from his time with the Philadelphia 76ers list him at 6 feet 7 inches. Then you hop over to other historical databases or his ABA days with the New York Nets, and suddenly he's listed at 6 feet 6 inches.
🔗 Read more: FIFA Club World Cup 2024 Winner: What Really Happened
It’s confusing.
Honestly, the "one-inch discrepancy" is a classic basketball trope. Back in the 1970s and 80s, teams weren't exactly using laser-guided precision for measurements. You had "program heights" and "shoe heights" and sometimes just "vibes heights." For Erving, that 6'7" frame was the gold standard for a small forward, yet his actual barefoot stature likely sat closer to the 6'6" mark.
The Tale of Two Measurements
Why the flip-flop? Well, the NBA and ABA were different beasts. In the ABA, where Erving first became a superstar with the Virginia Squires, he was often seen as a 6'6" phenom. When he transitioned to the NBA and eventually joined the Sixers in 1976, that extra inch started appearing in the programs.
It wasn't just vanity.
In that era, being a 6'7" small forward meant you were a physical mismatch. Erving himself once told the New York Times that while he was technically a small forward, he played a lot like a power forward. He was living in the paint. He was going over big guys who were 6'10" or taller. If you're going to bang bodies with the giants, being listed at 6'7" gives you a bit more "mystique" on the scouting report.
Why the Height Mattered for the "Slam"
If Erving were just a "tall guy," he wouldn't be Dr. J. It was the combination of his height and his massive hands.
His hands were basically frying pans. Because he stood at roughly 6'6" or 6'7", he had the vertical reach to get above the rim, but those hands allowed him to palm the ball like a grapefruit. This let him scoop the ball, wave it around mid-air, and finish with those "balletic" finger rolls or thunderous dunks.
Most players his height had to use two hands or keep the ball tucked. Not Julius.
He operated in three phases:
- The fast break (where his strides covered massive ground)
- The low-post (where he played "big")
- The mid-post (where he could shoot over smaller guards)
Comparing the Doctor to Modern Wings
How does he stack up today? If you look at the current NBA, the average height for a small forward is still right around that 6'6" to 6'7" range.
| Player | Listed Height |
|---|---|
| Julius Erving | 6'6" - 6'7" |
| Kawhi Leonard | 6'7" |
| Jayson Tatum | 6'8" |
| LeBron James | 6'9" |
You've got guys like Kawhi who share that similar "big hand, long arm" profile. But back in 1972, a 6'7" player with Erving's speed was a unicorn. He was faster than the guards and jumped higher than the centers.
Some people argue that if Erving played today, he'd be a "stretch four" because of his rebounding ability. In the ABA, he was routinely pulling down over 10 rebounds a game. That’s elite for a wing.
🔗 Read more: Who Won the Knicks Game Last Night: New York Outlasts the Hornets in a Garden Dogfight
The "Shoe" Factor
We have to talk about the sneakers. In the 70s, Erving was rocking the iconic Converse All-Stars and later the Pro Leathers. These weren't the chunky, foam-heavy max-cushion shoes of 2026. They were relatively flat.
If you put Dr. J in a modern pair of Nikes with a thick air unit, he’d easily clear 6'8".
This is why "how tall was julius erving" is such a moving target. If we measured him today with the NBA's stricter "no-shoes" policy (which they started enforcing heavily around 2019), he’d almost certainly be officially recorded at 6'6".
The Myth vs. The Reality
Growing up, many fans thought Dr. J was almost seven feet tall because of how he played. When you see a man soaring from the dotted line, your brain tells you he must be a giant.
He wasn't a giant.
He was just a perfectly proportioned athlete. His wingspan was reportedly much longer than his height, though exact measurements from the 70s are hard to verify. That "reach" is what made him look 6'10" when he was defending the rim or finishing a layup around a defender's outstretched arms.
Actionable Insights for Basketball Fans
If you're trying to settle a debate or just understand the history of the game, here is how to frame the Doctor’s stature:
- Accept the range: Use 6'6" for his "true" height and 6'7" for his "NBA listed" height. Both are technically correct in their own historical context.
- Look at the hands: Don't just focus on the height. Erving’s ability to control the ball is what maximized his 6'7" frame.
- Study the tape: Watch his 1980 "Rock the Cradle" dunk against the Lakers. Notice how his height allows him to keep the ball away from the defender while his long arms create the arc.
- Contextualize the era: Remember that in the 70s, a 6'7" small forward was a massive advantage. Today, it’s the standard.
Erving finished his career with over 30,000 points across the ABA and NBA. He did it by being "big enough" to bang inside and "small enough" to dance around the perimeter. Whether he was 6'6" or 6'7" doesn't change the fact that he stayed in the air longer than anyone else.
If you want to truly appreciate his physical profile, stop looking at the measuring tape and start looking at the rebounding stats. A "small" forward grabbing 12 boards a night (like he did in '72) tells you everything you need to know about his real size.