Hopefully the definitive mandingo length analysis

[Lance Bass]

There are also lots of results well over 9" which are not more realistic than 7.81, should we remove those too?
It can be argued that he might not be at his full size in every pic, but it can be argued too that most of the girls have hands way smaller than average, and that gives him a much bigger advantage in the big picture than the slight disadvantage from not always being 100% erect.

He’s 9 flat tho I believe

 

[6259561]

There are also lots of results well over 9" which are not more realistic than 7.81, should we remove those too?
It can be argued that he might not be at his full size in every pic, but it can be argued too that most of the girls have hands way smaller than average, and that gives him a much bigger advantage in the big picture than the slight disadvantage from not always being 100% erect.

Do they really though? The average woman is 5ft 4 inches tall in the US and I would think most would have average size hands. And it seems that most female porn stars would be in and around that height with generally average hand sizes.

But all in all I do agree that Mandingo might be almost 9nbp, so 8.78 sounds about right

 

[Lance Bass]

Holy shit, there’s 53 pages of this?!?! Lol

And counting

 

[sdp]

The average woman is 5ft 4 inches tall in the US and I would think most would have average size hands. And it seems that most female porn stars would be in and around that height with generally average hand sizes.

Many would be around that height, many would be shorter, but few would be taller. Porn stars are notoriously short especially in the monster cock genre.

 

[Mstone]

I commend you for doing this analysis, but some of the pics you used Mandingo is not fully erect and some of the photos you use produce incorrect data which flaws the whole method, for example there is no way this dick is only 7.81 inches.

We aren’t trying to find out the average of mandingos erect range (which may vary an inch like it does with some larger cocks) we are trying to determine mandingos maximum erect size (at least that is what the public is interested in). So if you are including measurements of 8.1 and 8.2 in your average AND if the method produces results such as 7.81 (showing that sometimes or possibly all the time the method is slightly off) and if many of the pics are not Mandingos full size (I don’t know about you but I lose a bit of an erection half way through sex sometimes, but stay hard enough to continue penetration) considering the 3 flaws to the method

it is safe the 8.75 figure is selling Mandingo slightly short. And he is perhaps a flat 9 inch. I don’t know why some people are determined that as few people possible can be 8 inches and no one can be 9 inches like the difference between 7.8 and 8.0 or 8.75 and 9 shouldn’t matter to people.

I point to the barbie measurement of 9.5, his dick was angled down making it appear slightly longer (it was also not 100% erect maybe 93-95% erect). So I think a fully erect Mandingo is a flat 9.0 based on compensating for the errors in your method which inaccurately included 8.2 and 8.1 results in the average as well as produced results such as 7.81 showing we can’t rely on the method and included photos where Mandingo is not at his maximum erection given these flaws hopefully you agree a more reasonable estimate is 9.0

You know what is even more funny? I put up a picture of a young Mandingo with Spring Thomas. Spring Thomas is 5'9. I put up a picture of her griping a tape measure. Her palms were around 3.1 inches wide. It would take 3 of her hands to completely cover a young Mandingo's cock. Which means a young Mandingo was a little bit over 9 inches. You know why @sdp and these other people think Mandingo is less than 9 inches? Because sdp said every female on this planet hands are 2.4 inches long and these other people believe it.

 

[Horse1077]

There are also lots of results well over 9" which are not more realistic than 7.81, should we remove those too?
It can be argued that he might not be at his full size in every pic, but it can be argued too that most of the girls have hands way smaller than average, and that gives him a much bigger advantage in the big picture than the slight disadvantage from not always being 100% erect.

Over 9 inches is far more believable than 7.81 inches. As 7.81 inches is about Shane Diesels size (slightly longer) and Mandingo is much longer than Shane Diesel). Regardless it’s much easier to believe Mandingo is 9.3 than it is to believe he is 7.81 I mean it’s probably 100 times more believable that Mandingo is 9.3 than 7.81)

If your method is producing results that are “way over 9 inches” so 9.3.. and results that are 7.81 then your method is I’m sorry not reliable and your estimate of 8.75 should not be taken seriously. Because we know Mandingo is not 9.5 and we know he is not 7.81 so including both those sizes will distort the result and if there is nearly a 2 inch range in his erect length by your analysis your analysis is flawed and therefore not credible. An independent panel of scientists of this was presented for a grant would say the method is flawed and therefore the results are flawed if results show Mandingo might be 9.5 and 7.81.

Also Mandingo might be 9.2 or 8.9 (to keep you happy) but either way by including results that are an inch below or 0.5 of an inch above we will get a distorted outcome. That won’t be accurate. If your method was reliable it would have an 0.5 inch variance at max not a 2 inch variance. If there is a 2 inch variance there is a problem with the method.

If the method produces results showing the penis is 9.5 inches in some and 7.81 inches in others how do you know that the 8.6,8.7,8.8 estimates are accurate either. I mean clearly we agree the 7.81 is not accurate and the 9.6 is not accurate. But what if they are off who is to say some of the 8.6-8.8 estimates aren’t actually 9.2 I mean who is to say. A results of 7.81 and 9.6 are obviously not accurate but they don’t suggest the middle estimates are accurate they suggest all the results are inaccurate.

Mandingo is a 40 year old man in many of these videos with an enormous cock in volume and most of these screenshots were taken after 10-25 minutes of sex, he’s probably 0.25-0.5 inches less than his max size in almost all the photos because it’s logical that he would be, he’s a 40 year old man with a 9 inch penis, many men with a huge cock don’t sustain a full hard on through out sex, even if they remain hard enough to have sex they lose a bit of their erection during sex accounting for 0.25-0.5 inches (I know I do half the time I have sex) and most people say dingo was bigger when he was younger so yes in almost every photo he is at least 0.25 inches and in some 0.5 inches less than his full size.

Female hands vary the average woman is 5 foot 4 but a woman’s hands who is 5 foot 2 compared to a woman who is 5 foot 4 is almost indiscriminate especially in hand width we are talking 1/10 of an inch.

Your argument basically is there is so many flaws in your method that the flaws perfectly balance each other and make your approximation of 8.78 inches 100% accurate and that is not true, regardless of how many flaws there are in your method
1. Hand size variation between women deviating from the average
2. Penis length variation due to level of erection
3. Method producing a 2 inch variance of the length of the same object
and because of this not only do we get extreme but every single photo used may give an inaccurate result.
Regardless of how many errors there are in this as they are non controllable it’s obvious the errors don’t balance each other as if the method effectively had no errors. So I’m sorry but the end result can not be used to determine Mandingo’s length, there are too many errors included in both the method of abstracting data and in the results given to determine an average so the end result is obviously inaccurate. And it’s non-defensible hypothetically an independent body of scientists would not approve of a method with so many errors where literally every single photo used may give an inaccurate result.

 

[pahunk610]

I have been saying for years on here : MANDINGO IS 9 INCHES ! ...END OF STORY

 

[TinyPrincess]

Her palms were around 3.1 inches wide.
It would take 3 of her hands to completely cover a young Mandingo's cock.
Which means a young Mandingo was a little bit over 9 inches.
View attachment 24112871

In the attached picture, you could probably copy/paste her four fingers in below her hand (perhaps with a slight BP) but only about three fingers above it. So it would be shy of the "3 hands" - more like 11 fingers I would think.

Depending on how the 3.1" palm picture looks, 4 fingers could be 3.1 inches - but it could also be less. Depends on how she holds the ruler - is it her palm or her fingers that measure 3.1"? Is her palm flat or slightly curved as in the picture?

Would be great if you posted the 3.1" picture. It could make Mandingo look 9'ish - perhaps even more - or perhaps less (as estimated by sdp).

 

[TinyPrincess]

I have been saying for years on here : MANDINGO IS 9 INCHES ! ...END OF STORY

If you disregards decimals, yes.

For some decimals is just more precise. Decimals count in analysis - but not everyday "size talk".

 

[6259561]

In the attached picture, you could probably copy/paste her four fingers in below her hand (perhaps with a slight BP) but only about three fingers above it. So it would be shy of the "3 hands" - more like 11 fingers I would think.

Depending on how the 3.1" palm picture looks, 4 fingers could be 3.1 inches - but it could also be less. Depends on how she holds the ruler - is it her palm or her fingers that measure 3.1"? Is her palm flat or slightly curved as in the picture?

Would be great if you posted the 3.1" picture. It could make Mandingo look 9'ish - perhaps even more - or perhaps less (as estimated by sdp).

Technically speaking any two hander or more would have a slight press in order to hold at the base of the cock no?

 

[pahunk610]

If you disregards decimals, yes.

For some decimals is just more precise. Decimals count in analysis - but not everyday "size talk".

53 pages OVER .25 inches ! RIDICULOUS !
YOU can't FEEL the difference OF A QUARTER INCH !

 

[TinyPrincess]

53 pages OVER .25 inches ! RIDICULOUS !
YOU can't FEEL the difference OF A QUARTER INCH !

If that's you point, then you're in the completely wrong thread. This thread is all about the .25"

 

[sdp]

There was a severe flaw in my way of averaging the results to get the final estimation, and in fact with all the criticism I'm surprised nobody mentioned it.

It was so hard to find usable frames that I used every single one I found, sometimes ending up with many frames from the same scene. Fine in itself, but then I just averaged the results of all frames instead of averaging the results of every scene, which would have been the right thing to do.

As you know, the idea is that we don't know the individual girls' actual hand sizes but the average of their hand sizes would be the average female hand size. By simply averaging all frames I gave more weight to the girls I used more, and there was absolutely no reason to do that.

Turns out it does make a difference:
Average of the results of all frames: 8.72"
Average of the results of every scene, now the official estimation: 8.80"

This also made me realize that I have only 23 scenes total, and even though the estimation shouldn't change a lot anymore, that's clearly not enough. I will try to find the time to go back at it, maybe at least until the distribution of results starts reasonably resembling a bell curve.

 

[Lance Bass]

There was a severe flaw in my way of averaging the results to get the final estimation, and in fact with all the criticism I'm surprised nobody mentioned it.

It was so hard to find usable frames that I used every single one I found, sometimes ending up with many frames from the same scene. Fine in itself, but then I just averaged the results of all frames instead of averaging the results of every scene, which would have been the right thing to do.

As you know, the idea is that we don't know the individual girls' actual hand sizes but the average of their hand sizes would be the average female hand size. By simply averaging all frames I gave more weight to the girls I used more, and there was absolutely no reason to do that.

Turns out it does make a difference:
Average of the results of all frames: 8.72"
Average of the results of every scene, now the official estimation: 8.80"

This also made me realize that I have only 23 scenes total, and even though the estimation shouldn't change a lot anymore, that's clearly not enough. I will try to find the time to go back at it, maybe at least until the distribution of results starts reasonably resembling a bell curve.

View attachment 24332991 View attachment 24333051

So right now you have prime Mandingo pegged at 8.8 NBP?

 

[sdp]

So right now you have prime Mandingo pegged at 8.8 NBP?

Yes, assuming of course the girls' hand breadths do average to 2.91". It's very likely that most of those porn girls have smaller hands than that so consider it a high estimate, like he can't reasonably be any bigger than that. It would be very interesting to get to measure the hand breadth of several women of porn star stature IRL to have an idea how far off we might be.

 

[Lance Bass]

Yes, assuming of course the girls' hand breadths do average to 2.91". It's very likely that most of those porn girls have smaller hands than that so consider it a high estimate, like he can't reasonably be any bigger than that. It would be very interesting to get to measure the hand breadth of several women of porn star stature IRL to have an idea how far off we might be.

Well I know one of the taller women he’s worked with Carmen Hayes was 5’8 and she still was able to get a good amount of his penis with her two hands and he still had space and at 5’8 I’m not sure but I’d bet her hands are bigger than 2.91

 

[Horse1077]

Thank you stinkstankstonk for brilliantly covering what needed to be said here. I'll just add a few things:



90° from body, 100% non bone pressed?



I too have such a strong sense of proportion, and it doesn't clash at all with the .22" difference that I suggest between me and him (I'm never significantly more than 8.5" when having sex). Have you ever seen him in true POV? Not that impressive.



Sure, although I said repeatedly that in the same circumstances there's zero doubt he's longer than me and that I have zero problems with that. I actually considered creating a new account to start this thread, but then I would have been accused of trolling/being RFJ etc, so as I already had some cred in the field I decided to just go with it and endure the bias accusations.

In the end what's important is that nobody so far has been able to prove my method and findings wrong using rational arguments, and that those who still criticize look more and more like they have much more of a bias than I could ever have.

Now goldzilla: thank you once again for posting pics that contradict your own case. I realize the position and angles aren't the same, but with the forearms to scale, do you really see the possibility of a 2" difference here, because I certainly don't:

View attachment 580765

---------------------------------

Pic 177a

My hand: 91mm
Her hand: 74.0mm, 76px
Penis: 242px, 235.6mm (9.28")

Average of results so far: 8.72"

View attachment 580764

There was a severe flaw in my way of averaging the results to get the final estimation, and in fact with all the criticism I'm surprised nobody mentioned it.

It was so hard to find usable frames that I used every single one I found, sometimes ending up with many frames from the same scene. Fine in itself, but then I just averaged the results of all frames instead of averaging the results of every scene, which would have been the right thing to do.

As you know, the idea is that we don't know the individual girls' actual hand sizes but the average of their hand sizes would be the average female hand size. By simply averaging all frames I gave more weight to the girls I used more, and there was absolutely no reason to do that.

Turns out it does make a difference:
Average of the results of all frames: 8.72"
Average of the results of every scene, now the official estimation: 8.80"

This also made me realize that I have only 23 scenes total, and even though the estimation shouldn't change a lot anymore, that's clearly not enough. I will try to find the time to go back at it, maybe at least until the distribution of results starts reasonably resembling a bell curve.

View attachment 24332991 View attachment 24333051

Can you reply to the criticisms I did make if your method. You avoided the question by saying “no one found the biggest criticism but I did and I’ll happily admit it to show I don’t mind being criticised or even refuted” and you would only say such a reply if you believe my criticism of your method flawwed your method in a way results from it can’t be taken seriously.

 

[sdp]

Well I know one of the taller women he’s worked with Carmen Hayes was 5’8 and she still was able to get a good amount of his penis with her two hands and he still had space and at 5’8 I’m not sure but I’d bet her hands are bigger than 2.91

What's your point exactly? There is zero use singling out one girl unless you know for a fact her exact hand measurements. My ex was 5'9" and had dead-on average hand breadth (yes I measured it). My current girl is 5'6" and has literally man hands. There are outliers, but given a good enough number of girls it all averages out. That's the whole point.

BTW we don't even know for sure what the average female hand breadth is. For all we know, 2.91" is just a random figure floating around the Internet. Yet the whole analysis is based on that figure because that's all we've got, until we actually move our asses and do some field work measuring lots of women's hands.

 

[sdp]

Can you reply to the criticisms I did make if your method.

I replied to your criticisms already. If your argument is just "he wasn't hard" then go through all the pics again and tell me which ones you think he's not hard in. If it's about the unreasonably low results, those had been removed already.

 

[Lance Bass]

What's your point exactly? There is zero use singling out one girl unless you know for a fact her exact hand measurements. My ex was 5'9" and had dead-on average hand breadth (yes I measured it). My current girl is 5'6" and has literally man hands. There are outliers, but given a good enough number of girls it all averages out. That's the whole point.

BTW we don't even know for sure what the average female hand breadth is. For all we know, 2.91" is just a random figure floating around the Internet. Yet the whole analysis is based on that figure because that's all we've got, until we actually move our asses and do some field work measuring lots of women's hands.

No I was just saying I think he’s 9 flat and just trying to use 2.91 all the time isn’t gonna work because some if the women he’s worked with for sure has hands bigger than 2.91.