Nazare looks taller because of the angle of view. The actual bottom of that wave is (when viewed from the cliff) is about 2/3 - 3/5 of the way down from the top as it appears.This type of measuring is also how we end up with "100" foot waves at that mushburger show off picture spot in Portugal. Where a "100" foot wave realistically has 150 feet of face, because the wave is slanted and you're taking measurements from the front as if it were one dimensional, but only has 20 feet of rideable wave, because the rest is nearly flat water.
I think of this because of one day when a person i was talking to claimed that the waves were over ten feet, and they had proof, because they had a ten foot canoe and paddling over a wave the face of the wave was longer than their entire canoe. I remember thinking "yeah, but the wave is not standing straight up at 90 degrees from the bottom when your canoe was going over it. So what are we measuring?
Oh no, we've all done this one to death...
"Increments of fear" works better for me. Then I know "two feet" means small, "six feet" means solid, and "seven to nine feet" means get off surfline kook.
We end up with the “100 foot wave” because people aren’t measuring it right.
Or in the case of Makua you just invert the Hawaiian scale and claim a wave that was 40 feet high to be 100.
I don’t use feet when describing waves.
knee
waist
shoulder/chest
head
over head
double over head
triple over head
big.