What is the biggest known accurately measured penis width and girth? Use mathematics from photo with known items in them if need be .
Executive summary
No widely accepted, medically verified record for "biggest penis width/girth" is published in major journals; the best-cited large measurements remain contested and largely anecdotal. One individual (Matt Barr) claims measurements of 31 cm semi‑erect and 37 cm fully erect on a personal site [1]; peer‑reviewed meta-analyses and systematic reviews give average erect girth about 11.66 cm and discuss measurement standards but do not catalog extreme verified maxima [2] [3].
1. What the medical literature actually measures: averages, methods and limits
Systematic reviews and large meta‑analyses focus on averages and methodology, not extreme outliers; the 15,521‑subject synthesis cited in Science and BJUI gives average erect girth roughly 11.66 cm (4.59 in) and stresses standardized measurement (base or mid‑shaft, bone‑pressed length, circumferential girth) as critical for comparability [3] [2]. Those sources document how most academic work deliberately excludes or cannot verify anecdotal extremes and note heterogeneity in methods — a structural reason the literature contains no reliable catalogue of maximum widths [2].
2. The biggest public claim: a private claimant with measurements posted online
A 2024–2025 public claim by an individual named Matt Barr on a personal site asserts a first “official” NHS‑affiliated semi‑erect measurement of 31 cm and a later independent measurement of 37 cm fully erect, presented as the “world’s biggest penis” among naturals who can maintain an erection [1]. That claim appears on the claimant’s own website and is not reproduced in peer‑reviewed medical literature contained in the provided sources [1]. Available sources do not mention independent journal verification of the 37 cm figure beyond the personal site [1].
3. Why photographic or ad‑hoc evidence is hard to convert into reliable math
Your idea of using known objects in photos to scale dimensions is valid in principle, but the medical literature flags key pitfalls: perspective distortion, lens focal length, compression/extension state of tissue, and lack of standardized anatomical landmarks. The systematic review underscores that without bone‑pressed base-to-tip standards and controlled measurement protocols you cannot reliably convert photo‑based estimates into medically comparable girth/width values [2].
4. Girth versus “width”: different measures, different claims
Clinical reports and meta‑analyses define girth as circumference (a measured circle around the shaft), typically reported as an average 11.66 cm erect [3]. Some public claims use linear width (diameter) or informal “thickness” language; converting circumference to diameter requires simple math (diameter = circumference / π), but such conversion assumes a circular cross‑section and that the reported circumference was measured at the same shaft location — assumptions often unstated in anecdotal reports [3]. For example, an 11.66 cm girth corresponds to a diameter of roughly 3.71 cm by calculation (noting sources report the girth, not diameter) [3].
5. How to evaluate extreme claims scientifically and what’s missing
A credible extreme measurement requires: measurement by a qualified clinician following an accepted protocol (bone‑pressed base for length; mid‑shaft or base for girth), contemporaneous photographic scale with known‑dimension objects and metadata on focal length/angle, and independent peer review or documentation in a medical context. The provided sources show averages and recommend standardized methods but do not present verified, peer‑reviewed maxima that meet these criteria [2] [3]. The Matt Barr site provides claimed clinician measurements but lacks peer‑reviewed publication in our sources [1].
6. Competing perspectives and possible agendas
Academic sources aim to standardize methods and report population averages for clinical and public‑health use; they are skeptical of outlier claims and emphasize reproducibility [2] [3]. Commercial or personal claimants have incentives to publicize extraordinary numbers for attention, book sales, or media exposure — the Matt Barr site explicitly promotes a forthcoming book and media contact [1]. Neither perspective in the supplied sources offers an independently published registry of verified maxima.
7. Practical takeaway and what I can do next
If you want a mathematically defensible maximum from photos, supply high‑resolution images with a clear, immovable scale object (ruler with mm marks), metadata about camera lens and distance, and an explicit statement of how the tissue was measured (erect state, measurement location). Current reporting provides averages and one high‑profile personal claim [3] [1] but does not document a medically published, universally accepted record for greatest girth/width [2].
Limitations: sources supplied include systematic reviews and averages and a personal claim on a website; no peer‑reviewed journal article in the provided set publishes a verified maximum girth/width [2] [1].