Some, but not always, not even in the extreme cases. A friend reports a habituation setting at her father's house. They saw a bigfoot duck slightly to go under a branch on a tree by the shop. Might have hit, might not have, but very close. She says they measured that branch from the ground and it is very very near 14 feet.
The first one I saw was .. well, I spent a lot of years and a lot of brain sweat trying to make it more acceptably short, but with water 4-1/2 to 5 feet deep .. hits me under the chin and I'm 5'9" .. hitting the bigfoot at crotch level, and their leg length is proportionally less than ours, I can't see any way to conveniently turn what I saw into a more acceptable 9-1/2 feet, it had to be 10-1/2 feet or a little taller.
So part of the question of estimating height is "do you have a reliable yardstick of some sort you can compare the bigfoot to, then measure later." And in both cases, hers and mine, there were indeed things for reliable comparison. So you can either accept my report of what I saw, and the size, or you can call me a liar. There is no third option.
What you could do, if you want an educated understanding of height, is take a look at Henner Fahrenbach's data. Real biological critters' physical attributes will generally follow a bell curve distribution. Delusions and attention getting attempts do not. So look at the data and decide. One caution ... the big ones start small and grow. Also, we are more likely to see adolescent males out misbehaving as our own adolescent males do than mature adults who are more cautious. Taken together, that skews the data slightly downward regarding average size. While you're looking at his height data, take a look at the height vs foot size comparisons. 3/4ths of a mile from where I saw the very large dude walking down the river, I found a line of tracks that were 24-1/2 inches long with 6-1/2 feet between consecutive steps, left and right. It was in thin mud over a layer of hard rock so any tracks of a hoaxer within 15-20 feet would have been glaringly obvious. If it was a hoax, someone managed to step, walking, not running, 6-1/2 feet in 24-1/2 inch long "shoes" carrying upwards of 800 pounds on their back. To me .. not feasible. Those tracks were what they appeared to be, nothing more, nothing less.
MIB