How tall is Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood's Height

6ft 0in (183 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 3.75in (192 cm)
American actor and Director best known for films such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Dirty Harry films, Unforgiven, Every Which Way But Loose, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Million Dollar Baby, Escape from Alcatraz, Space Cowboys and Gran Torino. In a racquetball website he stated he was "6ft 4" and in a 1988 article it mentioned his weight: "At 6- 3 and 216 pounds".

How tall is Clint Eastwood
60's Publicity Photo, via Wikimedia Commons

You May Be Interested

Height of Scott Eastwood
Scott Eastwood
5ft 10.75in (180 cm)
Height of Gene Hackman
Gene Hackman
6ft 2in (188 cm)
Height of John Wayne
John Wayne
6ft 3.75in (192 cm)
Height of Lee Van Cleef
Lee Van Cleef
6ft 2in (188 cm)

Add a Comment 250 comments

Average Guess (70 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.53in (191.9cm)
Current: 5ft 11.98in (182.8cm)
Jervis said on 18/Feb/17
Google Clint Eastwood and Rob Reiner,there you will see Clint standing next to Reiner from a few years ago,in it Reiner is taller,but there is another pic of Reiner and Clint,Neil Jordan is also in it,I dont know when it was taken,it looks like early 90s,but in this one Clint is the taller of the two.lf Reiner was between 6ft1 and 2 that would make Clint 6ft3 in that photo and around 6ft.5 in the later pic.So in the 20 or so years between the two pics Clint lost about 2.5 inches.
mister_lennon said on 18/Feb/17
Clint was a very strong 6'3 peak. Very close to 6'4. Maybe 6'4 out of bed.
Anonymous1 said on 17/Feb/17
As I've stated on others' pages, I stood face to face with James Coburn in 1983. I was 17, and 5'11.75. He edged me out, but no way by 2 inches. He was an inch, maybe an inch and a half taller than me, at the very most(I lean towards the inch, as he "just" edged me out). Eastwood was taller, but I still say more like 6'3 ish.
jervis said on 17/Feb/17
If you look at Clints posture he never had a hunch,what he did have and still does,and is what I think has led to his height loss is called SWAY,if you look at examples of this on line you will notice this type of posture in Clint in photos and during his long career.This type of posture will make you appear shorter,make you drop a couple of inches so as not too look to tall in the company of shorter people.In Clints youth like a lot of taller people ,he was IMO self conscious of his height and tried to hide it by slouching,and developed a habit of standing this way.His hight claim of 6ft4 could have been a morning measurement.Looking at him in his early movies and Rawhide compered to his costars listed heights ,he looks in the 6ft3 too 6ft4 range.With Coburn he looks a good 2 inches taller,so if Coburn was 6ft1.5 that would make Clint 6ft3.5 peak.
James said on 16/Feb/17
Eastwood was 6'3" at his peak. Now at 86 he is 5'11".
movieguy said on 16/Feb/17
Checked out the clip and have to agree Eastwood has a couple of inches on Coburn. Clint must have been close to 6'4'' as Coburn was tall.
Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Feb/17
I can't see any pronounced hunch for Eastwood - and more particularly not one that lends itself to a loss of up to 4 " in height. However, I do see perhaps a shortening of the torso over years. I wonder if it is possible to have the spine shorten without necessarily having a pronounced curvature.

Could anyone point me to online sources detailing Eastwood having issues with Osteoporosis, Scoliosis or the like? I haven't been able to find any.

Also, what other celebrities can we faithfully point to who have similar depreciation in height as Clint? Women's height generally depreciate more than that of men so best to go apples to apples and cite male examples.

I saw Ali lose height over the years but, IMO, Ali's posture wasn't perfect and there was a clear and progressive bowing of Muhammad's neck/head which justified the height loss. At peak, I think Ali was a true 6' 2 1/2" with the oft reported 6'3" being a mere round-up. The orig. tale of the tape for the Liston fight with Ali at age 22 indicated 6' 2 1/2" for Ali but this was later modified to 6'3" with all other attributes remaining the same.

Prior to fighting 6'6" Terrell, Ali's trainer Angelo Dundee talked Ali's height up to 6'4" and Angelo also stated that his "man" (Ali) was "still growing" to dilute the upcoming opponent's height advantage. By the time of the Terrell Ali was already 25 Yo so further growth was unlikely. It didn't matter. Ali fought "tall" and constantly bounced on his feet which exaggerated his height and so Terrell didn't appear to have the 3 1/2" pull that he actually held.

So, I think at the end of the day Ali lost a combined 1/2" by way of overstated height and about 2" by way of bowing of his neck/head.

This all wheels me back to the David Frost show. You can clearly see Eastwood's footwear both when sitting in his seat and when standing and the shoes appear standard with a standard heel. Clint does appear to have about 1/2" on Ali so I think 6'3" is reasonable "no lower than mark" if not right on the money when measured relative to Ali's 6' 2 1/2". There is another guest on the show - Harve Presnell - a Howard Keel style of man and performer. He is clearly taller than Clint and Ali by maybe 1 ". Harve himself kinda throws the cat among the pigeons so to speak because he has been listed at both 6'4" and 6'5". On the Frost show, Clint, Harve and Ali are reasonably close together when they leave their chairs, step down and stand on even ground to have their go on the speed bag - so it's a fair moment to make some reasonable estimates.

With a gun to my head I might put Presnell somewhere between 6'4" and 6'5" but not the full 6'5". Clint and Ali are certainly not dwarfed by him. Just based on the vision of the Frost show, with Ali locked in at 6'2 1/2", I would be perfectly comfortable to give Clint 6'3".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Feb/17
He still looked 6ft3 minimum in the 80's. About 1in below a prime Liam Neeson (6ft4¼-6ft4½) in The Deadpool and about 2in taller than Jim Carrey
Jervis said on 15/Feb/17
The rawhide episode with James Couburn in it is called Hostage child.lf you pause at 24.13 min you will see that Clint looks about 2 inches taller than Couburn. If Clint was as low as 6ft2 peak that would make Couburn 6ft flat max.Clint was a strong 6ft3 peak or maybe 6ft3.5 in his youth compered to Couburn.
Danimal said on 14/Feb/17
MaskDeMasque said on 5/Feb/17
Haven't seen many of his films but watched Dirty Harry ealrier. I thought he looked somewhere in the 6'3-6'3.5 range. I'm not seeing a 6'4/weak 6'4 prime.

I'm glad your eyes can tell the difference between 6'3.5" and 6'4" of a guy in a movie. There is NO WAY you can tell .5" onscreen, even when you're comparing him to people of known height.
Danimal said on 14/Feb/17
Rory said on 13/Feb/17
Young Clint 6ft 2 ? You can forget anything under a strong 6ft 3 for his 1960s hay day.

He was still that height throughout the 1970's, not just the 1960's.
Mark(5'9.25 said on 14/Feb/17
Clint did appear a bit taller than John Wayne. No less of this at peak.

Edit* Oh and you can't lose 10 inches? Well bud, the taller you are, the more you lose. See David Prowse and John Rhy Davies for example. They lost a junk load of height.
Mark(5'9.25 said on 14/Feb/17
Clint did appear a bit taller than John Wayne. No less of this at peak.
jervis said on 14/Feb/17
Holden was 5ft10.5 to 5ft11 range.There was the same height differance between Holden an Wayne as Holden and Clint.
Jervis said on 14/Feb/17
There is a rawhide episode with a young James Coburn in it,and Clint looks a good 2 inches taller.There is also another pic of Clint standing next to Holden, in it Clint looks 4.5 inches taller maybe 5?The Newman one is all about making Newman not to look to short next to Clint,because he was a bigger star at the time.
Rory said on 13/Feb/17
Young Clint 6ft 2 ? You can forget anything under a strong 6ft 3 for his 1960s hay day. I find the argument of oh you can't lose 4 inches of height to be completely bogus. Most days of the week I see older men hunched right over in like a lower case "r" shape...and you can't possibly tell me those men haven't lost a hell of a lot if height. There's no law saying you can't lose X amount if height, I can believe people Losing 10 inches or more even in worst cases.
Realist said on 13/Feb/17
If I lost this much height I would be 5'6 when I am old.
Tall In The Saddle said on 12/Feb/17
I do find these discussions strangely compelling.

To the subject at hand - Mr Eastwood. I do find an apparently legit height loss of some 3-4 inches startling and unusual. On the flip side, watching his old movies/series, I found no reason to question Clint being at least 6'3" but probably not quite 6'4". Tall enough and relative proportions acceptably in place (e.g. long arms and still long to this day).

You see some shorter celebs on their "stilts" with other physical attributes static and it simply doesn't look right. At his advertised prime height (well corroborated next to other actors of reasonably recorded height) Clint looked the height and all else did look "right".

IMO, compared to the average guy, young Clint was more leg than torso for whatever that is worth. That torso appears to have shortened up that much more in his advancing years (or is it the simply the illusory effect of the "hitch 'em high" pants ethic of the older folk?).

I've seen the David Frost show in which Muhammad Ali is standing in reasonable proximity to Clint to make a height comparison - maybe 1/2 to 1 inch in Clint's favor. Also, Clint's footwear is clearly visible and his shoe heel appears normal. As someone already stated, even Ali gives Clint the nod in height without qualm.

Just musing but if Clint was to have worn lifts only to discard them in later years we might've have seen a sudden "trapdoor" loss in height - IMO, that has not been the case. Rather, we have seen a slow depreciation in Clint's height over a number of years. For example, apparently once taller than Morgan Freeman, then equal to Morgan, then a bit less than Morgan and then later notably shorter than Morgan. Hard to imagine that it was somehow a considerate and drawn out incremental reduction in "lift" elevation over a number of years.

I suppose looking at it another way, one might suggest that the combination of Clint losing maybe 2" in height naturally combined with a shedding of purported "lifts" might lend itself to the height loss we have seen. I dunno. Clint presents a bit of a conundrum and it would help a lot of we could point to any celeb(s) who have suffered a similar natural loss in height.

Finally, Rawhide saw many well known actors pass through to avail of us some decent comparisons. Just the other day I watched an episode title the Shambling Man with 72 yo Victor Mclaglen in his final role (he passed away just 30 days later). Clint appeared to have prob 1 inch on McLaglen who has been listed as 6'3" (as per both Hollywood and Boxing records). Even in older age, McLaglen appeared that height in the Quiet Man in the face of John Wayne. Photos of a younger McLaglen attest to that height even more strongly. But then, I suppose McLaglen wasn't necessarily wearing cowboy boots as Eastwood did. There is another Rawhide Episode with Buddy Ebsen and there is pretty much nothing to choose between Jed and Rowdy .

Again, I might suspect that Ebsen wasn't wearing cowboy boots given the role he played - a promoter for a travelling show - then again, maybe everyone had to wear those boots back in the day (walking 1" - 1.5" and riding 2" I believe). At any rate, Ebsen was at least 6'3" at best (I think he was prob a bit more than that).

Just an offbeat thing - my dear departed Dad said to me once that he noticed that the actor Dana Andrews had huge hands - Andrews made a fist in some movie (can't remember the name) and Dad said it looked huge. Damn. Every time I watched a movie with Dana Andrews thereafter I couldn't not check out his hands - and, unless I'm highly prone to suggestion, Dana did appear to have notably above average sized mitts - particularly compared with that of his male co-stars.
Arthur said on 12/Feb/17
Rob how old was Clint when he first started losing height? Also how tall do you think he could have been in the line of fire?
Editor Rob: I would say by mid 80's to 1990 range, he could have lost a fraction or a cm.
firecracker said on 12/Feb/17
one of the best actor, but his height was clearly overestimated. clint has never been taller than 6'2"(188cm) at his peak.

A young clint with director william holden:Click Here

holden, average size, was in the 5'9"-5'10" range and clint looks 4 inches taller than holden. Anyway he doesn't look a full 6'3". No way.

A young clint with paul newman:Click Here
Newman, another average sized man, was in the 5'9" range. Both have bad posture. Clint also has hair up. he doesn't look a full 6'3". No way.

Clint was a tall man of course, but he looked taller because he was very slim (in particular his legs), hair up, but this 6'4"-6'5"(193-195cm) listed for years, was clearly overestimated.

Clint has never been taller than 6'2"(188cm). Peak barefoot. For sure.
Danimal said on 12/Feb/17
jervis said on 1/Feb/17
The early 90s was not Clints peak,he was in his early 60s by then and was about 6ft2.5 by that stage when you judge his height compared to others at that time.IMO Clint was a strong 6ft3 peak,6ft1.5 or 6ft2 does not add up if you compare him to other stars at his peak.By the way I have never heard of that rumour before about him being 6ft1.5 peak,if he was he must have had lifts in his shoes.But then again its Hollywood so anything is possible.

Even the early 80's wasn't his peak anymore. He was at his tallest until the late 1970's and then his spine began to curve. The last time he appeared to be at his peak was in 1979's Escape From Alcatraz. I haven't seen the 4 movies he made between that one and 1983's Sudden Impact, so I don't know when the height loss first began, but by Sudden Impact he no longer looked as tall as he did in Escape From Alcatraz. So, until around 48 years old (the age he was when he filmed Escape From Alcatraz, he still looked to be his peak height, or if anything, his height loss by then was so minimal that it wasn't noticeable. By the early 80's when he was starting his 50's the height lost became more and more noticeable. The last time he looked TALL was in the early 1990's imo (early 60's).
Danimal said on 11/Feb/17
Somewhere between 6'3" and 6'4" peak and at best 5'11" today.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Feb/17
And cleaerly over an inch taller than Muhammed Ali..
Arch Stanton said on 11/Feb/17
James said on 3/Feb/17
Eastwood never looked any taller than 6'3".

Not true. 2.5 inxhes on Lee Marvin in Paint Your Wagon, two inches on Matherson and Ulrich and 3.5 iinches on David Soul in Magnum Force, edged out 6'3 Michael Moriaty in Pale Rider, easily an inch taller than Charlton Heston in 1972, between 2 and 3 inches on Don Stroud in Coogan's Bluff, off course never looked taller than 6'3..
Anonymous1 said on 7/Feb/17
"Editor Rob: Importer, it is highly unlikely, though you may find some cases in which the person has good genes and has followed a healthy regime that has minimised loss.

I mean I doubt even I could reach 90 years old and still clear 5ft 7 for instance...internally our bodies wear down, the bone mass decreases."

....I have to repeat, my 82 year old uncle was 6'2 young, and remains 6'2. He's had many health issues, despite being a lifelong jogger. So, there are exceptions to the rule (I'll update his height, at 90 :)
Importer said on 7/Feb/17
Rob if a 6'4 guy exercised regularly throughout his for instance 90year life, would he ever lose height? Taking aside any accidents
Editor Rob: Importer, it is highly unlikely, though you may find some cases in which the person has good genes and has followed a healthy regime that has minimised loss.

I mean I doubt even I could reach 90 years old and still clear 5ft 7 for instance...internally our bodies wear down, the bone mass decreases.
MaskDeMasque said on 5/Feb/17
Haven't seen many of his films but watched Dirty Harry ealrier. I thought he looked somewhere in the 6'3-6'3.5 range. I'm not seeing a 6'4/weak 6'4 prime.
James said on 3/Feb/17
Eastwood never looked any taller than 6'3".
jervis said on 1/Feb/17
The early 90s was not Clints peak,he was in his early 60s by then and was about 6ft2.5 by that stage when you judge his height compared to others at that time.IMO Clint was a strong 6ft3 peak,6ft1.5 or 6ft2 does not add up if you compare him to other stars at his peak.By the way I have never heard of that rumour before about him being 6ft1.5 peak,if he was he must have had lifts in his shoes.But then again its Hollywood so anything is possible.
189.5cm in trainers said on 31/Jan/17
There's a lot of rumours /speculation that Clint was 6'1.5"ins tall in his hey day and at peak. I've had order relatives who were lucky to actually see him walking around when they visited Carmel. One was my Father and he is a solid 6'2" without shoes. Bearing in mind this was in the early 90's. My father and assorted relatives all judged him to be around the same height 6'1 -6'2. You couldn't just go up to him or ask for a selfie like to day. My Father said that he was around 10 feet way from him and did take some photos of him. Obviously from a distance. Apparently the locals and certain residents were very protective of him. You just didn't go up to Clint or bother him.
189.5cm in trainers said on 31/Jan/17
There's a lot of rumours /speculation that Clint was 6'1.5"ins tall in his hey day and at peak. I've had order relatives who were lucky to actually see him walking around when they visited Carmel. One was my Father and he is a solid 6'2" without shoes. Bearing in mind this was in the early 90's. My father and assorted relatives all judged him to be around the same height 6'1 -6'2. You couldn't just go up to him or ask for a selfie like to day. My Father said that he was around 10 feet way from him and did take some photos of him. Obviously from a distance. Apparently the locals and certain residents were very protective of him. You just didn't go up to Clint or bother him.
jervis said on 30/Jan/17
If you google Clint Eastwood Jeff Bridges images,there are some recent pics of them both together.Clint looks a bit taller than Bridges, but it could be down to bat posture from Bridges.
Mike said on 25/Jan/17
From 192 to 183. Why he has shrunk so much? I wouldn't expect a reduction of more than 5 cm in height unless the person is seriously hunchback or has developed a distorted back bone.
Mr S said on 25/Jan/17
Hi Rob, what age would you say Eastwood was when he lost his first half inch? Would you say he lost some height by age 45?
Jervis said on 19/Jan/17
You could be right Berta.Wayne looked more a weak 6ft4 to me,and Clint a strong 6ft3.So Wayne was maybe about half an inch taller.
berta said on 19/Jan/17
i think john wayne was taller than clint.
Rory said on 18/Jan/17
He looked taller than 6ft 2 in Dirty Harry. Peak he could look anywhere between 6ft 3 or 4. Anywhere in that zone is up for debate. 6ft 2 isn't.
Jervis said on 18/Jan/17
George Kennedy always looked a proper 6ft4 too me,he looked around max 1 inch taller than Clint,but maybe only .5 of an inch taller.If Clint was 6ft2 peak that would put Kennedy in the 6ft2.5 to 6ft3 range?I don't think so.There are plenty of photos of the younger Clint to prove he was not 6ft2 in his younger years more a strong 6ft3 guy IMO.If he was 6ft2 peak then Hackman,Marvin,Heston,Hudson, and many more need between need around 1 inch maybe a bit more reduced from thrir listed heights.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Jan/17
The only troll here is you Jake. You know 6'2 is impossible for Eastwood, unless Muhammed Ali was 6' range and Charlton Heston 6'1.
kurtz said on 14/Jan/17
9 cm. of height loss is not imposdible.
Can happen.
The problem with Clint is yhat he lost lot cm too eraly. This too strange.
So my guess is 6 2 or 188 cm. peak.
Now he is 6 weak.
Some Guy said on 13/Jan/17
Rob, do you really think Clint's peak height was really 192 cm? In Dirty Harry he looked like solid 188 cm guy.
Editor Rob: yes, I believe he was still 6ft 3 range by then.
jake said on 13/Jan/17
Hahahahhahaha Rob is trolling us 9cm of height loss impossible what did he fall out of a plane and his parachute didn't open? six-two peak six-foot today four inches height loss impossible for a man sorry refuse to be believe it unless he had some medicall condition, also bear in mind guys that six-two back in the 60's-80s would of still been very tall. where the average would of been a inch + lower
jervis said on 13/Jan/17
I think 6ft2 peak is too low,if he was 6ft2,George Kennedy a legit 6ft4 guy had about 1 inch max on him,so he could not have been 6ft2 because that would make Kennedy 6ft3.Also he had an easy 2 inches on Lee Marvin who was IMO 6ft1or maybe 6ft0.5 lowest.To me Clint always looked a solid 6ft3 guy always about an inch short of 6ft4 and an inch over 6ft2.He still looked 6 ft2 aged 70 at the time of space cowboys if you compare him to 6ft6.5 James Cromwell.Clint would have been an inch off peak by that stage.As for his current height,with his very loose posture yes he does look sub 6ft now,but I cant help but thinking if he pulled himself up to his full height,he could still be 6ft or maybe,dare I say it a little bit more?
Danimal said on 12/Jan/17
Rob, he doesn't look 6'0" anymore. You have him, Stallone, Arnold, Tom Cruise, Will Smith, and Justin Bieber all 1" too high.
5'9 said on 12/Jan/17
How can you shrink that much???
kurtz said on 11/Jan/17
6 2 peak
berta said on 10/Jan/17
looked 193 peak in cowboy bots, so my guess is maybe a littel over 6 foot 3 at peak maybe 192 ore 3 mm under and now he looks ( in my eyes) a littel shorter than tom hanks. maybe around 182
Paladin117 said on 5/Jan/17
Clint was east 6'3+ in his prime. All you new people never saw enough of him then. Watch some old movies . He developed a slump because he towered over older stars.
Sixseven said on 2/Jan/17
I totally agree with you Christian
jervis said on 29/Dec/16
6ft3 peak, about 2 inches less than 6ft5 peak Robbins.In 2003 aged 73 if standing tall with perfect posture he would be almost 6ft2.
movieguy said on 29/Dec/16
I've looked again at images of Clint and Tim Robbins together. In some of them the height difference is not as noticeable as in the link posted below. Clint was obviously a tall man, the consensus on this site is that he just about scraped 6'4'' or was slightly under. I'd say this is likely correct.
Mr S said on 28/Dec/16
I always doubted the 192 cm peak listing but after seeing a clip of him on a chat show with Muhammad Ali circa 1970 I can believe it. Ali mentions that Eastwood is taller than him, also when they stand up it is obvious Eastwood is the taller man. If Ali was 6'2.5 peak then Eastwood had to be 6'3.5-6'4". I think Eastwood often gets guessed as shorter because he has always had bad posture. Today he could well be under 6 ft, seems a crazy amount to lose though.
Tim said on 28/Dec/16
Eastwood was 6'3.5" at his peak, and six foot today.
movieguy said on 26/Dec/16
Difficult to say Jervis, I'd probably guess Clint as slightly under 6'4''. Gregory Walcott was a bit taller plus I thought Donald Sutherland edged Clint in Kelly's Heroes. It's just when you look at those photos of Tim Robbins and Eastwood the height difference is very significant, not an inch or two but several. Maybe a young Clint wouldn't have been much shorter than Robbins he must have had really significant height loss though. Some claim Robbins is really 6'7'' or so which would perhaps explain things but then others dispute this and go with 6'5''.
jervis said on 23/Dec/16
So what height do you think his peak was movieguy?
movieguy said on 23/Dec/16
The photos of Tim Robbins dwarfing Clint make it hard to believe that they were supposedly similar height in their prime. I agree Clint looks to have lost height in his spine his trousers are nearly touching his chin lol. Even so it's very difficult to see how they could have similar prime heights. Women I understand can lose several inches in height through ageing but men usually lose just one or two at most.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Dec/16
@ SocialGato69

Click Here

Tim Robbins has claimed 6'4.5. That was taken OVER a decade ago. LOL. so you think they're look about the same height ;-) Clint even in Stallon'es munsters would have a hard job getting up to that range these days!
Arch Stanton said on 21/Dec/16
@ SocialGato69 So you reckon Clint is 6'2.5-6'3 now then?

Click Here

Tim Robbins has claimed 6'4.5. That photo was taken 13 years ago, he's lost more height since. Does he look even close to that there? No. Look at him with Justin Timberlake and Bradley Cooper today, he's just a huge amount of height in his upper body.
SocialGato69 said on 20/Dec/16
First off... all those who claim Clint is 6ft.. You are all so freaking wrong... really wrong. How do I know this you ask? Simple... I am 6'4"& 5/8", got the medical facts since I do see my doctor once a year.. & I met Gene Simmons(bassist of KISS.. a few years ago in Las Vegas nightclub along with his now wife Shanon who is tall herself at 6ft.) and have met other "stars" as well. Met Clint once also.. about a decade ago & I was looking at him eye to eye... both of wearing tennis shoes.. I don't think he could of lost 4" inches as most claim he has!!! Maybe, maybe a 1 inch or inch & a half.. 3/4 max, but that's just slouching from age. But if all of you who believe he's 6ft.. then tell him that in person & be ready to taste a quick fistful to your smug mug!!! Ya see, only little guys claim to be tall... like Will Smith Who CLAIMA he''s 6'1" Or 6'2" depending On Which Magazine has the interview. Seen him face to face at day show of a film with his wife Jada at Universal Studios years ago... & no way is he even 6' but more like 5'10"... maybe, maybe 5'11"... no way is he over that!!!! See, small guys always claim to be bigger than they are, where as tall guys over 6' rarely, rarely claim that!!!
SocialGato69 said on 20/Dec/16
First off... all those who claim Clint is 6ft.. You are all so freaking wrong... really wrong. How do I know this you ask? Simple... I am 6'4"& 5/8", got the medical facts since I do see my doctor once a year.. & I met Gene Simmons(bassist of KISS.. a few years ago in Las Vegas nightclub along with his now wife Shanon who is tall herself at 6ft.) and have met other "stars" as well. Met Clint once also.. about a decade ago & I was looking at him eye to eye... both of wearing tennis shoes.. I don't think he could of lost 4" inches as most claim he has!!! Maybe, maybe a 1 inch or inch & a half.. 3/4 max, but that's just slouching from age. But if all of you who believe he's 6ft.. then tell him that in person & be ready to taste a quick fistful to your smug mug!!! Ya see, only little guys claim to be tall... like Will Smith Who CLAIMA he''s 6'1" Or 6'2" depending On Which Magazine has the interview. Seen him face to face at day show of a film with his wife Jada at Universal Studios years ago... & no way is he even 6' but more like 5'10"... maybe, maybe 5'11"... no way is he over that!!!! See, small guys always claim to be bigger than they are, where as tall guys over 6' rarely, rarely claim that!!!
5ft10guy said on 17/Dec/16
This is right he probably is 6ft4 tops. Muhammad Ali described him as taller then himself. So if Ali was 6ft2.5-6ft3 then clint is 6ft3-6ft4. Range
Joey G said on 16/Dec/16
At least 5-7 inches taller than James Edwards and Lee J Cobb in Coogan's Bluff. Even with heels factored, they were 6' and 5'11" . Likely that he was a full 6'4" in his physical prime.
Joey G said on 16/Dec/16
in Coogan's Bluff there are some straight forward shots (side by side) off Clint Eastwood standing full camera next to Lee J Cobb as well as James Edwards. Both of these actors were above average in height; Lee J Cobb, 5' 11" and James Edwards 6'. He appears a head taller than both. Granted that he was wearing boots and the shoes on the other actors appeared to be standard heels. Without taking into account the possibility that either or both of them could be wearing lifts and deducting the extra couple of inches for added height of boot heels, there is no question that relative to the other actors, Eastwood stood at least 6'4" if their heights are correct.
Rory said on 14/Dec/16
No one with any credibility Would argue anything less than 6ft 3 peak.
Christian-196.2cm (6ft5.25) said on 13/Dec/16
Booker said on 13/Dec/16
From 192 to 183 cm? It's impossible to lose so much height.

---------

Not its not. Old people tend to lose more height as they age because of disc compression. And people with multiple spinal fusion surgeries and hip/knee replacements are at a greater risk.
Jervis said on 13/Dec/16
What about from 191 or 190 to 181,is that possible?because he is more 181 now.Booker, what height do you think his peak was?
Booker said on 13/Dec/16
From 192 to 183 cm? It's impossible to lose so much height.
mrbobh5344 said on 12/Dec/16
I'm watching Star In The Dust with 6'1" John Agar. Just saw scene with John facing Clint..... Clint look 6'3" easy. Film from 1956. Clint does not tower.... he is just obviously taller. I think 6'3" for Eastwood in his prime. I'm 6'1" and sort of have a good objective.
James B said on 12/Dec/16
Arch- clint was not a legit 6'4 peak though
Arch Stanton said on 12/Dec/16
LOL that's a terrible photo Matt, see the film!! Eastwood was noticeably TALLER than Santoni. Santoni was more 6'1 range. See Magnum Force with several 6'2 listed actors and David Soul, you're right he was never 6'3, he was around 6'4.
jervis said on 11/Dec/16
In 93 aged 63 he was more 6ft2 range. As for Reni Santoni Clint looked max 2 inches taller,Santoni was 6ft1 max.Also the young Clint was the same height as 6ft2.5 Jim Davis in Rawhide and no taller than 6ft3 Eric Fleming.
Matt said on 9/Dec/16
He was never 6'3". Go watch Dirty Harry. He's noticeably shorter than Reni Santoni who played the character "Chico" and who is listed as 6'0 tall.

Click Here
Anonymous1 said on 8/Dec/16
...another "who knows"; I saw, on Getty Images, Eastwood with James Coburn, from 1993. Camera angles and shoe hell thickness aside, my best guess from the image is that Eastwood overshadows Coburn by maybe an inch...inch and a half. I stood face to face with Coburn in '83, and he barely edged me out...if at all. I was 5'11 and 3'4ths at that, age 17. 10 years later he was certainly no taller. Based on these Getty photos...and maybe not on reality, but based on these photos...Eastwood, in 1993, was certainly a couple inches down from 6'4.
Rory said on 5/Dec/16
You can't guess his peak height based on how he looks now. There's no maximum limit on how much height you can lose in old age. 6'2.5 peak is nonsense. Even 6'3 is what I'd say is improbable.
Jervis said on 5/Dec/16
Looking at the recent photos of Tom Hanks with Obama,and the fact that Clint seems to be a similar height to Hanks,its hard to belive Clint was even 6ft1 peak because Obama looks a good 2 inches taller than Hanks,making Clint max 5ft11 now with a height loss of almost 5 inches.It would mean the young Clint would have been almost 3 inches taller than Obama.Its just too much height to lose IMO.6FT3 max peak for me but 6ft2.5 is not out of the question.As for all the height comparisons with co stars and others of Clint with these people,I would also question the accuracy of their heights too.I believe there was a lot of height inflation going on in Hollywood in Clints youth ,before and after and even today if they can get away with it.
Chris said on 28/Nov/16
Wow, he dropped a lot in height!
Vibram said on 28/Nov/16
Jervis, Hanks was never over 6ft, not even in his prime. Hanks has been nailed at 5ft11.5 / 182cm peak (1988); he's barely lost anything and looks the same at age 60. Seeing 86yo Clint the same height has Hanks proves Clint has fallen below 6ft in recent years. Clint was 6ft3 peak and 5ft11.25 today, thats my estimate. He's lost nearly 4 inches.
Rory said on 25/Nov/16
6ft3 flat seems unlikely to me, although not impossible. He could look that range when slouching, but in his twenties and standing tall I can't see him being below 6'3.5, with 6'3.75 likely.
James B said on 23/Nov/16
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Nov/16
Rob, how likely is 6ft3 flat peak?


Rob must be fed up of you asking that lol
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Nov/16
Rob, how likely is 6ft3 flat peak?
Jervis said on 22/Nov/16
I have seen lots of recent pics of Hanks and Clint together,and they both look very similar in height,sometimes Hanks looks a bit taller than Clint and sometimes Clint looks a bit taller than Hanks.IMO Clint was more 6ft3 peak and is around 6ft flat now,I also think Hanks was about 6ft.05 peak and is around 6ft flat now.I belive Clint has lost about 3 inches off peak,not 4 because he was, IMO never 6ft4 in the first place.I would say his 6ft4 measurement was in the morning with Clint standing with military posture,but in the evening in normal posture he was 6ft3 and sometimes could look 6ft2ish
Vibram said on 21/Nov/16
Peak @ 30: 6ft3
Today @ 86: 5ft11.25 (he's shorter than 5ft11.5 Tom Hanks in his latest film, check out the scenes).

It must suck to lose 4 inches but my grandfather was the same and lost over 3 inches: 6ft0.5 prime, 5ft9 when he died at age 83. had a bad dowagers hump.
roy said on 18/Nov/16
Wow. That would really be awful to be 6'4 younger and then through age be less than 6 foot.
Danimal said on 17/Nov/16
jervis said on 13/Nov/16
In 92 aged 62 Clint had lost about an inch of peak,he was in the same height range as Morgan Freeman then,around 6ft2.05.Letterman was around 6ft1 IMO.I also saw that clip and did'nt notice any height differance between Mcmahon and Clint.

Letterman was at least 6'2" at his peak and claimed 6'2.5" in the morning when he was younger. NO WAY was he a flat 6'1" at his peak.
Anonymous1 said on 16/Nov/16
...according to an article about Eastwood, posted on an Eastwood site, he was cited as 190 during or soon after The Rookie. In another article, when he was in his early 70's, he mentioned being 205. This was in just a brief surf of the net. "If" he was 190 shortly after The Rookie...a movie where he certainly looked muscular, I don't see him as well over 200 at any other time in his tough guy movies. I could be wrong. Film is very deceiving. I have a photo of me from 15 years ago where I was out in the sun, looking ripped, cut and muscular. I was just over 145 (at 6 ft) and, in person, you could have sneezed and I'd have fallen over. But, in that photo, I looked pretty rugged. Photos..and film "can" be deceiving. To stay on topic, I still go with 6'3 ish, n general, in younger days, 6'4 out of bed.
jervis said on 16/Nov/16
He did slouch a lot but I would still say he was more 6ft3 than 6ft4,he looked it with Jim Davis in rawhide,also his co star in rawhide Eric Fleming is listed as 6ft3 and him and Clint look the same height.
Candyman said on 16/Nov/16
People forget he always wore cowboy boots which probably added an inch in comparison to people in regular shoes offset.
newbie said on 16/Nov/16
I find the obsession with downgrading the heights of genuinely tall men very odd. Eastwood may have been a guy who was just under 6'4 and called it 6'4 because that is a sensible rounding but he was no way less than 6'3.5 when you see people he was acting against and the comparison. Plus, in spite of one person on here mentioning it, no one has EVER seriously suggested the guy wore lifts and in his early films he's wearing the same boots as everyone else. It is way too many people to downgrade to get him to 6'2 or less as some want to claim. Also the guy slouched in a way that underplayed his height, hardly the actions of a man trying to con people into believing he was taller than he was. He has definitely lost a lot of height over the years but you can see the change in pictures of him. If you compare his body in younger days to today he had a much longer torso in his younger days and that has noticeably changed as he's got older.

As for the weight debate, I could buy 215 easily for a guy in the 6'3-6'4 range looking the size he did, if anything in his bulked up phase I'd be surprised if he wasn't a bit more.
jervis said on 16/Nov/16
Just seen him in an episode of Rawhide with 6ft2.5 listed Jim Davis,there is a lot of scenes with both actors together,it is hard to tell or see Clint being the taller of the two,both men look the same height.I have seen 6ft3 listings for Davis and Clint my be dropping a fraction of height by slouching,both men look very similar in height.So max peak height for me is 6ft3 inches and no more.
Ian C. said on 14/Nov/16
Interesting, Rob, that you would invite your readers to guess the heights of celebrities. That is really being democratic, since you're an expert and we're not. My own method of guessing heights is to look at body shape, with particular attention to the relative size of the subject's head. I figure that a man with body that seems large in proportion to his body is probably short. Another prejudice I rely on is that a man who can move quickly is more likely to be short than tall. Tom Cruise and Steve McQueen and Yul Brynner get put in my short column, because they are so quick. Liam Neeson and Clint Eastwood must be tall, because they seem clumsy and slow.
Editor Rob: Ian, visitors have been guessing heights for 12 years, it's just now there is an addition of a tally/average which makes it easier to see what an overall opinion might be.
James B said on 13/Nov/16
Probably 6'2.75 in 92
jervis said on 13/Nov/16
In 92 aged 62 Clint had lost about an inch of peak,he was in the same height range as Morgan Freeman then,around 6ft2.05.Letterman was around 6ft1 IMO.I also saw that clip and did'nt notice any height differance between Mcmahon and Clint.
James B said on 11/Nov/16
ectomorphic frame rob?
Anonymous1 said on 10/Nov/16
...just saw him on an old Tonight Show with Carson, dated 1992. Letterman was also on. He was a little shorter than Ed Mcmahon, though slouching. He was definitely taller than Letterman, but was letterman the full 6'2 I've read? He looked 2 inches taller than Letterman. But if Letterman really was 6'2, that would make Eastwood 6'4 in '92. Then that would make Ed M. roughly 6'5 and 1/2, and I've never heard such a height being attributed to him. I have no idea what to make of this Tonight Show appearance.
James B said on 7/Nov/16
Rob do you think years of heavy weightlifting could have contributed to his height loss?
Editor Rob: James, I think he has a frame which meant it took him a lot of effort to add a fair bit of muscle.

absolute no steroids or hormones for Clint.

yes, I think it might have effected him a bit, but some men are just more prone to loss, it can be hereditary...
Arch Stanton said on 7/Nov/16
@Jervis younger not older but yes. If you saw Matthew Kelly in the 90s he looked every bit of 6'5, in fact could look 6'6 at times. I saw him on a quiz show not long ago and the loss is really substantial, he's honest, he looks about 6'2'5 now. So it can happen.
jervis said on 7/Nov/16
I ment younger.
jervis said on 7/Nov/16
I have just read Matthew Kelly has gone from 6ft5 to 6ft2.05 and he is 20 years older than Clint,so not just Clint.
Sandy Cowell said on 6/Nov/16
I cannot believe my eyes! He's only 6ft now! I always thought of him as 6ft4! Obviously, I'd expected him to be a bit shorter now but 4 inches is surely above average on the shrinkage front?
jervis said on 5/Nov/16
I think 6ft4 was a morning mesurement,he more 6ft3 at the end of the day,along with bad posture and slouching he could look as low as 6ft2 at times.He mainly only wore heels in westrens but so did everybody else.
Rory said on 3/Nov/16
The 2000s were a punishing decade for Clint in terms of height loss. In 2000 he looked still a decent 6ft2 aged 70, by 2010 though he looked 6'0.25-0.5.
jervis said on 2/Nov/16
He is 86 and was around John Cusacks height about 10 years ago,if you look at pics of them together. In Clints case looking almost as tall as George Kennedy,taller than Charlton Heston Lee Marvin,Hackman etc he was clearly no less than 6ft3 peak.
Puma said on 30/Oct/16
Rob, did he lost 9 cm?Is it so much for 85 years old, isn't it?
Editor Rob: the taller, the greater chance of more loss compared to average. I think near 4 inches is like 3-3.5 inches for a 5ft 9 range man, so it is a fair amount comparatively speaking.
Ren said on 29/Oct/16
Rob, is Clint looks same height as you unlikely where he looks no taller than Matt Damon where, Damon is same height as 5'7.5 Corden. I bet Clint is 5'5 due to height shrinkage or without lifts. Can you Explain me please If you way shorter than Clint now.
jervis said on 23/Oct/16
After 30 votes it looks like 6ft3.75 peak and 6ft present day are more or less agreed.
jervis said on 11/Oct/16
He looked 6ft3 with Rock Hudson.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Oct/16
movieguy said on 1/Oct/16
I suppose the best estimates come from people who have seen the celebrity's in person. However for most of us this is likely to be pretty rare. Would we have been astonished to see how big Clint actually was in his prime or would we come away thinking he wasn't as tall as we thought. The comments I like are the ones where the poster says they were surprised to see how tall so and so was but these are the exception. Mostly when celebrities are spotted there seems to be a mild disappointment expressed as to the famous actor or whatever being much smaller in real life than they look on the screen.

Over the years some people have mentioned meeting him, some seem fake, but some have seemed genuine like the "bumped into him in a coffee ship in Monterrey in 1978" etc. And most people confirm that he looked very tall in person. he wouldn't have got the reaction that Stallone and Van Damme get when people realize they're not 6'4!
Judd said on 6/Oct/16
Peak 6'3", current 6'0"
Judd said on 6/Oct/16
Peak 6'3", current 6'0"
S.J.H said on 1/Oct/16
I read up how spinal fracture could do the height shrinkage of 4" commonly for old people. There is some case of young folks at the age of 20s-30s had suffer spinal fracture losing 2.5-3.5" max of height and could imagine when they get older like clint eastwood might reach the max shrink to 4". Conclusion that clint eastwood might have suffer spinal fracture since his age of late 40s-50s losing this much at 3.75"
movieguy said on 1/Oct/16
I suppose the best estimates come from people who have seen the celebrity's in person. However for most of us this is likely to be pretty rare. Would we have been astonished to see how big Clint actually was in his prime or would we come away thinking he wasn't as tall as we thought. The comments I like are the ones where the poster says they were surprised to see how tall so and so was but these are the exception. Mostly when celebrities are spotted there seems to be a mild disappointment expressed as to the famous actor or whatever being much smaller in real life than they look on the screen.
Danimal said on 1/Oct/16
James B said on 25/Jul/16
Perhaps clints height loss is not as uncommon as we think.

People who are knowledgeable on height loss and the reasons behind it know that it is not uncommon. Many people have lost significant height. Clint, Louis Gossett Jr., Big Show, Hulk Hogan, Roddy Piper, Arnold, and many many more.
Danimal said on 1/Oct/16
Editor Rob:
Thanks, the site is now exactly 12 years old.

A shame I didn't have it earlier, but then, nothing is ever too late.

Personally, I think it will be interesting over time to see what figure user-contributed averages settle towards.

Will a guy like Cruise end up under 5ft 7, over 5ft 7?
Will Bieber hit 5ft 8 etc...

Who knows!

If you are a longer term visitor, I know many will have commented on hundreds of pages and feel there's nothing more to add...but I hope some will slowly add their guesses to the site...

There's no rush though, if you added 5 guesses a day, it would take you 5 years to have guessed on every entry in the database!

Will the MEAN average of your posters influence your ultimate decision Rob to either lower or raise some people's heights? I think it should if the consensus is overwhelming. What do you think?
Editor Rob: over time I hope it helps me identify listings which are further from my estimate and I can look more closely at them.

I may not always agree with a consensus though...sometimes it can be influenced even by a photo I have.

All I ask is honesty in voting to help the site :)

I'm completely impartial to the votes in that you can guess however you like...the only issue is if somebody was submitting every celeb as 2 inches taller or shorter, maybe that's not so genuine.
movieguy said on 30/Sep/16
Love the height guess thing Rob. Makes the site even better.
Editor Rob:
Thanks, the site is now exactly 12 years old.

A shame I didn't have it earlier, but then, nothing is ever too late.

Personally, I think it will be interesting over time to see what figure user-contributed averages settle towards.

Will a guy like Cruise end up under 5ft 7, over 5ft 7?
Will Bieber hit 5ft 8 etc...

Who knows!

If you are a longer term visitor, I know many will have commented on hundreds of pages and feel there's nothing more to add...but I hope some will slowly add their guesses to the site...

There's no rush though, if you added 5 guesses a day, it would take you 5 years to have guessed on every entry in the database!
James B said on 26/Sep/16
Rob recently he's been looking shorter than Tom hanks........ Perhaps a downgrade to 5'11 range is due soon for clint
Editor Rob: not really seen much to suggest Clint is obviously shorter than Tom.
PLB said on 20/Sep/16
Clint Eastwood is 6'4". He was when he became a star and he will always be that height as far as I'm concerned. I was 6'4" from about an age of 24 to my accident at age 64. I fell off a cliff at the beach. I couldn't walk for about a year. But I'm better now. I'm shorter but I simply don't measure myself anymore. I tell people I'm six four because that's my self image. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
jervis said on 8/Sep/16
I would say Clint and Hanks are more or less even in height,around 6ft even,maybe a little less?Clint always looked a strong 6ft3 Peak IMO. Just look at the pics with 6ft4 listed Tom Snyder,you are looking at a peak Clint with a guy of 6ft4.
Jervis said on 8/Sep/16
It was the tomorrow show Snyder presented not the tonight show.
johnp said on 7/Sep/16
The Press photo for the movie Sully. Eastwood looks a little shorter than Tom Hanks who we think is
about 6 feet. Eastwood now under 6 foot for sure.
Jervis said on 7/Sep/16
Sorry his name was Tom Snyder.
Jervis said on 7/Sep/16
There are some good pics of Clint with Tom snydner who was a former tonight show host.The pics date from 1979 Clint would have been 49 years old,Snydner 43.Snydner is listed as 1m93cm but is the taller of the two.Clint looks a strong 6ft3 beside him,maybe 6ft3.5 tops.
jervis said on 3/Sep/16
In the 50s 60s and 70s,I think all of the stars inflated their heights a little and Clint was no different.
Rory said on 31/Aug/16
No I'm sorry I'm not having 6'3 flat for this guy. In the deadpool aged 58 he looked a decent 6'3 still next to Liam Neeson(6'4.25)and I'm convinced he'd have lost height by then, probably half an inch. 6'3.5-75 peak. I'd challenge anyone really to find good examples of 50s/60s/70s Clint looking 6'3 flat, and no, comparing him to 6ft listed Santoni who no one rly has any idea how tall that guy really is is not a good example.
jervis said on 29/Aug/16
I agree with you berta,6ft3 is more like his peak,6ft4 morning height.looked 6ft3 right up to 60,6ft1.75 by 70,6ft.75 by 80,now 6ft at 86.
berta said on 29/Aug/16
my grandmother is 91 soon 92 and she was 172 peak and now a Little under 167. so she has lost Little over 5 cm Clint have lost 10 cm!!! maybe he was only 190-91 peak? i can actually see him and the rock about the same height peak. Both measured Close to 6'4 in the morning and was 6'3 evening and said they were 193 nothing wrong with that they just Went with morning height i guess.
Dmeyer said on 25/Aug/16
Does look 1cm on Hanks and 3cm in DiCaprio the Guy is still 6 ft
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Aug/16
Agreed, James. Jackman is was a relatively thin guy before X-Men. That's why he could pass for 6ft3 at times when he was younger
James B said on 17/Aug/16
Rampage- so was Hugh Jackman
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Aug/16
Eastwood was a naturally thin guy who bulked up.
Rory said on 14/Aug/16
@Greg, Yh but how can you rely on IMDB ? He's listed 6ft but that means absolutely nothing. It's very inconsistent when people scrutinise clints height, but then happily just accept any old listing for other people as being correct, he might well have been 6'1 range Santoni.
jervis said on 14/Aug/16
Santoni look taller with Clint than Lee Marvin,and Marvin is listed as 6ft1.5.So if Santoni was 6ft flat that would put Marvin in the 5ft11.5 range.If Clint was 6ft2 range aged 40 it would mean he lost little or no height up until his 70s.
jervis said on 13/Aug/16
Reni Santonis height has been listed as tall as 6ft3 and also I have seen 6ft1 listings for him too.Clint was 6ft3.5 peak and Santoni was between 6ft1 and 6ft2 IMO. If Santoni was 6ft,Clint was 6ft2 max.
jervis said on 12/Aug/16
86 it was his birthday on may the 30th.
Greg said on 12/Aug/16
In Dirty Harry he was about 40 or 41 years old and I'm not seeing 4 inches difference between Reni Santoni (Chico) who's listed at 6' on IMDB and Eastwood, there's maybe 2 inches. I would guess he was probably closer to 6'3" peak
movieguy said on 11/Aug/16
People ask why Clint has lost so much height but he is pretty old. He's 85 years of age. I see him as weak 6'4'' guy prime who has gradually lost height over time. Height loss really kicked in his 70s. Struggles to hit 6ft these days. Maybe some guys keep their stature better with age though, a 4 inch height loss seems a lot for a man although probably not unusual in a woman. I've seen his son Kyle and his band perform live and he looks more like Clint in person than in photos, very similar build tall and lean.
NX said on 9/Aug/16
How the hell has he lost so much height?
moe said on 9/Aug/16
Looking at this pic, Clint was clearly a 6'4 guy. Click Here
jervis said on 3/Aug/16
Also Ruddy and Clint are both the same age,but Ruddy looks to have lost no height,he looks to have 2 inches on Clint and Clint has lost almost 4 from peak.
jervis said on 3/Aug/16
There is a photo of Clint with producer Al Ruddy from 1973 where Clint is the taller than the two, by a good two inches.But in the more recent photos its the other way around.But in the older photo footwear and ground level cant be seen.james Brolin is also in the photo from 73.
jervis said on 3/Aug/16
There is a photo of Clint with producer Al Ruddy from 1973 where Clint is the taller than the two, by a good two inches.But in the more recent photos its the other way around.But in the older photo footwear and ground level cant be seen.james Brolin is also in the photo from 73.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Aug/16
Johan said on 19/Jul/16
James B said on 26/Jun/16
wut said on 23/Jun/16
hasslehoff at 195 looks very slim. his normal weight is closer to 210 i bet. i'm 6 foot and 160 pounds with a lanky build and get told i'm too skinny often. i think i'd have to weigh around 180 before i stopped looking thin.

Yes, Hoff looks very trim at 191 pounds. In an earlier series of Baywatch he was carrying a lot more weight, in fact I thought he looked nearer 220 pounds in one of the earlier series. You'll remember that he used to suck his stomach in a lot. I don't think he's a guy who is naturally slim, his daughters are big. I think he has to work very hard to maintain it.
jervis said on 30/Jul/16
Jeff Bridges looked 6ft2 with him in Tunderbolt and Lightfoot,but Tim Robbins made him look 6ft max in Arlington Road.Bridges was only 50 at he time so I d'ont think he would have lost any height.Clint at 6ft3.75 peak and Robbins at 6ft4.75 seems odd?
James B said on 29/Jul/16
You could argue just 6'3.5 over 6'3.75 couldn't you rob?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Jul/16
Rob, how likely is 6ft3 flat peak?
Editor Rob: not sure I'd try to argue that low.
jervis said on 25/Jul/16
I think he was 6ft4 at morning in his youth,standing with perfect posture.Thats where he got his 6ft4 from.
James B said on 25/Jul/16
Perhaps clints height loss is not as uncommon as we think.

For example Vanessa Redgrave at 5'11 was the equivalent of a 6ft4 man and now at 79 she is 5'7-5'8 range.
Rory said on 24/Jul/16
Another poster said it before Clint was almost certainly somewhere between 6'3.25-6'3.75 in his youth. Anywhere taller or shorter than that range seems unlikely..for example he edged out James Brolin who by General consensus was a decent 6'3. Personally I think Clint was a guy who when measured would hit 6'3.75, but due to rather lax posture he'd often appear more 6'3.25-5.
jervis said on 23/Jul/16
If he was 6ft2.05,then Rock Hudson was max 6ft4 or 6ft3.05.
jervis said on 23/Jul/16
Watch rawhide if you can.He always slouched even back in the fifties,never had good posture.In his youth he seemed to be uncomfortable with his height and never stood with perfect posture,and seems to have continued this habit in later life to.I
jervis said on 23/Jul/16
I think 6ft2.05 for his peak is only if his costars like Lee Marvin,George Kennedy etc were 6ft flat for Marvin and 6ft3 flat for Kennedy peak,if they were, then yes 6ft2.05 peak was his height.
jervis said on 23/Jul/16
Sorry thats never say goodbye,send me no flowers is Clint Walker.
jervis said on 23/Jul/16
If you have not seen the clip of the young Clint from the movie send me no flowers,he is in a scene with Rock Hudson and looks a least 6ft3.05 maybe even the full 6ft4.
Fratjimmy96 said on 22/Jul/16
I've never really bought the fact that Clint was 6'4. I think he began to lose height when he was 60..yes, he never had a good posture, but in "In the line of fire" he looked a weak 6'3 in shoes against Dylan McDermott, who looked a legit six footer, so in my opinion he was in his prime a good 6'2.5 (189cm) max and in his late 50's and early 60's he began his big slouch. Certainly, he has even nowadays a really bad posture...against 6'4.5 Armie Hammer and 5'11.75 Leonardo DiCaprio, he looks barely 6'1 in shoes, so he must be a solid 6' (183.5 cm) barefoot now max.
jervis said on 22/Jul/16
You could be right Rory,maybe he could have been 6ft3.05 with perfect posture at the time,he did look a strong 2 inches taller than Lee Marvin.
ly said on 21/Jul/16
Click Here
This pic with at least 6ft4 george kennedy proves that clint at the least this height.
Rory said on 21/Jul/16
Imo he looked a solid inch taller than Van Cleef so probably 1.25 inches taller, but I don't think his posture was quite as good as Van Cleefs either, so if both men were measured barefoot I'd guess Eastwood would be 1.5 inches taller.
jervis said on 21/Jul/16
IMO he was 6ft4 in normal 1 inch shoes.Looked only 1 inch taller than Van Cleef,but could look 3 taller than Marvin,but that was more down to Marvin not been 6ft2 and more weak 6ft1.For a fit guy like Clint I dont get how he has lost so much height.
Johan said on 19/Jul/16
James B said on 26/Jun/16
wut said on 23/Jun/16
hasslehoff at 195 looks very slim. his normal weight is closer to 210 i bet. i'm 6 foot and 160 pounds with a lanky build and get told i'm too skinny often. i think i'd have to weigh around 180 before i stopped looking thin.


According to bmi 160 at 6ft is the healthiest weight since it's bang in the middle of the healthy weight bar so maybe it's not so bad. But if you want to put on weight in muscle simply go to the gym.



And yet wut is right James B. At 6ft around 180 pounds is when you stop looking skinny. Im not even a full inch taller and around 185 pounds I was still thin.

Around 200 pounds is perfect for me but i go as high as 210 pounds in the winter with water weight.
Danimal (176-178cm) said on 19/Jul/16
Lucky if he's a flat 5'11" today at 86 years old. Was between 6'3" and 6'4" before any height loss started to kick in in the early 1980's.
Danimal (176-178cm) said on 19/Jul/16
James B said on 26/Jun/16

According to bmi 160 at 6ft is the healthiest weight since it's bang in the middle of the healthy weight bar so maybe it's not so bad. But if you want to put on weight in muscle simply go to the gym.

Kid, we've been over this many times. BMI does not take into account bone structure or muscle mass. 6'0" at 160 is THIN.
Shredder said on 18/Jul/16
Seagal looked 6'6 range in a photo with my 6'1 ( yes , it's his real height) cousin. I was shocked he looked this tall and I even asked if something was off with the pic , like footwear or if he had a higher ground , my cousin told me they were both on even ground but Seagal was in cowboy boots. My cousin actually guessed him at 6'6 , 6'7 ( what he thought he appeared with the footwear). a 6'5 guy in cowboy boots looking 6'6 makes since. 6'4.5 minimum.
jervis said on 18/Jul/16
I think Seagal was closer to 6ft5 than 6ft4,looked a good 3 inches taller than a 65 yearold Clint on google images face to face.
Peter 179cm said on 18/Jul/16
Peak:190cm
Older Clint:180-181cm,he really struggles to look 6'0 most of the time.
Canson said on 18/Jul/16
@Shredder: I doubt Seagal was ever 6'5. I remember one movie they showed his license and he had 6'5 but likely in shoes. But won't doubt maybe 6'4 in his prime and Eastwood at least 6'3.
Shredder said on 18/Jul/16
Seagal was 6'5 , Clint 6 ft 3
jervis said on 17/Jul/16
Just watched 0ut for justice,in it Segal looks much taller than Clint ever did in his movies.If i did not know Segals height I would have taught he was 6ft6,but maybe thats what a real 6ft4 looks like.
Rusty 190cm said on 15/Jul/16
I think 6'3.5" is likely what his peak was and he rounded up to 6'4". I think anywhere from 6'3.25" to 6'3.75" peak is arguable.
jervis said on 13/Jul/16
IMO Sutherland an Clint where 6ft3.05 for Sutherland and 6ft3.025 for Clint.By Space cowboys Sutherland aged 65 6ft3 and Clint aged 70 6ft1.05.Height loss from peak 1.075 inches for Clint and .05 height loss for Sutherland.At 65 Clint would have been 6ft2
movieguy said on 12/Jul/16
Definitely lost height compared to Donald Sutherland. In Space Cowboys looked a few inches shorter. I think Sutherland edged him Kelly's Heroes but difficult to be sure and some put Clint as looking taller in this film. Sutherland has really filled out with time whereas Clint still has the same lean frame he had as a young man albeit a little shorter.
jervis said on 9/Jul/16
If he was 6ft flat or max 6ft1 peak ,everybody else he acted and was photographed with were also lying about their heights,or he wore lifts and big heeled boots or shoes all the time.
jervis said on 7/Jul/16
Above it says he is 6ft3 and 216 pounds in 1988. I wonder where they got that height listing from.
Normal. Tall guy said on 6/Jul/16
I doubt clint was any taller than 6 ft maybe 6'1 in his prime bcoz if he was ever 6"4 and wearing cowboy boots and cowboy hat he"d look ridiculous at 7foot n would be ducking to go through a doorway its simply just another hollywood lie
jervis said on 5/Jul/16
In space cowboys he seemed only slightly shorter than Sutherland ,except for the scene were there all naked where there barefoot Sutherland looks about 2 inches taller?Maybe Clint had a little bit of help in the shoes?
jervis said on 4/Jul/16
He looked 6ft2ish with Sutherland and co in space cowboys,but he could also look as low as 6ft1 in that movie with Tommy Lee Jones.
Rory said on 3/Jul/16
Yh I can understand him claiming 6'4, from 18 to 50 odd he would have been that range, and stated that as his height..he most probably only measured his height once in his life. When you get to 70 odd you might know you've shrunk, but can't be bothered to measure your height and so just go with your former height.
Canson said on 3/Jul/16
I'd say he was at least 191 in his peak tops would be 192 at his lowest which classes you 6'4 to the majority since ppl round so much
James B said on 1/Jul/16
Rob do you think Clint was really 6ft2 range in million dollar baby?
Editor Rob: might have dipped under by that stage.
James B said on 1/Jul/16
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/Jun/16
James, he might've been referring to his younger self. I don't know if he'd be that arrogant to claim 6ft4. To be fair, I think he was still 6ft2 range when he did Million Dollar Baby, by Gran Torino he was down to 6ft1 and 4-5 years ago I'd have said he was still over 6ft.


Clint has been known to be arrogent.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/Jun/16
James, he might've been referring to his younger self. I don't know if he'd be that arrogant to claim 6ft4. To be fair, I think he was still 6ft2 range when he did Million Dollar Baby, by Gran Torino he was down to 6ft1 and 4-5 years ago I'd have said he was still over 6ft.
James B said on 29/Jun/16
Maybe I was a bit unfair calling clint 'stupid'. I get the impression that clint has zero interest in height and is more into golfing and working out so maybe he was stating his measured height from when he was younger just sticks to that not realising about his height loss?

Rob do you think he would still claim 6ft4 for his height today? Remember this is a guy who talked to a chair lol.
James B said on 29/Jun/16
I personally think Eastwood was a bit stupid back in 2003 claiming he was "6'4" he is an intelligent man but that's not one of his sharpest moments is it? Look at him next to to Tim Robbins back then and 6'4 just makes no sense lol.

In 2003 I don't think clint was over 186cm?
Rusty 190cm said on 28/Jun/16
Click Here

Go to this link and scroll down a bit. He claims 6'4" 205 lbs
jervis said on 27/Jun/16
In that movie Clint looked 6ft5 in his boots,just over 6ft3 barefoot.Vaughn would have been close to 6ft7 in the same boots,IMO
James B said on 26/Jun/16
I don't know what you guys think but I find it hard to imagine clint being taller than 6'4.75 vince vaughn (in his cowboy boots) in coogans bluff.
James B said on 26/Jun/16
wut said on 23/Jun/16
hasslehoff at 195 looks very slim. his normal weight is closer to 210 i bet. i'm 6 foot and 160 pounds with a lanky build and get told i'm too skinny often. i think i'd have to weigh around 180 before i stopped looking thin.


According to bmi 160 at 6ft is the healthiest weight since it's bang in the middle of the healthy weight bar so maybe it's not so bad. But if you want to put on weight in muscle simply go to the gym.
Anonymous1 said on 25/Jun/16
...everyone's opinion is valid, and mine's just that; an opinion. But outdoor lighting, especially with the sun overhead, can play tricks on the eyes. I've seen guys from a distance, outdoors...say in a parking lot, and I think, "man...this guy is jacked". Then I'll be up close to him, like if it's at a grocery store, and he doesn't look nearly as muscular. This is my opinion on Eastwood in Heartbreak Ridge, the "Loose" and "Can" movies, and others. Muscular? Sure thing. But muscular, while at the same time skinnier than you'd think. Even with western coats on (Pale Rider) or a sport coat on (Dirty Harry)...which you would think would make his shoulders look much broader, he looks totally narrow, from top to bottom. 190 until Every Which Way (He's totally skinny in the Gauntlet), and more after that...for a decade or so. So Rob doesn't get mad at me for steering this off height, the guy who played the villain (name escapes me...Andrew something) in Dirty Harry is listed as 5'11. I can only find one photo of he and Eastwood together, and I don't even think it's actually in the movie, but I could be wrong. If 5'11 is true, it would give us an indication of Clint's height if there was a good shot of them standing together.
Anonymous1 said on 24/Jun/16
...I find Eastwood's build hard to define. I still say he's got an extremely narrow frame, including the shoulders. His muscularity is sometimes hard for me to define, because I believe his torso, shirtless, is kind of hourglass shaped. I'm not sure if I'm seeing pecs, or just the top of the hourglass. Sure, his arms were muscular in the Every Which Way films, but they looked, at times, way out of proportion to everything else...particularly his legs. Chuck Connors was roughly 6'6 (according to his own son) and, I believe, I read he was around 215. But as lanky as he was, my opinion was that his frame, particularly shoulders was large and sturdy...more so than Eastwood's. So how was a man, potentially 2 to 3 inches taller than Eastwood and with broader shoulders and who , to my knowledge, didn't work out with weights nearly as much, be the same weight as a 1988 Eastwood? No opinion here, just stuff for conversation.
wut said on 23/Jun/16
hasslehoff at 195 looks very slim. his normal weight is closer to 210 i bet. i'm 6 foot and 160 pounds with a lanky build and get told i'm too skinny often. i think i'd have to weigh around 180 before i stopped looking thin.
Danimal (176-178cm) said on 23/Jun/16
Anonymous1 said on 22/Jun/16
...I'm sure there are a zillion weight rules to choose from. I grew up being aware of roughly 10 lbs for every inch of height (starting from what point, I have no idea). I would put Eastwood at 190, no more, up to and including The Gauntlet. After that, it varied. To keep it on topic, 6'4 "right" out of bed or after laying around for a nap, but more like 6'3 plus, peak.

You add 10 pounds for every inch over 6'0" and 5 pounds under 6'0".
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jun/16
The old quote Rob added I'm pretty sure it was originally mentioned somewhere as 216 pounds in 1973 too. Clint was supposed to have been 205 pounds during the Dollars trilogy. I doubt he was as low as 190 after his 20s.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jun/16
Yes, you're right, he did look bigger in those films.
James B said on 23/Jun/16
Arch- have you seen how muscular clint looked in any which way you can and deadpool?

He was built like a bare in those particular movies
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jun/16
190 pounds is slender for 6'4 not really thatt "skinny". A guy like Hasslehoff is about that, he looks slender but not skinny. Under 180 at 6'4 would probably start to look skinny. Peter Crouch is around 6'8 and 170 pounds that's skinny!!
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jun/16
Click Here

That's not skinny. Hardly built like a wrestler either but he was carrying more muscle than you think.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jun/16
Obviously compared to somebody with a huge muscular frame like the Rock he was skinny, but still...
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jun/16
Look at him in High Plains Drifter Anonymous, he was in the bathtub in that. Decent muscle in the chest, shoulders and arms and reasonably broad, more than a typical skinny guy, but really quite slender overall.
Anonymous1 said on 22/Jun/16
...I'm sure there are a zillion weight rules to choose from. I grew up being aware of roughly 10 lbs for every inch of height (starting from what point, I have no idea). I would put Eastwood at 190, no more, up to and including The Gauntlet. After that, it varied. To keep it on topic, 6'4 "right" out of bed or after laying around for a nap, but more like 6'3 plus, peak.
Anonymous1 said on 22/Jun/16
...never said Eastwood would be 150, now. My general point was that, based on the 10 lbs per inch rule, the equivalent of a 6'4 / 190 lb man is a 6'0 / 150 lb man. Overall point being 190 is skinny for 6'4. At just over 6 foot myself, I once got down to 148 lbs. A photo of me, shirtless and taken outside, made me look super cut and muscular. In person, I was a twig. Beyond a twig. Photos (or film) don't always tell the tale. Apparently, Rob said the 216 lb weight was from 1988. That makes sense. He was a little older, and had trained heavily for everything from Every Which Way But Loose to Heartbreak Ridge. But I know I read 190 as his weight, at other times. And I disagree about his frame. Be it film, video or photograph, you always look a bit heavier. I marvel at how narrow Eastwood looks, particularly from the waist up, in most of his films.
James B said on 21/Jun/16
Arch- on the topic of clints weight this is why I think heavy weight lifting is more suited for taller folk such as clint Eastwood and Hugh Jackman etc.

I am 172cm range and 6 years ago I used to lift to stupidly heavy weights on the machines at the gym and got up to 174 pounds (without clothes in the morning) at my heaviest and it made me look really stumpy and overdeveloped. I now weigh 150 pounds and look better for it since it helps me look slimmer and taller.

It's a sad fact but tall people can carry loads of muscle and still pull of looking slim.
James B said on 21/Jun/16
It's 5 pounds for every inch of height.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Jun/16
He's around 6 ft today and not 150 pounds Anon, probably around 185 now.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Jun/16
Rob, perhaps you could put up the 1973 216 pounds quote here from the celebweights page? Anonymous I think he was about 205 in Dollars era. 215 in the 70s and more 220-5 in 78-90 era. Today probably 185-90 range I'd guess. He was never a skinny guy like Jimmy Stewart or James Coburn. Heavier framed than you think, but because he had long legs and slender frame I guessed it made him look thinner.
Editor Rob: it was 1988, but yeah I could slide it in.
Anonymous1 said on 19/Jun/16
...I realize this site is about heights, but weights go along with heights. To that end, I'm curious as to Eastwood's weight(s). I've read 190, and I've also read 215...which I would assume coincides with his more muscular build of '78 to '90, roughly. For arguments' sake, let's say he was 6'4 peak (and I still go with just under that, on any given day), and 190...say in 1977. I've read for every inch of height you add 10 pounds (and I could be 100% wrong on that). But if it's true and just for kicks, if Eastwood was a 6 footer and not 6'4, he'd have only been 150. I have no real point here, other than he is/was one skinny guy.
jervis said on 19/Jun/16
In that photo Clint looks to have 2 inches on 5ft10.75 listed Bruce Dern.
jervis said on 19/Jun/16
In that photo Clint looks to have 2 inches on 5ft10..75
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Jun/16
He looks taller than Paxton in that photo but is standing better.
jervis said on 19/Jun/16
Looks taller than Paxton considering Paxton is closer to the camera,looks an easy 6ft in that photo to me.
Rory said on 19/Jun/16
Yh but it's not like he lost 4 inches overnight in which case I'm sure you'd be pretty alarmed by it. It's a gradual loss over the last 40 years or so, which you don't really notice.
Anonymous1 said on 17/Jun/16
I wonder what Eastwood, himself, thinks about going from almost or equal to 6'4, and then down to 5'11 to 6'0. Nothing wrong with the latter, but that's a dramatic difference. The guy must be elusive, because it seems no one who posts here has ever run into him, recently in particular. Just watched Sudden Impact again, last night. Great Dirty Harry movie. Too bad he ended his run with Dead Pool, which I feel was far inferior.
James B said on 17/Jun/16
Rob will you give him 5'11.5 soon?
Editor Rob: he could be with bill paxton who is a decent 5ft 11-11.5 range...
Danimal (176-178cm) said on 16/Jun/16
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jun/16
James B said on 2/Jun/16
i don't get why you guys are so shocked about his height loss. There's nothing abnormal in my opinion about a 6'3.75 guy ending up at 5'11.5 aged 86. Very tall people have longer spines hence they lose much more than the average man when they get to be very old and also lots of men who are very tall often don't live as long as clint.

It's hardly rocket science is it?

It's more than average loss, at his age you'd expect 2.5-3 inches but it's now 4 inches. 6'2.5 to his current height would be about average loss I think.

He's closer to 5'11" today, which makes it 5 inches in height loss from his peak.
Danimal (176-178cm) said on 16/Jun/16
Peterson188cm said on 12/Jun/16
Rob, do you know what made Clint Eastwood to lose so much height ??
Editor Rob: age is a big factor because he is quite active well into 80's...he might have lost an inch more than what you'd expect, but some people can really lose several inches by their mid 80's. The taller the more chance the loss could be greater than average.

Really Rob? You didn't mention that Clint has a form of scoliosis (curving spine) which definitely added to premature and above average height loss? He probably also has osteoperosis.
Editor Rob: I'm not sure he has any obvious twisting sideways to his body, but he certainly looks to have a fair amount of degeneration in lumbar and cervical discs.
Danimal (176-178cm) said on 16/Jun/16
Can't believe you still have him at 6'0"? He's shorter than Christian Bale today. Max 5'11".
jervis said on 15/Jun/16
I taught he was around 6ft 2 when I saw him in movies for the first time,when I found out that he was 6ft 4,I was a bit surprised.But when you compare him to other actors at the time he seemed to measure up to their heights.As I said before if he was 6ft 2 peak there are a lot of overinflated heights of actors heights out there.
jervis said on 14/Jun/16
Even if he was 6ft 2 peak,that photo with Cooper shows about 2.5 or 3 inches height loss.This guy definitely has some health issues with height.
James B said on 13/Jun/16
Guys do you agree that a prime clint Eastwood is much taller than you would imagine him to be if you did not know his height?
jervis said on 13/Jun/16
That photo is the only one that he looks taller than Freeman in from that period.I don't know why.Maybe Clint is standing to his full height,or Freemans posture is a bit more relaxed.
Peterson188cm said on 12/Jun/16
Rob, do you know what made Clint Eastwood to lose so much height ??
Editor Rob: age is a big factor because he is quite active well into 80's...he might have lost an inch more than what you'd expect, but some people can really lose several inches by their mid 80's. The taller the more chance the loss could be greater than average.
Animus said on 12/Jun/16
Considering he was once almost 6'4", he has surprisingly proprotionate arms today.

Click Here

Click Here

How could that be? Is it because it is only the upper-body that has shrunken so his fingers still reach the level on his legs? I would his arms would still look relative to his waist. Generally, old men to have disproportionate arm length.
183cmAriel said on 11/Jun/16
Click Here

he seems taller than 6'2 morgan freeman and this pic is from 2011
msn1'87-88 said on 7/Jun/16
looks 1'90ish with van cleff in tgtbtu. So a weak 6'3 peak for him i'd say.
jervis said on 7/Jun/16
Because he seems like a very fit guy for 86,people find it hard to beloved that he had lost so much height.Also if he was 6ft2 or 6ft2.5 peak,it would mean a lot of downgrades for everybody else he is being compered too.But it's not impossible that there was height exaggerating in Hollywood during Clints heyday.Today it is more difficult for celebs to get away with lying about their height because of websites like celebhights.
James B said on 6/Jun/16
Arch- clint looked proper bulky in 1985 .

You would never think he would have been prone to ostreoporosis would you?
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jun/16
James B said on 2/Jun/16
i don't get why you guys are so shocked about his height loss. There's nothing abnormal in my opinion about a 6'3.75 guy ending up at 5'11.5 aged 86. Very tall people have longer spines hence they lose much more than the average man when they get to be very old and also lots of men who are very tall often don't live as long as clint.

It's hardly rocket science is it?

It's more than average loss, at his age you'd expect 2.5-3 inches but it's now 4 inches. 6'2.5 to his current height would be about average loss I think.
movieguy said on 5/Jun/16
Watched Pink Cadillac and Eastwood looked pretty beefed up in this particularly in the arms, guessing he was doing a fair bit of weight lifting at this point. If you watch his films you can notice his torso getting shorter over the years which I suppose isn't uncommon. Most of us will lose height as we age but it won't be widely noticed because we aren't movie stars. I don't agree with those who suggest he was 6'2'' peak I think the height given on this site is more accurate.
James B said on 2/Jun/16
i don't get why you guys are so shocked about his height loss. There's nothing abnormal in my opinion about a 6'3.75 guy ending up at 5'11.5 aged 86. Very tall people have longer spines hence they lose much more than the average man when they get to be very old and also lots of men who are very tall often don't live as long as clint.

It's hardly rocket science is it?
jervis said on 2/Jun/16
If you can belive he can go from 6ft 2.5 to say 5ft11.5,why not 6ft3.75 to 6ft?Both are more than the average height loss.
Danimal (176-178cm) said on 1/Jun/16
bobbyh3342 said on 1/Jun/16
clint was never bigger than 6 2.5

You mean TALLER not bigger and yes, he was.
Rory said on 1/Jun/16
@bobbyh3342, have you got any evidence to back that up ? No of course not. Anything under 6'3 peak is garbage.
jervis said on 1/Jun/16
How do you think he managed to look similar to 6ft4 guys like George Kennedy and Greg wallcot?Had about 2.5 to 3 inches on Lee Marvin.If he was 6ft2.5 peak that would put Marvin at 6ft flat peak if you can prove he was then your right.
bobbyh3342 said on 1/Jun/16
clint was never bigger than 6 2.5
jervis said on 1/Jun/16
If he did not lose almost 4 inches from peak,the only way he could have pulled of looking so tall is shoe lifts.Could this be a possibility?
Danimal (176-178cm) said on 31/May/16
Will said on 5/May/16
How is it possible to shrink 9 cm!?!

He's actually lost closer to 13cm. HOW? Easy. He's almost 90 years old and most men will have lost 3"+ by then naturally. NOW, Clint has suffered from scoliosis (curvature of the spine) and osteoporosis for years. My 91 year old grandmother used to be 5'2" and today is 4'10". Her mother was 5'11" and down to 5'5" by 90.
Danimal (176-178cm) said on 31/May/16
Brad said on 23/May/16
6-4 prime. I was just under 6' 8" in cowboy boots so he looks like a building in them with Sergio's camera angles on top of his prime height.

Dog the Bounty Hunter said he's 5'7" and in his custom made cowboy boots he reaches 5'10", so some cowboy boots can add as much as 3", but I suppose 2" is the standard norm?
Danimal (176-178cm) said on 31/May/16
He's lucky if he's 5'11" today at 86 years old Rob.
Freeper said on 30/May/16
My uncle is turning 78 this summer and he hasn't lost anything. Still 5-8
Crypto139 said on 28/May/16
You know my grandpa just visited me recently for an occasion and he saw my grand who he hasn't seen in over 30 years. They divorced by the way. Anyway I ask him how tall she was when she was younger and he said she was the same height. Also my mom says my grandma was a bit taller. Now she is about 166 cm at best late. My grandpa is about 173 cm standing at his best. My grandma claimed 175 when she was younger and my grandpa claimed 178 cm. Kind of strange huh? So Rob can you believe that? Both are just under 80 years old.
Editor Rob: some can lose different amounts...if you are a women, nearly 80 and 2-3 inches lost is very common. If you make it to that age with 1 inch you've done remarkably well based against the average. For a man, 1 inch lost by then is also excellent...if somebody offered me 80 and 5ft 7 I'd bite their hand off!
jervis said on 26/May/16
Peak height 6ft3 to 6ft4.6ft4 morning height, by night closer to 6ft3.
Brad said on 24/May/16
Close to 6 feet 6 in boots easy.
Arch Stanton said on 24/May/16
Look out of the corner of your eye Click Here , Nutter could pass for Clint I think, virtually the same proportions and look.
Arch Stanton said on 24/May/16
Watch him in films like Play Misty for Me, The Gauntlet and Magnum Force. I think it's pretty obvious he was near 6'4. Always looked inches taller than 6'1-6'2 guys. His legs and frame are typical of a 6'4 guy, just too lanky for just 6'2-6'3. If you watch Thunderball Rik Van Nutter had an almost identical build, he was 6'4. Him next to Connery in that film is exactly how Clint would have looked to a guy that height in his prime.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/May/16
James B said on 18/May/16
am I right in think clint walked walked around at 6'5.75 in coogans bluff since he had on 2 inch Cowboys?

Yeah I'd say he was easily closing in on 6ft6 in boots. Add the hat and probably clearing 6ft6...
jervis said on 23/May/16
Rob,what is your opinion of the Hudson Clint photo?
Brad said on 23/May/16
6-4 prime. I was just under 6' 8" in cowboy boots so he looks like a building in them with Sergio's camera angles on top of his prime height.
jervis said on 20/May/16
More like 6ft5 in boots in Coogans Bluff.The scene where he is in just socks with Susan Clarke,who's 5ft9 he looks max 6ft 3 in comparison.
Rory said on 19/May/16
6'3 peak is too low, 6'3.5 is possible, but just 6'3 seems unlikely...he looked 6'3 to me in the 80s, but by then he was in his fifties and especially someone like him would have lost height. 6'3.75 peak is accurate.
James B said on 18/May/16
am I right in think clint walked walked around at 6'5.75 in coogans bluff since he had on 2 inch Cowboys?
jervis said on 18/May/16
There is another photo taken at the same time as that one,were their stance is slightly different on borsari images.And IMO Hudson is at least 1.5 inches taller but I still think 2.Clint was maybe 6ft 3.5 peak,but I still feel more comfortable with 6ft 3 peak height
jervis said on 17/May/16
I can see more than an inch,Hudson is also a but hunched.Standing with the same posture as Clint I can see a clear 2 inch difference in Hudsons favour.

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.