Yaspaa says on 7/Jul/08
You beat me to the punch there sf,he doesn't sound like he's screwing around. " Do you know who that was,Cwint Eastwood".

sf says on 7/Jul/08
Now I'm starting to wonder if Ant is just plain being sarcastic and screwing with us...what do you think, Yaspaa?

sf says on 5/Jul/08
Ant - are you joking? Those Chinese guys "mistook" Paul Hogan for Clint Eastwood because they were paid to do so, in a movie, called Crocodile Dundee. It's not real. I'd also like to see this orangutan that's 6 feet tall, especially the one in the other movie that isn't even close to 6 feet tall.

Lenad says on 5/Jul/08
These 6'4 claims are a joke! I think evidence has it he was lucky if he scraped 6'3.

clark says on 5/Jul/08
Maximum height of a male Orangutan is about five feet.

Ant says on 4/Jul/08
Apparently some chinese guys once mistook Paul Hogan for clint eastwood so Clint can't be 6ft 4!! Come on watch his films some of them are from an era when we weren't all so height obsessed and he was and is a tall man. Plus he towers over the monkey (orangutan I know) who must be at least 6ft tall!! Have you seen one of those orange blighters up close? Massive!!

Yaspaa says on 4/Jul/08
The shot is misleading ,but we aren't talking about a single inch. Lee's heels aren't visible,lucky for you guys.
Clint is at LEAST 6'4?,come on 6'4 is absolute maximum and I doubt Clint would have wanted to look small next to Rock Hudson,there's the lifts. Gregg Henry is 5'10.5,but they made him look 6'2 om Gilmore Girls next to Edward Herrmann.

Anonymous says on 4/Jul/08
Yaspaa, that phot of Lee Marvin with Paul Newman is misleading. Newman has on cowboy boots and Marvin is badly slouching to say the least. Marvin was 6'2'' without a doubt. Glenn who I believe has been barred said that he met Clint in the late 80s early 90s and he looked at least 6'4''. I've got a Clint doc on dvd in which he has a bit part in a Rock Hudson film and he is approx the same height as Hudson. Hudson was 6'4'' to 6'5''.

patrick says on 4/Jul/08
Mark, If ever such pain was so easy to cure, that for sure would be the death of all the physicians of this world!
Drinking (water) helps anyway to keep you in better health but that’s not enough.
What I am positively sure, it’s that discs but also all the ligaments and tendons tend to shrink and getting rigid and hard as time goes along. Not only that gets you shorter and less broad but that gets your all body degenerated.
Look at what Chinese do: they exercise in such a way their joints keep both strong and supple.
For all that, that doesn’t prevent them to shrink too!
We are definitely not equal at any point of view and even within a family, all the more reason in such a vast world.
Yaspaa, I get the message about “arguing” and I understand it. Sincerely, Clint was very tall and if you ever watched Rawhide, that “jumps to eyes” as we say in French. As for Lee Van Cleef who never looked less than 6’2 and was towered over just by John Wayne (Liberty Valence), Clint has a front head over him.
Even in Space cow boys, while he was 70 (!) he did not look that short next to that endless more than 6’6 James Cromwell! I however am quite sure he already had shrunk a lot related to the 70ies.

Yaspaa says on 3/Jul/08
Mark,just make sure you eat correctly and you will reach your maximum height.

Mark says on 2/Jul/08
"I repeat that inter vertebrae’s discs are about75/80% mad of liquid and depending cases, can shrivel up."
Hi Patrick. Does that mean if you drink a lot of water you can get taller? Just asking...

Yaspaa says on 2/Jul/08
Patrick ,you know me,I just like to argue.

Jason says on 1/Jul/08
I don't think he was 6'4'', either, but I could certainly buy 6'3''.

patrick says on 1/Jul/08
Yaspaa, for once my opinion really diverges from yours ; I’m surprised you telling Clint just being 6’2. Frankly, he always looked taller than that until the mid nineties.
As for loosing height, most people don’t know anything about back problems: I personally work in a hospital whose speciality is precisely physical medicine. There are here a lot of people having lost more than 3 inches! Arrogance lies in saying “it is not possible”.
As I wrote it many times, the taller you are the more you’ll get chances to shrink. Clint is not built as a gorilla but just “well built” and muscled; I am pretty sure he was quite thin being around 16.
I repeat that inter vertebrae’s discs are about75/80% mad of liquid and depending cases, can shrivel up. If so, they can become les than the third of what they used to be! Multiply that by as many as vertebrae you have 24 times as much as 0.20 inch less in your total height.
Take an actor like Lloyd Bridges who was around 6’1 minimum and probably 6’2 when around 30.
I saw him in a last Seinfeld season facing 5’11 Jerry Seinfeld: Jerry towered over him. I am sure Lloyd was no more than 5’7 at the time.
That man yet was an athlete and a famous sportsman.
Yaspaa, Dolph Lundgren is or at least used to be a very tall man, beyond 6’4! I saw him in a LA night club and he towered over everybody, being visible from any point of the hall! He made my 6’1 friends ridiculous! That’s why he doesn’t look like Clint.

Yaspaa says on 1/Jul/08
6'2 my arse.

Yaspaa says on 30/Jun/08
Lee Marvin was never anywhere near 6'2 Click Here doesn't look it next to Paul Newman,Marvin was probably 6'0.

Anonymous says on 30/Jun/08
He's nearly 80 so it's not surprising he's a lot smaller than in his prime. Look at Paint Your Wagon. Eastwood is definitely taller than Lee Marvin and Marvin was a legit 6'2'' plus.

Yaspaa says on 29/Jun/08
I'm going to stick my neck out here,hung drawn and quartered I may be, yet I feel the yearning to voice my doubt over Clint's 6'4 height. He always looked like a 6'2 guy to me. If you think of Dolph Lundgren,Clint never had that very very tall look about him. He is still capable of good posture and is able to stand up straight. Where has the height gone? He has lost an inch at most. Bring it on!

Joe says on 26/Jun/08
how can he lose 3 inches? he's not a hulk hogan.

Danimal says on 26/Jun/08
Going to miss ya Glenn! Been on this site even before you came around, but you were always fun and patient. Hope you still post every now and then!

glenn says on 24/Jun/08
he is usually a grouchy asshole.but can lighten up.we made each other laugh a couple times.

glenn says on 24/Jun/08
danimal-im surprised you didnt know i have a crystal ball.

Ant says on 23/Jun/08
Whats he like Glenn? I always imagined him to be pretty cool. Any one who doubts his 6ft 4 height watch Dirty Harry or Paint Your wagon. he was a big fellah, even then he had rounded shoulders and slight curvature of his back. Similar in build to Hugh Jackman but Jackmans posture is better, different era but both tall well built men. Makes me sick lol

Robroy says on 23/Jun/08
I read years ago in the 80s that Clint was 6'4". I understand what you're saying about Eli Wallach, but it's common practice in movies to shoot from altered angles to make actors look taller, or use mechanical devices (heels, raised flooring, etc.,) to make two actors with divergent heights appear closer, in most cases to be able to fit them into scenes together. As for back issues, I was 6'2" all of my adult life, until 5 years ago when I had a vertebra fused. I lost a full inch in height, now having to stretch pretty hard on a good day just to hit 6'1". This is VERY common for people with severe back problems.

Danimal says on 23/Jun/08
miko says on 30/May/08
Glenn is below 6"0 barefoot possible now? Or possible in the future?

Let me get this straight. You're asking Glenn (who of course is a licensed doctor/fortune teller), to predict whether Clint will lose even more height?

patrick says on 23/Jun/08
Dear Gonzalo, once more, you're absloutely right: Clint looks and is clearly taller by about 2 inches than Lee Van Cleef.I complain those who cannot see that! He wore cow boy boots? Yes...as all of the others!

patrick says on 23/Jun/08
Once more, I agree Glenn who, I remind you, saw Clint (as the others!) many times.
First Clint was never ever « thin » as John says. Slender, yes. His face is thin and long, wihc allowed him no to change a lot in 40 years. Kirk Douglas, Gary Cooper or even Arnold in a way have or had the same skinny face, not deformed by fat tissues.
Many people make the same mistake: a long body under a long skinny face and “he’s” thin. I remember that Sergio Leone felt the same in watching Rawhide before hiring him and telling he was surprised after he met Clint in flesh and bones.
I remember also I had been amazed in seeing him naked torso for the first time in “Coogan’s bluff”. I didn’t know how broad-chested he actually was.
That Jimmy Stewart could give that impression, OK but not Clint.
As for that poor little thing who’s Brad Pitt, “Mr crying –heavy-tears”, he always is cheating about his height, whether it is with Harrison Ford or anyone else.
As a matter of fact, Clint “has terrible back issues” which can make anybody loose until 4 inches.
An intervertebral disk can shrunk by an half just because of getting on in age and there are about 23 of them. It can result from that a significant reduction from 2 to 4 inches without being ill for all of that.
A young and no sick tall man looses about 1 inch between morning and night!

Gonzalo says on 18/Jun/08
Mark, Eastwood looked 4-5 cms taller than Van Cleef in Leone´s films. He also looke more than 20 cms taller than Eli Wallach. Eastwood was taller than 1`90 in his prime. 1`93 sounds accurate

glenn says on 17/Jun/08
he was 6-4.enough bull.

Mark says on 12/Jun/08
I'm not convinced that Clint was ever 6'4 at his peak. He certainly didn't look a whopping 9 inches taller then 5'7 Eli Wallach in "The Good the Bad and the Ugly." Likewise I didn't notice much difference between him and 6'2 Lee Van Cleef. Also I find it hard to believe someone could lose 3 inches in height through age unless through major spinal deformation or severe hunchback. In the picture above however his posture seems quite solid and straight for a man in his 70's. My guess is that Clint Eastwood's current height is around 6'1, and peak height was around 6'2 1/2.

Daniel says on 5/Jun/08
For Clint Eastwood, 6'4'' peak and 6'+ now sounds very reasonable to me. As some of the guys said before, he looked visibly shorter than Freeman in Million Dollar Baby. Yes, I think it's possible he lost 3 inches or even a bit more. Even a not so tall guy, like US bluesman Johnny Winter (who I think wasn't less than 6 feet in his youth), looks 5'8'' nowadays at 60+ years old, because of a very bad health condition and weakness, I guess.

patrick says on 4/Jun/08
Once more, I agree Glenn who, I remind you, saw Clint (as the others!) many times.
First Clint was never ever « thin » as John says. Slender, yes. His face is thin and long, wihc allowed him no to change a lot in 40 years. Kirk Douglas, Gary Cooper or even Arnold in a way have or had the same skinny face, not deformed by fat tissues.
Many people make the same mistake: a long body under a long skinny face and “he’s” thin. I remember that Sergio Leone felt the same in watching Rawhide before hiring him and telling he was surprised after he met Clint in flesh and bones.
I remember also I had been amazed in seeing him naked torso for the first time in “Coogan’s bluff”. I didn’t know how broad-chested he actually was.
That Jimmy Stewart could give that impression, OK but not Clint.
As for that poor little thing who’s Brad Pitt, “Mr crying –heavy-tears”, he always is cheating about his height, whether it is with Harrison Ford or anyone else.
As a matter of fact, Clint “has terrible back issues” which can make anybody loose until 4 inches.
An intervertebral disk can shrunk by an half just because of getting on in age and there are about 23 of them. It can result from that a significant reduction from 2 to 4 inches without being ill for all of that.
A young and no sick tall man looses about 1 inch between morning and night!

Mike says on 3/Jun/08
Clint was 6'3.5 to 6'4.5 for his peak today 6'0.5, lost 3 inches id say

John says on 3/Jun/08
I agree with anonymous, I think he was 6-3 tops on his prime. He was very thin so he can looks even taller than he really was. Today he looks the same height as Schwarzenegger (6-0), and 1 inch over Brad Pitt. Or he had terrible back issues.

glenn says on 31/May/08
thats bull****.i saw him at 6-4 plenty of times in the early 90s.

Anonymous says on 30/May/08
i met clint 4 years go he looked 185 186 cm he migh have lost another 0.5 to 1 cm by now 6 ft 1 is not bad for a 77 years old

miko says on 30/May/08
Glenn is below 6"0 barefoot possible now? Or possible in the future?

Anonymous says on 29/May/08
I dont think Clint was ever 6'4. I would say 6'3 in his Prime.

glenn says on 28/May/08
clint was 6-4.he is barely 6-1 now.with the illusion of 6ft.

A.RAY says on 28/May/08
clint is 6'4" tall & it goes well with his personality. It is like a brand logo or symbol that is pasted with his name.

dmeyer says on 27/May/08
clint is no taller than 6 ft 1 in today and he looks 1.5 to 2 in taller than pitt in cannes festival pics and brad has high cut footwear 99 percent elevator wish means he dosnt even look 6 ft with elevators on that could give estimates of 5 ft 10 to 5 ft 10.5 for him

Gonzalo says on 22/May/08
I saw him yesterday in this movie with George Kennedy and they looked identical in height. Kennedy was really tall, around 1`93-94

Bob H. says on 19/May/08
Watched "Million Dollar Baby" last night. 77 year old Clint is now a couple inches shorter than Morgan Freeman. While no longer the tough looking guy he was, it's still great to see Clint in a movie.

Clark says on 16/May/08
Clint was definetly taller than David letterman in his day.

Clark says on 16/May/08
Chris 175...yes people can lose a lot of height with age and illness. Rock Hudson was close to 6'5" at his peak and had lost over 3-4 inches in height with his illness. He died weighing about 120 pounds.

Anonymous says on 12/May/08
James, I've got a book in which a young Clint stands next to a young Roger Moore. Clint is a fair bit taller. Moore was 6ft plus. Eastwood was about 6'4'' in his youth.

mee says on 10/May/08
there is picture,where are brad pitt (180 cm) and Clint Eastwood posing,and brad was like one inch taller...

Hugh says on 10/May/08
He is 6ft1 and no less. I find that very hard to beleive thant anyone could lose 4 inches.

clark says on 8/May/08
I will see if I can find out about height loss. It can vary with diff ethnic groups ,bone density, lifestyle, etc. But as a general rule: you can start to notice about the age of 60. The human body is a marvel of engineering, but cannot maintain that optimum physique forever. Interesting how some shorter people have a better posture even when they start to lose height.

Anonymous says on 5/May/08
Eastwood must be well into his 70s. Give the guy a break. There's no way he can be the superb physical specimen he was in his younger days.

TNTinCA says on 2/May/08
I am curious: does anyone know what the statistical average height loss is for the average male? I know height loss due to age is mentioned frequently on this site and I was curious if anyone had any reference data to offer.

Hugh says on 29/Apr/08
6ft1.5 maybe?

cm / inches says on 29/Apr/08
He dosn't look 185 cm at all , in that pic maybe more 178 cm !? but anyway , I wouldn' believe him was 192 cm or 193 it's ridiculus , maybe more 187 cm !!?

Rinkydick says on 25/Apr/08
Looks 6ft1 at least there.

glenn says on 24/Apr/08
this is the only time i dont agree with hugh.clint is 6-1 tops now,giving the illusion of 6ft.

Ray says on 22/Apr/08
He looked less than 2 inches taller than Jay Leno (5'11")on the Space cowboys DVD extras. I'd say nowadays he's 6'1" at best. Losing 3 inches in height still amazes me though...

Hugh says on 21/Apr/08
I think Clint Eastwood was a solid 193cm in his youth and his now around 6ft2.
I think 6ft1 is ridiculous. And James, 6ft4 onwards is giant.

Yaspaa says on 16/Apr/08
Clint looking tall Click Here

Dollar says on 7/Apr/08
James - 6'4 is pretty giant to me at 5'7. The different between 6'6 and 6'4 is unnoticeable to us 5'10 and under crowd, and Clint was definitely considered a giant by most in his hay day when the average height of Americans was close to mine.

Mattiew_- says on 5/Apr/08
Clint shrunk a lot in the recent years ...

He was at least as tall if not taller than Freeman in "Unforgiven" .

Prime Clint --> 6'4
Unforgiven Clint --> around 6'3.25
Nowadays ---> about 6'0.75-6'1

thecynther says on 4/Apr/08
easily 6'3 or 6'4 in his prime.he towers over everyone in his movies from the 60s,and more so because he had a 'twig' like figure (shoulder and waist the same width lol), which made him look even taller.cool guy.the western movies couldnt have had a better icon.

Hugh says on 28/Mar/08
Definately 6ft4 at his peak. A giant infact. I think he's around the 6ft2 range nowadays.

patrick says on 27/Mar/08
Mike c, will you be surprised if I agree with you? Kevint, "why" and what are you basing on your statement: “Very few actors in Hollywood have ever been 6' 4"?
Course, it is not that common but I personally meet such people quite often.
Besides, people look shorter on screen than in truth: any professional behind the camera knows that.
You will more often come across actors looking taller than you thought than the contrary!
Clint Eastwood is precisely, the kind of man looking tall enough to obviously be taller than that.
I saw him once in the early 80ies and another big guy, Tom Selleck. Both towered over us by a good head!
I remember how “old” Clint looked in a way because of his “sun tan” skin!
Those who think ”it is not possible to get shrunk by three inches”, basing all their experience on “what they have noticed in their family” do not know anything about the subject.
It has been said right here many times: because of joints problems, particularly vertebras, very tall men are more subject to loose a good deal of height but not necessarily!
Mr. “6’7” Cromwell does not seem having undergo such loss; Clint is a visibly “back problem” person as Harrison Ford is. Why on earth referring to “how those men are today” instead of considering what they manifestly were “yesterday”?
As for ranging James Arness and Clint Walker with the 6’4 just results from non sense!
I am French and I met Yves Montand who dwarfed almost everybody in French movies he played along. I remember his head emerging in the midst of the crowd! He was only 6’2/5 though! The same about Jean Reno who is eye to eye or even shorter than many US actors while he is clearly 6’2! Meeting him can just confirm that.
Nowadays, many actors are “short” or so; the “so called stars” more than others and society and producers frown upon “too tall” actors.
Clint was 6’4 ore else all of the others were 5’7 or even less!

patrick says on 26/Mar/08
Mike c, will you be surprised if I agree with you? Kevint, "why" and what are you basing on your statement: “Very few actors in Hollywood have ever been 6' 4"?
Course, it is not that common but I personally meet such people quite often.
Besides, people look shorter on screen than in truth: any professional behind the camera knows that.
You will more often come across actors looking taller than you thought than the contrary!
Clint Eastwood is precisely, the kind of man looking tall enough to obviously be taller than that.
I saw him once in the early 80ies and another big guy, Tom Selleck. Both towered over us by a good head!
I remember how “old” Clint looked in a way because of his “sun tan” skin!
Those who think ”it is not possible to get shrunk by three inches”, basing all their experience on “what they have noticed in their family” do not know anything about the subject.
It has been said right here many times: because of joints problems, particularly vertebras, very tall men are more subject to loose a good deal of height but not necessarily!
Mr. “6’7” Cromwell does not seem having undergo such loss; Clint is a visibly “back problem” person as Harrison Ford is. Why on earth referring to “how those men are today” instead of considering what they manifestly were “yesterday”?
As for ranging James Arness and Clint Walker with the 6’4 just results from non sense!
I am French and I met Yves Montand who dwarfed almost everybody in French movies he played along. I remember his head emerging in the midst of the crowd! He was only 6’2/5 though! The same about Jean Reno who is eye to eye or even shorter than many US actors while he is clearly 6’2! Meeting him can just confirm that.
Nowadays, many actors are “short” or so; the “so called stars” more than others and society and producers frown upon “too tall” actors.
Clint was 6’4 ore else all of the others were 5’7 or even less!

Gonzalo says on 26/Mar/08
Clint looking very similar in height to Lou Gosset Jr, listed here 1`92
Click Here
Clint looking clearly taller than Spanish opera singer Plácido Domingo, who must be around 1´83. That pic is from 2000. Clint looked around 187-88 at that time
Click Here
If I remember properly Clint was as tall as George Kennedy, who is at least 1`93. Clint was clearly over 1`90 in his prime

mike c says on 25/Mar/08
Well said, Kevint, but I refer you to John Wayne, A Life in Pictures....has a full length shot of Clint and Lee Marvin (both dressed in suits and dress shoes) with Wayne, Hudson, and of course Stewart...buy the book or at least look at the photo and then we'll talk about Clint never being 6'4". Go to the Wayne page and see the album put together by my buddy Gonzalo...it has this classic photo..trust me, the discussion is over on Clint. No doubt 6'4". Mike C ps. I course you would have to know that Stewart was 6'3", Hudson was 6'5", and Wayne, at that time, was down a tad from his 6'4.5 in prime...

Kevint says on 24/Mar/08
Very few actors in Hollywood have ever been 6' 4", although many have claimed that as a publicity height. In my opinion, only James Arness and Clint Walker were 6' 4" or taller, at least among real movie stars (sports stars who made movies, like Michael Jordan, being disqualified).

So I don't buy Clint as 6' 4" even in his youthful prime; most actors are well under six feet, and any actor that height would loom over most cast members, something that Eastwood rarely did.

Comparing his height to other actors who were also supposedly the same size doesn't make any difference.

I think there's less "height upgrading" in modern Hollywood but in the classic 20th century cinema, with publicists, no actor was under six feet tall and no actress was over 125 pounds.

Jim says on 22/Mar/08
Just been watching "Joe Kidd". Clint is the same height as 6'4" Greg Walcott in several scenes on flat floors. Mr E also has 2" on 6'2" Don Stroud in one scene. He was easily 6'4" in his prime. He is very "slouchy" even then, though. Hence, his shrunke look now.

mike c says on 20/Mar/08
NO Height Tracker, but I saw and heard the interview.I'm not talking 1970, I'm talking last year, maybe a tad longer. I wish I could have recorded it, but it took me by surprise. Both he and Bill are seated...wide camera view...a blind man can see they're both around the same height. Maybe someone has it or has at least a picture of both Bill and Clint. I don't need a measuring tape to use common sense and see what's in front of me...two very tall guys, albeit Clint on the decline....respect your opinion, though.

Chris175 says on 20/Mar/08
i dont think he has lost 3 inches thats rediculus, my grandad was 183cm on his army cert when he was 19 and he is no less than 180 now, people shrink yes but not by 3 inches, i think the tallest he ever made it was 6-2.5 to 6-3 and he has shrunk a bit

Height Tracker says on 20/Mar/08
mike c do you have the video to this interview?

Clark says on 20/Mar/08
Honestly, I think Bill O is about 6'5", but for what ever reason he likes to say 6'4" which may have a better ring, in the entertainment/media world. And coming from Bill, there is always an angle to something. And maybe being too tall may not be good--when you're around a bunch of grouchy cigar toking midgets from NYC--that censor the media. You're fired!

mike c says on 19/Mar/08
Bill is 6'4" and Clint was just about his height in spite of years he has on Bill.....look at the interview when they're facing each other, albeit seated.

Clark says on 16/Mar/08
Bill O Reilly--like him or not, stated that he interviwed Eastwood. And that they were about the same height. Bill O reilly is still a VERY tall man.
But that was in the late 70's!!!

Clark says on 16/Mar/08
Bill O Reilly--like him or not, stated that he interviwed Eastwood. And that they were about the same height. Bill O reilly is still a VERY tall man.

Rinkydick says on 11/Mar/08
I agree that in his day he was around 6ft3- 6ft4 but nowadays he seems more 6ft1-6ft2

miko says on 9/Mar/08
I think Clint was probably a little under 6"4 at his peak (maybe 6"3.75), but nowadays he's looking about 6"0.

glenn says on 7/Mar/08
thanks patrick and james for understanding im not trying to be a dick and rule house here.my point is to keep all options open, especially those that havnt met celebs.im wrong sometimes at gauging.not on certain names though.

patrick says on 6/Mar/08
glenn: I understand what you try to say in all these pages and I trust you, definitely. It is not easy for you I imagine to have to defend one's point of you, you whom saw "them", while others, basing themselves upon just "their – very subjective- opinion" for the best, contradict you!
I wish you could meet Tom Welling and Jared Padalecky eventually!
Regards! You do a great job Glenn!

glenn says on 5/Mar/08
trust rob? he never met a celebrity,nothing against him.he is great guy.but i dont why dmeyer has his nose up his bum lately.and have you met any of these celebs james? has 99 percent of you ever had? dmeyer works as an extra here and there,see a celeb once,maybe twice and he is an expert too?.ive been out the 20 fukin years pals of mine. you guys have nothing on my multiple on encounters.and my peers too.nothing.

glenn says on 2/Mar/08
nothing is too high for spacey or matthew.they both 5-11.unless he had it higher.you think rob is accurate,and he is for the most part.but theres alot more mistakes on the site than a few.id say a dozen important names.but out of a thousands of names in general,thats great.as for how he estimates half inches,has my head scratching.i always got a kick out of mel gibson 5-9.5.hell,who knows,maybe he is right.

mike c says on 2/Mar/08
Thank you, Danimal....great video. You're right on...Clint at minimum 6'3", down a bit from 6'4"..I suspect that if he could straighten himself out, he'd be taller than McMahon. But, they do seem to be about the same height. Mike C

dmeyer says on 29/Feb/08
rob is increadibly accurate ,exept for very few guys like spacey and mccaunoghey they were too high at some point

Danimal says on 29/Feb/08
Here's Clint in 1992 on The Tonight Show standing up next to 6'2" Dave Letterman and an aging 6'3.5" Ed McMahon. Clint was still at least 6'3" at this stage and what appeared to be in GREAT physical shape: Click Here

glenn says on 28/Feb/08
rob does what he wants.6-1 for clint isnt as inaccurate as other listings here.the very few that is.rob does good overall.

Jake Is Back says on 28/Feb/08
Its hard to picture a man who was once 6'4" looking up to Brad Pitt. Maybe this is actually the case with Eastwood, but he looks 5'11", 6' tops next to Pitt and Jolie.

glenn says on 27/Feb/08
ive been saying clint was 6ft for the last 5 years, for ages.

patrick says on 25/Feb/08
For those who doubt how "shrunk" a man can get because of age, back problem etc.: have you recently seen Jerry Lewis? He was indeed, far shorter than Clint but not short at all and arguably taller than Dean Martin. (The latter had to wear some kind of lifts to look as tall or taller). Now, Jerry Lewis is most probably less than 5’7 and no more than that anyway.
I would say that he lost at 82, kind of 4 to 5 inches.
A tall guy as Clint with his obvious propensity to bend has many more reason to shrink even more than a 5’11 man.

Gramps says on 23/Feb/08
Danimal: you beat me to the punch! Go man!

Danimal says on 23/Feb/08
Robert Vodak says on 23/Feb/08
When Clint was shooting the westerns in the 60's he was 6'3". I'm sure the cowboy boots made a big hieght difference.

And you state this as a FACT because you were his personal assistant who measured him during that era? Give me a break.

Anonymous says on 23/Feb/08
Lee Van Cleef and Lee Marvin were over 6ft and Eastwood was visibly taller than either. Eastwood like John Wayne was about 6'4''.

Robert Vodak says on 23/Feb/08
When Clint was shooting the westerns in the 60's he was 6'3". I'm sure the cowboy boots made a big hieght difference.

Gramps says on 22/Feb/08
Tim: two thoughts: 1) Perhaps the scoliosis has taken away that 3/4". My sister has it and she had to have major surgery to straighten her spine, along with steel rods for a while; and 2) If your recent doctor visit came later in the day, your spine had probably settled some. I suppose you don't really remember now just what time of day your volleyball measurement was.

tim says on 21/Feb/08
when i was 18 i was marked at exactly 6'4 3/4 in the doctors office for a physical required for highschool volleyball. 6'5 was an assumption of others and myself. i have had lower back problems and scoliosis since the age of 16. 3 months ago i was measured at 6'4 flat at the doctors office for another physical for a job. BUT i completely understand your doubt.

TNTinCA says on 21/Feb/08
Is it possible Clint had some vertebrae fused or something? A loss of height of that magnitude is usually not attributed to simply age. 3 inches?

And I don't think his 6'4" height at his peak is inaccurate. He ALWAYS looked that tall in his movies.

Danimal says on 21/Feb/08
tyler says on 3/Feb/08
look at this: Click Here

Amazing how NO ONE commented on this pic you provided of Pitt having at least 2" on Eastwood today. I personally think he is down to 5'11.5" today and maybe less. Scary, but look at the damn picture guys. Pitt is significantly taller than him and Clint isn't towering short Angelina.

G-MANN says on 21/Feb/08
Perhaps Tim overestimated his height when he was younger. People don't normally lose height that young, unless something is wrong with them.

Gramps says on 21/Feb/08
Tim: Wow! Losing an inch by age 33 is VERY unusual barring medical issues. I would venture a guess that one of the two measurements was performed incorrectly, and maybe both. Unless you yourself have specifically noticed getting that much shorter (like versus a brother or best friend), I can't believe you could have lost an inch. I turned 60 last year and have lost no more than 1/4 inch, despite 40 years of lower back problems. I'm not doubting YOU, just the underlying facts.

tim says on 21/Feb/08
i agree with patrick, clint stands at least 2 or 3 inches taller than the 6'2 don stroud. Unfortainly he is wearing cowboy boots the entire movie which can add at least 2 or 3 inches. I say clint is 6'4 in this movie.
I reached the height of 6'5 at the age of 19, and i am now right at 6'4 at the age of 33. Although i am not exactly sure when i came down one inch.

glenn says on 20/Feb/08
i didnt realise that was you gramps.sounded like a wiseass to me.my apoligies.yes,i did mean that kind of tranny.it was a twisted joke.ive been busy just with the usual.which is getting autographs to survive.and you? how have you been?

mike c says on 20/Feb/08
gramps, of course glenn could not possibly be referring to transexual..remember, let's keep it g fellows. Clint, just as the Duke, 6'4+ in prime. mike c

w says on 20/Feb/08
I agree with 6 ft 1, just look at Million Dollar Baby and see that he is of 1-2 inches shorter than Morgan Freeman, and I think that your peak was not more than 6 ft 3, it does not seem to have diminished much.

Gramps says on 20/Feb/08
Hey Glenn, you're hilarious. That was MY comment about being busy with other stuff. I was using a new computer and didn't realize my username wasn't active. BTW, what are "tranny nights?" Guess I'm further out of touch than I realized. Ha-ha.

Manitobaboy says on 18/Feb/08
George H:
I believe that not everyone loses (significant) height but it is more obvious in those who are taller. Both Garner and Eastwood lived active lives and were hard on their frames.

The human spine shrinks as one gets older: anatomy and physiology 101. Whether it shrinks by an inch or four inches is going to depend on the depth of cushioning between the vertebrae and the person's original height... along with individual factors like diet and general health. Some people begin to lose height in their 60's, others not til they're 80 but everyone loses some height.

glenn says on 18/Feb/08
glad to hear youve been busy with other stuff anonymous.whatever that means.rob-watch post like this.i dont need to know about his tranny nights.

patrick says on 18/Feb/08
I agree Anonymous. In Coogan's bluff, the very good 6'2 Don Stroud, 13 year younger, always looks visibly more than 2 inches shorter than Clint; I would say 3 inches. As for the dead pool, Liam looks taller, that is true. I remember having been surprised!

Anonymous says on 18/Feb/08
TJ I agree. Eastwood was slightly shorter than Neeson in the Dead Pool. I don't know why there is any argument about Estwood's height though. Until the last few year he has always looked about 6'4''. I mean it's not like Arnie where sometimes he looks tall and other times not so tall. Clint always appeared tall.

Anonymous says on 17/Feb/08
Hey Glenn. Been busy with other "stuff."

TJ says on 17/Feb/08
Er, I meant slouch a little in shots, not in shorts :-)

TJ says on 16/Feb/08
He didn't look taller than Liam Neeson in the Dead Pool. If anything, he looked the same or slightly shorter. In any case, I remember an interview from the time where Neeson said he had been asked to slouch a little in shorts to ensure the hero of the movie wasn't shorter.

Mark D. says on 15/Feb/08
Definitely shorter now than Liam Neeson, he probably had lifts on or they
put him up on an incline to not look that much shorter, I would estimate.

patrick says on 15/Feb/08
Do agree with you monik!

JOSH says on 15/Feb/08
He still looked a touch taller than 6ft 4 liam neeson in the dead pool and he was nearly 60 then. So when he was younger he was over 6ft 4 but now not as tall but still over 6feet.

monik says on 14/Feb/08
he looks as mario brega in the westerns 1.93 he was very tall he was the best actor and most handsome ever men in the world

patrick says on 12/Feb/08
He certainly have George H.
When much younger, it was visible his “frame”, his bone structure was not the one of bulky guy while he always was muscled, with good arms and pectorals.
Yet, his back, notably his “up” back, between shoulders shows for an exercised eye, the signs of a certain potential weakness. Kind of those who make your back shrunk and slouch and bend.
I see it because I would be of that kind too, not as tall as “him” though!
Clint never had a right neck in profile and his upper back was arched in the opposite way.
Besides, Clint was very physically capable man; he did all his own stunts including riding a motorbike (not doubled) and falling down, in upper New York or climbing a never climbed totem pole in the Eiger sanction.
You need to be in a very good condition to do that but, after a certain age, something must happen which rather suddenly causes problems like shrinking.
Anyway, Clint looks wonderful above all when considering his age!
Our last super great star along with Paul Newman.

George H. says on 11/Feb/08
Manitobaboy, not everybody shrinks as they get older. I know plenty of older guys in real life, the oldest one reached the awesome age of 93, who barely
lost 1 inch over the course of their lives. Eastwood may have some medical condition or injury effects that caused his relatively big height loss.

patrick says on 11/Feb/08
Hello mike (c)! Happy to find you here too and, once more, sharing with Glenn and many others, the 6'4 Clint's height at least until nineties.
It is obvious Clint has lost a lot of height while that not being so visible, I mean in his posture, his way of walking etc.
To tell the truth, I barely had noticed he had shrunk in space cow boys though having seen he was shorter than Donald Sutherland.
He nevertheless looked at the time, not that shorter than the “giant” Cromwell.
The same with million dollar baby; He still looks tall “by himself” and that pic with the “not tall at all” Brad Pitt (two inch shorter than Harrison Ford in 1997 – besides “Pitt pitiful performance” !) is just simply incomprehensible.
I nevertheless must “admit it” but I’m still reserved about it…
Those who see Clint at 6’1 or 2 in his prime are the same who see John Wayne or Tom Welling at 6’1.
Dwarfing tall men is a new way of enhancing oneself in spite of common sense or even visual proofs!
If that make those people feel better, good for them! May that bring to them what they need but do not ask me to share such personal opinions not dictated by a serene will of judgment but by something related to what I would not dare to qualify right here!

glenn says on 10/Feb/08
how ya been gramps? i hear you mike c."dont talk,shoot".

Gramps says on 10/Feb/08
Absolutely 6'4" back in the day.

m.caez says on 9/Feb/08
Glenn, you can lead a horse to water, but....you know. Clint 6'4" without a doubt...mike c

glenn says on 6/Feb/08
6-4 peak.

Ivan 6'2.25 says on 6/Feb/08
maybe 6'3 at his peak, losing 3 inches is enormous normaly is 1 inches.

tyler says on 3/Feb/08
look at this: Click Here

Manitobaboy says on 3/Feb/08
The taller you are, the more likely you will lose significant height as the cushioned spaces between your vertebrae will shrink more. Clint, James Garner, Jimmy Stewart - all tall guys who shrank a lot. My father was a hair over 6'1" for most of his adult life - he died at 80 and was barely 5'11".

miko says on 3/Feb/08
Rob, it is possible Cliff could ever drop below 6"0?

john says on 31/Jan/08
max: 6-1, min:6-0

glenn says on 7/Jan/08
he seems 6ft to me and looks that in my friends pics too. a 6-1 friend at that.but most people agree and see 6-1.i understand 6ft is an illusion i guess.

mike c says on 7/Jan/08
Hi Glenn. I may be wrong, but in the pic of Clint with Freeman and Swank that AAAA posted on 19/Nov/07 he sure does look a tad taller than 6'...isn't Freeman 6'3"?..I know that in The Unforgiven, Clint was taller than Freeman.

dmeyer says on 7/Jan/08
glenn are you sure you saw clint 6'0 flat since i saw him at 6'1

glenn says on 7/Jan/08
well i saw him 6-4 in the early 90s and 6ft in the last 4 years.i never knew age can shrink someone like that,but it did.its real.im glad i saw the tall eastwood.cause i would doubt now.

Viper says on 7/Jan/08
Eastwood is the far exception to the rule by far.

VierMae says on 6/Jan/08
It's unbelievable: from 6'4 to 6'1 but both heights I'm sure are accurate...the fact is how it is possible??I mean I'm 18 and a solid 6' foot and don't want to become 5'9 at the age of 65

glenn says on 5/Jan/08
no need for pics.he was 6-4.i witnessed it.

Yaspaa says on 5/Jan/08
I always thought Clint was around 6'2 when he was younger . Does anyone have any pictures to prove me wrong

mike c says on 11/Dec/07
EK, you're having a bad hair day...do you're homework, then we'll talk. 6'4" without a doubt and I can prove it!!

Anonymous says on 11/Dec/07
Kyle looks about 2 inches taller than his father in the photo. I've read they are both 6'4''. This would tally with Clint's documented height loss. I don' doubt that Clint was about 6'4'' when young. He always looked that height in old movies or photos.

Ejel Khan says on 11/Dec/07
Never 6'4" peak height 6'1" now he's 6'. appeared on Parkinson (UK) was an an inch taller than 5'11" Parkinson

AAAA says on 19/Nov/07
Eastwood and Freeman with swank 3? years ago Click Here Click Here

again a recent one Click Here

can't find any good pics but he was taller than freeman in unforgiven

AAAA says on 19/Nov/07
For those curious about his son Kyle, here is a pic from about 3 weeks ago.
Click Here
this is the best one I could find. Any thoughts, his son seems like a tall guy too.

AAAA says on 18/Nov/07
I found this pic a long, time ago, before the use of tinyurl and it got delted, and someone else has posted it as well once.
Clint still looked toweringly big here with tyson and jackson

Click Here

Pete says on 15/Nov/07
clint is clint and always be clint. hes bigger than life. he was hansdome strong tough succesful talented etc etc. danimal, this type of men have the confidence and nothing is gonna blow it.

sf says on 15/Nov/07
Hey Doc- I've always noticed Clint's extremly curved spine (even in earlier movies) and wondered about it. Makes sense why he could lose so much height.

Dr Ed Michaels, UK says on 15/Nov/07
Hi Tubbs. Mr Eastwood could, if he "stood tall", still conceivably reach 6`3" or so. However, at the age of 77 & an almost lifelong problem of postural defects, he would find it too painful. Remember, his whole musculature has adapted to his spinal curvature over the years. The condition is certainly not as uncommon as people think. Having it for years from a young age, as Mr Eastwood clearly has, will naturaly cause problems with posture.

Danimal says on 15/Nov/07
He doesn't look 6'2" anymore. Dream on.

tubbs says on 15/Nov/07
I doubt that he's lost 4", and I doubt someone Clint's age is that bothered about his height anymore, either way he's still a tall guy. With decent posture, considering his condition he still looks near 6'2".

glenn says on 15/Nov/07
he is 77 years old.what does one expect in the elderly? hercules?

Danimal says on 15/Nov/07
Do you think this 4" height loss has hit the man's confidence at all? After all, he was known for his tough guy image and now he's looking like a feather can blow him over.

tubbs says on 14/Nov/07
Curvature of the spine, scroll down and read the comments from Dr Ed Michaels, he's a back specialist, pretty informative stuff.

Anonymous says on 13/Nov/07
How did Eastwood lose 3 inches in height and go from 6"4" to 6"1" That is a BIG difference. Does anyone have an answer?

l0ck n l0ad says on 13/Nov/07
Does anyone know how tall his son Kyle Eastwood is?

Anonymous says on 8/Nov/07
I think he was about 6'4 still in Heartbreak Ridge '85, Bo Svenson who was about 6'6+, was only about 2.5 inches taller than Mario Van Peeples than Clint was, so Clint was real close to 6'4. Also the big Swedish guy he beats up was 6'4 and Clint was all but the same height as him.

tubbs says on 8/Nov/07
I find what Dr Ed has to say very interesting. I have a friend who has the same condition as Clint with regards to scoliosis. He is a 6'1 guy ,who describes how the lower lumbar region 'collapses' on occassion, and tells me how it bends like a banana (sorry for the non technical terms) and when it does he looks around 5'11.5 at the most. However, when his back is in good shape, and he stands tall he is no doubt 6'1". My question is Dr Ed, could Clint still look 6'3", 6'4" if he stood straight, albeit in some considerable discomfort, or are there too many factors contributing to his loss of height to get up in the 6'4" region. Personally Clint still looks 6'1.5" to me.

sam says on 7/Nov/07
In a 1974 Playboy interview in a new book of director interviews, the journalist says Clint was 6'4" and 197 pounds.

l0ck n l0ad says on 5/Nov/07
Watching the Dollars Trilogy films, Eastwood was between 34 - 36 years old. Take into factor that in every scene he's wearing big thick boots, he looked me somewhere between 6'3" and 6'4". I don't think he could been anything under 6'3" in his prime, not a chance.

al says on 30/Oct/07
When he was young in the spaghetti westerns and the first 3 dirty harry films he looked a solid 6ft 4. He has lost a few inches of height over the years but is still over 6 feet to me.

dmeyer says on 22/Oct/07
he looked to be solid 1.5 in unfder freeman in milion.. so 6'0.75 in he did look 185 cm range when i met him

Braden.R. says on 22/Oct/07
I may be only 15 but it doesnt matter if he has lost a couple of inches really he is still about 6'2" Im only 5'8".

George H. says on 15/Oct/07
AshnarLynx: yeah and I believe Jackie posted a couple of pictures in which Beatty was barely an inch shorter than Freeman, so by now he really is taller than Eastwood which I'm positive wasn't always the case. I think Eastwood may be one of those guys who lose about as much height as older women due to osteoporosis (sp)

George H. says on 15/Oct/07
AAAA: ROFLMAO you're right, Beatty's got an unusually large head, also huge hands. I checked other pictures of this event and all the tall guys (Eastwood, Reiner and Beatty) are all wearing thick soled shoes as do shorties Douglas and Crystal, but definitely no lifts like Stallone.

AAAA says on 15/Oct/07
Well to be fair to clint, I think he is at the back of the half circle there, so betty may be getting some perspective boost. Beatty still looks tallish, but i still say it is mostly because of his head. The man has one sizeable noggin

dmeyer says on 14/Oct/07
beatty is looking taller than 6 feet 2 rob reiner i met him 188 cm

AshnarLynx says on 14/Oct/07
He has shrunk definitely. In Million Dollar Baby he looked shorter than Freeman by two inches at least. So he's probably just 6 feet now, if that's possible.

ed says on 13/Oct/07
clint was 6'4 but with all the back problems and getting older he has shrunk now to like 6'1.5 or 6'2 nowadays

Dr Ed Michaels, UK says on 13/Oct/07
Hi Catsman - The pelvis problem he appears to be suffering from will cause some shrinkage and he also has curvature of the spine. Both of these will contribute to Mr Eastwood`s significant height loss. His postural problems have been evident from his youth. If you are able to see old episodes of Rawhide it is a problem even then and it will be exacerbated by old age.

sam says on 11/Oct/07
Warren Beatty actually looks slightly taller than Eastwood in Rob's photo, but Clint has clearly lost all those inches. Back in the 60s, I would guess that Warren would have been looking up at Clint.

Catsman says on 9/Oct/07
Dr Ed - are you saying that the angle of the pelvis results in a curved upper spine? That is interesting. Who else have you seen with that posture?

patrick says on 9/Oct/07
Ed. Rob: what "Kurt" on the pic? "Kirk" yes, but Kurt...
Anyway, that feels bizarre to see them so...
I am sure what Dr Ed syas about Clint is right all th emore since because I always saw what he is talking about: scoliosis and "bad posture" du to a back problem. He pelvis is very wide and fortunately, Clint is broad shouldered or else...
He is not the same man than before for sure and that is normal! Look at my so dear Kirk Douglas! I find him great in that picture, above all considering he is 91!!!

Jim says on 8/Oct/07
He doesn't look like 185 to me..i think is more like 182/3 same height as leo d.

mike c says on 6/Oct/07
Thank you Dr. Ed...you bring intelligent discourse and facts to this debate...

Dr Ed Michaels, UK says on 3/Oct/07
I added a comment on hear a few months ago about Mr Eastwood`s posture. For those newcomers, I have seen examples of his type of posture before in my role as a back specialist. Even in his younger days, you can see his pelvic girdle "leaning" or "slanting" to the right as he is standing or walking. This becomes more pronounced in his later films; for example, you can really notice it in the fims with the orang-utan, when he has his top off. Also, note the way he walks & you will clearly see this effect. This type of postural defect is a form of scoliosis and I can tell you from my experiences that this can cause a significant reduction in height. One of you mentioned Heartbreak Ridge and, funnily enough, this was on in the UK a few weeks ago. I noticed that Mr Eastwood had to "stand tall & straight" in playing a military officer and he looked close to the height of the officer played by Everett Martin who, I have read, is 6`5" tall. In his regular, everyday life, he would not be able to keep that "stand tall" posture up as it would produce some discomfort and, with his advanced years, he will clearly be shorter than in his prime by quite a surprising margin. I hope this is of interest to his fans & everyone who is contributing to this very entertaining site. Kind regards Dr Ed Michaels

mike c says on 2/Oct/07
welcome aboard, Russ..

Russ says on 2/Oct/07
I didn't mean anything with my comment about obsession. I know it's all for fun. That's why I came back ;)

glenn says on 1/Oct/07
he was 6-4 in the early 90s.i witnessed a freakishly tall man walking about at parties and events, taller than anyone in the crowd.by far.

mike c says on 1/Oct/07
Russ, it isn't an obsession...it good clean dialogue/fun...better than all the crap that's out there. Respect your opinion.

dmeyer says on 1/Oct/07
i agree too i aint sure he was a full 6'4 at peak more like 6'3

Height Tracker says on 1/Oct/07
I agree with Russ's 6'3" estimate. Clint always looked a tall guy in his early films but he never seemed quite the towering 6'4". 6'3" prime height fits well for him.

Viper says on 1/Oct/07
You can tell sometimes that 6-4 could be a stretch, If you really know how tall 6-4 looks.

Russ says on 30/Sep/07
It was the early 80's. Probably 1981 when I held the door open for Clint Eastwood and his gal pal. If you want to beleive that Clint was 6'4" at that time, then so be it. Maybe he was. I was 5'9" at the time and he was considerably taller than me. But, 7 inches taller? It's hard to tell at a glance. I stumbled across this site by accident. It's amusing how people can be obsessed by a person's height. Oh well. Have fun.

m.caez says on 28/Sep/07
Russ, you do realize that 1 inch is the thickness of a man's thumb....how could you say that 6'4" is stretching it?

Height Tracker says on 28/Sep/07
What year was this Russ?

Russ says on 27/Sep/07
When I was on a camping trip in California, I held the door open for Clint as he and his female companian were walking out of a sporting goods store. He was quite tall. My guess: 6' 3". 6 feet four is stretching it.

mike c says on 26/Sep/07
Yes, Viper..he's lost about 1.5 inches in height. Given the age of the man, the way he holds his head with the shoulders hunched, and curvature of the spine I would say 1.5...if he were to straighten up 6'2.5"/.25" easily. I think I've said it abot three times in the last yr and a half..my grandfather was 6' in his youth..at 90, when I last saw him he was my height...5'6"...hunched over,bad curvature of the spine, etc. Just look at Clint's stance and walk in movies like Hearbreak Ridge..by the way, I think Stan is correct. Great action movie, I saw it again last night and Stan is right on the money...Viper, let's see who among the contributors has the balls to ask Clint to strip so we can get a good look at his back.....and yes, he can't help his poor posture.

Viper says on 26/Sep/07
So Mike, If thats the case then Clint has only lost a little over an inch in height.

stan says on 24/Sep/07
He was 6'4 in heartbreak ridge, that swede guy that he beats up in the begining was a tight end for the kc cheifs and was measured at the NFL combine at 6'3 1/2 257. When he stands right next to clint, clint is just a little taller, about a half inch. I think clint might have been pushing about 220 also.

Bad Radio says on 22/Sep/07
wow ..he lost 3 inches..is that possible?

l0ck n l0ad says on 22/Sep/07
Years ago, about 5 or 6, I read in a few articles that Eastwood was already 6 feet by the time he was 13 and fully grown to 6'4" at 15! Did anyone else hear about this? Being 6'4" at the age of 15 must have been a darn giant for his time.

Anonymous says on 20/Sep/07
Looks 5'11" in that picture with Glenn. Bad posture indeed.

mike c says on 5/Sep/07
AAAA, I believe that if Clint were to straighten out completely, he would be 6'2.5 at the very least. Just study pics of him with Hackman and other co-stars...I don't think he can help the poor posture....

AAAA says on 5/Sep/07
Thats what I meant. I wonder how much he has actually shrunk, and how much is just an old man with horrendous posture

J.R. Ewing says on 4/Sep/07
Height always made Eastwood a mysterious figure in many of his films. His thin weight along with his height - good combination in his earlier films.

mike c says on 28/Aug/07
AAAA, sooooo that would put CE at ~ 6'2" now or a tad taller!!!I don't think Clint is down to 6'+ now...look at your great pic.!!! Always heard SP was 6'3"+.

AAAA says on 26/Aug/07
I think he is around 6'2.5-6'3. Hell he could have been 6'3 and a bit when he was younger. I thik he is pushing 80 now, so he may have lost an inch

mike c says on 25/Aug/07
AAAA, isn't Sydney 6'3" or a tad less...?

AAAA says on 25/Aug/07
Maybe CLint just rarley stands up straight anymore.

Still looking 6'2 in a 2007 photo with Sydney Poiteir

Click Here

mike c says on 19/Aug/07
Good eye, Sam! I agree. At most 1/2 of an inch....when filmed, he was on his way down a tad, heightwise..6'4" firm in his prime. Just like the Duke. mike c

JO says on 17/Aug/07
i think clint was 6ft5 when he was young.with lee van cleef or lee marvin he looks like taller...lee marvin was 190 cm

miko says on 2/Aug/07
Think he may have slipped to 6-0.5 looking a recent pictures.

Height Tracker says on 31/Jul/07
Yeah sam they looked very similiar in height in that movie

sam says on 31/Jul/07
Just saw about 20 minutes of The Dead Pool on TV and saw Eastwood looking at most an inch (more likely half an inch) under Liam Neeson. The height difference was imperceptible at moments.

JanJ says on 31/Jul/07
eastwood was in early 90's about 6'4. In 2004 he was about 6'2, now he's 6ft 1

Click Here

with 6'2 hackman [1993]

Click Here

with 6'2.5 freeman in million dollar baby [2004]