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 (111 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.47in (191.7cm)
Current: 5ft 11.94in (182.7cm)
Guest66 said on 26/Jun/17
4 inch height loss is possible. Tall people tend to lose height more aggressively as they get older.
Joe said on 24/Jun/17
Rob, do you think he was ever 6'4"? Also, do you think he could be around 5'11.75" now?
jervis said on 22/Jun/17
In rawhide Bill Travers who is listed at 6ft5 is a guest star,and only looks a bit taller than Clint.
jervis said on 22/Jun/17
There is a black and white pic of Clint with Arnold and lou Ferringo from the early 1980s.Lou looks about 1 inch taller than Clint.
Dublin guy said on 21/Jun/17
How does he lose nearly 4 inches in height that doesn't seem possible to be honest. I know people shrink as they age but that's just farcical
Canson said on 20/Jun/17
Agree with tall in the Saddle Strong 6'3 (191-191.5)
jetvis said on 20/Jun/17
It wouldn't be a surprise if he was 6ft2.75 or even 6ft2.5 alongside. Neeson He looked more than an inch shorter,aged 58, and now known to be prone to shrinking, a full inch loss off his peak is not as improbable as it once seemed
jetvis said on 20/Jun/17
I think 6ft3.5 is unanimous for his peak.
Peterson188cm said on 17/Jun/17
peak (night): 6ft3.5 / 6ft3.75
today (night): 5ft11.75 / 6ft
Mark(5'9.25 said on 13/Jun/17
Always that guy closer to 6'4" than 6'3". He appeared slightly taller than John Wayne and was easily over an inch taller than Muhammad Ali.
James B said on 13/Jun/17
Rob do you think he was 6'2.75 in 1988?

He could look that range with Liam neeson in Deadpool
Tall In The Saddle said on 5/Jun/17
Yep, I think Clint was between 6'3" and 6'3 & 1/2". I really believe that the main thing that has put Clint's peak height into question is the degree of height loss suffered. Until there was any height loss in evidence, I doubt that Eastwood's height was ever called into question. If you can live with that height loss (which I now can but I did question it previously) then all reference points otherwise point to a tall guy at peak, at least 6'3", prob 6'3 & 1/2" - and Clint's proportions, arms and legs save for short torso lend themselves to this height.

Must admit, as a youngster watching Marcus Welby MD I didn't appreciate James Brolin's height. Robert Young who played Welby was about 6 ft peak but the older Young looked quite short next to Brolin. For reference, Robert Young appeared in a late 40s movie with Errol Flynn and Walter Pidgeon - That Forsyte Woman. Pidgeon was clearly the taller of the three. Flynn was flat level with Young and perhaps even a heart beat shorter - Flynn was never a 6'2" guy IMO - likely 6'1" at best.

Interesting that Kiefer Sutherland and Josh Brolin, to name two, didn't quite inherit the height of their famous Dads.
Csimpson 6ft said on 2/Jun/17
Peak 6ft 3.75 and 5ft 11.75 today id say is probable
James said on 2/Jun/17
It's obvious he was never any taller than 6'3".
Canson said on 31/May/17
@Rory: I don't say It based on feelings and I believe he was a 6'3" range guy never as tall as rock Hudson etc. but I also don't believe he was less than 191/192 either
Sandy Cowell said on 31/May/17
πŸŽˆπŸŽπŸŽ‚ Happy Birthday Clint Eastwood! πŸŽ‚πŸŽπŸŽˆ

Today, as it's his Birthday, Clint can have 6ft3.75 peak and 6ft0.75 for today's height!
Jason said on 30/May/17
Hey Rob for Clint Eastwoods current height I'll give him 6'1 or 6'2 from where he is standing with 5'11 Brad Pitt give me your thoughts on this photo Click Here
Editor Rob: you linked to a random photo, but in 2012 I'm sure there were several photos showing Clint at least an inch taller, so up till then he was stillin 6ft-6ft 0.5 range I believe.
Rory said on 30/May/17
I've always believed the same thing for a peak Eastwood. 6'4.5 immediately out of bed,6'3.5 last thing at night. At his height he probably shrank a full inch.
Rory said on 30/May/17
Yh a lot of the people who say he needs to be downgraded to 6ft 3-3.5 range seem to just say it based on their feelings rather than any concrete evidence. The facts are when stood next to solid 6ft 4 men like John Gavin,Greg Walcott and George Kennedy Clint was clearly very near their heights, I do believe those guys edged him but we're talking a half inch at most considering Clints usual languid posture. I do think 6ft 3.25 would be underselling him a bit. 6'3.5-75 that had to be his range. What strikes me about old Clint films is i do feel he often acted alongside other tall men, often I've thought oh well he doesn't seem that tall in this scene with a certain group of people and then I've scratched beneath the surface and it turns out those guys were all over 6ft.
jervis said on 30/May/17
He's 87 tomorrow.
RisingForce said on 30/May/17
What exactly was it that made everyone doubt 6'4" so much? He looked very close to Rock Hudson back in 1956.
Willes188 said on 29/May/17
Rory


That's exactly what i think the problem is... He looked 6'4 up until the mid 70s, in the 80s he gave more of a 6'3-6'3.5 vibe, the rest is history
James B said on 29/May/17
If he was a little under 6'3.75 peak then 6'2.75 makes sense for him in Deadpool given the difference between him and neeson
jervis said on 29/May/17
Rob.Donald Sutherland was downgraded to 6ft3.5 but is still 192cm, should this not be 191.5cm?I also agree with a downgrade 6f3.25 would be perfect for Clint peak.
Editor Rob: it's got to round one way if the figure is bang in the middle, so whenever something is .5 it will round up rather than down to 191.
Rory said on 29/May/17
I think the argument for his peak is either 6'3.5 or 6'3.75, one of those figures. Seeing as he's on 6'3.75 now I don't really see the point in downgrading him to 6'3.5. The issue is I think too many people are looking at Clint from within the last 30-40 years when he's been shrinking, not enough are watching his stuff from the 50s,60s and early 70s when he definitely looked over 6ft 3.
James B said on 29/May/17
Rob the majority of votes have him at 191cm peak

Could a downgrade to 6ft3 for his peak be possible?
Editor Rob: the nearly 6ft 3.5 is a quite reasonable figure...I could see it as being very possible, it's only a 1/4 inch less than the current peak listing...
Lenad the 5ft9.75in stud said on 26/May/17
I always bought 6'3 for his peak, but never 6'4
RisingForce said on 24/May/17
Clint still looks similar to 182 cm Denzel Washington this year: Click Here Click Here

Clint can look maybe 1/4" shorter in the first pic, but that's his old man posture. He looks taller in the 2nd pic. Clint will probably look shorter if you go by eye level since he has the head of a man who use to be around 6'4". It's not impossible he's 182 cm now, but it's anyone's guess how tall he'll stand for a measurement. I think there's a good chance he may still reach the 6 foot mark standing tall.
jervis said on 24/May/17
Arch.Humphrey's looks like a short Guy around 5ft7.Rob do you think Humphreys looked the same height as you?
Editor Rob: I think Humphrey could typically look 5ft 8 or over due to big shoes.
James B said on 22/May/17
Arch- doesn't brolins look like Bale?
James B said on 19/May/17
iosu_lasa said on 16/May/17
Click Here:

Eastwood and Brolin



Brolin = deadringer for Christian bale
Arch Stanton said on 19/May/17
Humphries was 5 ft 8 ish I think. Eastwood did look a big 6'4 in that interview.
hope said on 17/May/17
I've actually met some of the people talked about on this thread, and it's interesting to me how celebs can appear to be taller on film than they are in real life. First, casting agents will often cast against the lead's height because a director or the actor himself (if he's a big enough star) wants a certain height difference for them on screen. Even if an actor isn't wearing lifts, camera angles and sole/heel thickness, as you all know, make it very difficult to get a handle on their heights with any accuracy. (Rob's photos with the celebs are a huge help.) It's even more deceiving if you see them on stage. I suspect it's because in most theatres, a large part of the audience is looking up.

Overall, given his age and slight frame, I think 6'0" sounds accurate. A man can easily lose 4" in height by his age. As someone mentioned below, taller men lose more, as a rule. But many people believe that osteoporosis is a woman's disease - it's not. Slender white men, in particular, are at real risk. I have no problem believing he could lose 3.5" or even more by his age.
jervis said on 17/May/17
I dont know if it makes much of a difference,but Clint is 10 years older than Brolin,so their peak heights would be at slightly different times.But they do look very similar,both 6ft3 or maybe a bit more peak.
jervis said on 17/May/17
Just look at the John Humphries interview on youtube and you will see how tall he looked in his younger years,although I dont know how tall Humphries was.
RisingForce said on 16/May/17
Danimal, those are good pics, the last one has a bit of a low angle, but still useful. I see them about the same height in the first, Clint maybe a half inch shorter in the second and then about an inch shorter in the third. So if Rob's listing for Cooper is accurate then I still can't see Clint shorter than 5'11.5" and I don't know how much Clint can lose with posture. I'll agree there's a good chance he's under 6', though as he can look it with Stallone and Hugh Jackman and the Cooper pics are at least a couple of years old, maybe more like 2.5 years in some cases, but I think a flat 5'11" is too low since with old man posture, you'd surely have Clint looking 5'10" or under a fair amount. As for peak, I'd believe Clint at a full 6'4" peak before Tom Selleck.
iosu_lasa said on 16/May/17
Click Here:

Eastwood and Brolin
berta said on 16/May/17
191,5 peak
AlexMahone said on 16/May/17
Here is Clint circa 1970s with James Brolin.

Click Here

We can't see the footwear but Clint cheats a little bit with his hair. Brolin is slouching more but I think he is slightly taller.

And here is the two about 2008.

Click Here

I think about 6'3" for Clint is beliavable but no lower.
James B said on 15/May/17
iosu_lasa said on 14/May/17
James B said on 14/May/17
Clint In his prime similar in height to a peak Dolph Lundgren? I can't see it personally.

No, Dolph was taller in his prime.. He was an inch more


Well editor rob doesn't rule out 193cm for a peak Dolph. And yes I agree I could imagine there being 1 inch between Clint and Dolph.

6'3 for clint Eastwood and 6'4 for Dolph makes sense to me.
iosu_lasa said on 14/May/17
James B said on 14/May/17
Clint In his prime similar in height to a peak Dolph Lundgren? I can't see it personally.

No, Dolph was taller in his prime.. He was an inch more
James B said on 14/May/17
Clint In his prime similar in height to a peak Dolph Lundgren? I can't see it personally.
jervis said on 13/May/17
I think a downgrade to 6ft3.5 is more like his peak height.
Danimal said on 13/May/17
RisingForce said on 10/May/17
Danimal, 5'11" flat seems too low if he stood decently. He'd often look only 5'9"-5'10" with his posture. Did you see the full pics I posted with 184 cm Bradley Cooper? Clint can still look almost the same height when he stands well. I can't see him lower than 5'11.5" even today and really I think still a solid 182 cm, possibly the full 6 feet still. I may be in the minority, but I actually don't have trouble believing he hit a full 6'4" peak, though 1/4" under seems equally likely.

I had not seen the pic you posted of him with Bradley Cooper. That said, here are some comparison pics of the 2 of them. Even if Bradley has the slight footwear advantage, I still see Clint as being under 6'0" today:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
AlexMahone said on 11/May/17
This Lois girl/guy is just a troll...or another hardcore downgrader.

Escape From Alcatraz shower scene: Wolf played by Bruce M. Fischer was never 6'4". At best 191cm and Eastwood pretty much the same height. The picture from the movie is not ideal for comparison but look at...

Click Here

This isn't ideal as well because Eastwood is much closer to the camera and in the movie the two actor is never stand eye to eye but Eastwood is not 6'1" or 6'0".

Click Here

The prison director in the movie played by Patrick McGoohan. If I right remember Rob gave him 6'1" but McGoohan was taller, at least 188cm. Eastwood is taller with 4-5cm.
RisingForce said on 10/May/17
Danimal, 5'11" flat seems too low if he stood decently. He'd often look only 5'9"-5'10" with his posture. Did you see the full pics I posted with 184 cm Bradley Cooper? Clint can still look almost the same height when he stands well. I can't see him lower than 5'11.5" even today and really I think still a solid 182 cm, possibly the full 6 feet still. I may be in the minority, but I actually don't have trouble believing he hit a full 6'4" peak, though 1/4" under seems equally likely.
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/May/17
iosu_lasa said on 6/May/17
In 1993 clint was still higher than the 190 cms of morgan freeman
Click Here

First, good pic of 56 yo Freeman and 63 yo Eastwood offset from around the time of The Unforgiven. For me, such pics are hard to come by. IMO, Clint does not appear clearly higher. From the pic (sans higher hair)Clint appears only slightly higher if not level. From memory, every scene from the Unforgiven did have Clint standing clearly higher - could be wrong but that's what I remember. For what it's worth, this site gives Freeman a peak height of 6' 2 & 1/4 " (personally I feel Morgan was a bit taller than that at best) but any which way it's reasonable to assume that 56 yo Freeman himself isn't quite carrying his own peak height by the time of that photo.
movieguy said on 9/May/17
I don't remember Eastwood being much shorter than the Wolf guy in Escape from Alcatraz. An inch or so if my memory serves me correctly.
jervis said on 9/May/17
Lois,do you think Clint used lifts to make him look taller?
Lois said on 9/May/17
Escape From Alcatraz shower scene. Bruce Fischer as "Wolf" is 6'4" and Eastwood is a good 3" shorter.
iosu_lasa said on 7/May/17
FRANK said on 6/May/17
Clint never was a 6.4 or around it, at least barefoot.
Now he will be in 5Β΄11" or few more (yes, with +80 years) and watching his movies since his youth i can see him 6Β΄2" or few more in peak barefoot.
6Β΄2"-6Β΄2.5 could be realistic, with boots 6Β΄4"

Totally improbable FRANK ... In the picture he looks clearly higher than Freeman in the time of loss of stature of Clint.
Clint always poses to appear shorter in height
jervis said on 7/May/17
Frank,do you think Charlton Heston was more 6ft1 range peak,or do you think Clint had some sort of footwear advantage over him, that made him look 1 to 1.5 inches taller?
FRANK said on 6/May/17
Clint never was a 6.4 or around it, at least barefoot.
Now he will be in 5Β΄11" or few more (yes, with +80 years) and watching his movies since his youth i can see him 6Β΄2" or few more in peak barefoot.
6Β΄2"-6Β΄2.5 could be realistic, with boots 6Β΄4"
iosu_lasa said on 6/May/17
In 1993 clint was still higher than the 190 cms of morgan freeman
Click Here
James B said on 4/May/17
I think clint was always vain about his hair.

Probably still gets hair transplants too this very day
Ian C said on 2/May/17
Eastwood's case raises the question, do you get points on the height scale for tall hair? The Young Clint Eastwood must have had at least an inch of hair above the highest point on his skull. So, he was six foot four after he combed his pompadour in the morning, but would have been six foot three if he'd been caught in a sudden downpour without a hat.

On the subject of hair, Eastwood had exactly the same hairstyle in every one of his movies until he well into his fifties. And the hair was always clean and combed, even if he was playing a character who hadn't shaved in three weeks.
James B said on 30/Apr/17
Looked 6'4.5 or 6'5 in Coogans Bluff
shiva 181 cms said on 30/Apr/17
His hair too could add the Impression of being taller but a flat head meaning he'd measure lower than our speculation
the Slav said on 29/Apr/17
Clint was 6'3 peak AT THE MOST imo. Doesnt seem to have lost more than 3 inches tbh
James B said on 28/Apr/17
Yeah Arch very rarely in his films from the 60s/70s did he only look 6'2.
Danimal said on 28/Apr/17
berta said on 26/Apr/17
i can se clint as 182,5 today and peak maybe 191,5

He's not over 180cm (5'11") today.
jervis said on 27/Apr/17
In cowboy boots 195cm,barefoot 191cm or maybe 192cm but I am more comfortable with 191cm.193cm was IMO an out of bed early in the morning measurement.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Apr/17
GP said on 24/Apr/17
@Arch, you little child was I talking to you? ...., πŸ˜‚
Rob I have noticed that you have all these double standards nowadays. You let this guy Arch get away with so much.

I don't have to post here. Sorry but saying it was a "good 2 inches" just looked like a blatant untruth. A lot of troll types over the years have turned up claiming Clint was no more than 6'2 and altering things to meet their own arguments. I assumed you were one of them.
Richardspain said on 26/Apr/17
The famouse height of 192cm is a fake because is with his cowboy's boots.

Clint never was more than 190cm maybe was 189cm in peak and over long time he was 188cm. Now less 184cm is very old man
Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Apr/17
Arch - Not sure if you accept Vincent Price as a lock 6'4" but I do. In Forbidden Area, Price, face to face with Heston, has a solid 2" advantage. I can tell you that's at least one film in which Heston does not look a minimum 6'2 1/2", let alone any taller. Rather, Chuck looks 6'2" at best. So the math is Heston 6'2" with Clint either 1 " taller (6'3") or 1.5" taller (6'3 1/2"). From Price to Heston to Eastwood, it adds up for me.

As for The Unforgiven, I don't recall one scene in which Eastwood's height could be reliably compared to that of Morgan Freeman. I can tell you that I did notice that in the film Clint did appear to hold an even greater height advantage over Hackman than he actually held over Hackman in real life as at the time the movie was made. That Clint would be artificially framed or enhanced to be the darkest, most menacing and tallest character in that movie is not entirely implausible.
berta said on 26/Apr/17
i can se clint as 182,5 today and peak maybe 191,5
GP said on 24/Apr/17
@Arch, you little child was I talking to you? ...., πŸ˜‚
Rob I have noticed that you have all these double standards nowadays. You let this guy Arch get away with so much. I remember when he first started posting here, you would always respond to his comments, it's almost that you know each other. Now, he thinks that somehow he is an expert and goes around insulting people because he doesn't agree with them?
I remember you used to ban people back then if people insulted each other, but it appears that has stopped. It clearly shows that you have certain favorites on here that you allow to get away with bad acts that I doubt it's good for the reputation of this site. If you are the editor of this site, then you should not allow these type of childish and immature people speak in such manner. I'm very disappointed that standard has been lowered in my 10 + years of visiting your site.

Editor Rob: I thought it was an off-hand reply 'need your eyes tested'...but I understand where you are coming from, it can be seen as an insult.

We should all try to show some respect, even if we disagree with other opinions.
jervis said on 23/Apr/17
Yes GP,I did see the movie many times on tv and when it was first on in the cinema in 1988.Also remember Neeson did state his height as 6f4 and some change.
shiva 181 cms said on 23/Apr/17
@arch, buddy everyone has different guesses on height difference that doesn't mean, he should have his eyes checked, going by your logic almost 99% of population should have their eyes checked ,,big G should be triple checked, by the way I don't mean to offend you I'm just stating a fact
Clint was near enough 6'4 at his peak this listing is perfect
But currently looks 5'11.5 don't know how much he'd measure
GP said on 22/Apr/17
jervis that's your opinion but you clearly either didn't watch the movie or you don't know anything about camera angles. Camera was placed as close as possible to Eastwood every scene they were together to minimize the height difference and he still looked shorter. They even had him stand on higher ground in some scenes. Liam himself never had good posture. If you believe that somehow it's his genes that contributed to his major height loss then I feel sad for his son, he might end up being a little person when he gets to his dad's age.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Apr/17
GP said on 21/Apr/17
Once more, for some odd reason my comment didn't show here. Watch The Dead Pool movie from 1988. Eastwood looked good 2" shorter than Liam Neeson. So unless there was evidence that Eastwood had already lost about 2" of height by mid to late 50's, then that 6'3" mention was most likely his peak height and by late 80's he was down to 6'2".

LOL, if you thought that was 2 inches you need your eyes tested. One inch at the very most, see the scene where they walk through the supermarket. Eastwood was down to about 6 ft 3 by then, as if you see Unforgiven he was still an inch taller than solid 6'2 Morgan Freeman.
iosu_lasa said on 22/Apr/17
Definitely, to think that clint was lower than 191 is pure fantasy
iosu_lasa said on 22/Apr/17
Clint and Adrian (183) in 2002... Click Here
jervis said on 22/Apr/17
GP.I don't agree that Neesoniwas 2inches taller in The Dead pool,it was more like 1 or Max 1.5 in Neeson's favour.IMO Clint was 6ft3.5 peak.Some people are more susceptible to losing more height than others, and Clint is one of those,maybe it's gene
GP said on 21/Apr/17
Once more, for some odd reason my comment didn't show here. Watch The Dead Pool movie from 1988. Eastwood looked good 2" shorter than Liam Neeson. So unless there was evidence that Eastwood had already lost about 2" of height by mid to late 50's, then that 6'3" mention was most likely his peak height and by late 80's he was down to 6'2".
Leo2001 said on 21/Apr/17
5ft 11 now is possible?

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
iosu_lasa said on 20/Apr/17
Clint and Leonard Nimoy (183) Click Here
Scott KX said on 19/Apr/17
Ian C: Compare his posture now with when he was younger. His arms go down almost to his knees and his belt is halfway upto his chin. He also a noticeable curvature of the spine he did not have when he ws younger.
James said on 16/Apr/17
Heston only looked 6'2" in some films.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Apr/17
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Apr/17

I do agree that Eastwood had Heston by 1" to 1.5 " at best so Clint gets a 6'3" to 6'3.5" from me though I lean more (excuse pun) to 6'3".

Well the math doesn't add up as Heston consistently looked minimum 6'2.5 in every film and some people argue more 190 or even a full 6'3. 1-1.5 inch taller, a flat 6'3 makes no sense at all. The lowest I think you can argue is 6'3.5.
Jug said on 14/Apr/17
I would say he was the full 6'4 in his youth.
Ian C said on 12/Apr/17
Eastwood has lost almost four inches? How is that possible without the use of a saw?
Canson said on 10/Apr/17
Rising force and Christian and Tall in the Saddle are correct. He peaked at a strong 6'3 or solid 6'3. He likely was a guy who dipped to 6'3 or 6'3.25 tops never a full 6'4" which is why people assume that that type of height is taller than it is because people claim it. A real 6'4 to me dips no lower than maybe 6'3.75-6'3 7/8 on a given day and a good 6'4" is a John Lithgow or a Dennis Hasybwrt prime or a David Hasselhoff. Eastie is similar to Conan in height believe it or not neither is a legit or even weak 6'4 guy peak.
S.J.H said on 10/Apr/17
I bet clint eastwood didn't lost any height after this 6'0 current height since few years ago. My grandfather was 85 now and he didn't lost any height untill he reach 70 from 5'10 down to 5'9 at 75 and after 10 years now he still measure a solid 5'9 but losing posture instate of height.
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Apr/17
Whenever we judge height it is of course comparative to other celebs whose height we might believe to be a fixed and correct quantity. Suffice to say, one flawed reference can lead to another and ultimately cause estimates to be well off the mark. A leaning tower of Pisa so to speak. I remember back when Heston's height was rubber stamped as 6'4" - listings are generally more realistic now. IMO, Heston was 6'2" tall at best. I also believe that Vincent Price was a lock at 6'4". Heston and Price appeared in a made for television cold war thriller Forbidden Area ('56). At one point they stand perfectly face to face and, IMO, Price has a good 2" on Heston. I do agree that Eastwood had Heston by 1" to 1.5 " at best so Clint gets a 6'3" to 6'3.5" from me though I lean more (excuse pun) to 6'3".
Christian-196.2cm (6ft5.25) said on 9/Apr/17
Canson said on 22/Mar/17
He was never 194cm. A peak Eastwood was 191/192 strong 6'3"

--------

Good guess, I was thinking the same thing. Today he may be a weak 6'0"
jervs said on 9/Apr/17
Berta,he was taller than Charlton Heston,who could have been 6ft3 but was min 6ft2.5.Clint had him by a least an inch,so 6ft3.5 look about right.
Thomas Veil said on 9/Apr/17
I always thought Eastwood was 6'2 tops
RisingForce said on 8/Apr/17
Any less than 6'3" peak is nonsense and he's clearly lost more than just 2" though I do think he could still be 6 feet standing properly. He could still look similar to Bradley Cooper(given 6'0.5") when he stood decently 2 years ago: Click Here Click Here though he did look a weaker 6' or possibly 182 cm with 6'1.5" Hugh Jackman in 2014: Click Here And with Sly now a max 5'8.5", likely just 5'8.25" and not wearing his lifts at events for years now, Clint can look close to 5'11": Click Here Of course, I'm sure he still measures taller, but 5'11.5" or 6' are your best bets nowadays depending on how much he gain standing to be measured.
Jake said on 8/Apr/17
He's 6-1". He never was 6-4,he peaked out barely over 6-2 3/4.
berta said on 8/Apr/17
i think barely 192 peak and 182 today. dont really think he edges out tom hanks
RichardSpain said on 7/Apr/17
192cm young with his cowboy's boots is possible. I think Clint always was 190cm without boots. When he was 60 years old, maybe 188cm and now less 185cm is possible because he is 86 years old....
Danimal said on 5/Apr/17
SonnyboySlim said on 22/Mar/17
He would guess over 6'3" in his prime but I was shocked at how much height he's lost. I'm not sure he's even 6' now.

The man's almost 87 years old and his spine has been curving for years due to scoliosis and possibly osteoporosis as well.
Danimal said on 5/Apr/17
Timur9717 said on 24/Mar/17
Easily 6 feet 4.5 at his peak

You feel like adding .5" over what he claimed for himself? He was never over a flat 6'4" and even that may be a bit high. Closer to 6'3.5" at his peak.
Danimal said on 5/Apr/17
Peter175 said on 30/Mar/17
He'll die before he joins the sub6ft club.

He's already sub 6'0" today.
Dmeyer said on 5/Apr/17
He was taller than me about 6'1 in person 12 years ago , and Freeman did look noticablty taller
Sam said on 31/Mar/17
The peak listing is dead-on imo, he looked too tall in comparison to 6'2" range guys to be a flat 6'3" but he never looks a really strong 6'4" height.
Peter175 said on 30/Mar/17
He'll die before he joins the sub6ft club.

A true 6ft4 guy imo
Editor Rob: not so sure about that, he may well be joining myself, Tom, Sly, Arnie at our favourite Cafe
Ian C said on 30/Mar/17
Eastwood was about an inch taller than Eric Fleming on Rawhide, and Fleming gave his height as six foot three. Eastwood was very close in height to Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes, and Sutherland gave his height at that time as six foot four. That's two corroborations of six foot four right there, and there are plenty more for anybody who wants to look for them.
James B said on 25/Mar/17
Timur9717 said on 24/Mar/17
Easily 6 feet 4.5 at his peak

Sure in shoes he was
Johan said on 25/Mar/17
Can't imagine him ever being 6'3 flat. People have already forgotten the clip with Muhammad Ali?

Ali was at least 6'2" and was surprised himself at how tall Eastwood was. 1 inch wouldn't do that, he was at least 6'3.5" in his prime. Early morning measurement gets you 6'4" or very close to it.
Timur9717 said on 24/Mar/17
Easily 6 feet 4.5 at his peak
James B said on 23/Mar/17
6'3 is easier to imagine for a peak clint compared to 6'2 or 6'4.
Ian C said on 23/Mar/17
Here is an interesting Clint Eastwood fact: If you watch him in the Man With No Name movies, he doesn't change his expression or his tone of voice at any time in any of those movies. No matter what the Man is doing, killing people or being beaten an abused himself, he seems only mildly interested in what is happening. In fact, being tall and having a large, handsome head is pretty much his whole act.

Jack Palance plays an expressionless, monotonic gunfighter in the movie Shane, but got an Academy Award nomination for it. How was that possible? Well, Palance actually seems like a vicious, soulless killer. He doesn't even have to speak and you still know that he is dangerous. He acts like a gunfighter, whereas Eastwood acts more like a mailman whom somebody had handed a pistol.
SonnyboySlim said on 22/Mar/17
He would guess over 6'3" in his prime but I was shocked at how much height he's lost. I'm not sure he's even 6' now.
Canson said on 22/Mar/17
He was never 194cm. A peak Eastwood was 191/192 strong 6'3"
James B said on 21/Mar/17
Probably bulking up in the 80s contributed to his height loss back then much like Hugh Jackman and Dolph Lundgren.
Adijos said on 21/Mar/17
Peak: 6'4.25" (194 cm)
Now: 6' (183 cm)
RisingForce said on 20/Mar/17
He was definitely shorter than Rock Hudson in that clip, but not by that much. He seemed a similar towering figure and could seem about 6'6" in the Leone westerns with the hat, boots and low angle. I think at least around 6'4" through Escape from Alcatraz then he started losing height around age 50. I believe he was then a flat 6'3" by the Dead Pool through In the Line of Fire from 1988-1993, so not an usual height loss by age 63. He seemed to lose a bit more the second half of the 90's, but still seemed quite tall, much taller than currently. His huge height loss seemed to occur in his 70s.
James said on 20/Mar/17
Eastwood was 6'3" but he's 5'11" now.
James B said on 18/Mar/17
Arch probably 6'4.75 out of bed
TheBigR said on 18/Mar/17
@Rob how did he lose so many inches? Because of surgery or what?
Arch Stanton said on 18/Mar/17
I'm pretty sure Clint would have been measured at a legit 6'4 earlier in the day.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Mar/17
Clint to me looks between 1 and 1.5 inches taller than Heston, making Rob's listings of 6'2.5 and 6'3.75 spot on, assuming footwear is even. 6'3.5 peak is arguable but he consistently looked too tall with numerous people to have been 6'3 or under.
jervis said on 17/Mar/17
Yes James, maybe Heston had a bigger heel than Clint.
movieguy said on 17/Mar/17
Wow, looked at the Heston Eastwood Oscars clip. Brief but great to see them together. Not much difference in height I think. Eastwood a little taller as other posters have noted, don't think it's much more than an inch in difference though. Clint looks at least 6'3'' and maybe was the 6'4'' he claimed. I know guys who claim 6'4'' but I'd guess as slightly less, who knows maybe they are right and I'm wrong.
Sonny Black said on 16/Mar/17
I think his slim build always made him appear taller
James said on 16/Mar/17
It depends if they were wearing the same kind of shoes.
jervis said on 16/Mar/17
Thanks Tall in the saddle,I have to agree that Clint looks to have the edge on Heston,but by how much? its not clear.I would say its about 1 inch in Clints favour.Making Clint between 6ft3 and 4 depending on Hestons height.
James said on 15/Mar/17
Heston was 6'2" at that time.
mister_lennon said on 15/Mar/17
Clint was a strong 6'3. Charlton was a strong 6'2.
James B said on 14/Mar/17
iosu_lasa said on 12/Mar/17
I think Clint created a complex in his teenage years. That made him adopt bad body postures to seem more "common."


I created a complex in my teen years that made me adopt 'upright posture' to seem more "tall" since I am only 5ft7
Arch Stanton said on 14/Mar/17
Form what I can see Heston at 6'2.5 and Eastwood 6'3.75 peaks look spot on, agree on Eastwood looking between 1 and 1.5 on Heston.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Mar/17
Yes, and in it Eastwood was clearly easily an inch taller from what I remember. A lot of people argue the full 6'3 for Heston too.
Tall In The Saddle said on 14/Mar/17
Jervis - thanks and I'd like to hear your opinion on the clip you pointed to.

I think first and foremost, all would agree that Clint's clearly taller but by how much? It's a fleeting moment together. I'd guess 1 to 1.5 " diff. in Eastwood's favor.

What say you Jervis?

At any rate, great clip of Eastwood lumbered with the task of reading lines of biblical proportions specifically written for Heston. Eastwood handled it with his typical cool and self deprecating sense of humor. Certainly enough to crack Burt Reynolds right up.
jervis said on 14/Mar/17
Clint and Heston met and shook hands on stage at the Oscars the year of that pic.I think you can view it on YouTube.
iosu_lasa said on 12/Mar/17
I think Clint created a complex in his teenage years. That made him adopt bad body postures to seem more "common."
iosu_lasa said on 12/Mar/17
Click Here: Clint rarely shows his height potential because of his poor posture. In the picture of him with charlton it is possible that he is shown erect.
iosu_lasa said on 12/Mar/17
Click Here: Clint rarely shows his height potential because of his poor posture. In the picture of him with charlton it is possible that he is shown erect.
Tall In The Saddle said on 12/Mar/17
I'm with movieguy.

I'm not sure why photos like the one with Clint and Heston can be considered as reasonable evidence. Not head to toe and the angle from which it is taken invites deception via parallax error.

Earlier in the thread Arch Stanton provided a pic of Clint and Heston standing together at a function. Most recently, iosu_lasa provided a pic of Clint and Heston at the very same function more than likely standing in more or less the same position. The main differences between the two photos are the distance, height and angle from which they were taken. Same place, same time, more or less the same positions from the first to the second photo but somehow, in the second photo, Clint looks to have gained even more height advantage over Heston in the same moment of time - of course that's impossible. If the two photos prove anything concrete, they prove that such photos can be very deceiving depending on the vantage point from which they are taken.

For what it's worth, check the two recessed ceiling lights in the 2nd photo, one is on the left sort of above Clint's head and there is one on the right, roughly above Heston's head. I will of course assume those lights to be fixed at exactly the same height but they clearly do not appear to be at the same height in the photo. The light on the left appears higher than the light on the right. An illusion. Since Clint is at left in the photo it might then be reasonably assumed that Clint is gaining a measure of illusory advantage over Heston.

All in all, I would give Clint 1" to 1 1/2" advantage over Heston.
movieguy said on 12/Mar/17
That photo with Heston is clearly misleading. Clint was probably about an inch taller than Heston in reality. Not 3 inches like in that photo.
jervis said on 11/Mar/17
Heston must have been max 6ft2, or Clint was 6ft4 peak after all?
jervis said on 11/Mar/17
In that pic with Heston Clint looks 6ft4.5?
iosu_lasa said on 10/Mar/17
Click Here ... he was taller than charlton heston
Ly said on 10/Mar/17
Seeing his early films i noticed him being an ectomorph.
He had loose neck and back posture wich is typical for ectomorphs and made him look just 6ft3 but i believe almost 6ft4 is closer.
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Mar/17
Thanks Jervis, I'll have a look see at that site.
iosu_lasa said on 9/Mar/17
clint and Chevy... very similar Click Here
jervis said on 9/Mar/17
Tall in the saddle,there is a very good site if you Google BORSARI IMAGES and type Clint Eastwood and search you will see lots of pics for height comparisons,there are a lot of thumb nail pics but if you zoom in you can see images very clearly.
Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Mar/17
Just to addend to my last post - I wanted to see more of the film NEVER SAY GOODBYE cited by iosu_lasa and found that one of my favorite actors George Sanders was also in it. Sanders was a good 6'3" and possibly 6'3 1/2" at best in my opinion. There a 12 minute or so trailer of the movie also avail. on YouTube and there is a scene in which Sanders (all be he older) is standing acceptably close to Hudson (though not a full length shot). Hudson is clearly taller but accepting Rock at 6'5", Sanders appears a good comparative 6'3" or so in my book. I don't wish to be too much of a naysayer or cynical but it's curious how well Clint measured up in that scene with Hudson. Anyway...
Canson said on 8/Mar/17
I can't speak to his height in his 80s but if he has really lost 3" wow! Prime is easily say he was a strong 6'3. Either 103/191 or 192.5/190.5
Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Mar/17
iosu_lasa - Just for it's own sake w/out getting into height that was an awesome clip! Thanks man.

For judging Clint's height it isn't too shabby either. Still, full length shots are best but so hard to come by. Problem for me is that rather than support Clint being between 6'3" - 6'4", he actually appears "too tall" if that makes any sense. For mine, Hudson was an easy 6'5" and as per the vision, Clint does appear virtually as "high" as Rock. Interesting. Also, toward the end of the clip Hudson stands still nicely near the brick work for a possible comparative height check against a static object. Unfortunately, when I went back on the clip when Clint enters the scene he is a little bit more in front and passes the same brick work a little too quickly but of course you can go frame by frame and still extrapolate a bit - Clint still seems to measure up to Rock well with reserve for usual possible hidden variables.
jervis said on 8/Mar/17
Yes he does look as tall as Hudson in that clip,and remember Hudson is on this site listed as 6ft5,but IMO he was more 6ft4.5.But there is also a pic of both men together and Hudson looks the taller by maybe 1 to 1.5 inches.
Blondie said on 8/Mar/17
Look at that pic: Click Here
I've compared "young Clint" with "old Clint". On the left he was 38 years old (on the set of "Hang'em High"). He was probably 6'4, maybe 6'3.5, but I really doubt he was shorter than 6'3.5. Today he's probably around 6 ft. (I guess 5'11). He's had some back problems and lost a huge amount of height. But he still has very long legs, which make him look disproportionate. By the way, I'm his great fan and hope he'll make much more excellent movies!
iosu_lasa said on 8/Mar/17
Clint and Rock Hudson (6ft4) were very similar in stature in "Never say goodbye" Click Here
mister_lennon said on 8/Mar/17
He was more than 1 inch taller than burt lancaster in the professionals.
heston was a strong 6'2 guy.
berta said on 8/Mar/17
i think the average guess seems pretty spot on. he look like somene who can be at best 6 foot now and when he was young he looked close to 192
mister_lennon said on 7/Mar/17
Marvin was 6'1. And stil 6'1 in lates 60s.
jervis said on 7/Mar/17
Marvin was only 6 years older than Clint,I dont think he would have lost any height at the age of 44.I have seen the Heston pic many times before,and yes if he was 6ft3 then Clint looks an easy 6ft4 in that pic.But the pic is only from the chest down,floor level and shoes can not be seen.Also Heston said himself he was 6ft2.
James said on 7/Mar/17
Marvin was no more than six foot by 1968.
James said on 6/Mar/17
Lee Marvin was only six foot. Charlton Heston was 6'2".
Tall In The Saddle said on 6/Mar/17
Jervis - Just to complicate it a bit I've also seen Presnell listed as high as 6'5". My gut tells me more like 6'4" or somewhere between that and 6'5" but I can't substantiate that.

Heston face up to rock solid 6'4" Price appears 6'2" maybe up to 6'2 1/2 " at absolute best. The pic of Eastwood and Heston is not ideal. Potentially deceptive angle, from chest up only, Eastwood looking up and Heston looking slightly down. Yes, Clint looks a bit taller (sans any illusory advantage from higher standing hair). Shoulder height is comparable. If Heston 6'2 1/2" then Eastwood might reasonably be pegged at 6'3.
James B said on 5/Mar/17
Marvin could have been 6'1.25 though
Arch Stanton said on 5/Mar/17
He had between 2 and 3 inches on Marvin in Paint Your Wagon!
Arch Stanton said on 5/Mar/17
You'll believe what you want to believe. What about Clint with Charlton Heston in 1972. Some people argue Heston was 6'3 himself, do you think Clint looks the same height? Click Here
jervis said on 4/Mar/17
@Tall In The Saddle,I have to agree with your point about Ali and Clint on the Frost show.I think this is clear proof that Clint was not 6ft4 peak and more 6ft3,in fact I would think there should be a downgrade in his height at peak to 6ft3.5 or even a flat 6ft3 peak.Rob what is your opinion on the Frost Show clip?,do you think Clint looks 6ft3.75 next to Ali?Also Presnell is listed as 6ft4 and is clearly the tallest of the three.
jervis said on 3/Mar/17
Ant,the clip of Clint with Marvin is on stage,and I would presume the ground was level.I caught a glimpse of Marvins footwear,he was wearing runners,the sole looked about 2 cm tick,even if Clint was wearing cowboy boots it would not allow for Clint only being 1 inch taller than Marvin at the time.As for Walcott,he looks slightly taller than Clint maybe half an inch.
Jervis said on 3/Mar/17
Well Ant,By the early 90s he had lost a bit of height,he would have been around 6ft2.5,but at peak 6ft3 to 6ft3.75,somewere in between that.
Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Mar/17
In my opinion, Ali and Eastwood's appearance on the Frost show provides the best frame of reference to estimate Clint's height. Unlike so many other examples of "comparison" offered, all things are actually very much visible and equal (postures, footwear, head to toe in frame, standing on the same flat surface, in close proximity to one another etc.). There is also the reasonably fixed value of Ali's height against which Clint's questioned height can be compared - Ali's height being a reliably judged 6' 2 1/2" at a minimum. Eastwood looks to be at least a safe 1/2" taller. There is also Ali's own up close and personal testimony that Clint is taller - I doubt Ali would afford that observation if he perceived Clint to be anything less than 1/2" taller. Could Clint wear lifts inside the shoe? Sure, but that is about the only possible hidden variable in this example. Otherwise, I see no better example than this to uphold Eastwood's height. As such I give Clint a safe 6'3".
James said on 2/Mar/17
William Holden was 5'10".
Ant said on 1/Mar/17
Well Jervis, looking at assorted photos of the names you mention Eastwood's height seems to be all over the place. Agree that in the Making of Paint Your Wagon footage he appears substantially taller than Marvin. However we don't get to see full body shots showing footwear and ground conditions. re Hackman at photos of a charity lunch in 1990 Eastwood has a comfortable Edge but at the Oscars in 1993 they mostly look the same height. On some photos with Walcott, Walcott is still taller while appearing to slouch. Putting it all together I'd still argue against 6'3 peak - maybe 6'2.5 out of bed peak tops. Tall dude then and still a tall dude now.
jervis said on 28/Feb/17
Sam,there are other pics of Clint with Holden and he look a easy 6ft3 next to him, even near 6ft4,depending if Holden was 5ft10.5 or 5ft11.The Newman ones are taken as to make Newman not look to short next to Clint.
Sam said on 28/Feb/17
@firecracker, in those photos Eastwood was bending his knees and leaning, not really irrefutable proof that he was 6'2"...He could still have been over 6'3" and dropping enough near Holden and Newman.
jervis said on 27/Feb/17
Ant,that guy John Smith looks more than 8cm taller than Fuller,if Fuller was 180cm Smith looks a least 4 maybe 5 inches taller.
jervis said on 27/Feb/17
So Clint was just half an inch taller than Lee Marvin? Just go on to youtube and look at THE MAKING OF PAINT YOUR WAGON,BEHIND THE SCENES,pause at 4 min and have a look and see,Clint looks an easy 6ft3 more like 6ft4 depending on Marvins height.Also if Hackman was 188cm and Clint was also 188cm? how come in every pic I have looked at with them both on line Clint is the taller of the two?George Kennedy and Greg Walcott both 6ft4,Clint looked similar in height to both.I dont know were your getting that Kennedy looked 1.5 inches taller, and maybe a little bit more than that, next to Clint.Max to me Kennedy edged Clint out by half an inch and know more.Clint Eastwood peak for me is still 6ft3 min,or max 6ft3.75 and I am sticking to that.Rob do you think there is any chance that Clint was as low as 6ft2 peak?
Editor Rob: I couldn't argue 6ft 2 peak...6ft 3 I think is the lowest I'd attempt to make an argument for.
mister_lennon said on 27/Feb/17
Lee marvin was 6'1. Clint was a strong 6'3.
Ant said on 26/Feb/17
In some photos 1.88m Whittaker seems to edge out Clint. Also with Marvin in Paint Your Wagon Marvin seems to slouch a lot and on Clint also looks to be standing on higher ground in some shots. On a photo of the two together at the People's Choice Awards Clint looks only slightly taller maybe half an inch or so. Re Fuller if you look at photos of him and his 1.88m listed Laramie costar John Smith - Smith even looks a bit taller than Eastwood by comparison.then when you look at Eastwood with the likes of Gene Hackman 1.88m, 1.83m John Larch and 1.79m listed Carmen Argenziano, 1.88m seems about right. re Kennedy in some scenes in The Eiger Sanction such as when he and Clint are meeting the other climbers he looks to edge out Clint by an inch or more and given his posture doesn't look great Kennedy could be taller still.
James said on 25/Feb/17
Lee Marvin was six foot.
jervis said on 25/Feb/17
If Clint was 6ft2 peak,then Lee Marvin was max 6ft flat ,more like 5ft11,and I am not convinced he was that low.Also it would mean George Kennedy was less than 6ft3,more 6ft2.75.It would also put Gene Hackman in the 6ft flat range,and that would put Sean Connery in the same 6ft flat range,which is very unlikely,and I could go on with more examples.2 inches off Clints listed peak is is too much,too me he always looked a strong 6ft3 guy.Also google Clint with 6ft2 Forest Whitaker and you will see that in 1986 Clint was taller,so unless Whitaker was not even 6ft1 Clint was definitely more than 6ft2 peak.
jervis said on 24/Feb/17
I saw that pic with Fuller,Clint looks about 4 inches taller,thats 10cm,making Clint 190cm,and if Clint was standing stright and not slouching he would be about 192cm maybe the full 193cm.
Ant said on 24/Feb/17
When you look at photos of young Eastwood (30s/early 40s) he looks around (188cm) alongside the likes of Richard Burton (177cm) and Robert Fuller (180cm). When you look at him with actor John Larch (183cm) in Play Misty for Me, he's slightly taller. Today I reckon maybe 183cm first thing in the morning and 182cm or 181cm in the evening. He seems to be in great shape for a guy pushing 87 - maybe the result of keeping fit and healthy eating all these years.
Tall In The Saddle said on 23/Feb/17
Intuitively I would've given Jim Garner 6'1" tops but I haven't made any serious comparisons. I just watched Forbidden Area with Vincent Price and Charlton Heston and one scene has them close together and face to face. Based on 6'4" for Price I would give Heston maybe 6'2" perhaps 6'2 1/2 at a stretch. I've seen the shots of Heston with Bush Jr (chest up) and all being equal, Heston appears to be the same height, which I guess maybe 5'11" for Bush (so 3" off peak for Heston from my POV). A full length shot would be better though to see Heston's posture etc.

If you haven't seen it already check out Christopher Lee as the focus subject on This is Your Life. The final guest is Vincent Price. These two guys stand nice and straight, close together and standard foot wear as far as I can see - there is a long shot and then one closer up. Both Lee and Price perfectly fit their respective 6'5" and 6'4" billings. Excellent yard sticks so to speak.
Jervis said on 21/Feb/17
Garner was between 6ft1 and 2 peak and was around 5ft10 to 11 when he died. Heston was 6ft2.5 peak and was around the same height as George Bush jr not long befor he died.
James said on 21/Feb/17
James Garner was never any more than 6'1".
jervis said on 20/Feb/17
James Garner lost a lot of height in old age,as did Charlton Heston.
Tall In The Saddle said on 19/Feb/17
Correct me if I'm wrong but save for the argument that he wasn't perhaps exactly 6'4" I don't think Eastwood's height was brought into question back in the day. Certainly, it seemed everyone accepted that Clint was in the 6'3" to 6'4" range - a very tall guy of proportionally limbs. No pointing to "lifts" or excessive heels etc because there simply wasn't and still isn't any real indication that Eastwood "cheated" or enhanced his height in any way. Check Eastwood's height at his peak relative to other celebrities, check and compare his foot wear - there is nothing suspiciously advantageous and it all adds up well for Eastwood.

I think Clint Peak height has ONLY NOW been questioned in more recent times due to the apparent height loss that has followed over the years. That has lead to retroactive address and judgment of Eastwood's previously unquestioned peak height. If you can't accept the height loss being due to natural aging/deterioration then you will default to the belief that peak Eastwood imply could not have been as tall as he appeared and as he was advertised - just because you can't believe a man could lose that much height.

The purported average height loss over a life time (1-3 inches) is just that, an average and there are still less common but completely possible extremes either side of that. And, after all, a person who hits a genuine 6'4" at peak has already well transcended the boundaries of the so called average in today's world, let alone Eastwood's adult world some 60 odd years ago (PS - just looked it up and the average male height in 1960 was just over 5'8").

I will admit that Eastwood's marked height loss has made me a bit skeptical but I have remained open minded. Important to note is that the height loss was not sudden but has been gradual (see Jervis' Rob Reiner example - and there are many other similar examples). The man is 87 yo and somehow I think that is not properly accounted for. Certainly, I don't think many of us view Clint Eastwood as we might our own grandfather of similar age. In all respects (including height) we hold them up to a different, less than realistic light.

In a previous post I put a genuine call out for a male celebrity/high profile person who has suffered similar height loss and one who we can reasonably say has lost that height through natural aging/deterioration.

By chance I saw a recent pic of Prince Phillip with Barack and Michelles Obama. Respectfully, I would say 94 yo Phillip now appears to be tiny without too much of pronounced slouch or the like - though there are some tell tale kinks in the posture. Like Clint, Phillip appears to have a truncated torso - at least from the front view and the side view might reveal more obvious spinal curvature. From the Obama pics I might guess Phillip to be barely 5'7" if that. Now this was a man who was listed as 6ft in his prime and that height can be well corroborated against the multitude of high profile people Phillip has met with over many years - including 6ft John F Kennedy (who Phillip appeared to edge) and 6 ft Gerald Ford (who Phillip appeared to equal) to name just two. IMO, this is a genuine height loss of at least 4" and perhaps up to 5".

Point being, I wouldn't deny Clint his peak height SIMPLY because one does not think a height loss of 4 " is possible. I think Prince Phillip is a sterling example that such a height loss (and them some) is very much possible.
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.
jervis said on 18/Feb/17
Yes 6ft4 in the morning.Coburn looked 6ft1 range.
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 (6ft4ΒΌ-6ft4Β½) 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.

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.