How tall is Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood's Height

6ft 0in (182.9 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 3.75in (192.4 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 (126 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.44in (191.6cm)
Current: 5ft 11.96in (182.8cm)
Kiko said on 19/Aug/17
to movieguy:

I just say that more people like us should exist! Totally agree man. I'm happy there's still people like you. People ususally add 2 cm at least to a real height. It's just amazing. I'm conviced If Clint was 6'4 in another life people would guess he was 6'5 even 6'6. The truth ins this world is different. As I said I'm 178 cm an honest 5'10 guy and usually they think I'm 5'11 or 5'11.5 because I'm a real 178 cm barefoot and slim also like Clint. Witrh my sneakers on and at morning I'm over 5'11. Real height is different than people think...
andre said on 19/Aug/17
hey rob how is it possible for him to lose 9 cms? my grandfathar was measured in the army at 1.73m and right now at 80 years of age he is 1.72 cm and probably this 1 cm loss due to bad posture. He is smoking, drinking and he was lifting until he was 70( he had a construction job). What I'm asking, is losing height even real? Or is just based on that some people have bad posture when they become old. I know many people that are around 70 and haven't lost any height. Also my mother and my father are 60 and 61 of age and both of them have the same height as in their 20's.
iosu_lasa said on 18/Aug/17
Click Here:

Click Here:

Definitely 191 cms
movieguy said on 18/Aug/17
Kiko, like you I'm sceptical of the Incredible Shrinking Celeb. Used to be 6'4'' but now 6ft or less we are supposed to believe. Much more likely that the official height was a bit of an exaggeration to start with. Of course Clint was tall but I can't see him being the same height as genuine 6'4'' guys like Jeff Goldblum, David Hasselhoff or Tom Selleck even in his prime. His slim build makes him appear taller. 6'3'' I could accept but no way the full 6'4''. Again Kiko as you you state most guys claim they are taller than they actually are. We all know the 5'10'' guy who swears he's 6ft. In Hollywood such claims are likely to be more exaggerated than for 'normal' folk.
movieguy said on 18/Aug/17
Kiko, like you I'm sceptical of the Incredible Shrinking Celeb. Used to be 6'4'' but now 6ft or less we are supposed to believe. Much more likely that the official height was a bit of an exaggeration to start with. Of course Clint was tall but I can't see him being the same height as genuine 6'4'' guys like Jeff Goldblum, David Hasselhoff or Tom Selleck even in his prime. His slim build makes him appear taller. 6'3'' I could accept but no way the full 6'4''. Again Kiko as you you state most guys claim they are taller than they actually are. We all know the 5'10'' guy who swears he's 6ft. In Hollywood such claims are likely to be more exaggerated than for 'normal' folk.
jervis said on 18/Aug/17
Kilo it is not end of story,it's your opinion and your entitled to it as everybody else is.
Kiko said on 17/Aug/17
movieguy Again full agree! I also say he was from 6'2 to 6 end of the story. Makes him maybe over 6'4 in his good days with his cowboy boots. He was a bit over 6'2 barefoot with his slim appereance and shoes on he looks taller. but he was 6'2.25 a real heigh measuremnt. Most of all this actors are 1 inch shorter than they claim at least. Open your eyes again. Always people say excuse of 3 inches loss or even 4. thats a funny joke. They alsdo say about Arnold from 6'2 to 5'11 lol lol. Arnols same thin from 6'05 maxx to 5'11 maxx
jervis said on 16/Aug/17
If he was 6ft2 Then Hakman,Connery,Caine we're not even 6ft1 never mind 6ft2.By the time of the deadpool he was 58 and was probably aruund 6ft2.75,Neeson being IMO 6ft4.25 peak had about 1.5 on Clint.I.agree. Clint was not 6ft4 peak but 6ft2 is too low,6ft3 is bang on right between the two and that feels about right to me.Also the average man loses up to 2 inches by 80,but remember Clint is 87 and he could have lost a bit more.

5
Movieguy said on 16/Aug/17
In dead pool he looked at least an inch shorter than Liam neeson and in some scenes much shorter. Tim Robbins towered him. Tom selleck looked much taller than clint dancing with princess Diana. The issue is has he genuinely lost 4 inches or was he never a full 6'4''. Men dont usually lose as much height as clint is supposed to have lost. Usually 2 inches at most. Dropping from 6'2'' to 6ft seems more plausible.
iosu_lasa said on 15/Aug/17
I rememeber to clint next to Marvin and the difference of height was very similar
Click Here
iosu_lasa said on 15/Aug/17
Click Here
I do not know how he does it, but Clint is able to look taller or lower on the photos, depending on his body posture and his age.
iosu_lasa said on 15/Aug/17
Click Here

Frankly it is unfair to say that clint was less than 191 cms
jervis said on 15/Aug/17
That one with Chase is a good one,Chase was 6ft3.5,and is stretching up as tall as he can,Clint has more relaxed posture and is almost his height,if Chase was standing the same as Clint there would be nothing between them.
iosu_lasa said on 15/Aug/17
Here, near Juan Carlos I KING OF SPAIN (1,88)
Click Here:
jervis said on 14/Aug/17
I wouldn't put to much faith in those comments on the Sam Elliote Robert Ryan pages,they could have just made that up.James Coburn,Lee Marvin,were 6ft1 minimum and Clint had a Clear 2inches on both.6ft2 for Clint would make both Coburn and Marvin 6ft and they weren't.Kiko can say what he wants but I have been looking at height comparison pics of Clint with other stars, and Clint movies for 30 years and I have never had any reason to believe he was 6ft2.He was IMO 6ft3.
Willes188 said on 14/Aug/17
Anybody who thinks Clint was 6'2 range to 6'3 flat peak better check in to a mental asylum, He stod 6'5 in his cowboy boots and without them easily 192.5
jervis said on 14/Aug/17
George Kennedy always looked a honest 6ft4 Guy to me,but with Clint at 6ft2 it would make Kennedy in the 6ft2.5 or Max 6ft2.75 range.Also all of thy Beatles apart from Ringo were average height 5ft9 to 5ft10,there ate pics of them with Ali and Ali looks am easy 6ft2 next to them,infraction they look short next to him.I agree Clint was not 6ft4 peak as he stated himself on many occasions, but he was not 6ft2 either,he was 6ft3.Also there if a pic from the mid eighties of Clint standing next to 6ft3.5 Chevy Chase and he looks very similar in height so 6ft3 looks about right to me.
movieguy said on 13/Aug/17
I agree Kiko. What has swung it for me is the comments on the Sam Elliott and Robert Ryan pages where he is guessed as 6'2'' by two guys who claim to have met him. Perhaps these comments are fake but they sound convincing. I doubt if Rob will downgrade Clint further though as there is no hard evidence I admit.
Kiko said on 12/Aug/17
movieguy this is just simply. Clint was a strong 6'2. 6'2.25 in his peak. Today about 6 foot standing tall, walking looks 5'11 and standing tall 6 foot. 2 inches loss for him is what he shrunk. Being 87 years old and a lot of movies behind is the result and a decent loss for Eastwood. Is amazing how most of people say he loss 10 cm! Just unreal and impossible for him. Beacvuase he nevere was 6'3.75 maybe in this fake markting industry. I know what I'm talking about. He was a bit over 6'2 (From 188 cm to 182.5 cm sounds more realistic and I0m sure closer to the truth)
Kiko said on 12/Aug/17
movieguy this is just simply. Clint was a strong 6'2. 6'2.25 in his peak. Today a bit about 6 foot standing tall, walking looks 5'11 stading tall 6 fott. i inches loss for him is what he shrunk. Being 87 and alot of movies back is the result and a decent loss. Is amazing how most of people say he loss 10 cm! Just unreal and impossible for him. I know what I0m talking about. From 188 cm to 182.5 cm sounds more realistic and I0m sure closer to the truth
movieguy said on 11/Aug/17
There are photos of Princess Diana dancing with Tom Selleck and Clint Eastwood at the White House in the 80s. 6'4'' Selleck looks noticeably taller than Eastwood in comparison with Diana. Either Clint was never 6'4'' or was already losing height back in the 80s. Clint is my favorite actor and I kind of want him to be larger than life, however I do have serious doubts whether he was really 6'4'' at any point. The only alternative is that there was some health issue with the back I guess which has resulted in a dramatic height loss.
Kiko said on 10/Aug/17
Dolph Lundgren claimed he was 193 cm officially also on his website. That guy is really tall of course looked taller than Eastwood. You guys saying Eastwood was same height? lol big lol. He close to 2 inches shorter. If Dolph was 193 cm (6'4) I can not but even 6'3 for Eastwood. I give 6'2.75 in his best day on his peak with a lot of luck. But I believe he was 6'2.25- 6'2.5
Kiko said on 10/Aug/17
movieguy said on 9/Aug/17
Hollywood is the dream factory. Just because somemone has a bio that claims 6'4'' doesn't mean it

Full agree. At least still people who can think by themselves and watch by them selves not believe evrything....
Kiko said on 10/Aug/17
he was 6'3 topss movieguy is right you have to be a bit skeptical about an actors official bio and more if most of people exaggerate their height. Of course he never looked 6'4. Maybe a bit over 6'3 after bed but again I say he was 6'2.5 max
jetvis said on 9/Aug/17
I have seen a few articles about Clint where he was described as 6ft3,there is the one at the top of this page where he is described as 6ft3 and 216 pounds.
jetvis said on 9/Aug/17
I think 6ft3 is a very arguably height for Clints peak,close to 6ft4 morning.
movieguy said on 9/Aug/17
Hollywood is the dream factory. Just because somemone has a bio that claims 6'4'' doesn't mean it is really true. I'm not saying that Clint wasn't 6'4'' just that we should be a bit skeptical about an actors official bio.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Aug/17
Click Here Eastwood with strong 6'3 peak Donald Sutherland. Click Here Sutherland with 6'2 peak Sean Connery. Yes, Clint was 6'2 tops...
Arch Stanton said on 9/Aug/17
@Kiko, watch Magnum Force, Tim Matheson and Robert Ulrich were around 6'2. There's a firing scene in the film where he clearly looks near 2 inches taller. Also watch the air hangar scene with David Soul who Rob has at 6'0.5 peak. Eastwood looks between 3 and 4 inches taller.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Aug/17
LOL, if you watch the 1958 film Touch of Evil if Heston was 187 Orson Welles was nearer 180.
Canson said on 8/Aug/17
Clint was never 193cm at his lowest even in his peak. Maybe a 190-191 guy or we could push for 191-192 possibly and he could be a 6'4" out of bed but that's a big "if". I could buy anywhere around 6'3 mark maybe slightly over or under. I used to think 6'3.5ish but doubt it now based on the pics I've seen.
Kiko said on 7/Aug/17
Ok you are right 6'2 maybe is a bit short for Eastwood in his peak but not a full 6'3 I say 6'2.5 believe how tall is that barefoot.. and more being slim with long legs as him. He can pass like a 6'4 man. If yu see him with his cowboy boots even more!
Mark(5'9.5") said on 7/Aug/17
Not to mentioned Peak Clint Eastwood edged out John Wayne.

Also, I'm suspecting @kiko is @James again.
Kiko said on 7/Aug/17
you don't even see shoe advantage or flat floor, etcc They were about the same size. 188-189 cm at most wiich is is 6'2.5 maxxx for Eastwood 6'2 Heston. Andy Murray tennis player look very tall and he claimed 187'5 cm 6'1.75 and I believe Heston was as tall as him so 187 cm Heston 188-189 max Eastwood
Mark(5'9.5") said on 7/Aug/17
Not to mentioned Peak Clint Eastwood edged out John Wayne.
James B said on 7/Aug/17
get real 188cm is too short for a peak clint

If you want to see what 6'2 looks like watch some of gene hackmans old films
Arch Stanton said on 7/Aug/17
Kiko, you go from saying "He was 188 cm at his absolute peak height barefoot" to "the most he was is close to 6'3." and "he was nt even 6'3 maybe very close". So he grew on inch LOL? Either he was 6'2 MAX or not. Here's 6'2 Eastwood with 6 ft range Charlton Heston Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 7/Aug/17
Kiko, the classic troll....
Mister lennon said on 7/Aug/17
6'2 is a joke for peak clint. Tell me how he looked almost the same than 6'4 george kennedy. And that is only one example.

No less than a strong 6'3 peak.
Kiko said on 6/Aug/17
Clint is a classic 188 cm man 6'2.5 max. You dont even have to meet him. Saw all Rawhide series 50 and 60's when he was on his peak and is obvious he was nt even 6'3 maybe very close but I say 6'2.5 max 6'3 right after bed
Kiko said on 6/Aug/17
Are you guys kidding right? The point is that most of these actors got their heights boosted. Is also funny you all say Ali was 6'2.5 He vlaimed himself he was 6'2 but if he says that I'm convince he was a bit shorter. I give him strong 6'1 no more. He looks a classic 184-185 cm man 6'1 max for him which is 6'2 on his sneakers. Clint was like 4 cm taller just take a look on youtube where they were on TV interview together. He said: I'm big I'm 6'2 ( real life 6'1) his appereance is 6'1. but Clint Easwood is very tall. He is a slim guy who can look some times 190 cm or 6'3, but the most he was is close to 6'3. Real life: He was 6'2.5 barefoot Ali was 6'1 Fake or marketing or movistars height 1 to 2 inhes taller...
Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/17
Also look at Clint and Charlton heston who some argue was 6'3 himself. 6'2 you say?
Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/17
Clint was also taller than Muhammad Ali who was nothing under 6'2.5, there's a video on youtube in which Ali even says Clint is bigger.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/17
Because Kiko, Clint looked 2.5 inches taller that Lee Marvin, same on Don Stroud and Jeff Bridges, 2 inches on Tim Matheson and Robert Ulich, similar to 6'4 George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott, perhaps edged out slightly and looked to edge out 6'3.5 Donld Sutherland. All the evidence points to 6'3.5-6'4 peak, though I agree before I even started comparing I thought 6'4 seemed too high and thought more 6'2 myself at one point!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Aug/17
Arch, Daniels wasn't quite 6ft3 peak
Flint said on 5/Aug/17
6'4" is most likely his height in boots and rounded up. more like just over 6'2" barefoot. That's tall enough, but they had to boost it up because he was so much taller than all those short actors who also had their heights boosted.
Kiko said on 5/Aug/17
same as Dolph Lundgre height?? I can't believe it Rob. Clint was about 1.5- 2 inches shorter than him. Just watch him.
Dolph was 6'4 a legit 6'4 no more no less. He claim himself in his website and interview he was 6'4 since 18 years old 193 cm barefoot. He also was described athletic 6'4 muscular built in his peak. He always look 5 cm on Eastwood. 193 Dolph 188 Clint. Why all these celebrities got their heights rised? Rob Clint deserbe to be 6'3 listed at most. Is too high. Not the truth
Kiko said on 5/Aug/17
with his cowboy boots 6'3.5 peak days. but Is amazing people say he was that height barefoot! he was 6'2.5 tops
Slim 182 cm said on 5/Aug/17
Great, I've got the picture that's gotta convince you Clint was 193: Click Here
20 cm between Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood easily, or I'd give leone the quarter inch downgrade.
movieguy said on 5/Aug/17
In fairness Clint does seem to have lost a fair bit of height. His legs have gotten much longer in proportion to his body over time indicating a loss of height in the spine. He did have quite narrow shoulders as a young man so maybe wasn't as robust as some despite looking fit. I don't really see him as under 6'3'' in his youth although I'm skeptical of the full 6'4'' claims.
Kiko said on 4/Aug/17
Clint was 6'2. I can't believe people believes he was 6'4. He never looked that tall. With cowboyboots looked 190 cm never over. (6'2.75) Anyone with a good eye who had ever watched a lot of movies since his youth would never say he was over 188 cm or 6'2.5! He was 188 cm at his absolute peak height barefoot(6'2.25- 6'2.5 maxx )
Spencer said on 3/Aug/17
He looked 6 ft in Gran Torino maybe 184 . Peak looked close to 6'4.
jetvis said on 3/Aug/17
Rob do you ever think his height loss seems a bit odd because of his good health?
Editor Rob: the taller you are, the greater the overall loss...he's had a long career, many physical roles...he just may have got a bit unlucky with genetics or he ended up with some more bone loss or disc problems which led to further losses.
jetvis said on 3/Aug/17
I mentioned before in an episode of Rawhide there are some very good height comparisons between Clint and 6ft2.5 listed Jim Davis and both men look identical in height.My mind is still open on Clints peak.With Robbins Clint would have been in his early 70s and looked 6ft1 meaning a height loss of almost 3 inches which is a little bit hard to believe .
Arch Stanton said on 2/Aug/17
LOL, so that makes Jeff Daniels 6'1, Jim Carey no more than 6 ft and so on. Clint was taller than 6'3 peak Jeff Daniels at a time when he had lost height!
jetvis said on 2/Aug/17
If he was proven to be 6ft2,it would explain the massive height loss,also a lot of downgrades for other actors,I wouldn't. rule anything out though.
movieguy said on 2/Aug/17
On the Robert Ryan and Sam Elliott pages on this site there are stories from two guys who claim to have met Clint and guess his height at 6'2''. Their stories sound believable if anyone wants to check. I've always gone for Clint as a weak 6'4''. If Clint was only 6'2'' then this would explain the very dramatic height loss and why Tim Robbins towered over him at the time of Mystic River. Are these stories true though?
jetvis said on 1/Aug/17
Does smoking a lot make you lose height Rob?
Editor Rob: I would advise anybody against smoking. Long-term it certainly increases problems, including those which might lead to bone loss.
James said on 1/Aug/17
Marvin smoked 6 packs of cigarettes a day so he was likely to have lost height early.
Jim Hopper said on 31/Jul/17
No doubt he was 6-3 upwards to 6-4. That's not really the question. But he has lost a lot of height.
Rory said on 30/Jul/17
I challenge any downgrader to find me a veritable picture of a pre 1980 Clint Eastwood looking under 6ft3. I dare you.
jetvis said on 29/Jul/17
Marvin was only 45 at the time of paint your wagon and only 6 years older than Clint,I don't think he would have lost any height by that stage.
Marvin always looked a solid 6ft1 Guy to me,in Gorky park aged late fifties he looked similar to the much younger 6ft2 listed William Hurt.Downgrading someone below 6FT1 just to suit your opinion on Clint's height is a very weak argument. Clint in his peak was a Solis 6ft3 Guy,he was probably close to 6ft4 in the morning in his youth and just went with that through his career because it sounds more impressive than 6ft3
jervis said on 29/Jul/17
Marvin was only 45 at the time of paint your wagon and 6 years older than Clint, I dont think he would have lost a inch in height by that age.
berta said on 29/Jul/17
i think about 191-191,5 peak
Around 1985 190,3
Around 1995 188,3
Around 2005 185,3
Today 182-183
Peterson188cm said on 28/Jul/17
Ronald Reagan and Clint Eastwood:

Photo- Click Here
James said on 28/Jul/17
Lee Marvin was only six foot by middle age, he may have been nearly 6'1" as a young man.
RichardSpain said on 28/Jul/17
Bridges was 186cm MAX. He doesn't look a strong 188 cm

Eastwood 190 cm MAX.
movieguy said on 27/Jul/17
I'm a Clint fan and this is the celeb I'd most like to know how tall he actually was in reality when young. It's funny cause I recall people on this site saying they met him and he was definitely 6'4'' others say they met him and he was definitely no more than 6'2''. If Clint was only 6'2'' then guys like Lee Marvin and James Coburn were only 6ft.
iosu_lasa said on 26/Jul/17
Click Here:

Clint and Freeman
James said on 26/Jul/17
Jeff Bridges was never any taller than 6'1".
Mister lennon said on 26/Jul/17
Brigdes was a solid 6'1 peak.
Rising - 174 cm said on 25/Jul/17
Where did you get Bridges being listed at 6'1" from? Bridges claims to be 6'2" and Rob estimates him at 6'1.5" peak, which seems about right, imo. That would make Clint about 6'3.5" peak.
Dan said on 25/Jul/17
I agree James...on top of that, Bridges is at most 2" shorter than Eastwood in Thunderbolt, and his height is listed as 6'1", which means he's probably a bit less.
movieguy said on 25/Jul/17
People can lose inches in height as they age and this is clearly the case with Clint. He's gone from a minimum of 6'3'' I'd say to barely 6ft today. The photos that always puzzle me are from the time of Mystic River where Tim Robbins absolutely towers over Eastwood. One guy is supposed to be 6'5'' and the other 6'4'' or thereabouts but the height difference is very noticeable.
Rising - 174 cm said on 24/Jul/17
I would like to be 6'0" minimum and 6'2" max - that's the ideal range for me - but I'd probably choose 6'3"-6'4" range over 5'11" with the right build. Being thin at 6'3"+ wouldn't be too good, imo since you can look lanky and awkward, but if you're broad and powerfully built, then it'd be good. Falling short of the 6 foot mark is just disappointing to me. Of course, at 5'11", you can easily look 6 feet with the right footwear, so if we're considering that, then I may take 5'11", but if lifts or thick footwear are excluded, then with a good build, I'd say 6'3"-6'4". A Dolph Lundgren 6'4" is very impressive, I wouldn't mind being that at all.

With that said, I think Scott might be closer to 5'10" than 5'11", or perhaps right in between at 5'10.5", but 5'11" is pushing it, imo.
Jim Hopper said on 23/Jul/17
Id say a little over 6-3" now 6-0" or just under.
James said on 23/Jul/17
Bridges was never 6'2", lol.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jul/17
Clint had 2.5 inches on Jeff Bridges who was between 6'1 and 6'2 peak.
RichardSpain said on 22/Jul/17
I still think he wasn't a strong 6ft 3.75. To me he was 6'3 in peak max and a strong 6'2 during a long time.
Dan said on 22/Jul/17
TWO points...the average peak and current guesses here are absurd. No one loses four inches in height unless plagued with health issues, and Eastwood is the picture of health.

Secondly, he is much too much shorter than the 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool to have ever been 6'4". He gives away two inches easily to Neeson...more so from what I can see.

He is also consistently about where Eric Fleming was in height, and Fleming was billed as 6'3", though was probably not quite there.

6'2.5" is the absolute MAXIMUM I would give Eastwood at his peak. He is still taller than Justin Timberlake now, which means his current height is at least over 6'.
slimeball said on 22/Jul/17
Clint eastwood was exactly same height and size as me when he was younger. I am 6.3.5 (191.5-192 cm) and around 200-210 pounds. I can see that by full body shots, he looks exactly the same as me in proportion but he looks to have little less bodyfat, so i think he was 190-200 pounds in dirty harry movies.
Jervis said on 22/Jul/17
6ft2 is too low, 6ft4 is to tall, for Clint 6ft3 is perfect.
Aza said on 22/Jul/17
@Matthew Robinson
I tend to agree with you. If I could choose my perfect height ( my absolute low is 182.5 cm) it would be 6'3. I really wouldn't want to be any taller tbh. I think a young Clint Eastwood would wake up close to 6'4 and believe his peak low was 6'3.25. Today , yes he's possibly just over 6 ft.
Matthew Robinson said on 21/Jul/17
James B said on 21/Jul/17
Much better being 5'11 than 6'4

---

Nah. At roughly 6'3" I can say from personal experience I disagree pretty strongly.
James B said on 21/Jul/17
Much better being 5'11 than 6'4
Ali said on 20/Jul/17
He was only slightly taller than Muhammed Ali, who was a 6'2 max. Clint Eastwood was 6'2.5 peak IMO.
Rory said on 20/Jul/17
It's hard to say really, I think you can make a constructive argument that 5'11 is more desirable than 6'4, however, I think if you offered most men the chance to be 6'4 or 5'11 they'd take 6'4 all day long..I certainly would anyway. I don't want to enter the realms of absurdity that some espouse on the general height page but it's true that in some circumstances 5'11 in the West these days will feel average at best. Legit tall starts at 6ft 1 I think now. Many in the 5'10 to 6ft 1 range might consider themselves as being tall, but anyone within that range could equally be described as average height. I think once you get to 6ft 1 in the evening though that's when you're indisputably tall range.
James B said on 20/Jul/17
I think his son Scott is probably a more desirable height than his father was by society's and Hollywood standards at least.

Most would agree that the majority of handsome 5'11 men in Hollywood outnumber the 6'3/6'4 leading men.
Mister lennon said on 20/Jul/17
Strong 6'3 peak. Maybe weak 6'4 in the morning.
Rising - 174 cm said on 19/Jul/17
I don't know if Clint was a full 6'4" or not, but there's no way he's a flat 5'11" today. He'd often look 5'9"-5'10" with his posture, but never looks that low and rarely looks as short as a flat 5'11". He could be as low as 5'11.5" today, but nothing less standing straight.

@Arch: I think Rob said 6'3" is the lowest he'd try arguing, which I interpreted is Rob's way of saying there's no way Clint wasn't at least 6'3" peak.
Jervis said on 19/Jul/17
6ft4 morning height,by evening 6ft3.25,walking posture slouching can look more 6ft2.5. Peak height 6ft3.25 or 6ft3.5,now looks in most recent pics 5ft11 and very frail.
iosu_lasa said on 19/Jul/17
Click Here

Clint and Arnold in 1990.
Richardspain said on 18/Jul/17
First western movies 190

Dirty Harry movies 189

Unforgiven 188

Gran Torino 186

Nowadays 183/184

This and not other is the great recapitulation of the Eastwood's height.
James said on 18/Jul/17
Eastwood was clearly never the full 6'4". He may have been slightly over 6'3" as a young man, and 5'11" today.
Rory said on 18/Jul/17
Only complete height novices are fooled by things such as thick hair and slim builds accounting for an inch. I notice all these people who insist he was 6ft3 never corroborate their claims with any evidence they seem to think if I just say he was 6ft3 over and over again eventually it will stick. Well no, he was either 6ft3.5 or 6ft3.75. 6ft3 is too low, he looked that at 60 odd, not 30.
James B said on 17/Jul/17
Arch Stanton said on 17/Jul/17
I can't recall Rob saying he thought a flat 6'3 for Clint peak would be that arguable, 6'3.5 is though.


Bang on 6'3.25 peak which is more than just a flat 6'3
Arch Stanton said on 17/Jul/17
I can't recall Rob saying he thought a flat 6'3 for Clint peak would be that arguable, 6'3.5 is though.
movieguy said on 17/Jul/17
Richard Schickel who has written a few books about Clint and knows him well makes a comment about his imposing 6'3'' frame in a book called simply "Clint". This is an older Eastwood though so maybe by this point he was not quite so tall as in his youth. I still think that the site has it right and he was just under 6'4'' or a weak 6'4''.
Ted said on 16/Jul/17
A full 6' 4'' is difficult to believe. 6' 3'' in the morning.
James B said on 15/Jul/17
Arch Stanton said on 13/Jul/17
6'3 James by Deadpool I think. I caught a bit of High Plains Drifter again recently and to me had the frame of a 6'4 guy, 6'3.5-6'4 range is arguable, nothing less than that peak


Well editor rob and the majority of votes seem to point towards clint being more 6'3-6'3.5 peak.

Let's not forget arch his slim build and hairstyle in the 60s/70s could probably make him seem taller. In the 1980s when he was heavier with thinning hair he looked 6'3 or 6'2 but possibly by that point could have lost a fraction
Arch Stanton said on 13/Jul/17
6'3 James by Deadpool I think. I caught a bit of High Plains Drifter again recently and to me had the frame of a 6'4 guy, 6'3.5-6'4 range is arguable, nothing less than that peak.
RichardSpain said on 11/Jul/17
Eastwood was a perfect 6'3 (190 cm) in peak younger and barefoot. With footwear 192 cm in peak.
And between his fifties - sixties years old 6'2 ( 188 cm)
He wasn't more than that guys! believe you in me!
Canson said on 9/Jul/17
@Bobby: for sure not a real 6'4.
Rory said on 9/Jul/17
There's no point even responding to people who say he was 6ft 2 peak as it's just trash talk. The arguments for his peak can only be from 6ft 3 minimum to 6ft 4 maximum. Anything outside that range is an extremist position barely worthy of reading. Im pretty clear in my own mind he would have been about 6ft 4.5 out of bed and 6ft 3.5 at his lowest, being tall he probably shrunk a full inch.
James B said on 9/Jul/17
Arch how tall do you think he was in 1988?
Arch Stanton said on 8/Jul/17
If Clint was 6'2 Jeff Bridges was not even 6' flat.
bobbyh3342 said on 7/Jul/17
6 2 peak barefoot never even close to 6 4
even said on 7/Jul/17
hes 6 feet tall right now
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jul/17
He looks close to 6'3 in that Seagal photo given that I think Seagal was 194 peak and probably in bigger boots. In 1995 peruid he was looking 6'2.5-75 generally though, looked that with Arnie too.
James said on 7/Jul/17
Van Cleef may have been closer to 6'1".
Rory said on 4/Jul/17
Yh looking 6'2.5 there in '95 with Seagal. A good inch under his peak.
even said on 3/Jul/17
when he was young he was a bit taller than lee van cleef . in my opinion he was at least 6 feet 3 inches i mean its not my opinion its the reality man .
movieguy said on 3/Jul/17
Great find Matt but I'm surprised how close to Seagal in height Eastwood looks in that photo. Looks closer to an inch than three to my eyes. Clint was a weak 6'4'' I think, he surely couldn't have been much shorter don't buy 6'2''.
Matt Rohler Iowa said on 3/Jul/17
Click Here Here he is with Steven Seagal. I would say no taller than 6ft 2 and a half peak height. Seagal easily has 2 to 3 inch height on Eastwood.
jervis said on 28/Jun/17
His son Kyle is around 6ft2,also Scotts mother is only 5ft2.
Slim 181 cm said on 26/Jun/17
@richardspain, it makes sense at to why his son Scott isn't 6 foot or taller.
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
๐ŸŽˆ๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽ‚ Happy Birthday Clint Eastwood! ๐ŸŽ‚๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽˆ

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 5ยด11" or few more (yes, with +80 years) and watching his movies since his youth i can see him 6ยด2" or few more in peak barefoot.
6ยด2"-6ยด2.5 could be realistic, with boots 6ยด4"

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 5ยด11" or few more (yes, with +80 years) and watching his movies since his youth i can see him 6ยด2" or few more in peak barefoot.
6ยด2"-6ยด2.5 could be realistic, with boots 6ยด4"
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? ...., ๐Ÿ˜‚
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? ...., ๐Ÿ˜‚
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

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.