|
James says on 10/Feb/12
he would have been 6'4 all day at his peak.... i guess maybe after a long day on his feet at his absolute low at night he might have measured 6'3.75 (192cm) although maybe not?
Henrik says on 10/Feb/12
James says on 9/Feb/12
he could have been 194cm range in the morning at his peak and i don't think he would drop under 193cm in the evening..... i think by 1976 he would have defenintly measured 6'3.5 (192cm) in the evening though.
Well, a person usually shrinks 2cm or 0.75 inches during the day. So 193cm or 6'4" flat in the evening would mean 195cm (6'4.75") in the morning, which I suppose isn't impossible.
It's of course possible that he used to shrink less than the average, though. Danimal says on 9/Feb/12
Col says on 7/Feb/12
Eastwood documented as 6'5" in a biography.In Dirty Harry, he looked a tall guy against a standard 6'6" door height...probably 6'3" to 6'4" in his heyday....maybe an inch or two shorter now.
An inch or two shorter now? hahaha... He's barely 6'0" FLAT today and there is PLENTY of proof of that. James says on 9/Feb/12
he could have been 194cm range in the morning at his peak and i don't think he would drop under 193cm in the evening..... i think by 1976 he would have defenintly measured 6'3.5 (192cm) in the evening though. Henrik says on 9/Feb/12
I got it wrong on the second. It was supposed to be 6'4", not 192cm.
193cm (6'4") in the mid-day. Henrik says on 9/Feb/12
I think this was his peak:
194cm (6'4.25") in the morning.
193cm (192cm) in the mid-day.
192cm (6'3.5") in the evening. James says on 8/Feb/12
he was not 6'5. the most he could have been is 6'4.25 (194cm) Tommy says on 8/Feb/12
I am sure he claimed 6'3 himself at one point. Maybe someone else remembers that being on this page. I can't find the quote. I think that at least suggests he wasn't a full 6'4 at his peak. Col says on 7/Feb/12
Eastwood documented as 6'5" in a biography.In Dirty Harry, he looked a tall guy against a standard 6'6" door height...probably 6'3" to 6'4" in his heyday....maybe an inch or two shorter now. Danimal says on 2/Feb/12
avi says on 29/Jan/12
nah he was never over 6'3
yAh, he was Danimal says on 2/Feb/12
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?
James used to say 6'2" for Clint for his prime height and then he went up to 6'5".. He's ALL over the place! James says on 1/Feb/12
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Liam Neeson 6'4.25 (194cm) Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson? James says on 30/Jan/12
defo more 6'4 than 6'3 Silent d says on 29/Jan/12
Solid 6 footer. Some short actors are bad ass. avi says on 29/Jan/12
nah he was never over 6'3 James says on 29/Jan/12
5'9 is not really short but maybe at the lower end of average these days Danimal says on 29/Jan/12
avi says on 5/Jan/12
there is no way he should lose this much height. he had to be 6'3 peak and strong 6'1 now.
haha... Strong 6'1"??? He hasn't seen 6'1" in a long time. He was still a little over 6'0" up until a few years ago.. YES, he HAS lost this much height. Curvature (severe osteoporosis) of the spinal column and advanced age (in his 80's) makes people lose INCHES in height. There is MEDICAL PROOF to back this up. All you do is make yourself sound ignorant when you just don't like the idea of him having lost as much height as he did and continues to do so (well over 3").. Jack says on 29/Jan/12
I class myself as short 5'9" and am sure Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris were taller than me. Yes I was a Charles Bronson fan he looked part, but a lot of so called tough looking duds in the movies today look sissies compared to Eastwood, Wayne and co. Being tall certainly helps! EdgarHernandez says on 28/Jan/12
charles bronson was beliable as a thought, all around badass guy because he looked like he was carved in rock, then burn with fire and exposed to the elements. Not to mention that he was a purple heart award guy for his militar times, also, he was working in mines at 10 years old, he was a badass playing basicaly himself. Mark says on 28/Jan/12
Short tough guy; Robert Conrad. His height never made a difference to me in watching Wild Wild West. Regarding Eastwood; if you're 6'3, you can claim 6'4 because in shoes, sneakers or out of bed you probably are. But Eastwood bever looked like a solid 6'4 guy, who would then be 6'5 out of bed. If he filmed western scenes soon after a nap or within a reasonable ammount of time after getting up early, add boots and you would have a potential 6'7 Eastwood on film in early westerns. That's madness. 6'3-ish in the old days, 3-ish inches shorter, now. Henrik says on 27/Jan/12
Jack says on 27/Jan/12
Well.... would you take a short tough guy seriously, come on you small man syndrome guys, get real, Clint Eastwood is 6'4." Do you imagine Tom Cruise as Dirty Harry, come on even if he was standing on a box he wouldn't look right would he?
Well, people seemed to like Charles Bronson and take him seriously in the Death Wish series. And there are of course Bruce Lee, Van Damme and Chuck Norris. Jack says on 27/Jan/12
Well.... would you take a short tough guy seriously, come on you small man syndrome guys, get real, Clint Eastwood is 6'4." Do you imagine Tom Cruise as Dirty Harry, come on even if he was standing on a box he wouldn't look right would he? Silent d says on 26/Jan/12
I'll say 6 foot considering his age and posture. EdgarHernandez says on 25/Jan/12
exacly 2 or 2.5 in the minute 1:28 of diference, and clint alredy have a very sloppy posture for all the scene. Henrik says on 25/Jan/12
But yes, it probably is due what you wrote. Henrik says on 25/Jan/12
wingnut says on 24/Jan/12
Henrik i think his torso looks longer simply because he has his shirt hanging
out over his waist.In fact if you look at eastwood he always tucks his tops
into his trousers making his legs appear longer.
The last picture, I wrote. He is sitting there. James says on 25/Jan/12
Henrik says on 24/Jan/12
With listed 6'1.5" (though not on this site) Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, 1979:
Click Here
Do you think he was shorter than 6'4" in that movie, James?
In Escape from Alcatraz clint eastwood was 6'3 so yes. wingnut says on 24/Jan/12
Henrik i think his torso looks longer simply because he has his shirt hanging
out over his waist.In fact if you look at eastwood he always tucks his tops
into his trousers making his legs appear longer. Henrik says on 24/Jan/12
With listed 6'1.5" (though not on this site) Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, 1979:
Click Here
Do you think he was shorter than 6'4" in that movie, James? James says on 23/Jan/12
he was 6'4 up unitll the mid too late 1970's Henrik says on 21/Jan/12
You might of course be right, wingnut. But his torso seem to cannot help looking extremely long in my last picture. wingnut says on 21/Jan/12
I think you'll find eastwood and brady's legs are the same length
the difference being brady's just bigger built-probably 16st+due to
his sports requirements.Eastwood never reached that size.So brady's
legs just appear shorter when in fact they are just bulkier.
I'm 6'4" and i used to weigh 11.5 stones and looked longer in reflections
but now i'm 15 stone i still look tall but not as long.
its about proportions.imo. Henrik says on 20/Jan/12
Mark says on 19/Jan/12
...in another 10 years, Eastwood will be a set of skinny legs with a head on top of them. Even ratio looks best, regarding this lengthy discussion about leg or torso height. I could care less about a woman's leg length. Overly long legs on a guy, IMO, do not look all that masculine.
Well, the study I referred to stated that people found excessively long legs less attractive, on both sexes. Still, I would personally easily choose Rock Hudson's leggy build over for instance Tom Brady's long torso build of similar height.
Hudson, a quite leggy 6'5":
Click Here
Long torso 6'5"-6'6":
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here Mark says on 19/Jan/12
...in another 10 years, Eastwood will be a set of skinny legs with a head on top of them. Even ratio looks best, regarding this lengthy discussion about leg or torso height. I could care less about a woman's leg length. Overly long legs on a guy, IMO, do not look all that masculine. Henrik says on 18/Jan/12
2nd truth, you seem to suffer of Napoleon complex, and not just a little. We all know that Clint was never the epitome of masulinity and that he had very "few" ladies in his life. But whatever.
I guess all the teenagers who wear the pants as low as possible are much more "masculine and powerful" than Sean Connery in a suit? Haha. Saying that having long legs is "feminine" makes no sense, as females and males have clearly differently shaped legs.
"According to Swami et al., this can be explained by the
fact that since women have higher leg-to-body ratio (LBR)
than men, sexual selection over time should promote
women with higher LBR (increased femininity) and men
with lower LBR (higher masculinity). However, it is
questionable whether women have higher LBR than men,
throwing this explanation into doubt. Many studies show
either that there is no sexual dimorphism in relative leg
length within many human populations (Flugel, Greil, &
Sommer 1983; Martin & Saller, 1958) or that 17-year-old
boys (Martorell, Malina, Castillo, Mendoza, & Pawson,
1988) and adult men (Eveleth, 1978) have relatively longer
legs and shorter trunks than women. More recently,
Dangour, Schilg, Hulse, & Cole (2002) have shown that
18-year-old boys from Southeast England have relatively
longer legs than girls."
Click Here
"One hundred men and 118 women were asked to assess the previous termattractivenessnext term of the silhouettes using a seven-point scale. We found that male and female pictures with shorter than average legs were perceived as less attractive by both sexes. Although longer legs appeared to be more attractive, this was true only for the slight (5%) leg length increase; excessively long legs decreased body previous termattractivenessnext term for both sexes."
Click Here James says on 18/Jan/12
Anything less than 6'4 (193cm) is out of the question. EdgarHernandez says on 16/Jan/12
the funny thing 2nd truth, is that for nearly a century, being a tall guy, with long legs, broand shoulders and thick build, was the ultimate masculine ideal, and for be honest it look like still kind of is. as fr height, is pretty foolish at this point to put clint as low as 6ft 3 flat(6ft 3.5-.75 could be his lowest). 2nd truth says on 16/Jan/12
he had to have been
6 and half to 6 foot 2
in his prime i doubt
a flat 6 3 for him
i mean he has long legs short torso
that is very not masculine at all
not to hate but longer torso and short legs
are pretty nice in their own way
b pitt for exmaple long torso short legs
dolfph is no way a lady killer i am 5 8
and i pull off gorgoues girls that dolf
would have dreamed of
i am sorry height had nothing to do with human exisitence
for all i no is this guy might never even been a solid 6 footer
just enjoy life
i have swept about 10 girls offf their feet
in front of their 6 foot 2 boyfriends and im
5 9 to 5 foot 10 in shoes
belive me if life was about being perfect
we would not EXIST
and i have notice as a male when i dont
wash my face with no soap or products
women just jump over my face because i
dont clean it
so fellas you have to up your game in diffrent
ways James says on 12/Jan/12
rock hudson was 6'5 or a fraction less Jimmy L says on 11/Jan/12
Rock Hudson was 6"6 people. It is in his biography (1.98m), the guy had those long legs, Clint at peak was a solid 1,93m / 1,94m James says on 9/Jan/12
in play misty for me looked a solid 6'4 avi says on 5/Jan/12
there is no way he should lose this much height. he had to be 6'3 peak and strong 6'1 now. James says on 4/Jan/12
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Rock Hudson 6'4.75 (195cm)
George Kennedy 6'4 (193cm)
David Soul 6'0.5 (184cm)
Reni Santino 6'1 or 6'2? Not sure because clint only had 2 inhces on him in diry harrty but maybe that was just cause of his posture making him 6'3? James says on 3/Jan/12
dave says on 3/Jan/12
James you are forgeting Stroud was not bear foot in that film,he was also wearing cowboy boots.If Clint was only 6f2 then how come he was the same hight as George Kennedy.
I am not saying he is 6'2 because with david soul he looked a legit 6'4. dave says on 3/Jan/12
James you are forgeting Stroud was not bear foot in that film,he was also wearing cowboy boots.If Clint was only 6f2 then how come he was the same hight as George Kennedy. Shaun says on 3/Jan/12
LOL so we're back to 6'2" for Clint. LOL James sorry but I'm not going back into that one again. Its a New Year. This is my last post on the Clint page. James says on 2/Jan/12
Rob its interesting that shaun mentioned that clint eastwood had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2 don stroud in coogans bluff.... in those big heeled shoes he wore in that film gave him a 2 inch height boost and if he was 6'4 and wore 2 inches boots surely he would have had 4 inches on Stroud. anyway i don't really think clint eastwood looked 6'6 in those 2 inch heels he wore throughout the whole film.
In Dirty Harry as well clint only had 2 inches on Reni Santoni who I M D B have down at 6ft (183cm). if reni was only 6' then again clint only looked a strong 6'2 in comparison.
do you think maybe i could be into something here Rob? I know quite a few people belive clint eastwood stood no taller than 6'2 peak. A peak of 6'2.25 (189cm) seems unlikely for clint but who knows? Silent d says on 30/Dec/11
183cm because of his old age and above it says he lost at least 3 inches and developed a dowagers hump. James says on 30/Dec/11
Shaun says on 29/Dec/11
Considering he had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film...
Like i said he was 6'4 but looked shorter Shaun says on 29/Dec/11
Considering he had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film... James says on 28/Dec/11
Shaun says on 28/Dec/11
Voight actually looks 2 inches shorter than Eastwood did in my opinion. Certainly his legs are shorter. And I can't think of a single minute of Coogan's Bluff where he looked anything under 6'4". That was one of his "tallest" films.
disagree i thought he looked no taller than 6'3 in that movie. Shaun says on 28/Dec/11
Voight actually looks 2 inches shorter than Eastwood did in my opinion. Certainly his legs are shorter. And I can't think of a single minute of Coogan's Bluff where he looked anything under 6'4". That was one of his "tallest" films. EdgarHernandez says on 27/Dec/11
james, i naver have sugest tht clint was 6ft 5, i will the last person to do that, i think 6ft 4 was fine for him Gus says on 27/Dec/11
Click Here
To me 190cm Voight looked in the same measure on screen as Eastwood as a 1960s cowboy. James says on 27/Dec/11
last night i saw some of coogans bluff and i thought clint eastwood looked 6'2ish or 6'3 in that film not 6'4.
edgar u suggesting clint eastwood was 6'5? EdgarHernandez says on 27/Dec/11
R. my friend you are a very bad case. ok lets first look at this single picture, just this one:
Click Here
clint is closer to 6ft 5 rock hudson, sure you can say rock is just 6ft 3(wich is very unlikle for not to say BS) but there is 6ft 2 michael cain in the same line that he is, draw a line and you will see that there is at last 3 inches in diference between the 2, dont belive in caine being 6ft 2?, try 6ft 2 lee marvin who is next to clint and is at last 2 inches shorter(taking in acount that he is one step from clint), you try to call BS in those 2 heights?, lets see james stewart who is a very well know 6ft 3(for most of his life and sure he was at the time of this photo) and makes those 3 guys heights seem consistent.
dont belive yet? lets see stewart whit john wayne:
Click Here
john with his tipical dont care pose, hip relaxed head tild while stewart is more straight look the same as each other. you can call bs in one, maybe 2 of the guys who apear in that photo, but you cant call that on all of them. James says on 26/Dec/11
looks 6'1 with james cromwell R. says on 25/Dec/11
Yall are all idiots clint eastwood is 6 foot 1 john wayne 6 foot 2 and they both wore 1 to 2 inch cowboy boots, so they looked taller but they are not in truth. miko says on 25/Dec/11
Click Here
Eastwood and 6'5.5 James Cromwell. James says on 25/Dec/11
i did originally think that clint eastwood was between 6'4-6'5 becuase of david souls original 6'1 listing on this site.
like i said obviously the way he carried himself in some parts of dirty harry made him look a flat 6'3. James says on 24/Dec/11
Shaun says on 23/Dec/11
Soul looked 6'-6'1" I think. More chance Clint was 194 than 191 if you do the comparisons. Taller than Sutherland for example who I believe was 192cm.
Well i don't think clint eastwood look over 193cm with david soul. and didn't u say that sutherland had 2 inches on sean connery? Shaun says on 23/Dec/11
I 'll agree though that he could often look 6'4" in the boots as opposed to legit though.. Shaun says on 23/Dec/11
I think if you were to have measured Clint in cowboy boots in the 60s he'd have been somewhere around 6'5.5". Shaun says on 23/Dec/11
Soul looked 6'-6'1" I think. More chance Clint was 194 than 191 if you do the comparisons. Taller than Sutherland for example who I believe was 192cm. James says on 23/Dec/11
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women. I mean Grace Jones is not exactly your average woman...
Like the guy in guy from underseige 2 dolph lundgren has got a very intimidating looking facing/build. lundgren is a guy i REALLY would not want to piss off and he would probably kick my 5'9 ass. Even though i am very muscular and work out he would own me in a fight LOL.
i heard that some robbers tried too steal from his house but when they saw a picture of dolph and realised it was his home they fled immediatley.
on a sidenote if reni santoni is 6'1 then i would say that clint eastwoods posture perhaps made him appear 190cm range in dirty harry and probably 193cm if he stood up straight which he rarely did. Vegas says on 22/Dec/11
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women.
_________
Click Here Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women. I mean Grace Jones is not exactly your average woman... James says on 22/Dec/11
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Tman says on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!
The chances of Clint Eastwood measuring shorter than volunteer #13 in his prime are very slim. Don't know Jame,s Challenger #13 is close to 6'4" and doesn't look as big as Nick Brimble either but he does look very tall range.
Shaun do you think david soul could have been under 184cm? Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Tman says on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!
The chances of Clint Eastwood measuring shorter than volunteer #13 in his prime are very slim. Don't know Jame,s Challenger #13 is close to 6'4" and doesn't look as big as Nick Brimble either but he does look very tall range. Gus says on 22/Dec/11
Naa Lundgren was just scary looking,rocky 4 for Godsake,not sure women would go for that,his wallet on the other hand ! Its unfair to say Clint looks 6'1 range in dirty Harry,bearing in mind Reni Santoni was probably 6'1 and he had two inches on him. Tman says on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you! James says on 20/Dec/11
well edgar here;s a better reference scene
Click Here
seriously if i did not know clint eastwoods height i would have guessed him at 6'1 range in the dirty harry police station scene above. a huge contrast too how tall he looks compared too how tall nick brimble looks thats for sure.
dolph lundgren as well in big trouble in little tokyo looked much bigger than clint eastwood. EdgarHernandez says on 20/Dec/11
clint, is put far away in that clip james, he is at las 2 meters away from the old bald guy, the guy in withe suit is to close to the camera, in fact clint show his height as soon as the guy walt towards to clint. Clint is the kind of guy who dont look his height unless he is standing with one guy to compare himself, i meet a guy like that in my university, he was solid 6ft, but alot of people thought that i was taller than him, but as soon as i stod side by side, it was oviusly an inch of diference between the 2. James says on 19/Dec/11
lol shaun i mean come on compare my clips of nick brimble in the bill police station scene
Click Here
too how tall clint eastwood looks in the diry hary police station scene
go too 1:58
Click Here
seriously clint just looks 'tall' wheare brimble looks exceptional/super tall. i'd say nick give a 1.5 inch taller impression than eastwood and that is what 6'4 is suppoused too look like. i notice as well that nick has broad shoulders whereas clint has kinda sloping shoulders like arnold schawanneger.
hard too believe nick brimble and clint eastwood would have been the same height in reality. James says on 19/Dec/11
Shaun says on 18/Dec/11
On an added note, thanks James for that nostalgia clip!!! I love cult British TV and seeing all those cars I used to see in my childhood made it cool!!!
come on shaun you have too admit clint eastwood has never looked as big or as imposing as the 6'4 guy in my clip. Shaun says on 18/Dec/11
On an added note, thanks James for that nostalgia clip!!! I love cult British TV and seeing all those cars I used to see in my childhood made it cool!!! Shaun says on 18/Dec/11
Yeah I recognized him as a younger version of the height page picture we have. I can always spot how a legit 6'4" looks on screen, they are usually broad shouldered and really look imposing and he looked every bit of it. But in my opinion Clint Eastwood could look that way in a lot of his Dirty Harry movies. Coogan's Bluff he looked the full 6'4" in frame regardless of boots. Remember that often a lot of his costars were tall themselves. I have watched Dirty Harry many times like Magnum Force and Clint to me did look close to 6'4". You may be right that he looked more 6'3" a lot of the time. James says on 18/Dec/11
Shaun says on 17/Dec/11
Either way though James I think he was genuinely close enough to claim to be 6 ft 4. He had the two "lanky inches" beyond normal tall guys on screen like Van Cleef etc
Well like i have said in the past clint eastwood really looked like a regular tall guy on screen or maybe upper end of regular and never really looked exceptionally big like tim robbins but don't get me wrong clint defenintly looked well over 6ft. 6'4 is out of the realms of your average tall guy.
too me on screen he looked like a 6'3 guy a lot of the time granted he could look super tall like in coogans bluff but that was just becaue he was in cowboy boots. i think he was a 6'4 guy but could look 6'3 because of the way he carried himself and also his head was quite narrow and not very wide or prominent.
for example this is a text book example of a big looking 6'4 man... go too 8:02, 8:39 and 16:52 in the youtube clip too see what i mean. clint eastwood has never really given that type of tall impression on screen unlike this 6'4 man. the big guy in the video i posted has a pic with rob on this site and if you want too find him his name is "nick brimble."
Click Here
too be fair though if you look at at photo of this guy unlike clint he looks too have a mesomorphic body type, like broad shoulders and very wide and more prominent facial features such as a very sqaure jaw etc just like dolph lundgren. don't get me wrong clint had very strong and masculine feature but his head was not very big.
Click Here
Click Here
6'4 mesomorphic types will always look massive and in clint eastwoods defense at least he could pull more women than dolph lundgren and nick brimble LOL.
on a last note too me 5'11.5-6'3 is your typicall tall guy range. Shaun says on 17/Dec/11
Either way though James I think he was genuinely close enough to claim to be 6 ft 4. He had the two "lanky inches" beyond normal tall guys on screen like Van Cleef etc James says on 16/Dec/11
no 6'4 (193cm) peak maio says on 16/Dec/11
peak 6 ft 3.5 in/192 cm, nowadays, according with rob, he's 6 ft 0.5-0.75 in... James says on 14/Dec/11
Clint Eastwood MIGHT have measured at 6'3.75 (192cm) before bed at his peak its not impossible and would have been 6'4 (193cm) in the afternoon and 6'4.5 (194cm) in the morning. Basically still a solid 6'4 anyway. d
in the old photo with arnie he looks 6'2 (188cm). Henrik says on 13/Dec/11
I too think he was a solid 6'4". EdgarHernandez says on 13/Dec/11
Julian, i think clint at his higest was a solid 6ft 4, and technically, dowager hump is just the ordinary name to kyphosis, for that mater, clint could opt for the operation(he got the money plus the healt), the operation is percutaneous vertebroplasty, basicaly the inject cement between the disks to fix the bend as much as posible, so the pacient regains some height, clint got that option. But maybe he would opt for a body brace and streching exercises. Julian says on 12/Dec/11
I think Clint Eastwood height is 6'1 respectively at the present.
Click Here or Click Here
Furthermore, if Clint Eastwood really has dowagers hump or hyper-kyphosis how much does a person really lose?
So how can anyone of you predict his peak? He could have been 6'3-6'6, for that matter? Anyone? James says on 5/Dec/11
I saw the film 'Where Eagles Dare' last night and i thought clint eastwood looked under 6'4 in that film. could look 6'3 at times in that film but not 6'4 at all. James says on 4/Dec/11
i still think he was a legit 193cm unless david soul was under 184cm? Tman says on 3/Dec/11
191,5cm peak! EdgarHernandez says on 3/Dec/11
gus, proportions have alot to do with height, an the leng of a leg is a very good guess to proyect an aproximation of the heigh of someone. Henrik says on 2/Dec/11
Gus says on 2/Dec/11
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:
1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care?
Well firstly,thankyou for sparing me the insults. Secondly Ive come on here to look into Clint Eastwoods height-not to see about Reeves inseam.Anyway its all light hearted banter !
Then simply don't read my posts. Was it that hard? I suppose so. Gus says on 2/Dec/11
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:
1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care?
Well firstly,thankyou for sparing me the insults. Secondly Ive come on here to look into Clint Eastwoods height-not to see about Reeves inseam.Anyway its all light hearted banter ! James says on 2/Dec/11
Shaun says on 1/Dec/11
Yes Reeves and Eastwood are comparable in terms of height and build both natural ectomorphs who worked out like a trojan to reach 215 pounds and get broad shoulders. Hugh Jackman in my opinion now has the chest and shoulders of a classic mesomorph when he is actually an ecto too. Its hard to believe but all I know know is that Jackman has to work extremely hard to look like that and probably takes tons of supplements to get "jacked", he's a hard gainer by his own admission. Maybe some like Jackman and Arnie are split ectos and mesos, a combination of ecto and meso which is in my opinion the chance of obtaining a perfect physique! I saw The Eiger Sanction th e other night and Clint was stood next to the door in an office and genuinely looked 6'4" I thought.
David Beckham must be an ectomorph as well even though he's only a weak 6ft EdgarHernandez says on 1/Dec/11
gus my friend, that was a great jerk act. Shaun says on 1/Dec/11
Yes Reeves and Eastwood are comparable in terms of height and build both natural ectomorphs who worked out like a trojan to reach 215 pounds and get broad shoulders. Hugh Jackman in my opinion now has the chest and shoulders of a classic mesomorph when he is actually an ecto too. Its hard to believe but all I know know is that Jackman has to work extremely hard to look like that and probably takes tons of supplements to get "jacked", he's a hard gainer by his own admission. Maybe some like Jackman and Arnie are split ectos and mesos, a combination of ecto and meso which is in my opinion the chance of obtaining a perfect physique! I saw The Eiger Sanction th e other night and Clint was stood next to the door in an office and genuinely looked 6'4" I thought. Henrik says on 1/Dec/11
Gus says on 30/Nov/11
In the nicest possible way-nobody cares.
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:
1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care? Gus says on 30/Nov/11
Henrik says on 29/Nov/11
I agree on it's probable that Reeve had a 36" inseam. He was very ectomorphic as you pointed out, and I think the natural ectomorphs indeed are those who come as the most long-legged. The funny thing is, when bulked up, Reeve looked anything but "genetically slender" (ectomorph).
In the nicest possible way-nobody cares. Henrik says on 29/Nov/11
I agree on it's probable that Reeve had a 36" inseam. He was very ectomorphic as you pointed out, and I think the natural ectomorphs indeed are those who come as the most long-legged. The funny thing is, when bulked up, Reeve looked anything but "genetically slender" (ectomorph).
Except for the shoulders, I believe Clint could have pulled it off. The arms for instance look quite in proportion. James says on 29/Nov/11
EdgarHernandez says on 28/Nov/11
well james, clint as far as i know was becoming tired of his, "heroic-badass" imagen, so he decided to play goffy movies just for the fun of making movies(and money dont forget money) in fact the 2 orangutan movies were at the time his biggest box hits, and lets just say that the 80s clint was pretty much in self parody mode.
I guess as well he's not the best actor in the world either is he? EdgarHernandez says on 29/Nov/11
henrik i think christopher lee is very much proportioned like clint eastwood, the only, mayor diference between the 2( apart from the facial features) is that reeve have very massive shoulders. here in this one clip you can see christopher exersicing, he looks legit tall, with long legs(is very noticiable when he is doing dips), so is very probable that he had a 36 one, also like clint reeves was naturaly slender build(he described himself as looking like jimmy stewart when he first auditioned).
Click Here
Click Here
this is quite amusing since clint was considered for the part but he was very busy, but tell me henrik, do you think that clint, if he bulked up(he was 216 at his heaviest, the same that reeves was in the first superman film) even more, you think that he could have filled the part, at last phisically?
Click Here EdgarHernandez says on 28/Nov/11
well james, clint as far as i know was becoming tired of his, "heroic-badass" imagen, so he decided to play goffy movies just for the fun of making movies(and money dont forget money) in fact the 2 orangutan movies were at the time his biggest box hits, and lets just say that the 80s clint was pretty much in self parody mode. Henrik says on 28/Nov/11
Edgar, what inseam do you think Christopher Reeve had? James says on 27/Nov/11
Shaun says on 26/Nov/11
I feel a little hurt by what Gaga said about me on the general pages. All I've been saying is that I can't help wishing I looked more like darker guys I think look great at 6'4" or 6'5" and that I think 135 pounds at 6 ft 3 would be dreadfully underweight!! Obviously I struck a nerve, of course there are very skinny guys who wished they could be more muscular, didn't think of that. Am I being a complete egotistical a-hole? Sorry. Sigh. Yes James some of Clint's films in the late 70s and 80s I did not like, the best by far were 1964-1975. Play Misty for Me and that are great films though, although like you the westerns and Dirty Harry are the best.
Yeah but seriously there were A LOT of goofy redkneck characters in some of his movies like 'cadilac' amongst many others. really just tedious how over the top some of the characters were in those films. Henrik says on 27/Nov/11
the shredder says on 27/Nov/11
I think Clint was 6'3 and John Wayne 6'2 .
Robert Mitchum supposedly said that Wayne was a little over 6'3" barefoot, indicating that Wayne was a weak 6'4" (measuring 6'4" in the morning, that is). Wayne's high school records stated 6'3", and college records stated 6'4" after that. Both of them just can't be wrong. the shredder says on 27/Nov/11
I think Clint was 6'3 and John Wayne 6'2 . EdgarHernandez says on 26/Nov/11
shaun i dessagre with you in the fact of john wayne as lift usser, more with 4 inch lifts, i mean, shaun, have you tried to walk with boots, not just that but run?, i have boots, and belive me, i cant stand boots with more than 2 inches heel(i prefer boots with 1 inch or 1.5), if john wayne use boots plus 4 inches lifts my friend, he would have make ladies jealous with his control of equilibrium with his 6 inches raise. Shaun says on 26/Nov/11
I feel a little hurt by what Gaga said about me on the general pages. All I've been saying is that I can't help wishing I looked more like darker guys I think look great at 6'4" or 6'5" and that I think 135 pounds at 6 ft 3 would be dreadfully underweight!! Obviously I struck a nerve, of course there are very skinny guys who wished they could be more muscular, didn't think of that. Am I being a complete egotistical a-hole? Sorry. Sigh. Yes James some of Clint's films in the late 70s and 80s I did not like, the best by far were 1964-1975. Play Misty for Me and that are great films though, although like you the westerns and Dirty Harry are the best. James says on 26/Nov/11
Shaun says on 26/Nov/11
John Wayne wore 4 inch lifts in his boots to look taller that's why!!
i take it you don't belive he's 6'4 then? Henrik says on 26/Nov/11
Shaun says on 26/Nov/11
John Wayne wore 4 inch lifts in his boots to look taller that's why!!
Bollocks. Both medical and college records stated 6'4". No way that they would upgrade his height by four inches. Shaun says on 26/Nov/11
Conan o Brien wears 38 inch inseams which would be normal on a 6 ft 10 guy. Shaun says on 26/Nov/11
John Wayne wore 4 inch lifts in his boots to look taller that's why!! James says on 25/Nov/11
on a sidenote i like clint eastwood in his westerns and dirty harry films although besides that a lot of his other films in the late 70's and 80's are just trailer trash and redkneck material such as pink cadelac, anyway which you lose, anyway which you can amongst others
would u guys agree? i did like his work in gran torino and in the line of fire even though i am not a huge fan of his movies really. Henrik says on 25/Nov/11
I did a Google search, both in English and in Swedish (my native language) on 6'4" and inseam. It seemed that 34 was the most common to get as result. So you're probably right, Edgar. Henrik says on 25/Nov/11
Doesn't Dolph have a 36" inseam? It would be odd that some guys on this site said he was starting to get "unproportionate" if he is shrinking from a strong (?) 6'4" with an inseam of 34". James says on 25/Nov/11
Well dolph always gave of a taller impression on screen than clint eastwood ever did. in fact john wayne also looked taller than clint did in his westenrs.
i have no problem seeing 6'4 for john wayne. EdgarHernandez says on 24/Nov/11
this is how a 6ft 4 guy wit a 34 inseam looks like:
Click Here
(dont let the high waist pants fool you, you can see his inseam)
Click Here
(in his one you can see the leg ws torso lengt)
that was john wayne, now lets see dolph proportions:
Click Here
(to me that is a 34 inseam)
Click Here
(his leg to torso proportions match alot the ones of john wayne)
and, james is weird but i think that dolph looks more proporcional know thatn before. And to the tim robbins one:
i not a fashion consultand, but is ovvius that tim has a long torso, not helped by the long suits:
Click Here
Click Here
(this is one long torso)
Click Here
fortunate tim has the luck of being born with natural good posture and a thick back, otherwise, he had all the lements to look short with a little sluch.
clint in other hand is the complety opositive of tim, small boned, very long legged and more lean:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
I only know 2 more guys who are not 7ft and have legs longer than clint:
Click Here
Click Here
(conan already is very odd proportionated, so...how he would look at clint age?)
Click Here
Click Here
then again, from james cromwell is to be expected that kind of long legs.
i know alot of tall actor who have 34 legs, i can count in the fingers of my hand the ones with 36(is very rare have legs that long specialy if you are not 6ft 6 or 6ft 7), like clint walker, rock hudson, and jimmy stewart. Henrik says on 23/Nov/11
Shaun says on 23/Nov/11
How do you know Clint's? I've said all along he definitely has 36 inseams maybe even 37. Dunno you'd expect Robbins to have around 36 inseams too but his legs are clearly an inch or two shorter than Clints.
There's no legitimate source as far as I know. I found it written on a bike forum that claimed it was his "posted measurements". It sounds believable to me, anyway. James says on 23/Nov/11
Shaun - dolph lundgren like clint is starting too get a bit out of proportion these days. Shaun says on 23/Nov/11
Currently Clint has the torso length of a 5 ft 8 guy with the legs of a 6 ft 6 guy. Which is why he ends up being somewhere near 6'1!! Shaun says on 23/Nov/11
Henrik says on 22/Nov/11
Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Anyone have any idea of Tim Robbins' inseam? Clint's is supposed to be 36.6.
How do you know Clint's? I've said all along he definitely has 36 inseams maybe even 37. Dunno you'd expect Robbins to have around 36 inseams too but his legs are clearly an inch or two shorter than Clints. Henrik says on 22/Nov/11
Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Anyone have any idea of Tim Robbins' inseam? Clint's is supposed to be 36.6. EdgarHernandez says on 22/Nov/11
the may problem julian, is that clint is not average person, the minimun at prime was 6ft 3.5, and that was probably after a hard day filming and he just go to sleep at 11 pm. James says on 22/Nov/11
well just by looking at him in his early films 6'4 can seem hard too believe. jfm says on 22/Nov/11
I met clint eastwood at agym in Boston in 2002 while he was filming the movie Mystic River. I'm 6'3' and Clint was about an inch or so shorther than me. His posture wasn't that good so I put Clint at barely 6'2' back in 2002. Julian says on 21/Nov/11
Clint Eastwood's height currently stands at 6'1, period! In his prime he may have been 6'2 or 6'3. I think that would be the average one would lose as a person ages.
Check out:
Click Here James says on 20/Nov/11
Hey guys do you agree that dolph lundgren who was also 6'4 like clint eastwood can give of a much taller impression on screen?
I was watching big trouble in little tokyo last night and dolph looks huge much bigger than clint looked in his films. i think dolph has much broader shoulders and a more masculine and square face than clint eastwood. i mean if you see the dirty harry police station scene it just laughable too think he is the same height as big dolph.
Clint on screen gaves of that tall and lanky impression but lundgren really does give that 'super tall' impression that clint never really did unless he wore cowboy boots like in the ending scene of a fistul of dollars or how he looked in coogans bluff. the ending scene in that film was one of the few times that clint eastwood could give of that super tall impression like some 6'4 and 6'5 guys can do but most of hte time even in his westerns he just gives of that 'regular tall guy' vibe.
Dolph Lundgren really was a true example of a mesomorph whereas clint eastwood was an ectomorph so there is a big difference in there body types. very tall mesomorphic men like lundgren and ralf moller can look gigantic becuase of there height and body types. James says on 20/Nov/11
didn't clint eastwood have 4 inches on Lee Marvin in the Paint your Wagon weddings scene? What would that make Clint? 6'6? LOL. James says on 20/Nov/11
here is some evidence Gus
Click Here
Click Here
Also Beckhams dad is also bald. James says on 20/Nov/11
here is some evidence Gus
Click Here EdgarHernandez says on 19/Nov/11
well, to be fair with you mike, my grandfather had his hip remplacement in the very early 80s. Mike says on 18/Nov/11
EdgarHernandez....I repeat, my cousin does knee replacements. If it's done right, you lose zero height. thebad7 says on 18/Nov/11
@Gus: You're right about THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT. It's Eastwood's most underrated performance as an actor and one of my personal favorites of all his work. It was filmed in the summer of '73 in Great Bend, Montana and several other places thereabout. The ending especially kills me every time I watch it--nobody conveys that weary sadness (even through a pair of shades) the way Eastwood does.
I agree with you: when Eastwood stands with good posture, he has an easy 2"+ on Bridges, and he looks the same height as George Kennedy, with both men wearing similar shoes.
tb7 Gus says on 18/Nov/11
James says on 17/Nov/11
its funny yo mention hairstlyes as well Gus because both beckham and c.ronaldo are already losing there hair on top
Ive never noticed that,any pics to show ?
Bale is the same mould yer,I cant see why they dont get him in for James Bond tbh.
Shaun says on 17/Nov/11
Click Here
Yeah quite a difference in skin and features.
Not really though Shaun,the only difference is a simple haircut,stuble and a tan,and obviously a few years older DBeckham. James says on 18/Nov/11
Shaun u agree that christian bale with a shaven head looks just look david beckham? Shaun says on 17/Nov/11
Click Here
Yeah quite a difference in skin and features. EdgarHernandez says on 17/Nov/11
mike, my grandfather for father side had one hip remplacement, and he lost height from being remarcable taller than my dad he past to be just 2 inches taller, is just that sometimes, like david prowse say: " the pice was shorter than the original", wich happens most of the time. James says on 17/Nov/11
You see i also think christian bale has that male model type material that ronaldo and beckham possess like chiseled cheeckbones. would u agree guys?
Bale actually looks like david beckham as well and is roughly the same height as him
Click Here
sorry i know thats a bit random lol. James says on 17/Nov/11
its funny yo mention hairstlyes as well Gus because both beckham and c.ronaldo are already losing there hair on top James says on 17/Nov/11
Gus says on 16/Nov/11
James says on 16/Nov/11
i remeber this person in the media who knew david said that before david beckham started getting fake tans and a makeover that he was just an average looking bloke.
I dont think so,makeup etc can only do so much-ie all the makeup on the planet wouldnt turn Geoffrey Rush in to C Ronaldo.Beckham had something,hairstyles,tans and weight lifting etc just adds to the base. Clint when he was younger was like Beckham in physiognomy,not look alikes but the same idea,tanned skin,good chisled cheekbones,sandy hair..etc male model materials.
Yeah i always thought the resemblence between clint eastwood and david beckham was exzaggerated because more often than not they did not lookalike. Mike says on 16/Nov/11
Hip or knee surgery does not shorten your legs, or anything else. Anything they take out, they replace. If anything, you're a hair taller. My cousin does knee replacements. Gus says on 16/Nov/11
James says on 16/Nov/11
i remeber this person in the media who knew david said that before david beckham started getting fake tans and a makeover that he was just an average looking bloke.
I dont think so,makeup etc can only do so much-ie all the makeup on the planet wouldnt turn Geoffrey Rush in to C Ronaldo.Beckham had something,hairstyles,tans and weight lifting etc just adds to the base. Clint when he was younger was like Beckham in physiognomy,not look alikes but the same idea,tanned skin,good chisled cheekbones,sandy hair..etc male model materials. James says on 16/Nov/11
Shaun says on 15/Nov/11
Eeesh, Beckham seems to have been extremely lucky with his looks, his parents are not exactly what you'd call remarkable....
it also works the other way round
Click Here James says on 16/Nov/11
Shaun says on 15/Nov/11
Eeesh, Beckham seems to have been extremely lucky with his looks, his parents are not exactly what you'd call remarkable....
i remeber this person in the media who knew david said that before david beckham started getting fake tans and a makeover that he was just an average looking bloke. Danimal says on 15/Nov/11
Josh B says on 12/Nov/11
@James look how much his torso has shrunk, jez. His trousers are the same height as the guy to his left yet he's a good few inches shorter. Similar to David Prowse i'd say, he has a high trouser line and a massively shrunken torso.
Arnold S.'s upper torso also has that compressed look while his legs still look long. It's always the upper torso that goes first, unless you have hip, or knee surgery, which shortens the lower body too (as in Hulk Hogan). Shaun says on 15/Nov/11
Eeesh, Beckham seems to have been extremely lucky with his looks, his parents are not exactly what you'd call remarkable.... Shaun says on 15/Nov/11
LOL Gus, eh, looks nothing like her! James says on 15/Nov/11
Gus says on 15/Nov/11
"david beckhams mother looked very much like diana actually"
lol she'd be turning in her grave if she heard that
Well an uglier version LOL Gus says on 15/Nov/11
"david beckhams mother looked very much like diana actually"
lol she'd be turning in her grave if she heard that James says on 15/Nov/11
Shaun says on 14/Nov/11
Diana actually reminds me a lot of my own mother facially, similar coloring, not height though..
david beckhams mother looked very much like diana actually
Click Here Shaun says on 14/Nov/11
Diana actually reminds me a lot of my own mother facially, similar coloring, not height though.. Shaun says on 14/Nov/11
Perhaps Diana used to wake him up before he go-go? James says on 14/Nov/11
Shaun says on 13/Nov/11
Diana would reach about 6'1" in heels so yeah looks 6'3". Is it me though or can you sense a strong attraction between Clint and Diana James?.
yeah i can see a bit of an attraction.. although i think diana had more of a thing for George Michael clearly judging by these pics :)
Click Here
Click Here Shaun says on 13/Nov/11
I think Armie Hammer is more 6'4.5". Clint can often look a full 6'1" still if stood straight. Shaun says on 13/Nov/11
Diana would reach about 6'1" in heels so yeah looks 6'3". Is it me though or can you sense a strong attraction between Clint and Diana James?. James says on 13/Nov/11
EdgarHernandez says on 13/Nov/11
then again james, thatmakes clint a solid 6ft 1 in the pics of you.
do u agree that armmie is under 6'5? EdgarHernandez says on 13/Nov/11
then again james, thatmakes clint a solid 6ft 1 in the pics of you. James says on 13/Nov/11
i think that armmie photo kinda shows that clint eastwoods height loss has been exzaggerated. too me clint looks 6'1 1/2 if Armmie Hammer is actually 6'5.. given that hammer stands with great posture i don't think he looks 6'5. armmie looks more than just 1cm shorter than a guy like ralf moller and does not give of the same impression than neil flynn... heck armmie does not even look quite as tall as tim robbins.
its likely that a peak clint eastwood was shorter than armmie hammer so if you stood a 1973 clint eastwood next too a 2011 clint perhaps the height gap would not be big?
shaun- here is a far better photo too judge how tall clint eastwood looks with princess diana. he actually does look 6'3 here taking all things into consideration and there looks maybe a 3 inch difference?
Click Here
in the article i think diana says like how clint eastwood would be the tallest man at the after party which would not be true for a 6'3 man.
silent d diana was 5'10 of course women can give of a taller impression than men do at certain heights. diana with her slim build would have no problem pulling of looking 6ft. i knew a 5'9 lady that was guessed at 6'0 by a lot of people. James says on 13/Nov/11
EdgarHernandez says on 12/Nov/11
james the second one dicaprio(who for my point of view is 5ft 11.5 or a strong 5ft 11) looks 2 solid inches shorter maybe 2.5, wich make clint look like a strong 6ft 1, maybe 6f 2 pushing a little, and the diference with hammer of 3 inches makes this clint between solid 6ft 1 or weak 6ft 2, james do you agree that that second photo is the tallest that clint has pull of looking in recent years?
i think higher chance that hammer is a weak 6'5 dmeyer says on 13/Nov/11
looks 6 ft alot but if he stand fully tall he will measures 6 ft 0.5-0.75 in he bit brad pitt in cubans Josh B says on 12/Nov/11
@James look how much his torso has shrunk, jez. His trousers are the same height as the guy to his left yet he's a good few inches shorter. Similar to David Prowse i'd say, he has a high trouser line and a massively shrunken torso. EdgarHernandez says on 12/Nov/11
james the second one dicaprio(who for my point of view is 5ft 11.5 or a strong 5ft 11) looks 2 solid inches shorter maybe 2.5, wich make clint look like a strong 6ft 1, maybe 6f 2 pushing a little, and the diference with hammer of 3 inches makes this clint between solid 6ft 1 or weak 6ft 2, james do you agree that that second photo is the tallest that clint has pull of looking in recent years? Silent d says on 11/Nov/11
Rob are you suggesting he lost 9cm over time? That is outrageous! That princess Diana photo was an anomaly. How tall is she? I can't explain that. In million dollar baby he was a little shorter than 187cm Morgan freeman. Much taller than hilary swank who i think is 168cm. When he went on ellen, a huge difference. He always looked larger than life. 6 foot 1. James says on 11/Nov/11
hey guys would u agree armmie hammer looks 6'4 (193cm) with clint eastwood?
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
One thing is for sure he does not look the 6'5 he is listed at on this site. heck robbins looked taller next too clint than armmie did and clint was slightly taller back in 2005. James says on 11/Nov/11
Bridges was 187cm so 6'4 makes sense for Eastwood in 74. Gus says on 10/Nov/11
I dont know why more people dont refer to Eastwood in Thunderbolt and lighfoot-1974,filmed probably in '73,so Eastwood at near enough prime.Bridges is widely regarded as anything between 185-188cm,I go for 186 myself. With his usual posture clint had no more than an inch or so on Bridges-so presumably 6'2.5...however when Eastwood flexed his back out,had an easy 2.5 inches on Bridges,three at a push.Which means for me,if Bridges was 185cm,means Clint was 191/192cm with good posture,if Bridges was 187cm like some claim,Eastwood was a comfortable 6'4. Shaun says on 10/Nov/11
The Diana and Eastwood pics show the photo was taken from a low level and off centre so it gives the illusion of Diana being taller. Shaun says on 10/Nov/11
First pic is horrible angle though but yes Princess Diana looks extremely tall for a woman next to him and her heels aren't that big either. He doesn't look more than 6'2" there no, but most pics show him about 6'3" in 1992 like he was in the Unforgiven. Goldblum actually looks near 6'6" there as I think the other tall guy further down is 6'9" Michael Crichton but that's because he's close to the camera and Crichton is further down the hall. But yes, Goldblum does look a lot taller I agree. James says on 9/Nov/11
shaun you mentioned about how clint eastwoods posture can make him look shorter than he really is....
here is a photo of him with princes diana from 1993. in heels she wore too that even diana would have been like what? 6'1?
with bad posture next too the princess clint looks about 6'2?
in 1993 i would imagne clint eastwood would have stood at 6'3 (191cm)?
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
now compare how 6'4 or 6'4.5 jeff goldblum looks near princess diana the same year
Click Here
its like how he could look taller next too leonardo dicaprio. with princes diana though clint defenintly did not look anywhere near 6'4. Shaun says on 8/Nov/11
Even as a baby LOL. But look at that picture of him with the gun and his leg proportion. Just like today. He looked bad ass though even as a baby!! jtm says on 8/Nov/11
he is 1.5 taller despite dicaprio being closer to the camera so eastwood is really 2.5 taller than him.i am more convince than ever that dicaprio is 5'10. James says on 8/Nov/11
Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Shaun here is a pic of clint eastwood as a kid lying on a beach
Click Here
would u not agree his legs looked very long even back then? how old was he in the pic? EdgarHernandez says on 7/Nov/11
I have no dubts abaut clint being 6ft 4 when young, i only have problem with the actual clint height, because, he is to damn hard to spot, seriusly, one time clint is looking like a very bad build 6ft guy who some how got the legs of a 6ft 6 guy, other times he looks like he sudenly grew 1 or ven 2 inches in some pictures, then sudenly on a picture of the same event he is looking alot shorter, clint is the only guy who creates creepines on his height. This a very recent pictore of clint with leonardo dicaprio, looking between 1 to maybe 1.5 inches taller:
Click Here
Click Here
also, clint posture is at his worst, he know not only slouches his back, he knows bend his knees, and push his hip, just look:
Click Here
also just look his head, just his head, his head no longer belogs to his actual body proportions(the david prowse efect), what realy freaks me out is the fact that he looks like he is in pretty good healt, wich give me to posible explications: Clint years of fitness and weight training(even when they may have cause some of his actual state) pay off, and his muscles hold togheter his body,
or that clint has been in a very long term sicknes and he is carring the thing with much dignity as he can.
also this one:
Click Here
seriusly, the hell?
other thing very amuzing is that, like robt poited out before in this page is clint lost more height, he would have to go in wheelchair for healt problems, but clint seems to defeat any kind of sence with his shirinking and growing body, one time he is 5ft 11, other he looks solid 6ft 1. Mike says on 7/Nov/11
Met Stroud in 83, in Hollywood. 6'1. Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Click Here
If you put Robbin's torso on Clint's legs you'd have 6'6"-6'7" guy. Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back. Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
LOL, Yes James we are friends, my comment was a groan that you are again coming up with the "6'4" really?" and going round in full circles!!! For once i think LAN Jiao is correct! LAN Jiao says on 6/Nov/11
just skip scene on Magnum Force clint does look huge. 6'4 on dot 6'2.5-6'3 slouch. James says on 6/Nov/11
Shaun says on 5/Nov/11
James you weirdo you were only saying 194cm was possible a few weeks ago!! Steve Jones from T4 is the shortest 6'4". Eastwood looked 6'4" to me.
WOW Shaun i thought we were friends on this site weren't we? I did think he could have been 194cm if David Soul was 185cm but then recently he was downgraded too 184cm so i rethinked the 194cm for Clint eastwood. Overall if David was 6'0 1/2 then 6'4 flat seems on target for clint.
shaun you can get 6'4 or 6'4 1/2 men that can look 6'3 like randy orton for example. its like how danny glover who peaked at 6'3 1/2 could look 6'2 1/2 becuase of his build. Danimal says on 6/Nov/11
jervis says on 4/Nov/11
6ft4 bear foot peak for Clint Eastwood?There is an actor called Hal Halbrook,he was in Magnum Force with Clint,there were plenty of scens with the two actors together,it seemed to my eye that Clint had about 3 inches hight over Hallbrook m aking him about 6ft1 if Clint was 6ft4.But just recently there was a film on tv with Hallbrook and a very young Alac Baldwin,there was a scean were both actors were face too face,now given to my mind Hallbrook was 6ft1 ,if you compear him to Clint in Magnum Force,you would expect him to be about 1 inch taller than Baldwin,but in fact it was Baldwin who was 1 inch taller than him.The film was made in i think 1983 which would make Hallbrook about 58 years old.Unless Hallbrook shrank 2 inches in 10 years since Mangumn Force,or Baldwin is 6ft2 it leves a question mark over weather Hallbrook was 6ft1,it also leves a question mark over Clints hight of 6ft4.On the subject of Don Stroud,Tim Mathison and Lee van Cleef,all been 6ft2 and Clint been 2 inches taller than them all.There are no clear imiges of Clint and Van cleef that i ever saw to prove that.Mathison was in a film with the 6ft2 and a half listed Ryan Renyolds and he was about 2 inches shorter,i think the film was called Van wilder or something.Stroud was in a episode of nightrider,and Hoff was about 3 inches taller making Stroud 6ft1 not 6ft2.So i dont think Stroud and Mathisons hights are not 6ft2 more like 6ft1.As for David Soul his hight is not very clear,i would say between 5ft11 and 6ft1,to my eye Clint had at most 3inches on soul and at least 2inches.As for Van Cleef,there is a clip of him and George Kennedy,face too face and Kennedy is about 1inch taller,that would make Kennedy 6ft3,the same hight as Clint in both films they stared in together,making Clint 6ft3 too.
Watch Fletch with Chevy Chase. Chevy was minimum 6'4" barefoot at that time and there were multiple scenes (full body shots) of the 2 standing side by side and Tim was every bit 6'2". I think Clint was 6'4" in his younger days and then 6'3" as early as the late 70's/early 80'... Today..well, he can look as low as 5'11". I think if he stood fully straight today he'd be slightly over a flat 6'0". It would be amazing to see a YOUNG Clint stand next to an OLD Clint for comparison. I think everyone would be shocked at how drastic of a difference it would be. I wonder what it would feel like to be 6'4" and tower over everyone and then to slowly shrink inch by inch.. I wonder if he notices it, or it's so gradual that he doesn't? thebad7 says on 5/Nov/11
@Shaun: Agreed about Don Stroud. He was 2" shorter than Clint Eastwood in '68 for COOGAN'S BLUFF. Also, Don Stroud played a stuntman alongside William "Big Bill" Smith in 1976 for Smith's semi-autobiographical biker film HOLLYWOOD MAN. Stroud was the same height as Big Bill at 6'2". Stroud isn't under 6'2".
tb7 Shaun says on 5/Nov/11
Don Stroud was the same height as Robert Davi who is not under 6'2". Shaun says on 5/Nov/11
James you weirdo you were only saying 194cm was possible a few weeks ago!! Steve Jones from T4 is the shortest 6'4". Eastwood looked 6'4" to me. thebad7 says on 5/Nov/11
@Shaun: No worries. A side-by-side comparison of Eastwood and Sampson would have been good evidence to assist in solving this mystery.
tb7 Mike says on 4/Nov/11
Jervis has it right on Eastwood, in my opinion, with an emphasis on 5'11 for Soul. I never thought Stroud was a full 6'2. James says on 4/Nov/11
clint had at least 3 inches on David Soul but at the same time maybe not quite 4 inches on him.
i think clint eastwoods, posture and sloping shoulders make him look more 6'3 Dirty Harry and Magnum Force.
i have no problems picturing 6'3 when i think of clint eastwood but 6'4 does seem an exzaggeration. maybe if he carried himself better he would have looked 6'4? jervis says on 4/Nov/11
6ft4 bear foot peak for Clint Eastwood?There is an actor called Hal Halbrook,he was in Magnum Force with Clint,there were plenty of scens with the two actors together,it seemed to my eye that Clint had about 3 inches hight over Hallbrook m aking him about 6ft1 if Clint was 6ft4.But just recently there was a film on tv with Hallbrook and a very young Alac Baldwin,there was a scean were both actors were face too face,now given to my mind Hallbrook was 6ft1 ,if you compear him to Clint in Magnum Force,you would expect him to be about 1 inch taller than Baldwin,but in fact it was Baldwin who was 1 inch taller than him.The film was made in i think 1983 which would make Hallbrook about 58 years old.Unless Hallbrook shrank 2 inches in 10 years since Mangumn Force,or Baldwin is 6ft2 it leves a question mark over weather Hallbrook was 6ft1,it also leves a question mark over Clints hight of 6ft4.On the subject of Don Stroud,Tim Mathison and Lee van Cleef,all been 6ft2 and Clint been 2 inches taller than them all.There are no clear imiges of Clint and Van cleef that i ever saw to prove that.Mathison was in a film with the 6ft2 and a half listed Ryan Renyolds and he was about 2 inches shorter,i think the film was called Van wilder or something.Stroud was in a episode of nightrider,and Hoff was about 3 inches taller making Stroud 6ft1 not 6ft2.So i dont think Stroud and Mathisons hights are not 6ft2 more like 6ft1.As for David Soul his hight is not very clear,i would say between 5ft11 and 6ft1,to my eye Clint had at most 3inches on soul and at least 2inches.As for Van Cleef,there is a clip of him and George Kennedy,face too face and Kennedy is about 1inch taller,that would make Kennedy 6ft3,the same hight as Clint in both films they stared in together,making Clint 6ft3 too. James says on 4/Nov/11
clint is possibly the shortest looking 6'4er ever. Shaun says on 4/Nov/11
My apologies, |Eastwood and Sampson never stood next to each other it was on horseback calling a truce. thebad7 says on 3/Nov/11
@Vegas: It's funny you mention that because CUCKOO is one of the few Nicholson films I have not seen, but it's in my queue. You are right: Sampson is a giant, especially if you see him in THE WHITE BUFFALO!
tb7 LAN Jiao says on 3/Nov/11
Shortest looking 6'4er titled have goes to...clint eastwood. Vegas says on 3/Nov/11
thebad7, sampson is in one flew over the cuckoo's nest (a truly wonderful movie if you haven't seen it btw) looks massively in that movie, makes jack nicholson look like a child, eastwood wasnt that tall standing next to nicholson in the 1980s thebad7 says on 3/Nov/11
@Shaun: You are right about the advantage between Eastwood and Sutherland. Sutherland was a tall guy, and he still is today, but when they were young and in their peaks, Clint had the advantage by a hair. Eastwood hit 6'4" in his younger days, and Sutherland was a strong 6'3"--6'3 1/2" for sure. Sutherland also had/has a loose posture, so that may have an effect especially in still shots or in the films themselves.
Also: Will Sampson, the actor playing Ten Bears in 1976's THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES was supposedly 6'5" (I have seen him listed as high as 6'6"). I have only ever seen Sampson--as I recall--in one other film; he starred alongside Charles Bronson in 1977's THE WHITE BUFFALO, and Sampson was definitely tall--I can buy 6'5" for him, wearing only moccasins. In regards to Sampson and Eastwood, there was never a side-by-side comparison between the two in TOJW (both sat on horseback).
tb7 James says on 3/Nov/11
thats funny i always pictured sutherland as being broad and bulkier than clint eastwood. EdgarHernandez says on 2/Nov/11
i suport shaun, also, sutherland is not bulkier than eastwood, donald sutherland is what clint would look like if he never had lifted weights, sutherland have a very scrawny body, just look at him:
Click Here
is the one in the left
he became much more skinnier by the end of the 70s. James says on 2/Nov/11
Shaun says on 1/Nov/11
James he looked 6'4" to me in Outlaw Josey Wales, looked same height as the 6'4" listed native Indian in it. In fact in the bar scene he actually looked 6'6". Did he look under 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz James, can't remember?
Shaun says on 1/Nov/11
James he looked 6'4" to me in Outlaw Josey Wales, looked same height as the 6'4" listed native Indian in it. In fact in the bar scene he actually looked 6'6". Did he look under 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz James, can't remember?
Yes he looked 6'3ish in Escape from Alcatraz and could even look 6'2 with bad posture at times.
As for the outlaw josey wales- well its not like you can tell apart 6'3 1/2 and 6'4 that easily since its only a 1cm difference. too be fair he may have not started too dip under 6'4 until 1977 so he might have still be roughly around 6'4 in 1976.
How do u know the native american man was 6'4 shaun? Shaun says on 2/Nov/11
No James, Eastwood was taller than Sutherland, not an illusion. Shaun says on 1/Nov/11
James he looked 6'4" to me in Outlaw Josey Wales, looked same height as the 6'4" listed native Indian in it. In fact in the bar scene he actually looked 6'6". Did he look under 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz James, can't remember? James says on 1/Nov/11
Eastwood could have been 6'3.5 or 6'3.25 in Pale Rider since he was taller than Michael Mortiarty who i think is just under 6'3. Eastwood was a bit under 6'4 in the mid or late 70's.
shaun that women next too the 6'10 guy must be tall.
i think most people would not belive 6'4 1/2 for clint eastwood so i think most likely donald sutherland and eastwood were exactley the same height its just that clint eastwood was much more skinner and lanky than sutherland... hence why he pulled off looking taller. Shaun says on 31/Oct/11
Click Here
Even a 6'10" guy can give off looking 6'4"-6'5" at times LOL! Shaun says on 31/Oct/11
@Jervis, Eastwood began losing height around 1980 I think. He was 6'3.5" range by Pale Rider and 6'3.25" probably by Dead Pool in 1988. Neeson had him by an inch, |
