|
Mark says on 3/Jul/09
Good picture, Frank2, but if you hold a straight edge exactly horizontal from the top of Marvin's head to the top of Eastwood's (adjusting for hair), it "appears" they are quite close in height. And that's with Eastwood ever so slightly in the foreground. On a side note, I have no idea how tall Eastwood was, or is. But he is still one tough dude at 78, as exemplified in Grand Tarino.
Danimal says on 3/Jul/09
Frank2 says on 2/Jul/09
Look what I found!
Click Here
Back row left to right: 6'5" Rock Hudson, 6'4" John Wayne, 6'1" Yves Montand
Front row: left to right: 6'2" Lee Marvin, 5'9" Robert Evans, 5'4" Barbra Streisand, 6' Bernard Donnenfeld (Paramount VP Production) and 6'4" Clint Eastwood.
Eastwood would be DWARFED by his younger self. Doug says on 3/Jul/09
TW Clint was taller than legit 6'2.5"-6'3" Morgan Freeman even in 1992. Doug says on 3/Jul/09
TW I think Clint looked a solid 6'2" in Madison County. Granted he didn't look 6'3" or 6'4" at all but I think you'll find he was taller than 6' or 6'1" in 1995. In my view in the mid to late 90s he had begun to lost height and was down to 6'2". We know he was still at least 6'3" in 1992 in the Unforgiven and in 1993 he actually looked still near 6'4" in comparison to his 6' co star in In the Line of Fire. I think he began to lose height around 1994. I'm certain Clint was still a solid 6'2" in Madison TW says on 3/Jul/09
In The Bridges of Madison County(1995), Clint looked only 6 - 6'1" max. and weak. I think he was never 6'4" tall man, rather 6'2" in his best.
Doug - I mean the guard who led Morris (Clint) from his cell to Warden/Alcatraz Head. That older and bald-headed guy was clearly much taller than Clint. Who was that guy? It wasn't Blair Burrows(he played fight guard). Frank2 says on 2/Jul/09
Look what I found!
Click Here
Back row left to right: 6'5" Rock Hudson, 6'4" John Wayne, 6'1" Yves Montand
Front row: left to right: 6'2" Lee Marvin, 5'9" Robert Evans, 5'4" Barbra Streisand, 6' Bernard Donnenfeld (Paramount VP Production) and 6'4" Clint Eastwood. Doug says on 2/Jul/09
LOL there were loads of guards in that film. Do you mean Blair Burrows who was a stuntman on lots of Eastwoods films but played a guard in this film? TW says on 2/Jul/09
On 13th minute of Escape from Alcatraz movie, there were Clint and the prison guard taller than him about one inch. Who played that role? Daniel says on 2/Jul/09
I never saw Roger Moore look taller than 1.83m in Live and Let Die. Certainly in The Saint days he could have been 1.85m, but nothing more. TampaTony says on 2/Jul/09
Eastwood starred in a film with Liam Neeson 20 years ago and they looked exactly the same height.Can't remember the film name, sorry. Doug says on 2/Jul/09
Ali, you are basing you belief upon one picture where Moore is looking a lot smaller. In virtually every picture video footage of the two men they are very close in height. Moore never wore lifts, only on the odd occasion as in Live and Let Die to reduce the height difference between him and 6'4-6'5" Yaphet Kotto, the 6'3" steel arm dude and the 6'6" Jefferey bloke. I don't know if you really noticed Ali but please do that Moore came within an inch or two of Kotto in lifts. A 5'11" guy would never have come close. Believe me and everybody else here than Moore was minimum 6'1" barefoot in his prime, you should believe the tailors when they say they measured Moore at 6'1.25". In the scenes with Kotto he was in the 6'3" range in lifts. Plus Bernard Lee was 6'1" in his prime. Probably by Bond days he was 6' flat, that's how he always looked to me. Nobody else here thinks Moore was under 6' in his prime. Even today he has 2-3 inches on supposed 5'11" Jerry Hall, was taller than supposed 6'1.5" Paul o Grady etc. Granted Moore had an medium sized frame and was not as rugged and muscular as Connery but he was still over 6'. Anonymous says on 1/Jul/09
Hugh 190cm says on 1/Jul/09
Moore at 5ft11 is ridiculous.
So is 6'2" for Eastwood today. Hugh 190cm says on 1/Jul/09
Moore at 5ft11 is ridiculous. adam says on 1/Jul/09
Bernard Lee was definitely over six feet. In THE THIRD MAN Lee is next to Joseph Cotten who was at least 6-1, probably 6-2, and Lee looks almost the same height. Lee was very possibly 6-1. Leung says on 30/Jun/09
Ali, your height estimate for Roger Moore is rubbish, 5’11” peak height? Get real man, Moore was easily over 6’. Lenad says on 30/Jun/09
I doubt he was ever a full 6'4 Ali says on 30/Jun/09
Doug I understand what you are saying. I have great
respect for Mr(was it sir?)Moore. I really enjoy his
acting.
However, he really is not and never was a tall guy. Altough
5'11 in those days was tall I assume.
You have seen yourself the picture with Connery in which he is
substiantiallly shorter lenghtwise and also in the width. Connery
is a genuine 6ft+(6'1-6'1.5) and Moore looks average.
His shoulders, face etc..are all smaller than Connery.
You can't be 5'11 one day and 6'1 another day. The
only explanation is lifts.
Don't forget that Bond in the book is 6'1 guy. Well
Moore was shorter, but was really classy and handsome
and actually a perfect bond. So they just wrote/said
he was 6'1.
If he was taller barefoot than Bernard lee, than Bernard
lee is smaller than 6ft. Probably 5'10. I really can't remember
how tall Bernard lee was, so I am speculating.
I mean if Roger Moore was 6'1.5 then Connery was 6'3.5, which
he wasn't.
Roger Moore was 5'11 max+ some good lifts which made him 6+. That
is what I think. Doug says on 30/Jun/09
I think Eastwood was pushing 6'5" in cowboy boots no more, like John Wayne. Two 6'2.5"-6'3" men in my view wearing 2 inch boots, that's how they looked to me, maybe i'm wrong. Doug says on 30/Jun/09
Agree with Ed Eastwood looks between 6' and 6'1" next to Robbins. Yes Hugh Jackman does certianly resemble Eastwood facially and in stature. I think Eastwood would have been a little taller than him at peak though, 6'3" ish barefoot. I think he was measured at 6'4" in sneakers, no doubts he looked 6'4" in footwear. Yet the 6'4" figure seems to add up in comparison to other actors. Only if the heights of every other actor are inflated will the 6'4" figure not seem right. Doug says on 30/Jun/09
I agree in part Hugh, it doesn't add up though in comparison to Tim Robbins. Robbins claims he is 6'5" out of bed and 6'4.5" through the day. Eastwood or Whitaker look nowhere near just 3 inches shorter do they? I see 4-5 inches. All I know is if Robbins is 6'4.5" then Eastwood can't be more than 6'0.5" barefoot, it doesn't add up. Hugh 190cm says on 30/Jun/09
Moore was 6ft1.5-6ft2 in his prime. Connery was 6ft2.5 peak and Caine was 6ft2 flat peak. Hugh 190cm says on 30/Jun/09
If he's between 6ft and 6ft1 then Sydney Poitier and Forest Witaker are between 6ft-6ft1 aswell which is ridiculous. I think Eastwood was 6ft4 because in the 80's he still looked 6ft3+. And he probably had lost height by that time. Ed(1) says on 29/Jun/09
I still have a really hard time seeing Eastwood as a legit 6ft4 peak, 6ft3 yes, but not a genuine 6ft4. I've always thought he looked comparable in size to Hugh Jackman, a good 6ft2-6ft2.5, and in cowboy boots 6ft4-6ft4.5. Maybe I'm wrong, but he's never come across as tall as say Christopher Reeve, Jeff Goldblum, Liam Neeson, or David Morse.
Today I think it's safe to say he looks between 6ft-6ft1. In these pics with Tim Robbins(6ft5) I see an easy 4+ inches difference.
Click Here Doug says on 29/Jun/09
Moore was roughly 3.5 inches shorter than Christopher Lee. If Moore was 6'1.25" on the dot, Christopher Lee was 6'4.75" (195cm) which I can assure you is also deadly accurate. Doug says on 29/Jun/09
Also Roger Moore was barefoot in Man with the Golden Gun and he looked every inch of a legit 6'1" in the karate school. Doug says on 29/Jun/09
Ali, Moore was barefoot in Live and Let Die in a dressing gown next to 6'1" Bernard Lee in hos very opening scene and was still taller than Bernard Lee was in shoes. It is a very odd claim to make given that the Bond taylors have officially measured all the Bonds barefoot and state Moore was 6'1.25" when playing Bond. If the professional tailors measured him and that their measurmeents are known to be extremely accurate. Moore was the same height as Brosnan 6'1.25" legit barefoot. A shade shorter than Connery. The barefoot measurments by them should be taken exactly as the truth. Roger Moore in the 1970s at least was 6'1.25", likely a little taller in his 20s and 30s. Ali says on 29/Jun/09
Doug ever heard of lifts? I have seen
that video before which you mention.
Roger Moore wore lifts at special occasions.
He is 5'11 peak height. And 6'1 with lifts. Doug says on 29/Jun/09
If they hadn;t lost height by 1988 then Caine and Connery were 6'2" and Moore 6'1.5". Minimal difference trust me. Doug says on 29/Jun/09
Exactly Big Mac that's what I mean, check out Sir Roger Moore and Sir Sean Connery meet on youtube. Connery is identical in height to 6'1.5" Michael Caine and Roger Moore is barely 0.5 inches shorter. Ali please watch this video and you'll see you;ve been mistaken. All three men are 6'1 ers. Moore a flat 6'1" and Connery and Caine 6'1.5". Doug says on 29/Jun/09
Hugh how would 5'10" -5'11" Brad Pitt ever be able to look taller than a near legit 6'2" Clint Eastwood lol! Does the man look near 6'2" compared to Tim Robbins?? If Eastwood is near 6'2" barefoot today he will be 6'3" in shoes. Pitt has appeared as being at least an inch taller than Eastwood. Does it make sense that Brad Pitt pulled off a good 6'4"in shoes to look taller LOL. 6'1" out of bed max today. Hugh 190cm says on 29/Jun/09
Eastwood is close to 6ft2 nowadays. 187-188cm. 184cm is too low. Peak Eastwood was 6ft4 give or take 1cm. BigMac says on 29/Jun/09
There is a clip on Youtube of Connery and Moore standing next to one another @ the 1988 Oscars. Doug says on 29/Jun/09
Ali thats the one picture where i said before Moore looks a lot shorter, I don't know how. Check out other pictures and even videos on Youtube and you'll see the difference is minimal. Ali says on 28/Jun/09
Doug check the picture:
Click Here
Connery is at least 2 inches taller. Furthermore
Connery is a big man and Moore's body is average.
If you watch the bond movies and pay really attention
you will notice that Moore is not really tall. Connery
is tall and big. Ali says on 28/Jun/09
Doug check the picture:
Click Here
Connery is at least 2 inches taller. Furthermore
Connery is a big man and Moore's body is average.
If you watch the bond movies and pay really attention
you will notice that Moore is not really tall. Connery
is tall and big. peteyork says on 28/Jun/09
Taller than Sutherland in kelly's Heros. Remember what Frank2 says about framing a shot before you bring up Telly Savalis, he was on a box. Then there is coogan's bluff, walking through a crowd, so tall you can see his eyes above the crowd. Paint your wagon, three inches taller than lee marvin. Doug says on 28/Jun/09
Roger Moore never tall? LOL maybe next to Christopher Lee. Connery and Moore were similar in height - "towers above him" LOL you need glasses Ali. Show me one instance of where Connery towers above him!! Ali says on 27/Jun/09
Roger Moore was never really tall. There is a picture
of Moore with Connery(6'1.5) and Connery towers over Moore.
Moore looks average compared to Connery.
Clint Eastwood was a tall guy in his prime.
I think between 6'2 and 6'2.5. He never
reached 193cm IMO. he might have been
190 cm peak. Danimal says on 27/Jun/09
Big King says on 23/Jun/09
Danimal you animal! Tim Robbins was no more than 6'5" max.
Eastwood could hit a weak 6'3" nowadays.
Kid, that would be that there is only 2" between Tim and Clint today according to you. Clint is struggling with a FLAT 6'0" today and Tim is OVER 6'5" EASILY. Mark says on 26/Jun/09
Just watched Joe Kidd, and the guy who played the sheriff (last name Walcott), is listed at 6'4. I tend to put Eastwood at a so-called "weak" 6'4. But, it astounds me how he could have lost so much height, and it clearly seems so. I had a guy, today at work, tell me he's 6'3. He's not a bragging type, and is about 50. For months, I've been 6 and 1/4, morning or night. Today, I was 5'11 and 3/4'ths. Go figure. Anyway, now way this guy is at least 3 inches taller than me. I can't tell you the number of times, over my life, friends claim to be a certain height, but they can't possibly be. People either exaggerate on purpose, or shrink, or just don't know what their height is. I'd still like to know about Eastwood's back injuries. Ed T. says on 26/Jun/09
As James said on June 14th, best bet for Eastwood's peak height is 6'3.5"-6'4".
If Eastwood was 6'4" he most likely was not a very strong 6'4". I disagree with those who say that Eastwood was 6'4" with ease. As Adam has stated regarding John Wayne, Eastwood was near "6'4". Also I believe several of his co-stars in "Magnum Force", such as David Soul and Tim Matheson were shorter than their listed heights. If Eastwood was "an easy" 6'4", more people would have the impression that he was 6'5". I see very few of the posters on this page claiming that he was 6'5". Was Eastwood any taller than his buddy Donald Sutherland? Sutherland , like Eastwood, was a very tall guy, but he most likely fell just short of 6'4" ( probably 6'3.5"). Doug says on 24/Jun/09
180 is too low for Eastwood today. I think he is about 184 cm today. Doug says on 24/Jun/09
Dirty Harry, Roger Moore is two inches taller than 5'11" Jerry Hall today. Moore is about 6 foot today NOT 5'10". At peak Moore was 6'1.5". Doug says on 24/Jun/09
Eastwood is nowhere near 6'3" today LOL. Robbins is about 6'5" barefoot. He looked it easily in the 80s and early 90s but by the late 90s he was looking nearer 6'2", today 6'1" max, Big King says on 23/Jun/09
Danimal you animal! Tim Robbins was no more than 6'5" max.
Eastwood could hit a weak 6'3" nowadays. dirty harry says on 23/Jun/09
Mr Eastwood's 5'11" 1.8m today. It's obvious. Tim Robbins has said:"i'm 6'4.5" sometimes been 6'5" in the morning. I'm 6'2" without shoes. One ofmy friends is a legit 6'5" and in photos next to him the top of my head is 1" over his eyebrow line. In that photo Eastwood's head is well under his sight line. Sidney poitier and looks a legit 6'1" and forest whittaker a good 6ft.
Eastwood would have been 6'2" in his prime. That was well documented and obvious. Everybody can see that the guys have shrunk in height over the past 20 years. He's nearly 80 for God's Sake! The same thing has happened to Sir Roger Moore: he was 6'1" in his heyday! Now he's about 5'10". Clint Eastwood was never 6'4". If this was true his height would be around 6'1"/6'2". look at the picture of Morgan Freeman next to Eastwood -quite clearly a 2" distiction. Free was a good 6'3" when he was younger now 6'1". Eastwood is 180 tall today. Hugh 190cm says on 22/Jun/09
6ft3+ in the 80's. TELLEM says on 22/Jun/09
Doug says on 22/Jun/09
Danimal Robbins is 6'6" in shoes as somebody said in a film he stood against a height board and he was 6'6". SO without them he is 6'5" minimum. I saw about a 5 inch difference between Eastwood and Robbins. If Robbins is 6'6" in shoes then Eastwood is 6'1" in shoes. This supports my theory that Eastwood is 6' flat barefoot today.
i agree. Doug says on 22/Jun/09
Danimal Robbins is 6'6" in shoes as somebody said in a film he stood against a height board and he was 6'6". SO without them he is 6'5" minimum. I saw about a 5 inch difference between Eastwood and Robbins. If Robbins is 6'6" in shoes then Eastwood is 6'1" in shoes. This supports my theory that Eastwood is 6' flat barefoot today. Danimal says on 19/Jun/09
Tim Robbins has been said to be 6'7" by former actors who worked with him on set. The man is at least 6'6". How can we not see that he has half a foot on Clint today. Either Clint is 5'11", or Tim is close to 6'7" in reality. NO WAY is he only 6'4.5"-6'5". That's laughable. He towered THEN 6'3" Morgan Freeman in 1994. adam says on 18/Jun/09
Im backh...
Yes Doug, I agree. We both shared the same thoughts about John Wayne`s and Clint Eastwood`s heights. We both thought that they were about 6-3 max. But like you said, there seems to be so much proof that we have to accept these things and believe what these people keep saying -they were both 6-4. James says on 18/Jun/09
I still think today Tim Robbins is 6'5. Maybe 6'5.5 in his 20's. Doug says on 18/Jun/09
I know it really is an incredible height loss, a genuine case of shrinkage. It doesn't seem humanly possible given that Robbins is 5 inches taller today but Eastwood was very close to a legit 6'4" at peak, the proof is overwhelming. filmfan says on 18/Jun/09
From that pic below it's hard to believe Robbins and Clint were ever close in size. But Robbins is supposedly 6'5'' and Eastwood 6'4'' in prime. Now there looks about 5-6 inches difference. Hugh 190cm says on 17/Jun/09
Looks between 6ft1 and 6ft2 nowadays and 6ft4 peak. Hugh 190cm says on 17/Jun/09
Looks roughly eye level with Sydney Pointier whose a genuine 6ft2 guy. 187cm clearly. He's also the same height as Whitaker in that pic.
From that pic it looks like this: Robbins 6ft5.5, Eastwood, 6ft1.5-6ft2, Whitaker 6ft2 flat and Poitier 6ft2-6ft2.5. Frank2 says on 16/Jun/09
Robbins is 6'5". I've seen him in person. He's always the tallest person in the room and usually by half a head taller than the next tall man. Doug says on 15/Jun/09
Yeah he looks pretty even with 6'2" Whitaker. Strage thing is why the hell does Robbins look 6'6"-6'7" in comparison? Is RObbins really "only" 6'4.5" or is he nearer 6'6" which he seems to often look? RObbins definately seems to reach 6'6" in shoes. Frank2 says on 15/Jun/09
FYI Tim Robbins is at least 6'5". But look how much Clint has shrunk. Back when I saw Clint in the 1970s, he'd have only been an inch shorter than Robbins is today. But Sidney Poitier has also lost some height. In his prime he was 6'2 1/2". I know since I worked with him. James says on 15/Jun/09
I must say in that pic Tim Robbins look every bit of 6'5. Forest Whitaker looks like 186cm. DejaVu says on 15/Jun/09
Click Here looks nothing under 6'1 Brad says on 14/Jun/09
6' 4" to 1980 with ease, maybe even later. James says on 14/Jun/09
A sure 6'3.5-6'4 guy at peak. Frank2 says on 13/Jun/09
I mentioned this once before. Back in 1975 when composer John Williams was recording his score for THE EIGER SANCTION, I was on the Universal scoring stage when Eastwood walked in. He was wearing loafers and he towered over me. He was definitely 6'4". John Williams was 5'10" and came up to Eastwood's nose! mike c says on 13/Jun/09
Hugh, you're 100% right. When Clint stands perfectly straight he's still minimum 6'2"..tends to hunch forward because of his back. Notice how his hips are-one is slightly higher than the other when he's in a frontal view. 6'4" no doubt in prime and still a legend both in acting and in directing. mike c Parker says on 13/Jun/09
Watched Magnum Force again the other night. Eastwood looked every bit of 6'4. Doug says on 13/Jun/09
Saw a film with Eastwood in it last night from 1999. Eastwood looked nowhere near 6'4". Ed(1) says on 12/Jun/09
Yeah but Hugh the listing for Eastwood referred to him as having been 6ft2, not currently. Now a days I'd say he's 6ft plus, and peak 6ft2.5-6ft3.
As for Connery, I don't think he's much more then a weak 6ft1 these days, with a peak of near 6ft2.
As for the others, I'd peg Mcqueen at around 5ft8-5ft9 tops, 6ft1.5 peak for Arnie, Marvin a solid 6ft1-6ft2, Willis 5ft11ish, and The Rock at around 6ft3. Hugh 190cm says on 12/Jun/09
The 5ft11 and 6ft claims are laughable. Eastwood still looks tall. Nowhere near 6ft4. Today he's near 6ft2. Hugh 190cm says on 12/Jun/09
Ed, I would more or less agree with those listings. Eastwood to me looks close to 6ft2 nowadays when standing with goo posture. Daniel Craig looks at least 5ft10 to me and could be taller. The Rock is not quite 6ft4 but close (approx. 192cm) Sean Connery nowadays is definately 6ft2. Lee Marvin was 6ft2. Bruce Willis to me looks closer to 6ft but can look 5ft11. McQueen was a solid 5ft10. Arnie at peak 6ft2, now closer to 6ft. Lundgren isn't quite 6ft5. but close. Ed(1) says on 8/Jun/09
In the most recent issue of Muscle and Fitness they have a section on Hollywood Action Stars with impressive physiques, Eastwood is one of abovementioned. What's interesting though is they list him as having been 6ft2! The others on the list are given both shorter and taller listings then usually seen, for example: Daniel Craig listed at 5ft10, The Rock at 6ft4.5, Sean Connery at 6ft2, Lee Marvin at 6ft2, Bruce Willis at 5ft11, Steve Mcqueen at somewhere between 5ft7-5ft10, Arnold Schwarzenegger at 6ft2, Van Damme at 5ft9, Dolph Lundgren at 6ft5.5, and Hugh Jackman at 6ft2.5.
What's funny is they don't even bother to give Stallone a height listing. LOL
Maybe he's a mystery to them as well? Danimal says on 7/Jun/09
Mike says on 30/May/09
5'11 seems outrageous...and YET, it WOULD explain some strange height revealing pictures of Eastwood with others. Well, once again, I ask....Does ANYONE here know the nature of these alleged back surgeries? What caused the need for them? One reason I ask is because I just started bench pressing again. I know I've read Eastwood could bench over 300 at one time. Could this be bad for one's spine?
Bench pressing is fine for the spine. He suffers from osteoporosis and curvature of the spine. He is also 80 years old. You cannot compare yourself to him. Outlaw says on 3/Jun/09
It's pretty clear that Eastwood was definitely 6'4" in his prime. But now a days, he has shrunk a ton. Watching something like Million Dollar Baby or looking at pictures where he's with Morgan Freeman (6'2.5"), he looks at least an inch and a half shorter.
Today, I'll say the bottom line is: 6'0.5" for Eastwood. But certainly 6'4" up until he was about 55 or so.
Take care and may the Lord be with y'all. Yaspaa says on 3/Jun/09
I'm 6'4 punks! and I'm wearing slippers Click Here Clint had been born 40 or so years later,who knows...bub..punk...potato potahto Click Here RisingForce says on 3/Jun/09
I'll believe the 5'11" claim when I see a link to it. Until then I don't buy it. TELLEM says on 31/May/09
Hugh 190cm says on 28/May/09
I doubt very much that Clint is 5ft11! He's now a 187cm and maybe a bit more. 6ft4 in his prime.
he stated 5'11 now, and 6'3 peak! TELLEM says on 31/May/09
so hes now 5'11, and was 6'3 PEAK. that eliminates 6'4 since it came straight from his MOUTH! Mike says on 30/May/09
5'11 seems outrageous...and YET, it WOULD explain some strange height revealing pictures of Eastwood with others. Well, once again, I ask....Does ANYONE here know the nature of these alleged back surgeries? What caused the need for them? One reason I ask is because I just started bench pressing again. I know I've read Eastwood could bench over 300 at one time. Could this be bad for one's spine? Doug says on 30/May/09
Agree with Danimal that Eastwood is nowhere near a legit 6'2" barefoot today. Have you seen how he looks compared to Tim Robbins? 4-5 inches shorter. Clint is around 6' flat today barefoot. Peak he was close to 6'4" undoubtedly as hard as it is to believe next to Robbins nowadays. Dreadful height loss. Still the man though. Peak 6'3" today 5'11" is not impossible and quite likely but still looks a little over 6' to me in shoes anyway. MIchitaka says on 30/May/09
I have seen many his film and I feel when he was young more than 192,
but now about 187. Form Japan. Danimal says on 29/May/09
Hugh 190cm says on 28/May/09
I doubt very much that Clint is 5ft11! He's now a 187cm and maybe a bit more. 6ft4 in his prime.
HAHA... No, he's not 187 today. I can VERY MUCH believe he is down to 5'11". He has been looking like he has been struggling with 6'0" for a while now. Arnold was 2" taller than him last year in a pic, was he not? mike c says on 29/May/09
Dean, I remember reading a while back that Clint stated for a magazine that he was 6'4" in prime. mike c Hugh 190cm says on 28/May/09
I doubt very much that Clint is 5ft11! He's now a 187cm and maybe a bit more. 6ft4 in his prime. Dean says on 28/May/09
Eastwood stated categorically in an interview during a golf tournament several months ago that he is now 5'11" due to numerous back surguries . He stated his prime height at 6'3" . That's from the horse's mouth . call says on 24/May/09
Was 6'4, He is 6'2 now Doug says on 21/May/09
Wayne and Eastwood looked exactly the same height to me. i had always thought both men 6'3" but having studied both of them for ages 6'4" it is then. Anonymous says on 20/May/09
THIS GUY IS AMAZING...I GOT A QUICK INTERVIEW FROM HIM AT THE SB FILM FESTIVAL THIS YEAR AND HE IS JUST SO NICE.I WOULD SAY HE IS 6'1 OR 6'2 TOPS. Tony G. says on 19/May/09
I happened to talk in person to George Kennedy a few weeks ago. He was at an autograph show in Burbank. Of course, I asked him about height. He confirmed that he is (or was) 6'4". And "maybe a little more." I then asked him about John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Dan Blocker since he has been in movies or TV shows with all three of them. He said all of them were about the same height (6'4"). The only ones he could remember who were noticeably taller were Chad Everett and James Arness. He didn't seem to know any exact figures, even his own height, and probably didn't care! mike c says on 19/May/09
In the Eiger Sanction Clint is standing face to face with George Kennedy (6'4") and they are both the same height. No doubt whatsoever, Clint, 6'4" at peak. Doug, as I discussed many times on the Wayne site, the surroundings affect our perception of an actor's height. That's why Clint sometimes looks shorter than what we expect him to be. Easy 2"+ taller than Lee Van Cleef in the sphagetti westerns. mike c Doug says on 19/May/09
Maybe it was the ground but I saw 1/2 inch difference. Eastwood then I now officially declare a legit 6'4" at peak, the proff that he was around 6'4" is overwhelming. Often looked more like a 6'2.5"-6'3" to me though. Bri says on 19/May/09
Doug. Watch Eiger Sanction. Clint & Walcott are eye to eye in an early scene where Walcott gets his ass kicked (as usual!). Both in dress shoes, both exactly equal in height ie both 6'4" Doug says on 18/May/09
A weak 6'2"? Eastwood is more like a weak 6'1" nowadays. I've lost count of the times he has looked 6'-6'1" in recent years compared to guys like Tim Robbins etc. Doug says on 18/May/09
Heres something interesting. Just watched Joe Kidd from 1972 and watched Eastwood walking side by side with Gregory Walcott who is listed at 6'4". Eastwood had boots on, the sheriff had flatter dress shoes and both men were a very similar height but to me it looked pretty clear that Walcott was a little taller than Eastwood by about half an inch. Accounting for footwear compared to Walcott Eastwood looked a strong 6'3", 6'3.5" I'd say. He was undoubtedly a little shorter than Walcott. Eastwood in that film was only about 1.5 inches taller than 6'2" Don Stroud too again backing up the 6'3.5". The 192cm looks about right in Joe Kidd anyway. GUK says on 13/May/09
Doug. Holliwood has always used small doorframes for male actors in westerns and large ones in shots of women to make them look petite. I was told that on the Universal studios tour some years ago as they pointed out the tricks on some of the sets Hugh 190cm says on 13/May/09
Clint is now officialy a weak 6ft2 guy. RisingForce says on 12/May/09
clint was atleast as tall as 6-4 donald sutherland in kelly's heroes. ross says on 9/May/09
His peak 192cm. Now he is 187-188cm but not shorter. Morgan Freeman is taller than him today and he is 189-190cm. Davis says on 6/May/09
I Read in an old magazine he was 6ft5 when young Jervis says on 2/May/09
James Cromwell is 6ft7" not 6ft5". Doug says on 2/May/09
Ya know. The more I focus on Clint the more I'm starting the believe he was the full 6'4" barefoot at peak. Standing underneath a 6'8" likely doorframe with boots and hat he was only 1 inch off the door frame in Josey Wales. This means with cowboy boots and a hat he was in the 6'7" range. Take away the hat and the boots the man was undoubtedly minimum 6'3", likely 6'4". in Josey Wales he looked every inch of 6'4" legit. In some scenes he gave a 6'6" impression with certain camera angles. Daniel says on 1/May/09
I think Rob has him correct, 1.85m now, 1.93m (at least) peak Hugh 190cm says on 1/May/09
6ft1.5 nowadays. He's had a long history of injuries which may have resulted in height loss. From watching his western movies I can see 6ft4. In the 80's and 90's he still looked 6ft3+ next to guys like Jim Carrey (6ft1.5-6ft2) and Morgan Freeman (6ft2.5-6ft3). Today MR. Eastwood is still well over 6ft. Maybe not the commanding 6ft4 man that he was but a genuinely tall man none the less. I think there is a chance this guy could be 6ft2 even. If he hadn't had all those injuries I reckon this guy would still be close to 6ft4 today. miko says on 1/May/09
Eastwood is really struggling here next to a slouching 6"5 James Cromwell.
6"1 (185cm) is the maximum he can be today. Any taller is unrealistic. Even under 6"0 guys such Pitt/Schwarzenegger are taller today with lifts. Bigman says on 30/Apr/09
Well Anyway. I'd say he is 6'0 1/2" today actually. Anonymous says on 30/Apr/09
Nowadays Eastwood is around 187cm. The proof is in films like Gran Torino. Sam says on 30/Apr/09
It said 6'3", Bigman. Anonymous says on 29/Apr/09
6ft = 72 inches = 182.88cm
So anyone in the 182 cm range most of the day is essentially 6ft. Bigman says on 29/Apr/09
I think in " Gran Torino" his physical sheet has him down at 6'1". Luis says on 29/Apr/09
Thank you again Doug. I can see that you're a good observator in heights and you've answered all my doubts. I suppose people here look at me as a very tall boy because I'm the tallest person in my family and between my friends too. In addition, I often wear a mountain boots which give me the height of 186 cm. Barefoot 1.82, with trainers 1.84 more or less and with these boots 1.86 cm...Yes, the three are high heights here in Spain.
Sometimes, the height's appearance of people depends on their body construction. I have seen people who are 5'11" who looks taller. Maybe because they're very slim, or with good musculature, you know. For example, I have very long legs (more or less is the same case as David Beckham, his legs seem too long) and this helps to look taller. A lot of people who are not expert in height tell me that I should be near of 190 cm!!! Very often is the appearance of the body construction, I've seen people who are 5'11'' (180 cm) who seems taller than people who are 6'2'' (by sepparate, of course, not one next to other)
For example, I used to think that Ving Rhames was a giant of 6'3", and when I saw in a lot of webs (including this) that he's not over 180 cm, I was surprised. Why? Because his great musculature helps very much to look bigger.
By the way, I have also commented in the heights of Ving Rhames, Jim Carrey, John Travolta and David Beckham. Take a look, if you want, specially David Beckham because there are a lot of comments about spanish football players. I gave my opinion there, because here in Spain is incredible how people exaggerate the heights. Take a look, maybe you find it interesting.
Thank you again. Doug says on 29/Apr/09
Yes you will be considered a strong 5'11" if you are 181-182cm and never fall below 181cm and a weak 6'0. Alex on this website is what you'd call a strong 6'0 in that by the end of the day barefoot he as far as I'm aware doesn't fall under 6'. You will be taller in the morning than in the evening I shrink 3/4 of an inch every day. Most legit 5'11.5" guys will pull off the 6'1" in good boots/shoes. A lot of men around your height, Bruce Willis, Leo DeCaprio, Vin Diesel, Justin Timberlake, John Malkovich, David Beckham, Dave Grohl, Arnold Schwarzennegger today perhaps etc will pull off the 6'1" at times but will often look a legit 6' to most people. Most of those above with perhaps the exception of David Beckham would be considered a "strong 5'11" pretty much grazing 6'. Luis says on 28/Apr/09
Doug: Yes, you're right and you have reason in the mayority of things. Americans come from England people (you know that better than me, I suppose) so a great percentage should be descendants of Scottish and European people in general. I didn't know anything about the origins of Sutherland or Eastwood, and thanks one more time for the information. I didn't know that about Croatians. You're right also in the height of Prince Felipe, he's about 197 cm without doubt. He dwarfs everybody.
In the other hand, yes, here is Spain 5'9" is the average height for men. And I'm not sure, but I think it has increased 1 cm, to 177 cm more or less. The new generations are taller, as you said before. I often see 15 year-old children with the same height as me (I'm 24 and I'm a weak 6'0 barefoot and 6'1" with shoes or trainers).
Another question, Doug, please: I checked my height in the pharmacy machine three times since last Christmas, different days. First time, the ticket said 181 cm. The last two others, 182 cm (The three times barefoot). I don't care about my real height barefoot is 181 or 182 cm (I suppose 182, two against one...you know) My question is: Is a 181-182 cm person what you called in your system a "weak 6'0"? I'm not very sure.
Thanks again, partner. Doug says on 28/Apr/09
Also remember Luis that a massive percentage of Americans correct me if I'm wrong I believe it is in the region of at least 80% have European ancestry, particularly German, English, Irish. The other proportion is Hispanic or blacks. Most of the American population today are there because of the emmigration to the new world of their greatgreat great grandparents etc to America in the 19th century, the Dutch even earlier in the 18th century. Doug says on 28/Apr/09
Eastwood isn't "blonde" as such but he still fits the bill of the Northern European, notably tall, blue eyes, pale complexion lighter brown hair etc. Of course he was called "blondie" by Tuco, and referred to be Lee van Cleef as "golden haired" but hardly Peter Schmeicel eh? Doug says on 28/Apr/09
Interestingly Luis, Eastwood has Scots-Irish ancestry so does Donald Sutherland (well Scottish I know of anyway). A lot of Scots-Irish have Scandinavian ancestry from the Vikings when they landed in Scotland and Ireland but it is complex as it is mixed mixed Celts etc. The tall blue eyed fair haired guys, I wouldn't doubt for a second that both Eastwood and Sutherland have the genes. Doug says on 28/Apr/09
Hey Luis. I'm from the UK but I have Scandinavian ancestry which are taller on average. Interesting as Felipe, Prince of Asturias is 6'5.5". He must be regarded as a giant in Spain. Thats huge anywhere in the world. Surpised 5'9" is average when I went it was more 5'6", younger generaiton is taller though. Actually USA is not known for its height or the UK either, you are somewhat right about Germans and Swedes (and Norwegians and Danes) but it is the Dutch and Croatians who are known especially for being tall. Luis says on 27/Apr/09
Doug, thanks for the information. As I said before, I'm a spanish boy and I didn't know that USA were so famous in people's great height, in this case USA should have the same height popularity as Germany or Sweden, I suppose.
Here in Spain the average height for men is 175-176 cm (5'9" in your system) more or less. I don't know where are you from (USA? England?) but I'm sure that you understand me. Doug says on 27/Apr/09
Luis if you are a legit 5'11.5" in Spain you will be considered particularly tall as you will be nearly 6'1" in shoes. In many parts of Italy, particularly in the south too this is considered very tall. I'm 6'2" barefoot in the morning and am well built and when I went to Italy and Spain with my parents I've had restaurant waiters and bus drivers etc comment saying what a massive son they have. The thing is I'm THAT big not really, some 6'4"-6'6" fellas I've met dwarf me, I just am compared to a lot of the guys on the street there and stand out!!. I don't often get comments in the UK but in Spain and Italy people seem to look at me as huge! It was the same in Indonesia where the men are even shorter. Yes Eastwood and Sutherland were a little over 190cm barefoot at peak, Eastwood today is no more than 186cm though as an old man. Sutherland is likely 188cm today.Both men were and still are very tall for their age. You rarely see 80 year old men over 6 foot. Doug says on 27/Apr/09
Eastwood was definately not 6'5" at peak. 6'4" max. filmfan says on 25/Apr/09
I've seen the Hudson clip. It's included in a Clint Eastwood documentary. They do look similar in height. Until recent yrs Eastwood has looked about 6'4'' to me. I mean it's possible he was 6'3'' but I can't see him being any shorter than this. Mike says on 24/Apr/09
What are these reports about Eastwood having back problems? I've never read that until these posts. Daniel says on 24/Apr/09
So you guys are saying Clint was 6'5'' peak? I wouldn't discard it, but many people here would disagree. Luis says on 24/Apr/09
I have a doubt: All the celebrities's heights in this web are their height barefoot? Or with any lifts?
I'm surprised. I'm spanish (so excuse my english if it is not very good) and I couldn't imagine the height of some of them. Here in Spain I haven't seen old men taller than me (I'm 182 cm barefoot, so 185 cm with shoes or trainers). And I'm surprised about Jack Palance, Donald Sutherland or Clint Eastwood, all of them are over 190 cm!!!! It's clear that it depends on the country, but here everyone tell me that I'm huge (and I'm slim, not muscular or bulky). I would like to see this people looking at this 3 men, for example, hahaha.
Glenn, Mammun, or someone, please answer with mi question at the beginning, please. And congratulations for the web!!! Doug says on 24/Apr/09
I didn'y even say Hudson wore lifts earlier in his career. I said he was a legit 6'5% at peak. What I did say is that in the Reagan picture where he looks 6'6" he was wearing lifts on that day (according to some source) due to his ill health and decline. Doug says on 24/Apr/09
Adam it was in 1984 when his health was failing with AIDS. I didn't say it somebody said below he had lost height by the 1980s and with his ill health wore lifts before his death. I found it hard to believe myself but he had 5-6 inches on Reagan in 1984. Jervis says on 23/Apr/09
The film is called NEVER SAY GOODBYE and it was made in 1956. adam says on 23/Apr/09
Doug says on 22/Apr/09
Mmm the more I think about it seems probable Clint was a legit 6'4" barefoot. If he is matching Rock Hudson in his prime he aint a hair under 6'4" tall ****! Hudson was 6'4.5"-6'5" at peak, looked 6'6" next to Reagan in the 80s but is was reported he was wearing lifts.
I disagree there. Rock Hudson wore lifts? Nonsense. Hudson was very very likely at least 6-5 peak. If Clint really was about the same height as Hudson in the 50s then there`s no question about the 6-4 thing. Doug says on 22/Apr/09
Mmm the more I think about it seems probable Clint was a legit 6'4" barefoot. If he is matching Rock Hudson in his prime he aint a hair under 6'4" tall ****! Hudson was 6'4.5"-6'5" at peak, looked 6'6" next to Reagan in the 80s but is was reported he was wearing lifts. Daniel says on 22/Apr/09
peteyork is right. Neeson must be (or have been) easily 6'5'' Jervis says on 22/Apr/09
I have seen a clip from the fifties were Clint is standing beside Rock Hudson,and both men are the same hight.Has anybody else seen this clip?if so could they try and put it on this site.If everybody saw it they would change there mind about Clints hight or maybe think Hudson was not as tall as they taught. Brad says on 22/Apr/09
6' 4" 1950's to the late 70's easy. Leone made him look like a building in Spain in '65. 6' 6" in boots and even taller looking with the shots up. peteyork says on 21/Apr/09
clint lost an inch between 1968 coogan's bluff and dead pool 1985 wheen neeson had about an inch on him, by the unforgiven with morgan he was about 6'3, morgan has a good two inches on clint now.
clint more than any other actor you can trace his height loss and yet people still keep saying he was only 6'2. that makes wayne 6'1, jimmy stewart 6 and 1/2, caine 5'11 1/2, marvin 5'11 1/2, hudson 6'2 to 6'3. sutherland 6'1 1/2, goodberg 6'2 1/2 peteyork says on 21/Apr/09
guys you are nuts quoting 6'2 when he was young, lee marvin is supposed to be 6'2 and is at leat 6'1, look at the movie paint your wagon, you know where lee marvin sinks under a wandering star. Clint has at least two may be three inches on lee marvin. nobody on here has ever argued lee marvin beening under 6'1. Clint has back problems for years he has lost 4 inches. neeson quote below about clint being at least 3 inches shorter sums up the point better than anything. clint was about inch to half inch shorter in the dead pool in his fifties when he already had back problems. people argue neeson is 6'4 to 6'5 some 6'3 1/2 when slouching. However when he was interviewed by conan o'brien quoted as 6'4 1/2 to 6'3 1/2 he was obviously taller. Doug says on 21/Apr/09
Didn't look 6'4" in Dirty Harry? Are you kidding? His co-star cop in it Reni Santoni is listed at 6'3". Eastwood had two inches on him. I thought Santoni looked around 6'2" and Eastwood 6'4". If you see Eastwood stand underneath a doorway you can see 6'4"! Jervis says on 20/Apr/09
Yes the Clint in the Humphreys clip looks 6ft4".it looks to me he has lost 4 inches since then,sometimes i think maybe its not the same person,maybe there are two Clints.Up to his early sixties he still looked 6ft2 and half and you could say then he lost about 1 inch because of age.But to lose another 2 inches since then is a bit strange to me.To see a man who looked clearly taller than average sized actors like Matt Damon now being only slightly taller just dose not add up. Doug says on 20/Apr/09
People also forget how broad framed Eastwood was. Check out his torso size compared to Humphreys. Eastwood was slim with good muscle tone but still had a broad chest and shoulders. He had to weigh 195-205 pounds which is still quite light for a man his size. Doug says on 20/Apr/09
My estimate was always around 190cm barefoot. 193cm (6'4") in shoes, and 194-5 in cowboy boots. Same as John Wayne. If Clint was 6'4" barefoot why wasn't he around 6'6" in cowboy boots thats the question I always ask. I thought he looked between 6'4" and 6'5" in cowboy boots in the Dollars trilogy but not more than this. 6'2.5-6'3" would seem a more likely barefoot estimate which would explain how he constantly looked 6'4". Doug says on 20/Apr/09
John Humphreys is minimum 5'8" I thought he always looked nearer 5'10" myself. Doug says on 20/Apr/09
Yes filmfan it really is a shocking height loss. If you see Eastwood standing next to Robbins he is 4-5 inches shorter and you would think it dead impossible to think the man was ever even close in height to Robbins. You'd think maybe 6'2" but definately not 6'4". Yet the evidence is there to suggest he was around this height. Doug says on 20/Apr/09
Jervis maybe. Eastwood always looked 6'4" in shoes. I always thought he was 6'2.5-6'3" barefoot similar to John Wayne. However seeing him barefoot standing underneath a 6'8" doorframe plus how he often looks I see a legit 6'3"-6'4" barefoot at peak. One thing is clear though he was definately above the 6'2" mark barefoot at peak. Somewhere between 189 and 193. Lenad says on 20/Apr/09
In dirty Harry he doesnt look 6'4 at all more like 6'2 adam says on 19/Apr/09
I see at least eight inches. Clint had to be 6-4 then. Jervis says on 18/Apr/09
If John Humphrys was 5ft8" then Clint was 6ft4" and has shrunk about 4 inches.But the question is,was John Humphrys 5ft8"?I Think Clint was 6ft2"and half to 6ft3"max peak.He started to shrink from his mid sixties and is now, bear foot about 5ft11"and a half,and just over 6ft in shoes. filmfan says on 18/Apr/09
I reckon he was probably about 6'4'' when young. He looked tall in too many films and with too many other tall actors for his height to be exaggerated. The only slight doubt I have is caused by the photos of Tim Robbins and Eastwood together at the time of Mystic River. Robbins is 6'5'' yet towers over Eastwood in the photos. There looks like 4 to 6 inches height difference. I know people shrink with age but the difference is massive. Someone has mentioned this below I think and this does raise a little doubt to my mind as to Eastwood being 6'4''. Doug says on 18/Apr/09
The standard door frame in my house and pretty much most houses IS 6'8". Clint is within four inches of the door frame in most of his films so it is obvious he was in the 6'4" range even if only in shoes. Doug says on 18/Apr/09
Pete does Clint at 6'4" really look a myth in the JOhn Humpreys clip on YouTube in 1967? Doug says on 18/Apr/09
Woaahh excellent clip Terry. Jon Humphreys is a Welsh presenter, he looks a lot better now as old with silver hair than he did then! If Humphreys was 5'8" Clint is obviously a clear 6'4". He looks massive. I see a clear 8 inch height difference, a tiny bit under a head taller. Doug says on 18/Apr/09
I definately think Clint was 6'4", in shoes anyway. Perhaps a strong 6'3" barefoot and with his quiff gave a full 6'4" impression, dunno -I don't think he looked 6'5" in shoes he looked 6'4" in footwear. Doug says on 18/Apr/09
Well I was watching Dirty Harry yesterday and watching Clint walking about and he was definately in the 6'4" range. In the office he stood around 4 inches under the door frame which is 6'8". He had very long legs, vergin on looking lanky if it wasn't for a good build. When you look at Clint he seemed to have those two extra inches which is enough to give somebody a "very tall" status, markedly above 6'1" or 6'2" normally "tall" guys. He was definately minimum 6'3" barefoot no doubts, I don't think its impossible that he was around 6'4". The strange thing though is how he often didn't look it, you see the Neeson pictures and Neeson towered above Clint. Today Tim Robbins makes it virtually impossible to think that Clint was ever in the 6'4" range as he dwarfs Eastwood but he has lost a huge amount of height somehow. Terry says on 17/Apr/09
Not sure if anyone has seen this clip from 1967. Jon Humphrys is a reporter from the UK and he is "a modest 5 foot 8", as he has said in interviews. Look how tall the big guy is! 6'4" no bother
Click Here Pete says on 17/Apr/09
Yeah, this picture really exposes the 6 feet four myth. Neeson is around 6 four and a half, certainly 6 four, and he slumps. Click Here Jervis says on 16/Apr/09
I just measured the door frame in my apartment and it is 80 inches which is 6ft8 inches.Also I just saw some photos of Clint on the set of his new film,he is standing beside Matt Damon,there almost the same hight,maybe Clint is about 1 inch taller.That would mean he is now about 5ft11.Even if he was 6ft2"peak it still means he has shrunk by 3 inches which is a lot. Jervis says on 16/Apr/09
I just measured the door frame in my apartment and it is 80 inches which is 6ft8 inches.Also I just saw some photos of Clint on the set of his new film,he is standing beside Matt Damon,there almost the same hight,maybe Clint is about 1 inch taller.That would mean he is now about 5ft11 dityharry says on 16/Apr/09
rising force what the hell you on man 6'8" door frames. When did this ever happen. Everybody knows the standard universal door frame size is aprox 6'6". But everybody knows it's more like 6'5". Oh and another thing. Everything is downsized in the movies and TV. This has been done for years. Hollywood stsarted this great illusionary trick way back in the early forties. This made all the stars taller and bigger than they really are.
Clint Eastwood was 189cm at his peak and is around 185.5cm now. He was never 6'4". Anonymous, I shake your hand man you know the real deal. Doug says on 15/Apr/09
Clint at 6'1" and slumped and Pitt at 5'10.5" in his 3 inch shoes 6'1.5" and military posture explains it, tip toe tricks also aren't an impossibility especially in the ones where he looks notieceably taller. Doug says on 15/Apr/09
JP, Pitt it may shock you lives in lifts and along with guys like Stallone is one of the best known lift wearers in the business but he typically hides it very well see his height page. Those pictures with CLint, Pitt was wearing his biggest munsters which gave him around 3 inches on his barefoot height (as he knew he'd be standing next to a six footer guy). In some pictures at that event CLint is clearly taller I think its to do with posture. Mike says on 14/Apr/09
...For what it's worth, Clint Walker had heart problems some years back. So, he's not exactly "healthy". As for Eastwood, a simple Google search of his past will show he started out as a stunt double for the famous ventriloquist dummy, Mortimer Snerd. 4'5, tops. Anonymous says on 14/Apr/09
Eastwood's height has always been exaggerated. There's no doubt that he's a tall man, but even at his peak he was never 6 feet four. The impression of great height is created by his lean frame and, when he had fuller hair, by the elevating effect of his famous quiff. If measured on a height chart, or standing next to another actor, his hair would have added as much as two inches to his perceived height. His maximum height , in his cotton socks, is 6 feet two or 6 feet two and half inches. The evidence is clear when you look at him in films from the 70s and 80s, when you assume he has not yet succumbed to the shrinkage that may well have knocked a couple of inches off his frame. You will see many many examples where he is standing next to people who are approximately the same height, or a little bit shorter, as well as scenes where he is filmed with people who clearly have the edge in height. If Eastwood were really 6 feet four, how many people would you see in a film who are taller than he is? Very few indeed. The next time you see him on screen look at a scene where he's walking past people, perhaps along a street, down a corridor or as part of a group. If he's 6 feet four, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the average American male is 6 feet plus. Finally, take a look at this telling picture. Liam Neeson is 6 feet five, and he towers over Eastwood. There's a good three to four inches difference, even allowing for Neeson being marginally in the foreground. Click Here Hugh 190cm says on 13/Apr/09
I think Eastwood might be 6ft2 in the morning nowadays. I still think Eastwood was close to 6ft4 in the late 80's. Hence why he looked 2 inches taller than Jim Carrey in the Dead Pool. JP says on 12/Apr/09
I don't doubt this estimate, but I'm rather confused because I saw a load of photos online with Brad Pitt and clint together and in nearly all of them they look the same height and in some Brad Pitt is taller, does Pitt were lifts anybody know? i was under the impression that he didn't but at 5'11" he's doing pretty well to look 6'1" or more. Doug says on 12/Apr/09
I always thought 6'3". If he was legit 6'4" barefoot he was an unusually tall man. I guess there is a lot of evidence to suggest he actually was 6'4" at peak but thats a huge amount of height to lose. RisingForce says on 10/Apr/09
I was just watching Play Misty For Me and Clint is in very flat shoes throughout the movie and even barefeet at one point. You can tell when he walks through doorways(6-8) that he was around 6-4. Clint in barefeet dwarfed 5-8 listed Jessica Walter in flat shoes by easily 7, 8 inches.
I rarely comment on this page because I think Rob has him listed correctly. Clint was 6-4. Anonymous says on 10/Apr/09
If you look at the Cemetry scene in the dead pool Clints standing on an incline while Neeson is further down the slope however later when they are walking together side by side and the camera's following them you can see they are both actually pretty much both even with one another. I'd say 6ft 4" for Eastwood. More in the 6.1 region these days. Hugh 190cm says on 10/Apr/09
Looks level with Donald. I'd say 187cm. Donald Sutherland is about 6ft2 or 6ft2.5. Hugh 190cm says on 10/Apr/09
184cm is very low for Eastwood. He still looks at least 6ft1 and I'd say he's still close to 6ft2. I'd say Clint is in the 186cm-187cm range nowadays and will stay in that range for another ten years. Doug says on 10/Apr/09
Interestingly check out how Rock Hudson looks in comparison to Reagan and then check out how Eastwood looks in comparison to Reagan. Hudson was WAY taller than Eastwood. Eastwood only had two inches on Reagan. Hudson had at least four inches and towered him, Eastwood didn't. I'm beginning to seriously doubt Eastwood was ever a legit 6'4" barefoot now as this would put Hudson at 6'6" or 6'7". If Hudson was 6'5" Eastwood was 6'3", at least by the 80s. Patrick says on 9/Apr/09
Doug: juts one word "yes"! He's simply incredibla in more ways than one. He never aged and will never do. To think people like Clark Gable, Gary Cooper and so many stars could have lasted much longer if only they ahd adopted a better way of life! No smoking, carefully eating and drinking. Genes are certainly in Clint's side as they are for the "other" big Clint...Walker!
I don't think Clint E. will shrink any longer. He's NO James Garner! Doug says on 7/Apr/09
I think Eastwood will be around in the next 10 years. It is in his genes to live into his 90s as both his parents supposedly did and you must admit he is in fantastic shape for a 78 year old man. Doug says on 4/Apr/09
Yeah he did look extremely tall in some of the old westerns I agree, but I think the impression was enhanced by the height the cowboy boots and hat gave him. You put a 6'3" big man like Eastwood in big boots and a hat and the man will be looking enormous. I think Eastwood was pushing 6'5" in those cowboy boots especially in the Dollars trilogy, can't seen I've seen him looking 6'6" except in the odd scene. Therefore if he was 6'3" barefoot, with two inch cowboy boots and a hat he looks extremely tall. Also remember throughout the 60s.70s and 80s Eastwood wore his hair bouffed up and along with his strong forehead also made him look taller. The man consistently looked 6'4"ish to me in regular shoes as did John Wayne. I think both guys were around 6'3"ish either slightly below or over barefooted. RisingForce says on 4/Apr/09
Eastwood is closer to the camera than Sutherland, which is why he looks taller than he really is. Standing side by side, equal distances from the camera it's clear that Sutherland would be taller. Hello says on 4/Apr/09
Click Here
He's the same height as Donald Sutherland today, maybe even a hair taller. Maybe we need to rethink his height, or rethink Sutherland's height? Hello says on 4/Apr/09
Clint was 6'4" at his peak, PERIOD. He looks extremely tall in those old westerns, said he was 6'4", and everyone believed him because they were all craning their necks to look up at him.
You start losing height in your 40's, so even in the 70's Clint was losing height. Definitely by the 80's he was getting shorter, and it just continued gradually from then and accelerated in the last decade. Alex says on 3/Apr/09
Lol yea, the dude just shrank 3 full inches. I mean ya, 3 inches is medically recognized as the most extreme amount of height a man loses due to old age, and it is suggested at the age of 90 +(While many credible medical sources express 2 inches as the max), but its Clint Eastwood. I mean he used to be SIX FOUR , but now he is SIX ONE....3 FULL inches....ok. Clark says on 2/Apr/09
Sorry Big King.....but under certain conditions and illness like cancer. Human being can lose a lot of their original height. I would double check your sources or consult a dr. specializing in geriatrics or orthopedics. Bob says on 1/Apr/09
Clint Eastwood was 6' 3 1/2" at his peak. Due to fairly recent back surgery he is now about 6'2". He still works out and stays in great shape though for 79 years old in May. Mike says on 1/Apr/09
Rusty; Yes, you see him walking on the western streets. But, it's a technique known as "forced perspective", whereby an individual in the foreground is filmed at the same focus as people way in the backround...making the person in the foreground appear much taller, on screen. Even the orangutang in Every Which Way But Loose was actually a 5 pound baby chimp, so as to make 4'5 Eastwood look bigger than he was or is. Doug says on 1/Apr/09
Anybody who honestly thinks Eastwood was 6'4"-6'4.5" barefoot at peak Google image Eastwood and Robbins cache.daylife.com and try to imagine how it could be humanly possible for a man to shrink THAT much compared to a man (Robbins) who stands legitimately at this height now. Sure Eastwood has lost an unusual amount of height but THAT much? Doug says on 1/Apr/09
Google image Eastwood and Robbins at cache.daylife.com. Extremely difficult to believe Eastwood was ever in the same sort of range. You;d think it humanly possible for the man to shrink THAT much, by 4-5 inches. I bet Eastwood would have still been around 1.5 inches shorter than 6'4.5" barefoot Robbins at peak. Doug says on 1/Apr/09
Mmm the more I've thought about it and watched his films, the more I seriously doubt Eastwood was ever 6'4" barefoot. A legit 6'4" barefoot is really borderline giant it is really thats heading into basketball player territory. The man was very tall granted but I think it more likely he was around 190 and 193 in shoes. Big King says on 31/Mar/09
Well, there is a source needed that he has lost almost 4 inches!!! Did he have any surgeries or so? A human isn't able to lose 3 inches, even he becomes a creepy, old man. I read that a human can only lose 2 inches if he gets older. Rusty says on 30/Mar/09
Harold says on 28/Mar/09
I just saw Eastwood in a photo with Herve Villechaise. Eastwood is one...maybe two inches taller. Eastwood was never more than 4'5. He stood on a table in every movie he was in. FACT.
That is lie, I saw him walking in those old westerns and I see him walking on the street once in a while. Now id say he looks 6'1" and at peak a strong 6'3", 6'4" out of bed maybe. mike c says on 29/Mar/09
Come now, Harold. It's a known fact that Herve was 1" taller than Clint. Just read the Inquirer! Harold says on 28/Mar/09
I just saw Eastwood in a photo with Herve Villechaise. Eastwood is one...maybe two inches taller. Eastwood was never more than 4'5. He stood on a table in every movie he was in. FACT. Hugh 190cm says on 28/Mar/09
Eastwood looked like a 6ft3+ guy in the ninties. Today he's around 6ft2 or possibly a shade below. Still tall. 6ft4 as a young man. RisingForce says on 27/Mar/09
I've seen In The Line Of Fire many times, one of my favorite Eastwood movies. I also liked The Unforgiven quite a bit. I agree he can look 6'4" there. He did seem shorter than 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool which was 4-5 years before. But I didn't see Neeson's footwear, people forget that even tall men wear boots. not to look taller but because they like the style. Neeson could have easily had a footwear advantage. Eastwood seemed a lot taller than Neeson in the Cemetary scene in that movie though, but that was outside where ground levels will really vary. Doug says on 25/Mar/09
DId you see "In the Line of Fire", Rising, and "Unforgiven". Eastwood was taller than Morgan Freeman by at least an inch and seemd to have four inches on his 6' co-star in In the Line of Fire. In 1993 Eastwood still looked near 6'4", in shoes anyway. However compared to Ralph Moeller and Arnie in 1994 he barely looked 6'3" in a photo I've seen. RisingForce says on 24/Mar/09
Jervis, I suspect Clint had lost height and was only 6'3" by the time of that film in 1990. Clint looked shorter than 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool(1988) and I saw a 1993 article where Clint was listed 6'3". Sheen also could be the 5'10" that he claims or he may have worn lifts.
Regardless I think that Clint was 6'4" peak, 6'3" by the late 80's/early 90's and now 6'1" max. Sam says on 23/Mar/09
In Gran Torino, a file on Clint's character lists him as 6'3" Cedric says on 22/Mar/09
He sure looks tall in Gran Torino. I buy anything from 6ft to 6'2.5 for him. #(Hugh)# says on 22/Mar/09
6ft4 in his prime is correct. I think nowadays he's around 6ft1 to 6ft2. Doug says on 22/Mar/09
Yeah I agree Jervis but I think Jeff Bridges has always looked nearer 6'2 at peak, thats what I thought he was. Its difficult to see how Eastwood could have been over 6'3" barefoot. Most people say "Clint almost was 6'4" but surely they judge him by how they regularly viewed him in boots/shoes. Yes I believe the man was around 6'4" throughout much of his career but in shoes. He has always looked like a 6'3" guy to me which is still particularly tall but I'm pretty certain he was always measured in sneakers/shoes. He was undoubtedly taller than a flat 6'2" at peak for sure though. Anonymous says on 19/Mar/09
Not 186 cm, Doug...6'2" at his peak...this means the 186-188 cm range...And yes Jervis, you're almost right...in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot Clint Eastwood is max 1'1/2"- 2'(3,75-5,1 cm)taller than Jeff Bridges(which is 183-184 cm in my opinion,not 6'1") Jervis says on 19/Mar/09
It seems to me that almost all the people on this site think clint was less than 6ft4" peak.I think his peak should be changed to 6ft3".I was watching the rookie last night in which clint stared with Charlie Sheen.It was from 1990 so clint would have been 60 years old.If Sheen was 5ft9" as listed on this site there is no way clint was 7" taller than him.In fact clint only looked 6ft1"next to sheen sometimes.If you did not no how tall Sheen was and you heard Clint was 6ft4" you would think Sheen was at least 5ft11"as I did when i saw the film in the cinema in 1990.Also in WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART he did not look 4" taller than the 6ft"Jeff Fahey,or in TUNDERBOLT AND LIGHT FOOT he did not look 3" taller than the 6ft1" Jeff Bridges. Jervis says on 19/Mar/09
It seems to me that almost all the people on this site think clint was less than 6ft4" peak.I think his peak should be changed to 6ft3".I was watching the rookie last night in which clint stared with Charlie Sheen.It was from 1990 so clint would have been 60 years old.If Sheen was 5ft9" as listed on this site there is no way clint was 7" taller than him.In fact clint only looked 6ft1"next to sheen sometimes.If you did not no how tall Sheen was and you heard Clint was 6ft4" you would think Sheen was at least 5ft11"as I did when i saw the film in the cinema in 1990.Also in WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART he did not look 4" taller than the 6ft"Jeff Fahey,or in TUNDERBOLT AND LIGHT FOOT he did not look 3" taller than the 6ft1" Jeff Bridges. Doug says on 19/Mar/09
It would appear that Clint was measured in shoes/sneakers, surely? Doug says on 19/Mar/09
I think Wayne and Eastwood were definately of a very similar height at peak though. Both were particularly tall men but in my view both men reached 6'4" in boots, Wayne perhaps 6'4.5" in boots at peak. But I have been watching a lot of films of late and it really is difficult in many films to see Wayne at a legit 6'4" it has to be said. If Eastwood was the full 6'4" peak he would regularly reach the 6'5.5-6'6" range in cowboy boots same as Wayne which in my view both men never did, I think it is pretty clear to most these guys were well below 6'6" in boots. 6'4" in boots, 6'2.5-6'3.25" barefoot it just seems to add up. Mike says on 18/Mar/09
My first reaction to Dirty Harry's post, below, was "oh, c'mon...". But you know, it would explain alot of height discrepencies. I agree with more of it than I disagree with it. Doug says on 18/Mar/09
I must admit I agree with most of what dirty harry has said below although Clint has lost more height than an inch clearly. Eastwood looked 6'4" in boots, so was a likely 6'3" without. I think hes lost nearer 2 inches today. 6'2.5" is not out of the question peak but thats a bare minimum barefoot. 191 I think is a good estimate at peak. A lot of people do judge heights by people in shoes/boots. Clint Walker again in my view was around 6'4.5" and 6'6" in boots. Doug says on 18/Mar/09
186 peak for Eastwood The Truth? Are you kidding? The man not below 190 barefoot peak for sure, he was noticeably taller than legit 6'2" guys even those closer to 6'3". Did you not see Eastwood being clearly taller than Morgan Freeman in the early 90s? The very lowest peak barefoot height for Eastwood is 189cm. Personally I think Eastwood was around 191-192 barefoot peak. He has looked too tall in most of his films not have been above 6'2". dirty harry says on 18/Mar/09
Look people please!
John Wayne was a big guy but not quite as big as we might suspect. He stood 6'2.5" bare foot.
James Garner stood 6'1" in his hey day.
Clint East wood stood about the same as the Duke 6'2.5" (Clint is around 6'1.5" now, give or take a cm at 186.7cm.
Clint Walker(yet,again another big actor, but shorter than his publicity resume says 6'6" -6'7". I dont' think so!!!. Actual height 6'4.5".
Clint's lost a bit of height, yeah, but 3 solid inches come on you people keep it real. 4cm at the most, but it's probably on 3cm, which is the average height loss any way for someone over 60.
The pictures are there to see, the films and comaparative sources are there for all to see. Let's keep it real. Clint would have stood 190cm in the morning anyway as a young man. so in 3cm trainer heels he would stand 6'4" to some one under 6ft! adam says on 18/Mar/09
Yes, I`d say Donald Sutherland was more likely 6-3½ peak. But I do believe that Clint was around 6-4. Possibly hair under or over. |
