James Garner's Height
6ft 1.5in (187 cm)
American actor, best remembered for starring in TV series The Rockford Files. In film he is well known for roles in The Great Escape, Maverick, The Notebook, Sunset, Murphy's Romance, Victor Victoria, Move Over Darling, Sayonara, and The Children's Hour. I read a tvguide article in which he commented on his height, saying: "I used to be 6-feet-3. Now, with my knees and my back, I'm 6-feet-2, maybe less."
You May Be Interested
Add a Comment 150 comments
Tyler said on 24/Aug/16
Garner was 6'1" at his peak.
movieguy said on 23/Aug/16
Garner looked pretty small in Space Cowboys compared to his co-stars, even a rapidly shrinking Eastwood. Seemed most beat up of the bunch, think there are stories of injuries from filming Rockford Files where he did many of his own stunts. I don't buy his 6'3'' claim even when young although never having met the guy who knows. He was a big fellow though over 6ft. Loved his easy going style in the Rockford Files one of the best detective series ever.
James said on 5/Aug/16
No they can't.
Tom said on 25/May/16
Nonsense. Lifts can always be spotted.
James said on 25/May/16
Special shoes are designed to look like ordinary shoes from the outside.
Tom said on 24/May/16
Garner never wore lifts. I've studied lots of photos as well as watched his movies and TV series. I never saw anything resembling built up shoes.
James said on 23/May/16
Garner was 6'1". He wore built up shoes as Jim Rockford.
said on 19/May/16
Hudson looks to be five inches taller! I think Hudson was close to being 6-6. He made Reagan look tiny. Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 19/May/16
@Sam, in that photo I agree, but now watch 12 O Clock High with Dean Jagger and Gregory Peck and now see Cash McCall with Jagger and Garner. Garner looked taller than Jagger. Jagger might have lost an inch in older age though I guess..
said on 19/May/16
Hudson may have a camera advantage here but I think anything like 6'2" or more is blown out of the water with Garner compared to Rock Hudson.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/May/16
@Arch: That looks spot on and I think Coburn might have been a strong 6ft2
Tom said on 17/May/16
I think Garner was 6-2 in his prime. But back injuries and resulting spinal compression dropped him down to where right before he died he was no more than 5-11.
Arch Stanton said on 17/May/16
Rob maybe a 6'1.75 187 might fit better? I can't see him the same height as Roger Moore.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/16
Arch Stanton said on 22/Aug/15
Most films I get more a strong 6'1" impression for him than 6 ft 2 or higher.
[Editor Rob: you may well argue 6ft 1.5 is possible for him. ]
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/16
@Rob, I have long said 187 for Garner might have been more accurate, but in fairness he could look a decent 6 ft 2 in a few films. He looked taller than 6'1.5 with Dean Jagger, but Jagger might have lost an inch by that film.
Tom said on 12/May/16
Garner never wore lifts.
Anonymous1 said on 11/May/16
...this updated height is what I always figured Garner was, based on decades of watching him with other actors who's approximate height was known.
jtm said on 9/May/16
said on 7/May/16
...if you factor that both shots feature a camera angle from that of looking up a bit, take away an inch and a half of puffed up hair, take away an inch of shoes...you've got a 1970's 6'1 Garner. No more.
Editor Rob: it's certainly arguable that mark.
said on 7/May/16
A visitor posted a link to garner against a wall chart, bearing in mind shoes/hair/perspective, what could he be?
Tom said on 20/Mar/16
Moore was six foot and Garner looks barely taller there.
James said on 19/Mar/16
Garner was 6'1" but wore lifts to look 6'3".
said on 18/Mar/16
Interesting photo with Roger Moore Click Here
James said on 18/Mar/16
Garner was six foot. He was notorious for wearing lifts.
Arch Stanton said on 16/Mar/16
In a lot of scenes in Cash McCall in fact Garner could look an inch taller than Jagger!
Arch Stanton said on 16/Mar/16
Does look very similar to Dean Jagger in Cash McCall. Difficult to tell, either could edge each other depending on the scene. Now Jagger was definitely a legit 6'2 guy peak, see him with Peck in 12 o clock high. Jagger was about 60 in Cash McCall not impossible he'd lost a bit though. Slightly under 6'2 is possible for Garner but really with Jagger in Cash McCall this looks accurate.
Tom said on 31/Jan/16
James Garner was 6'1" at his peak. He probably wore built up shoes in films.
GUY said on 13/Jan/16
In the Rockford files 1978 ep South by Southeast someone asks to confirm if he's 6'2", and he answers a more honest 6'1". Always seemed like a big guy on that show, like what a 6'1" or 6'2" guy would look in the 70's. Today in his youth he might not seem so big.
Jug said on 5/Jan/16
6'2.5 or 6'2.75 at peak. 6'2 is a little low. Looked about 6'3 next to Roger Moore.
Sam said on 12/Nov/15
IMO Garner doesn't really look taller than James Coburn, I think taking into consideration variances of posture and proximity, they look similar height. Both could have been in the 6'1.5"-6'2", on the weaker side of 6'2".
Shadow2 said on 2/Nov/15
I'm almost certain the movie was 1972's "The Carey Treatment" (with 5' 8" Jennifer O'Neill) where James Coburn's doctor character gives his height as 6' 1.5". Maybe this was Coburn's true height, but regardless, Garner's continuous apparent variation in height between 6' 1" and 6' 2" has only one explanation - footwear.
said on 13/Sep/15
Rob, he looks taller than Coburn
[Editor Rob: hard to tell...I think somebody said Coburn's character once gave 6ft 1.5 in a movie, but I've not watched to confirm it yet!]
Shadow2 said on 3/Sep/15
In one of his movies in the 1970's ("The Carey Treatment" ?) Coburn describes himself as "six foot one and a half". I've watched Garner throughout his career, starting with "Maverick", his 1960's and 70's movies, "Rockford Files", etc, etc. He was 6' 1" but occasionally measured up well (i.e. level) to 6' 2" actors and at other times not so well. The reasons for this are fairly obvious, and can be applied to many other Hollywood leading men. It can suit the role, the plot, or just the actor's attitude to himself at that precise time. Just like makeup, hairpieces, and the "cut" of clothes.
Anonymous1 said on 31/Aug/15
...I did meet Coburn, back in '83, and we stood, facing eachother, about 2 feet apart (I was a starstruck kid). I was 5.11 and 3/4ths. He edged me out a hair, but barely. He was maybe..."maybe" an inch taller....and that's being generous.
said on 22/Aug/15
Most films I get more a strong 6'1" impression for him than 6 ft 2 or higher.
[Editor Rob: you may well argue 6ft 1.5 is possible for him. ]
Arch Stanton said on 22/Aug/15
@Rob, do you think maybe high 6 ft 1 range might be more accurate for Garner? Coburn did edge him. I've been taking a good look at him of late in some of his 60s films and I think near 6'2" but maybe not quite. Perhaps 6'1.75 would be
Anonymous1 said on 4/Aug/15
...he does look about 6'2 next to Selleck in "some" Rockford scenes or photos. In others...and I would argue the majority of them, he looks at least 3 inches shorter.
jervis said on 3/Aug/15
Lost a lot of height in later life,but looked 6ft2ish with Tom Selleck.About 5ft11 in space cpwboys with 6ft2ish Clint eastwood.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Aug/15
@Arch: During The Rockford Files he could look more in that range for sure.
Near 3in shorter than a young Tom Selleck. He began to lose height quickly.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Jun/15
Increasingly I see him more as a strong 6'1".
movieguy said on 6/May/15
Watching Rockford Files at moment, Garner is definitely a pretty big guy. Quite stocky which perhaps could lead to underestimating his height. At least 6'2'' but don't think he reached full 6'3'' at any point.
DOC said on 25/Apr/15
SonnyboySlim said on 3/Mar/15
Definitely 6'1.5" in his prime, likely 6'2" but by the time he was in 8 Simple Rules and The Notebook, closer to 5'11". Great actor though - a real screen presence.
said on 17/Jan/15
Rob, I JUST saw the movie ''Maverick'' with Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster and Garner. In the very last scene of the movie, Foster's character suggests that they (Gibson and Garner) have the same height. How come?
[Editor Rob: maybe they could look within the same range, but I think garner was taller than Gibson.]
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Jan/15
He still looked tall in his later mvies
Arch Stanton said on 6/Nov/14
I dunno at 1 hr 6:22 Garner doesn't look shorter, if anything a fraction taller excluding hair.
said on 6/Nov/14
Rob check out 30:21 Click Here
James Coburn looks a bit taller. Somebody needs upgrading or downgrading a cm. Personally I think Coburn could have been a little over the 6'2" mark.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Oct/14
Nah, he never looked near 6'4" in footwear. A solid 6'2" peak, nothing more.
Arch Stanton said on 10/Oct/14
Honestly looked nothing over 6' flat in The Notebook!
said on 7/Oct/14
Rob, could he have been a little over 6ft2 in his prime?
I thought he looked near 6ft3 in The Great Escape
[Editor Rob: he did lose a good few inches, around 6ft 2 I think is still a decent shout for him.]
Dave618 said on 4/Oct/14
Garner's 6'3" measurement was probably early in the day with shoes. In an ep of Rockford, he lists his height as 6'1". There would be no logical reason for him to not list his own height with a character that was created specifically for him. Roger Moore was 6'1" based on tailors that worked for Eon (the company that made the Bond films) barefoot. Moore said when he took over for Garner on Maverick, the tailors shortened his costumes because they were Garner's. He said they shortened them 1 inch. Garner was peak 6'2" barefoot in the AM. Barefoot. During the day he probably lost about a half-inch or so, as EVERYONE on Earth does, more or less. So call Garner 6'2". But anywhere between six one and six two on a given day during up to maybe the late 80's is probable. That's fair. And that's what Rob has. These are peak heights. Everyone knows Garner lost height later on. RIP one of my favorite actors. James Garner. A class act.
Fern said on 23/Sep/14
Garner was 6'1" at his peak height.
Anonymous1 said on 1/Sep/14
I go back and forth with Garner's height. I just saw a photo of him with baseball's Ted Williams from the 60's, I gather (on a Facebook James Garner fan page), and Williams "easily" has 2 inches on him. Williams, for all I could find, is listed at 6'3.
Anonymous1 said on 20/Aug/14
Just saw the Rockford ep, Requiem For a Funny Box. Chuck McCann is in it, and, for whatever it's worth, he's listed as 6'2 and a 1/2. He's clearly taller than Garner in the episode, and I'd say by an inch or 2. Who knows.
jtm said on 13/Aug/14
definitely more 6'1 than 6'3.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Aug/14
Eddie he never looked 6 ft 3 let alone 6 ft 4! He could look 189 at times but generally he looked 6'1.5-6'2".
eddie said on 12/Aug/14
during his prime, James Garner looked like he was about 6ft4in tall
Anonymous1 said on 11/Aug/14
There is a photo of garner with Roger Moore, I see quite often. In it, Garner looks a hair taller than Moore, who admittedl stated he was 6'2 early, but more like 6'1 (in his 40's). Another photo I just saw of garner, Moore and Joan Collins in the middle, gives Moore the edge. Granted, the angle has Moore slightly closer to the camera, but not so much that one would have to take into account camera distortions. I'll let others argue their points, now, but Garner looked even with Alex Karrass (sp)in Victor/Victoria. Whatever football stats that can be sited, Karrass was slightly shorter than a slouched, 6'2 Alan Alda in a 1975 MASH. My guess for Karrass is a stout 6'1...making Garner about the same (maybe taller out of bed). And Garner was more than a couple inches shorter than Howard McGillin (listed as 6'4.5), in a 1977 Rockford. Injuries aside, I do not believe Garner shrank any by the time he was 50. After 70, it appears everything caught up with him, almost overnight.
Anonymous1 said on 10/Aug/14
...also, if others' heights are listed correctly, Garner looks 6'1 next to 6'0 Simon Oakland, and 5'11 Isaac Hayes. Certainly, neither men (Oakland and Hayes) were taller than those heights.
Anonymous1 said on 10/Aug/14
...that photo of Garner and Selleck is misleading. Watch them on The Rockford Files, and more often than not, Garner looks 3 inches shorter. He's a chunk shorter than Chuck Connors (6'5 or 6'6) in Move Over Darling. He's a hair shorter than John Dehner (6'2) in Support Your Local Gunfighter. Anyone he's acted with who's listed as 6'2, he never quuuuite looks the exact same height. I still go with 6'2 out of bed, 6'1 ish, otherwise. Never 6'3. Other factors had to have been in play for that pic with Walker. Watch Garner with Connors. Not even close.
Lebensdorf said on 7/Aug/14
Solidly 6'2, maybe 6'2.5 at peak. There is a photo of him standing next to Clint Walker. Garner looks about 3 inches shorter. If Garner was only 6'1, he would never have held up so well next to a 6'6 guy, no way. Look it up.
Sam said on 31/Jul/14
I agree that he looked closer to 6'1" (never 6'3") at times but could pass for 6'2" range enough at peak. From your comments, it sounded like a posthumous Doris Day documentary but she's still alive!
Greg said on 31/Jul/14
Just finished reading his biography (a good read). There are some interesting personal, off set pics in it. A younger garner was around 6'3". There's about an inch difference between garner and 6'4" tom selleck in a personal picture taken in 1978. As someone else commented, in the episode of maverick with eastwood there's not a whole lot of difference between their heights.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Jul/14
Sam I saw a Doris Day documentary a few weeks back and yeah he came across as a great guy in it. He found it quite difficult talking about Doris's personal life and the way she suffered from abuse from the men in her life. He never really looked 6 ft 3 but I certainly think he generally looked near 6'2, although at times he could look more 6'1 range.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Jul/14
RIP yeah. One of the most handsome actors I think Sam in his day, didn't age very well though.
said on 22/Jul/14
Funny to see him beat the tar out of a young Clint Eastwood here in a Maverick episode, Clint was pretty skinny then and it looks feasible that Garner could have really whooped him...later in the clips, they stand near each other, although Garner is leaning on the counter, there's obviously not much height difference, so Garner does look solid 6'2" range, other times he can strike me closer to 6'1".
Sam said on 21/Jul/14
RIP...I would say he could rival Rock Hudson in charm but just had a relatively less successful big-screen career, neither could really touch Cary Grant but that's not a really a knock, Garner was a cool dude and quite a man and a good guy off-screen from what I've heard. A tough year for losing some of the older greats so far.
Mark said on 20/Jul/14
RIP Mr. Garner.
Arch Stanton said on 27/May/14
I think he was still looking around 6'2" in early 80s in Victor Victoria. He looks it next to Julie Andrews and looks almost 2 inches taller than John Rhys Davies in it.
Arch Stanton said on 26/May/14
LOL. Fateful, if he was only 5 ft 11 Brando was no more than 5 ft 6!
Arch Stanton said on 26/May/14
Rob can you add In films he is best known for roles such as The Great Escape, Maverick, The Notebook, Sunset, Murphy's Romance, Victor Victoria, Move Over Darling, Sayonara, and The Children's Hour.
Robbie said on 5/Apr/14
Garner was 6'1" at his peak. Less than 5'11" now, although I heard he's in a wheelchair.
richie said on 30/Mar/14
Peak height was 6'2", 5'11" now. Was marginally shorter than 6' Tommy Lee Jones in Space Cowboys.
Arch Stanton said on 13/Mar/14
He does look 6'2 in The Children's Hour.
James said on 28/Dec/13
Garner was certainly never 6 foot 3! He was always described as six foot one in old film magazines.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Dec/13
In Rockford Files, more of a 6ft1 range guy, maybe 6ft1.5.
David said on 4/Dec/13
Garner was 6'1" at his peak, and 5'11" in old age.
pedriscovery said on 17/Nov/13
in space cowboys in the medical revision scene sutherland was taller tha all partnes and gardner the more short
Arch Stanton said on 16/Nov/13
Looks more 6'1" in The Great Escape. One of the most handsome movie stars of his day IMO. He looked almost cartoon handsome in The Great Escape. Didn't really have the charm of either Cary Grant or Rock Hudson though.
Mark said on 30/Oct/13
I know he was much taller than Peter Breck on McMillan and Wife, and Breck personally told me he was 6'2. Knowitall, did you ever meet Breck, Lee Majors or Chuck Connors? Connors was reportedly 6'5.5, as tall as or a bit taller than Hudson. I have a couple of photos of Garner (with Connors and against a height chart on Rockford), but can't figure a way to post, even with Rob's direction.
Knowitall said on 29/Oct/13
I used to see Hudson on the Universal lot back when I worked there. He appeared to be six five. He was taller than judt about anyone. Most of the time, a full head taller.
Mark said on 17/Oct/13
Wow, Knowitall, that picture says alot. When you're 5 inches taller than someone, you can just see over the top of their head (my mom was 5'7, and I'm 6 even, so I know). Hudson could easily see over Garner's head, especially if he straightened out. That makes him 5 inches taller, easy. You're right, unless he was 6'6 plus, no way Garner was ever 6'3, even in his prime. I still go with 6'1, maybe 6'2 out of bed, but that's debatable.
said on 9/Oct/13
Garner was never close to being six three. If he was, Rock Hudson was six six plus!
Arch Stanton said on 7/Oct/13
He looks 5-6 inches taller than Brando, doesn't look under 6'2" in Sayonara.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Oct/13
Looks around 189cm in Sayonara next to 174cm Brando.
Mark said on 6/Aug/13
This site has Charles Napier at 5'11. I just watched him on a season 2 episode of Rockford, last night. Garner barely looked taller. If the 5'11 claim is true, Garner was never, ever 6'3, unless he counted being measured in cowboy boots, right out of bed.
Mark said on 24/Jul/13
..I'm fairly computer illiterate and couldn't post pictures via that site, Rob. For anyone who is so inclined, in Lions, Tigers, Monkeys and Dogs / Rockford Files DVD season 6, disc one/part one, Garner as Rockford is in a police line-up. Granted, we have no way of knowing how accurate the height chart was. But, if it was accurate, and taking into account the upward angle of the camera and Garner's slight slouch, I'd put him at 6'1 in 1980. Take away the high hair and an inch for shoes, he looks 6'1 based on the height chart behind him. Also, for anyone who is so inclined, in a court room scene in Move Over Darling, Garner stands next to Chuck Connors (6'5.5). I'd put Garner at 4 inches shorter, or 6'1.
Mikey P said on 13/Jul/13
Garner is WAY shorter than Clint Eastwood (6'4") and Donald Sutherland (6'3") in 2000's "Space Cowboys". I think your 5'11" current estimate of his height is dead-on, since Tommy Lee Jones (6'0.5") is only slightly taller.
talltalez said on 16/May/13
james garner with 6' 1.5" roger moore. garner clearly looks the taller guy, by how much? who really knows from this photo?
said on 29/Apr/13
Rob, I have 2 interesting screen caps of Garner. How do I post?
[Editor Rob: try using imgur.com to upload them]
Tex said on 8/Apr/13
Met Garner at the Cowboy Hall of Fame in Oklahoma City about the time "Lonesome Dove" came out. He was easily 6'2".
Julian St. Pierre said on 9/Mar/13
Probably never 6'3" peak. 6' 1.75" more like it. Good actor and likable guy. Definately broad shoulder and having an athletic build
Mark said on 10/Dec/12
...I agree with Dave618. 6'1 for Garner, in his 40's, even pre knee surgery. How "Jimmy", "Jimbo" and "Rockfish" got to be in his 80's, I'll never know. Time is startling.
Dave618 said on 8/Dec/12
OK. I caught an episode of Rockford the other day on ME TV. It's the episode where the FBI mistakes Jim for another dude. The FBI agent describes Rockford's similiarity to the guy they want. The FBI agent says the guy Rockford is supposed to be is approximately 6'2" and Garner replies that he is 6'1".
So if Garner was actually 6'2" he probably would have switched the dialogue makinging the dude the FBI wanted 6'3", and having Rockford replie: No, I'm 6'2".
I'm now officially convinced Garner was at the very most 6'2", in the AM, out of bed, when he was young. With dress shoes this makes him 6'3" like he claimed. Many people, especially Hollywood actors, consider their legit height their height with shoes on. Why a tall guy like Garner would need to do that is mystifing. I mean, 6'2" is hardly very noticeably shorter than 6'3". It's just an inch. I'm 6'2" and my neighbor is 6'3". Only when we're standing eye to eye and equally straight is it apparent that he's slightly taller. Very slightly.
After surgeries on his knees Garner lost some height. So by the mid-70's when he filmed Rockford, he was 6'1", which he verifies in the show itself. By the time he appeared in Space Cowboys he was 6'0" tops in the AM. Now, in his early 80's, it's very probable he's what Rob claims. Although 5'11" is still fairly tall (taller than average by 2 inches), it must be odd to not be as tall as you once was. But I guess by the time you get to Garner's age you don't really give a spit about your height unless you're insane.
Lebensdorf said on 17/Nov/12
He was a robust man when he was young. He seemed about 6'2 in The Great Escape. I would say that was his peak. He was in great shape, with a well structured physique. Maybe he shrunk early, like Harrison Ford.
Copnovelist195 said on 9/Nov/12
James Garner was 6ft1 at his peak. Actors tend to be vain and throughout the Rockford files Jim maintains he's 6ft1. The star of the show could certainly be forgiven for exaggerating by an inch or two. There were certainly a few guys bigger than him. In Space Cowboys (2000), Garner didn't look too well indeed and appeared shrunken, which I though was a little sad. He's always been a good actor.
Mark said on 20/Oct/12
..I was always amazed at one Tonight Show interview where Garner said he used to be 6'3 or 6'4. Based on decades of enjoying his shows and movies, I'd never, ever put him that tall. I saw him on that Laugh-In clip, also, and he's barely taller than Carson. He's definitely a good 3 inches shorter than Selleck on Rockford, and in most scenes of Move Over Darling, a good 4 inches or more shorter than 6'6 Chuck Connors. All things considered, I put him at 6'1 peak (maybe 6'2 out of bed)...and that's pre knee and back injuries.
Dave618 said on 2/Oct/12
You maye be right, Shadow2, because I remember seeing Mitchell Ryan, who played the "General" in Leathal Weapon, guest star on Rockford the other day. Also on that episode was Charles Napier, the guy who played the Guard Lector disembowels in Silence of the Lambs. Both actors looked the same height as Garner, sometimes even slightly taller. I dashed to my computer, and Ryan and Napier are both listed as 6'0". I was astonished.
What I don't get is how the heck did Garner ever measure 6'3", even with shoes? But if Garner was max 6'1" barefoot during his prime, it makes it easier to understand how he only looks about 6' or 5'11" now.
Also, on one episode of Rockford, a guy tells Jim he looks about 6'3", and Garner replies: Nah. 6'1".
Shadow2 said on 2/Oct/12
Dave, Rob Reiner was never quite 6'2", there are plenty of pictures on the internet to prove this, ones with Morgan Freeman, his father Carl Reiner, and with Carrol O'Connor. Dick Butkus was 6'3". Garner was a maximum 6'1" on Rockford. Series regular James Luisi, who was a legit 6'2", was always taller than him on the show.
Dave618 said on 1/Oct/12
Just saw a Rockford with Rob Reiner and Dick Butkus. Reiner, when standing level with Garner, is about spot on same height. Reiner is 6'2". When Garner stands next to Butkus, who is about 6'4', he is a couple inches shorter.
When two actors are the same height, it can be hard to judge. In some scenes Garner looked slightly taller than Reiner because of how the camera is placed and where they're standing. In other scenes, Reiner has the edge. But the couple of times the camera has them equally in frame, and they are both standing close enough and erect, they look just about the same height. My conclusion stands: 6'2" in the am, 6'1" and 1/2 in the afternoon.
Mike said on 1/Sep/12
Dave618...That sounds pretty reasonable. I go with 6'1, on average, in The Rockford Files (including before all the injuries). He was barely taller than Carson in some Laugh-in skit(?) in the late 60's.
Dave618 said on 1/Aug/12
I think Garner is my height. 6'2" in the am, 6'1" and 1/2 in the pm. He was probably measured at 6'3" in the am with dress shoes or boots with thick heels. Now, I'd say he's about 6'0" or 5'11". People with knee/back injuries usually lose a lot of height in older age.
gregory lehmann said on 16/May/11
Sure love Garner from my childhood. But I wasn't aware until after Tony Randall guessed him as "What's My Line?" "mystery guest" in 1964 he and Tony are from Oklahoma. (Garner attended the University of Oklahoma,Tony's from Tulsa University,who it looks like will return to the WAC next month with Houston,Arkansas State,North Texas State,and probably Northern Colorado.) Also got tipped "Brink Of Hell" (TV/video title for "Toward The Unknown," Garner's "baby teeth" movie) just went DVD. If so,I'm going to snatch it!
Shadow2 said on 18/Jan/11
As I mentioned on Coburn's page, the actor once gave his height in a 1972 movie as 6'1.5". This might explain why 6'1" Garner didn't have to wear lifts when they worked together. But Garner often did not boost his height when he worked with very tall actors in movies, such as 6'5.5" Chuck Connors ("Move Over Darling") and 6'6" Alan Napier ("36 Hours"). But he seemed to prefer to be 6'2" with actors of that actual height, such as Dean Jagger ("Cash McCall") and Edward Andrews ("The Thrill of it all").
Mark said on 8/Jan/11
...look at Garner with Chuck Connors in 1965's Move Over Darling. Garner looks a good deal shorter than 6'5 Connors. I met Coburn, face to face, in '83 on a trip to Hollywood. I have no idea if he'd shrunk by then, but he was just over my, then, 5'11.5. Definitely not 6'2. I just always put Garner at 6'1, tops.
Shadow2 said on 2/Jan/11
Having seen a bit more "Maverick" since my earlier post, I have to agree with you now, Mark. In a 1959 episode with 6'1" (yes 6'1") Adam West, 6'2" Troy Donahue, and 6'3" Michael Forest, Garner is wearing very big heeled boots to appear about 6'2.5". Despite reports of him losing height due to knee and back problems between "Maverick" and "Rockford", I think he must have always been 6'1". But in 1960's movies with (close to) 6'2" James Coburn and 6'2" Edward Andrews, he is suddenly their height. Those "Maverick" boots can come in handy!
Mark said on 30/Dec/10
..I agree, Shadow2, but Garner was only 46 in '74. How much height could he have lost by then? Whatever he was in Rockford's first season, has to be about his peak, in my opinion.
Shadow2 said on 10/Nov/10
I think everyone agrees that Garner was 6'1" flat during his Rockford days, but the question remains as to how tall he was in the many movies he made between TV's Maverick (1957) and Rockford (1974). Seeing him with Eastwood in an early Maverick, he was never 6'3". My guess 6'2" in standard shoes, 6'1.5" barefoot.
talker said on 30/May/07
I just saw Americanization of Emily,like Mike c says,Garner is clearly taller than Coburn in this flick.I always thought Coburn was 6'2"in his youth,but i dont buy more than 6'1" for Garner from his other movies.No way,6'3just look him up next to Doris,he doesnt look any more than 6'1".So,maybe mr.Coburn was shorter than i thought.
Trev said on 5/Apr/07
Saw Garner in an episode of "The Rockford files" which guested a vey young Tom Selleck, he towered over Mr Garner, looked about 6'1" to me!
Anonymous said on 30/Nov/06
Garner didn't look much taller than 5'10" Steve McQueen in "The Great Escape."
CC-Tron said on 16/Oct/06
Garner said several times on the Rockford Files series that he was 6'1. So I wouldn't give him anymore than that.
owlby said on 7/Oct/06
There's an old episode of
Rockford Files that shows an I. D. It states his height as six foot even. Being six foot tall, my self this seems very accurate.
MarkO said on 28/Sep/06
Very interesting CaribbeanBlues...and I don't doubt you. But, at 6'0 myself, people often guess I'm 6'1 or a hair more. Nevertheless, interesting story. If, at 5'10, you noticed a significant height difference, Garner certainly was well over 6 feet. Seems like it was a friendly encounter.
Cynna said on 27/Sep/06
Speaking of James Coburn (well, SOMEBODY was, a while back), he had a severe form of arthritis that gnarled his joints badly. This must certainly have cost him height as he got older.
CaribbeanBlues said on 21/Sep/06
I'm a huge Garner fan, so imagine my surprise when I walked right by him on a back street in Westwood. I wanted so badly to say something and he must have realized it. After passing him by about 20 or 30', I stopped and turned around. There he was, turned around himself, staring at me. We both laughed hard. I WAS 5' 10" on the button. He was significantly taller than me. Even if I was wearing athletic shoes and he had on dress shoes, I noticed the difference and told everyone he had to be 6' 2" to 6' 4". That was about 1975 or so. We can all guess, but having passed within inches of him, I have to go with the taller estimates.
MarkO said on 11/Aug/06
...Larry Linville (MASH) was always listed in articles as 6 feet. As a guest on Rockford, I waited for those coveted side by side scenes (assuming Linville was 6'0). Rockford's puffy hair made it hard to really compare, but I'd put Garner at least 1 inch taller, possibly a tiny bit more. This would go along with him being 6'1 or so, at the time.
Martin said on 7/Aug/06
Most of you have got it right. Remember that the average guy loses about an inch of height for each decade over 50, some less, some more.
MHouillon said on 6/Aug/06
I guess, he is a shade over 180cm, mabe 5'11.25.-5'11.5.
Frank2. said on 3/Aug/06
Garner was 6'1". I know since I saw him many times. Now he's about 5'10".
Brad said on 3/Aug/06
About 6'2". Universal screwed him for about 35 million on Rockford Files shared profits with his production company. Their in-house lawyers just ate him alive. He filmed with most of his body aching on tough location shoots and they still burned him with the cooked books. Jack Warner paid those Warner TV stars peanuts. Good guys like Garner got no respect in every decade.
Roy's Nephew said on 25/Jul/06
James Garner used to appear on the Johnny Carson show a lot. His height was often a topic of conversation, since he was 6' 4", the same as Ed McMahon at that time. While doing "Rockford Files" Garner suffered a number of knee injuries, resulting in several surgeries on both legs. A few years later, discussing why he was leaving "Rockford", Garner said that as a result of the operations he was now down to 6' 3" or less, and the show was destroying him. It was pretty funny the way he was bitching .. uh ... complaining about it, but he did leave the show shortly after.
MarkO said on 19/Jul/06
Look at Garner next to 6'4 Tom Selleck in the Rockford Files. He's clearly at least 3 inches shorter. I'd put him at 6'1 back then, myself.
CC-Tron said on 31/May/06
He always said he was 6'1 on the Rockford files.
Frank2 said on 29/Apr/06
Coburn wasn't 6'3". He was supposedly 6'2", but he shrunk as well and was down to just about 6' right before he died. He was another stick. I doubt he weighed more than 160 lbs. That made him looked much taller on screen.
mike c said on 27/Apr/06
Just saw again The Americanization of Emily staring James Garner and James Coburn...James C is listed at 6'3" in a number of articles that I have read over the years..JG is at least 1" to 1.5" taller in the scenes where they are face to face...taking into account the shoes...JG was easy 6'2.5 to 6'3" tall in 1964...
[Editor Rob: so maybe garner is really telling truth and has shrunk more than most...I'll keep an eye on movie channels for this flick]
mike c said on 17/Apr/06
Hi Larry!...was that a typo?..feel between the cracks... been very busy lately to respond..this is crunch time in elementary ed....as principal of a 480+ students school, everything falls on my shoulders... so when I read and would like to respond, time is the obstacle. First, I respect your service to our country in Viet Nam..lost a first cousin and two friends in that useless war...second, I respect your background and degrees....were we to compare, you would agree that we are very similar...but this is not the place for resumes..on one level I agree with you that one doesn't loose height without a trauma...my mother had a total hip replacement...she's 1.5 inches shorter..and for a very tiny woman, this is a lot! My hunting partner and former police officer was involved in a tragic accident where a few people lost their lives...he spent 8 months in the hospital...ergo....one foot is 1 inch shorter than the other..When I read that James Garner has had a number of traumas to his back and, at 59 with an excellent memory and having seen most of his movies, I find it very difficult to believe he was ever below 6'2"-6'3" in his prime..just as I argued regarding Wayne's height and used math to show his height in his youth....bottom line, let's have fun...ps. I'm the first in my family to get a college degree..both my parents never went beyond third grade!Glad you didn't lose height...my principal, when I was a teacher, lost 1/2 inch when he had both knees replaced...but that was in late 80's...surgery is better now....enjoy reading what you and Frank 2 write...with all the crap happening around us, let's keep this page open for good ol' fun..Mike
larry said on 16/Apr/06
Just to be concise: watching HOUR OF THE GUN, Garner looked 6'2" then. How tall is Frank Converse who played VIRGIL EARP? They looked the same height.
Frank2 said on 15/Apr/06
Poitier was 6'3". I know since I worked on two of his films. He told me he was 6'2.5" but I could tell he was taller. One guy who I worked with who claimed to be 6'2" and looked a couple of inches taller than me was an inch shorter than Poitier. By the way, Sidney is one of the nicest people in showbiz. A true gentleman.
Stanley said on 15/Apr/06
I noticed when James Garner joined the cast of 8 simple rules that he had lost a lot of height. I remember whe he was on Maverick he was supposed to be 6'3.
Clint Eastwood did an episode of Maverick, and I noticed Clint seemed more than an inch taller than Garner. All of the Warner Bros Western stars were all well over six feet. Maybe James Garner was only 6'0 or 6'1 and wore those lifts to help him out. Wayde Preston (Colt .45) was 6'4, John Russell (Lawman) was listed as 6'4 Clint Walker (Cheyenne) was 6'6. Maybe Garner was never 6'3.
All the listings I've seen for Sydney Poitier's height is 6'2.
Glenn said on 14/Apr/06
wait till you see my photo with Woods, Frank.when I find it,I think its a head to toe shot,and he looks 6ft.
Gotxo said on 14/Apr/06
Poitier was like 189-190cm a true tall guy, if you tell us that he was like 2 inch sorter that made of him a shade over six feet, six feet one possible but no more.
We have been put through greater exaggerations on many stars height.
Sorry Rob, i can buy that a 6'2" guy can shrunk to 5'11.5", in fact Gramps have told us about even worse shrunkments, but i think that in this occasion it is not the case.
Frank2 said on 14/Apr/06
When Garner talked with Poitier in my presence he was a good two inches shorter and that was about thirty years ago. I doubt he had lost two inches by then. He still looked great. Then remember, I had met him back in the sixties and he looked about the same height back then. Now we're talking almost forty years ago.
Gotxo said on 14/Apr/06
It's obvious that he's no more the 6'3" footer he was.
I think the question here is: How far he was from that when young?
As Frank has pointed out, it's terrible difficult to find one guy that has shrunk 4-5 inches, with mayor surgery or not (unless they saw him a leg LOL).
A revealign drawback to achieve this is that we can't agree even for his current height 5'10" to 6'....Any idea of his real possible height when young Rob?
[Editor Rob: 6ft 2 is possible, 6ft 3...hmm, I start to wonder. He has commented upon his surgeries. I know a few men in their 70's who have lost 3 inches. A lot of it might be more spine curvature...]
Frank2 said on 13/Apr/06
Looking at the photos Rob published from Space Cowboys, there's no way Garner went from 6'3" to 5'10" which is what he is these days. Nobody, but nobody loses five inches unless their legs are cut off!
Frank2 said on 13/Apr/06
When Garner met Sidney Poitier he was about two inches shorter. I saw it as did several others who were in the Universal editorial building at the time. I knew Garner going back to the 1960's when he showed up on Mulholland Drive to race cars and he was always about 6'1". He was a BIG 6'1". I doubt he was ever under 200 lbs. But all muscle, not flab. One night he was standing talking to Steve McQueen and McQueen who weighed about 155 to 160 lbs looked like a stick. And Steve was muscular as well, only on a much smaller scale. Back then Garner looked about three inches taller than Steve.
Frank said on 11/Apr/06
I wonder if Garner lost two inches. I first met him in the 1960's when he and McQueen and a bunch of crazy guys met up on Mulholland Drive after midnight to race cars on its tightly curved roadway. He looked to be about 6'1" back then, maybe, just maybe 6'2". Then later when I worked with him On The Rockford Files he was definitely 6'1". One day Sidney Poitier was looking for him and I knew Sidney from working on both Buck and the Preacher and Brother John so I escorted him to where Garner was hanging out. I saw both men standing right next to each other and Sidney was definitely two inches taller. And Sidney is roughly 6'3".
larry said on 11/Apr/06
mike c - What makes you think I have trouble believing humans can lose height due to trauma or surgery. I'm SURE they can. My mother lost 1.5 inches after 3 back surgeries. I HAVE had a knee replacement as has my first cousin. Neither one of us lost any height, but I'm sure it happens. Not sure you understood my post. The fact is that PRE 80 year old height loss OF SIGNIFICANCE (NOT including trauma) is more common in slightly built females. Are you under-nourished? Many Americans ARE even if they over-eat. "Common"? I was a lower-middle class kid from Texas. I am just a working class person; MOST scientists are. I was drafted AND sent to "lovely" Viet Nam because I couldn't afford to go to graduate school, even with a 4.0 GPA. Vet benefits paid for me to go to graduate school after Nam. My Dad was a Methodist minister in a relatively poor district. He wasn't a "televangelist", so we lived in a small parsonage. I live in a middle class neighborhood in Austin. I'm be embarrassed to admit how little money I make. But, I don't do it for the money. The WWF and the Wildlife Services pay me very little to teach grad students one-on-one in the field. UT pays me a meager consultants fee. We scientista are by-and-large not highly paid like physicians or lawyers. Don't know WHERE anyone would get that idea? Never actually met a real scientist, I would guess? I drive a 1998 Impala. I EARNED my 2 PhDs the hard way, while working full time. I have a cousin with PhD's in physics & math who barely gets by. Ego? Do you mean the Id or the Ego? :-) Both are antique terms for aspects of the conscious/subconscious mind. I deal with wild animals most of my time and I've seen things that would make most humans lie awake at night. So, dealing with "reality" is not a problem for me. It's just part of my job. Please READ or REREAD my earlier posts. Don't skim. I AM a developmental zoologist, so I certainly know about growth. Frank2 strikes me as an honest man and we often disagree.
mike c said on 23/Mar/06
Larry, you're a scientist and you have trouble accepting the fact that people lose inches after traumas, bad knees, back surgeries, etc....? Guess you've never had hip surgery or knee replacement or had disks removed...interesting. Also, egos can PEEL away common sense and a sense of reality. Guess all of us undernurished and common folk have no sense of height, have poor memory, and really can't tell a 6 footer from 6'3+ actor...oh, I forgot, lifts....just like Wayne, lifts! I guess you and Frank just have all it takes to be right every time. And, forget about gravity!
Frank2 said on 20/Mar/06
Garner never looked any taller to me in person than 6'1". But he could have been taller when he was much younger. I started seeing him in person back in the mid-1960's. You just have to remeber that many actors he co-starred with were relatively short. He towered over Brando in Sayonara, but Marlon was only 5' 8-1/2" at best. Brando was only slightly more than an inch taller than Sinatra in Guys and Dolls. And in that film, Frank didn't wear lifts.
larry said on 19/Mar/06
I think 6'1" at his prime was about right. Back surgeries, bad knees, car wrecks and other skeletal traumas can PEEELLL the iches off. Men don't shrink as much as women as they age and petite (as a scientist, I HATE that term!) women who are of European extraction are more prone to lose bone mass. This means they lose height AND structure. In advanced (> 80 years) some men can lose several inches, but poor posture contributes to that a lot. So, eat your leefy, green vegetables and take your daily vitamins AND exercise!
P.S.: It seems to me that James Coburn's height was exaggerated too.
Chuck Connors could become a good "yard stick'! :-)
mike c said on 11/Mar/06
I watched an interview in the early sixties...James stated that people don't usually mess with a almost 6'3" man...conversation regarded safety walking at night...can't recall the host...old age setting in and memory starting to go...JG was tall, between 6'2.5" and 6'3"..wish I had the vintage photos I've seen of him...he's chunkier now and has had lots of surgeries to reduce the pain he feels from the earlier years of acting and doing many of his own stunts. In Space Cowboys he does appear to be the same height as Lee..but JG has lot of yrs. on the younger actor.(he's pushing 75 or better!)..Glad you're providing specific quotes, Tiger..not just, my uncle's brother's friend's neighbor said....good research.
Frank2 said on 8/Mar/06
Carson wasn't 5'11" but was just under 5'10". I saw him several times when I visited NBC in Burbank. Here's a little story for you. Back in the late sixties there used to be a group called the Mulholland Racing Association. It was made up of various people who liked to race Mulholland Drive late at night. That highway has a lot of twists and turns so you'd see Mini Coopers racing each other and I'm talking about the original Mini, not the new ones, as well as Corvettes, Jaguars and even a Ferrari or two. James Garner was an unofficial member as was Steve McQueen. One night when I was there as a spectator (a friend of mine was racing in his Mini) we were all gathered at a spot where there was dirt area just off the highway. Along came a big, white Rolls Royce Silver Cloud with Rod Taylor driving along with two very pretty women in tow. He yelled at us in a slurred voice that he'd race anyone in his Roller for pink slips! Garner looked at him, laughed saying, "Go Home Rod, you're drunk!" True story. I went up there several times and even watched a race where a Corvette went off the highway and into a ditch. Mulholland is high up looking down onto the San Fernando Valley so at first we all thought the car had going off the cliff! McQueen was there at that time and was standin right by me and yelled...well...I can't repeat it here.
[Editor Rob: keep your stories coming and do please throw in more of your encounters with guys from the golden era who aren't already listed on the site]
Frank2 said on 27/Feb/06
Garner was never six foot three. More like six foot one, max. Many years ago I was with him along with Sidney Poitier who's almost six three and Garner looked to be at least two inches shorter than Poitier.
Cartoonistguy said on 7/Jan/06
I just saw Garner on an old LAUGH IN clip, with Johnny Carson. I've read, repeatedly, that Carson was 5'11. When Garner stodd right next to him, he was no more than 2 inches taller....6'1.
sam said on 14/Dec/05
I'm sorry, but this guy never looked 6'3" to me. I always thought he was 6'1" or a little over at his peak and about 5'11" these days.
Gramps said on 2/Dec/05
Jack Elam is listed as 6'2".
CartoonistGuy said on 25/Jul/05
Now hold the phone here gang. Garner claims he used to be 6'3. But if you look at him in MOVE OVER DARLING(made before Garner had any height shrinking injuries, I assume), he's clearly a good 3 or more inches shorter than Chuck Connors, who I'd always read was 6'5. And, he doesn't appear THAT much taller than Don Knotts than Andy Griffith was, who I'd always heard was 6'0. So my guess is Garner was 6'1 and a half. 6'3 just seems SO tall, for a guy who looked tall, but not in the way that most 6'3 guys look...kind of lanky.
McFan said on 21/Jul/05
I'm surprised he's less than 6ft. He looked so tall on the Rockford Files. I would have guessed 6'1, but 5'11 would mean he's shrunk considerably.
[Editor Rob: injuries and old age seems to have taken their toll. I think 182cm is reasonable for his height now...I mean sometimes on 8 simple rules he really doesn't look tall anymore...]
Danjo said on 5/Jul/05
I had noticed this one myself. I'm a huge Garner fan and saw that he used to be the tallest one in his movies. Then , When making Rockford Files, he claimed to be 6'1" tall. Now, he seems to be much shorter.