How tall was John Wayne ?

Home :: About  Latest :: Comments :: Top 50 

John Wayne's Height was 6ft 3.75in (192 cm)

American actor best known for starring in films like The Searchers, True Grit, The Quiet Man, Stagecoach, Fort Apache, Rio Grande, Rio Bravo, The Man Who Shot Liberty Vance, The Alamo and The Green Berets. French actress Capucine once said, "He wore lifts; everyone talked about it," and Rock Hudson also fuelled rumours: "I did a movie with Duke and was very surprised to find out he had small feet and wore lifts and a corset. Hollywood is seldom what it seems." Richard Widmark once said that "Wayne liked big guys; everyone was a midget to him. Smaller guys annoyed him." In a Scott Eyman book on Wayne's Life, he mentioned that John himself filled out a 1943 application form with the following details: Height 6ft 3 and 3/4, weight 212 pounds.

How tall is John Wayne
Photo by Ned Scott, via Wikimedia Commons
You May Be Interested
Gary Cooper
Height of Gary Cooper
6ft 3in (191 cm)
Robert Mitchum
Height of Robert Mitchum
6ft 0.5in (184 cm)
Jimmy Stewart
Height of Jimmy Stewart
6ft 3in (191 cm)
Maureen O'Hara
Height of Maureen O'Hara
5ft 7.5in (171 cm)
Comment on the Height of John Wayne



LoganNoll1996 said on 31/Jan/16
Go watch "The Big Trail", John Wayne's first film as a lead role. Wayne obviously is not wearing lifts in that film if you look at his footwear and he was a little taller than Ian Keith who was regularly described as 6'2". He was also taller than Tyrone Power, Sr. who was wearing boots - and Tyrone Power, Sr. is described on most sites as being 6'1". The lowest I would argue for a young John Wayne is 6'3.5" but no lower.
Tom said on 16/Jan/16
Also don't forget Wayne had lung cancer when "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" was filmed, and therefore may not have appeared at his peak height without help.
Tom said on 16/Jan/16
Stewart did not wear lifts, but Lee Marvin was only six foot.

Since Wayne wore a wig in every film from 1948 onwards, why do you think he wouldn't have worn lifts as well? He wouldn't allow Jack Elam to be cast in "The Train Robbers" because Elam stole "Rio Lobo" from him, and he refused to work with Robert Mitchum after the younger actor stole "El Dorado" from him.
marcus said on 14/Jan/16
Disregard last. I was wrong Van Cleef was in the movie as well.
marcus said on 14/Jan/16
It was Lee Marvin, not Lee Van Cleef.
Bruno said on 14/Jan/16
Tom said on 13/Jan/16
Wayne was probably wearing lifts in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". He was playing a character 30 years younger than his real age. They had to cut the film because Wayne couldn't disarm Van Cleef's lightning fast draw.

And was Stewart and Marvin wearing lifts as well, because Wayne and Stewart looked pretty close in height and Marvin about 1.5-2'' lower. Please refrain from talking rot.
184.3cm (Night) said on 14/Jan/16
Wayne at 188cm? Then you need to downgrade alot of other big names im afraid. I do think he looked 6'3 at times in some of his older movies when he had flat footwear but he never looked as short as 6'2.
Tom said on 13/Jan/16
Wayne was probably wearing lifts in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". He was playing a character 30 years younger than his real age. They had to cut the film because Wayne couldn't disarm Van Cleef's lightning fast draw.
Gonzalo said on 13/Jan/16
LoganNoll1996 said on 4/Jan/16


I've noticed people on here claiming him to have been 6'2" - even using a Mexican visa as "proof". In my opinion he was taller than 6'2" guys like Lee Van Cleef in his prime. He just doesn't look that short


In Liberty Balance Wayne had two inches on Lee Van Cleef. He was taller and much bigger tan him
marcus said on 10/Jan/16
High School physical said 6' 4''
Tom said on 10/Jan/16
Mitchum said Wayne wasn't 6'4".
Arch Stanton said on 9/Jan/16
Basically we can't prove he wore lifts or didn't wear them. But I think too many people talked about it to dismiss entirely. The only 6 ft and wore 4 inch lifts is certainly utter nonsense though. But until we actually have concrete proof, like an old studio photo of his boots on set with inserts poking out the top or whatever then it's pure speculation. All I know is that in a lot of his films his boots did look really bulky and difficult to walk in, and at times he could pull off looking taller than this listing. But you could say the same thing about any actor walking in those big style of boots.Just look at Burt Reynolds, at times he could look near 6 ft 1 in them!
Arch Stanton said on 9/Jan/16
There's certainly no point in debating that he was just 6 ft. In The Shootist I think it was we see him barefoot and clearly he looked a decent 6'3" er even at that age. He was genuinely a big man, and had the frame of a 6'4 man, regardless of footwear. You can't dismiss all the claims as false rumours though, even Mitchum admitted Wayne was 6 ft 4 and wore lifts. In a lot of his films his footwear does look really bulky and difficult to walk around in. There's no proof I've seen of him wearing lifts, but it isn't impossible that he had a booster in his boots in some films to pull off looking even more imposing. That was part of the package he was selling to the public, and his "man mountain" larger than life American image was crucial to his career. I would doubt he ever wore "4 inch lifts" though. As Sam said previously in some films he could really look more massive than others, in certain scenes in fact he could look like a man closer to 6 ft 6. It isn't impossible that he had something in in those films to pull off looking even bigger. But I think it's very clear from watching him in so many films he was genuinely a very tall man even without them.
Tom said on 8/Jan/16
George Kennedy said Wayne and Dean Martin both wore lifts in "Rio Bravo" and "The Sons of Katie Elder".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Jan/16
There are rumours that the man was barely over 6ft and wore massive lifts.

Rob, is there any point debating that or is it a complete myth?
Editor Rob: as many know, the more often a lie is repeated, the greater the chance it becomes accepted as the truth.

I think if you watch his movies and see the types of boots men wore, were his much different or could somehow conceal 3 inches worth of lifts?
LoganNoll1996 said on 4/Jan/16
Hey, Rob, what's the lowest listing you would give Wayne and do you believe he wore lifts. I found this on IMDB and thought I'd share it:

"Increasingly by the early 1960s Wayne used to wear three or four-inch lifts in his shoes, a practice that mystified friends and co-stars like Bobby Darin', Capucine' and Robert Mitchum' because he stood 6'4". It was possibly due to his increasing weight, health problems, and age that he wasn't able to loom as tall without lifts."

I've noticed people on here claiming him to have been 6'2" - even using a Mexican visa as "proof". In my opinion he was taller than 6'2" guys like Lee Van Cleef in his prime. He just doesn't look that short.
Editor Rob: My shoe lifts page Here mentioned Darin/Mitchum quotes about Wayne and was published 7th October 2004.

Imdb archived page from December 2004 Archive shows no mention about lifts, but then Feb 2005 Archive shows someone added the trivia then.

Good to know celebheights is useful for throwaway trivia ;)
Arch Stanton said on 4/Jan/16
I've seen some of his rarer mid 30s films of late and he looked close to 6'4 in all of them. Too tall to be under 6'3". The only film I saw of his where he looked 6'2.5 was The Big Trail wearing flat mocassins. In all others his body looks too big to have only been 6'2 range.
Jake: 1.84 m- 1.85 m said on 3/Jan/16
He did look huge in 'Rio Bravo'.
Unsub 5'10" said on 2/Jan/16
I never believed he was close to 6'4, I think he was more like a strong 6'2 or perhaps 6' 2.5 .
jessman said on 1/Jan/16
Pete, for me 188cm is very believable for Wayne. I just do not see him as 192cm. There seems to be general acceptance of hollywood 2 inch height inflation, but seemingly not when it comes to Wayne.
Pete said on 31/Dec/15
Came across this photo (I believe) Mexican visa dated 1948 of John Wayne. Interesting - his height here is listed as 188cm. Click Here
Tom said on 6/Dec/15
In 1955 Wayne was 6'3" and Mazurki was 6'4".
Sam said on 3/Dec/15
"Close to 6'5"" for Mazurki according to a newspaper article and Rob's listing, i.e. 6'4.75", consistent with his being roughly an inch over Wayne who wrote for himself 6'3.75". I was wondering if his in character claim of "six four and a half" in The Quiet Man might have reflected a morning measurement Wayne had off-screen.
Tom said on 1/Dec/15
Even Mazurki said he wasn't 6'5".
Tom said on 30/Nov/15
I've read that Wayne was 6'3.5" at his peak, and 6'3" by his fifties.
Gonzalo said on 30/Nov/15
Mike Mazurki looked definitely 6`5. Watch The unconquered
Tom said on 26/Nov/15
Mike Mazurki was 6'4".
Tom said on 25/Nov/15
Mike Mazurki wasn't really 6'5".
Jock said on 24/Nov/15
Watch the film Blood Alley, Wayne in flat boat shoes stood face ro face with 6ft5 Mike M, there was about an inch if that between themm
Wayne never whore lifts, yes cowboy boots with heels but so did all the other actors that appeared in the films with him,
Sam said on 20/Nov/15
IMO only a small portion of lift-wearers in earlier Hollywood were caught in photos in them, some actors are more obviously wearing lifts in some roles than Wayne generally was.
Tom said on 19/Nov/15
Good lifts should be invisible from the outside.
Bruno said on 18/Nov/15
But why didn't he wear lifts in The Undefeated, when acting with Rock, he looked about an inch lower or so than Rock and if he was worried about his height he defo would have worn them then. If he had 2'' lifts in his boots with Rock then he should appear taller which is not the case.

Check out 1970 Swing out sweet land at about 6 minutes forward you can clearly see his shoes and no lifts and see him stand close to Dan Blocker they are pretty close in height. Why didn't he wear lifts then , why didn't he wear them in Brannigan????
Gonzalo said on 18/Nov/15
Ferrer still looked tall in the 80`s, when he appeared in Falcon Crest. Close to 1`90.

The lifts rumour about Wayne is widely spread. It is true that we have not seen any real evidences so far (as we have with other people). But it is also true that there are films of Wayne in which he looks tall (for instance, In harm´s way or The longest day) and others in which he looks huge (The shootist, Rio Lobo). Probably Wayne started wearing lifts in the 60`s when he began to lose height and he wanted to be as tall as he was in his prime. I think we will never know.

Misteries of height. That´s why this site exists
Bruno said on 17/Nov/15
Plenty of actors pictured wearing lifts, Bogie, Martin, Glenn Ford, if Wayne wore lifts there defo would be pictures of it either on or off set.
Pete said on 17/Nov/15
By 1975 both Ferrer and Wayne had probably each lost about an inch in height (older). I believe most people lose 1/4" of height per decade after turning 40. So, Ferrer was probably closer to 6'2", and Wayne 6'2.5" or 6'3". Makes sense.
Bruno said on 16/Nov/15
Get them pics Rob, haven't seen any!!!
Editor Rob: there are definitely a few actors who talked about it but I doubt anybody took photos of them...

It may have been one of those rumours that others fuelled with fire.
Bruno said on 15/Nov/15
It's strange with all the lifts talk, there is no picture of him wearing any. In 1975 Brannigan wearing regular shoes he appears nearly 1'' taller than 6'3'' Mel Ferrer. In 1976 The Shootist Wayne looks huge compared to Ron Howard. Wayne barefoot and Ron with boots. I have said it a lot Wayne lost very little height with age.
Editor Rob: Here's another quote from actor Russell McCubbin: "[Wayne] wore lifts in his shoes and he wore a hairpiece. he was a good fella...I got along with him fine."
Sam said on 13/Nov/15
I go back and forth on whether Wayne was wearing lifts in movies, I feel like he did as well...I feel like some films like The Big Trail or Angel and the Badman he's clearly not wearing any and there's too many films where he looks exactly like a man with his listing, wearing average cowboy boots, should look with his often well known co-stars. But then there's some films like El Dorado where he seems more enormously tall than he should at 6'3.75" & it keeps me guessing.
Larry said on 9/Nov/15
Carter and Clinton never said Wayne was their favourite actor.
Mike Horn said on 7/Nov/15
I love it when these idiots say John Wayne was not at least 6 3 or better when anyone who met him said he was huge with a personality to match. People want to tear down a man if he has strong beliefs and is still adored by most people. Some people are just plain cynical asses. I won't even get into politics but almost every president including Carter and Clinton said he was their favorite actor and had great respect for him. He is getting even more popular in recent years to the dismay of aforementioned idiots. By the way could a short man have had huge paws like he did? Or maybe those were props
Gonzalo said on 4/Nov/15
Editor Rob, seems that you have recovered old comments. Thank you!! Good to see my old Pals Patrick an Mike C posting. It´s been a while since I first posted in this site. I´m getting old. And celebheights too!!
[Editor Rob: even Big G returned from the dead...

in web terms, 11 years is quite old for a site...but hopefully it will continue.]
Larry said on 31/Oct/15
It depends if Wayne was wearing built up shoes.
LoganNoll1996 said on 29/Oct/15
If Rock Hudson did have 4 cm on Wayne then wouldn't that have made Wayne 6'3.5 in his later films? So that would mean he only lost a quarter of an inch at that point.
Gonzalo said on 27/Oct/15
John Wayne and Gary Cooper

Click Here
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Oct/15
Looked 189-190cm in his last movie.
Larry said on 15/Oct/15
I think that was just a line in the script.
Sam said on 14/Oct/15
I wonder if ever claimed 6'4.5" off screen as his character did in The Quiet Man.
Larry said on 24/Sep/15
Dean Martin may have been less than 5'9", he always wore huge lifts.

Oliver Hardy was only 5'11" by 1949 because he had severe obesity and back problems.
Steve said on 21/Sep/15
Larry, I think Dean was closer to 5'10" while Oliver Hardy was most definitely taller than 5'11".
Bruno said on 21/Sep/15
Brannigan was enjoyable, not meant to be the same as Dirty Harry, good car chase driving the Ford Capri and the pub brawl was fun. I thought he worked well with Sir Dickie.
Larry said on 19/Sep/15
Arch, Dean Martin was 5'9". Oliver Hardy may have been 5'11" by the time of "The Fighting Kentuckian" due to his obesity and health problems.

I don't think Wayne would be such a controversial figure were it not for his support for an unwinnable war in Vietnam.
Larry said on 18/Sep/15
John Wayne was closer to 6'3" by the mid-1950s.

He was too old and ill to play a policeman in "McQ" and "Brannigan", starring in those two films was a mistake.
Bruno said on 15/Sep/15
Arch Stanton said on 12/Sep/15
Brannigan was enjoyable was McQ I didn't enjoy much.

I enjoyed both, the car chase in around Seattle and the final chase on the beach was good. That car he drove was a beauty. Unfortunately it got crushed.
Click Here
Click Here

The music and that big mother weapon.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Sep/15
Rob, is it possible that he was around 6ft3 flat by the time of his death?
[Editor Rob: might have been under...but nevertheless, they still misjudged his coffin and had to actually order one longer than planned...getting buried in lifts and a Stetson will certainly cause such problems ;)]
Arch Stanton said on 12/Sep/15
Brannigan was enjoyable was McQ I didn't enjoy much.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Sep/15
Also Bruno, if you watch War and Peace you could argue a stronger 6'3" for Ferrer with Henry Fonda, he could make Fonda look 6'0.5 in some scenes.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Sep/15
@ Steve, Bruno, Sam. I agree that the idea of him wearing lifts does seem ridiculous, especially as there's barefoot evidence in one of his later films that he was still close to 6'4. Rock Hudson had about 4cm on Wayne, are we to really believe he was only high 6'3" in lifts? But a number of people did claim it. Was it their idea of jest, not sure? But I agree fully with what you say about him being a big framed man and him looking at least 6'4" in many films. He made Oliver Hardy look barely 5 ft 11 and Dean Martin look barely 5 ft 9.
Steve said on 11/Sep/15
Who is Knowitall?

LamarrZG, do you really believe everything some actor or entertainer says? If so, you must be terribly naive. Or have an anti-Wayne agenda.

Check out this photo of Wayne with Gary Cooper. Click Here

If you think Wayne is wearing lifts then you must be blind.
LamarrG said on 7/Sep/15
Sorry to disappoint you Knowitall,John Wayne wore lifts in his shoes,that was verified by people who worked with him,Robert Mitchum,Bobby Darin,Rock Hudson all new he wore them,and they couldn't figure out why...but i know why!
Sixseven said on 13/Aug/15
Well said VC
cobra said on 9/Aug/15
This might not be the most accurate picture ever but when you consider who else is there with an aged Wayne it should without a doubt confirm he was in the 6-3 to 6-4 range: Click Here
Steve said on 8/Aug/15
The lifts claim makes me laugh. Wayne was a truly big man. Big boned. He looked massive in Bannigan. And no lifts. That's clear to see if you watch the movie. Silly movie, but lots of fun all the same.
Bruno said on 6/Aug/15
The lifts stuff is defo BS. The Undefeated was made later with 6'5" Rock. If he was that worried about his height he would have worn them in that movie. However he appears circa 1" lower than Rock.

I posted a link of Wayne with 6'3" Mel Ferrer in Brannigan, no lifts in his shoes watch the movie and stands slightly taller maybe 0.75".
Sam said on 4/Aug/15
I think he looks really massive in El Dorado as well. I don't know where you fall on whether Wayne wore lifts, Arch, but he looked taller than his near 6'4" in these later films.
177cmGuy said on 26/Jul/15
The lowest I would go would go for him is 6'3.50. It would have been interesting to see how he would fare against somebody like Randy orton who is estimated as legit 6'4.
Arch Stanton said on 20/Jul/15
Really looked massive in The Sons of Katie Elder, the biggest in fact I've seen him look but might be the narrow screen format I watched it on. He looked bigger than 6'4 in it and 6'5-6'6.
Jesse Stone said on 18/Jul/15
Well strange is: Lots of people claimed he was wearing lifts, but nevertheless never seemed any taller than a legit 6'4 ( Not even with cowboy-heels and lifts in his movies).
VC said on 16/Jul/15
John Wayne is 6'4" with boots and slightly over 6' without boots.
Sam said on 15/Jul/15
Yeah, I think both Arch and I have been trying to get Cooper uplisted a tad to 6'3.25". Oddly enough Cooper looked very even with Jimmy Stewart as well but Stewart could seem a smidge shorter on screen than Wayne. Hard to see more than a half inch between Cooper and Wayne at any rate.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Jun/15
@Gonzalo I think Robert Stack looked a decent 6 ft guy in his prime, but Rob aint buyin it, but at leats tweaked to 182, Stack was at 180 or 81 at one point!
Gonzalo said on 29/Jun/15
Yes, Bruno, I agree Cooper looks over 6`3 in many movies and pics
Bruno said on 25/Jun/15
Great find Gonzalo, Wayne and Coop look the same height in this pic, although Coop is closer to the camera. I reckon they were very similar in height maybe only a few mm in it. Coop was defo over 6'3'' peak, what do you think Gonzalo?
Gonzalo said on 23/Jun/15
Wayne and Cooper the same day. Never 100% reliable pictures. This one seems a bit more accurate than the one mrbobh5344 posted. But, as Editor Rob has said many times, pics of people walking can be tricky

Click Here
Steve said on 22/Jun/15
Gary Cooper was 6'4". He downplayed his height even claiming he was only 6'2 & 1/2".

Copper towered over many true 6' actors.
Gonzalo said on 22/Jun/15
John Wayne and Robert Stack. Stack is listed at 1,82 in this site.
Click Here
Gonzalo said on 22/Jun/15
John Wayne and Anthony Perkins
Click Here
Click Here
mrbobh5344 said on 21/Jun/15
Have seen a picture of Wayne and Gary Cooper walking side by side with sandles and boat shoes showing. Picture appears mid 50's.... when both men are 50ish. They look identical height. Exactly the same.
Click Here
Sam said on 17/Jun/15
Gonzalo, there's a good chance people might not know you're joking...even Wayne at just six foot is pretty ridiculous!
Steve said on 28/May/15
Dan, John Wayne was never 6' in college. If you're hinting he was just 6' then I have to laugh at the silliness of it.
Bruno said on 25/May/15
Looked at TMWSLV and I have to say Wayne's acting was superb. A must watch film for all Wayne fans. He appears similar to JS in height, maybe .5" difference at most in Wayne's favour.
vin58 said on 23/May/15
Certified genius is a certified idiot
Dan said on 7/May/15
Too bad older comments on Wayne here have been deleted. He was listed by USC while a football player as 6'0". Also every picture with him and Gary Cooper, he is shorter than Cooper.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/May/15
A weak 6ft4 is spot on. Easily 6ft5 or more in boots and/or dress shoes.
Gonzalo said on 4/May/15
Wayne was barely 5 feet tall. He was shorter tan Mickey Rooney
TRIPLEHHH said on 1/May/15
John Wayne was a solid 6'3 in his socks.
funnyguys said on 30/Apr/15
5'10" That's not even close. I'm over 5'10" and Wayne was a lot taller than me and it was at a pool.
Sixseven said on 25/Apr/15
He was 187 cm tall.(6'1.62")that's it.
Anonymous1 said on 23/Apr/15
John Wayne, without boots and in socks, next to Ron Howard in True Grit looked like a giant. I don't buy the lifts stories.
Certified Genius said on 21/Apr/15
Absolutely not. He was famous for his walk, the result of so much cardboard in his footwear. He was 5'10" in his stocking feet. They use astigmatism lenses in movies, which makes actors appear taller and thinner, more fit. John Wayne was short and fat, the same as most everyone else in Hollywood, actors are paid to tell tales, no matter how tall a tale it is.
Arch Stanton said on 20/Apr/15
Really looked massive in They Were Expendable, shorter haircut than normal too made him look more masculine than ever! In films like that he could really seem a strong 6'4" at times.
Bruno said on 17/Apr/15
Click Here
Got this one Arch of the 2 and he looks a little taller than Ferrer who was in his 50s.
Arch Stanton said on 16/Apr/15
And if you see War and Peace, a tad over the 6'3 is possible for Mel Ferrer too, he made Fonda look barely 6'1".
Steve said on 15/Apr/15
Welles was obviously two inches shorter than 6'2" Carol Reed. Click Here
Bruno said on 14/Apr/15
Agreed Arch looked slightly taller than 6'3" Mel Ferrer in 1975 Brannigan whilst wearing regular shoes. Very little height loss in his last years.
Steve said on 14/Apr/15
No way was Welles as tall as people think he was. The evidence just doesn't add up.

Welles was only around an inch taller than Dean Martin back when Dean had his weekly variaty show.

Welles was a lot shorter than Heston when seen standing next to him in the wide shot. In the film they played tricks to make Welles look close to the same height as Heston.

Welles wore lifts in Citizen Kane.
Arch Stanton said on 13/Apr/15
I don't know Steve, Welles could still look 6'1 in Treasure Island (1972). I also think Wayne could still look a strong 6'3" even in his last films.
Steve said on 11/Apr/15
I think Wayne was a full 6'4" in his youth. Then by his sixties he lost about an inch.

Welles was never more than 6'1". He might have even been 6' even. By the 1970's he had packed down to around 5'11".
Gonzalo said on 10/Apr/15
Are you sure about that, Ray? What about this?

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

All of these pictures are reliable. On even ground, both men at the same distance from the camera, similar shoes (I guess). If anything, Wayne looks a bit taller than Stewart.
Ray said on 7/Apr/15
When I was a kid and John Wayne had just died, my aunts gave my dad a lot of books about the Duke as he was a bid fan. An old publicity photo from the early 1930's said he was 6' 2" and 198 lbs! In photos, Gary Cooper and Jimmy Stewart always look taller than Duke. But, Lee Marvin was supposed to be 6' 2" and Duke was a lot taller than Lee!
120 said on 25/Mar/15
Don't forget to mention that he's a big guy with really small feet
Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
Yes, Coop had probably about 2cm on Heston in The Wreck of the Mary Deare which was 1959, they were very close in height but Coop definitely looked a bit taller, but he looked quite ill and shrunken in that film. And if you see Heston with Orson Welles in Touch of Evil and Peck in The Big Country, Heston was nothing under 6'2.5 peak. Coop was looking about 6'3" flat with Lancaster in Vera Cruz too, but if you really watch his 30s and early 40s films he generally looked nearer 6'4" to me than 6'3" anyway. Certainly difficult to see under 192 in a lot of his films.

I tend to enjoy even Wayne's lesser movies, his charisma and presence always shines through, even if the script was relatively poor. I've gradually been working through his massive filmography! I'll see them all eventually, even Brown of Harvard (1926) if I can get it haha!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Mar/15
Viper would probably go with 6ft-6ft1 for Wayne...
Bruno said on 1/Mar/15
100% agree with you Arch, Coop was indeed a very tall man and lost a bit in later years, but still looked slightly taller than Chuck Heston in The Wreck of the Mary Deare.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Feb/15
Well Bruno, I always thought Wayne and Clint Eastwood gave off a similar height impression on screen, and I thought that Gary Cooper looked about the same sort of height on screen as Eastwood. It's difficult to buy a flat 6'3" for Coop in his 30s and 40s films especially.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Feb/15
Haha Wayne at 5 ft 11. I doubt even Viper would come up with that one!
184.3cm said on 27/Feb/15
5'11 ? More chance of him being the 6'4.5 that he claimed in The Quiet Man than that. Listing is good and also not that crazy he just said 6'4.
Nic said on 27/Feb/15
He's about 6ft 4 or 5 and 250 at an older age but younger maybe 6ft 1 205.
Jake said on 24/Feb/15
Old Hollywood folks from the business say he was 5'11". Everyone's height was exaggerated, still is.
Bruno said on 22/Feb/15
Ya Arch I seen that one before, also the one on the sub and one where they are at a dinner party with drinks. In them 3 Coop does appear taller, there is another on location where they look similar not a good angle though.

I have always said that Coop was peak 193ish.Very tall thin man. My guess is that both men were similar in height.
Arch Stanton said on 20/Feb/15
Check out this though with Gary Cooper Click Here
Bruno said on 15/Feb/15
Ya Arch I always maintain Wayne lost very little height. Have a look at 79 oscars his poignant last tv appearance. He was very frail and thin but looked supertall because of it.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Feb/15
In The Fighting Kentuckian Wayne could make Oliver Hardy look as low as a weak 5'11 at times!
Arch Stanton said on 14/Feb/15
There's one scene in The Cowboys where Wayne is teaching the kids something and he really looks towering in particular, I should have noted what time it was in the film. There's certain moments in his films where he can look taller than 6'4", there was one scene in Donovan's Reef too when he walked into one of the rooms and looked close to 6'5", and he was wearing boat shoes in that film!
Arch Stanton said on 14/Feb/15
Dern could look 6'1" range in that film though! I think Wayne had him by between 2 and 3 inches. The worst you could really argue even in the years before his death is a strong 6'3".
Bruno said on 12/Feb/15
Ya Arch, I have a memory of where he goes into the classroom and he is with Slim Pickens and he appears a bit taller. He also is quite a bit taller than Bruce Dern, love the fight scene btw.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Feb/15
Still looked 6'4ish in The Cowboys didn't he Bruno?
Steve said on 9/Feb/15
The lifts rumor spread because of Wayne's conservative politics which went against the Hollywood status qua. But he never wore them. It got so silly that people who never worked with him or even met him were spreading it.
dietmar said on 9/Feb/15
In "Donovans Reef" Duke was easily 2in taller than Lee Marvin. Both men are wearing sneakers in this scene.

Click Here

In "Big Jim McClane" Duke was about 2.5 -3in shorter than 201cm Jim Arness.

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

In "The Undefeated" Duke was 3-4cm shorter than Rock Hudson.

Click Here

So, 192cm for Duke is about right.
Steve said on 7/Feb/15
Tex,

John Wayne never wore lifts.

Here's Wayne a good five inches taller than Robert Montgomery who himself claimed to be 6':

Click Here
Bruno said on 6/Feb/15
Good to have you back Tex, did you ever get those pictures of JW wearing lifts or are just listening to hearsay.
Scroll down there a few pics Tex and tell me what you observe
Click Here

And here is a little extra as the big fella would say.
Click Here

One more for you
Click Here
3rd pic
Tex said on 5/Feb/15
I see the same "man lovers" of the Duke are still on this site--adding inches to his height. I have met three or four people who actually knew and worked with Wayne. Once again--as he aged he wore lifts inside his shoes and he also walked on boards in his movies. When he was young he was about 6'3" --the same as Randolph Scott (in Pittsburg-the movie you can see that Scott is actually a smidgen taller). As he aged he lost about an inch. Many, many actors said he wore lifts and a member of Ricky Nelson's band who lives near me in Texas said he sit next to Wayne listening to music night after night when he made "Rio Bravo". He told me Wayne was about 6'2" and "he wore lifts in his boots". John Wayne the myth is always going to be taller-just like Elvis the myth loved his Mom and apple pie.
Arch Stanton said on 31/Jan/15
Yes Bruno, he did edge out Ferrer and absolutely towered over Attenborough.
Bruno said on 29/Jan/15
You are correct about Brannigan Steve, He looked slightly taller than Mel Ferrer (6'3''). For a big heavy man he lost very little height though IMO. Lifts statements are rubbish I believe. As I said before he looked supertall
Steve said on 28/Jan/15
Wayne was a big man. No question. He towered over nearly every actor he ever appeared with. But with all big guys who are overweight, they pack down and lose height as they age. So by the time he was in his mid-sixties I think he dropped to 6'3". But I never saw what looked like lifts. In both McQ and Brannigan he wore loafers with low heels. Yet he was taller than almost everyone in both films.
Gonzalo said on 27/Jan/15
Wayne looking slightly taller than James Stewart
Click Here
Carl said on 7/Jan/15
6ft 4ins all day long
Bruno said on 1/Jan/15
He stated 6'4'' in a 1969 interview.
Arch Stanton said on 31/Dec/14
I think Wayne might have got measured at 6'4.5 in shoes Sam so started believing he was that mark!! I'm going to request Barry Fitzgerald as I love that guy to bits.
Sam said on 30/Dec/14
Yeah, that's how that Quiet Man scene went...probably hard for someone of Barry Fitzgerald's size to gauge heights for men probably nearly a foot taller. Wayne claiming 6'4.5" is like Russell Crowe claiming "five eleven and change", they find they're pushing that inch mark but go over it LOL.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Dec/14
Wayne edged out John Carroll who was listed at 6'3.5" in Flying Tigers. They looked very close in height though.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Dec/14
@PJO

I think he said six four and a half. Fitzgerald guessed him at 6'6 didn't he?
Arch Stanton said on 28/Dec/14
Wayne really looks an honest 6'4 in Flying Tigers, slimmer back then he could lanky at times. Love films from the mid war period, you can feel the tension and uncertainly of the times on film. 1942 and 1943 films especially I love watching.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Dec/14
Well Brannigan wasn't exactly very good either! You've got to hand it to him though, he was still walking tall right until the very end and still towered most of his costars and looked near 6'4".
Arch Stanton said on 26/Dec/14
I actually preferred Brannigan to Mcq Steve! At least Brannigan wasn't quite trying to be the poor man's Magnum Force and had some good locations and actors in it!

Saw The Sea Chase afterwards and I thought Wayne looked less than 3 inches shorter than James Arness in it and made him look 6 ft 6-6'6.5".
Steve said on 26/Dec/14
McQ was enjoyable, but still not great.

Brannigan wasn't very good.

The Duke made some truly atrocious movies towards the end of his long career.

His best role was Ethan Edwards in The Searchers. Probably his best film. He deserved an Oscar for that performance. That's a western I can watch over and over and never get bored. A masterpiece and perhaps John Ford's greatest film.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Dec/14
Brannigan was OK I thought, it was Mcq I thought a bit poor. Just didn't look right in the film.
Bruno said on 25/Dec/14
Yes Arch, still edged out 6'3'' Mel Ferrer and wearing regular shoes. As I have always said he didn't lose much height in his later years.
PJO said on 25/Dec/14
John Wayne tells Barry Fitzgerald when asked during a cart ride through the Irish countryside that he was 6'4" tall...Indeed the Duke was...not that important for Marion Morrison though...
Arch Stanton said on 24/Dec/14
Looked a weak 6'4" in Brannigan and he was in his late 60s at the time. Absolutely towered over Richard Attenborough.
Chuckie Cheese 2 said on 24/Dec/14
John Wayne seemed larger than life because he had a massive& long upper torso And the legs of a 6 ft 0 man,--a 33 inseam, large chest; 42-44 inches & His boot size was 11-- which would be a foot length of ~10-3/4 to 11 inches long or, 14.2% of his stature- all these give him a perspective trick, making him look bigger than life. I can buy 6-ft-3-3/4, as he was definitely a very tall man. He weighed a Paleolithic 170 at college when he was a football player, but filled his frame out to his majestic size of 200-220 lbs.
Steve said on 23/Dec/14
Almost any film is better than The Green Berets. Even Plan 9 From Outer Space!
Sixseven said on 23/Dec/14
His son claims he was 185 cm. tall.
Sam said on 22/Dec/14
I agree that Liberty Valance is better than Hondo but I might add that Red River is way better than The Green Berets IMO.
Shredo said on 21/Dec/14
Strong 6'3 with no lifts
Jake: 1.84 m- 1.85 m said on 20/Dec/14
Rob, can you please add 'Red River' and 'the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance' to the top.
[Editor Rob: I try to keep mention of movies to a limit of 10, but Libert vance is better than Hondo.]
Big Jake said on 18/Dec/14
When I was 22, I saw John Wayne's fist print in the concrete outside Mann's Chinese theatre. I bent over and put my fist on it. I was very sorry I did. My fist dwarfed his. I'm 6'6". If the Duke was around an inch shorter than I am, he had tiny hands. Also, I have size 14 feet. He should have been 12-13 at 6'4 3/4".
Big Jake said on 18/Dec/14
When I was 22, I saw John Wayne's fist print in the concrete outside Mann's Chinese theatre. I bent over and put my fist on it. I was very sorry I did. My fist dwarfed his. I'm 6'6". If the Duke was around an inch shorter than I am, he had tiny hands. Also, I have size 14 feet. He should have been 12-13 at 6'4 3/4".
Jock said on 15/Dec/14
If you look at the scene from Donovans Reef where Marvin and Wayne get out the pool and walk away side by side on a level floor, you can see Wayne is a good 2 to 3 inches taller,flat beach shoes are worn by both, this is one film that 100% confirms that Wayne was a tall guy without Cowboy boots or lifts,
patrick said on 15/Oct/07
1/Catsman: I did not say "for you" even though you could be "included" in it. My message was about people who deny things when they are obvious. Nothing to do with being or not, a "fan". I am 54 and if I love some actresses and actors, I just cannot be a fan! That is for me, a childish, even if nice one, attitude.
Please, re read what you wrote at the time and try to figure out "why" I answered "that".
2/mike C, my friend, what you wrote is perfectly clear while it is subtle and hard to explain! Furthermore, everything is perfectly RIGHT in your text! So good common sense plus a real cleverness.
3/Anonymous: In what year that photo was taken please, I mean the one with the gigantic Clint Walker and the Duke? If after 1964, please remember he was a wounded man, severely!
Actually, Clint was 6’6, it’s to say, 198 cm! Almost two full meters high!
Clint was, in addition, as broad as tall but I doubt he ever could marginalize in any way, John Wayne.
Even with 6’7 James Arness, he did not give that impression!
4/Catsman again: it seems that all wrote to you mike C was useless and worse, you insist on explaining exactly why “we” never really can trust pics or excerpts and you are right!
Catsman, SEE MOVIES, in this case, John Wayne’s ones and old ones too. That is enough, normally, to get an opinion since you really seem to be an honest and intelligent man!
The examples you give should precisely, help you in only trusting an ensemble of views, not a frame here and there!
The film with Kirk and my other friend Robert Mitchum is the perfect example of how differently tall two actors can appear in the same film, even the same scene! (please: re read what I wrote about “the leathernecks” with R.Ryan: very instructive and edifying!)
Take “gunfight at OK corral” one of the best westerns ever and one of the best Kir part!
Kirk in turns looks almost as tall as Burt Lancaster and then, when walking together in the street, far shorter! Not the same man!
Very common with Kirk, one of the greatest stars ever!
Now, he is way below 5’9, I can assure you! No more at 91 than 5’6 and probably no more than 5’8 when younger.
But he could not be shown as small! So, even if you do not see “any angles”, THERE ARE, oh, yeah! I can make you sure there are! I repeat that depending on 1 inch higher or lower, one inch to the left or to the right and you will get completely different results!
Bob Mitchum was way taller than Kirk but broader than him (just impossible, even Bob!!!).
Have you ever attended a shooting? That is real educational!
If you always stop before a pic seeming giving you a different proportion of actors you are interested in, you never will get an opinion worthy of that name, ever!
Even very tall guys, undoubtedly so, very often appear taller or shorter than you thought, without that any kind of trick or angle or whatever, sound being involved!
5/Joshua: about Rock’s saying, you must know he did exactly the contrary years before but about his feet: the Duke did not seem having feet matching his huge hands!
I definitely do not know how he could know the Duke wore or not lifts and, knowing well the movie about, it is sure that was not visible at all!
Anyway, John Wayne was 62 at the time and underwent 5 years before, a very severe surgery.
Furthermore, he suffered during this western shooting, a terrible shoulder wound (and back too) due to a fall from his horse. He kept acting until the last shot but got a lot of pain for weeks; check that out!
That he was wearing lifts (not 4 inch ones !!!) at the time…so what! He did not care but wore a wig also in order to “not to get his audience disappointed”. Admirable isn’t it?
He HAD to look as John Wayne was supposed to be but threw his wig as soon as the last shot taken.
Welcome aboard too!
Catsman said on 15/Oct/07
Gonzalo - that is the picture I was talking about. Wayne is definitely not seated but standing on one leg. Look at his jacket - it hangs straight down on the left showing that his leg is straight (otherwise it would ruck up on his leg). His other leg is resting on the seat that Fitzgerald is sitting on, and he is leaning to that side. This is a good example of how pictures can show different things. Like I say, the ground is probably uneven so it proves very little.
Douglas is a great star, but I'm sure he was shorter than that. This probably isn't the best place for me to argue about his height, but the point is that he should not have been looking an inch taller than Mitchum!
Gonzalo said on 15/Oct/07
Catsman, the pic you are talking about is this one, that I posted here on July 12th
Click Here
It seems Wayne is algo seated. Wayne was taller than McLaglen in the quiet man, and also in She wore a yellow ribbon. Not much, because Victor was very big, but taller anyway.
In my opinion Douglas was at least 5`10. I don`t know why he is listed shorter inn celebheights. I haven´t seen much evidence of him being 5`9
Joshua said on 15/Oct/07
"I did a movie with Duke Wayne and was very surprised to find out he had small feet, wore lifts, and a corset. Hollywood is seldom what it seems." -Rock Hudson

What do you think about that?
Catsman said on 14/Oct/07
Mike C - rotating the picture doesn't alter the ratio of anything as such. If you were standing there looking at the two people you would have a sense of what was vertical, but when looking at a picture the eye references the frame of the image for horizontal and vertical information. In order to view the scene as it was, you first have to rectify the frame so that it is in aligned with the true vertical and horizontal axis. Otherwise it is a slight trick of the eye. What I’m talking about when I say the doorway is not its scale relationship with The Duke, but it (and the other uprights) as a reference for vertical. What it does affect is the relative heights of the two actors. As it is, Lee is effectively down-hill in the frame. Straighten up the picture, reconfigure the frame accordingly, and then you are finally referencing the heights correctly.
I haven’t seen the film yet, but I intend to.

Just to throw this into the pot, there is a famous picture taken during the making of The Quiet Man featuring (left to right) Frank Ford, John Wayne, Victor McLaglen, John Ford and a seated Barry Fitzgerald. In it Wayne is clearly standing with one very straight leg and the other resting on a bench. His upper body is leaning a little but he still looks relatively short compared to both McLaglen and even Ford. Perhaps he was standing in a slight hole? Whatever the situation, it would be wrong of me to say that he’s shorter than those other people on the basis of that shot alone. There is too much information missing.

To make the point again, in a different way, yesterday I saw the 1967 film The Way West starring Kirk Douglas and Robert Mitchum. Now, Douglas can be no more than 5-9 if he’s lucky, but in this film where he stands beside Mitchum in several scenes he actually appears slightly taller. There are probably several minutes of footage with the two together. Douglas is usually standing still (probably on a hill of earth) and Mitchum walks up to him and stands by his shoulder, looking about an inch shorter. There are no funny camera angles so clearly the trick has been created at foot level.

Le me be clear, I'm not saying this is the case with John Wayne; I simply use this to reinforce my point that it is important to take into account all the variables when putting a picture forward as proof of something.
Anonymous said on 14/Oct/07
Well.... Now I have seen so many Wayne movies that I have to agree with you.... He really was 6-3!!! He was 99% of the time the biggest man on screen.... I`ve seen one photo with Clint Walker. Wayne was a big man but Walker made him look like a goddamn Nick Nack.
mike c said on 12/Oct/07
Catsman, before we go any further, did you see the movie Donovan´s Reef? Remember, they're standing next to each other...uneven soil? Adjust the picture? What is there to adjust? The picture reflects the reality of the moment. Are you saying that each man has to be adjusted so that the picture reflects the true moment? If I'm wrong, I apologize because you seem to be an intelligent guy. If I take picture of a cottage with Wayne standing in the doorway, and I hold the camera slightly askew, do I change the ratio of the true height of the doorway compared to the Duke...absolutely not! You can hold the camera upside down and still will never ever change that ratio of an object's true measurement to the measurement on the photo.....carpenters, museum curators, and people who replicate objects from photos have known and done this for the countless years..If I'm confused, please enlighten me, Patrick, Gonzalo, et al. Thanks for interesting opinions....no offense meant and welcome on board to a debate that I enjoy...all in fun.
Catsman said on 12/Oct/07
patrick - I have tried to put forward a constructive and scientific point. If you think that I am twisting things in some sort of blind fanatisism then you are totally wrong. If you are a fan of John Wayne that's OK, but it probably means you are actually the one who is not objective. My interest is in films rather than film stars, and am simply doubtful about his quoted height given what I have seen.
And no, I'm not saying Lee is as tall, I'm saying that the picture has to be adjusted before you can compare. That's just basic logic.
patrick said on 12/Oct/07
Catsman..."you can lead a horse to water but..."Frankly, if you really wnat to see the Duke as tall or so as Lee Marvin, OK!
You know what? I saw a pic of John Wayne and Mickey Rooney and, after all, thinking it over, the difference...
Catsman said on 12/Oct/07
Mike c - what I'm saying is that even if the ground is totally level, when you adjust the picture so it is genuinely straight, as I've described, the difference becomes much less.
mike c said on 11/Oct/07
Hi Gonzalo. Maybe I'm imagining it, but you posted the Lee/Wayne pic with the footwear showing and even commented on the sneakers the Duke was wearing a while ago. Catsman, I've seen the pic that Gonzalo sent and it shows the Duke next to Lee, side by side, sneakers on feet...no lifts anywhere to be found. Am I right, Gonzalo? Mike C ps. Catsman, look at the chin line of both and tell me that the difference is less than 2 inches.
Gonzalo said on 11/Oct/07
Yes, Catsman, pics can be deceiving. But I have seen the movie and in one scene they walk together on even ground and Wayne is taller, around 4 or 5 cms. It is a nice movie, I hope you like it. It is not among the best movies of Wayne and Ford together but it´s worth watching. Nice colour, good performances, beautiful landscapes
patrick said on 11/Oct/07
Very nice and "accurate" pic Gonzalo!
Catsman said on 11/Oct/07
Gonzalo, thanks for posting that. It’s interesting.

Unfortunately the picture doesn’t really tell the whole truth. Initially there looks to be two or more inches difference and I think most people agree that Marvin is near enough 6-2.

But, firstly, we can’t see what the legs are doing. Lee is larking about and might not be standing straight. Judging by the angle of his hips though, I think he probably is, so let’s assume he is for the sake of argument.

Nevertheless, a bigger problem is that we can’t tell what they have on their feet at this instant, or what they are standing on. It is likely to be soil, gravel or grass and therefore uneven. These sorts of variables can make a big difference.

Finally, the picture is actually slanted. Look at the door frames, the posts, the shoulders of the nurses, and the belts of the two actors and you will see this is the case. Load this pic into Photoshop and rotate it a minimum of 2.5 percent CCW and you get the doors pretty much vertical. Then crop in tight to focus in on the two actors. Now you can see that only Marvin’s upper body leans over so that his shoulder drops relative to Wayne’s giving a false impression that his shoulders are much lower. At the belt you can see that there isn’t actually much difference between the two. If Marvin then stood straight his shoulder would come up, as would his head, and it looks as if there would be an inch difference at most, in my opinion.

Even so, this still doesn’t tell us much unless we can see the feet, ground and footwear. Photos can be very deceiving.
Gonzalo said on 11/Oct/07
Hi, Catsman. Until you see the Donovan´s reef you can take a look at this pic. It has been sent several times but I don´t know if it remains on this page
Click Here
patrick said on 10/Oct/07
Catsman "widely reported" 4 inch lifts? No way! I never everheard of that! Lifts, yes, 4 inch ones, certainly not: just try to figure out them!! John Wayne in "talons aiguilles" as it is said in french ("needle heels")!
"We" did not especially "studied" his height...we just opened our eyes and notice what is obvious for our prime.
About Lee Marvin who definitely was 6'2 even in his old days, it is as easy to check what Gonzalo and mike C write as about the Duke: hundreds of films!
Did you ever really watch John Wayne movies? I say that because I repeat his height is obvious but for guys like Viper! I wonder how "that" can be such a matter of debate! That is different with current actors because of the way directors most often shoot them with angles, sophistication essentially dating from the 60ies.
Catsman, take ANY Howard Hawks movie with Wayne or not, and you will have what a other great director, Japanese this time, Ozu, always did: still camera according to an angle showing characters from the same point of view as if he were (the director) no more than 5'5 tall. Hawks is the best example and he did with Ford, the best movies ever, whether it is with the Duke or not.
Thanks for trying!
Catsman said on 10/Oct/07
Mike C - I did try to post some examples but there are unspecified word filters set on this site and those emails won't post because of the names I entered. Do some keyword searches on the web, as I did, and you'll find quite a few references. They might all originate from one exagerated source, of course, but I do think that there is some truth in the story.
I did take a look at that picture from 21st. It's not the best reference because of the wide angle which tends to enlarge the edges and Wayne is leaning his head, but he does look 6ft 4. I take your point about 4 inch lifts being unlikely but perhaps he still had some sort of lifts?
I can't comment on the Lee Marvin comparison until I see it for myself.
mike c said on 9/Oct/07
Catsman, no offense meant. Take a pair of your favorite shoes/boots, and put 4" lifts (maybe use paper, styrofoam, etc) and please let us know if you can walk and/or run using them. Please let me know the written source of these mythical 4" lifts...I want to read for myself. Respect your opinion, but honestly can't even begin to agree with it...Lee Marvin was 6'2" and, as Gonzalo points out, Wayne was at least 2" taller wearing sneakers..check this out: Gonzalo says on 21/May/07 Catsman, please scroll down
Well, I hope this thing works. Here are some pics that Mike C sent to me and one that I already had of Wayne towering over 6ft john ford. I hope you all can see it. wayne looks very tall in this pics but we know how it works: Wayne is wearing lifts or Ford was 5`9. The same old story

Click Here
Catsman said on 9/Oct/07
You guys seem to have studied John Wayne more than I have, or care to, so you may well be right. I read that he wore lifts of a large size (4 inches is widely reported), it's not something I've judged myself. Maybe it's folklaw. To say I'm in denial suggests that I have some problem with him being that tall. I certainly don't care that much! I'll keep an eye out for Donovan's Reef.
patrick said on 9/Oct/07
Thanks Friends! Anyway, "that" is ridiculous! Already that old story of lifts and moreover 4' lifts! Frankly...
Some people appear taking pleasure in downgrading others, especially "very known people", stars, celebrities. It is so easy to reduce them under the pretext of "demythify" any person "too worshipped" man or woman in their opinion.
Gonzalo said on 9/Oct/07
Catsman comment is hard to understand. There is no way Wayne wore four inch lifts; I don´t know how someone can wear those lifts.
There are several movies in which Wayne appears barefoot: The quiet man (he looks very big when he is in the cottage, with the blanket), The searchers (barefoot next to Jeffrey hunter) or the shootist. In all those movies he still looks very tall barefoot.
Have a look at Donovan´s reef. Tell me where are the lifts in those sneakers. He was two inches taller than Lee Marvin, who wasn´t really a midget, was he?
mike c said on 8/Oct/07
Catsman, if you indeed saw The Quiet Man, maybe you missed three important scenes. The one with Victor McLaglen in the widow's home where the Duke haggles for his father's property. They're face to face, you get a great shot of the shoes....if you see 4" heels/lifts you are definitely in denial. Earlier in the movie when he's being driven to his hometown in a horse and buggie, you get a good look at the shoes he wears throughout the movie....again, the 4" lifts are no where to be scene.....and the best shot of all, when he's standing in the doorway of his cottage and his wife has gone AWOL, he's barefoot...he's taller than the doorway....I know, they purposely built the cottage to make his look tall....
patrick said on 8/Oct/07
Very well and "long enough" posted Russ! "Robert Mitchum was not close to being Wayne's height in the movie. In some scenes yes, Robert Mitchum looks tall. But, it was only because of the camera angle when Wayne was in the background": what could I add ?? Even "me"? Perfect!
Catsman, what on earth are trying to say mentioning "4 inch lifts" ? That really makes no sense at all! Where did you dig that up?
Hey mike c, Gonzalo and now, Russ, what do you think? Maybe in getting on in age I have lost "something" but frankly, I find that typically as "wanting being right at all cost" arguments!
Catsman said on 8/Oct/07
Mike C – That’s a very long post. Which point did you want me to read?
I’m not saying he was short but if he was 6-4 and a half, as billed then in four inch lifts he’d have been over 6-8, which really would have been huge on screen. He’s never looked that big to me.
I do recall seeing The Quiet Man and recall him being bigger than the guy he fought but what was his footwear?
mike c said on 7/Oct/07
Well said, Russ.
Russ said on 6/Oct/07
I've been watching John Wayne movies for a long time. In every movie, he is considerably taller than almost every other man in the film. The only other actors who even came close to Wayne's height were Jimmy Stewart, Ward Bond, Woody Strode and George Kennedy. All of these men were bonifide tall men. If John Wayne truly was 5'10" or 5'11" as some people want to think, he'd have to have been wearing 6"lifts to have been taller than these other men. I doubt very much that Wayne was wearing 6" inch lifts in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, "The Sons of Katie Elder",etc. He did a fair amount of running in his Westerns. You can't run when you are wearing 6" lifts. I've watched "El Dorado" probably 10 times over the years. Robert Mitchum was not close to being Wayne's height in the movie. In some scenes yes, Robert Mitchum looks tall. But, it was only because of the camera angle when Wayne was in the background, etc. Many actors are shorter than we think they are. But, John Wayne truly was a tall, big man.
mike c said on 6/Oct/07
Catsman, no offense meant, but if you read, please scroll down and read my contribution dated July 20 'o7...and, if you can schedule it, watch very carefully The Quiet Man....minimum 6'4" barefoot...the man he fights was the monster boxer Victor (6'3")...
mike c said on 6/Oct/07
Russ, Catsman is in denial.....
Russ said on 6/Oct/07
In the Bruce Dern interview I mentioned previously, Dern mentioned that John Wayne "threw me around like a rag doll" in the fight scene from "The Cowboys. When you figure Wayne's age at that time and that he probably had only one lung, that's impressive.
Catsman said on 5/Oct/07
I saw the last minute of a film starring Wayne and Robert Mitchum the other day. I think it was El Dorado, made in 1966. The two looked almost the same height. I think Wayne was 6-4 with his lifts, not barefoot.
Russ - Dern probably meant he was giant in character or charisma.
Gonzalo said on 5/Oct/07
Bruce Dern and John Wayne. In that movie, The war wagon Wayne and Kirk Douglas shot two guys at the same time killing both. Douglas said "mine reached the floor first" and Wayne replies "mine was taller". Wayne´s guy was Dern.
That sentence was the only good thing of that movie.
patrick said on 5/Oct/07
Yes, I always saw him as 6'1 in his "bad guy roles" years in the 60ies. He was mainly confronted to the Duke in "the Cowboys" where though being a strapping man himself, Bruce looks like a teenager against a baobab when fighting John Wayne!
glenn said on 5/Oct/07
i think bruce dern told me he was 6-1 in youth but lost height.
Russ said on 5/Oct/07
I recently saw a documentary on John Wayne. In the documentary, they were interviewing Bruce Dern who was in the movie "The War Wagon" with John Wayne and Kirk Douglas. Bruce Dern, who is probably at least 6 feet himself, stated that John Wayne was "a giant of a man".
patrick said on 1/Oct/07
Well posted Russ and "common sense marked". The Duke, unlike Rock Hudson or Bob Mitchum (ah! all those wonderful actors!)very rarely stood straight up and on the other hand, tilted all the time a often swaying head; remember: his famous look, the eyes up to the one he was talking to!
Russ said on 1/Oct/07
Gentlemen,
It is well known and accepted within the movie industry that John Wayne was about 6' 4" in his prime. There is a Western movie called "The Undefeated" which stars the Duke as well as Rock Hudson. In some scenes, Rock Hudson appears to be maybe an inch taller than Wayne. But, in no scene does Hudson ever "tower above" Wayne. There is another Western called "Rio Bravo" with John Wayne, Ricky Nelson & Dean Martin. There are many scenes in the movie that show all 3 men walking side by side down the street. John Wayne literally made the other actors look like midgets.
mike c said on 24/Sep/07
patrick, I had to erase what I wrote twice...guess I'm getting soft in my old age....not once did I ever see Rock dwarf the Duke...not once..King must have seen a movie that the rest of the world did not see nor knew existed....there's no accounting for perception nor taste for that matter!! Keep your common sense coming. mike c
patrick said on 24/Sep/07
mike C, may I tell you you are too polite with Mr King. That is my way of saying what I think of such a silly thing! It is always possible to say anything about anything; non sense is the most common argument for peopla unable to play fair and square; No argument but a real will to say "something", preferably cynical, even evil, no problem! let's invent it and not matter it is completely incredible and not founded at all! "We" so have talked, at all cost! Pathetic!
mike c said on 22/Sep/07
King, you're joking, right?
King said on 22/Sep/07
John Wayne was not 6-4. He refused to act with Rock Hudson, because Rock completely DWARFED Duke.
Patrick said on 17/Sep/07
"hmm, you had to read "refering to" of course...sorry!
Patrick said on 17/Sep/07
"the shootist", the film you are referencing to, proves to be the last Duke's one: he was old and in so good shape. Yet, he still stood very tall and whether some like it or not, he looks taller than Jimmy Stewart. Forget the "uneven soil they stand together" photo. Look at the movie. Anyway he is still at least as tall as Jimmy and never forget how ill this great man had been and what He had gone through! My brother lost two good inches just in getting a severe cancer and that occured in a couple of weeks! The Duke underwent several severe surgical operations. I still wonder how, for example, he could shoot "the sons of Kathie Elder" just a few weeks after having a lung removed!
A damned great Man if ever!
Anonymous said on 13/Sep/07
John Wayne was a solid 6'3. In a movie with Ron Howard there was a scene where
Wayne was barefoot and Howard was wearing boots and Wayne still towered
over him. 6'4 in his prime.
Patrick said on 13/Sep/07
Sure mike; I just wanted to add a "superior, essentiel" touch because, dear friends, I really and deeply feel that "we", all of us, need that kinda great nexus in a world full of "noise and fury" and too often "signifying nothing" or at least, "not so much"!
Remember how Gonzalo and you and sometimes a few others, considered hat very site as a basis to develop values we all are attached to;
This world is not that bad but, what is crazy lies in the fact while we do not know war (Hmm...) on our lands (I speak as an European here!)and racial differences are way less obvious than "in the good old times" like the 50ies, there is a lack of values, of things to stick to. As ressult we live in a "gentle" but quite insipid and a bit fuzzed world. In Europe and especially in France, that is far more evident!!! Believe me! I am always between the "two worlds" and there is no need to compare them!!! Yet, feature films being a "mirror" of our society, we can see "us" through the choice that very society does as for its "stars"; the same with stupid TV shows we won't be able to watch "tomorrow" as we can do for the same silly ones of the 50ies; Question of charm! I do not see any part of "future kitsch" in our vulgar today's TV shows! Not all of them but...I am sure (for those still reading that boring statement!) "you" will see what I mean!
SO, people able to keep cool enough not to be laid astray by all of that "easy way out", people like you mike c and Gonzalo are like a cold glass of fresh water in a burning desert!
Sorry for being so long!
mike c said on 12/Sep/07
Patrick, we can also call it common sense..of which you have quite a bit just like my buddy Gonzalo...great pic. G.
Patrick said on 12/Sep/07
Thanks again buddies mike c and Gonzalo; That is funny how each of you react exactly as..."the two others" do! That is what I call a "psychic link"!
Gonzalo said on 12/Sep/07
It`s true he doesn´t look 6`4 in the pic Captainobvious sent but we really don`t have any idea of how tall those guys were. Maybe they were all around 6`3. Anyway, Wayne is the tallest.

Here we have a pic of Wayne looking very tall next to john Ford who was 6`0 in his prime. I guess by that time he wasn´t that tall.
Click Here
mike c said on 11/Sep/07
I'm sorry captainobvious (I hope it's not your real name!)..I reacted very quickly and dashed off a comment without seeing your "Someone wasn't 6'4"...I guess you were there when the pic was taken and know by heart the heights of all the men in the pic. and their names so us stupid folks can do some research...I mean, how else could you possibly say 'Someone wasn't 6'4"? (remember cap' he was getting on in age when the pic was taken...). Ed. Rob. I saw a movie of John Wayne with Roy Rogers....Roy was about 6' tall(Roy was in his twenties)...The Duke towered over him...I'll do my homework and get back to you..I believe the movie can out in the 30's...nice piece of acting by both superstars.
mike c said on 11/Sep/07
captainobvious,..... AND YOUR POINT IS? Oh, I hope it's not the old John Wayne's short story again...Nice pic. though. mike c
Patrick said on 11/Sep/07
On an uneven soil surface ? What is strange in there? I don't figure out...furthermore, the Duke was not young at the time of this pic and also, who are those guys? Who knows how tall they are? Kinda pic I like but not to serve as measurement basis in any way!
captainobvious said on 10/Sep/07
Here's a curious pic. Very curious indeed:

Click Here

Someone wasn't 6'4".

[Editor Rob: I was watching early Wayne, c-movies, the guy in late 20's to early 30's range when thin in those movies really did tower people.]
mike c said on 7/Sep/07
chris, 6'.4.5" minimum in his prime. Glad you're on board.
chris said on 6/Sep/07
The Duke could have scratched 6'5" in his prime height.
Patrick said on 4/Sep/07
YES Gonzalo! Exactly what I think: "Wayne looked taller in the shots on even ground, specially by the end of the movie when they meet in the headquaters preparing their last mission Wayne looked clearly taller".
Nothing to add!
Iam sure Ryan was more than 6'3 and was well 6'4 as repported.
I just watched "the hellfighters" with 6'5 T.Hutton and Wayne once more, "in turns" looked as or almost, tall as him or shorter, depending...how the Duke STOOD beside Tim: actually, J.Wayne was as you often how to say , swaying and his head was rarely still (as the Brando's one!); even late in his career, the Duke still was very supple and i'd say "flexible"; it was in his nature; his walk was as a floating boat and he always talked with moves of his head underlying his words; even his face was in move: remember how he would lift his forehead skin, looking then very "dangerous"!
But Tim, him, remains all the time as a very rigid and right stick!
Until then guys !
Gonzalo said on 4/Sep/07
Hi, Patrick, Mike C. Well, Robert Ryan was also a very tall man and a great actor. He was a boxer before becoming an actor. In The flying leathernecks, as you say Patrick, it was hard to tell who looked taller, cause it depended on the shot. To me Wayne looked taller in the shots on even ground, specially by the end of the movie when they meet in the headquaters preparing their last mission Wayne looked clearly taller. I would like to see the movie again in order to take a pic of that shot so people here can see Wayne was taller.
My mother and my brother saw The longest day the other day and my mum said that they looked very similar in height but Wayne could be a little taller.
Anyway, they were both great in all terms. At least 6`3 for them
mike c said on 2/Sep/07
Hi Gonzalo, Patrick. Patrick, I enjoy reading what you write...a lot of common sense. I don't think, though, Gonzalo is trying to show that Ryan is taller than the Duke. His great pic. just shows the height of the Duke..6'4" at least..on the Ryan page he's listed as 6'4" yet in Gonzalo's pic. I feel the Duke is a tad taller.look at the shoulders and the chin..call me silly...Quidate, amigo. Keep it coming Patrick, my friend. mike c
patrick said on 31/Aug/07
ALANR, frankly, if you are still "there" about that topic...I know vry well that foot print WHICH MEANS NOTHING at all!
I can't get over it! People still continue to trust that kind of vague impression from a foot print or so rather than just simply watching movies!
That scares me when I think such people could serve as witnesses in a trial!
Gonzalo: that is just a pic among many others and you know as we all do, that a pic will never be worth the natural we find an entire movie; The one looking taller at a moment will seem shorter after.
Furthermore, that is taken from "the longest day" in 1962; the Duke was supposed not to be as tall as in "the flying leathernecks" in 1951. In Tom Welling page, I wrote precisely how in that last movie, he first (first scene together) looks shorter by one to two inches and, suddenly seem atller ALL ALONG THE FILM, with no need of any trick!
In that '51 movie, they walk along often, wearing exactly the same USAF shoes and enough long to allow us to appreciate they respective height;
No doubt the Duke was slighlyt taller at the time and even more broadshouldered!
NO DOUBT unless being blind or decided to deny reality.
In 62, it is visible John, while staying in very good shape (for a man smoking more tha 4 packs and drinking "reasonnably") was not the same athletic man any more, contrary to R.Ryan who never was fat and kept his slender silhouette until his too early death.
Hope to get an answer from you and mike c; meanwhile: take care !
mike c said on 29/Aug/07
Great pic. Gonzalo! Alanr, I know someone wrote about the boot size...scroll down to Mike T May 30, June 2....interesting thing..boots
ALANR said on 29/Aug/07
We were at Graumans Chinese Theater last month and his boot print was tiny--my 8 year olds foot was bigger than his. I do not see how he could be over 6 ft with such a tiny foot if it was really his!!!
Gonzalo said on 29/Aug/07
John Wayne next to Robert Ryan. Hard to say. The same height I would say.
Click Here
patrick said on 24/Aug/07
Of course! Sure he was so mike C and Mr Sunshine! I saw the same in the Warner Brothers museum where are displayed many artefacts having belonged to the Duke.
I remember a jacket he wore in the high and the mighty.
To cut a long story short HE was BIG and tall because as says Mr. Sunshine, if not so he should have been very badly built, notably much more bulky, head in shoulders like a funfair brute what he was not!
On the contrary John Wayne was slender even when having got a lot of weight!
He NEVER appeared fat and kept all along his life that incredibly elegant silhouette. I re-watched once more, the cow boys where he looks like a tree trunk compared to the athletic Bruce Dern. Only a really tall man can give that impression with maybe 40 Lbs too much!
mike c said on 23/Aug/07
Thank you, Sunshine. Great piece of info. for the ones who still insist he was short, abeit stocky. The man was huge and if you read below.(July 20th)......"He was like a walking mountain, physically big, huge, amazing to be around" mike c
Ms. Sunshine said on 23/Aug/07
Saw a cowboy shirt worn by J. W., that is displayed at the Gene Autry Western Heritage Museum in Los Angeles, & I could not believe how wide the shoulders were on this shirt. The man had to have been very tall in person or he would have been very disproportionate overall & he does not look that way in his movies.
patrick said on 21/Aug/07
SO NICE WORDS Mike C ! The same about you, of course! Please, mike could you get to Tom Welling page and read what I try to make understand concerning "old fashioned actors"? That would be very nice. Scroll down and try to find other remarks I did about that very profound subject; I say profound because how are and look our today's actors reveals a lot about us, about how our society really is and what are its values.
Hi Gonzalo too! Island in the sky isnot a typical John Wayne film because he does not appear as the emblematic hero he used to being. He is "one" among other guys in a very difficult position. Heroes are, in a way, more "the others", rescuers, whose tallest is J.Arness. I so don't remember seeing him facing the Duke. Easier I think, in the see chase (55), Hondo (53). The best example to watch them together all along the same movie is by far, "big jim mclain" but I doubt this film be ever visible today! That is about Mc Carthism and its heroes would probably seen now as "the vilains", including John Wayne!
To finish: in hellfighters, Hutton looks in turn an inch taller then about the same. I think an inch is rightn not two. Need to get it in DVD!
Many happy returns to all of us, guys!
mike c said on 19/Aug/07
Great to hear from you Gonzalo!! If you can, scan the pic. of Hutton and Wayne in the BOOK and send it to ed. Rob. ...I think an inch is about right, what do you think? Cuidate, Amigo. Mike ps, Patrick, miss you, buddy.
Hmm said on 19/Aug/07
Watch "Hellfighters" with Wayne and 6'5" Jim Hutton. Hutton looks an inch or two taller than Wayne, footwear is unclear though.
Gonzalo said on 17/Aug/07
Hi, guys. Nice article about Wayne, Mike C. Thank you. I have found another movie of Wayne with James Arness, Island in the sky. I hope to have the chance to watch it and see how tall Wayne looks next to 6`7 Arness
patrick said on 6/Aug/07
Mike C : I did! I read your long and fascinating report but as you noticed, it was impossible to take anything down until september; I do not even figure out how I can do it "now"!
William: I am not sure Americans were so "shorter" in the 50ies; At the time, there were the tallest in the world and are not any more. If you take into consideration just "actors" you will see that most of them were between 6 and 6'3, and even more. I always said that if a European actor would have been hired in an American movie, he would so looked just ridiculous, unless using tricks of course.
Some british actors and few Germans were tall at the time (Curd Jurgens) but in France for example, only Yves Monatnd was real tall star and at 6'2 he towered any other actor! Another French star was Jean Marais (one of the best built man ever...without doing ANY sport!)and looked really tall at only 5'11.
At the same height in the USA, Glen Ford looked very average. Alain Delon looked tall at 5'11/2. Look how R.de Niro looks short and fortunately, he played not in the "6 to 6'3" 50ies but in the "5'6 to 5'9" 70ies!
Many of my friends are between 6 and 6'2 and were between 20 and 30 in the 50ies. Just like nowadays. As I wrote it many times, at the time, people were mostly white and those typical "WASP" were rather tall and still are they.
Latinos and others as Asians are rarely over 5'7 or 8. The average has been modified because of this population increasing.
Actors are taken out of the real population and if being tall is right, at 6 to 6'2, beyond, it is considered "too much".
Wayne's time was nevertheless different about that even though 6'5 or more were estimated already too tall.
William said on 5/Aug/07
I don't know, I mean the adults of 1955 were those of two-three generations ago, and about 2-3 inches shorter, on average, than today's adults. He may give the appearance of being a 6'4 or 6'5 man now but he would have only needed to be 6'1 to tower above most men of 1955.
Mike C said on 22/Jul/07
LOW are you also nick? Either way, respect the way you write. Mike C ps Patrick, did you get a chance to read my July 20 post?
LOW said on 22/Jul/07
Mike c, great investigating, I wasn't trying to insist that the Duke was 6'3 1/2 or anyting, I was just conveying information from something I had saw, I would like to help get an accurate reading of of his height weather it's 6'1 or 6'6. I have no doubt that he could have lost at least 1/2 inch by then, he was past his prime physically. I'm suprised that it was from 1955 though, I would have guessed that it was more recent.
Viper said on 22/Jul/07
Mike, that site has the Rock at a ridiculous 6-4 1/2 as well, lol. Not too credible there.
Mike C said on 21/Jul/07
nick, you sound like a reasonable guy. Got this in a google search. Remember, the Duke was gaining weight by then...his life style was starting to get in the way..could easily have lost .5" by this episode...mike c:
10/10/55: "Lucy and John Wayne"
I Love Lucy Episode 129 - Filmed 9/15/55
Story: Lucy and Ethel have made off with the cement slab of John Wayne's footprints. Now the police are called in to investigate.
nick said on 20/Jul/07
I beg to differ Patrick, I had shortend my original remark because I didn't want to praddle on, but I can get more specific about that episode. It's an episode when Lucy is trying to meet the great Duke Wayne so she's snooping around his dressing room looking at stuff when Wayne's massuse comes in. she makes up a story to get ride of him. but right after that, much to her horror, john comes in expecting his messauge, he lay's down on his stomach with his head on the towel and can't see Lucy, he starts to make small talk and finally she has to say something, so in a deep manley voice she say's "so whatcha up to" and he say's "oh about 6'3 1/2". I have to admit, I don't have any real proof to post or episode # or anything.
Mike C said on 20/Jul/07
Guys, another interesting site regarding the so-called height of The Duke...open and scroll downn to 6'4.5"
Click Here Oh, yes, I know....not enough proof!! This is getting better, Patrick, it's almost too easy!
Mike C said on 20/Jul/07
Patrick, Gonzalo, visit this page: Click Here then read below what Neil Summers says about the "walking mountain!!!
A few years ago, Albuquerque's Boyd Magers found himself in a bind while compiling an all-time list of top Western stars for Western Clippings, his magazine about cowboy movies and TV shows.
"I kept going back and forth between (singing cowboys) Gene Autry and Roy Rogers for Nos. 2 and 3," Magers said during a phone interview this week. "But there was no question about No. 1. That was John Wayne."
Magers said Wayne throws his tall shadow worldwide.
"You mention him in Japan and people know him instantly," he said. "It's hard to say why. It's an almost undefinable thing, a kind of chemistry on the screen.
"But to me, he epitomizes that manly let's-take-care-of-business attitude that doesn't seem to exist anymore. And the sense that's there's a right and a wrong and no in between."
Wayne - Oscar-winning actor, mythic hero, American icon and one tough hombre - was born Marion Morrison in Winterset, Iowa, 100 years ago today.
He doesn't look his age. A Harris Poll done this year lists him as the third most popular movie star behind Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks.
Not bad for someone who died of stomach cancer in 1979. But legends are not good about lying still.
"John Wayne's image is more mythic than realistic," said Johnny D. Boggs, 45, of Santa Fe, a writer of Western fiction and nonfiction and vice president of the Western Writers of America. "The image he portrayed in the movies is this giant figure for truth, justice and the American way. I don't think you met too many characters like that in the (real) West."
Boggs said the characters in his own award-winning fiction (two Western Writers Spur Awards) are more likely to be influenced by Jimmy Stewart's roles in such movies as 1950's "Winchester Õ73" and 1953's "The Naked Spur." He said Stewart's characters were more like people you might have seen in the Old West, conflicted souls a writer can sink his ambitions into.
"Stewart was smaller in stature than Wayne, his characters were troubled and had some issues to work out," he said. "There was an inner rage in Jimmy Stewart's characters that I was just blown away by."
Wayne, known as Duke to family, friends and fans, seldom played those kinds of characters - although his roles in two of his best films, 1948's "Red River" and 1956's "The Searchers," are exceptions. Usually Wayne's portrayals were as upfront as knuckles or the barrel of a gun.
And it was Wayne, rather than Stewart or any other actor, who lured young Johnny Boggs into the Old West. When he was a senior in high school in Lynchburg, S.C., Boggs played hooky from school so he could watch Wayne's 1948 movie "Fort Apache" on TV.
"Well, I had never seen it, and it sure beat sociology class," he said. "Wayne movies like `The War Wagon' (1967) fueled my interest in the West. I became more interested in the real West and the real people of the West, but you can't forget John Wayne. I'm not sure I would have become a Western novelist if not for John Wayne movies."
Magers, 66, numbers a cavalry hat worn by Wayne in "Fort Apache" and a shirt worn by him in some of his B (low-budget) Westerns among his extensive collection of memorabilia from Western movies and TV series.
And Magers is among the people from 38 states and eight countries attending a big Wayne birthday bash in the actor's Iowa birthplace this weekend.
He's moderating two panels at the Winterset celebration, which includes performances by Western music singers Michael Martin Murphey and Riders in the Sky and the groundbreaking for a John Wayne Birthplace Museum and Learning Center.
Magers figures the big to-do is Wayne's just dues.
"He graduated from those B Westerns into the A-movie realm, which Gene and Roy never did," he said. "He got lucky with (1939's) `Stagecoach' and hooked up with John Ford, one of our greatest directors.
"He played himself on the screen and people either accepted him or they didn't."
There was no in between.
Mountain of a man
Etched indelibly among Al Cantú's fondest memories is the first day he worked with John Wayne.
"They call him to the set, and here comes the wrangler with this big old sorrel horse and a stool to help Wayne get up into the saddle," Cantú recalled. "I'm thinking, `Oh, no, not my hero.' But he was already up in age back then."
Back then was the early '70s, the time when Wayne was making the only two movies he'd do in New Mexico - "Chisum" (1970) and "The Cowboys" (1972).
Cantú , 64, who has been in the movies for 39 years as stuntman, supporting actor, extra, set builder, driver and jack-of-all-trades, worked on both "Chisum" and "The Cowboys." In the latter, he played a bad guy who gets killed by kids avenging the death of Wayne's character.
"He had a lot of charisma," Cantú said of Wayne during a phone interview from Santa Fe, where he lives. "There was something about him - his walk, his talk, his personality. He was super nice, really nice to me. I have a hat from `The Cowboys' that he personally gave me."
He said that in between scenes at the Eaves Movie Ranch southwest of Santa Fe, Wayne would join in shooting dice with the stuntmen and extras. He remembered the rattling of Wayne's brass bracelet - probably the one Vietnam's Montagnard mountain people gave him during the filming of 1968's "The Green Berets" - as Wayne shook the dice.
"He knew how to shoot those dice pretty good," Cantú said. "He would win $400 or $500 and then they'd be ready for him on the set, and he'd say, `Spread it around, boys.' "
Stuntman Neil Summers, who worked with Wayne on movies such as "McLintock" (1963), "El Dorado" (1966), "True Grit" (1969) and "Rio Lobo" (1970), remembers Wayne's great height - 6-foot-4 before you put boots under him and a hat on top of him.
"He was like a walking mountain, physically big, huge, amazing to be around," Summers, 63, said during a phone interview this week. "He was a tough old hide who didn't suffer fools very well. But he was generous to other actors. You just better be prepared when you came to town because he was a total professional. If it was a John Wayne movie, he wanted to make it the best it could be."
Summers moved to Albuquerque's West Side last summer, chased out of Hollywood after 41 years by growing congestion and the reality TV craze. The latter makes it tough finding work for a man like Summers, who was gunned down by Wayne in "Rio Lobo," thrown down a muddy slope by Wayne in "McLintock" and who doubled for an outlaw pursued by Wayne in "True Grit."
Summers was on the set of "Rio Lobo" in Arizona's Old Tucson the day Wayne returned from accepting his Oscar for his portrayal of crusty, one-eyed marshal Rooster Cogburn in "True Grit."
"There were about 150 of us on the set - cast, crew, extras, caterers - and when he gets out of his car, we all have our backs to him," Summers said. "Then we turned around and all of us had on eye patches (like Cogburn's in the movie), even his horse has an eye patch. The carpenters had built a mock Oscar out of plywood, 50 feet high, painted gold, and it had an eye patch on it.
"Then we all started applauding. He got misty-eyed over that."
That was Wayne's only Oscar. Many fans felt he should have won one earlier - for 1949's "The Sands of Iwo Jima," for which he was nominated, or for "Red River" or "The Searchers," neither of which earned him consideration.
"I think he is underrated as an actor," Boggs said. "When he wanted to be a good actor, when he had a great script and a great director, he could really hammer a part. I thought he was very good in `The Quiet Man' (1952), `True Grit,' `Red River' and `The Sands of Iwo Jima.' His acting as Ethan Edwards in `The Searchers' is just phenomenal."
It's interesting that even though Wayne's fans admire the black-or-white, right-or-wrong nature of his screen roles, they often pick a movie in which he played one of his rare complex characters as their favorite.
Magers' favorite is "Red River," in which Wayne plays tyrannical rancher Tom Dunson, and Summers' pick is "The Searchers," in which Wayne is the Indian-hating Edwards.
" `The Searchers' is the greatest ever made," Summers said. "His character was a cold-hearted bigot. He wanted to kill everything in feathers. It was a magnificent performance."
Wayne, the man, had room in his tall frame for some contradictions. He may be the most popular cowboy movie star of all time, but he was not overly fond of horses.
"The way he looked at horses was the way he looked at other actors," Summers said. " `You better do what I want you to do right now.' Horses were props that he admired for what they could give him."
His public stance was that of a conservative-minded superpatriot, and he starred in more war movies than perhaps any other single actor. But he never served in the military.
During World War II, he chose a family deferment - he was 34, a husband and a father when the United States entered the war - over active duty.
Many of Hollywood's leading men - Stewart, Autry, Henry Fonda, Ronald Reagan - joined up. Clark Gable was 41, but he enlisted in the Army Air Force. Director Ford, 47 at the start of the war, served with the Navy.
But Wayne stayed home to make movies such as "A Lady Takes a Chance," "In Old Oklahoma," "The Fighting Seabees," "Back to Bataan" and "They Were Expendable."
Magers argues that the war movies Wayne made during this time were valuable to the war effort in terms of boosting morale and recruiting efforts. And that is no doubt true.
But Boggs said these movies were also valuable in building Wayne's career, which had only just turned a corner a few years earlier with "Stagecoach."
"I'm not sure John Wayne would have been the huge star he was if he had gone off to World War II," Boggs said.
Two-fisted star power
But he was a huge star, an actor who left his brand on America's image of itself and on the action movie genre.
"He and (pioneer stuntman) Yakima Canutt developed the art of screen fighting," Magers said. "What they did was to take it to something almost like choreography, where it really looked like a rough-and-tumble fight."
That's John Wayne - two-fisted and full-speed ahead.
"What you saw was what you got," Summers said.
Like him, or not.
Agree with him, or don't.
There's nothing in between.
Happy birthday, Duke.

A few years ago, Albuquerque's Boyd Magers found himself in a bind while compiling an all-time list of top Western stars for Western Clippings, his magazine about cowboy movies and TV shows.
"I kept going back and forth between (singing cowboys) Gene Autry and Roy Rogers for Nos. 2 and 3," Magers said during a phone interview this week. "But there was no question about No. 1. That was John Wayne."
Magers said Wayne throws his tall shadow worldwide.
"You mention him in Japan and people know him instantly," he said. "It's hard to say why. It's an almost undefinable thing, a kind of chemistry on the screen.
"But to me, he epitomizes that manly let's-take-care-of-business attitude that doesn't seem to exist anymore. And the sense that's there's a right and a wrong and no in between."
Wayne - Oscar-winning actor, mythic hero, American icon and one tough hombre - was born Marion Morrison in Winterset, Iowa, 100 years ago today.
He doesn't look his age. A Harris Poll done this year lists him as the third most popular movie star behind Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks.
Not bad for someone who died of stomach cancer in 1979. But legends are not good about lying still.
"John Wayne's image is more mythic than realistic," said Johnny D. Boggs, 45, of Santa Fe, a writer of Western fiction and nonfiction and vice president of the Western Writers of America. "The image he portrayed in the movies is this giant figure for truth, justice and the American way. I don't think you met too many characters like that in the (real) West."
Boggs said the characters in his own award-winning fiction (two Western Writers Spur Awards) are more likely to be influenced by Jimmy Stewart's roles in such movies as 1950's "Winchester Õ73" and 1953's "The Naked Spur." He said Stewart's characters were more like people you might have seen in the Old West, conflicted souls a writer can sink his ambitions into.
"Stewart was smaller in stature than Wayne, his characters were troubled and had some issues to work out," he said. "There was an inner rage in Jimmy Stewart's characters that I was just blown away by."
Wayne, known as Duke to family, friends and fans, seldom played those kinds of characters - although his roles in two of his best films, 1948's "Red River" and 1956's "The Searchers," are exceptions. Usually Wayne's portrayals were as upfront as knuckles or the barrel of a gun.
And it was Wayne, rather than Stewart or any other actor, who lured young Johnny Boggs into the Old West. When he was a senior in high school in Lynchburg, S.C., Boggs played hooky from school so he could watch Wayne's 1948 movie "Fort Apache" on TV.
"Well, I had never seen it, and it sure beat sociology class," he said. "Wayne movies like `The War Wagon' (1967) fueled my interest in the West. I became more interested in the real West and the real people of the West, but you can't forget John Wayne. I'm not sure I would have become a Western novelist if not for John Wayne movies."
Magers, 66, numbers a cavalry hat worn by Wayne in "Fort Apache" and a shirt worn by him in some of his B (low-budget) Westerns among his extensive collection of memorabilia from Western movies and TV series.
And Magers is among the people from 38 states and eight countries attending a big Wayne birthday bash in the actor's Iowa birthplace this weekend.
He's moderating two panels at the Winterset celebration, which includes performances by Western music singers Michael Martin Murphey and Riders in the Sky and the groundbreaking for a John Wayne Birthplace Museum and Learning Center.
Magers figures the big to-do is Wayne's just dues.
"He graduated from those B Westerns into the A-movie realm, which Gene and Roy never did," he said. "He got lucky with (1939's) `Stagecoach' and hooked up with John Ford, one of our greatest directors.
"He played himself on the screen and people either accepted him or they didn't."
There was no in between.
Mountain of a man
Etched indelibly among Al Cantú's fondest memories is the first day he worked with John Wayne.
"They call him to the set, and here comes the wrangler with this big old sorrel horse and a stool to help Wayne get up into the saddle," Cantú recalled. "I'm thinking, `Oh, no, not my hero.' But he was already up in age back then."
Back then was the early '70s, the time when Wayne was making the only two movies he'd do in New Mexico - "Chisum" (1970) and "The Cowboys" (1972).
Cantú , 64, who has been in the movies for 39 years as stuntman, supporting actor, extra, set builder, driver and jack-of-all-trades, worked on both "Chisum" and "The Cowboys." In the latter, he played a bad guy who gets killed by kids avenging the death of Wayne's character.
"He had a lot of charisma," Cantú said of Wayne during a phone interview from Santa Fe, where he lives. "There was something about him - his walk, his talk, his personality. He was super nice, really nice to me. I have a hat from `The Cowboys' that he personally gave me."
He said that in between scenes at the Eaves Movie Ranch southwest of Santa Fe, Wayne would join in shooting dice with the stuntmen and extras. He remembered the rattling of Wayne's brass bracelet - probably the one Vietnam's Montagnard mountain people gave him during the filming of 1968's "The Green Berets" - as Wayne shook the dice.
"He knew how to shoot those dice pretty good," Cantú said. "He would win $400 or $500 and then they'd be ready for him on the set, and he'd say, `Spread it around, boys.' "
Stuntman Neil Summers, who worked with Wayne on movies such as "McLintock" (1963), "El Dorado" (1966), "True Grit" (1969) and "Rio Lobo" (1970), remembers Wayne's great height - 6-foot-4 before you put boots under him and a hat on top of him.
"He was like a walking mountain, physically big, huge, amazing to be around," Summers, 63, said during a phone interview this week. "He was a tough old hide who didn't suffer fools very well. But he was generous to other actors. You just better be prepared when you came to town because he was a total professional. If it was a John Wayne movie, he wanted to make it the best it could be."
Summers moved to Albuquerque's West Side last summer, chased out of Hollywood after 41 years by growing congestion and the reality TV craze. The latter makes it tough finding work for a man like Summers, who was gunned down by Wayne in "Rio Lobo," thrown down a muddy slope by Wayne in "McLintock" and who doubled for an outlaw pursued by Wayne in "True Grit."
Summers was on the set of "Rio Lobo" in Arizona's Old Tucson the day Wayne returned from accepting his Oscar for his portrayal of crusty, one-eyed marshal Rooster Cogburn in "True Grit."
"There were about 150 of us on the set - cast, crew, extras, caterers - and when he gets out of his car, we all have our backs to him," Summers said. "Then we turned around and all of us had on eye patches (like Cogburn's in the movie), even his horse has an eye patch. The carpenters had built a mock Oscar out of plywood, 50 feet high, painted gold, and it had an eye patch on it.
"Then we all started applauding. He got misty-eyed over that."
That was Wayne's only Oscar. Many fans felt he should have won one earlier - for 1949's "The Sands of Iwo Jima," for which he was nominated, or for "Red River" or "The Searchers," neither of which earned him consideration.
"I think he is underrated as an actor," Boggs said. "When he wanted to be a good actor, when he had a great script and a great director, he could really hammer a part. I thought he was very good in `The Quiet Man' (1952), `True Grit,' `Red River' and `The Sands of Iwo Jima.' His acting as Ethan Edwards in `The Searchers' is just phenomenal."
It's interesting that even though Wayne's fans admire the black-or-white, right-or-wrong nature of his screen roles, they often pick a movie in which he played one of his rare complex characters as their favorite.
Magers' favorite is "Red River," in which Wayne plays tyrannical rancher Tom Dunson, and Summers' pick is "The Searchers," in which Wayne is the Indian-hating Edwards.
" `The Searchers' is the greatest ever made," Summers said. "His character was a cold-hearted bigot. He wanted to kill everything in feathers. It was a magnificent performance."
Wayne, the man, had room in his tall frame for some contradictions. He may be the most popular cowboy movie star of all time, but he was not overly fond of horses.
"The way he looked at horses was the way he looked at other actors," Summers said. " `You better do what I want you to do right now.' Horses were props that he admired for what they could give him."
His public stance was that of a conservative-minded superpatriot, and he starred in more war movies than perhaps any other single actor. But he never served in the military.
During World War II, he chose a family deferment - he was 34, a husband and a father when the United States entered the war - over active duty.
Many of Hollywood's leading men - Stewart, Autry, Henry Fonda, Ronald Reagan - joined up. Clark Gable was 41, but he enlisted in the Army Air Force. Director Ford, 47 at the start of the war, served with the Navy.
But Wayne stayed home to make movies such as "A Lady Takes a Chance," "In Old Oklahoma," "The Fighting Seabees," "Back to Bataan" and "They Were Expendable."
Magers argues that the war movies Wayne made during this time were valuable to the war effort in terms of boosting morale and recruiting efforts. And that is no doubt true.
But Boggs said these movies were also valuable in building Wayne's career, which had only just turned a corner a few years earlier with "Stagecoach."
"I'm not sure John Wayne would have been the huge star he was if he had gone off to World War II," Boggs said.
Two-fisted star power
But he was a huge star, an actor who left his brand on America's image of itself and on the action movie genre.
"He and (pioneer stuntman) Yakima Canutt developed the art of screen fighting," Magers said. "What they did was to take it to something almost like choreography, where it really looked like a rough-and-tumble fight."
That's John Wayne - two-fisted and full-speed ahead.
"What you saw was what you got," Summers said.
Like him, or not.
Agree with him, or don't.
There's nothing in between.
Happy birthday, Duke.
Mike C said on 20/Jul/07
Patrick, Gonzalo, go to this site and scroll down to John Wayne...Click Here everyone thinks he was 6'4"
mike c said on 20/Jul/07
Patrick, The Quiet Man has all the proof of his height if only Nick et.al would take the time to watch it.....taller than the boxing brute Victor McLaglen (6'3")when they stand face to face with shoes (no lifts) showing....he clearly states at the beginning of the movie when Barry Fitzgeral asks,"6'6"? he replies, "6'4.5" ...you can clearly see the shoes...now, that's a fact that he said that, but is it true?.just read and watch his movies and I say YES! Why is he constantly described as 6'4" in his biographies and in many movies statements are made of towering height? You're right, Patrick, as you would also, I'd like to know the episode because I'm going to find it,view it and make up my own mind. Love your comments!! Mike C
Patrick said on 20/Jul/07
What happens with this site? I posted a (for once) short remak yesterday I have to repeat: NO WAY John Wayne ever claimed being 6'3 +. Sorry, nick, he never did that. Whether you badly heard or I don't know but I can assure you he never said that unless you are able to post the proof of the contrary nick. Thanks in advance.
What do you think mike c and Gonzalo?
nick said on 17/Jul/07
In an episode of I love lucy in which he was making a guest appearence when the ricardo's are going out to California, he says I'm 6'3 1/2 and 213. I don't know the year but it was towards the end of the series, so I'm thinking mid 60's, he was getting pretty old by then, he had graying hair,he was probably around 60 yr old +/-
Patrick said on 17/Jul/07
SURE as always at 150% Mike C (sorry, I cannot help putting your nickname with two Caps.!).
Wonderful and so profound and warm remarks about "our" li'l Mouse! Just love it.
mike c said on 16/Jul/07
King, before you post anything else, do yourself a favor and buy two books: John Wayne The Man Behind the Myth and Duke We're Glad We Knew You. You won't be disappointed and just maybe you'll have some substance on to which to attach your opinions. You just might discover that what you have heard is bull****. The books include J. Stewart and the Duke's political views. Don't stop there, get The Duke, A Life in Pictures. ....do you agree Patrick?..Gonzalo, enjoy the book as much as I have. Cuidate! Mike C ps, when I see Mickey Mouse on TV, he's no more than 4-5 inches tall. When I saw him with my daughters in Disney World, he was at least 6'tall..What gives?
Patrick said on 16/Jul/07
Hi there Gonzalo too and Mike C as well!
I dove in "movie stuff" since I was a very little boy: hardly two years old! My dear late mother was crazy about it and knew by heart every existing actor.
It is to believe she passed it on to me because I outwent her in that so exciting topic!
I am SO happy to find here people like both of you Gonzalo and Mike C: I sincerely wish "we" are numerous beyond this site!
Your comment of 07/16 is absolutely relevant. I agree with it at 100%.
As everybody knows it: the Duke was sooo stupid! Look how he directed this so much underrated feature film "Alamo". Sorry for the "Wayne contemptors", I never ever got bored in watching that wonderful and very respectful movie.
He was a "giant" "and not only because he was 2 meters tall" would say a famous french critic in the late 60ies.
sam said on 16/Jul/07
Where did you read this, King?
Gonzalo said on 16/Jul/07
King, I would like to know which are your sources. I am very keen on cinema and I have read many boks: about John Wayne, john Ford, Hitchcock, howard Hawks. In only one book, Hollywood bable on, I have read something about john Wayne`s lifts. It was that quote of Mitchum that has been transcripted in this site. It seems that Wayne was not very intelligent since he semed surprised by Stewart`s height which was well known. After 30 yeras in the industry for both of then Wayne had no idea that Stewart was a tall man.
Hi, Patrick and MikeC. Great to have you on this site. MikeC, ya tengo el libro. Muchas gracias. Me encanta
Patrick said on 15/Jul/07
Yeah Mike C! What could I add ?
King, I heard a friend whi heard a cousin of the house keeper of the grand father of a guy having met at school a nasty pupil just sitten next to a friend of mine having told me "you" wore a wig! With such an evidence, how could I be doubtful? So, I swear you wear a wig and do not tell me the contrary..."please"!
mike c said on 15/Jul/07
It's amazing how sure one can be of himself with just a little bit of secondhand knowledge. I guess, King, you believe everything you hear.
King said on 15/Jul/07
No doubts... John Wayne was a big 230-pounder bull. But six-four? Please...

I heard that in MHSLW he met Stewart who was six-three. Wayne was like "my god!!" and immediately went to Ford and DEMANDED 2 inch -lifts.

And thats the bottom line cause Jimmy Stewart said so.
Patrick said on 14/Jul/07
Mike C..."you're my Man"! I feel "reading my own mind", more than my words and you know that since You have honored me in reading what I tried to express. Whether it is about "this site" - by the way: THANKS A LOT Ed; Rob! - or regarding the stars and what "cinema" really is (or should be)and especially the nowadays stars or supposed such, I meet in your eyes as in AAAA and DaMan (see Tom Welling page), in your way of tackling and envisioning life what I always wanted.
100% ok with you and Gonzalo, a good friend too!
mike c said on 13/Jul/07
Thank you, Gonzalo...I still don't know if you got the book!!!! Patrick, great observation! You see, I grew up in a carpenter's home..in fact he built the house he's lived in for almost 45 years. I have acquired (God given) a sense of height/length...usually I'm not off by a lot. I, too, build and construct as a hobby and know how objects can appear taller,shorter, wider, narrower, etc. depending on what surrounds them. When Frank 2 posted the pic of the Duke in England standing next to a car, I couldn't resist and used my formula of determining heights. He damn well measured 6'almost 4"!Remember the pic? I think it was taken when he was filming the detective series...lost some height by then....look at the fence, the car, the surrounding elements and you tell me this guy was around 6'...I love this site because, for the most part, intelligent people contribute. I respect a good debate and welcome a difference of opinion. Who really cares if the Duke was 6'4" or 6'4.5"...he was an individual that I enjoy watching because of the messages he espoused. There is evil, injustice, cruely,etc. and yet there is hope in the world...I'd rather watch him than all the other crap our so-called movie stars of the day are pushing off as talent....give me Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, etc anytime! It's not that a few of the present stars are not talented..it's just that you walk away not really believing what they did...entertainment? Yes! But does it last? No! So guys, go on debating as gentlemen are bound to do and let's enjoy this site. Mike C ps Gonzalo, recibiste el libro?
Patrick said on 13/Jul/07
Here is what I wrote in the Walter Pidgeon page and think that concerns the Duke as well:
I am watching "dark command": they indeed, appear alike, especially when Wayne is caught and invited by Walter BUT, in the very SAME scene, no cut, and JUST after that, the Duke does not look but really IS clearly taller by at least one inch.
That, once more, should lead everybody to think twice before peremptorily claim "this "or "that".
Frankly, even me, convinced that Walter is about 6'3 or so and J.Wayne more than 6'4 when young, (6'4 after 45-50), I was about to change my mind about the Duke. BUT, I know howaturally, by design, tricky mowies are and I waited for "the rest": the same room, the same shoes since the same scene and yet, not the same height at all! I invite anybody to check that out: that happens all the time and here is why I still am so circumspective regarding all that height stuff!
Nothing is more deceptive, I would say illusional hence misleading, than cinema industry!
I repeat: I would have have sworn this time they were the same height and yet, they were not!
Actually, the perfect example for this site!
Patrick said on 13/Jul/07
BRAVO, all of you! Thanks Gonzalo for your words and superb and rare pics!
In the third one, the Duke is ...sitten!!! Normal he looks smaller than the others!
I repeat, I never heard of him being not tall, not "very" tall, when I was young and while he was still acting and...starring!
No problem about the "confusion" Mike C (I was sure of that!)
Gonzalo said on 13/Jul/07
Hi, MikeC. I just wrote John Wayne in google and searched for pictures. Not bad pics. I have also been anonymous sometimes on celebheights
chris said on 12/Jul/07
In the early 50's he was clearly 6'4 and a half plus, in the 60s he had 2 ribs, and his whole left lung removed so from about '64 onwards he was no longer at his peak height
mike c said on 12/Jul/07
Patrick, I just realized that I was Anonymous on July 10. I wrote Mike C at the end of the post, but never bothered to write it at the beginning....so, I am anonymous. Sorry for the confusion.
mike c said on 12/Jul/07
Gonzalo, great pics. Where did you get the last three.
Gonzalo said on 12/Jul/07
He looks tall to me in this pic
Click Here
Or in this one
Click Here
You guys will love this one. Wayne looking shorter than Victor McLaglen and John Ford. Lifts, of course.
Click Here
In this one Wayne used his lifts again
Click Here
Gonzalo said on 12/Jul/07
After all this time discussing about Wayne`s height I haven´t seen an evidence of him looking under 6`3. We have all those quotes of someone who knew someone who knew a third guy who said Wayne wore lifts. Or the opinion of someone who saw Wayne 75 years ago. I knew a woman who saw Wayne while he was shooting in Madrid. I have told the story before. She saw Wayne in a hotel. She said Wayne was huge and this lady was at least 5`8 in her late fifties. I rememember she said Wayne was clearly taller than her son (I think she said that to give me a reference). Her son was very tall, around 1`90. Well, as you see I also have a testimony of someone who saw Wayne in the flesh.
But as I said, after all this talk there are no evidences. All Wayne pics show he was a very tall man. And please don´t use again that pic with Gary Cooper
Patrick said on 12/Jul/07
THANKS a lot Mike C! Impressed, for sure; I share at 100% your words about common sense AND the fact YOU judge after your OWN mind and got your OWN opinion.
That maybe will surprise you Viper but it is exactly why I like you too: you do not care what other people think and stick to your guns: I appreciate that, believe it or not even though that seems sometimes a bit "irritating" (joke) or or you being "stubborn" (re-joke no offence above all!).
You know what? that is why Americans are so LOVED and in the same time, HATED so much in the world AND why I love them!
Being able to write sometimes so profound thoughts from such a trivial issue as "how tall is a man died since 28 years!" proves how eclectic and sharp and to say the whole truth, "in good health" is the American mind.
Viper, for God's sake...
Mike C said on 11/Jul/07
Patrick, I'm not Anonymous, but he and I are on the same page. We, as you, read, watch, study, research, use common sense, and never rely on what someone said more than 7 decades ago ( must have the memory of an African elephant).....I'm my own man and make up my own mind. I'm the principal of an almost 500 student body school and, if I didn't use the mind that God gave me and just repeated mindlessly what everyone said, I would be working for the State Dept.( a bunch of ***holes)...keep it coming Patrick!!! Anonymous? I suspected Tiger, Frank 2, Glen, and even my buddy Gonzalo..a true Spanish gentleman at that!! Who cares, he and you have common sense...
Viper said on 11/Jul/07
And 75 years later, I agree with your grandfather King.
Patrick said on 11/Jul/07
Mike, are you well Anonymous as I suppose? Aniway, I consider you as a friend and a very reasonable person. I have just watched on that fabulous channel (at least for movie lovers as I am proud to belong to), TMC, two "pilot movies" including "high and the mighty". I can assure all those who claim such stupidity as the Duke being 6'2 that they should better see it prior to approximately gauging him!
Once more, even "solo", he looks like a tower! Bob Stack, a superb and unforgettable actor, looks like a child sitten beside him! I know that M. Stack was not a very tall man but he never gave the impression to be short or weak!
Frankly, the more I watch Duke's movies, the more I love him and find him physically as tall as he humanly was: a real Giant!
Anonymous said on 10/Jul/07
Well said, Patrick. Thank you! I guess King doesn't care to scroll down and view pictures/math formula that prove how tall the Duke was...it's easier to write mindlessly and say the first thing that pops into the head.with all respect to his grandfather, 6'2" is nonsense...a "mass" he indeed was!!!!Mike C
Patrick said on 10/Jul/07
King I am sorry but that kind of testimony, we do not really care of in this site; 75 years ago...with all due your grand father respect...
So, John Wayne was the "most numerous leading parts actor" ever; Hence, it proves to be very easy to watch him in very different situations and get some idea of how tall and bulky he was.
I do not know how old are on average, the readers but what I do know is when I was young, most people thought he was between 6'4 and...6'8: sure that is ridiculous but shows how "old time viwers" saw him;
Those who see him at 6'2 should put "new actors" as the so-called star Colin Farrell or even Clooney, Pitt etc. as between 5'6 and 7 tops!
The Duke had always been caricatured (refer to Al Capp strips) as a "mass" towering over everybody; I think people here and not only regarding the Duke, seem having a bone to pick with celebrities;
What is strange is I did not notice as much acrimonious attitude towards precisely, more recent actors.
That is an interesting way of reading this site, psychologically speaking I mean.
King said on 9/Jul/07
About 75 years ago my grand-dad saw him in a street and my grand-dad was 6`1". He was as close to Wayne as you can ever imagine and my grand-dad was shorter than him, he said... but DEFINITELY NOT MORE THAN ONE INCH! Period.

John Wayne was a big 220 pounder man, who was no more, than my grandy says he was - 6ft 2
Croat said on 9/Jul/07
By looking at more pictures, I think he was at his peak somewhere around 6'4''.
Croat said on 9/Jul/07
I am analyzing some of his pictures. On some he looks 6'2'' and a half to me. But I found a better picture where he does look close to 6'4''. Look at how he towers the soldiers. Too bad I can't copy links to websites here.

I'm gonna look at more pictures, and see what I think.
Patrick said on 9/Jul/07
I agree with mike posted 7/July: whether the Duke lost a little height or not is not this site issue: everybody, more or less loose height in getting on in age and the more tall tall you are, the more height you will loose;
We already said right here that he had some ribs off because of serious surgery in 64; That doesn't help to keep your youth height!
So, even though admittedly he did, John Wayne remained a damn tall and imposing man, even old as in "the shootist"; By the way, he was taller than Jimmy in that movie. Do not gauge him outdoors where the ground is uneven but within "interior sets": no doubt about that!
dmeyer said on 8/Jul/07
jacky pm lost 1 in in 5 years with no back problem wath do you think of that you said that by 50s if some loose 0.5 to 0.75 in is more than average
Jacky P.M said on 8/Jul/07
It's seems strange But Ivan 6'2.25 is a bit right.Many people billed their height. My father who died 12 years ago was a solid 6'2 and billed his height to 6'3.He died at 72 yo.
I remember couples of weeks he was shorter than I. He was at least 5'11/6' tall.
mike said on 7/Jul/07
Ivan 6'2.25" & Jacky P.M.....no one is debating that he lost some height...the dabate, at least since I've been reading this site, is that John Wayne's peak height was never 6'4"...mathematically and pictorally, I've proven that indeed he was at minimum 6'4"...he didn't bill his height of 6'4" while in college..the college did. Watch The Quiet Man carefully and read some of his bios. nowhere is he ever described as being less than 6'4"...take it to the bank. Mike C ps..my grandfather, a farmer, died at 102 years of age..was 6' tall when he was a young man. The last time I saw him was when he was 96..he was about an inch taller than I..and I'm 5'6" even...age, curvature of the spine, etc.
Jacky P.M said on 7/Jul/07
I am 56 yo and I remember 5 years ago I was 6'1 now I am 6 ft and i don'thave any back or what else problem so that's mean we can lost inches in the early 50s and i measure myself twice a year.

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.