glenn says on 22/Mar/08
stan was listed at 5-9 years ago.

Anonymous says on 22/Mar/08
Every height reference I've seen for Laurel has either been 5'9" or 5'10" which leads me to believe 5'9" is probably spot on. If I recall correctly his passport also listed 5'9" as the height. As previously stated he removed the heels of his shoes; this helped exaggerate the height difference between Hardy and himself and added to the "little guy" persona he had.

Hardy was probably close to or at 6'2" in his youth. He looks massive in pictures taken in the 1910's & 1920s when being a 6 footer was relatively rare. Carrying that massive amount of weight probably caused him to lose some height in his later years but he still appeared quite tall in his 50s and 60s.

thekiddd says on 20/Mar/08
I see at least 5" difference between them. If Hardy was 6'1" than Laurel was probably 5'8" or 5'8 1/2". We should add him to this database.

ed c says on 14/Feb/08
Stan Laurel was 5'9. He could appear 5'8" since he always removed the heels of his shoes in his films. He thought that it gave him a different type of walk.

Brian says on 20/Jul/07
I agree with 6'1" for Ollie as well, and can imagine him possibly being 6'2" in his youth. I never thought about it, but I would also have to agree that Ollie could've been very strong because of his interest in football and may have played some at some time. Also may have have done some heavy lifting in jobs before he made it big. Last, with way he carried himself with ease, he must've been strong! I think the same was the case with 5'10" Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle: very strong and very heavy at between 260-300lbs. Rob, please add Roscoe! I thought Stan Laurel was 5'9". I agree Patrick: L and H were extremely funny and creative, while not having to resort to profanity and other vulgarities (which would have been censored in those days anyway, but still).

Kid-Icarus says on 11/May/07
Well if he is 6'1" than Stan Laurel is 5'8" because there is a 5 inch gap between them.

patrick says on 15/Feb/07
What is sure it's that he was a very very strong man; His arms were naturally HUGE NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF "FAT". DON'T FORGET HE WAS VERY PHYSICAL AT HIS DEBUTS. Did you ever see a domestic film where he last appears at home with also late Stanley? He has lost here maybe 80 to 90 lbs and yet, his arms, even at the "bones level" are those of a gorilla and ...he was dying!
I think he was 6'2 when young and never less than 6'1; THESE MEN GAVE US HAPPINESS FELLOWS, that is the most important thing, isn't it?

JT says on 26/Dec/06
You're right Paul. Fox movie channel had the movie with Mitchum and Hardy on today.

Paul says on 1/Oct/06
It's hard to believe, but Robert Mitchum and Oliver Hardy made a movie together. It's called THE DANCING MASTERS and is one of L&H's better later efforts. Mitchum, who was unbilled, has a scene with Hardy early in the film and appears taller, but not by much. If Mitchum was 6'1" to 6'2" then Hardy was still 6 foot in his 50s.

Regus says on 5/Aug/06
I have seen the Fighting Kentuckians, Hardy was maybe closer to 6-2 to my thinking. He was a big guy no two ways about it.

ColinG says on 7/Feb/06
Although I've never seen the film, in a still from "The Fighting Kentuckian" Hardy is standing beside John Wayne, who appears to be not more than a couple of inches taller. In the L & H comedies, fans will remember the admirable Tiny Sandford, who usually played policemen. He is said to have been 6ft 5", and he doesn't tower over Hardy. Six-one seems about right. Possibly a tiny bit more.