|
mcfan says on 23/Dec/08
Paul was taller than Michael Jackson by an inch. I'm in disagreement with Michael's height of 5'9. I think he is 5'8.5 and wears lifts...sometimes making him look 5'10. Eddie Murphy was taller than him by an inch. There's a photo of them looking the same height, but if you see the two of them together, Eddie is clearly taller than him. Brook Shields used to make Michael Jackson look like a midget even in sneakers. cyberyank says on 18/Dec/08
McCartney is 5'9". Around the same height as Michael Jackson.
mcfan says on 16/Dec/08
Sure you did David Breese. How come 5'11 Knopfler and Sting always look 1.5-2 inches taller than Paul whenever they appear with him in concert?
Click Here
They've appeared together more than a couple of times. It's amazing that Paul's height is still 5'11 after all that has been proven. These three Beatles were 5'9.5-5'10 at their peak. I also believe Paul wears lifts today at times. If you look at SNL in 1989 (47 years old) he's only 1.5 inches taller than 5'8 Chris Farley. UNK says on 16/Dec/08
What in the world is going on here guys???? That's barely 5'6" Kate Moss with him... sure she's wearing big heels, but he has some major soles on those sneakers... he doesn't look 5'9" in these pics.
Click Here
Click Here glenn says on 14/Dec/08
thank you mr breese for paraphrasing my arguments that sir paul is 5-11 now and possible 6ft peak.its only those that actually meet the celeb that knows the truth.i was shocked he looked 6ft in 2000. David Breese says on 13/Dec/08
Met Sir Paul..shook his hand, 2006..I'm 6'1" and stared him in the eye...I would put him in the 5'11 to 6'0...he had on jeans & tennis shoes..weighed probably 170 mcfan says on 1/Dec/08
Yeah, I still think he's 5'9.5. Looks right next to Doherty and George Martin who was also 6'2. George made Lennon/McCartney/Harrison look like midgets. Chris says on 1/Dec/08
A pic with Pul and 6'2'' Pete Doherty. If Paul stands straight it you can see he is close to 5'10''. Click Here glenn says on 29/Nov/08
jagger usually wears the flatest of shoes.or sneakers.especially on stage since 1989.before then too.but he wore bigger footwear on the 70s,but so did everyone.lately he has been wearing monster custom made sneakers to help with his 6-4 girlfriend. mcfan says on 28/Nov/08
Greg,
I posted some photographs of Lennon/McCartney with the same footwear standing side by side from photo sessions during the early to mid part of the group. You can find these posted under Lennon's name a couple of weeks back.
The fact that Jagger fluctuates with his height tells me the guy wears lifts. Even in the 60s, I think he might have used them at times. Then again, he looks much worse than McCartney. Maybe he's shrunk more than McCartney. Paul looks pretty good. Jagger looks like an old man by comparison. Who knows, Paul could be wearing lifts too. I know I read a couple of interviews even as far back as the late 80s where Paul was said to be 5'9. My co-worker was the same height as me and he got within ten feet of Paul. He thought Paul was a little shorter than him and he was my height 5'10. glenn says on 27/Nov/08
greg-one encounter i can see me making a mistake.the jagger pic below proves my point.jagger is a legit 5-10.i never saw lennon.heard he was 5-9,but now i feel that is too low.5-10 min.though you hear 5-11 claims too with lennon and strangely he did look it a couple times. Greg says on 26/Nov/08
Based on that pic with Bryan Adams, it's clear (and as many people have said) that macca has shrunk. If he is 5'8" or possibly 5'9" now (based on that Bryan Adams pic and others), could he really have been 5'11" in his prime? I can see a 2 inch drop in height but three? I think that's pushing it. I'm starting to think his peak ht was between 5'10" and 5'11" but not 5'11" even. We need more pics of him standing with people other than fellow Beatles (and during his peak) in order to get to the bottom (or top) of this. Greg says on 26/Nov/08
Glenn - Please don't take this personally, but you are between 2 and 3 inches shorter than him, so I would think it would be harder for you to be as accurate as say someone who is 5'10" standing next to him. A person 5'10" would be in a better position to judge macca's height (I'm talking back when you met him). I'm 5'10", and I think I would find it hard to discern between someone who is 6'1" and 6'0" even. That's basically what you are doing when you say he was 5'11" vice 5'10". By the way, did you ever meet Lennon and how tall do you think he was? Thanks. mcfan says on 21/Nov/08
Looks like Jagger did some serious shrinking here:
Click Here Ted says on 14/Nov/08
Yeah he's about 5'10-ish. I had a photo once when I was doing security and he was next to me. mcfan says on 6/Nov/08
I agree with you, Greg. This guy never slouches. I still think he's 5'9.5 and was 5'10. It's all posture. There's plenty of photos of him and Harrison together where he looks an inch taller, but it's due to Harrison's slouching and McCartney's posture. He still was a half-inch taller than Harrison.
I totally disagree with Frank2 regarding Tom Jones. Tom was an inch taller than Paul McCartney. There used to be a film of either an award ceremony or where the Beatles and Jones appeared together. It was so obvious of the height difference and it wasn't due to heels. They all wore cuban heels. Even the performance for Linda, Tom was still an inch taller so how this site still has Tom Jones (5'10.5) shorter than Paul (5'11) is beyond comprehension. I would put Tom's old height at 5'11 and Paul's old height at 5'10. That would be more accurate. glenn says on 6/Nov/08
what proof do i have? i met this guy plenty of time between 1989 and 2001.he was 5-11. Greg says on 5/Nov/08
Why do some think he was 5"11" at his peak? What proof do U have? Did U stand next to him back in the 70s? Don't forget that he has a slim frame (as did Lennon), so it adds to the perception that he is taller. Could he have been 5'10" at peak and around 5'9" now? mcfan says on 22/Sep/08
Howard,
That is biggest crock I ever heard. You never met either one. Howard says on 19/Sep/08
Wierd site this - only came upon it because I walked past Mick Jagger in London the other day and was shocked how short he was (5ft 7 at the most incidentally).
Was lucky to have a drink with Paul near his home outside London - extremely approachable and down to earth bloke.
I am 5ft9+ a bit.
He was at least an inch taller than me although he is of course, a giant.
Who gives a f**k how tall he is. Anonymous says on 15/Aug/08
I've only seen cuban heels with one inch heels. I even just did an image search on dogpile.
I used to wear 2-3 inch heeled shoes and the heels looked waaaayyyy taller than what I ever see on cuban heels. Anonymous says on 15/Aug/08
This listing seems right. 5-10 now, and easily 5-11 in youth and Beatles heyday(and with those heels/boots probably stood 6-0). In all the Beatles footage I've seen Paul looks the tallest. I'd say:
Paul 5-11 (nowadays 5-10)
John 5-10
George 5-10
Ringo 5-7 Frank2 says on 15/Aug/08
Paul is 5'10". I met him as well as all the Beatles back when the came to LA in 1964. Caleb says on 15/Aug/08
This height is about right. I'm 6'1" or thereabouts, and was in the bar with him at the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts which he is patron of (nearly 10 years ago now). I couldn't get too close to him as he was surrounded by a huge throng of people, but he was a bit shorter than me, and a whole lot more orange than I would have expected! Actually, he looked quite tall, but then most of my fellow students were shorter than average trainee dancers and what have you! Victor says on 25/Jul/08
Young: 181.5
Nowadays: 179
I don't want to say Old. Chris says on 6/Jun/08
this is the clip mcfan talked about, Paul lokks indeed 5.10., no more. Click Here glenn says on 31/May/08
mcfan-thats the only thing i disagree with mainly,is your paul heights.i met paul many times and he was no smaller than 5-11 and i believe he couldve been taller in youth.carson at 5-10 ill buy. mcfan says on 30/May/08
No, Carson was 5'10. He was probably only 5'9.5 in 84, but he could have been 5'10. I think Paul is still close to 5'10, but I don't think he was over that in his youth. At his age he's probably lost a half-inch but it's an individual thing. My uncle has lost 3 inches and is only 71. My father 66 years old is the same height as me -- 5'10 and we've both been the same height for the last 25 years. anonymous says on 30/May/08
we are getting closer to the truth here. paul is 5'9. glenn says on 29/May/08
adams i always pegged at 5-7,but could be 5-8.theres is no doubt that paul looks like he shrunk.but i truly think he was 5-11,5-11.5 in his youth.wasnt carson 5-10,5-11? mcfan says on 29/May/08
Yeah, and I think Adams sometimes wears Timberlands. I saw a clip from 1984 of 5'10 Johnny Carson and Paul McCartney. They looked like the same height with similar shoes. You can see it on youtube. I think it was when he was promoting Give My Regards to Broad Street. glenn says on 28/May/08
he is clearly leaning in. mcfan says on 27/May/08
Click Here with Bryan Adams mcfan says on 26/May/08
with Bryan Adams:
Click Here mcfan says on 6/May/08
D,
That was probably in his sneakers the 5'10.5 claim. It's just an estimate. May Pang said he was only 5'9.5 barefoot on Arsenio Hall. I think he was about 5'10 at the most during his peak. 5'11 in shoes for Lennon/McCartney during the Beatles. Tom Jones was taller than Lennon and McCartney yet Jones is listed here at 5'10.5 to McCartney's 5'11. That is clearly incorrect. I would say Jones was almost an inch taller than the both of them. Having said that, I think Jones was 5'11 in the 60s. D says on 30/Apr/08
..the best most accurate bio on him "Lennon The Definitive Biography" by Ray "Coleman, read it and this should be all clear, it explains his and Yoko's macrobiotic vegan diet, how he was living healthier towards the end of his life and so forth..."
Dear Anon~
I can tell you personally and with absolute certainty that Goldman's book did a hatchet job on most of John's life and is in NO way "definitive." I knew him and there is NO WAY Goldman would've written that book had Lennon lived. Due to the macrobitic diet and cutting out the drugs (he couldn't give up the the cigerettes, though he planned to) he was probably the healthiest he had ever been while in the public eye. He was probably 5 ft 10 and 1/2 or so and weighed about 140-145 lbs near the end of his life. And from my personal experience he wasn't as possessed about it as one would think. It was a way of life. He wasn't a saint, but near the end he was so normal.
Peace. anonymous says on 28/Apr/08
hi yoshi. i was just checking out the dave kushner page here when i saw an interesting link that someone had put up which has some great photos of dave kushner with lots of other musicians.
Click Here
have a look at the paul mccartney pic. there is a pic of glenn with dave kushner which provides a useful comparison. enjoy! Anonymous says on 21/Apr/08
It is Japanese Yoshi.
As for the video and the photograph, it seems that it is more different between angle and far and near.
I watched McCartney near in Tokyo six years ago.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches（175cm）.
As for McCartney, 1 inch was taller than me.
McCartney wore sneakers.
The height of Paul McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches（178cm）. anonymous says on 15/Apr/08
smokin mojo filters was the name of the band. weller, mccartney and gallagher. check the video at 02.40
Click Here mcfan says on 14/Apr/08
No, the photo is only slightly deceiving. Paul is in fact only about an inch and a half taller than Noel. There's a video out there of the two somewhere. Chris says on 6/Apr/08
That is a bad angel, Iｴve seen Noel stand next to Paul and Paul is a good 3 inches taller. anonymous says on 4/Apr/08
how about this photo. what do you think?
Click Here glenn says on 4/Feb/08
yoshi-konichiba.im always use a mobile phone for the site.continue to be here on the site. Anonymous says on 3/Feb/08
You're welcome.
Glenn, thank you.
When I access it from a mobile telephone with a Japanese, I become the anonymity.
When I access it from next, in a beginning of the comment, I give my name.
I am ,Yoshi in Japanese Kanagawa.
Thank you.
I am sorry in clumsy English.
Both Glenn and I really look in ,McCartney near.
The height of Paul McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 or 5 feet 11 inches.
According to the formal profile.
I am reliable!
Do its best from Glenn, this!
From far-off Japan, I enjoy it from now on.
Thank you！ glenn says on 2/Feb/08
its not my site.robs site and listings.thank you for listening to me. Anonymous says on 2/Feb/08
Thank you for Glenn, valuable testimony.
Then please correct the height of ,McCartney.
Why did you write it down with 5 feet 10 inches?
For the heyday, did you write it down with 5 feet 11 inches?
By shoes to wear, 2 inches are easily mixed up.
There are many such people who do not calculate.
Because McCartney wears flat shoes, there is it when I look slightly shorter than a person of the circumferences.
I encountered McCartney in 2002.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches 1/2.
McCartney was around 1 inch taller than me.
McCartney wore flat shoes.
The height of McCartney had 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 rank.
Around 1/2 inches increase by physical condition, and the human being shrinks.
The height of McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 or 5 feet 11 inches.
Glenn is right.
Glenn, thank you！ Anonymous says on 1/Feb/08
Thank you for Glenn, valuable testimony.
Then please correct the height of ,McCartney.
Why did you write it down with 5 feet 10 inches?
For the heyday, did you write it down with 5 feet 11 inches?
By shoes to wear, 2 inches are easily mixed up.
There are many such people who do not calculate.
Because McCartney wears flat shoes, there is it when I look slightly shorter than a person of the circumferences.
I encountered McCartney in 2002.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches 1/2.
McCartney was around 1 inch taller than me.
McCartney wore flat shoes.
The height of McCartney had 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 rank.
Around 1/2 inches increase by physical condition, and the human being shrinks.
The height of McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches 1/2 or 5 feet 11 inches
Glenn is right.
Glenn, thank you！ glenn says on 1/Feb/08
your not the losers im talking about anonymous.your 100 percent wrong.paul was 5-11 up until 2001 at least.thats the last time i saw him.from 1989 to 2001. Anonymous says on 1/Feb/08
I have watched ,McCartney near.
The height of McCartney is reliable at 5 feet 9 inches 3/4(177cm) or 5 feet 10 inches(178cm).
As Glenn says.
But I felt the height of his now more briefly than 5 feet 11 inches(180cm). Anonymous says on 1/Feb/08
Its not like you Glenn to be rude over a difference of opinion. Especially considering the unfair abuse you sometimes get on here. You are normally a cool guy. Put that last one down to you having a bad day. I personally don't agree with you on this one. I consider Paul McCartney to be 5'9 as I live in Rye, Sussex and get to see him from time to time. The man is a genius! Who cares what height he is? Peace and love! glenn says on 1/Feb/08
and some say mj is 5-10,5-11.theres is def a loser or 2 on this page. Anonymous says on 1/Feb/08
Because I am a Japanese, I'm sorry in clumsy English.
In 2002, I watched McCartney at distance nearby in a Hotel lobby of Japanese Tokyo.
My height is 5 feet 9 inches.
McCartney was 1 inch taller than me.
McCartney wore sneakers.
The height of McCartney is 5 feet 9 inches 3/4 (177cm) now.
I am a fan of ,McCartney.
However, I spoke an impression of McCartney which I watched honestly. Anon says on 31/Jan/08
How can Paul be only 5-8/5-9 if he's taller than 5-9 Michael Jackson?!
Click Here
Click Here
Hmmm? ;)
Glenn's right! Chris says on 31/Jan/08
Paul looks 5'10'' on that video with Neil Young. Anonymous says on 31/Jan/08
Completely wrong! You are giving all The Beatles heights when they are wearing their cuban heels. So take away 2-3 inches for all their actual heights. Check out this video of Paul playing with Neil Young who is 6'. There is a pic of Glenn with Neil Young on this site which should add some perspective. Paul is 5'8/5'9.
Click Here glenn says on 30/Jan/08
like i said many times.jagger is 5-10.mccartney is still 5-11. Anonymous says on 30/Jan/08
Paul McCartney&Mick Jagger came to the meeting place of Reunion Live of Led Zeppelin of December for admiration.
McCartney was about 1 inch taller than Jagger at time when two people lined up.
The height of McCartney becomes 5 feet 11 inches if the height of ,Jagger is 5 feet 10 inches.
On the contrary, the height of ,Jagger becomes 5 feet 9 inches if the height of ,McCartney is 5 feet 10 inches.
McCartney wore flat shoes.
Jagger has many rumors related to shoes, but I do not understand it. Anon says on 29/Jan/08
Anonymous, english is obviously not your first language and that's cool. But the reality is, people's heights do change due to various factors - health, age, diet, even the time of day! Consider that John Lennon was a pretty plump man around 1964, but then became an extremely thin one on a few years later, and remained that way all the way towards the end of his life. He was very self-conscious about his image and hated being fat, jealous of how Paul was "the pretty Beatle", etc... and went to great lengths in bringing down his weight, but that also brought down his height as well...the best most accurate bio on him "Lennon The Definitive Biography" by Ray Coleman, read it and this should be all clear, it explains his and Yoko's macrobiotic vegan diet, how he was living healthier towards the end of his life and so forth... Anonymous says on 29/Jan/08
If it is a human being related to ,Beatles that Lennon is shorter than the formal profile, all are know.
Accept reality.
I am a ,McCartney fan.
However, I understand that the height of McCartney is slightly shorter than the formal profile.
I accept reality.
But such a thing does not matter.
Paul McCartney is greatest!
Of course John Lennon is greatest, too!
Actually…,
The height of John Lennon is 5'9"1/4.
The height of Paul McCartney is 5'10"(Now)
Balance is good! Anonymous says on 29/Jan/08
High-heeled shoes considerable as for boots of ,Lennon of before '66. Pete Best of previous drummer was said. ‘Paul was tallest in Beatles.’ Anonymous says on 28/Jan/08
High-heeled shoes considerable as for boots of ,Lennon of before '66. Pete Best of previous drummer was said. ‘Paul McCartney was tallest in Beatles.’ Anonymous says on 28/Jan/08
High-heeled shoes considerable as for boots of ,Lennon of before '66. Pete Best of previous drummer was said. ‘Paul McCartney was tallest in Beatles.’ Chris says on 28/Jan/08
On this pic Lennon has more heel advantage and Paulｴs shoes look flat.
Click Here Anon says on 28/Jan/08
Glenn, I'm not arguing that Macca wasn't 5-11, I agree with you there. I just think Lennon was also that same height at his peak where many people think John was always shorter. If you look on the Lennon thread, mcfan posted not one, but SEVERAL photos showing Lennon equal or a bit taller than McCartney in their primes.
Remember folks, height-loss is not uncommon, even though it's unusual for John Lennon to have lost 1" in his 20's/30's, he's an exceptional case, he had a weight complex which he expressed in songs like "Help!" (called his "Fat Elvis" period) and he made efforts to lose a lot of that weight, and combined with the drugs, and achieving that "hippie guru" look, I really did think it took a toll on his height during the late 60's, early 70's.
You're right about the crap in how some people think Lennon is 5-9-ish or Ringo is 5-5-ish...
p.s. Glenn, did you ever get a chance to meet John, or were you too young when he passed? glenn says on 28/Jan/08
the crap i read on this page hasnt changed for 2 years or more.i see more heel advantage on lennon for one and the angle favors him.if this is the anon thats always on the site,forgive me.but the other guy or guys are unreal.mccartney was at least 5-11 in his prime.at least.with a small probabilty that lennon was 5-11 and macca 6ft ! cause george was 5-10 at least.not the 5-9 in saw him at.that was bad posture.i met macca many times.and he was always 5-11 with dress shoes.ringo i saw the other day and he was bigger than the 5-5 i always saw him at.maybe he was a hair under 5-7 in his prime. Anon says on 27/Jan/08
I have to disagree. During Beatlemania and before, young Lennon was at his peak height and was same height as McCartney:
Click Here
For the later years though, old Lennon shrunk substantially:
Click Here
Lennon often played guitar in a very "hunched" posture with very bowed legs, making him look shorter on stage..every REAL Beatles fan knows THIS! ;) Anonymous says on 27/Jan/08
The height of Lennon&McCartney is not same.
Everybody of the BeatIes fan knows that Lennon is shorter than the formal profile.
Lennon…5'9" or 5'9"1/4.
McCartney…5'10"1/2 (5'9"3/4 or 5'10" now). Anonymous says on 26/Jan/08
The height of Lennon&McCartney is not same.
Everybody of the BeatIes fan knows that Lennon is shorter than the formal profile.
Lennon…5'9" or 5'9"1/4.
McCartney…5'10"1/2 (5'9"3/4 or 5'10" now). Anon says on 17/Jan/08
John lost height due to diet and maybe drugs, but then lived more healthily at the end of his career after he straightened out his life again. In the Beatlemania heydays, I've always observed John to be equal or taller than Paul (about 5-11). In the later years (Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, etc...) Paul was 0.5 to an inch taller.
The other thing that makes it all confusing, is that George, being the youngest Beatle also grew a bit. When they became famous in 62, I think George was still only 18 or so... I also think George then shrunk a bit due to drugs, etc. later on in his life...
They were all so close in height it makes it difficult but this is what I think it goes like...
1964-ish / Beatlemania:
John+Paul = 5-11, George = 5-9.5
1967-ish / Sgt. Pepper:
John = 5-10.5, Paul = 5-11, George = 5-10
1971-ish / Let It Be / Breakup:
John = 5-9.5, Paul = 5-11, George = 5-10
Post Beatles, John's death:
John = 5-10, Paul = 5-10, George = 5-9.5 Anonymous says on 16/Jan/08
Paul McCartney was taIIer than Eric Clapton in a concert of Music Montserrat.Paul McCartney's height is 178cm, and Eric Clapton's height is 177cm.Paul McCartney does not wear the high-heeled shoes.There is time when he looks low because he always wears sneakers shoes. mcfan says on 14/Jan/08
You know, there's another video out there of the same film where John looks their heights...perhaps shot from a different angle on youtube. When he walks back at the end next to Richards he looks the same height, but Richards has a slight heel. Dries says on 14/Jan/08
If you watch the performance 'Yer Blues' by the Dirty Mac (1968), you can see that both Eric Clapton and Keith Richards (Keith possibly wearing high heel boots) are taller than John. John is of course taller than Yoko but not really towering over her. I estimate his real height was 1,74-1,75, being 5'8" 1/2. George Harrison was slightly taller than John. (by the way: I'm a big Lennon fan). mister Lennon says on 12/Jan/08
John was always taller than George and almost the same than Paul. Dries says on 12/Jan/08
Paul was the tallest Beatles, about 5'10" 1/2 in his prime. George was 5'10", John 5'9"ish (possibly a bit shorter), Ringo not taller than 5'7". Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton aren't certainly taller than Paul. Jagger has always been height conscious and was known to wear high heels. Rut says on 28/Dec/07
Coming back on the document a few years back..
It did list with high heels six foot..if they were referring to with Cuban (2 inch) heels, then yes..Macca could have been under five eleven.
I still buy 5'11 however, case closed. Greg says on 10/Dec/07
It strikes me that Macca, Lennon and Harrison had similar height as Brad Pitt, George Clooney, and Matt Damon. I don't think Macca and Brad were/are quite 5'11" in prime. Probably 179 or 180 at most. Lennon and Clooney seem solid 179ers, and Damon and Harrison around 177. Chris says on 15/Nov/07
Didnｴt May Pang say John was 5'9ｽ''? If you watch "your mother should know" I donｴt think there are 2 inches between George and Paul, however on the cover of Abbey Road Paul whoｴs barefoot is still a tad taller then George. Bri says on 11/Nov/07
I used to believe that George, John and Paul were all 5'11, but I can see now that George must have been a good inch or so shorter. If you watch The Rutles, George stands next to Michael Palin in one scene. Michael's height back then has been given as 5'11, but I'd say it was more like 5'10. George was a little shorter than Palin in that scene, (also much smaller) so he was probably 5'9-5'9 and a half. That would put Paul in at about 5'11, since he was quite a bit taller than George. Just watch the "I am the Walrus" clip in The Magical Mystery Tour. George is wearing heels and Paul is barefooted. Side by side, Paul is still over an inch taller than him. Plus, Paul is standing with his legs far apart.
He does look like he has gotten quite a bit shorter over the years though. He's probably under 5'10 nowadays. But as a young man, he was big and strapping and easily over 5'10.
As for John, May Pang said he was 5'11 and he did look like a good sized guy. If you ask me, he was a sold 5'10 in his youth.
(And all of this is coming from a huge Beatles freak so I know what I'm talking about!) Russ says on 27/Sep/07
I work with a guy who used to be work as a "parking lot valet" in Los Angeles back in the 80's. He once opened the car door for George Harrison and then parked George's car. He said that George was about 5'9". He knew this because he stood right next to George. So with that in mind, I'd have to say that McCartney is (was) maybe 5'10". Perhaps 5'10 &1/2 in his younger days. If you watch "A Hard Day's Night", you can see that none of the Beatles appear to be tall, especially when they are in a crowd. AD says on 17/Aug/07
Ok Julie.. in which case I may have been measured wrongly at the time..I'm pretty sure I was no more than 5'9" at the time and we were dead level on the photo...but this is going back 20 years so I'm not going to swear blind that I'm 100% right!
The other entry on here that made me also think that though is the from the guy who works at his office who says Macca is 5'9...so I understand what you're saying but it looks like it's a bit of a mystery that some of us have met him and think he's about this height, and some... like you, meet him and think he's more like 5'11"...it's very hard to say. Julie says on 16/Aug/07
AD -
Not to refute what you're saying, but I met Paul in June of '01 and he stood right next to me as he signed an autograph and we chatted. I was wearing sandals (which would have made me 5'6.5" at the very most) and he was considerably taller than me (taller than 5'9" that's for sure). He was wearing black loafer type shoes and I can say with a lot of confidence that he's around 5'11"...definitely not 5'9" though. AD says on 16/Aug/07
The reason I'm convinced he's no more than 5'9.5 is ....that by my 16th birthday I was measured at exactly 5'9" barefoot and it was around this time that I met Paul at the BBC and had a photo taken with him (I wish I still had it). I was wearing shoes with about a standard 1 inch heel... he was wearing flat pumps (those deck shoes that were popular in the mid 80s) which are about half an inch. The photo was taken on a studio floor, even surface, and we came out on the photo as dead level in height. As Macca's shoes were half an inch less than mine, this would make him 5'9.5 ....he was in his early forties so I very much doubt he was ever any taller than that. 5'11" in his Beatle boots. glenn says on 7/Aug/07
exactly julie. Julie says on 6/Aug/07
I met Paul in 2001 and I would put his height at around 5'11" I'm 5'6" and he was about 5 inches taller than me. AD says on 26/Jul/07
When I met him, from a distance he looked much taller as he has an athletic build, his shoulders are quite high and broad. As I actually faced him I realised that he was around 5'9.5 but his build definately made him appear a little taller. Marc says on 26/Jul/07
At the risk of getting sacked I work for him at MPL hes 5'9' glenn says on 25/Jul/07
lots of bull on this page. mcfan says on 24/Jul/07
Mhouillon, he was shorter than Tom Jones even in the 60s. Why he is listed as 5'11 in his prime and Jones as 5'10.5 doesn't make sense. Even Jagger had a slight hair on McCartney so did Clapton. AD says on 20/Jul/07
I saw a documentary on the Beatles the other day, when you see footage of John, Paul & George walking amongst other people, they looked very average in height. I'd actually give all 3 of them 177cm with the 5'11" listing coming from being measured with their Beatle boots on.
I really don't think that Macca was EVER this 'peak' height of 5'11" as listed above.... he was definately 5'9.5" when I met him in his early forties, and it's doubtful he would have been any taller when he was in his twenties. MHouillon says on 4/Jul/07
I said it previously and I say it once more: 179cm (5'10.5") youth height (pushed via kinky british 60's Star-Trek-high-heel-boots), and 176-177cm (5'9.25-5'9.5) today-height.
Was shorter than 177-178cm (5'9.5-5'10) Tom Jones during the Linda McCartney tribute-concert. mcfan says on 1/Jul/07
Paul looked 3 possibly 4 inches taller than Ringo. Anonymous says on 28/Jun/07
What? If you look at this clip you see that Paul looks quit tall, taller than Ringo. Click Here Hmm says on 28/Jun/07
In the paper today Paul and Ringo (with Yoko and George's wife) unveiled a tribute to George and John. The four were standing side by side and Ringo looked 1.5-2 inches taller than Paul. The footing is uncertain but I wouldn't put it past Ringo that he was wearing huge heels. mcfan says on 11/Jun/07
Click Here
Sorry, that's what I meant to copy. Chris says on 10/Jun/07
Irua- Yoko Ono is at least 5'2''- 5'3''. I have met her. She wore big heels though, and looked almost 5'6''. Iｴd say about 5'3'' barefoot. 5'11'' for Paul back in the days. John looked sometimes tall, but he wore boots a lot of times. My guess is 5'10''. When he was on Dick Cavett show he towerd over Cavett. Cavett is no more than 5'5'' and John looked 5'11''-6ft. glenn says on 10/Jun/07
he is very mean and nasty as of the last 6 years.but pulls surprises by signing once in a blue.never poses in those years either.i have one with me, paul and linda.not good to judge height.and lost. Anthony says on 9/Jun/07
Paul looks at least 5'10 if he were to straighten up. He's supposed to be doing a secret show in NYC Wednesday. Maybe Glenn can get him. glenn says on 9/Jun/07
he is slouching in that pic.he was at 5-11 in his prime.i met him many times. Jack says on 9/Jun/07
Does not look 5'10 in this photo more like 5'8 Click Here lrua says on 5/Jun/07
Paul McCartney was never 5'11", I used to believe what was listed in all the books on the Beatles and I wondered why 6'2" Mal Evans (their roadie) looked 6'5" , and why in the famous Feb '64 pictures with Cassius Clay (Ali) the Beatles looked tiny, and why 5'10" Mick Jagger looked taller than McCartney, well it's because Paul McCartney was 5'9 and half" back then now looking 5'9" at most, he was the tallest Beatle (slightly) , John Lennon and George were both approx 5'9" , keep in mind Yoko is 5'1" at most , and Ringo 5'6" to 5'7" at most. Anthony says on 25/May/07
I've seen quite a lot of recent photos of Paul in converse, and he looks 5'10 in them. He also looks 5'10 in his new music video. AD says on 5/Apr/07
Well...back to the topic in question...Macca..lol... aged 42 was 5'9.5" which I personally think can't be much different than 10 years or more before. I met him on 2 occasions and had photos taken with him. I'm pretty sure that John, Paul and George were 5'11" WITH their beatle boots on...and Ringo 5'8" with his on. glenn says on 5/Apr/07
whats wrong leanari? why do you get upset too much? you even just said in extremity it can be.and most people are obsessive in gyms. leonari says on 4/Apr/07
Anthony: BULLSHIT! Normal bodybuilding/weightlifting is only healthy. If you go to extremes like ARNOLD yeah: it's bad for your health and can affect height in the long run. Please stop posting comments on topics you seem to know nothing about. glenn says on 4/Apr/07
true anthony. Anthony says on 3/Apr/07
I think weight lifting and bosdybuilding in general makes you look sorter, as it makes you heavieer due to muscle mass and affects your height as well as your posture. This could be the reason why SLy as well as Arnie nowadays look shorter than they were in their respective peaks. glenn says on 3/Apr/07
they say that its a myth.but i think its a myth that it stunts growth at a young age.however at an older age,ala sly,maybe it has an affect. Anthony says on 3/Apr/07
Yeah, bodybuilding is a factor. I wonder how much my uncle will lose if that's the case. I wonder if that happened to Sly and that accounts for the short sightings. glenn says on 3/Apr/07
true anthony.its not only age.i have a friend who was 5-10.5 like stallone and he is 5-9 now at age 41.body builder. The Horse of FUNK says on 2/Apr/07
No, sorry, Viper, I respect you as regular on here who is generally accurate, but shrinking is a big reality. Generally when men reach 50 - 60 years of age, they can expect to lose a half of an inch, with more shrinking as the years go by. My father is 58, approaching 59 and was 5.9.75" in his younger years (navy measurements), but now is a mere 5'9".
There are all sorts of reasons why people shrink. Back injuries such as Clooney and my father. Then, there are some that don't drink at all. I think genetics and health has a lot to do with it. Be glad that your genetics are of the favorable breed lol. Anthony says on 2/Apr/07
I think that it's rare to shrink the amount Clint has, but shrinking is not uncommon. Though I don't think age is the only factor. A lto has to do with health and lifestyle. My aunt was 5'4 in her youth and due to health problems, she's about 4'8 now. Granted, women supposedly shrink more than men, but either way height loss is not BS. Viper says on 2/Apr/07
I think Eastwood is an extremely rare case. Anthony says on 2/Apr/07
Viper, if shrinking is BS, hwo do you explain Clint Eastwood? AD says on 30/Mar/07
I can tell you ABSOLUTELY...Paul when he was 42 was 5'9.5". I really wish that I still had the photo of Paul posing with me to post here. I seriously doubt that at 42 he had shrunk any from his twenties. Old age maybe...42...still very young! Anonymous2 says on 29/Mar/07
Your family has been very lucky then, Viper. But here are the medical facts from Harvard:
Click Here
Not BS. Alexander says on 29/Mar/07
hmm, thought Ringo was more like 5-6...that's about his son's Zak's heighth. BTW, all these Brit rockers appear shorter/slighter in person, I have met a few. Viper says on 28/Mar/07
My family members over the years havent shrunk at all. All of them. I think this shrinking stuff is BS mostly. Some people do shrink slightly but certaintly not everyone. I wouldnt even say half of the population. The people who usually shrink are wrestlers and some athletes. But normal people USUALLY stay the same height roughly till their 70-80. glenn says on 28/Mar/07
i saw paul give the illusion of 6ft,7 years ago.so he was at least 5-11. Anonymous2 says on 27/Mar/07
Everyone shrinks an average of 1-2" by the time they're 60, what's so hard to believe?! it's a scientific fact, some lose even 4-6"! Paul is now a 65 year old man in case you forget! I think JOhn lost the most height though, I truly believe he was once a solid 5'11" and taller than Paul in his prime (looking at many of the Hamburg photos and such) but shrunk 5'9.5" by the time the Beatles broke up, well before Paul became that height probably in his 50's and 60's. AD says on 27/Mar/07
I very much agree with ringo that John, Paul and George were always 5'9.5", and Ringo 5'6.5". The 5'11 and 5'8 listings was with their Beatle boots on. Paul was 5'9.5" when I met him in his early forties.... I doubt VERY much that he'd shrunk any since his youth!...he'd always been that height. Anonymous2 says on 26/Mar/07
Good video comparing Lennon with McCartney:
Click Here
It's odd how they fluctate with one being taller than one in one video, then vice-versa in the next. ringo says on 17/Mar/07
john, paul, george was around 5'9.5". They're not 5'11". They are all about the same height. Ringo was aroung 5'6.5".
They were never that tall, but they were not midgets either. AD says on 27/Feb/07
mcfan is absolutely right for saying 5'9.5" for Macca now. I met him in 1986 and had photos taken with him on an even indoor surface which unfortunately have been lost since. These photos showed him clearly at 176/177. Anthony says on 2/Feb/07
Brian's definitely at least 6'2, possibly 189 cm. Jay did look 2 inches shorter than Paul in the "Back In The U.S." concert movie. I remember seeing the difference and looking shocked! mcfan says on 2/Feb/07
Brian Wilson is probably 6'3. He was a lot taller than McCartney. There's many of them together. Also, Leno is taller than Paul McCartney if my memory is right by an inch. Anthony says on 1/Feb/07
Alec always looked a solid 5'11-6' to me. Definitely no less. And yes, Brian does tend to slouch a bit. I always thought he was average or so. But now, when I look at some of the older Beach Boys photos, he deos look really 6'2. How tall is the rst of the band I've always wondered. I guess Mike Love's around 6'. Not sure on Dennis or Carl or Bruce Johnston. Jardine looks short. I'm guessing 5'4-5'5 for him. Anthony says on 1/Feb/07
Alec always looked a solid 5'11-6' to me. Definitely no less. And yes, Brian does tend to slouch a bit. I always thought he was average or so. But now, when I look at some of the older Beach Boys photos, he deos look really 6'2. How tall is the rst of the band I've always wondered. I guess Mike Love's aound 6'. Not sure on Dennis or Carl or Bruce Johnston. Jardine looks short. I'm guessing 5'4-5'5 for him. Glenn says on 1/Feb/07
I studied Wilson 2 months ago.it is indeed a slouch that had me fooled.this site alone made me learn things about height I never realised.I always thought or saw Alec at 6ft.but mcfan pinned that one down.mcfan is right on Alec. mcfan says on 31/Jan/07
That would make more sense Alec being 6'0.5. In the movie "Malice" he only looked an inch taller than Nicole Kidman (5'10?) when they were both barefoot. Maybe he does wear lifts. Glenn says on 31/Jan/07
Alec walked past me 48 hours ago.he seemed 6ft.5. mcfan says on 30/Jan/07
No, I'm saying Paul is 5'9.5 at the most now. 5'10.5 at the most in the Beatles' heydey. I don't dispute Baldwin at 5'11 if he wears lifts, but I know for a fact he was taller than Martin on SNL who is listed as 5'11.5. Anthony says on 30/Jan/07
So you're saying Paul is 5'8, mcfan? Rediculous. First of all, Martin always looked maybe 6' to me, though 5'11.5 is more realistic. And Baldwin does strike me as a guy who might wear lifts occasionally. I saw a pic where he looked the same height as 6'1.5-6'2 David Letterman. mcfan says on 29/Jan/07
Steve Martin was almost two inches than McCartney on SNL with the skit with Alec Baldwin. I see Baldwin listed as only 5'11, but he was clearly an inch taller than Steve Martin so nothing jives from the heights listed. Baldwin looked 3 inches taller than McCartney. Anthony says on 29/Jan/07
Thank you, Glenn. Glenn says on 29/Jan/07
Exactly Anthony. Anonymous says on 16/Jan/07
Macca and Lennon were the same height in the early Beatlemania heydays, about 5'11". Lennon shrunk a bit due to drugs and macrobiotic vegan diets, maybe 5'9.5" when he died. Macca kept his height well into his 40's and 50's, but now probably 5'10", shrunk a bit which is normal for anyone in their 60's. Glenn says on 23/Nov/06
Yes we can. Rastus says on 23/Nov/06
Only a joke, Glenn. Can't we all just get along? Glenn says on 22/Nov/06
Mind your business Rastus. Rastus says on 22/Nov/06
Settle down, ladies. To get back to the topic, random guy's photo of Macca, Depp and Weller is interesting. This site has Weller at 5' 10.5" and Macca at 5'10" (now, 5'11" previously). But Weller looks a good 2 or 3 inches taller. Isn't it just that Macca and Lennon were never over 5'10" - probably 5'9.5" at the most - and that nowadays Macca is around 5'8"? Oh, and don't forget that you never see him now without his big chunky black trainers. Glenn says on 21/Nov/06
Im going to respect Padraig and keep my mouth shut.which is what alot of you should do including myself.but when one gets wiseass,they turn it around that Im a baby that gets mad cause of disagreements.cheap excuse.I was actually trying to back you up mcfan.but you wanted to get stupid.thank you Padraig. mcfan says on 20/Nov/06
It's ashame Glenn gets all bad-tempered when you disagree with him [Padraig: McFan, appreciate that if I let that other little comment through then the thread would become too argumentitive. Your point is taken though.] Brad says on 19/Nov/06
Depp wears lifts. Is there any actor under 5' 10" that doesn't? Glenn says on 19/Nov/06
Mcfan,need I remind you,you are the WORST judge of height on this site? Jimmy Page 5-9? you wanna get wise with me,Ill tear you apart. mcfan says on 17/Nov/06
Glenn,
It really is the end of the world then and here it is the holidays. I think the other one you agreed with was the one where I said you're only 5'7 barefoot. Glenn says on 17/Nov/06
Twice this week I agreed with Mcfans postings.must be the end of the world.seriously,I dont remember the other I agreed with,but I agree with Depps possible lifts. ralph says on 16/Nov/06
Johnny Depp doesnt wears lifts. He is not that type of guy, I met him. mcfan says on 10/Nov/06
I don't trust Johnny Depp with his photos because he goes from 5'9 -5'11 because of obvious lifts. Yeah, I agree with Chris that Lennon was 5'10, but that was already his proven height. He was a lot taller than Cilla Black who was supposed to be 5'8. He was 2-3 inches taller than Elton John. In the videos for Rain and Paperback Writer he's McCartney's height...just taller than George. I don't think you can make a good argument for McCartney being over a half-inch taller than John or George. In the Abbey Road sessions both he and George are at the mike and Paul is barefoot and George is in tiny flipflops and they're the same height. The flipflops look 1/2 inch...maybe 3/4 inches. I think you can argue that none of these guys were 5'11. I'll buy 5'11 in sneakers but not barefoot. I know from my memory that Clapton was taller than John and Paul...not by much but a noticeable amount. Certain people lose more height than others and neither Clapton nor McCartney look over 5'9.5 now. My friend who I absolutely know is 5'10 saw him in Toronto and says he (macca) is shorter than him. Chris Farley was only like an 1-1.5 shorter than him on SNL. One thing about Paul is he has fantastic posture. I have yet to see a photo of him slouching. Glenn says on 9/Nov/06
Your missing my point Chris. Chris says on 9/Nov/06
No way John Lennon was 5'8'', more around 5'10''. Glenn says on 8/Nov/06
Except,Depp can look 5-10,5-11 in public.and that would make Lennon 5-8.and Paul was 6ft when I saw him in 2000 in dress shoes.5-11,not smaller. Chris says on 8/Nov/06
It is true that all of the beatles wore boots. John looked very tall and slim his last years, because he had a eating-disorder. If you look at this clip they all had these cuban-heels.
Click Here Glenn says on 5/Nov/06
Rod is close to 5-11.Paul was close to 6ft in the heyday.no way is Rod 5-9.I saw him in slippers. Anonymous says on 4/Nov/06
Stewart's 5'10.5, which puts Paul as easy 5'11. I never saw him as anything less than that. I used to actually think he was 6', though now I realize that 5'11-5'11.5 is more accurate. Anonymous says on 4/Nov/06
Stewart's 5'10.5, which puts Paul as easy 5'11. I never saw him as anything less than that. I used to actually think he was 6', though now I realize that 5'11-5'11.5 is more accurate. Chris says on 11/Oct/06
When he was on Ellen, he was wearing snickers looking 3 inches taller then her. Paul is at least 5'10'', more 5'11''.
I saw a concert when Rod Stewart was next to Paul. Paul was 1ｽ inch taller. I donｴt think Rod Stewart is any taller than 5'9''. Sullivan says on 30/Sep/06
yes.as my friend stated, Paul is shorter than 5 ten.im 5 eleven.super guy.friend to the NYPD.you owe me Vec! Anthony says on 29/Sep/06
Paul always looked a solid 5'11 in his youth IMO. Anonymous says on 28/Sep/06
I used to llive very near him in Kent/East Sussex and often saw him on the high st in Tenterden. I'd have guessed he's 5'9. Vecchio says on 25/Sep/06
My buddy looked taller than him.Paul took his police cap from him and put it on his head.This guys not even close to 5 11.Sully is 5'11 and Paul was over an inch less.5 '9 1/2. Chris says on 24/Sep/06
It is true that in the 60:s their height was listed as 5'11'' and 5'8'' for Ringo, but the other three was not more popular than Ringo, it was the beatles and every fan had their own favorite, but saying Ringo was less popular is wrong. Glenn says on 24/Sep/06
WAY wrong Teenager. Chris says on 23/Sep/06
Very intresting to read C.P.Mohin. It means that 5'11'' for John, Paul and George is a bit to much. The three of them were 178-179 cm? A Teenaged Beatlemaniac says on 23/Sep/06
I've never met Paul (I's like to!) or any of the other Beatles in person but I can speak from experience in saying that it seems most young Beatles fans have the height stats down like this...
John- 5'11"
Paul- 5'11"
George- 5'11"
Ringo- considerably shorter, around 5'7" or 5'8"
Their heights were also almost always listed in this manner in the '60s during the height of Beatlemania. Although it seems highly unlikely (and really dumb to say) that all three (John Paul and George) were exactly the same height there might have been a method to the madness of whoever reported it. First off, it's whole lot easier to remember 3 heights that are exactly the same. Second, John Paul and George were most certainly the most popular and most in the limelight...to make them taller than Ringo who had fewer fans and sat in the back behind his drums most of the time only makes sense. This leads to my third point, Ringo was most often sitting behind his drum set, he also slouched...this obviously would make him appear shorter. Finally, Ringo was also constantly picked on by the other three, especially John and Paul, it was all in good fun of course but it makes sense for them to be taller.
I do think Ringo was shorter though..by how much I don't know. C.P. Mohin says on 23/Sep/06
I'm 5'10"..I met Paul in New Orleans on a Wings tour in the late 70's,putting him in him 30's.Eye to eye both of us wearing standard street shoes,he was just slightly taller than me,making him about 5'10.5 ". Met Tom Jones in 1980.Tom was wearing a high heel platform type shoe,and I was weraing street shoes,and he was about a half inch taller than me,so I don't know where anyone comes up with anything over 5'8.5" for Tom.Tom has almost always worn shoes with elevated heels,and apparently shoe inserts.I was face to face with both Paul,and Tom. I've never seen them in person together,at the same time,but I can say definitely in that time period Paul,with street shoes was no more than 5'10.5',and Tom was the same height with large hills on his shoes.So,in fact,in bare feet ,Tom,would be shorter than Paul.I was there face to face with them people,amd I'm 5'10",and neither Paul ,nor Tom with his heels were more than a small ,half inch taller than me ! I'm sure they have both shrunk a bit with age.The Beatle pictures are somewhat misleading.Being a guitar player myself,with a an 8 to 20 pound guitar straped across your shoulder,and leaning in,and out of a microphone to sing,you're not always standing straight.Actually,if you look at most of the Beatle pictures,and footage,while playing,you'll see that their knees,are almost always bent while singing.It's called working the mike.This would account for a lot of the different heights in images.It's very clear to me,that John,Paul,and George were fairly close in height. Paul, being the only former Beatle ,I've met though,I can only say what his height was in relation to me,at 5'10".He was only slightly taller. lennon_fan says on 26/Aug/06
I saw him in 1976. He seemed almost 6'0 Stef says on 25/Aug/06
guys, once again, i met paul 2 years ago, both had nike shoes on, i'm 178 cm, he was a bit shorter than me at around 176 cm, period.
IMO, at his peak Paul was 179; John 178, George 177,5, Ringo 170/171.
Paul, John and George were really close in height, but Paul was clearly the tallest among them. mcfan says on 17/Aug/06
Rut,
I said Jackson was 5'9, but he might have only been 5'8.5. Weren't him and Donnie Osmond the same height? The reason I speak of the Beatles as being shorter than they were is the 3 listed themselves as 5'11 when they were actually 5'10. Did Glenn meet Michael Jackson? Rut says on 17/Aug/06
Sorry accidentally used a wrong name, I dont think the Beatles indeed where differnt in Height, also I don't buy that baloney story of Ringo being 5 6 and a half, five seven okay, okay if it's true,-link the page where it is you can read it.. Anonymous says on 17/Aug/06
Hey McFan, isn't clear enough?!! if McCCartney showed measurements of himself in the 60s being 183 cm with shoes and 180 cm without, that is................ ....height, Jackson is not five nine, I give him a bit more that that, oke it's possible that schrinking by Macca earlyer in his life has set in, but get a fucking life man, it's perfetic how you go on about it. Oke that's it from me.
Rut mcfan says on 17/Aug/06
Yeah, I agree Paul was the tallest...maybe. John was either the same height or was very close. Harrison was also very close to Paul, but maybe not quite a half-inch shorter. Here a four very good reasons for Paul not being 5'11: Stevie Wonder (6'0), Pete Townshend (6'0) and Robert Plant (6'0) were all taller than Paul by a couple inches. The other reason is 5'9 Jackson is too close to Paul in height in "Say, Say, Say". I think 178cm is a good estimate for Paul, but I don't think he is even that now...more like 177cm. In "Spies Like Us" 6'1 Dan Aykroyd is at least 3 inches taller than Paul.
The Beatles all looked taller than what they were due to being so skinny. Dries says on 16/Aug/06
Paul was the tallest Beatle. I estimate him at about 178 cm (5'10''). He must be as tall as Mick Jagger and Clapton, but NOT shorter. As for Jagger, there is a picture of him and George Harrison. George is a bit taller (1cm, 0.5 inch). Both wear low-heeled sport shoes. Jagger is a person who wants to be taller than he is. Anonymous says on 15/Aug/06
mcfan, that pic of him with Jones is ridiculous, you can't judge from that, besides Jones could have had bigger heels... mcfan says on 10/Aug/06
In Rockpile's Little Sister 6'0 Townshend is two inches taller than McCartney. Paul was only 37 y/o so he wouldn't have shrunk. I see Glenn claiming 6'2 for Pete, but Townshend only ever looked 6'0 and this was all he ever claimed. mcfan says on 3/Aug/06
Leno was over an inch taller than McCartney I thought. Neil Young is still two inches taller than McCartney and this guy was only 6ft in his peek. I have a video of him giving Paul his lifetime achievement and Neil is two inches taller than him. Neil only claimed to be 6ft back then.
I would downgrade McCartney to 5'10-5'10.25 for his peek and 5'9.5 now. He wasn't even as tall as Jagger or Tom Jones. Chris says on 2/Aug/06
Paul McCartney was on the tonight show with Jay Leno a couple of years ago. They looked exactly the same height, 5'10"-5'11". john says on 2/Aug/06
Ali looks like a solid 6-3 in the below pic if John and Paul were 5-10 to 5-11. Rut says on 29/Jul/06
McCartney said once in the german program "Wedden das" to a tallish (Maybe 178 cm-to 180 cm barefoot + heels around 185-taller?)
German lady: "kleine engelsman, Grosse deutsche fraulein" or something.... Rut says on 16/Jul/06
Eric Burdon gave his height as 5 ft 7 inch in 1964, Alan Price says(of himself) he was 5 ft 9, Chas Chandler 6 ft 4, others I can't remember.. Anonymous says on 29/Jun/06
One of the most amazing things is how slim Paul, as well as the other three, has always been. I don't thin he ever gained more than 10 punds from the Beatle years up until now. Is that a genetic Liverpool "pool". I have read they ate fish & chips and corn flakes and drank milk and whiskey and coke. Not the best diet, right? Anyone has any photos of a fat Maca or John, George or Ringo? mcfan says on 13/Jun/06
My2Cents...good photographs all showing the three were of similar height. I don't think John was the tallest. Paul has his leg bent in the one photo. John does look a hair taller than Harrison, though. I still disagree with the editor that there was an inch difference between John and George with Paul. They were way too close in height. They were not separated by more than a half-inch. Paul MacCartney says on 8/Jun/06
It is funny, we have similar names and similar heights. I am 5ft 10 1/2. Anonymous says on 19/May/06
I met Yoko Ono, I am 5'9.5, she was wearing high heels and looked to me as a 5'5 lady, however John always looked so much taller than her. Anonymous says on 28/Apr/06
I met Mick Jagger in 1992 in LA, I am 5'10 he is at most 5'8, no kidding! He is short and incredibly skinny. TJ says on 26/Apr/06
You're welcome McFan. Chris, Ringo said it in a fairly recent interview. I just wish I could remember exactly when and where it was published. He definitely said it though. Anonymous says on 26/Apr/06
Does anybody know Brian Epsten's and George Martin's height? It seems that Brian was about an inch taller than John and Paul, and George Martin looks like 6'2 at least. mcfan says on 25/Apr/06
Thanks, TJ! I never knew Ringo's height, but I knew he was a lot shorter than the other three. My friend who was just a hair taller than me at 5'10.5 said he saw McCartney in Toronto years ago and swears he was lucky if he was 5'10. Chris says on 25/Apr/06
TJ-When did Ringo say he was 5'6ｽ''? TJ says on 25/Apr/06
Mcfan. Ringo has himself said that his 60s height was not true and that he was really 5'6.5. As for Paul, I'd guess 5'10.5 in his prime. Rut says on 24/Apr/06
A big difference between 178cm and 180cm c'mon! oke, a little difference ok.. mcfan says on 23/Apr/06
Rob2,
I also have a book of People from 1981 listing McCartney at 5'9, Harrison at 5'8.5, and Ringo at 5'8. I don't think any of these heights are correct. All I know is that Tom Jones was always taller than McCartney by a quarter to a half-inch and Tom only claimed to be 5'10.5. Jagger was also 5'10.5 and slightly taller than McCartney so 5'10.25 would be very realistic for Paul. Even Elton John at 5'8 was only two inches shorter than Paul not three. If Harrison was about a half-inch shorter than McCartney...then 5'9.75 would be pretty accurate for him. Ringo did wear cuban heels an awful lot and judging from photos where you can see them all standing next to one another, he looked roughly 3-3.5 inches shorter than the other three. I'm guessing Ringo was 5'7, but he might have been only 5'6.75. 5'11 for John, Paul, and George was totally false and I don't know how people come to the conclusion that any of them were 5'11. It's just not possible. There's a big difference between 5'10.25 and 5'11. mcfan says on 22/Apr/06
Anonymous,
Look at Blackpool "Ticket To Ride." Lennon does not appear as tall as McCartney there nor does he appear as tall as McCartney anywhere else. My impression is that Paul was just a hair taller no more than a quarter inch and Harrison was only a half-inch shorter. Lennon had very bad posture, but I'll agree that "Your Mother Should Know" is probably the most accurate of all the footage. Anonymous says on 21/Apr/06
I just finished watching footage from the Anthlogy video about the Magical Mistery Tour, specifically Your Mother Should Know and it is very noticeable as the four Beatles dance toward the big stairway with their backs to the camera and turning back every now and then, that John is at least an ich taller than Paul, and George is about the same height than Paul. MHouillon says on 19/Apr/06
Finally someone mentions it !!!!! The appearance of a height is not only matched by the length of a body, it's also the WIDE (= broad shoulders, narrow shoulders). I am 177,8 cm tall = 5'10". My shoulders are not broad anyway, having problems with shoulder-dislocations -right side- and the resulting less muscles, I appear a little shorter than I am. I asked many other people to guess my height. And most people said: "You're a 174-175cm (5'8.5-5'9) guy." When I tell those people "I'm 178cm, most of them get a strange look on their face. When I prove it (normally getting measured by them), they raise their eyebrow like Mr. Spock and begin to mumble something.
Many people think. the thinner you are, the taller (or longer) you look. That sounds logical. But I made the experience, the broader you are, the "mightier" you are, the taller you look. Djay says on 12/Apr/06
I think that John was the tallest of the Beatles. This is very deceiving though. The clearest information is from the Magical Mystery Tour Movie. If you look at the Your Mother Should Know bit, they are all wearing the same shoes. After the Beatles go down the steps and are in line with each other, it appears that John was the tallest. The deceiving thing is that Paul appears to be taller, only because he had broader shoulders than John's. With them being so close in height along with Paul's broader shoulders, gives the impression that Paul is taller. I agree wholeheartadly that both John and Paul were about an inch taller than George. So with Paul being John's height or just a hair shorter(very hard to tell) along with his broader shoulder's, he would be considered the tallest(biggest) of the Fab Four. MHouillon says on 1/Apr/06
Glenn, do you still believe that Paul had two inches on John ? Tobin says on 29/Mar/06
Knuckleheads. I was at a bar on Conches Point Long Island NY, summer near The Mamptons, Mick Jagger was in. Cut the bull about Mick Jagget being taller than anyone. He is a little guy 5'6, maybe 5'5 or so, really short. I am 5'11 and his mellon was just a tad above my shoulder. Fact. plain fact. Glenn says on 28/Mar/06
When I get to a computer Ill check those out,this is a cell phone.you didnt read that other comment someone said that paul was near 6ft? I always saw him taller than lennon.no, I never met lennon,but everyone who did tells me he was 5-9.and paul isnt 5-9.5.5-10.5 minimum,5-11 max in his youth,which would explain why he looks 5-11.5 in shoes,whenever I see him.with all due respect,your not taking my side into account,and Im not blind.he must have bad posture at times. |