|
googoogajoob says on 13/Mar/10
When talking about a person's height, head size, arm length etc. also need to be considered. On average, a person who is 5'10 will have a slightly larger head than someone who is 5'8.
But what amuses me about this height debate is everybody compares one person of unknown height with someone else of unknown height in order to prove they are right! For example, David Letterman is somewhere between 6'1 and 6'3, so therefore Paul McCartney, who appears to be at least 3 inches shorter, must be either 5'9, 5'10 or 5'11, depending on your take of how tall Letterman is, or whoever you use as your control. But the control is also unknown!
mcfan says on 15/Feb/10
GregR, no Michael Jackson was only 5'8 or a smidgen over. I've seen references to 5'9 before as well, but this wasn't true. Here is him next to Eddie Murphy:
Click Here
There are other photos next to Murphy where he looks taller, but he often wore special shoes in the 90s, which he didn't do in the 80s and before. It's like he grew from 5'8 to 5'10, but one only has to look at his footwear. GregR says on 13/Feb/10
All of the Michael Jackson articles regarding his autopsy list him as 5'9". If that is correct, Macca was around that height too because the photos of him next to MJ (when Macca was in his late 30s) shows they were close in height. I would give Macca a slight edge. Thus, Macca was only around 5'10" in his prime. No more than that. He looks taller because of is lanky frame. Plus, as with all celebs, there has been quite a good PR campaign done to make the beatles seem bigger than they were. 178lad;P says on 30/Jan/10
Paul McCartney is 175 cm today, alongside 175 cm David Bowie in many photographs. He is also 3" taller than (5' 6") Ringo Starr and 0.5" shorter than 5' 9.5" Michael Parkinson. mcfan says on 29/Jan/10
AD, I agree that the photo is good on Harrison and McCartney. I still say Paul looks slightly taller than George in it, but it looks like John's neck is slumped forward and the hat obscures his head. AD says on 27/Jan/10
To back up my last point about the 3 Beatles being the same height, this is the best picture I found where they are stood together on level ground with the same posture and the footwear looking similar:
Click Here AD says on 27/Jan/10
I met Paul when he was 43 and had photos stood with him on a flat surface, he was definately between 5'9.5 and 5'10 ..personally I think all 3 of the 'taller' Beatles were always around the 1.77m mark, with their boots giving them the 5'11 listings. I really don't think he's lost much height at all. mcfan says on 26/Jan/10
Probably Stevie wrote that line. He was 2 inches taller than Paul even then. Christian says on 24/Jan/10
This is interesting. From Paul´s album "Tug of War" (1982) and the song "What's That You're Doing" his lyrics go:
Girl You Make Me Feel So Small
Though I Might Stand Six Feet Tall
Interesting...Might stand six feet tall. Stevie Wonder was on this song and I know he is 6 feet tall, but this is Paul´s lyrics and Paul was the one singing this line. mcfan says on 8/Dec/09
My impression of Johnny was that he was 5'9 late in life and I thought he was only 5'9.5 in the 80s due to guests like Leno who appeared more than an inch taller than him. I've never seen him look 5'10.5 and I don't think he was ever that height. GregR says on 7/Dec/09
mcfan - It's possible that JC was 5'10". However, since him and Macca were exact same height in 84, that would mean Macca was 5'10" in 84 at age 42. I simply don't think that was the case. More like 5'10.5" to me. That's why I put JC at the height I did. GregR says on 7/Dec/09
Dylan - I feel that Macca was slightly taller (at most 1/2 inch) only because I have seen more photos where Macca looked taller than Lennon as opposed to Lennon looking taller than Macca. Based on the photos I have seen where they are together (maybe a couple hundred photos), I would estimate that they appear to be same height in roughly half the photos that I have seen. In 40 percent Macca appears taller (probably due to angle and positioning), and only 10 percent does Lennon look taller. More shots of Macca looking taller as opposed to other way around, leads me to belive that Macca was slightly taller. Think about it. It's pretty rare that Lennon looks taller. But not so rare that Macca looks taller. Dylan says on 6/Dec/09
Alot of people have said on here that Paul was slightly taller than John Lennon yet in all the photographs I have seen of them together they look exactly the same height and I have been a fan since they started. Am I missing something? mcfan says on 6/Dec/09
Carson was listed as 5'10.5, but he was certainly 5'9.5-5'10 by '84.' I really only think he was 5'10. GregR says on 5/Dec/09
To add on to what I said below, it appears that Macca was the same height as Johnny Carson during his Tonight Show appearance in 1984 (maybe others have already pointed this out). Carson was around 5'10.5". I think this was Macca's maximum height. Yoshi says on 5/Dec/09
The height of Paul McCartney is certainly 5'9" 3/4 (177cm)～ 5'10"(178cm). In 2002, I watched Mr.Paul McCartney close in Tokyo. About 1inch was higher in Mr.Paul McCartney than me of 5'9"(175cm). Mr.Paul McCartney wore sneakers. Japanese Yoshi says on 5/Dec/09
The height of Paul McCartney is certainly 5'9" 3/4 (177cm)～ 5'10"(178cm). In 2002, I watched Mr.Paul McCartney close in Tokyo. About 1inch was higher in Mr.Paul McCartney than me of 5'9"(175cm). Mr.Paul McCartney wore sneakers. natalie r says on 27/Nov/09
Paul is shorter than 5'10"... saw him young, on the street in NYC. I was surprised he was my height..5'8" mcfan says on 20/Nov/09
They both have very small heels if you call it that. They're just regular shoes on both, not boots. mcfan says on 18/Nov/09
Dachille, I did go to 5:22-5:25 and I see no evidence of a boot on Lennon. At about 5:24, I can clearly see a slight heel on McCartney just as is on Lennon. They are both wearing similar footwear with minimal heel.
What do you think, Rob? DAchille says on 17/Nov/09
To mcfan: Look at 5:22 of the Lennon/McCartney 1965 special TV program that you referred to. You can clearly see that John is wearing healed boots and Paul is wearing flat loafers. Paul almost never wore those healed Beatle boots. That is why in the early days some pictures show them to be the same height. Paul was an inch taller than John. Look at the Sgt. Pepper pictures. Dylan says on 13/Nov/09
In the early sixties, John, Paul and George were all listed as 5'11" and Ringo as 5'8" and I was never sure whether these heights were with or without footwear as they all wore cuban heels then. When the Beatles broke up and they went solo, there was an article on Paul McCartney after he met Linda in a diet column in a newspaper. Paul had become a vegetarian and had lost weight. In that article they quoted his height as 5'9" mcfan says on 27/Oct/09
Proof again that Lennon/McCartney were the same height in 1965:
Click Here
The Music of Lennon and McCartney (same footwear/same height) mcfan says on 5/Oct/09
Frank2, how tall was Tommy Smothers? I thought he was 5'8.5 - 5'9. George Harrison appeared next to him on the bros show and appeared to be roughly the same height or a hair over. Christian says on 18/Sep/09
Great photos Frank2. If MJ was 5'8'' I agree on Paul beeing 5'10''. Frank2 says on 18/Sep/09
Here's another shot of MJ with Paul:
Click Here Frank2 says on 18/Sep/09
"Anonymous says on 14/Sep/09
what footwear were you wearing Frank2? if you met them in '64 then they would have been wearing the cuban heeled boots at that time giving them about 2" extra height.
isn't mccartney about the same height as michael jackson?"
I was wearing loafers with no more than one inch heels. The boys were all dressed casually. I didn't notice any of them wearing the boots we see in so many photos. But they could have been wearing boots with two inch heels which means they all need to be downgraded. There are just a handful of shots showing McCartney with Jackson. One showing them standing appears to show McCartney and inch taller than MJ. If McCartney was just 5'9", that would explain him being an inch taller. In the photo with MJ, McCartney is wearing regular shoes, but MJ looks to be wearing boots.
Click Here
In this shot McCartney is obviously bending down while MJ is standing up straight and McCartney is still taller by an inch:
Click Here
This is more revealing shot since here we can see McCartney is clearly taller:
Click Here
This one should pretty much end it:
Click Here
I'd say, McCartney was 5'10" and I know for a fact that MJ was 5'8" I met him in 1988 and stood right next to him. He always appeared to be three inches shorter than me. Frank2 says on 18/Sep/09
Yes, I really met the Beatles. It was in 1964 when they came to LA. I've described it in detail at least a couple of times.
MJ was gay. No question. Nothing wrong with that unless one goes after underage boys.
I said TROUBLE WITH GIRLS was done in 1969. I might have mention the date wrong once somewhere, but that doesn't negate the fact I worked at MGM from 1968 to 1973, saw Elvis quite a bit on the lot. I even hand delivered him a check for one million dollars!
If you don't care how tall any one is, don't come here. You're free to go. liberian boy says on 18/Sep/09
Frank2, if you really worked in Hollywood, i respect that, but some things you tell i really doubt, for instance, did you really met the Beatles?
But, i wasnt there, so i dont know..
Michael Jackson... Since his dead you hear all kinds of strory's, but i am not willing to believe he was gay, even it was said then, they were only rumours, to put the matter straight, he wasnt anything in sexual terms, but if you have to say, then i say asexual.
I also really doubt if you ever had anything to do with Elvis, since you claime The trouble with girls was made in 73, wrong! it was 69..
Ok, maybe you made a mistake there, but is was 68 or 69. Anyway, who cares how tall these celebs are really are..
Many, i guess... mcfan says on 17/Sep/09
Just look at all the photos. The three of them are very close in height. Paul almost consistently looks the tallest...anywhere from even with John to 1 inch taller than John and George. However, Paul had high shoulders and great posture and seems to very often be standing closest to the camera. I also disagree with the assertion that Paul was taller than David Lynch. David Lynch was in fact taller than Paul. I think the photo you have is deceptive as there are other photos showing Lynch was an inch taller. Also, I double-checked Your Mother Should Know and Paul is not taller than John in that video. His shoulders are higher than John's but John looks dead-even in that video. I have it on dvd and paused it. George looks 1/2 shorter than the other two. In Blackpool Ticket To Ride I thought Paul looked taller than John by a 1/2 inch, but again, John is leaning and the camera is tilted downwards.
I would say Frank2's comment on Michael Jackson's is probably the most accurate that Paul was a strong 5'10 and John about 5'10...due to differences in posture of the two. Christian says on 17/Sep/09
I meant, Michael Jackson was 1 inch shorter than Paul. Christian says on 16/Sep/09
McCartney was 1-1½'' inch shorter than Paul. Anonymous says on 14/Sep/09
what footwear were you wearing Frank2? if you met them in '64 then they would have been wearing the cuban heeled boots at that time giving them about 2" extra height.
isn't mccartney about the same height as michael jackson? Frank2 says on 12/Sep/09
All I know is not one of them was as tall as me. Paul seemed to be the closest.
The irony of me meeting them is, I wasn't a fan. I'm still not. My girlfriend most certainly was and nearly had a stroke meeting them. I got more out of watching her reaction than me actually meeting the boys from Liverpool. Christian says on 11/Sep/09
Yes, I know Frank2, that is very cool. The thing is that John was an inch shorter than Paul. According to Yoko Ono, John was 178 cm.
Click Here
" The John Lennon Museum (Jiro Kikuchi, General Manager of the Museum/Saitama-city, Saitama pref.) received a life-size picture board of John & Yoko (* John's height: 178 cm) provided by Ms. Yoko Ono, and set up the board at the Museum Lobby on the fourth floor."
To me Paul looked between 5'10''-5'11''in the 60:s. I know that you said John looked 5'9'', several people have also said 5'8''. In May Pang´s book called "Loving John" she describes John as 5'11''. She has also said he was 5'9½''. Personally, I´d say 5'10''. Frank2 says on 10/Sep/09
I met him back in 1964 along with all the Beatles when the came to LA and stayed in a home in Bel Air. Paul was about 5'10". TJ says on 9/Sep/09
I watched the Beatles shows on the BBC at the weekend and the difference in height between Paul, John and Ringo really is difficult to judge. Just when you think you have it nailed, with Paul as the tallest, he looks the same height or shorter than one of the others. lol. Wonder which one they made tallest in the Beatles: Rock Band game ? :-) Christian says on 9/Sep/09
Paul and Ringo
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Here you can see their footwear. Click Here
To me it looks like the diffirence always has been about 3.5 up to 4 inches between them. David Lynch who´s in one of the the pics, looks 0,5 inch shorter than Paul and he is listed as 5'11''. Let´s say Ringo was 5'6'' in the sixties, then Paul was 5'9½''-5'10''. If Ringo was taller, 5'6½'' or 5'7'', Paul would have been 5'11''. Russ says on 9/Sep/09
All these idiots saying he's 5'11, and that John and George 5'10 are phoneys. Probably 5'10. John and George were clearly only average guys, you only have to watch them in their movies to figure that out. John's about 5'8, which would make Ringo (who is about an inch taller than Keith Moon) about 5'5. mcfan says on 15/Aug/09
That's 'cause it's a cartoon. John and Paul were 5'10...George 5.9.5. Caddy says on 15/Aug/09
Whatever their respective heights, Paul was always shown as being smaller than John and George in the U.S. cartoon series. Was this just for added cuteness?! Antonio says on 14/Aug/09
I agree with mcfan. Paul looked small next to Letterman. I say Paul is 5-9 now. mcfan says on 11/Aug/09
In the studio, Macca looked at least 4 - 4.5 inches shorter than Letterman when he was being introduced by Dave and they were right next to each other. If Dave is 6'1.5 that would make McCartney 5'9 - 5'9.5. TJ says on 6/Aug/09
Hmm, I didn't think Paul looked tiny next to Letterman. Sure doesn't in the pic here Click Here There's also the outside gig he did at that link, which was sooooo cool :-)
Maybe it's the angle flattering Paul, but I didn't think he looked more than a couple of inches shorter in the studio either. mcfan says on 29/Jul/09
6'2.5 I believe and he made them look like midgets. Even David Letterman (6'1.5) made Paul look really tiny just last week. beatlefan says on 20/Jul/09
The page on heel height does state that a shoe with a two inch heel will probably not add two inches of height unless it has a platform. Cowboy boots and cubans normally have very flat soles so probably only add about 1" or 1.5" max. I suspect Ringo may have worn customs though to bring him closer in height to his bandmates, as his shoes always looked bulkier and different to the others. guyfrommars says on 18/Jul/09
The Beatles wore boots with 2-inch Cuban heels in the early-mid-'60s. If Paul and George were 5ft10 that would make them 6ft. Or they were shorter (like Ringo who always claimed 5ft8 but is 5ft6). How tall is Ali? mcfan says on 23/May/09
guyfrommars -- that would make Mohammed Ali 6'4 at least. guyfrommars says on 10/May/09
I've seen Beatles advertising cards from 1963 and they described Paul and George as 6ft tall, which they were with Cuban heels on. Dylan says on 6/May/09
Paul McCartney was always listed as 5'11" in the sixties, as was John Lennon and George Harrison, however, many years later when he became a vegetarian and lost weight an article in the newspaper stating his height and weight quoted him as being 5'9", I often wonder whether alot of the pop stars in the sixties were measured with their cuban heels. mcfan says on 5/May/09
Christian,
I agree looks about 5'9.5 next to Pegg. Macca still looks good compared to Jagger and Richards, that's for sure. Lebensdorf says on 10/Apr/09
I saw him yesterday, but I was sitting down as he passed me by in a New York hotel lobby. He seemed pretty tall to me, actually, even though I could not judge correctly. He was quite lean, 5'10'' at least. mcfan says on 2/Apr/09
with 6ft Kid Rock: Click Here Joan says on 1/Apr/09
By the time of his death, John had lost height due to his slump-shouldered posture over the years. When referring to the very early Beatles, however, you have to remember that Paul was still practically a baby. He probably didn't reach his full height until he was about 19 or 20. George was the youngest, so he was way shorter than the others until he reached that age as well. But each in their prime, early to mid-twenties, I would place them at Paul having been 5'11", John 5'10, George 5'9.5" and Ringo 5'7". Paul may be around 5'10 now. I haven't seen him for years, but I should think losing an inch of height is not at all unusual for a man approaching his late sixties. mcfan says on 18/Mar/09
Here he is in the late 70s (mid 30s age) looking about 5'10 next to Big George Martin (6'2). He always dwarfed the Beatles:
Click Here Anon says on 18/Mar/09
Paul was quite tall at his peak, maybe even 5'11.5". Well, I consider that somewhat tall anyway since it's a couple inches more than me.
5'10" today seems about right. He definitely doesn't look as lanky as he used to. mcfan says on 14/Mar/09
Regardless of his height...he's the greatest musician that ever lived. Leung says on 4/Mar/09
I agree about Kanye being 5’8.5” mcfan says on 3/Mar/09
They both are leaning in a similar fashion. Christian says on 3/Mar/09
Can´t you see Paul is slouching, sort of leaning forwards. mcfan says on 2/Mar/09
If Kenya West is 5'8?...then Paul is barely over an inch taller than him. How do you get 5'10 out of that? Christian says on 2/Mar/09
Paul and Kanye West Click Here
Paul is a 5'10'' man today. Hiro says on 23/Feb/09
It is Hiro of Japanese Kanagawa. I watched Paul in a hotel lobby of Japanese Tokyo in 2002. My height 5ft9in (175cm). Paul took 1in than me high. Generally the height of Paul is 5ft9 .75in ` 5ft10in (177`178cm).Paul wore sneakers.@ mcfan says on 15/Feb/09
Christian, that is a lot more than an inch difference. I'm seeing at least two inches. Pause it when Terry almost stands up straight before Paul sits down. If Terry is 6ft, which I have I cannot vouch for, then Paul is 5'9.75 - 5'10 in the video. Christian says on 14/Feb/09
Paul and 6 feet Terry Wogan back in 1987. The angle is not the best but you can see that Terry is at least an inch taller. Terry with shoes is about 6'1'', making Paul, 5.11.75 with shoes. So maybe just under 5'11'' for Paul at that time? Look at about 40 sec when standing up. Click Here mcfan says on 10/Feb/09
I'm the one that said Pang described him as 5'9.5. In fact, her exact words were "John was about 5'9.5." It was a taped interview I think in late 1988. It had to do with the Albert Goldman book "The Lives of John Lennon." The book sparked a tremendous amount of controversy at the time because there were several claims in it that involved John's life that were unfounded. I'm not disputing what May Pang said in Loving John, but she said something entirely different on Arsenio Hall with John being 5'9.5.
I agree with Rob that John looked just under 5'10 and Paul 5'9.5 now and 5'10 back then. Harrison looked 5'9.5. Christian says on 9/Feb/09
In the book called Loving John, the untold story written by May Pang she mention that John Lennon was 5'11''. That is interesting cause someone in here said that she also described John as 5'9½''. mcfan says on 9/Feb/09
Here he is with Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel:
Click Here mcfan says on 9/Feb/09
He still looks relatively good. Yeah, I think he's close to 5'10 at 5'9.5, with, as always, great posture. My disagreement is in his peak height, which I think should be 5'10...5'11 in shoes. Next to Jimmy Page, he's my favorite musician of all time.
My buddy (same height as me -- 5'10, an even bigger Paul-fan than me) got to go to his concert in Toronto in 1998-2000? (I can't remember exactly). He said shockingly that Paul was shorter than us. I told him that I read in a couple interviews that Paul was described as around 5'9 in the 90s. My buddy told me he thought Paul would have been taller than us. He estimated Paul as no more than 5'9.5 maybe 5'9. I vividly remember this as this was the first thing he told me about the concert...not how good it was or stuff like that, but Paul's height. (I guess he had the impression of Paul as being tall.) Mr. R. says on 9/Feb/09
Did anybody else see the giant heels that Sir Paul wore on the Grammy Awards? They were HUGE! Brad says on 9/Feb/09
Leno wears lifts on The Tonight Show. In person he's all over the place in height. Walked right by me but had a big slouch. mcfan says on 8/Feb/09
I think he is more 5'9.5 than 5'10. 5'10 at peak. Let's not forget May Pang stated John's height at 5'9.5 and Paul is either his height or a hair taller. I vividly remember Tom Jones was taller than Paul as well. There was a video around of that 1966 awards show somewhere. Having said that, I think Jones was closer to 5'11 in the 60s and 70s. mcfan says on 7/Feb/09
Leno looked over an inch taller than Paul on one of the more recent shows. To me Leno looks not quite 5'11. mcfan says on 6/Feb/09
1.5 inches? Is that a joke? Sounds more like an 85 year old. I'll admit, Jagger and Richards have shrunk a lot but Macca has taken better care of himself. That's a heck of a lot for a guy of only 66. I would say he's shrunk a half-inch, but I agree he's 5'9.5. I think he looks pretty damn good by comparison to other rockers from the 60s. Christian says on 6/Feb/09
Yes, I think he has shrunk 1.5 inch since The Beatles. I think 5'10'' is to high. I would go with 5.9.25-5.9.5 for Paul today. Here he is on "The View" looking quite tall but the ladies are short. He looks good for a 66 year old. Click Here Gan Eden says on 30/Jan/09
Well, according to this pic; Click Here Sir Paul is the corect height as Pete Waterman is around 5'11. Brad says on 29/Jan/09
5' 10" today. Vibram says on 26/Jan/09
178cm (5ft10.25) peak, 176cm (5ft9.5) today. Compare to 5ft6.5 (170cm) Nancy Shevell and his chunkier footwear advantage: Click Here runt says on 25/Jan/09
I saw a cute t-shirt. It showed John, Paul and George with brown skin and Ringo with white skin. It captioned the pictures thusly: Juan, Pablo, Jorge and Gringo. mcfan says on 24/Jan/09
He still looks 5'9.5. We've already established through video his peak height was Johnny Carson's height at 5'10. He's got a small head and high shoulders. Take Tobey Maguire for example who has a long neck with low shoulders. If you were to stand next to Tobey, I'm sure he would give the impression of being shorter than he is because of this. With someone with high shoulders like Macca, he gives the impression of being taller than he truly is.
Click Here
Click Here (Lennon -- looking the same height as McCartney in this video has Tobey Maguire's long neck and lower shoulders) Ranger Rick says on 24/Jan/09
just saw was flipping a beetles' picture book last night, and they had the pic w/ "ali" (didn't realize, they actually wanted to pose with liston, but he wouldn't, this was right before clay won him), and the 6'3" ali looked a good 5" above the hieghest betle, fwiw, lol...cheers'! ACG says on 23/Jan/09
Sorry, I didn't read a few comments down.....are you talking about a fake autograph? guyfrommars says on 23/Jan/09
In Beatles promotional cards from the early 1960s Paul and George are listed as 6ft, John as 5ft11.5, Ringo as 5ft8. Of course these are highly exaggerated, this was their height in the 2inch Cuban heels they were wearing those days. This makes Paul and George 5ft10, John 5ft9.5 and Ringo 5ft6 which is probably correct. Anonymous says on 22/Jan/09
I think he's peak height was 5'10" and now he's 5'9.25 or so. Brad says on 22/Jan/09
If you see his signature under $500 it is a stone fake. T.J. says on 21/Jan/09
Paul was the tallest Beatle.
John was in the 5-9/5-10 range. Ringo was 5'6" and George was 5'10.5"
Paul was 5'11" Brad says on 21/Jan/09
Paul was the tallest. 5' 11" peak. Christian says on 21/Jan/09
-Richard, This is what I think.
Paul was the tallest at 5'11''. John was a 0.75 inch shorter, making him 5'10.25, George was 5'10'' and Ringo 5'6½''. ACG says on 21/Jan/09
RICHARD: no, if you read the comments below, the tallest was most likely Paul, who could've been 6' at peak.
mcfan: Jacko is well OVER 5'9, not under as you say... GUK says on 21/Jan/09
Looks 5ft 9 above at best Mr. T says on 21/Jan/09
He looks like he could still be 5'11" if straightened out. RICHARD says on 21/Jan/09
WHo was the tallest Beatle ? I think Lennon was but I'm not sure 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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 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. Chris says on 31/Jan/08
Paul looks 5'10'' on that video with Neil Young. 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!
Actuallyc,
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. ePaul was tallest in Beatles.f 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. ePaul McCartney was tallest in Beatles.f 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. ePaul McCartney was tallest in Beatles.f Chris says on 28/Jan/08
On this pic Lennon has more heel advantage and Paul´s shoes look flat.
Click Here 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.
Lennonc5'9" or 5'9"1/4.
McCartneyc5'10"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.
Lennonc5'9" or 5'9"1/4.
McCartneyc5'10"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´t May Pang say John was 5'9½''? If you watch "your mother should know" I don´t think there are 2 inches between George and Paul, however on the cover of Abbey Road Paul who´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. 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' 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´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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Brad says on 19/Nov/06
Depp wears lifts. Is there any actor under 5' 10" that doesn't? 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. Chris says on 9/Nov/06
No way John Lennon was 5'8'', more around 5'10''. 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 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 1½ inch taller. I don´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. |
