|
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.
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. Frank2 says on 22/Sep/09
Paul could have lost height so by the time he was in the photo with Glenn he was down to 5'9". When I met him in 1964 he seemed to be 5'10". Anonymous says on 21/Sep/09
Does anyone remember the pic of Glenn with Paul?? Glenn said Paul was 5'10" as he was no more than 2 inches taller max than Glenn in the pic - back when Glenn was insisting that he was 5'8". Now we know Glenn's real height and can make more accurate estimations. 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 glenn says on 18/Mar/09
cant argue with that mcfan.though i was never a fan.more a stones guy.but you are right. glenn says on 18/Mar/09
exactly anon.its obvious paul was at least 5-11 peak. 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. glenn says on 5/Mar/09
i agree with mcfan that they might both be leaning,and that paul is barely 5-10,but kanye i really think is taller than 5-8. Leung says on 4/Mar/09
I agree about Kanye being 5’8.5” Christian says on 4/Mar/09
Thanks for backing me up Glenn. Mcfan, maybe you are right, but if Kanye is 5'8-5'8½'' then Paul is close to 5'10''. It is hard to judge from a picture. mcfan says on 4/Mar/09
I agree he -- Kanye looks a half-inch taller than you in the photo you have posted if you are 5'7.5 - 5'8. If he Kanye is 5'8.5 then I agree with you, Glenn, that Paul must be close to 5'10 today, but I don't think he has lost height like other musicians in his day have like Richards and Jagger who both look like shrunken heads on toothpicks. glenn says on 4/Mar/09
kanye is 5-8.5 to me.possibly 5-9.i say 5-8 flat,only in the evening. 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. glenn says on 10/Feb/09
thanks for backing me brad that lenos height is all over the place. glenn says on 10/Feb/09
in every pic is saw,paul was the tallest beatle.thats why i dont understand these 5-10 peak claims.plus i saw him give me the illusion of 6ft in 2000! in dress shoes.i saw him at 5-11 plenty of times.he sure wasnt a few weeks ago. 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. Christian says on 8/Feb/09
mcfan-I meant to write that I think Paul has lost 1 inch since The Beatles and yes I agree he looks very good for a man his age and background. I would say he was 5'11'' in his youth and Glenn say Paul is 5'10'' today, that means he was close to 5'11''. 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. glenn says on 8/Feb/09
one thing is for sure mcfan.you were right all along that mccartney is barely 5-10 today.but im certain he was 5-11 peak. glenn says on 8/Feb/09
interesting mcfan.leno is tricky.i agree with you though.but leno can look 5-10 to 6ft at times.illusions. 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. glenn says on 7/Feb/09
richards and mccartney shrunk.not jagger. glenn says on 7/Feb/09
and i was up 24 hours to look this height above. glenn says on 6/Feb/09
well,the pic proves im 5-8.but paul is 5-10 min now.5-11ish max.he is posture does make him look 5-9ish. 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 mcfan says on 3/Feb/09
He only looks 5'9 or 5'9.25 if Glenn is 5'8. My buddy (5'10) got within feet of Paul and said he was only around 5'9. I vividly remember this because when I asked how the Toronto show went, he remarked at how short Paul was. He thought Paul was 6ft. glenn says on 3/Feb/09
i dont go nightclubbing and this is 8am.i was up from the day before,probably at my lowest height,and my head is tilted back on purpose. MakJagger says on 2/Feb/09
I didn't know McCartney was this tall, always had the impression of him being around 5'9 - which is what he looks like compared to Glenn. By the way Glenn, go easy on the nightclubs LOL - look at those bags around his eyes. Seriously u've aged alot during these years i've seen you (excessive nightclubbing can be dangerous to your youth!) glenn says on 31/Jan/09
i agree pan eden. 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. glenn says on 30/Jan/09
5-10 today.5-11 peak. Christian says on 29/Jan/09
Your mother shuld know is a great video to compare their heights. However I still believe Paul was closer to 5'11'' during the 60:s. Lets say he was 5'10½'', that would make John 5'10''. But if Paul only was 5'10'', John was closer to 5'9½'' and George a solid 5'9''.
Next to Glenn, Paul looks 176-177 cm, about 5'9½'', could even be 5.9.75. That makes sence if he was 5'11'' in his youth. 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 glenn says on 25/Jan/09
that is a unique shirt. 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'! glenn says on 23/Jan/09
he is the most valued autograph.even over alot of deceased celebs.there are a million pics of him that day.and a million of me in general.i was wondering if i can fix the top of the pics using photo shop.thats what i meant. ACG says on 23/Jan/09
Sorry, I didn't read a few comments down.....are you talking about a fake autograph? ACG says on 23/Jan/09
glenn says on 22/Jan/09
thanks risingforce.now is anyone experts on photo shop? is it impossible to doctor this?
coming from a tech geek, i hate to break it to you but each and every last one of your pictures could have been digitally altered to make it look like some "loser" known as glenn had met every single celeb known to mankind.
of course this is not the case, but it is theoretically possible....so when you ask whether it is impossible to doctor something like this with photoshop, the answer is a very big NO. you can pretty much make anything look like anything with that program; it's pretty scary what sort of results can be achieved....and this is coming from someone whose been using it for over half a decade!
exactly what sort of "doctoring" did you have in mind, anyway? i'd be able to answer your question better....hope i've been of at least some help.
oh, and humongous kudos on snagging Paul! My fav. Beatle. And I had no clue he was so sought after.... 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. glenn says on 22/Jan/09
possible james.he sure looked it in some pics. glenn says on 22/Jan/09
thanks risingforce.now is anyone experts on photo shop? is it impossible to doctor this? glenn says on 22/Jan/09
exactly brad.just my point indeed. 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. RisingForce says on 22/Jan/09
This truly is a great picture to have. Congratulations Glenn. glenn says on 22/Jan/09
he did have horrendous posture.to everyone i talked to,this is as big as it gets.everyone was still envious.despite the head cropping.rarely poses in the street.never in the 2000s actually.i agree.nobody tops this guy.im not a big beatles fan.but michael jackson and tom cruise dont compare.most valued monetary wise celeb there is.ill take the head crop.over the donuts everyone else got.whats the shape of a donut? 0.thats what.thats the lingo we use here when people get nothing.that or "a box of krispy kreams".is that with ks? glenn says on 22/Jan/09
mccartney was the tallest at 5-11 minimum. glenn says on 22/Jan/09
micheal jackson i saw and believed at 5-9 also.but upon examining full body pics,10 pics over a 10 year period that a girl i know has,with michael,he looked 5-10 or 5-11 next to her.and she is 5-8.and sometimes she wore heels.sometimes she didnt.he wore flat moccasin types,it seemed.she estimated him at 5-10 minimum. 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''. glenn says on 21/Jan/09
i dont have time to explain full story till later.not my first pic with macca.i believe this was done on purpose.the head cropping.3 out of 30 people all day obtained it.i feel triumphed.5-11 min in his youth.could swear 6ft in 2000 to 2001.5-10 now.barely. 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 Christian says on 21/Jan/09
Cool Glenn, What is your estimate on Paul? 5'10''? 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! 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 youI 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 youI 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 youI 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!
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 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.
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. 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´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. |
