|
Mr. R says on 1/Sep/10
Wyatt, you do know that Paul Newman passed away two years ago?
wyatt says on 30/Aug/10
5'9 at his tallest, prob bout 5'7 nowadays
That thing about how the newspaper was going to pay him for every inch over 5'8 he was, and he changed it to every quarter inch makes me think he was never much more than an inch above.
Still one of the best regardless. Mister_Lennon says on 20/Aug/10
5'9 at peak. Chuck says on 17/Aug/10
I had the opportunity and pleasure of meeting Paul Newman in a store located in Westport, Connecticut. He turned to me and asked my opinion about a belt he was going to buy. I am 5'9". We were eye to eye, and did he have blue eyes! Finman says on 23/Jun/10
I saw Newman at a shopping center when he was campaigning for George McGovern. I was shocked that he was only about 5'5" OR 5'6" and that is being generous. He was well built but he was small. mcfan says on 21/Jun/10
jtm, no I didn't meet him, but I stood behind him and got close enough to see the man wasn't my height of 5'10 even though I wore work boots. He looked sub-5'9 to me. That isn't to say he wasn't 5'10 or close to it years earlier as in Slapshot, but he simply wasn't that tall at the time I saw him in Connecticut.
The thing about Frank2 is he remembers Paul Newman in the 70s when he did look taller than sub-5'9. This I cannot dispute, but it won't change the fact that Paul Newman was not 5'10 when I saw him. There simply is no way for me to have been wrong. I watched him for long enough to know. Now, my workboots might have given me a half-inch advantage over Paul, but I know that I am 5'10 in bare feet and this guy was not my height. jtm says on 6/Jun/10
mcfan didn't you meet newman before? mcfan says on 31/May/10
PatB, if you have trouble differentiating a person of 5'8 versus someone of 5'10, then you're not at all good at judging someone's height. Yeah, if it is a person way out of your own range, then it gets more difficult. My wife, and women in general, I find are usually not that good at judging heights. It could be they don't care or for whatever reason they don't play close attention to other's heights or even their own. I'll never forget it when my wife had a friend state that she and I were about the same height. My wife said, no, I think he's a little taller than you. From my point of view, I had to laugh because if they feel not quite 5'7 and 5'10 are close in height then I guess there's a difference of opinion there. Will says on 19/May/10
Newman is definitely 5'9" flat. Robert Redford looked an inch taller than him in the 1969 movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. RisingForce says on 16/May/10
Rob, do you think Paul gave the 5'10.5" figure to the interviewer in the article I posted? It seemed like it to me. RisingForce says on 11/May/10
No, JTM, he was somehwere in the 5'9"-5'10" range. I'm just pointing out his claim. anonymous says on 10/May/10
5'9.5 is accurate for his peak height. here he is with 5'11" robert wagner: Click Here jtm says on 9/May/10
oh no, now rising thinks newman was 5'10.5. RisingForce says on 8/May/10
From a 1986 article
"I also was too short for Officers Candidate School, until I grew 4 inches in one year (to his present 5 feet 10 1/2 inches). PatB says on 1/May/10
I always wonder when someone writes that they met so-and-so (in this case Paul Newman) and they are a solid 5'9". How do they know? Can you really tell 5'9" from 5'8" or 5'10". I don't think I can, especially if they are wearing shoes.
When I was in high school I met and shook Richard Nixon's hand. I though he was very tall. But of course I was taller than he ever was even before my late growth spurt. I attribute my error to glamour. Celebrities seem "larger than life".
I also wonder about the common theory that so-and-so celebrity has shrunk. There is a pseudo-medical website that claims you lose an inch a decade after 40. I'm close to seventy now so I should have loss three inches if this were true. I measured myself a week ago and I was down one quarter inch from my life long height. I don't think I'm unusual in this regard. I think all this shrinkage conjecture is bushwah.
Finally I wonder about shoes. One reason movie stars are always shorter than expected is because they measure their height while wearing shoes and "civilians" usually refer to their own height while barefoot.
When I wear my hiking boots I'm 6'6" although I usually call myself 6'4" (barefoot). So if I were to meet Sean Connery on the street when I was out walking my dog (in my boots) and he was indeed in flats, I would tower over him. Reverse the shoe situation and it would be a different story.
I think some people missed a plot point in Cool Hand Luke. Newman was supposed to be small as Luke. He fights George Kennedy about halfway through the film. He is supposed to look completely over-matched so as to emphasize his courage. Similarly when he eats fifty eggs, that feat is more remarkable because he's not a very big guy.
The reason Hollywood has so many tiny leading men is neoteny and allotropy. Neoteny is the characteristic of appearing childlike. David Macullum is the most obvious example. Not all small men have this trait but it is rare in big men.
Allotropy is a related notion. When a set of creatures get larger the bones of the face coarsen. A Great Dane has a much different (more brutal) head than a Cocker Spaniel, much less a Pomeranian. It's easier for a small man to have fine features that look good on a movie screen than for a big man. RisingForce says on 17/Apr/10
Rob, what do you make of these photos of Newman in front of a height chart?
Click Here
Click Here
[Editor Rob: with height charts you can make someone look taller or shorter. You really need to have a camera the same height as the top of the person's head to show it near accurate.] kansasgal1029 says on 31/Mar/10
Back in 1978, I went to the SCCA Runoffs in Atlanta, GA with my ex-husband. We were walking and talking, not paying any attention to where we walking, and as I usually looked down at the ground, I saw these legs coming at me, the knobbiest knees I had ever seen. When I looked up...it was Paul Newman. We were eyeball to eyeball, he had the coolest looking clear blue eyes, and I remembered thinking how short he was. My hubby was only 5'5" and I would have to say Paul was definitely no taller than 5'7". George H. says on 3/Mar/10
I've seen photos of 6'2" Warren Beatty in the sixties next to Robert Redford (and Judy Garland in the same photos) and next to Paul Newman in the seventies. He easily had half a head (half of his giant nuggin) over either of them (and Judy Garland came up to his nipples, for lack of a better way to describe the enormous height difference with her). So, taking into account that Beatty does have an unusually large head, how tall/short would that make Newman and Redford? Beatty is over a full head taller than Hoffman when they're both in sneakers. josh says on 2/Mar/10
larry king is the last perosn i would listen to. paul was close to 5'10. Aleks says on 1/Mar/10
If Newman and McQueen were 5'7", then you might have to add Redford to the pack.
Since Redford had five inches on Hoffman, that would make him 5'2".
Doesn't make sense either way. Mr T Cakes says on 28/Feb/10
It's interesting Larry King should say 5ft7, Andy, as some folks on the Steve McQueen page are putting him as 5ft7, too, and when they were in The Towering Inferno together they looked quite even in height. So I wonder,,, still, it would be a shock to me if Newman was proved lower than 5ft9, peak. Aleks says on 27/Feb/10
Newman was not a 5'7" man. He was close to 5'10". Andy says on 27/Feb/10
5'7"According to Larry King! josh says on 27/Jan/10
on feb 26 2006 frank2 said he was just under 5'11. i thought he was a full 5'11 because he always said that in all the other threads weard. RisingForce says on 26/Jan/10
Newman was definitely below 5'9" when he died. Remember the photos with Bruce Willis and George Clooney. Parker says on 18/Jan/10
Do you mean his eyes were even with your nose MikeB? Because if its the top of his head that was even with your nose would mean he was 6 inches shorter. Hugh 190-192cm says on 28/Dec/09
5"9 flat towards the end. George H. says on 16/Dec/09
Lawrence Jupin: I just posted this a few days back on the Clint Eastwood page: I've said it before on other pages, and I'll say it again. Not every person (male or female) loses height with age. Seriously. I've personally known (some are dead now, some still around) at least three men who maintained their height well into their eighties and even one until age 93! Their bodies changed, but their height remained the same.
Now Clint definitely lost quite a few inches, but to state "as we all do" is really not true. Not everybody loses height. The majority of people do, probably. But no way does everybody lose height with age, as I can testify from the people I mentioned from real life. Lawrence Jupin says on 15/Dec/09
In his early film career, he was listed at 5'11," 158 lbs. Those stats seem right to me. He died at age 83, so naturally, he would lose some height, as we all do, the older he became. It is reported the average male would lose an inch and a quarter by the age of 64. Newman was nearly 20 years older than that when he passed away. RisingForce says on 26/Nov/09
Although in Slap Shot he could look taller because he wore giant heels in a lot of scenes when he wasn't in his Hockey uniform. With them he gave a taller impression though, 5'11"+ with them. RisingForce says on 26/Nov/09
I believe that Newman was close to if not 5'10" even when he filmned The Verdict(1982). He was similar in height to 5'10" Jack Warden.
I honestly think he was closer to the 5'7"-5'8" range at the time of his death, though. mcfan says on 25/Nov/09
I think confusion here arises from the fact that Paul shrunk. The man I saw looked much older than the man in Slapshot and shorter. He must have shrunk in his 60s like some persons do. When I saw Slapshot it surprised me as he looked noticeably taller. He was no way 5'9.5 ten years later. There's always the possibility that I was wrong, but I was looking at this guy very closely and had no doubts about his height. I still say 5'8.5, but he could not have been a hair over 5'9 in 1985. Even in Road to Perdition he looks like a midget next to Tom Hanks. Of course, he looked even older then. RisingForce says on 18/Nov/09
Right now I'm leaning more towards 5'9" peak for Sly and a weak 5'9" now.
But lets be serious. The "lineup photo" is pretty poor for judging height and does not suggest that Sly is as short as you claim. A 6'1" Weathers had 4.5" on Sly in the photo BUT he was closer to the camer and appeared to have a footwear advantage.
A better photo(the only good one) of Sly looking short with Weathers was this promo pic that Zach posted where Sly did actually seem like he could be 4" shorter than Weathers.
Now I actually do have Sly at a flat 5'9", but Rocky 3 makes me leave 5'9.5"-5'10" open as a possibility although most points to him not being that high. 5'9" flat is fair for Sly. Anonymous says on 17/Nov/09
Correct Brad. Sly isn't 5'9.5 rising, don't you get it? RisingForce says on 17/Nov/09
Well last time I asked you to explain how tall he looked next to Carl Weathers in slippers and really flat Converse type shoes on the beach you couldn't. You said they edited him in which was a pretty laughable excuse.
Brad, if Sly were 5'8.5" as you say even back then like you think then Frank wouldn't have been able to look over his head anyway, so what's your point? That'd be a 3.5" difference with Frank in shoes and Sly in socks. Brad says on 16/Nov/09
At two inches you can't look over someone's head rising. No matter how hard you try, the slyster was never 5'9.5. Brad says on 16/Nov/09
At two inches you can't look over someone's head rising. No matter how hard you try, the slyster was never 5'9.5. RisingForce says on 16/Nov/09
Except we didn't see a picture of the 2 of them so we don't know for sure how much of a difference there was. And no, 5'9.5" would mean 2.5" between the two of them because Frank was in shoes and Sly was in socks when Frank saw him looking shorter. Otherwise when Sly was wearing cowboy boots he was about the same height as Frank2, according to Frank2 himself. Anonymous says on 10/Nov/09
Sly at 5'9.5 would mean there would be 1.5 inches between him and frank2 which is obviously wrong. Sly has never been 5'9 in his life. Aleks says on 24/Oct/09
Frank2 met him around 1981 and Sly was nothing close to 5'10". I mean, according to his own words, he (5'11") could look over Stallone's head. RisingForce says on 23/Oct/09
Here's the photo that real anonymous mentioned of Paul Newman and Rocky Graziano. Click Here RisingForce says on 22/Oct/09
Sly was probably around 5'9.5" atleast back in 1984. Watch Rocky 3. He shockingly looks 5'10" even in his slippers and thin running shoes. andy says on 20/Oct/09
Larry King when giving tribute to Paul's acting career stated that..he was only 5'7"!
I never saw him as being much above that,perhaps a tad under 5'8"at most.Probably
5'6" at his death.Certainly was made to wear elevators in some of his roles. Aleks says on 14/Oct/09
Sabre says on 12/Oct/09
My mother interviewed him when she was in college this was maybe '83, he was around 5'10 according to her and she is very good at placing heights generally, Stallone was 5'9-5'9 1/2 when she was working at Paramount probably around '84.
She was good at placing height and she saw Sly at 5'9½"? RisingForce says on 13/Oct/09
Generally Newman looked around 5'10" to me, maybe a bit under in some later movies, but either Jackie Gleason was taller than 5'10" or Newman was shorter than 5'9.5" because I'm pretty sure there was more than a half inch difference between them in The Hustler. Sabre says on 12/Oct/09
My mother interviewed him when she was in college this was maybe '83, he was around 5'10 according to her and she is very good at placing heights generally, Stallone was 5'9-5'9 1/2 when she was working at Paramount probably around '84. Antonio says on 11/Sep/09
I disagree with you, Frank2. I always gave Redford an extra 1". I saw the same movies you did. You agree that Newman may have lost height, but do you believe he may have lost 3" or 4" or more?
Both men are standing relatively straight. Redford slouching a slightly more but is closer to the camera.
Click Here
When you compare it with the Newman/Crystal photo below, it is easy to see that Robert is only 2-2.5" taller than Crystal. That puts Redford between 5-8 to 5-8.5". Frank2 says on 10/Sep/09
Newman and Redfored are the exact same height in both BUTCH CASSIDY and THE STING. I've watched both films a number of times. Plus I met both men. They were 5'10". No question in my mind. When that photo was taken of Redford with Newman, it could be that Newman had lost height. Or perhaps he wasn't standing up straight. I tend to go with photos if I can see a series of them taken at the same time. Better if they include full-length shots. Antonio says on 10/Sep/09
Here's another try for that Newman/Crystal photo. There are other pics here to look at with Clooney, Willis, etc.
Click Here Antonio says on 9/Sep/09
I also never bought 5-10.5' for Redford. I believe his current height here, at 5-9.5" is generous.
Here he is with Newman in a recent photo. I always thought Robert was about 1" above Newman. It looks like that is still the case, at the recent time this pic was taken.
Click Here
I think Robert's peak was between 5-9 and 5-9.5". I believe he is down to about 5-8 today. Antonio says on 9/Sep/09
I never went for the 5-9.5". A couple of friends and a cousin had met him at the raceways. All of them said he was a small man.
I met Billy Crystal in the 80s, and I think Rob is very close. I pegged Billy at 5-6 - 5-6.5.
Here is Billy with Paul. Yes, this is Newman's 80th and yes I know he has most likely shrunk, but Billy has to a lesser extent, too.. Billy, has 1" on Paul in this photo, which would pit an 80yr. old Paul at 5-5 to 5-5.5".
Click Here
Could Paul have lost 4-4.5" in height? No! Even 2-3" would be a stretch. That being said, I think Newman was around 5-8 in his prime. Chris Robinson says on 1/Sep/09
While promoting a film here in the UK Newman's height became a topic of discussion on the radio. Hearing that he was being described as 5-6 by one station he rang them up and challenged them that he would come in and have himself measured live on air if they would donate money for every inch he had over their 5-6. He stated categorically that he was just over 5-9, which I don't think he would have done if there was any chance of them measuring him differently. I too think he lost nearly an inch with age. My wife constantly tells me he's the most beautiful man that ever lived, so knowing he also had an inch on me is annoying, Ahleks says on 22/Aug/09
5'9½" is very accurate for Newman. TELLEM says on 18/Aug/09
Daniel says on 14/Aug/09
He always looked around 5'9" to me. He looked that height in "Cool Hand Luke". He was shorter than every other male cast member in that movie.
He was? Funny, i don't remember Dennis Hopper being taller than him. adam says on 17/Aug/09
True. All RisingForce says on 15/Aug/09
My favorite Paul Newman movies are Cool Hand Luke, The Verdict and Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid. I always thought he looked about 5'9"-5'10" in them. adam says on 15/Aug/09
Aah, THE STING. One of my favourite films. And all three lead actors were excellent. Daniel says on 14/Aug/09
He always looked around 5'9" to me. He looked that height in "Cool Hand Luke". He was shorter than every other male cast member in that movie. Anonymous says on 31/Jul/09
He had a good inch and a bit on cruise in the colour of money.
Redford was slightlty taller in butch cassidy and the sting.
I say 5ft 8 at the lowest without shoes. Frank2 says on 26/Jul/09
Shaw wore huge lifts in SWASHBUCKLER. I know since I worked on the film and saw Shaw with and without his lifts. He was about 5'10" barefoot. Shaw wore lifts in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and still looked two to three inches shorter than Sean Connery. Toadyking says on 25/Jul/09
adam, Shaw wore lifts. Frank2 says on 24/Jul/09
Nope. I just watched THE STING. They were pretty much the same height. So was Redford. All three men were 5'10". adam says on 23/Jul/09
Was shorter than Robert Shaw. TELLEM says on 22/Jul/09
thats interesting risingforce. this obviously confirms that he had to be a MINIMUM 5'9, i'd peg him at 5'9.5. TELLEM says on 22/Jul/09
i'd put him at 5'9.5. i think rob has him spot on. RisingForce says on 22/Jul/09
Frank2, the bet wasn't that he'd measure 5'10", the bet was that he'd measure over 5'8". Here is a link to the article.
"Page Six hereby offers $1,000 to Newman's favorite charity or political candidate for every inch he measures over 5-foot-8/barefoot. Newman came back Wednesday with 'something even more hardball.' He told WNBC-TV's 'Live At Five' that he's willing to write the Post a $500,000 check if the verdict is he is 5-foot-8. 'If They're wrong, though, then now we start playing some hardball. It's not $1,000 an inch/it's $100,000 an inch, or $25,000 the quarter inch' for every fraction over 5-foot-8, ' he said."
Click Here
So all we can be sure of is that he was over 5'8", not that he was 5'10". He may have been 5'10", but the bet was only evidence that Newman was taller than 5'8". Frank2 says on 22/Jul/09
I met Newman. I worked with him on SLAPSHOT. Newman was 5'10". When a tabloid claimed he was shorter, Newman bet them a huge amount (to go to his favorite charity if he won) that he'd measure 5'10" barefoot. Newman would have looked ridiculous if it turned out he was shorter as they reported so he must have realized he'd easily win that bet. The tabloid must have realized it too since they decided not to accept the wager. They published a retraction. Brad says on 22/Jul/09
Solid 5' 9" when I saw him a few times at race tracks 1980's and up. THE REAL ANONYMOUS says on 21/Jul/09
Frank2, you would probably remember the great boxer Rocky Graziano. Paul Newman made a movie called Somebody Up There Likes me. There is a pic of Rocky and Paul standing together and they look the same height. Rocky G was listed at 5'7. I thought you might find that interesting. Frank2 says on 3/Jul/09
5'10" Newman with 5'6" conductor Zubin Mehta:
Click Here mcfan says on 21/Jun/09
My quote on Paul's age was wrong when I met him. He was in fact 60 years old (1985). He only looked 5'8.5, but he did look in the 5'10 range in his earlier films. All I can say is without any doubt is that Paul was only 5'8.5 in 1985. When I see Slapshot (only 8 years earlier) he looks closer to 5'10. One thing I also noted is that his nose looks bigger in person than it did on film and it was hooked. RisingForce says on 1/Jun/09
Yeah it does get annoying leonari, especially when all logical posters have already figured out that Newman was in the 5-9, 5-10 range during his prime(and probably through the 1980's). Anyone who says 5-8 or under has no perception of height. Too bad the newspaper didn't take Newman's bet that he'd measure over 5-8. That would have taken care of garbage posts like Big Juan's. leonari says on 28/May/09
Big Juan: What a pile of bull you are posting here. Such bull****. Pisses me off Big Juan says on 28/May/09
On Wednesday night, during the DNC riots in 1968 in front of the Conrad Hilton, I saw him and urged him to speak to the protesters across Michigan Av in Grant Park. I couldn't believe how short he was. My best friend was 5' 7". Paul Newman was under 5'8". RisingForce says on 17/May/09
still 5-9, even in the last few years before his death? wow that's surprising, he looked much shorter with redford, clooney and willis. it could have been posture though. old men can look a lot shorter than they are. RisingForce says on 15/May/09
i agree. 5-10 or close to it in his prime, but in the last few years of his life he was at most 5-8, maybe shorter. Ahleks says on 14/May/09
Newman is one of those guys who lost lots of height with age.
He was easily two inches shorter in his 80s. RisingForce says on 11/Apr/09
I agree Redford is 5-10.5 and Newman was 5-10, but I think that both of those were their morning heights. That also fits with the 5-9.75 figure for Redford being an evening height.
Newman must have been 5-10 at some point in the day comparing him to 5-8.75 Marlon Brando and 5-7ish James Dean. Jim says on 3/Apr/09
In the late 60's, when I was in graduate school at Yale, Paul was in New Haven for a premier of a movie. I was next to him on two occassions. I am 5'-9 3/4" in bare feet, and Paul was (dramatically) several inches shorter. Sorry guys, handsome and fabulous blue eyes are real, but anything taller than 5'-7" is sheer fiction. As are many of the heights represented here, despite comparative guesses or self-serving statistics. RisingForce says on 30/Mar/09
Apparently Newman refused to reveal his height. He probably didn't think it was important so he didn't see a reason to claim a height. Here's the article that stated he wouldn't reveal his height.
And, as always, there were reporters present, including John Capsis of The Westport News, who earned Mr. Newman's enmity when he wrote last week that the actor's height was ''5-foot-8 in heels.''
Mr. Newman, who will not divulge his height, responded a few days later by calling the reporter a scatological name.
Click Here
I'm unsure of Newman's height. I'd guess he was in the 5'9", 5'10" range. He certainly didn't look under 5'9", but not over 5'10" either. I'd guess maybe a weak 5'10". SHAUN says on 26/Mar/09
Looking at his early films I certainly think Newman was about 1.77m. But his later films in the 2000s he seemed to have lost a few cms and was around 1.74m. |
