How tall is Pierce Brosnan

Pierce Brosnan's Height

6ft 0.75in (185 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 1.25in (186 cm)
Irish Actor best known for playing James Bond in Goldeneye, Die Another Day and for roles in films such as The Thomas Crown Affair, Mamma Mia!, Mrs. Doubtfire, Dantes Peak and The Matador. He has claimed "195lbs, 6ft 2 on a good day."

How tall is Pierce Brosnan
Photos by PR Photos

You May Be Interested

Height of Sean Connery
Sean Connery
6ft 2in (188 cm)
Height of Roger Moore
Roger Moore
6ft 1.25in (186 cm)
Height of Colin Firth
Colin Firth
6ft 1in (185 cm)
Height of Daniel Craig
Daniel Craig
5ft 10.25in (178 cm)

Add a Comment 250 comments

Average Guess (72 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 1.55in (186.8cm)
Current: 6ft 0.91in (185.2cm)
Chuck said on 26/Jul/17
Based on all the ladies he is eye to eye with, I have to say six feet and yes I considered the ladies in heels.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Jul/17
188.9cm out of bed
RichardSpain said on 24/Jul/17
Peak 186-187
Nowadays strong 184 /185 cm
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Jul/17
Peak: 186.8cm
Today: 185.2cm


He still looks 6ft1 in recent photos.
Johan said on 20/Jul/17
Click Here

I agree, 6' tops there with 6'4" Liam Neeson :)

Click Here
Dan said on 19/Jul/17
6'0" at best...far too much shorter than John Cleese (by at least 4.5") to be 6'1".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Jul/17
I agree with that Slim
Slim 181 cm said on 16/Jul/17
6'1.5 glory days, 6'1 today.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Jul/17
I'd be very surprised if he's as low as 6ft today.
Christian-196.5cm (6ft5 3/8) said on 15/Jul/17
@6'1.5

I wouldn't take anything that Charlie says seriously if I were you. He once guessed Howard Stern at 5'10"-5'11". You're right, Brosnan's still 6'0" at the very least, and more than likely 6'0.5" Peak was around 6'1" or 6'1.25" as listed.
6'1.5 said on 14/Jul/17
Charlie get off this site Pierce is 6'0" at bare minimum today
Charlie said on 11/Jul/17
Pierce certainly didn't come across as a 6'0 man in The Lawnmower Man.The female actresses in the movie were close to his height. In the movie he is approached by his Beautiful Neighbour both standing on the front lawn chatting. I was surprised how close in height Pierced looked towards the actress. I would say 1 inch height difference. I never believed Pierce to be 6'0 tall ever. He always came across as a 5'9 guy to me. Today he might be 5'8.
Spencer said on 9/Jul/17
6'1.75 peak
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Jun/17
He could look 6ft1½-2 in the 80's-90's
Slim 181 cm said on 15/Jun/17
6 foot 1.75 young
6 foot 0.75 now
Brett said on 15/Jun/17
I still claim by my citing in the Mark hotel, NYC all those years ago... Brosnan is 187-188cm
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/May/17
I think the 6ft1½ is a better choice for Brosnan and I'd keep Moore at that aswell. That's not because of his death but because I think in The Saint days and the early Bond years he was that mark for sure. He was cast opposite some very tall actor so it didn't do his height justice, made him look average
shiva 181 cms said on 23/May/17
A real 6'1.25 guy could easily pull off near 6'2 especially on screen with angles to favor them ,especially they were both slim in their earlier films
James B said on 22/May/17
Yes I am with Berta 187cm always seemed a bit extreme for Moore
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/May/17
Moore looked 6ft1 flat by his last Bond but in his first near 6ft2
RisingForce said on 19/May/17
Roger Moore at 67 years old was still very close to Brosnan's height: Click Here Click Here Click Here

I don't know if they're standing or walking in the 2nd and 3rd pic. I think standing, but in the first pic, you see Brosnan with perfect posture looks barely taller. Roger Moore didn't strike me as someone who kept his peak height a long time either. If anything, this has made me much less skeptical about Moore's height. Definitely a chance Roger was exactly as tall as he claimed to be. 6'1.5" peak and 6'2" in the morning. His low was probably 186 cm, so it's not a surprise he could look it.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/May/17
I think giving Brosnan 187cm peak is more feasible than downgrading Moore's peak to 186cm.
berta said on 14/May/17
yeah thety where pretty close in height but i think it genereally looked like rooger moore was 186,0 guy while brosnan many times look like he was 186,5 peak.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/May/17
In The Saint Moore could look near 6ft2...as could Brosnan in Remington Steele. I think a 60's Moore and and an 80's Brosnan were similar.
phil said on 11/May/17
so that meaning he about 6'1
SHIVA182CMS said on 11/May/17
MOORE AT HIS PEAK WAS LIKELY LITTLE OVER 6'1 PEAK SAME AS PIERCE
James B said on 10/May/17
Always picture Moore at 6tt1
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/May/17
I think Brosnan and Moore were both 186-187cm range when they played Bond. Not quite 6ft2 but a bit over 6ft1
berta said on 5/May/17
rob do you really think roger moore was taller than him? i think you should atleast give both 186 peak ore even give pierce littel upgrade in peak. there is no way moore was taller.
Editor Rob: both could be argued to be the same.
Rory said on 3/May/17
182cm is ludicrous. You could really argue I think somewhere between 6ft 1 to 6ft 1.5 at peak. Can't see him over 187cm and can't see him under 185cm.
6'1.5 said on 2/May/17
Hiddleston and Pratt range at peak
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Apr/17
6ft2 in the morning is believable but I highly doubt he was quite in the same ballpark as Ryan Reynolds, John Cusack or Hugh Jackman. I still stand by 6ft1½ though.
James B said on 26/Apr/17
Rampage- your putting words in my mout again. I was just saying the lowest I could imagine him in my head being is 182cm but of course he isn't that short lol. It's like the lowest I could imagine John Cleese being is 6ft3 but of course in reality he isn't that low

And yes perhaps even the full 6'1.5 is actually imaginable for Brosnan but never would I guess him at a proper 6'2 188cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Apr/17
I think 187cm for both guys peak is reasonable
Willes188 said on 26/Apr/17
He was probably 0.1-0.5mm taller than Moore when they were in their primes.


If Moore is going to have 6ft 1.5 as his peak height then it's more than fair for Brosnan to get it as well, if not then downgrade Moore to 6ft 1.25 and keep Brosnan at this.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Apr/17
And sorry if he's 182cm then so is Colin Firth and Gerard Butler
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Apr/17
Yeah well your way off the mark
James B said on 24/Apr/17
Certainly he looked closer to 182cm than 188cm with John Cleese
James B said on 24/Apr/17
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Apr/17
I think 187cm peak is perfect, he could even look 188cm at times. He still looked 186cm up to just a few years. 182cm is a such joke, James. When did he ever look that short?



He was barely shorter than solid 6ft3 Patrick Bergin in Taffin and had a decent 5in over 5ft8½ Allison Doody. He actually gave a taller impression with her than Roger Moore did in A View To A Kill and more similar to Connery in The Last Crusade. I don't see 6ft1½ as an unreasonable argument at all. If I started arguing 6ft2 for him then yeah I'd probably be pushing it. I think 6ft1 flat and 6ft2 are out of the question. This is the likelihood as I see it...


6ft1¼: 30%
6ft1½: 45%
6ft1¾: 25%



Rampage- when I say he looked 5'11.5-6'1.25 It means that 182cm is the lowest I would imagine pierce being. And sorry but I could never imagine Pierce being as tall as 188cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Apr/17
I think peak it's too low, shiva…
shiva 181 cms said on 21/Apr/17
Rampage You think 6'1 is out of question I'd say he would have likely been that Mark before bed, 6'1.5 is possible in the morning and near 6'2 straight out of bed
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Apr/17
I think 187cm peak is perfect, he could even look 188cm at times. He still looked 186cm up to just a few years. 182cm is a such joke, James. When did he ever look that short?



He was barely shorter than solid 6ft3 Patrick Bergin in Taffin and had a decent 5in over 5ft8½ Allison Doody. He actually gave a taller impression with her than Roger Moore did in A View To A Kill and more similar to Connery in The Last Crusade. I don't see 6ft1½ as an unreasonable argument at all. If I started arguing 6ft2 for him then yeah I'd probably be pushing it. I think 6ft1 flat and 6ft2 are out of the question. This is the likelihood as I see it...


6ft1¼: 30%
6ft1½: 45%
6ft1¾: 25%
James B said on 18/Apr/17
When I picture pierce brosnan I can imagine him being in the 5'11.5-6'1.25 range but 6'1.5 just seems like slightly too much for him.
James B said on 17/Apr/17
Rampage- personally I think 186cm peak is perfect for brosnan. Like its hard for me to picture clint Eastwood ever being the full 193cm peak likewise it's not easy to picture a legit 187cm peak for pierce.
shiva 181 cms said on 17/Apr/17
He doesn't have the vibe of a 6'1+ tall guy on screen maybe due to large head and his built , I wouldn't have thought he was over 186cms with Liam neeson in 2006
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Apr/17
James I think 6ft1 flat today and 6ft1½ peak is better than what he's currently listed at
James B said on 16/Apr/17
Maybe 6'1 solid if he was 6'1 1/2 prime
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 14/Apr/17
I think he still measures a solid 6ft1 today
James B said on 12/Apr/17
shiva182cms said on 11/Apr/17
I think pierce brosnan was a hair over 6'1 peak and tad below 185cms today, he looked barely a tall guy it's weird most guys look solid tall at his height ,I would have guessed him 5'11 watching his full body shot but after seeing with other celebs, strong 6'1 looked likely


I agree with you on that to a degree but I think pierce always looked more than 5'11 to me in his films. Certainly he looks like a man who is over average height but clearly at the same not a VERY tall guy.
berta said on 12/Apr/17
woooouwwh the average guess think he was even over 6 1 1/2. i think that could be close maybe little under. a 186,6 guy at peak maybe? and today 186 but ould look shorter because different posture.
shiva182cms said on 11/Apr/17
I think pierce brosnan was a hair over 6'1 peak and tad below 185cms today, he looked barely a tall guy it's weird most guys look solid tall at his height ,I would have guessed him 5'11 watching his full body shot but after seeing with other celebs, strong 6'1 looked likely
shiva182cms said on 11/Apr/17
I'm a tad Below 6' I'd like to be 6'1-6'2 but not more though, once you're past 190cms it becomes diffuct to fit in with other people around you ,yeah even in Netherlands,it becomes difficult to do daily life activities as the world is designed for 5'9 guys
I'd say the tallest height without much problems is 6'-6'1 and its an ideal preference for women
@ James b I'd say 5'7 is better than 6'4 as its only 2" below average and 6'4 is 7friggin inches over average
shiva182cms said on 11/Apr/17
I'm a tad Below 6' I'd like to be 6'1-6'2 but not more though, once you're past 190cms it becomes diffuct to fit in with other people around you ,yeah even in Netherlands,it becomes difficult to do daily life activities as the world is designed for 5'9 guys
I'd say the tallest height without much problems is 6'-6'1 and its an ideal preference for women
@ James b I'd say 5'7 is better than 6'4 as its only 2" below average and 6'4 is 7friggin inches over average
Canson said on 9/Apr/17
@James B: anyone can get cancer tho. Suzanne sommers gad it of course female but still. Or anything else. Look at Michael j fox he's short and has parkinsons. Not disagreeing but saying it can happen at any height none is exempt. Now I have said that no height so superior but I'd rather be 6'4 like I am than 5'6" I will say that because I'm accustomed to it already but would take 5'6" over being 6'8" or 6'9" unless I were meant to be a pro athlete.
Canson said on 9/Apr/17
@James B: anyone can get cancer tho. Suzanne sommers gad it of course female but still. Or anything else. Look at Michael j fox he's short and has parkinsons. Not disagreeing but saying it can happen at any height none is exempt
Canson said on 9/Apr/17
@Insomniak: I understand now. I did misinterpret. My bad. We're good
Headman said on 9/Apr/17
Head length Rob? What would you say?
Editor Rob: about 9.5 probably
insomniak said on 7/Apr/17
Canson again you misinterpret what I said. I don't want to be taller I'm content with how tall I currently am,but if I were to choose between shrinking and growing I would choose to be taller is all.
James B said on 6/Apr/17
Canson-if you google male celebs who have died from cancer all of them are over 5ft6.
Canson said on 5/Apr/17
@James B: no height to me is superior to another. If Insomniak at 6'5" wants to be taller that's cool but I was saying that when you are a height already like 6'5" that is less problematic than 6'8" I made that in reference to the statement he would rather be 3" taller than 3" shorter. I don't think either is "superior" really but for me I'd go with the least problematic and the better quality of life like not having to slouch under every doorway. As for cancer I don't think your risk is really any lower at 5'6" than it'd be at 6'0".
Canson said on 4/Apr/17
@James B: well said! Stern is 6'5" which with some muscle could still look reasonable. He has long limbs more than likely just regularly proportionate and is a guy I doubt dips below that mark and was likely above it in his peak by maybe 1/4-1/2@. Probably 196.2-196.6 prime
James B said on 4/Apr/17
Canson said on 3/Apr/17
@Insomniak: and if that's how you feel that's fine. I totally agree with you most people would rather be taller than shorter hence why so many guys lie up about their height. All I am saying and I am not swaying you one way or another I am just being practical like I am. I don't see anything good about being a height like 6'8 or even 6'6 if not playing pro ball. That is not to say someone who isn't that height doesn't like it but to me it'd be more of an inconvenience than anything. Of course if you are there is nothing you can do you just are who you are. Point that I'm making why would someone want to go out of their way to have to buy sometimes specially made clothes, beds, vehicles, and have to go out of their way to adjust and get different plane seats etc. sounds a bit foolish to me to always be rife for space and inconvenienced but like I said whatever floats someone's boat is cool and it's different strokes for different folks. But I have my opinion just like you do on the subject as does The Don. You both appear to be ridiculing me because I don't "wish" I were taller than the 6'4" and change that I am. And no not "every" person in the western world wishes they were taller. Most guys who are well over 6' typically don't but there are exceptions. You see other taller guys here like Ali baba who is 6'6",SJH who is just about 6'7" and Christian who is also 6'5" and a little say that they'd go with 6'4" over 6'6 or 6'7" as well so it isn't just me. Bobby3342 who is my height said it gets too expensive once you pass 6'3"ish. It's not much different from 6'4 I'd say but he has a point once you hit the high marks like 6'6" it is. And they aren't the only ones there have been loads of others who have even gone as far to say they wouldn't want to be over 6'2". Now id take my height over just about anything because I am accustomed to it for me as a person not because it's a better height than something else is. It's about being happy with ones own self and someone who is plenty tall enough wishing to be taller and not really using the height for anything to me is a bit foolish like Ali Baba once said. It's more an insecurity or an ego thing at that point when already very tall guys claim or wish to be taller




You could even argue a case that being 5'6 is better than being 5'10 because you have a lower risk of getting certain illnesses like cancer the shorter you are.
Canson said on 3/Apr/17
@Insomniak: and if that's how you feel that's fine. I totally agree with you most people would rather be taller than shorter hence why so many guys lie up about their height. All I am saying and I am not swaying you one way or another I am just being practical like I am. I don't see anything good about being a height like 6'8 or even 6'6 if not playing pro ball. That is not to say someone who isn't that height doesn't like it but to me it'd be more of an inconvenience than anything. Of course if you are there is nothing you can do you just are who you are. Point that I'm making why would someone want to go out of their way to have to buy sometimes specially made clothes, beds, vehicles, and have to go out of their way to adjust and get different plane seats etc. sounds a bit foolish to me to always be rife for space and inconvenienced but like I said whatever floats someone's boat is cool and it's different strokes for different folks. But I have my opinion just like you do on the subject as does The Don. You both appear to be ridiculing me because I don't "wish" I were taller than the 6'4" and change that I am. And no not "every" person in the western world wishes they were taller. Most guys who are well over 6' typically don't but there are exceptions. You see other taller guys here like Ali baba who is 6'6",SJH who is just about 6'7" and Christian who is also 6'5" and a little say that they'd go with 6'4" over 6'6 or 6'7" as well so it isn't just me. Bobby3342 who is my height said it gets too expensive once you pass 6'3"ish. It's not much different from 6'4 I'd say but he has a point once you hit the high marks like 6'6" it is. And they aren't the only ones there have been loads of others who have even gone as far to say they wouldn't want to be over 6'2". Now id take my height over just about anything because I am accustomed to it for me as a person not because it's a better height than something else is. It's about being happy with ones own self and someone who is plenty tall enough wishing to be taller and not really using the height for anything to me is a bit foolish like Ali Baba once said. It's more an insecurity or an ego thing at that point when already very tall guys claim or wish to be taller
Canson said on 3/Apr/17
@Insomniak: and if that's how you feel that's fine. I totally agree with you most people would rather be taller than shorter hence why so many guys lie up about their height. All I am saying and I am not swaying you one way or another I am just being practical like I am. I don't see anything good about being a height like 6'8 or even 6'6 if not playing pro ball. That is not to say someone who isn't that height doesn't like it but to me it'd be more of an inconvenience than anything. Of course if you are there is nothing you can do you just are who you are. Point that I'm making why would someone want to go out of their way to have to buy sometimes specially made clothes, beds, vehicles, and have to go out of their way to adjust and get different plane seats etc. sounds a bit foolish to me to always be right for space and inconvenienced but like I said whatever floats someone's boat is cool and it's different strokes for different folks. But I have my opinion just like you do on the subject as does The Don. You both appear to be ridiculing me because I don't "wish" I were taller than the 6'4" and change that I am. And no not "every" person in the western world wishes they were taller. Most guys who are well over 6' typically don't but there are exceptions. You see other taller guys here like Ali baba who is 6'6",SJH who is just about 6'7" and Christian who is also 6'5" and a little say that they'd go with 6'4" over 6'6 or 6'7" as well so it isn't just me. Bobby3342 who is my height said it gets too expensive once you pass 6'3"ish. It's not much different from 6'4 I'd say but he has a point once you hit the high marks like 6'6" it is. And they aren't the only ones there have been loads of others who have even gone as far to say they wouldn't want to be over 6'2". Now id take my height over just about anything because I am accustomed to it for me as a person not because it's a better height than something else is. It's about being happy with ones own self and someone who is plenty tall enough wishing to be taller and not really using the height for anything to me is a bit foolish like Ali Baba once said. It's more an insecurity or an ego thing at that point when already very tall guys want to be taller
James B said on 3/Apr/17
insomniak said on 2/Apr/17
Well James to be fair I don't think it's howard sterns height that makes him visually unappealing.But I guess you do have a point that tall heights may not look good when you're gangly,but once you start putting on muscle I think you can pull off any height.


I think very tall guys should probably aim to pack on muscle because they can always pull of that look well. Shorter guys can't pull of that look well because it makes them look short and square.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Apr/17
Anyway I still think the Broz is around 185-186cm today, not as low as 184cm. In his prime 186-187cm which in feet should really qualify more as 6ft1½ than 6ft1¼.
James B said on 2/Apr/17
Few nights ago met this guy who claimed to be "6ft5" and even with poor posture he looked towering and very tall. Infact looked taller than guys I have bumped into who would claim to be 6ft6 so I have no doubts he was nothing less than an honest 6'5.

It goes to show why many people have no idea just how towering a true 6ft6 looks like because 6ft4 range guys often claim it.
insomniak said on 2/Apr/17
Well James to be fair I don't think it's howard sterns height that makes him visually unappealing.But I guess you do have a point that tall heights may not look good when you're gangly,but once you start putting on muscle I think you can pull off any height.
Canson said on 1/Apr/17
@The Don: that comment doesn't make any sense at all. And if you see what Arch said as well as James B you see it is. I guess whatever floats your boat but why would someone want to be a height where they are close to hitting their heads on doorways or having to duck under them. That seems odd to me but hey we are all different. But don't call the comment BS just because you don't agree with it.
James B said on 1/Apr/17
Being tall does not suit everyone. It all depends how well you can pull it off because not every tall man looks like Rock Hudson or Pierce Brosnan do they? You get lots of tall guys who are more like herward stern or Brosnans son 'awkward' and gangly basically.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Mar/17
I think Clint Walker is really the only guy who didn't really feel awkward with his height. He had a confident stride that at times could come off as a bit arrogant but at least he didn't try to hide it like others.
James B said on 29/Mar/17
Arch Stanton said on 27/Mar/17
Anything over 6'5 is too tall IMO. A legit 6'6 like Clint Walker looks massive, a big body to carry around. I think a guy like Manganiello or Rock Hudson can look very good at 195 ish but it's still a big height and a bit too big to be ideal. I was watching a film yesterday and Chuck Connors at probably 6'5.75 looked quite awkward in a lot of scenes standing. That could never be an ideal height.


Arch- but still you would not want to be 6'4.75 would you? I think your height of 6'1.5 is much better than 6'5.
insomniak said on 28/Mar/17
So arch if you were given the option to be rather 6'6 or 5'4,which would you choose.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Mar/17
Anything over 6'5 is too tall IMO. A legit 6'6 like Clint Walker looks massive, a big body to carry around. I think a guy like Manganiello or Rock Hudson can look very good at 195 ish but it's still a big height and a bit too big to be ideal. I was watching a film yesterday and Chuck Connors at probably 6'5.75 looked quite awkward in a lot of scenes standing. That could never be an ideal height.
insomniak said on 24/Mar/17
I agree with the Don their are 7 footers who are happy with their height.You're acting like I'm a giant and moron for choosing to rather be taller than short and I live in the west and the Don makes a valid point,most people would rather be taller than shorter and anyone who says otherwise is probably lying.
The Don said on 23/Mar/17
What a load of BS Canson, there is no such thing as being "too tall" as a man, especially in Western countries.
Canson said on 23/Mar/17
@Insomniak: steph curry by the way isn't 6'2". Not at his lowest that's why it looks short by comparison
Canson said on 23/Mar/17
@Insomniak: I think you are the one projecting your own feeling onto me. You're asking why I don't want to be taller and act astonished by it. Ok we have differences in opinion get over it
insomniak said on 22/Mar/17
Canson I think you're trying to project your own personal feelings onto me.Its like I said I already instinctively duck already when outside to avoid branches or indoors to avoid hitting low doors or low hanging lights or anything of the sort and no I'm not joking on wanting to be taller I love towering over people and I get height conscience when I see someone my height,taller or even a little close so If I were to be 2 inches or even an inch taller that would greatly diminish the amount of people near my height that I see on a daily basis.And I use public transport abd I can assure you that you're overestimating a 6'4 guy it's not that tall you would only reach the middle of my forehead and your only 2 inches taller than 6'2 which isn't that tall look at Stephen curry he looks miniature.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Mar/17
NIK, I'm 6ft4
James B said on 21/Mar/17
I will say though that I think it's silly for a 6ft2 guy to want to be taller like 6ft7.

6ft2 i think is a much better height than 6ft7
Nik said on 21/Mar/17
@Rampage(-_-_-)Clover

Yes I agree with what you said. Also I have been meaning to ask you for a while, how tall are you?

@James B

You are only a little bit short. I have heard some reports which say it is worse for your health to be tall and others which say it is better to be tall, I don't know what to think.
Canson said on 21/Mar/17
@JamesB; I know you aren't like that so don't take that comments that was said too harshly.

@Imsomniak: nobody ostracized them and I'm tall myself. It just seems that people want to make already tall guys even taller. When they aren't. I'm one of those who doesn't believe in that personally and you should just be the height you were given and not lust for anymore unless your height is a problem in either direction
Canson said on 21/Mar/17
@Insomniak: you're joking when you say you want to be taller right? And at 6'5" in the states you'd rarely be ducking even in shoes.
Editor Rob: I've left a pull-up bar under one room (least used) and it's about 5ft 9. Every time I go into the room I am consciously not standing tall and lose height...

this made me think about being a 6ft 4-5 guy in UK homes - I'd tire quickly of having to duck under all the 6ft 5-6 door frames.
Canson said on 20/Mar/17
@Insomniak: uh hell no I would not want to be any taller. I don't know any guy 6'4" or definitely not 6'5" that would want to be taller. I believe you not saying you're lying but that is crazy. Then again I'm happily married but even before I was was content being 6'4-6'4.5. Many women do not like guys that tall here in the states meaning 6'6+ even sometimes lower. Women I've noticed have bad perceptions on height. They think my height is 6'6" (I'm about 197 in boots). And not to offend you at all and it isn't directed at you but anyone who "wants" to be taller at 6'4" has an ego or is insecure that's unless they need their height for sports. There's no reason why I would want to be taller with back problems etc and then it's doorways which I don't have a problem now with but would if I were taller. Ask S.J.H or Ali Baba a 6'6/6'7 guy and a 6'6 solid guy if they would rather be their height or lose if they had the choice. S.J.H says he'd take 6'4/6'5 over where he is now and Ali Would likely as well. My taller friends also say it themselves as I have one strong 6'5 a 6'6 and a 6'7. The only one who hasn't openly complained is the 6'5" but even he has said he'd take my height over his because he is limited in shoe selection not really wanting to go over maybe 3/4" or an inch
James B said on 19/Mar/17
Sorry I did not mean to offend people on here, I guess I was asking to be called jealous and bitter because of my below average height. And yes I will admit i am a short man at 5ft7.
Adijos said on 19/Mar/17
Peak: 6'2"
Actual: 6'1.5"
insomniak said on 18/Mar/17
Canson I'm not lying theirs a bunch of threads on the subreddit tall asking them if they'd rather grow more or shrink more and most of them answered that they'd rather grow more.And personally I'd agree I wouldn't mind being a bit taller it's kind of like being a mini celeb with girls.I'm shocked you wouldn't want to grow taller and I'm already used to ducking under doorways even though I have like an inch or two of space so I wouldn't mind being taller I hate how guys on this website ostracize tall guys just cause their short and jealous.*cough*James.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Mar/17
I don't think height determines illness. My grandfather lived to be 98 and he was 6ft7
James B said on 18/Mar/17
Well Arch my grandmother was only 5ft-5ft2 and she died of breast cancer 20 years ago. So yeah I guess short people can get cancer but perhaps it's different for short women compared to short men? My grandfather and great uncle on my dads side both died of prostate cancer in there late 60s (they were both 5ft10 I think).

My great great grandad lived to his 90s and was only 5ft4 range and he smoked a lot in his life also he was very overweight at 210 pounds but it just goes to show that height can be a contributing factor to cancer.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Mar/17
James no offence, but the human body is extremely complex, getting cancer is a lot more complex than just being tall and having more cells, otherwise guys in 5 ft 2-7 range wouldn't get cancer much. I believe that an excellent diet and regular exercise and not smoking/drinking much can go a long way to prevent cancer, even in very tall men. Certainly vegetables and fruits have some very powerful chemicals which have been proven to fight cancer or prevent it. But it's really complex. I think a very tall man is more at risk of heart disease/cancer if he is overweight.
James B said on 17/Mar/17
I know a friend of the family who is only in his 40s and might potentially have terminal bowl cancer. the guy I know used to be 6ft1, never smoked or drinked in his entire life, was not particurley overweight at 196-210 pounds and did lots of exercise.

It goes to show that even being healthy some things associated with being tall are unavoidable.
James B said on 17/Mar/17
The human body is meant to be between 5-6ft not 6ft-7ft. If your in the 5ft-6ft height range the closer you get to 6feet the more height related problems you might encounter. I think 5ft8 is when issues with height related cancer increase compared to 5ft4, 5ft6 or 5ft7 guys.

I think the 5ft4-5ft7 range for health/longetiviy reasons is an optimal height to be for a man. Just look at al Pacino he's in his 70s smoked all his life and has lost hardly anything compared to say Michael Douglas who was 5ft9.5, smoked a lot in his life and at age 72 is already minimum 2 inches shorter than he was in his prime.

The bigger you are the more cells you have in your body which could potentially transform into cancer. but hey I guess even if big guys don't live as long they might have an overall more enjoyable quality of life in regards to success with women etc
berta said on 17/Mar/17
i love my height at littel over 6 foot5. i think short guys think it is scary tall but when you are that height you really like it. i mean most guys i know that are around 190 always cliam taller like 192. they want to be taller. i tihnk its when people get ovetr 2 meter it start to get to tall. but it depends on your proportions.
Canson said on 16/Mar/17
@Insomniak: well to a degree. 6'6" is too tall imho if you're talking without shoes on and at your lowest. I'd throw 6'5.5 really as too much but it's right at the cusp of where anyone would want to be at their lowest if they don't use their height to play pro ball. I say this because 6'5.5/6'6 makes you 6'7 in shoes. That's too tall. Not good height imho as doorways are 6'7 or 6'8" typically. A full 6'5/6'5.25 is really where it ends to me. There you're 6'6" in shoes which is manageable. That's very tall but manageable. I only know because I have a solid 6'6 and a 6'7" friend who tell me all the time and I watch them walk around slouching and ducking and wearing flats. Me personally, I'd stay 6'4-6'4.5. if I were given a choice of being 6'1-6'1.5 or 6'7-6'7.5 I'd choose the former and be 3" shorter than I am now. The only thing I'd take higher is 6'5" flat because I am 195.8cm out of bed so I know how it feels and it isn't terrible. Of course I'm under a full 6'5" after maybe a few minutes. But i disagree with you. There aren't a lot of guys at that size of 6'4-6'6 that want to be taller. Now you get 6'4 guys who want 6'5" all the time but not 6'5" wanting to be taller. Most of them say they like being 6'5" but No more.
Canson said on 11/Mar/17
@Spainman: I agree. I'm 6'4 and change and don't feel too tall but I've worn steeled toes and been almost 6'7" in the morning (195.8 cm out of bed) which is what a legit 6'6" would measure in shoes most of the day and that is too tall. Doorways are a problem in some cases if only 6'7" not more and some are as low as 6'6" still
insomniak said on 11/Mar/17
Canson I think what you mean is that 6'5 or 6'6 isn't a bad height but you just might have some inconvenience in everyday life which I agree with you on, like I can't fit in my bed or my shower head is too small or the fact that I have a 36 inseam with a 30 waist so jeans that fit are hard to find.but if I were given the option to grow 3 inches or shrink 3 inches,I would always choose to be taller.Alot of tall people feel the same as me on tall reddit most of them believe we already have everyday problems so why not be taller.
spainmen192cm said on 10/Mar/17
Women love guys over 6ft, and nowdays I dont consider 6ft4 a too tall height like @willes188 said. I consider 6ft3-5 a very tall range height but not too tall and specially amongst the younger generation. maybe 6ft6+ is where that range starts
Canson said on 10/Mar/17
@imsomniak: 6'5" is manageable. Really there is no "nad@ height per Se but I think 6'6 is where people begin to see some problems imho
Canson said on 10/Mar/17
@Rampage: 6'6 pushes it a bit. Only because you're limited in footwear esp If that's your lowest you'd be 6'7 out of bed or near it and would be close to 6'8 in shoes unless flats in the morning. Honestly even 6'7" in shoes is too high because if doorways
insomniak said on 9/Mar/17
I'm a strong 6'5 and I love my height I'm comfortably taller than most and girl's really love my height sometimes I can't tell if they only like me for my height lol.anyways don't feel bad for him being really tall is better than boring ole average whom I make look like little kids
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Mar/17
I don't think 6ft6 is as bad as some say. 6ft8 onwards is a struggle though
Canson said on 8/Mar/17
@Willes: i disagree slightly. 6'4" isn't bad height but I agree 6'6 is pushing it yes because you're 6'7 with shoes on in most cases. 6'5" is tall if it's a low because you're 6'6" in shoes but it is manageable height overall and no diff than 6'4 in some aspects (I'm a small hair over 6'5 out of bed) but 6'4 1/3 at night on an ordinary day. since doorways are usually 6'7-6'8 in the US some now in newer houses are even 6'9".
Willes188 said on 8/Mar/17
His son is very tall, everything over 6'3 is too tall, but 6'6 is a different league.
Canson said on 8/Mar/17
@james B: I agree and would never want to be 6'6" barefoot at my lowest either
Judd said on 4/Mar/17
No doubt he was a genuine 6'1.25" peak but actually i think his loss was less than 0,5"...i prefer a 6'1.25" peak and a 6'1" now
grizz said on 2/Mar/17
@Rampage,not necessarily.
My parents are similarly tall (dad 6'1,mom 5'9) and I too turned out 6ft.
All men in my family are 6' or over, I guess genetics sometimes play the role to make progeny from tall families closer to average (same as progeny from short family to make it above average).
James B said on 1/Mar/17
Arch Stanton said on 1/Mar/17
I wouldn't want to look like his son James. Very strange looking lad.



Well that's what can happen if you get too tall.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Mar/17
They're both normal tall range, James. Pierce was 6ft1½ peak and the wife looks to be at least 5ft8. I'm shocked his oldest son Sean isn't much taller. He's not even 6ft. Cassandra Harris was also 5ft8-9. He should have ended up 6ft2-3 range at least if not closer to 6ft4!
Arch Stanton said on 1/Mar/17
I wouldn't want to look like his son James. Very strange looking lad.
James B said on 26/Feb/17
His 6ft6 son is not standing at his tallest on purpouse. Suprising he grew so big given neither of his parents are exceptionally tall. Exceptionally tall starts at a strong 6ft3 and pierce obviously was never that.

Feel bad for him though because being 6ft6 must be tough.
berta said on 26/Feb/17
i thought connery, brosnan and moore was all good as bond. i dint like the other that mutch. well daniel craig is pretty good to but the other 3 was better. 1; pierce brosnan ( maybe because i am born 91 makes me like him best) 2 , COnnery , 3 Roger moore ore daniel craig) about the same. and the other was pretty bad.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Feb/17
Sub-6ft1 is too low, 6ft3+ is too high.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Feb/17
Connery, Brosnan then either a toss up between Moore and Dalton.
Willes189 said on 22/Feb/17
Anyways Brosnan and Connery will always be the best Bonds, this is my list of all the Bond actors from best to worst

#1 Pierce Brosnan

#2 Sean Connery (Close 2nd)

#3 Daniel Craig, although i didn't agree with him being casted as Bond based off of his height, he actually made up for it in other areas.

#4 Roger Moore (Close 4th)

#5 Timothy Dalton

#6 George Lazenby


I think that 185-190cm is the perfect range for James Bond actors, absolutely nothing under or over that
berta said on 21/Feb/17
how can he look that short with kimmel :O i wonder if jimmy sometimes wear thicker shoes. i was like one of those awards where he looked 1 cm taller than 182-183 jimmy fallon. there is no chase he is taller.in that photo they look the same height
Sandy Cowell said on 20/Feb/17
@ Rampage Clover - Re: 5th Dec 16 - 👍
shiva 181 cms said on 19/Feb/17
He was the most handsome James bond actor besides Roger Moore

In his peak he looked a bit over 6'1 so 6'1.25-5

Now he looks 6'0.5-0.75
Redwing said on 19/Feb/17
How tall is he now? His son looks 6'7 with him
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Feb/17
The older son definitely looks around 6ft6
Willes189 said on 18/Feb/17
He is probably 6'6, if not then 6'5.75
Wrs567 said on 18/Feb/17
Pierce looks a tad shorter than Jimmy Kimmel!

Click Here

What do you think Rob?

I think he needs to be taken down to at least 5'11.5''
Editor Rob: they look quite close there...whether Pierce is standing worse than Jimmy though?
Arch Stanton said on 18/Feb/17
@Rob, we have an event photo now with Pierce and his sons. Click Here He's not even standing his best and Dylan towers Pierce. He has to be 6'6 now don't you think? The younger son now looks about 6 ft and still growing!
Editor Rob: he can look near to 6ft 6 there.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Feb/17
Connery: 189cm
Lazenby: 188cm
Dalton: 188cm
Brosnan: 187cm
Moore: 186cm
Wiles189 said on 10/Feb/17
Connery 188.5-189cm

Lazenby 187.8-188cm

Dalton 187.5cm

Brosnan 186.5-187cm

Moore 186.5cm

All prime
berta said on 10/Feb/17
once again mister _lennon you´re absololute right on the estimates. brosnan barely 187 and moore 186. Just to put out something the current listing is to low because he was moore than 1 inch taller than robert pattionson who is listed at 184 and that was about 3 years back ore something?. if pattinson was 184 then brosnan looked 187 even now. althoug i think pattisnon is shorter and maybe is barely 183 and borosnan is barely 186 today.he hast shrunk more than about 7 mm is my guess.
mister_lennon said on 10/Feb/17
I think brosnan was taller.
i think that their peak heigts are:
brosnan:186-187
Moore:185-186
Wiles189 said on 9/Feb/17
Yes Brosnan would have Moore by 0.1-0.5mm (Prime)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Feb/17
My money's on Brosnan
Wiles189 said on 7/Feb/17
Rob, who would be taller in their prime, Brosnan or Moore?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Jan/17
I still feel the current height is too low...
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Jan/17
Could look 6ft2 at times but most likely a bit under that
mister_lennon said on 20/Jan/17
186-187 peak.
berta said on 19/Jan/17
seems like most people think the same as me that he was close to 187 peak.
Realist said on 17/Jan/17
We know he was'nt short probably 6'2 195 back in the day and 210 right now
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Jan/17
Peak: 6ft1½-6ft1¾
Today: 6ft0¾-6ft1
berta said on 5/Jan/17
pierce brosnan also looks like a alexander thecnicue guy. so there is a big chance he wont measure more than 3-4 mm taller than when he stands normal
berta said on 5/Jan/17
i really think pierce brosnan deserves same listing as jim carrey and will smith. I cant see will smith taller than brosnan 25 years ago
berta said on 28/Dec/16
saw robinson crusoe yesterday adn he gave me weak 6 foot 2 inpression in that i really think 6 1/2 i the height he was at peak ore 2 mm under. and these days beside guys like pattinson he is about 1 inch taller that makes him still 186
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Dec/16
@Sandy Cowell: I still think that range peak is more feasible than just over 6ft1.
Sandy Cowell said on 5/Dec/16
I enjoyed Piers' performance in 'Lawnmower Man' immensely and I am also a fan of 'The Long Good Friday' with Piers as a young actor. He was obviously taller then, 6ft1.5 - 6ft2 seems right for his early days, and he's going to say 6ft2 as he's hardly going to sell himself short, is he?
Arch Stanton said on 26/Nov/16
@Rampage, I said "supposedly" because the girl said 190 pounds in the film!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Oct/16
Connery looked heavier than 190lbs in Never Say Never...over 200lbs easily. Had a slight beer gut, in fact.


Anyway we are getting well off topic here!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/Oct/16
Peak
Out of bed: 6' 2.3"/188.85cm
Before bed: 6' 1.6"/187.25cm

Today
Out of bed: 6' 1.6"/186.75cm
Before bed: 6' 0.9"/185.15cm
Arch Stanton said on 26/Oct/16
Those estimates are off, Brosnan was 160 pounds odd in Goldeneye and 211 pounds in Die Another Day for a start, in the early ones nowhere near 200. Connery was supposedly 176 pounds in Dr No and 190 in Never Say Never. Connery and Brosnan lighter than you think. I'd have put Daniel Craig at about 180 pounds.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Oct/16
Brosnan was very thin in Goldeneye, maybe 170lbs max. But in World is Not Enough and Die Another Day looked easily 200lbs or more. Connery looked at least 210lbs in Diamonds Are Forever. He looks noticeably heavier than in Dr. No (185-190lbs a rough guess) Moore was like Brosnan and started out on the lighter side but gradually gained weight over the years and cleared 200lbs by his last one. Dalton was maybe 190lbs. Stood out more height wise because of it. Craig looks broad for his height so 190lbs at least. Lazenby was maybe 200lbs at a push. Robust like Connery. Great posture.
Celebheights 6'1.5 said on 24/Oct/16
Rob, what would you guess that the weights were for every actor who played James Bond (in their 007 days that is)? I know that you met one of them.
Editor Rob: I'm not sure on weights
Celebheights 6'1.5 said on 24/Oct/16
@Z187 If I were to guess the weight:

Daniel Craig-Maybe 185-190 pounds? One thing that stood out to me was that Daniel Craig was extremely well built in the James Bond movies.

Pierce Brosnan-Easy 200-205 in his James Bond days, and maybe weighs the same as Craig does now???

Sean Connery-200 pounds, probably 170 today.

Timothy Dalton-He seemed to be 185 pounds . He wasn't as well built as the others. Probably 190 today.

Roger Moore-205 pounds in his 007 days. I don't know what he weighs today.

George Lazenby-No idea. Maybe 195???
Rory said on 24/Oct/16
Lol they weren't good guesses at all, I mean Lazenby 6'1 out of bed today ? Rob met him 10 yrs back and estimated him at 5'11.75-6' then, so today he's probably 5'11.25-5 and 6 foot out of bed. Timothy "between 6'1 and 6'2" Dalton, 6'3 out of bed peak ? Pushing it a bit...Moore still 6foot today ? Aged 89 ? 5 yrs back he looked shorter than Piers Morgan who carries himself at barely 6'. Why did Moore look virtually the same height in 1994 or'95 and approaching age 70 as the supposed 6'1.5 Brosnan ? By then he'd have lost at least half an inch, which means he was at most 6'1 and I for one think he may have been 6'1.25 peak and so possibly 6'0.75 in '94. Lot of loose ends I think.
Z187 said on 23/Oct/16
@ celebsheights 6'1.5" .... You didn't actually mention anything to do with weight in that post .. Which is probably a bit more interesting than the bonds height at this moment, it's pretty clear that they were all either or between 6'1 and 6'2 ... Apart from Craig that is ...
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Oct/16
Wow Celebheights 6'1.5, wow!



I agree with those. Connery at just over 6ft2 (w/h a solid 6ft3 straight out), now a good 1in down from that at 86. Lazenby and Dalton were 6ft2 on the nose (w/h almost 6ft3 straight out). Moore and Brosnan both 6ft1½ solid (w/h just over 6ft2 straight out).
Rory said on 23/Oct/16
Connery- peak 6'2-today 6'0.25
Lazenby- peak 6'1.75- today 5'11.5
Moore- peak 6'1.25- today 5'11
Dalton- peak 6'1.75- today 6'1
Brosnan- peak 6'1.25- today 6'0.75
Craig- peak 5'10.25- today 5'10
Celebheights 6'1.5 said on 23/Oct/16
My guess on the height and the weight of every James Bond after rewatching some of the Bond movies, and looking up photos of them:

Sean Connery: Peak-6'2 1/4" Today: Probably a weak 185 CM. He looked just barely shorter than Jim Carrey who is 6'1 1/4"-6'1 1/2" in person eight years with a slight footwear disadvantage. He cleared 6'3 1/4" in his peak out of bed, and now he would clear 6'1 1/2" out of bed.

Roger Moore-6'1 1/4"-6'1 1/2" in his peak (he could actually pass for either, depending on his posture). Today: 5'11 3/4" to maybe 6'0". He probably woke up at 6'2" out of bed (which is what he claimed), and may clear 6'0 1/2"-6'0 3/4" today out of bed.

Timothy Dalton: 6'2" at peak (he appeared really tall on screen), and 6'1" today. He would probably wake up at 6'3" in his peak, and would wake up at a hair under 6'2" today.

George Lazenby: Rob met him, so he was 6'2" in his peak and 6'0" today. He woke up at 6'3" out of bed in his peak, and wakes up at 6'1" today.

Daniel Craig: He's hard to peg down as he can go from appearing 5'7" to 5'11 1/2", but I believe that he was just over 5'10" in his peK, and maybe 5'10" flat today.

Pierce Brosnan: I thought that he was shorter at first, but he generally appeared 186-187 CM in the James Bond movies. He's probably 185 CM today. He woke up at 189 CM in his peak, and wakes up at 6'1 3/4"-6'2" today.
Celebheights 6'1.5 said on 23/Oct/16
My guess on the height and the weight of every James Bond after rewatching some of the Bond movies, and looking up photos of them:

Sean Connery: Peak-6'2 1/4" Today: Probably a weak 185 CM. He looked just barely shorter than Jim Carrey who is 6'1 1/4"-6'1 1/2" in person eight years with a slight footwear disadvantage. He cleared 6'3 1/4" in his peak out of bed, and now he would clear 6'1 1/2" out of bed.

Roger Moore-6'1 1/4"-6'1 1/2" in his peak (he could actually pass for either, depending on his posture). Today: 5'11 3/4" to maybe 6'0". He probably woke up at 6'2" out of bed (which is what he claimed), and may clear 6'0 1/2"-6'0 3/4" today out of bed.

Timothy Dalton: 6'2" at peak (he appeared really tall on screen), and 6'1" today. He would probably wake up at 6'3" in his peak, and would wake up at a hair under 6'2" today.

George Lazenby: Rob met him, so he was 6'2" in his peak and 6'0" today. He woke up at 6'3" out of bed in his peak, and wakes up at 6'1" today.

Daniel Craig: He's hard to peg down as he can go from appearing 5'7" to 5'11 1/2", but I believe that he was just over 5'10" in his peK, and maybe 5'10" flat today.

Pierce Brosnan: I thought that he was shorter at first, but he generally appeared 186-187 CM in the James Bond movies. He's probably 185 CM today. He woke up at 189 CM in his peak, and wakes up at 6'1 3/4"-6'2" today.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Oct/16
I'll admit I did Hemsworth that outrageous figure...but only because his average guess was under 6ft2!


I think he could look like a weak 6ft2 more often than a strong 6ft1 in The Long Good Friday and Remington Steele
Arch Stanton said on 11/Oct/16
If y9ou see him with Famke Janssen in Goldeneye 6'1.5 is arguable. I wouldn't have guessed him over that though, even in the 80s.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Oct/16
I was joking Rampage after voting 6'5 on Hemsworth!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Oct/16
James, you clearly haven't seen him in his pre-Bond stuff. He looked 6ft2 Taffin and Lawnmower Man.

It's more than fair for his peak.
Mike said on 10/Oct/16
Looks 6ft 1 with Hanks.
James B said on 9/Oct/16
The full 187cm always seemed hard to imagine in my opinon
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Oct/16
You keep thinking that, Arch.

I put down 187cm peak for Pierce
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Oct/16
You keep thinking that, Arch.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Oct/16
That's probably because Rampage used a few different family computers and voted for 6 ft 3 on Pierce to up the averages ;-)
Editor Rob: I think Rampage has started to vote with what he's said in the past...mostly....I'd ask him to redo his Harrison Ford guess though...

Trusted voters get their data counted quicker.
grizz said on 6/Oct/16
One of the very few guys on celebheights whose both peak and current height are guessed taller than Rob's estimate
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Oct/16
I still think 6ft1½ peak and 6ft1 today is closer but whatever...
Arch Stanton said on 30/Sep/16
Finally the downgrade, looks accurate.
Spencer said on 21/Sep/16
Looks a strong 6'1 in Goldeneye. He looks about 3 inches taller than Sean Bean.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Sep/16
I'd still say 6ft1 based on these photos from last year at the No Escape premiere

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here (Taller than William Hurt in this one!)
Click Here (2in taller than Tom Hanks)
Willes189 said on 10/Sep/16
Rob, ban Canson! Or at least delete his offensive comments
Editor Rob: yeah, both of you should try to respect that differences in estimates exist, but we shouldn't resort to digs or anything derogatory.

And if we stick to the one name, it makes it easier for readers...that goes for Canson btw.
Mike said on 8/Sep/16
Perfect listing.
Canson said on 8/Sep/16
@Arch: I wouldn't pay any attention to Willes189. He fantasizes about other guys being taller than they are and is a troll always finding a way to justify someone being taller than they are.
nick kanellakis said on 7/Sep/16
i think pierce brosnan lost just a 1inch in his height i think hes 6ft.70 or somthing. when he was younger he looked slimmer which made him look taller.
and some movies he wore different types of foot wear. i wouldnt be suprished even if hes 5'11 and 1/2 ive seen him barefoot in some movies he short of looks 180.3 cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Sep/16
Stop downgrading people James!
Arch Stanton said on 3/Sep/16
It's taller than 5'7 James ;-) You've been hanging around those 6'4 bullies too long!
James B said on 1/Sep/16
Never struck me as looking all that tall really but then 6'1 isn't exactly a giant is it?
Willes189 said on 24/Aug/16
Excellent Rob!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Aug/16
Arch he's standing further from the camera with Federer and he's slouching. I think he can look under 6ft1 at times but could still measure it
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Aug/16
Ugh fine!

But Rob, is 187cm peak still a possibility?
Editor Rob: for the moment I think a fraction over 6ft 1 is ok.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Aug/16
Arch, I think he was a little full of himself back then mainly because he became a star pretty quickly. He could look like a 6ft2 guy in Remington Steele
Arch Stanton said on 22/Aug/16
In the 80s, yes he loooked a bit of a cheeseball and goofy as you say, He definitely looked his best in the 90s, especially Mrs Doubtfire/Goldeneye era when his hair was a bit longer. Though also looked very good in World is Not Enough with the shorter but higher hair look.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Aug/16
Willes189 said on 21/Aug/16
He doesn't look more then 184-185cm today IMO, 186cm at peak is enought for Brosnan. But i would like a page for his son, that would be a good one to have, 6'6 is a little to high i think, but he could be near it 6'5.5-6'5.75, he gives me a solid 197cm impression
Editor Rob: last film I seen him in was No Escape, and it's true...he really wasn't that much taller than Wilson.

Why is he still at 186 cm then? You've downgraded a lot of other actors his age! Check him out with Roger Federer!! Click Here
Editor Rob: a fraction under 6ft 1 today is maybe closer to the truth.
Willes189 said on 21/Aug/16
He doesn't look more then 184-185cm today IMO, 186cm at peak is enought for Brosnan. But i would like a page for his son, that would be a good one to have, 6'6 is a little to high i think, but he could be near it 6'5.5-6'5.75, he gives me a solid 197cm impression
Editor Rob: last film I seen him in was No Escape, and it's true...he really wasn't that much taller than Wilson.
JJF said on 19/Aug/16
Was never more than 1.84m, and plenty of pics where he's shorter than legit 1.86 guys, such as Roger Federer.
Brosnan suddenly 'grew' a good inch after getting the 007 gig...
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Aug/16
I'm straight but I thought he looked facially chiseled to perfection in Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough. IMO, he looked better in mid-late 90's than in the 80's. More mature-looking than in his Remington Steele days when he kinda looked goofy
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Aug/16
Recent photo with James Brolin

Click Here

Brosnan is losing an easy 1in with the lean.
Ryan Allen said on 12/Aug/16
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover Bond is described as being 6'0 168 pounds, not 6'2.
James B said on 12/Aug/16
I thought he looked much more as polished/swarve as bond than Sean Connery and Roger Moore or all the other bonds for that matter.

Never understood what so great about roger Moore looks? But I guess I am not a woman so not easy for me to judge perhaps.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Aug/16
I think at some stage Brosnan should get 6ft1½ peak and 6ft1 flat current. I'd argue the same for Daniel Day Lewis, Bill Pullman and Bill Murray.
James B said on 11/Aug/16
Rob I am not gay but do you agree with me that in Goldeneye Pierce was arguably the best looking man in the world?
Editor Rob: I think he was very attractive, but I'm sure there were a bunch of models who probably would seem as or even more attractive.
James B said on 4/Aug/16
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Aug/16
How so, James?


I think it's probably because of his facial features which are quite big and broad. His height probably helps look more imposing too but he doesn't very much on screen.
Johan said on 4/Aug/16
He is apparently a very friendly and down to earth guy. I have a friend who met him in a bar a few years back and he said, you wouldn't have known he was a big star he was propping the bar up.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Aug/16
Intimidating in an alpha male, slick kind of way, yeah, not in the Vinnie Jones hard knock way.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Aug/16
How so, James?
James B said on 2/Aug/16
Am I the only one who finds pierce brosnan quite intimidating?
James B said on 31/Jul/16
Arch Stanton said on 21/Jul/16
Dalton isn't blue eyed. Green.

Green and blue are similar colours
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Jul/16
Rob, who do you think would measure taller in their prime Brosnan or Pullman?
Editor Rob: hard to call that one, either really could edge out the other.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Jul/16
Dalton isn't blue eyed. Green.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Jul/16
Brosnan and Dalton I think came closest to Fleming's description. Both 6ft1-2, slim, blair hair, blue eyed and in their early 40's when they started. I think Richard Armitage should be next...
grizz said on 2/Jul/16
This guy is as close to literary Bond as it gets.
I have read that Fleming described Bond as 183 cm tall(6') and 76 kg. Given that these measures are from mid-50s when average UK height was 177 cm(now 178), that would basically translate to 184 (6'0.25-6'0.5) nowadays. So Brosnan was only 1 inch off and during Golden Eye he had that weight.

The only thing is that he was too charismatic and charming compared to Bond from the books.
James B said on 2/Jul/16
Rob referring to the clip of brosnan and John Cleese.

Do you think the camera angles in the film clip I posted a few months ago distorted the height different between the 2? Because I can't see pierce over 6ft.05 compared to cleese
Editor Rob: camera angles can sometimes reduce or enhance the real difference...

there's one reason height is on resume, because sometimes the casting director and the director themselves are thinking about framing, and the job become easier when actor's are closer in heights - there's less need for altering angles for all the talking head type shots, or using props to raise a smaller person up...
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Jun/16
Rob, I've been saying for a while now, why not 6ft1 flat today and 6ft1½ peak?

That looks very believable. Held his height well into middle age.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Jun/16
Rob, perhaps it's time for a wee downgrade like Neeson now, same sort of age and I think Brosnan is more like 6'0'75 now than 6'1.25...
Editor Rob: possibly at some stage, I don't know if a full half or 3/4 inch would have been lost by this age for Pierce, possibly though a cm.
James B said on 22/Jun/16
Actually rampage I'd say Jones and Nash would measure very close today.

Nathan himself could be 6'8.5 now aged 45 and 6'8.75 12 years ago.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Jun/16
No he looked solid tall
James B said on 19/Jun/16
In his films I say he looked an above average height man but he never looked 'strong tall' did he?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Jun/16
I'd go w/h 6ft1 today (6ft1½ peak) over 6ft0¾ today (6ft1¼ peak), personally. I think he can still look 6ft1.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Jun/16
Rob, perhaps it's time for a wee downgrade like Neeson now, same sort of age and I think Brosnan is more like 6'0'75 now than 6'1.25...
Peterson188cm said on 5/Jun/16
Rob, there is a possibility that he had chosen? Being a 6 feet 1 inch flat ??
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/May/16
187cm range in the 80's-90's is feasible. Still looks a legit 185cm at least today...
berta said on 25/May/16
I Think he was 187 peak but he had very good posture that can make him look 1 cm taller
Peak:
50% 187
50%186
Now
20%187
60%186
20%185
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/May/16
Near 6ft2 in the 80's-90's and 6ft1 flat today is absolutely fair.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/May/16
@James B: Just an odd angle. When they're walking together, the difference isn't as much
James B said on 10/May/16
Well for some reason he looked 6'0-6'1 beside John cleese
Willes189 said on 9/May/16
James Bond Actors, From Tallest To Shortest (peak)

Sean Connery: 189cm. He deserves a 6'2.25 listning

George Lazenby: 188cm. He Looked 6'1.75-6'2.25, 2nd To Tallest Bond

Timothy Dalton: 187cm. Weak 6'2

Pierce Brosnan: 6'1 Range For Sure. I Think 6'1.5 Is A Safe Bet, I Don't Think He Was Lower Then Flat 187,0cm At Peak

Daniel Craiglifter: I Have No Idea, But I Trust Robs 5'10 Range Guess
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/May/16
187cm peak is more feasible than 185cm (could be that today though)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/May/16
People look shorter in mid-stride...
Dmeyer said on 8/May/16
He Walked by me 11 years back he did seem 6ft 1 but not 6ft 2 , but it happened fast
Arch Stanton said on 28/Apr/16
@Rob I don't think he's notable yet in all honesty, I'd imagine there's a ton of well known male models without pages on here, I don't think he's one of them. Perhaps he'll become better known in his own right in a few years like Scott Eastwood has. Do you agree that he gives an impression of 197-8cm range?
Arch Stanton said on 26/Apr/16
The Daily Mail is a ridiculous newspaper. I think I read 6 ft 11 too once for his son LOL. Nobody in their right mind could think that kid is just 6 ft 1 LOL, the ignorance of it. I'd say in 6'5.5-6'6 range is most arguable should Rob add him, he looks taller than 6'5 now. Yeah, better to have a son like Dylan than one like Brooklyn Beckham who's fast becoming the British Justin Bieber.
Editor Rob:
I don't know if he's worth a page yet, maybe in the future - I know he does get some searches related to height, but it's not much at the moment.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Apr/16
I'd say the youngest Brosnan son will be also end up well over 6ft and probably taller than Pierce. Maybe 6ft3 range?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Apr/16
I don't think adding Dylan is a good idea. What else is he known for other than being Pierce Brosnan's son?

Jaden Smith has done movies though
Amaze said on 25/Apr/16
Lol his son is defo 6 6 well dylan

Sean ended up 5 11
I wonder what Paris is
jessman said on 24/Apr/16
@ Arch Stanton
Strange to read Dylan being described as 6'1 in that article. Way off.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Apr/16
Arch, I think that's a good thing. A lot of these celeb kids are a piece of work…
spainmen191cm said on 21/Apr/16
Rob are you going to add Dylan Brosnan to the page? He is a model , and there is already sons of other celebrities in the page like Jaden Smith or Brookyn Beckam
Editor Rob: it's possible, I will think about it
James B said on 20/Apr/16
Arch Stanton said on 19/Apr/16
@ James, Keely is about Rob's height I think. Two solid tall parents, genes exaggerate. Always a chance Keely has some very tall siblings in her family. Perhaps Dylan has an uncle over 6'4. Granted though he's built nothing like either parent.


At least his son did not end up like Neil fingelton
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Apr/16
Maybe there were tall grandparents, uncles and aunts on Pierce's side. He's said before that his father was surprisingly shorter in person when he met him...and his mother looks on the shorter side. So height isn't always passed down directly from parents.
Arch Stanton said on 20/Apr/16
HIs son does look just about 6 ft 6 now, agree. Click Here Strange looking lad though with a queer dress sense, androgynous, unlike most celeb kids he looks introverted and quiet.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Apr/16
@James B: The mother is 5ft8 which is solid tall for a woman. There is definitely a tall gene somewhere in that family
Arch Stanton said on 19/Apr/16
@ James, Keely is about Rob's height I think. Two solid tall parents, genes exaggerate. Always a chance Keely has some very tall siblings in her family. Perhaps Dylan has an uncle over 6'4. Granted though he's built nothing like either parent.
James B said on 18/Apr/16
I certainly would not want to be his sons height though of 6'6. 6'1-6'2 like pierce was in his prime is a far superior height range in my opinion. 6'6 is just way too excessive.
James B said on 18/Apr/16
how did his son end up so tall? Pierce is legit tall there's no denying that but he's never been 'very tall' and his wife is not short by any means but she's not remarkabley tall for a woman.

Pierce son is now 19 so he could very well end of being 6'6.5.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Apr/16
His son looks like he could be a full 6ft6 by this stage
189ind said on 12/Apr/16
His son is no less than 198 cm ,whatever you say
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Apr/16
Arch 6ft1 flat today is possible.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Apr/16
@Rob, do you think maybe it's time for a wee downgrade now? He doesn't still look a legit 186 to me. He can look in 6'0.5-6'1 range now.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Apr/16
I see a good 3in between them maybe a little more, not 4in though. In other scenes the difference is actually less. Cleese was most likely still at least 6ft4½ range in 2002, so I wouldn't argue under 6ft1 for Brosnan
James B said on 8/Apr/16
Nope over 3 inches between him and cleese
184.3cm (Night) said on 8/Apr/16
Slightly more than 3 inches shorter next to Cleese who was still over 6'4".

6'4.5"- 3.25 " = 6'1.25". .
184.3cm (Night) said on 8/Apr/16
@James B

There is no chance of him being a 6' guy at peak. He was taller than Jonathan Ross who Rob has pegged at 6'1". I agree that he can look a 6 footer nowadays though.
James B said on 6/Apr/16
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Apr/16
James, he most likely is 6ft1 flat today but in the 80's-90's he cleared it. Watch Remington Steele or anything prior to Bond (and even Bond itself) He looked 6ft1½ and sometimes even 6ft2 range.

Die Another Day came out in 2002 rampage....... I doubt he was more than a cm under his peak in that film and look how small then 6'4.5-6'4.75 makes him look in that movie. There looks over 3.5 between the 2 men for sure.

Even rob agrees that pierce is looking no more than 6'0.5 in comparison.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Apr/16
James, he most likely is 6ft1 flat today but in the 80's-90's he cleared it. Watch Remington Steele or anything prior to Bond (and even Bond itself) He looked 6ft1½ and sometimes even 6ft2 range.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Apr/16
He was easily 1in taller than Rick Yune (6ft)
James B said on 2/Apr/16
Rob After watching that clip are you still confident brosnan is in the 6'1-6'2 range?
Editor Rob: he could look more 6ft1 at most
James B said on 28/Mar/16
Do you think rob they might have intentionally made Cleese look taller next to brosnan?
Editor Rob: I would highly doubt it
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Mar/16
6ft1¾ looked believable in Remington Steele and Taffin
James B said on 24/Mar/16
Sorry don't mean to be annoying but do you think the angle was awkward in the clip I posted?
Editor Rob: Cleese definitely could make Brosnan look barely 6ft 1.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Mar/16
It's an awkward angle.
James B said on 19/Mar/16
But in that scene I'd say brosnan looks in the 6ft range compared to John Cleese.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Mar/16
In other scenes the difference isn't as much

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.