Add a Comment5726 comments
Average Guess (475 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.77in (182.3cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.77in (182.3cm)
jervis said on 10/May/15
The episode of rawhide with James Coburn is called Hostage child.Coburns listed height is 6ft2 and Clint has a scene with him and is a clear 2inchs taller maybe even more.If Clint was 6ft2 peak then Coburn was max 6ft maybe 5ft11.5.Clint is also the same height as 6ft4 listed greg walcot.
The episode of rawhide with James Coburn is called Hostage child.Coburns listed height is 6ft2 and Clint has a scene with him and is a clear 2inchs taller maybe even more.If Clint was 6ft2 peak then Coburn was max 6ft maybe 5ft11.5.Clint is also the same height as 6ft4 listed greg walcot.
jervis said on 10/May/15
In one of Clints early parts he is in a scean with Rock Hudson were Hudson looks only slightly taller thsn Clint,not 3 inches,and Hudson was the leading man and Clint was just a bit player.
In one of Clints early parts he is in a scean with Rock Hudson were Hudson looks only slightly taller thsn Clint,not 3 inches,and Hudson was the leading man and Clint was just a bit player.
Dan said on 10/May/15
Jervis...Lemmon looks to me four inches shorter than Garner, and he walked with a bad hunch by that point. I can see 5'5"-5'6" for him. Maybe Rebhorn was really over 6'3", but I challenge you to look at the difference between them and tell me it's less than 6 inches. Steve McQueen was notorious for being short and trying to look taller. I haven't seen him with Garner before but I'd be suspicious even of 5'9" for McQueen. I've never noticed bad posture on Eastwood. I'm sure I'll find more evidence supporting my claim on him, but the reason I doubt he lost more height than average is that he looks the same when standing next to people now as he did years ago. Even the 6'2" Morgan Freeman, who is about 16 or so years younger than Eastwood, looks maybe an inch taller than him today.
Jervis...Lemmon looks to me four inches shorter than Garner, and he walked with a bad hunch by that point. I can see 5'5"-5'6" for him. Maybe Rebhorn was really over 6'3", but I challenge you to look at the difference between them and tell me it's less than 6 inches. Steve McQueen was notorious for being short and trying to look taller. I haven't seen him with Garner before but I'd be suspicious even of 5'9" for McQueen. I've never noticed bad posture on Eastwood. I'm sure I'll find more evidence supporting my claim on him, but the reason I doubt he lost more height than average is that he looks the same when standing next to people now as he did years ago. Even the 6'2" Morgan Freeman, who is about 16 or so years younger than Eastwood, looks maybe an inch taller than him today.
Rory said on 9/May/15
@dan just type in on google images Clint Eastwood 1950s or 1960s in any young black and white pic he looks tall if not very tall at times...the kind of tall where 6'2 seems an underestimate just by looking at body proportions..oh and while you do that look at him next to lee van cleef,Tim Matheson,Jeff bridges and Donald Sutherland to name but a few...deep down no one in their right mind could argue against this fella being minimum 6'3 in his youth. About the whole oh but my dad hasn't lost any height blah blah....well good for him..some people can smoke a packet of ciggies a day and last till 100, others can lead a healthy life and die at 50..point is we're all different and you cannot use your dad or any one person as being representative of everyone
..theres no way today clints anywhere near as tall now as he was in 60s..hes lost 3 inches at least.
@dan just type in on google images Clint Eastwood 1950s or 1960s in any young black and white pic he looks tall if not very tall at times...the kind of tall where 6'2 seems an underestimate just by looking at body proportions..oh and while you do that look at him next to lee van cleef,Tim Matheson,Jeff bridges and Donald Sutherland to name but a few...deep down no one in their right mind could argue against this fella being minimum 6'3 in his youth. About the whole oh but my dad hasn't lost any height blah blah....well good for him..some people can smoke a packet of ciggies a day and last till 100, others can lead a healthy life and die at 50..point is we're all different and you cannot use your dad or any one person as being representative of everyone
..theres no way today clints anywhere near as tall now as he was in 60s..hes lost 3 inches at least.
jervis said on 9/May/15
3 inches Dan I dont think so.They look to me very same if Kennedy strightend up,as they did in their sceans together in that movie.
3 inches Dan I dont think so.They look to me very same if Kennedy strightend up,as they did in their sceans together in that movie.
Dan said on 9/May/15
Jervis...if you know anything about Eastwood's personal life, you'd know thay morally he's kind of bum...lying about his height would be small potatoes for him. I've never looked into James Coburn's height so I'll have to get back to you on that.
Jervis...if you know anything about Eastwood's personal life, you'd know thay morally he's kind of bum...lying about his height would be small potatoes for him. I've never looked into James Coburn's height so I'll have to get back to you on that.
jervis said on 9/May/15
Ok Dan if Garner is 6inches shorter than Rebhorn making him 5ft9 aged 68,then what height does that make the 5ft9 listed Jack lemmon aged 71,who is about 5inches shorter than Garner in that movie?There is plenty pf photos pf the young Garner with 5ft9 actors such as Steve Mc queen were Garner looks like a strong 6ft2 beside him.why has Clint lost so much height?I dont know,but they say the avarage man loses 2inches by the age of 80,and Clint just lost a little bit more.If he was 6ft3peak and lost 2inches with his bad posture he could look 6ft flat making it look like he has lost 4inches when he has only lost 2.l can also see Liam Neeson going the same way as Clint with his hunch back posture he will drop a few inches to by the time he is 84.i
Ok Dan if Garner is 6inches shorter than Rebhorn making him 5ft9 aged 68,then what height does that make the 5ft9 listed Jack lemmon aged 71,who is about 5inches shorter than Garner in that movie?There is plenty pf photos pf the young Garner with 5ft9 actors such as Steve Mc queen were Garner looks like a strong 6ft2 beside him.why has Clint lost so much height?I dont know,but they say the avarage man loses 2inches by the age of 80,and Clint just lost a little bit more.If he was 6ft3peak and lost 2inches with his bad posture he could look 6ft flat making it look like he has lost 4inches when he has only lost 2.l can also see Liam Neeson going the same way as Clint with his hunch back posture he will drop a few inches to by the time he is 84.i
Dan said on 9/May/15
No, Jervis...I'm saying that many leading men whose reputations were assisted by their being tall had exaggerated height listings. George Kennedy was not leading man type so there was no reason to exaggerate his. John Wayne's definitely was exaggerated, so was James Garner's. I generally trust the heights of supporting players or heavies. Rock Hudson was obviously tall no matter who he stood next to.
No, Jervis...I'm saying that many leading men whose reputations were assisted by their being tall had exaggerated height listings. George Kennedy was not leading man type so there was no reason to exaggerate his. John Wayne's definitely was exaggerated, so was James Garner's. I generally trust the heights of supporting players or heavies. Rock Hudson was obviously tall no matter who he stood next to.
Dan said on 8/May/15
Rory...if you're concerned about having a serious argument then don't misstate mine. I never said Eastwood lost no height, but the 4"-5" loss is plain silly especially for someone who has had no physical deformities that I know of. Look at any picture of Clint with Morgan Freeman, who is listed at 6'2"...about the same, but if there's any difference, it favors Freeman. Look at the pic I mentioned with George Kennedy. The top of their heads are about exact, certainly less than a half inch apart, yet Kennedy is easily losing three inches with his knee-bent slouch. I have yet to see a single pic where Clint is standing next to someone of known height and by comparison appears 6'4". The one and only certifiably 6'4" guy I've seen Clint next to frequently was Liam Neeson, and Clint is noticeably shorter. I don't believe a healthy, built 57 year old in 1987 would be two full inches shorter than his peak height. My father is 6'0" and hasn't lost an inch, and he's 61. I put Eastwood at a peak of 6'2" and now 6'1". Bradley Cooper, who is 6'1", appears an inch taller than Eastwood in a pic of them together, but Cooper is wearing noticeably thicker heeled shoes. Eastwood lost one inch...he is NOT the Incredible Shrinking Man.
Rory...if you're concerned about having a serious argument then don't misstate mine. I never said Eastwood lost no height, but the 4"-5" loss is plain silly especially for someone who has had no physical deformities that I know of. Look at any picture of Clint with Morgan Freeman, who is listed at 6'2"...about the same, but if there's any difference, it favors Freeman. Look at the pic I mentioned with George Kennedy. The top of their heads are about exact, certainly less than a half inch apart, yet Kennedy is easily losing three inches with his knee-bent slouch. I have yet to see a single pic where Clint is standing next to someone of known height and by comparison appears 6'4". The one and only certifiably 6'4" guy I've seen Clint next to frequently was Liam Neeson, and Clint is noticeably shorter. I don't believe a healthy, built 57 year old in 1987 would be two full inches shorter than his peak height. My father is 6'0" and hasn't lost an inch, and he's 61. I put Eastwood at a peak of 6'2" and now 6'1". Bradley Cooper, who is 6'1", appears an inch taller than Eastwood in a pic of them together, but Cooper is wearing noticeably thicker heeled shoes. Eastwood lost one inch...he is NOT the Incredible Shrinking Man.
Dan said on 8/May/15
No way, Jervis...Kennedy is giving away easily three inches in that knee bent slouch. If they were the same height, Eastwood would be substantially taller. They wouldn't be that close. Look at the top of their heads...a fraction of an inch difference. Ground looks level to me.
No way, Jervis...Kennedy is giving away easily three inches in that knee bent slouch. If they were the same height, Eastwood would be substantially taller. They wouldn't be that close. Look at the top of their heads...a fraction of an inch difference. Ground looks level to me.
jervis said on 8/May/15
Im around 6ft in shoes but 5ft11 bearfoot in the morning d around 5ft10.5 by the evening.So maybe Clint was 6ft4 in shoes as a young man.Maybe all the old movie stars were measured in shoes.I would still go no lower than 6ft3 peak for Clint.I could knock 1inch to allow for shoes.
Im around 6ft in shoes but 5ft11 bearfoot in the morning d around 5ft10.5 by the evening.So maybe Clint was 6ft4 in shoes as a young man.Maybe all the old movie stars were measured in shoes.I would still go no lower than 6ft3 peak for Clint.I could knock 1inch to allow for shoes.
jervis said on 8/May/15
Just seen that photo Dan and Clint is taller than Kennedy there not at the same eye level also there on uneven ground,If Kennedy strightend up i would say both men were more or less the same height.
Just seen that photo Dan and Clint is taller than Kennedy there not at the same eye level also there on uneven ground,If Kennedy strightend up i would say both men were more or less the same height.
jervis said on 8/May/15
Kennedy is 5 years older than Clint.Kennedy was 50 and Clint 45 at the time of that movie.l saw the movie and there was not a clear height difference between the two.Dan what height do you think James Coburn was peak?By the way he was only 2 years older than Clint.You must remember Clint said homself he was 6ft4 so that would mean he lied about his height,and was maybe wearing some sort of lifts in his shoes in his younger days so it would look as if he wad 6ft4 next to taller co stars.
Kennedy is 5 years older than Clint.Kennedy was 50 and Clint 45 at the time of that movie.l saw the movie and there was not a clear height difference between the two.Dan what height do you think James Coburn was peak?By the way he was only 2 years older than Clint.You must remember Clint said homself he was 6ft4 so that would mean he lied about his height,and was maybe wearing some sort of lifts in his shoes in his younger days so it would look as if he wad 6ft4 next to taller co stars.
Dan said on 7/May/15
I came across an old pic of Eastwood with the legitimately 6'4" George Kennedy, and Kennedy is leaning on Eastwood with a knee bent, and he is still at Eastwood's level even though Eastwood is standing straight and tall. Kennedy is also older than him so the height loss theory won't work. If Eastwood was 6'4", in that position he'd be at least a couple inches above Kennedy.
I came across an old pic of Eastwood with the legitimately 6'4" George Kennedy, and Kennedy is leaning on Eastwood with a knee bent, and he is still at Eastwood's level even though Eastwood is standing straight and tall. Kennedy is also older than him so the height loss theory won't work. If Eastwood was 6'4", in that position he'd be at least a couple inches above Kennedy.
jervis said on 7/May/15
So what you are saying Dan is that James Coburn,Lee Marvin,George Kennedy,Rock Hudson,John Wayne,James stewart,and everybody else who ive seen Clint being taller than or as tall as were all 2inches shorter than there listef hights.
So what you are saying Dan is that James Coburn,Lee Marvin,George Kennedy,Rock Hudson,John Wayne,James stewart,and everybody else who ive seen Clint being taller than or as tall as were all 2inches shorter than there listef hights.
Dan said on 7/May/15
Sorry, Sam...I see,no evidence of vertebral deformities in Eastwood.
Sorry, Sam...I see,no evidence of vertebral deformities in Eastwood.
Rory said on 7/May/15
@ Dan...im sorry but the moment you suggest Eastwood has lost no height at all is the moment where I stop taking your argument seriously. Id quite like to hear what you think Clints..well ok lets not use the words peak height with you, lets say "height" is then, 5'10 I reckon maybe 5'9 eh ? No. Peak the man was minimum 6'3, not a hair less and probably a bit more. I dunno who your comparisons are with but ive not seen a plausible one yet (and no 6'4.25 Neeson "towering" (aka having 1.5 inches max)an Eastwood nearing 60 doesnt count).
@ Dan...im sorry but the moment you suggest Eastwood has lost no height at all is the moment where I stop taking your argument seriously. Id quite like to hear what you think Clints..well ok lets not use the words peak height with you, lets say "height" is then, 5'10 I reckon maybe 5'9 eh ? No. Peak the man was minimum 6'3, not a hair less and probably a bit more. I dunno who your comparisons are with but ive not seen a plausible one yet (and no 6'4.25 Neeson "towering" (aka having 1.5 inches max)an Eastwood nearing 60 doesnt count).
Sam said on 6/May/15
Sorry, Dan, height loss is more fact than theory, a number of scientific studies show this. Some lose a considerable amount of height, other's do not.
Click Here
Click Here
Sorry, Dan, height loss is more fact than theory, a number of scientific studies show this. Some lose a considerable amount of height, other's do not.
Click Here
Click Here
Dan said on 5/May/15
Jervis...listed heights were ALWAYS exaggerated half a century ago. James Garner ever being 6'2" is a total laugh. Everyone I've ever seen who looks a legitimate 6'2" towers over him. You should see "My Fellow Americans" where the 6'3" James Rebhorn is easily six inches taller than him. He may have lost some height from back issues but he never looked over 6'0" to me...if that.
Jervis...listed heights were ALWAYS exaggerated half a century ago. James Garner ever being 6'2" is a total laugh. Everyone I've ever seen who looks a legitimate 6'2" towers over him. You should see "My Fellow Americans" where the 6'3" James Rebhorn is easily six inches taller than him. He may have lost some height from back issues but he never looked over 6'0" to me...if that.
Dan said on 5/May/15
Rory...what's laughable is your standard for measuring height. He just somehow "looked" taller in the 1960s?? What I've noticed is that when you actually compare Eastwood to various other stars, he is always equal with those billed in the 6'1"-6'2" range and ALWAYS shorter that those in the 6'3"-6'4" range. You have to have a REASON to lose substantial height.Eastwood has always been remarkably fit, and I know men his age and older and far less fit who are exactly or darn close to their peak heights. Let's not forget in the 1960s they went out of their way to make stars look tall, using small doors, buildings, or short leading ladies.
Rory...what's laughable is your standard for measuring height. He just somehow "looked" taller in the 1960s?? What I've noticed is that when you actually compare Eastwood to various other stars, he is always equal with those billed in the 6'1"-6'2" range and ALWAYS shorter that those in the 6'3"-6'4" range. You have to have a REASON to lose substantial height.Eastwood has always been remarkably fit, and I know men his age and older and far less fit who are exactly or darn close to their peak heights. Let's not forget in the 1960s they went out of their way to make stars look tall, using small doors, buildings, or short leading ladies.
James B said on 5/May/15
192-193cm peak
192-193cm peak
jervis said on 4/May/15
Just watched an episode of raw hide,Clint was at least 2 inches taller than James Cobourn.Also Dan Clint was taller than 6ft2.5 Heston in the only photo ive seen of them togethet.James Garner shrank from 6ft2 to about 5ft11 and Heston lost about the same or a bit more.If Clint was only 6ft2 max peak it would mean Heston, Garner ,Kennedy, Wayne were about 2 inches shorter than there listed heights.IMOP Clint was 6ft4 peak max in the morning in perfect posture.By night time closer to 6ft3.Now 6ft1 in the morning and closer to 6ft at night.Height loss around 3inches.
Just watched an episode of raw hide,Clint was at least 2 inches taller than James Cobourn.Also Dan Clint was taller than 6ft2.5 Heston in the only photo ive seen of them togethet.James Garner shrank from 6ft2 to about 5ft11 and Heston lost about the same or a bit more.If Clint was only 6ft2 max peak it would mean Heston, Garner ,Kennedy, Wayne were about 2 inches shorter than there listed heights.IMOP Clint was 6ft4 peak max in the morning in perfect posture.By night time closer to 6ft3.Now 6ft1 in the morning and closer to 6ft at night.Height loss around 3inches.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/May/15
@James B: That's spot on
Eastwood was still at least 6ft3 in the 80's and Neeson possibly a fraction over 6ft4.
@James B: That's spot on
Eastwood was still at least 6ft3 in the 80's and Neeson possibly a fraction over 6ft4.
Rory said on 3/May/15
Laughable to suggest Eastwood hasn't lost any height..just look at the guy in his films from the 1960s where he looked strong tall and lean and look at him today, a shadow of his former self..if you stood a 1965 Eastwood with a 2015 Eastwood your barely be able to tell they were the same people.
Laughable to suggest Eastwood hasn't lost any height..just look at the guy in his films from the 1960s where he looked strong tall and lean and look at him today, a shadow of his former self..if you stood a 1965 Eastwood with a 2015 Eastwood your barely be able to tell they were the same people.
Alex said on 2/May/15
He was tall lol at these people saying 6'1. Get real he was not under 6'3.5 in his prime
He was tall lol at these people saying 6'1. Get real he was not under 6'3.5 in his prime
Dan said on 1/May/15
Danimal...as I mentioned in an earlier post, I reject the loss of height theory. People lose height if they have things like osteoporosis or something. Eastwood remained remarkably fit and muscular throughout his 60s and had no reason to just lose height. I know people in their 70s who are still their peak heights. I met Karl Malden in 2005, and he was about an inch shorter than I am (and I'm 6'2.5"), so he was still at least 6'1" even at 93 years old while he was 6'2" at his peak.
Arch Stanton...did you see the black tie pic I mentioned? Also, look at when Clint and Liam are filmed from the back walking side by side...way more than a half inch difference.
Danimal...as I mentioned in an earlier post, I reject the loss of height theory. People lose height if they have things like osteoporosis or something. Eastwood remained remarkably fit and muscular throughout his 60s and had no reason to just lose height. I know people in their 70s who are still their peak heights. I met Karl Malden in 2005, and he was about an inch shorter than I am (and I'm 6'2.5"), so he was still at least 6'1" even at 93 years old while he was 6'2" at his peak.
Arch Stanton...did you see the black tie pic I mentioned? Also, look at when Clint and Liam are filmed from the back walking side by side...way more than a half inch difference.
James B said on 1/May/15
Arch in dead pool I'd say
Clint Eastwood 6'3.25
Liam nee son 6'4.25
Arch in dead pool I'd say
Clint Eastwood 6'3.25
Liam nee son 6'4.25
James B said on 1/May/15
Anyone seen play misty for me? He looked every bit of 6'4 in that film
Anyone seen play misty for me? He looked every bit of 6'4 in that film
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/May/15
I'd argue 191-192cm for Eastwood in The Deadpool if Neeson was pushing 194cm.
I'd argue 191-192cm for Eastwood in The Deadpool if Neeson was pushing 194cm.
Sam said on 1/May/15
I think that you could argue Clint still looked as tall as 6'2.5" range by 1992-1993, compare him with Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Dylan McDermott and Richard Harris around the time of Unforgiven and In the Line of Fire.
Click Here
I think that you could argue Clint still looked as tall as 6'2.5" range by 1992-1993, compare him with Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Dylan McDermott and Richard Harris around the time of Unforgiven and In the Line of Fire.
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 30/Apr/15
At Dan, no way, 1.5 inches absolutely max. I saw about an inch.
At Dan, no way, 1.5 inches absolutely max. I saw about an inch.
Danimal said on 29/Apr/15
Dejavu says on 15/Mar/15
Its hard to believe that he lost 4 inches from his prime.
He's lost closer to 5"
Dejavu says on 15/Mar/15
Its hard to believe that he lost 4 inches from his prime.
He's lost closer to 5"
Danimal said on 29/Apr/15
Dan says on 23/Apr/15
No way was Eastwood ever 6'4". Just look st "The Dead Pool". Liam Neeson towers ovet Eastwood, and Neeson himself is 6'4".
First of all, Eastwood had already lost height by the Dead Pool and secondly, Neeson did not tower over him.
Dan says on 23/Apr/15
No way was Eastwood ever 6'4". Just look st "The Dead Pool". Liam Neeson towers ovet Eastwood, and Neeson himself is 6'4".
First of all, Eastwood had already lost height by the Dead Pool and secondly, Neeson did not tower over him.
Dan said on 29/Apr/15
The problem is that Eastwood is far MORE than a half inch shorter than Neeson.
The problem is that Eastwood is far MORE than a half inch shorter than Neeson.
James B said on 29/Apr/15
Saw unforgiven he other night and the impression Clint gave me in that film was 6'2 1/2.
In dead pool looked anything from 6'2 to 6'3 but never 6'4 in that movie
Saw unforgiven he other night and the impression Clint gave me in that film was 6'2 1/2.
In dead pool looked anything from 6'2 to 6'3 but never 6'4 in that movie
James B said on 29/Apr/15
Saw forgiven the other night and the impression Clint gave me in that film was 6'2 1/2
Saw forgiven the other night and the impression Clint gave me in that film was 6'2 1/2
Rory said on 29/Apr/15
Yh there's no way height wise a 60 odd year old Eastwood was the same height he was in fistful of dollars..looked 190 next to neeson which by then hes lost at least half an inch.
Yh there's no way height wise a 60 odd year old Eastwood was the same height he was in fistful of dollars..looked 190 next to neeson which by then hes lost at least half an inch.
Dan said on 28/Apr/15
I don't know how to add links here, but look at the picture of Eastwood and Neeson in black tie attire at the premiere for Dead Pool. Neeson is slouching and is still three inches taller than Eastwood. Even now the 6'4" D. Sutherland is noticeably taller than Clint. Funny how Eastwood magically shrinks over time when his costars don't.
I don't know how to add links here, but look at the picture of Eastwood and Neeson in black tie attire at the premiere for Dead Pool. Neeson is slouching and is still three inches taller than Eastwood. Even now the 6'4" D. Sutherland is noticeably taller than Clint. Funny how Eastwood magically shrinks over time when his costars don't.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Apr/15
In Heartbreak Ridge (1986) though he did seem to have a good inch and change on 6'2.5 Everett McGill.
In Heartbreak Ridge (1986) though he did seem to have a good inch and change on 6'2.5 Everett McGill.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Apr/15
In Pale Rider (1985) Eastwood looked to slightly edge out 6'3 Moriarty. However in Pink Cadillac (1989) he was looking in 6'2.5-6'3 range with 6'6.5 James Cromwell and about 6'3" with Morgan Freeman in Unforgiven (1992). He could have been around 190cm by that period.
In Pale Rider (1985) Eastwood looked to slightly edge out 6'3 Moriarty. However in Pink Cadillac (1989) he was looking in 6'2.5-6'3 range with 6'6.5 James Cromwell and about 6'3" with Morgan Freeman in Unforgiven (1992). He could have been around 190cm by that period.
Dan said on 27/Apr/15
I saw the video of Ali and Eastwood. They look the same height to me. When Eastwood and Neeson walk together, Neeson is at least two inches taller...and spare me the "losing height" garbage. My girlfriend's father is 80 with back problems and he told me he was 6'4" at his peak. He is still taller than I am and I'm 6'2.5". Also, look at Eastwood and the 6'2" Heston...same height. And in "Space Cowboys" the 6'6" James Cromwell is at least 4" taller. Was Eastwood's peak when he was 17???
I saw the video of Ali and Eastwood. They look the same height to me. When Eastwood and Neeson walk together, Neeson is at least two inches taller...and spare me the "losing height" garbage. My girlfriend's father is 80 with back problems and he told me he was 6'4" at his peak. He is still taller than I am and I'm 6'2.5". Also, look at Eastwood and the 6'2" Heston...same height. And in "Space Cowboys" the 6'6" James Cromwell is at least 4" taller. Was Eastwood's peak when he was 17???
Sam said on 27/Apr/15
Neeson never towers Eastwood in The Dead Pool, IMO he looks an inch and change taller there. If Neeson was 6'4", Eastwood looks a weak 6'3" there.
Neeson never towers Eastwood in The Dead Pool, IMO he looks an inch and change taller there. If Neeson was 6'4", Eastwood looks a weak 6'3" there.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Apr/15
Towers LOL? I saw an inch at most in the warehouse scene walking side by side, and Eastwood had already begun losing height by the 80s, Dead Pool was 1988. And there's a strong case for 194 for Neeson peak anyway.
Towers LOL? I saw an inch at most in the warehouse scene walking side by side, and Eastwood had already begun losing height by the 80s, Dead Pool was 1988. And there's a strong case for 194 for Neeson peak anyway.
James B said on 25/Apr/15
Neeson looked 1.5 inches max taller to me
Neeson looked 1.5 inches max taller to me
Peyman said on 24/Apr/15
peak, 6' 3"
now, 5' 11.5in
peak, 6' 3"
now, 5' 11.5in
Dan said on 23/Apr/15
No way was Eastwood ever 6'4". Just look st "The Dead Pool". Liam Neeson towers ovet Eastwood, and Neeson himself is 6'4".
"
No way was Eastwood ever 6'4". Just look st "The Dead Pool". Liam Neeson towers ovet Eastwood, and Neeson himself is 6'4".
"
CKG said on 19/Apr/15
Does it matter? He'd look good at 6'1" or 6'4" in my opinion. Anyway, isn't Clint Eastwood the one laughing all the way to the bank standing tall!
Does it matter? He'd look good at 6'1" or 6'4" in my opinion. Anyway, isn't Clint Eastwood the one laughing all the way to the bank standing tall!
Maza said on 11/Apr/15
His Madame Tussaud wax figure at least is considerably taller than me at 6'1, about 6'4 I'd say. (While Arnold was exactly my height, reasonable that they are not in some flicks...)
His Madame Tussaud wax figure at least is considerably taller than me at 6'1, about 6'4 I'd say. (While Arnold was exactly my height, reasonable that they are not in some flicks...)
Arch Stanton said on 7/Apr/15
@Steve Ali himself said though that Clint was much taller than him!!
@Steve Ali himself said though that Clint was much taller than him!!
Steve said on 5/Apr/15
I was recently watching a video of him with Ali on the same talkshow and they looked a similar height, maybe a slight edge to Clint Eastwood.
I think 6'3 is a more accurate listing for his peak.
I was recently watching a video of him with Ali on the same talkshow and they looked a similar height, maybe a slight edge to Clint Eastwood.
I think 6'3 is a more accurate listing for his peak.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Apr/15
Click Here
Rob, would you say most of these guys were past their prime height-wise this was taken?
Editor Rob
Click Here
Rob, would you say most of these guys were past their prime height-wise this was taken?
Editor Rob a few of them yes...Jimmy Stewart I think was a guy who by 60 still looked near 6ft 3, I don't think he dropped much in that time frame
Parker said on 3/Apr/15
Anonymous1 says on 1/Apr/15
...assuming Eastwood "was" 6'4...and I do mean at absolute peak, it must be somewhat odd to find yourself 4 inches shorter, even if it happened over time
He's still close to 6' in his mid eighties. I doubt he gives a rats backside.
Anonymous1 says on 1/Apr/15
...assuming Eastwood "was" 6'4...and I do mean at absolute peak, it must be somewhat odd to find yourself 4 inches shorter, even if it happened over time
He's still close to 6' in his mid eighties. I doubt he gives a rats backside.
Sixseven said on 1/Apr/15
Clint Eastwood is 6'1"tall.
Clint Eastwood is 6'1"tall.
Anonymous1 said on 1/Apr/15
...assuming Eastwood "was" 6'4...and I do mean at absolute peak, it must be somewhat odd to find yourself 4 inches shorter, even if it happened over time. I think it would matter more to a guy, than a woman.
...assuming Eastwood "was" 6'4...and I do mean at absolute peak, it must be somewhat odd to find yourself 4 inches shorter, even if it happened over time. I think it would matter more to a guy, than a woman.
James B said on 1/Apr/15
3.5-4 inches loss is not unusual at all for someone who was near 6'4 peak. If anything it is too be expected for someone that size to lose that much.
3.5-4 inches loss is not unusual at all for someone who was near 6'4 peak. If anything it is too be expected for someone that size to lose that much.
littlesue said on 30/Mar/15
Old age Jake, 4 inches not unusual for someone in there 80's,. My Nan and her two sisters had lost about 8 inches by the time they reached 93 although Osteoporosis runs in the family, men can get it too,.
Old age Jake, 4 inches not unusual for someone in there 80's,. My Nan and her two sisters had lost about 8 inches by the time they reached 93 although Osteoporosis runs in the family, men can get it too,.
Jake said on 29/Mar/15
Rob, how did he lose so much height? 4 inches.......
Rob, how did he lose so much height? 4 inches.......
James B said on 26/Mar/15
I'd say compared to Jeff Bridges Clint looked 6'3 range but his posture was bad in thunderbolt and light foot.
I think judging by how tall he looked with David Soul, Rock Hudson and Jeff Bridges we can rule out 6'2.5 peak. Him 'looking' 6'2 1/2 at times in some of his films like Dirty Harry and Magnum Force is irrelevant.
the full 6'4 is still not certain in my opinion for Clint.
I'd say compared to Jeff Bridges Clint looked 6'3 range but his posture was bad in thunderbolt and light foot.
I think judging by how tall he looked with David Soul, Rock Hudson and Jeff Bridges we can rule out 6'2.5 peak. Him 'looking' 6'2 1/2 at times in some of his films like Dirty Harry and Magnum Force is irrelevant.
the full 6'4 is still not certain in my opinion for Clint.
James B said on 26/Mar/15
Clint Eastwood has not been 6'2.5 since the 90s
Clint Eastwood has not been 6'2.5 since the 90s
ZTL said on 24/Mar/15
"I'd put him at 6'3.5" in his absolute prime and 6'2".5 now"
Not possible Thor. There is NO WAY Eastwood was 6'2.5" in 2013.
"I'd put him at 6'3.5" in his absolute prime and 6'2".5 now"
Not possible Thor. There is NO WAY Eastwood was 6'2.5" in 2013.
Anonymous1 said on 24/Mar/15
..based on all recent pics I've seen, I would never, ever put Eastwood anywhere near as high as 6'2.5, now. Just my own opinion.
..based on all recent pics I've seen, I would never, ever put Eastwood anywhere near as high as 6'2.5, now. Just my own opinion.
Thor said on 22/Mar/15
I saw Clint in Monterrey 2 years ago. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was slightly shorter (we both had low heel Sperry Dock Sider type shoes on)
I'd put him at 6'3.5" in his absolute prime and 6'2".5 now.
I saw Clint in Monterrey 2 years ago. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was slightly shorter (we both had low heel Sperry Dock Sider type shoes on)
I'd put him at 6'3.5" in his absolute prime and 6'2".5 now.
James B said on 19/Mar/15
ZTL says on 17/Mar/15
I think more often than not Clint looked in the 6'2" to 6'3" range in his movies. He did look 6'4" in a few scenes but only a few.
The airport scene in Magnum force he for sure did not appear over 6'2.5.
ZTL says on 17/Mar/15
I think more often than not Clint looked in the 6'2" to 6'3" range in his movies. He did look 6'4" in a few scenes but only a few.
The airport scene in Magnum force he for sure did not appear over 6'2.5.
ZTL said on 17/Mar/15
I think more often than not Clint looked in the 6'2" to 6'3" range in his movies. He did look 6'4" in a few scenes but only a few.
I think more often than not Clint looked in the 6'2" to 6'3" range in his movies. He did look 6'4" in a few scenes but only a few.
James B said on 16/Mar/15
Anyone agree in Magnum Force clint looked 6'2.5 and occasionally 6'4? Again no way am i implying he was as short as 6'2.5 peak just saying 6'2-6'3 range is what he mostly 'looked' in that particular movie from what i remember. In Dirty Harry as well looked under 6'4 for most of the film and yet occasionally scene pulled of looking above 6'3.
In the Enforcer clint did not look under 6'3 range in that film and like arch pointed out there was once scene when he walked through a doorway where he looked 6'4.
Anyone agree in Magnum Force clint looked 6'2.5 and occasionally 6'4? Again no way am i implying he was as short as 6'2.5 peak just saying 6'2-6'3 range is what he mostly 'looked' in that particular movie from what i remember. In Dirty Harry as well looked under 6'4 for most of the film and yet occasionally scene pulled of looking above 6'3.
In the Enforcer clint did not look under 6'3 range in that film and like arch pointed out there was once scene when he walked through a doorway where he looked 6'4.
Judd said on 15/Mar/15
Its hard to believe that he lost 4 inches from his prime.
I agree
Its hard to believe that he lost 4 inches from his prime.
I agree
Dejavu said on 15/Mar/15
Its hard to believe that he lost 4 inches from his prime.
Its hard to believe that he lost 4 inches from his prime.
184.3cm said on 14/Mar/15
Always a chance he was 6'3.5 or 6'3.75 like Wayne claimed but really if you measure between those marks claiming 6'4 isnt really that wild. A guy that size probably shrinks round 1 inch morning to night. Probably solid 6'4.5 out of bed.
Always a chance he was 6'3.5 or 6'3.75 like Wayne claimed but really if you measure between those marks claiming 6'4 isnt really that wild. A guy that size probably shrinks round 1 inch morning to night. Probably solid 6'4.5 out of bed.
Alex said on 13/Mar/15
Eastwood was 6'4 in his prime NOT 6'2 or 6'3
Eastwood was 6'4 in his prime NOT 6'2 or 6'3
5'11" barefoot said on 12/Mar/15
never 6'4" maybe in his boots.
never 6'4" maybe in his boots.
James B said on 10/Mar/15
Arch we don't know Mcgills official height because he has not got a listing on this site. 6'2.5 for Mcgill is possible but then so is 6'2 as well.
I don't think clint eastwood was quite as tall as 6'3 1/2 in 1986.
Arch we don't know Mcgills official height because he has not got a listing on this site. 6'2.5 for Mcgill is possible but then so is 6'2 as well.
I don't think clint eastwood was quite as tall as 6'3 1/2 in 1986.
ZTL said on 9/Mar/15
Yeah Bran, Eastwood looked about 6'2" or a smidgen taller in Heart Break Ridge.
Yeah Bran, Eastwood looked about 6'2" or a smidgen taller in Heart Break Ridge.
jervis said on 9/Mar/15
Bran swede was played by 6ft6 Peter kotch,Lesnar was only 9 years old in1986.l think the pictures of Sutherland andConnery show that Connery was closer to 6ft1 than 6ft2.Yes Sutherland dose look 6ft4 next to Connery if Connery was 6ft2.But he dose not look 6ft4 next to goldbloom in body snachers and goldbloom states his height as 6ft4 in that movie.As for Blocker there is a fight scean between him and Chuck Conners in rifle man Conners at6ft5.5 looks about 2 or 3 inches taller than Blocker.
Bran swede was played by 6ft6 Peter kotch,Lesnar was only 9 years old in1986.l think the pictures of Sutherland andConnery show that Connery was closer to 6ft1 than 6ft2.Yes Sutherland dose look 6ft4 next to Connery if Connery was 6ft2.But he dose not look 6ft4 next to goldbloom in body snachers and goldbloom states his height as 6ft4 in that movie.As for Blocker there is a fight scean between him and Chuck Conners in rifle man Conners at6ft5.5 looks about 2 or 3 inches taller than Blocker.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Mar/15
Bran says on 6/Mar/15
Just been watching heartbreak ridge and this guy gives me no indication of a 6ft4 range guy at all. The guys i know who are 6'4 look so more stand out ish, im really confused, i mean i know Clint was 56 or something then, but the guy looks like a 6ft2 man maybe 6ft2.5
Eastwood had begun to lose height by 1986 and in that film had about 1-1.5 inches on 6'2.5 Everett McGill.
Bran says on 6/Mar/15
Just been watching heartbreak ridge and this guy gives me no indication of a 6ft4 range guy at all. The guys i know who are 6'4 look so more stand out ish, im really confused, i mean i know Clint was 56 or something then, but the guy looks like a 6ft2 man maybe 6ft2.5
Eastwood had begun to lose height by 1986 and in that film had about 1-1.5 inches on 6'2.5 Everett McGill.
Danimal said on 7/Mar/15
jervis says on 4/Mar/15
Kennedy was 50 and Clint 45 at the time of eiger sanction,I dont think Kennedy would have lost any height at 50.To me in that film I did not see any hight difference between them.I dont belive Kennedy was 6ft4 he was more 6ft3 like Clint did not look much taller than Dan Blocker in Bonanza did not tower him Like Clint Walker did.Blocker looked about 6ft2 max next to Walker but very similer to Kennedy.
The human body gradually begins to start shrinking between 30 and 40. It becomes noticeable by 50 and even more noticeable every decade after that. The average MALE will have lost 1.2" by 70. That does not happen over night. It's a gradual height loss of about .3" every decade after 30, so YES, he could have lost .5" by 50 years old.
jervis says on 4/Mar/15
Kennedy was 50 and Clint 45 at the time of eiger sanction,I dont think Kennedy would have lost any height at 50.To me in that film I did not see any hight difference between them.I dont belive Kennedy was 6ft4 he was more 6ft3 like Clint did not look much taller than Dan Blocker in Bonanza did not tower him Like Clint Walker did.Blocker looked about 6ft2 max next to Walker but very similer to Kennedy.
The human body gradually begins to start shrinking between 30 and 40. It becomes noticeable by 50 and even more noticeable every decade after that. The average MALE will have lost 1.2" by 70. That does not happen over night. It's a gradual height loss of about .3" every decade after 30, so YES, he could have lost .5" by 50 years old.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Mar/15
Dan Blocker looked every inch of 6'4" with Sinatra in Tony Rome...
Dan Blocker looked every inch of 6'4" with Sinatra in Tony Rome...
Arch Stanton said on 6/Mar/15
No, not just 1.5 inches. Watch the film. Sutherland had an EASY two inches on him, there's some screenshots Click Here Eastwood and Sutherland looked very similar in Kelly's Heroes but in one scene Eastwood looked to edge him out a bit. Sutherland was a strong 6'3, looked it with Elliot Gould in MASH. The lowest you can really argue for Eastwood is 6'3.5 at peak,
No, not just 1.5 inches. Watch the film. Sutherland had an EASY two inches on him, there's some screenshots Click Here Eastwood and Sutherland looked very similar in Kelly's Heroes but in one scene Eastwood looked to edge him out a bit. Sutherland was a strong 6'3, looked it with Elliot Gould in MASH. The lowest you can really argue for Eastwood is 6'3.5 at peak,
jervis said on 6/Mar/15
Same height as6ft3 Eric Fleming in Rawhide.
Same height as6ft3 Eric Fleming in Rawhide.
Bran said on 6/Mar/15
Just been watching heartbreak ridge and this guy gives me no indication of a 6ft4 range guy at all. The guys i know who are 6'4 look so more stand out ish, im really confused, i mean i know Clint was 56 or something then, but the guy looks like a 6ft2 man maybe 6ft2.5, never 6'4, unless he had shrunk. My friends 6ft4 and he dwarfs most people eastwood looks eye to eye with 6ft2 Lesner in the film, and there's guys bigger than eastwood in the film, Rob ?, was he really as big as 6ft4 ?
Just been watching heartbreak ridge and this guy gives me no indication of a 6ft4 range guy at all. The guys i know who are 6'4 look so more stand out ish, im really confused, i mean i know Clint was 56 or something then, but the guy looks like a 6ft2 man maybe 6ft2.5, never 6'4, unless he had shrunk. My friends 6ft4 and he dwarfs most people eastwood looks eye to eye with 6ft2 Lesner in the film, and there's guys bigger than eastwood in the film, Rob ?, was he really as big as 6ft4 ?
ZTL said on 6/Mar/15
Eastwood was never a legit 6'4".
I agree Judd, he had a slim wire build that made him seem taller than he really was. No way he was over 6'3" barefoot.
Eastwood was never a legit 6'4".
I agree Judd, he had a slim wire build that made him seem taller than he really was. No way he was over 6'3" barefoot.
jervis said on 6/Mar/15
Connery was 6ft1.5 as he said himself,and Sutherland round 6ft3 that would make a difference of around 1.5 inches in Sutherlands favour.You must remember that goldbloom was at least 1inch taller then Sutherland in body snachers.On Kennedys height if Blocker was 6ft4 then yes him and Kennedy were the same height,but im not convinced Blocker was 6ft4,not compered to the rest of the cast members on Bonanza.l taught that German guy was 6ft6 if he wad only 6ft4 that would mean Clint and Kennedy were not 6ft4 because he had about 2 on both of them.
,
Connery was 6ft1.5 as he said himself,and Sutherland round 6ft3 that would make a difference of around 1.5 inches in Sutherlands favour.You must remember that goldbloom was at least 1inch taller then Sutherland in body snachers.On Kennedys height if Blocker was 6ft4 then yes him and Kennedy were the same height,but im not convinced Blocker was 6ft4,not compered to the rest of the cast members on Bonanza.l taught that German guy was 6ft6 if he wad only 6ft4 that would mean Clint and Kennedy were not 6ft4 because he had about 2 on both of them.
,
Judd said on 6/Mar/15
Arch, i've a question for you: it's likelier that a person has lost 3-4" (8-10 cms) at 70-80 years old that's the equivalent of 5-10% of his/her height (it depends by his/her prime height) or maybe that an actor/actress wore lifts when he played his/her role????
Look Sutherland next to TLJ (rob listed him at 6'0.25" and i guess that's is a good listing for his peak, also if in the end of XX century he did look more a flat 6'): Click Here
That pic was taken in 2000, so Sutherland was 65 years old and he didn't look taller than 6'1.5" ...you think that it's possible that DS had already lost 2.5" since he was young?
Same topyc for Clint Eastwood...they were both 6'3" at peak...being generous 6'3.25" IMO.
Arch, i've a question for you: it's likelier that a person has lost 3-4" (8-10 cms) at 70-80 years old that's the equivalent of 5-10% of his/her height (it depends by his/her prime height) or maybe that an actor/actress wore lifts when he played his/her role????
Look Sutherland next to TLJ (rob listed him at 6'0.25" and i guess that's is a good listing for his peak, also if in the end of XX century he did look more a flat 6'): Click Here
That pic was taken in 2000, so Sutherland was 65 years old and he didn't look taller than 6'1.5" ...you think that it's possible that DS had already lost 2.5" since he was young?
Same topyc for Clint Eastwood...they were both 6'3" at peak...being generous 6'3.25" IMO.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Mar/15
I think Kennedy was a strong 6ft4. He could look 194cm at times.
Eastwood could have been 6ft4 but most likely dropped slightly below it in the evening.
I think Kennedy was a strong 6ft4. He could look 194cm at times.
Eastwood could have been 6ft4 but most likely dropped slightly below it in the evening.
James said on 5/Mar/15
Gonzalo says on 4/Mar/15
Eastwood and Kennedy were the same height in Eiger sanction. There is no doubt Kennedy was 1`93.
There was one scene i remember between the 2 in that film when they meet up with some Swedish rock climbers where clint looks at good 1 inch shorter than kennedy
Gonzalo says on 4/Mar/15
Eastwood and Kennedy were the same height in Eiger sanction. There is no doubt Kennedy was 1`93.
There was one scene i remember between the 2 in that film when they meet up with some Swedish rock climbers where clint looks at good 1 inch shorter than kennedy
movieguy said on 5/Mar/15
There is a 6'4'' German guy in the Eiger Sanction and he looks taller than both Eastwood and Kennedy. Or at least a German guy who is given 6'4'' on the net, checked once but can't remember guy's name.
There is a 6'4'' German guy in the Eiger Sanction and he looks taller than both Eastwood and Kennedy. Or at least a German guy who is given 6'4'' on the net, checked once but can't remember guy's name.
Arch Stanton said on 4/Mar/15
Eastwood edged out legit 6'4 Gregory Alcott in Eiger, there's a scene with them walking together. In Joe Kidd though Alcott edged out Clint. Both men were around 6'4", so was George Kennedy.
Eastwood edged out legit 6'4 Gregory Alcott in Eiger, there's a scene with them walking together. In Joe Kidd though Alcott edged out Clint. Both men were around 6'4", so was George Kennedy.
Arch Stanton said on 4/Mar/15
Judd, watch The Great Train Robbery and try telling me Sutherland was 6'2.75! If that was the case Sean Connery look no more than 60.'75 in that film!
Judd, watch The Great Train Robbery and try telling me Sutherland was 6'2.75! If that was the case Sean Connery look no more than 60.'75 in that film!
Arch Stanton said on 4/Mar/15
Haha, if George Kennedy was just 6'3" then James Coburn was no more than 6'1! And if anything Coburn could often pull off 189. Kennedy had an easy two inches on him in Charade.
Haha, if George Kennedy was just 6'3" then James Coburn was no more than 6'1! And if anything Coburn could often pull off 189. Kennedy had an easy two inches on him in Charade.
jervis said on 4/Mar/15
The episode is called The scapegoat.You can judge his height with all the cast.
The episode is called The scapegoat.You can judge his height with all the cast.
jervis said on 4/Mar/15
Gonzalo watch Kennedy bonanza and see if he looks 6ft4 next to the rest of the cast,him and Blocker are the same height and Blocker was max 6ft3.
Gonzalo watch Kennedy bonanza and see if he looks 6ft4 next to the rest of the cast,him and Blocker are the same height and Blocker was max 6ft3.
Gonzalo said on 4/Mar/15
Eastwood and Kennedy were the same height in Eiger sanction. There is no doubt Kennedy was 1`93.
Eastwood and Kennedy were the same height in Eiger sanction. There is no doubt Kennedy was 1`93.
jervis said on 4/Mar/15
Kennedy was 50 and Clint 45 at the time of eiger sanction,I dont think Kennedy would have lost any height at 50.To me in that film I did not see any hight difference between them.I dont belive Kennedy was 6ft4 he was more 6ft3 like Clint did not look much taller than Dan Blocker in Bonanza did not tower him Like Clint Walker did.Blocker looked about 6ft2 max next to Walker but very similer to Kennedy.
Kennedy was 50 and Clint 45 at the time of eiger sanction,I dont think Kennedy would have lost any height at 50.To me in that film I did not see any hight difference between them.I dont belive Kennedy was 6ft4 he was more 6ft3 like Clint did not look much taller than Dan Blocker in Bonanza did not tower him Like Clint Walker did.Blocker looked about 6ft2 max next to Walker but very similer to Kennedy.
Judd said on 4/Mar/15
Arch, i actually have several doubts that a person can lose 1/19th (about 6%) of his/her height...I can buy 5-6 or even 7 cms is particulary situations, but 10 cms are too much...
I think Eastwood had (when was young) a very slim figure which make him seems taller and he has always claimed 6'4".
About Sutherland i think he might have been 6'2.75-3" max at peak, while today he's in the 6'1-1.5" range...
Look at him next to Tommy Lee Jones in 2000. I guess TLJ was at times 6-0.25" and for sure Sutherland and even Eastwood didn't look 6'2-3" next to him, but more 6'1"+.
IMO Eastwood was 6'3" (his perfect listing) or being very generous 6'3.25"...6'4" was probably a morning measurement or the lenght with a normal dress shoes on...
Arch, i actually have several doubts that a person can lose 1/19th (about 6%) of his/her height...I can buy 5-6 or even 7 cms is particulary situations, but 10 cms are too much...
I think Eastwood had (when was young) a very slim figure which make him seems taller and he has always claimed 6'4".
About Sutherland i think he might have been 6'2.75-3" max at peak, while today he's in the 6'1-1.5" range...
Look at him next to Tommy Lee Jones in 2000. I guess TLJ was at times 6-0.25" and for sure Sutherland and even Eastwood didn't look 6'2-3" next to him, but more 6'1"+.
IMO Eastwood was 6'3" (his perfect listing) or being very generous 6'3.25"...6'4" was probably a morning measurement or the lenght with a normal dress shoes on...
ZTL said on 3/Mar/15
I thought Eastwood and Sunderland looked the same height in Kelly's Heroes. Eastwood did not look taller to me. I would give Sutherland 6'3" peak.
I thought Eastwood and Sunderland looked the same height in Kelly's Heroes. Eastwood did not look taller to me. I would give Sutherland 6'3" peak.
ZTL said on 3/Mar/15
Arch, I don't believe six feet is a downgrade for Soul. He clearly did not look any taller in all his movies.
Arch, I don't believe six feet is a downgrade for Soul. He clearly did not look any taller in all his movies.
James said on 3/Mar/15
I thought originally clint looked 6'3 flat next to george kennedy in eiger sanction and that was with hair advantage but then Kennedy could have been 194cm peak. That said Kennedy was no fresh spring chicken when that film was made so he could have lost a small amount from his peak.
I thought originally clint looked 6'3 flat next to george kennedy in eiger sanction and that was with hair advantage but then Kennedy could have been 194cm peak. That said Kennedy was no fresh spring chicken when that film was made so he could have lost a small amount from his peak.
jervis said on 3/Mar/15
3 on Holbrook max.In a movie dont know the name but Holbrook was a bit shorter than a very young Alac Baldwin who was know more than 6ft.
3 on Holbrook max.In a movie dont know the name but Holbrook was a bit shorter than a very young Alac Baldwin who was know more than 6ft.
jervis said on 2/Mar/15
Talking of Hal Holbrooks height Arch,there is film with him and a very young Alac Baldwin in it and Baldwin is a bit taller then Holbrook,and Baldwin is know more than 6ft tall.So was Holbrook really 6ft.05.
Talking of Hal Holbrooks height Arch,there is film with him and a very young Alac Baldwin in it and Baldwin is a bit taller then Holbrook,and Baldwin is know more than 6ft tall.So was Holbrook really 6ft.05.
Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
If you watch a few of Hal Holbrook's films you'll see that peak he was looking between 6' and 6'1 generally. Now watch Magnum Force. Eastwood only 2 inches taller? He made Holbrook look average at best.
If you watch a few of Hal Holbrook's films you'll see that peak he was looking between 6' and 6'1 generally. Now watch Magnum Force. Eastwood only 2 inches taller? He made Holbrook look average at best.
Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
@Judd and ZTL, Donald Sutherland had 2 inches on Sean Connery in The Great Train Robbery who had worst was 6'1.5 peak. Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Strong 6'2" you say? That would make Sutherland 6'2" flat and Connery struggling with a flat 6 ft!
@Judd and ZTL, Donald Sutherland had 2 inches on Sean Connery in The Great Train Robbery who had worst was 6'1.5 peak. Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Strong 6'2" you say? That would make Sutherland 6'2" flat and Connery struggling with a flat 6 ft!
Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
@Judd and ZTL, Donald Sutherland had 2 inches on Sean Connery in the train Connery who had worst was 6'1.5 peak. Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Strong 6'2" you say? That would make Sutherland 6'2" flat and Connery struggling with a flat 6 ft!
@Judd and ZTL, Donald Sutherland had 2 inches on Sean Connery in the train Connery who had worst was 6'1.5 peak. Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Strong 6'2" you say? That would make Sutherland 6'2" flat and Connery struggling with a flat 6 ft!
Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
Oh so we're downgrading Soul now just to fit with the theory Clint was nothing over 6'3" LOL. Both Ulrich and Matherson were lying too and we're both no more than 6'1" too. Downgrade everybody just to fit!!
gian92 says on 1/Mar/15
in old age a person can lose a 1 inch but not 3 o 4 inches !
Try telling that to Michael Douglas whose father looks no more than 5 ft 4 today at 97.
Oh so we're downgrading Soul now just to fit with the theory Clint was nothing over 6'3" LOL. Both Ulrich and Matherson were lying too and we're both no more than 6'1" too. Downgrade everybody just to fit!!
gian92 says on 1/Mar/15
in old age a person can lose a 1 inch but not 3 o 4 inches !
Try telling that to Michael Douglas whose father looks no more than 5 ft 4 today at 97.
ZTL said on 2/Mar/15
Soul was only 6ft tall Arch. And that's on a good day. Eastwood definitely did not look 4 inches taller than Soul in Magnum Force. Clint was 6'3" tops. No way was he 6'4". He always struck me as a strong 6'2" guy anyway, but I'll give him 6'3"
Soul was only 6ft tall Arch. And that's on a good day. Eastwood definitely did not look 4 inches taller than Soul in Magnum Force. Clint was 6'3" tops. No way was he 6'4". He always struck me as a strong 6'2" guy anyway, but I'll give him 6'3"
Judd said on 2/Mar/15
yeah, i agree with jervis and i want to underline that Soul has been listed 5'11" today at 65-70 years old, and i think there's a chance that 6'0.5" is a bit an optimistic result...he might have been just 6'0"...
However IMO Eastwood had never been taller than 6'3"...that's his fairest listing as "peak height".
yeah, i agree with jervis and i want to underline that Soul has been listed 5'11" today at 65-70 years old, and i think there's a chance that 6'0.5" is a bit an optimistic result...he might have been just 6'0"...
However IMO Eastwood had never been taller than 6'3"...that's his fairest listing as "peak height".
gian92 said on 1/Mar/15
in old age a person can lose a 1 inch but not 3 o 4 inches !
in old age a person can lose a 1 inch but not 3 o 4 inches !
Steve said on 1/Mar/15
obviously, Clint Eastwood has shrunk due to age-related deterioration of his spinal column. It happens to everybody by the time they're in their eighties. He was definitely 6-4 in the Dirty Harry days, but he's been shrinking ever since. But I'd say he'd still be 6 feet or more if he stood up straight.
obviously, Clint Eastwood has shrunk due to age-related deterioration of his spinal column. It happens to everybody by the time they're in their eighties. He was definitely 6-4 in the Dirty Harry days, but he's been shrinking ever since. But I'd say he'd still be 6 feet or more if he stood up straight.
Arch Stanton said on 1/Mar/15
LOL Jervis, Clint looked a more clear cut 6'4" in magnum Force next to David Soul, Hal Holbrook and Tim Matheson
than he did in most of his films! In that airport scene he had between 3 and 4 inches on Soul.
LOL Jervis, Clint looked a more clear cut 6'4" in magnum Force next to David Soul, Hal Holbrook and Tim Matheson
than he did in most of his films! In that airport scene he had between 3 and 4 inches on Soul.
jervis said on 28/Feb/15
In the airport scean from magnum force next to 6ft.05 listed David Saul,if you change Saul for Bradley Cooper who is also listed at 6ft.05,you can see how Clint would have looked beside someone of coopers size at peak.To me Clint looks more 6ft3 next to someone of 6ft.05.He always looked taller than 6ft2 too me but short of 6ft4 so thats why l say his peak height was 6ft3 a strong 6ft3 peak.I also think there was alot of hight inflating going on in the old days when Clint was younger so that would explian the height comparisons in old films between him and costars.Height inflations todays stars would not get away with because people have much mpre persnol contact with stars than in the past and can see their real hight face to face.But in Clints youth 6ft3 was very tall like someone of 6ft5 today.
In the airport scean from magnum force next to 6ft.05 listed David Saul,if you change Saul for Bradley Cooper who is also listed at 6ft.05,you can see how Clint would have looked beside someone of coopers size at peak.To me Clint looks more 6ft3 next to someone of 6ft.05.He always looked taller than 6ft2 too me but short of 6ft4 so thats why l say his peak height was 6ft3 a strong 6ft3 peak.I also think there was alot of hight inflating going on in the old days when Clint was younger so that would explian the height comparisons in old films between him and costars.Height inflations todays stars would not get away with because people have much mpre persnol contact with stars than in the past and can see their real hight face to face.But in Clints youth 6ft3 was very tall like someone of 6ft5 today.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Feb/15
Danimal says on 26/Feb/15
JFM says on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...
It's possible that he was around 6'0.5" in the early 2000's. Today he's closer to 5'11". In his prime, he would have edged you out.
Watch Bloodwork, similar height to Jeff Daniels, if anything looked a bit taller than Daniels in some scenes!
Danimal says on 26/Feb/15
JFM says on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...
It's possible that he was around 6'0.5" in the early 2000's. Today he's closer to 5'11". In his prime, he would have edged you out.
Watch Bloodwork, similar height to Jeff Daniels, if anything looked a bit taller than Daniels in some scenes!
James B said on 27/Feb/15
He was still 6'2 in 1999
He was still 6'2 in 1999
jervis said on 27/Feb/15
There is a clip of the Jonny Carson show from 1992 on youtube.Clint is a guest,David Letterman is also on it,when Clint shakes Lettermans hand you can see that Clint is clearly taller than him.Letterman is listed at 6ft1.5 and claims 6ft2,he also mentions Clints hight and what an intimadating guy Clint was because of his size.Clint was 62 at the time and Letterman 45.
There is a clip of the Jonny Carson show from 1992 on youtube.Clint is a guest,David Letterman is also on it,when Clint shakes Lettermans hand you can see that Clint is clearly taller than him.Letterman is listed at 6ft1.5 and claims 6ft2,he also mentions Clints hight and what an intimadating guy Clint was because of his size.Clint was 62 at the time and Letterman 45.
jervis said on 27/Feb/15
There is no way he was as low as 6ft0 in 2003 he had a good 2inchs on larry fishbourne at the time and 3 on Kevin Bacon,and only 2 years befor that was about 4 shorter than 6ft6 James Cromwell in space cowboys and the same hight as 6ft2 or 3 Jeff Daniles in bloodwork.
There is no way he was as low as 6ft0 in 2003 he had a good 2inchs on larry fishbourne at the time and 3 on Kevin Bacon,and only 2 years befor that was about 4 shorter than 6ft6 James Cromwell in space cowboys and the same hight as 6ft2 or 3 Jeff Daniles in bloodwork.
Danimal said on 26/Feb/15
JFM says on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...
It's possible that he was around 6'0.5" in the early 2000's. Today he's closer to 5'11". In his prime, he would have edged you out.
JFM says on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...
It's possible that he was around 6'0.5" in the early 2000's. Today he's closer to 5'11". In his prime, he would have edged you out.
Danimal said on 26/Feb/15
Ken says on 23/Feb/15
There's a photo of Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper standing next to each other at the Oscars. Cooper is an inch taller, and is listed as 6'1". Can a person shrink 5 inches when they are 84 years old?
First of all, your math is off. If Cooper is 6'1" and had 1" on Eastwood, that would put Eastwood at 6'0", so how did he lose 5" if he was never over 6'4". Secondly, Cooper is max 6'0", putting Eastwood in the 5'11" range today, so yes, he has lost around 5", but not based on your math.
Ken says on 23/Feb/15
There's a photo of Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper standing next to each other at the Oscars. Cooper is an inch taller, and is listed as 6'1". Can a person shrink 5 inches when they are 84 years old?
First of all, your math is off. If Cooper is 6'1" and had 1" on Eastwood, that would put Eastwood at 6'0", so how did he lose 5" if he was never over 6'4". Secondly, Cooper is max 6'0", putting Eastwood in the 5'11" range today, so yes, he has lost around 5", but not based on your math.
ZTL said on 26/Feb/15
Nah..6-3" peak height. No taller.
Nah..6-3" peak height. No taller.
Rory said on 25/Feb/15
No there's no chance his height was dramatically inflated, looking at his limbs and proportions back in the 60s and 70s there was no way he was below a strong 6'3. I think 6'3.75 would be bang on for peak Eastwood, to me hes not the type to lie about his height and if hes 6'3.75 its normal hed say 6'4.
No there's no chance his height was dramatically inflated, looking at his limbs and proportions back in the 60s and 70s there was no way he was below a strong 6'3. I think 6'3.75 would be bang on for peak Eastwood, to me hes not the type to lie about his height and if hes 6'3.75 its normal hed say 6'4.
jervis said on 24/Feb/15
For peak I would say strong 6ft3 no lower than that.
For peak I would say strong 6ft3 no lower than that.
Anonymous1 said on 24/Feb/15
In an earlier post (23/Feb), I stated, "From a potential 6'5.5...". That was supposed to be 6'3.5.
In an earlier post (23/Feb), I stated, "From a potential 6'5.5...". That was supposed to be 6'3.5.
Ken said on 23/Feb/15
There's a photo of Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper standing next to each other at the Oscars. Cooper is an inch taller, and is listed as 6'1". Can a person shrink 5 inches when they are 84 years old?
There's a photo of Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper standing next to each other at the Oscars. Cooper is an inch taller, and is listed as 6'1". Can a person shrink 5 inches when they are 84 years old?
Anonymous1 said on 23/Feb/15
I don't want to overdose on Eastwood height postings, but if Bradley Cooper is 6'2, as he says, or 6.05, as this site says, then..barring lifts or heel variations, Eastwood is definitely no more than 6'0 max, or 5'10.5, minimum. From a potential 6'5.5 or 6'4, down to 6'0 or less...wow. My uncle is or was 6'2. At 80, if he stands straight, he still is. Either Eastwood's got spinal issues, or his height was inflated..."in my opinion".
I don't want to overdose on Eastwood height postings, but if Bradley Cooper is 6'2, as he says, or 6.05, as this site says, then..barring lifts or heel variations, Eastwood is definitely no more than 6'0 max, or 5'10.5, minimum. From a potential 6'5.5 or 6'4, down to 6'0 or less...wow. My uncle is or was 6'2. At 80, if he stands straight, he still is. Either Eastwood's got spinal issues, or his height was inflated..."in my opinion".
JFM said on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I think that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I think that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...
JFM said on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...
Arch Stanton said on 21/Feb/15
Rock Hudson said he was 6'5" but shrunk to 6'4" by 1967. As I said 6'4.5-6'5" for Hudson and 6'3.5-6'4" for Eastwood is arguable.
Rock Hudson said he was 6'5" but shrunk to 6'4" by 1967. As I said 6'4.5-6'5" for Hudson and 6'3.5-6'4" for Eastwood is arguable.
James B said on 20/Feb/15
Yeah I agree rock looked 6'4.5
Yeah I agree rock looked 6'4.5
James said on 19/Feb/15
Frank 2 said that clint eastwood was huge when he met him
Frank 2 said that clint eastwood was huge when he met him
Ron B. said on 18/Feb/15
Arch, A 6'5" peak for Rock Hudson is debatable. Rock always claimed he was 6'4" when asked about his height. I personally think he was 6'4.5" barefoot.
Arch, A 6'5" peak for Rock Hudson is debatable. Rock always claimed he was 6'4" when asked about his height. I personally think he was 6'4.5" barefoot.
cole said on 18/Feb/15
@Editor Rob: Looks like he's standing quite tall in the second shot, but the angle might be a little low?
Click Here
Click Here
@Editor Rob: Looks like he's standing quite tall in the second shot, but the angle might be a little low?
Click Here
Click Here
Anonymous1 said on 17/Feb/15
Arch; I know it sounds absurd to you, but I'm in just as much of a position to judge his height, as you. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't met Eastwood or any of his many co-stars. So, you are basing all of your opinions on listed heights and visual comparisons...which are based on listed heights or what people claim their heights to be. I am amazed at how many people who post here are absolutely certain of the height of people they compare Eastwood to, and somehow think they are in a better position to judge heights than others. Over the past 32 years, I have met maybe 20 or 25 celebrities. Some were in their prime, others just slightly passed it (50's). With the exception of Kevin Nash, a admittedly recent meeting, not one actor was nearly as big or tall as generally listed. I'm sure George Kennedy, Geoffrey Wolcott, William Smith and many others were over 6 feet in their prime. But not one of us will ever know, exactly, by how much, which other actors and Eastwood co-stars were not really over 6 feet as self-described, or how tall Eastwood really was in his prime. For celebrities well past their prime, juding heights will forever be enirely opinion. People, including a nearly lifelong friend, have misjudged my height (6'), calling me 6'2 or 6'3. Friends who describe themselves as 6 footers, going as far back as college, were shorter than me by an inch, or even two. Another friend's dad met eastwood, decades ago. My friend's dad decribed himself as 6'4 when telling me this 25 years ago, and said Eastwood was much taller. So, even if someone "met" Eastwood in his prime, I would only take their comment on his height as just opinion. Unless we all go back in time, barefoot with Eastwood, and gather a small team of scientists to accurately measure Eastwood, and the rest of us for comparison's sake...all at the same time of day, we will never know his exact height, or anyone else's. I think I just got bored.
Arch; I know it sounds absurd to you, but I'm in just as much of a position to judge his height, as you. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't met Eastwood or any of his many co-stars. So, you are basing all of your opinions on listed heights and visual comparisons...which are based on listed heights or what people claim their heights to be. I am amazed at how many people who post here are absolutely certain of the height of people they compare Eastwood to, and somehow think they are in a better position to judge heights than others. Over the past 32 years, I have met maybe 20 or 25 celebrities. Some were in their prime, others just slightly passed it (50's). With the exception of Kevin Nash, a admittedly recent meeting, not one actor was nearly as big or tall as generally listed. I'm sure George Kennedy, Geoffrey Wolcott, William Smith and many others were over 6 feet in their prime. But not one of us will ever know, exactly, by how much, which other actors and Eastwood co-stars were not really over 6 feet as self-described, or how tall Eastwood really was in his prime. For celebrities well past their prime, juding heights will forever be enirely opinion. People, including a nearly lifelong friend, have misjudged my height (6'), calling me 6'2 or 6'3. Friends who describe themselves as 6 footers, going as far back as college, were shorter than me by an inch, or even two. Another friend's dad met eastwood, decades ago. My friend's dad decribed himself as 6'4 when telling me this 25 years ago, and said Eastwood was much taller. So, even if someone "met" Eastwood in his prime, I would only take their comment on his height as just opinion. Unless we all go back in time, barefoot with Eastwood, and gather a small team of scientists to accurately measure Eastwood, and the rest of us for comparison's sake...all at the same time of day, we will never know his exact height, or anyone else's. I think I just got bored.
CDS said on 16/Feb/15
Almost everyone I know is surprised to see the 6'4" claim (myself included). I'll give him 6'3" max in his prime. I know there were a lot of cowboy boots being worn back then, plus generally people state their height in inch-thick soled shoes. His height now?- dunno I'd go as low as 6', however, maybe in the 6'0 1/2"- 6'1" range. I noticed his ID in the movie "Gran Torino" had 6'1" listed.
Almost everyone I know is surprised to see the 6'4" claim (myself included). I'll give him 6'3" max in his prime. I know there were a lot of cowboy boots being worn back then, plus generally people state their height in inch-thick soled shoes. His height now?- dunno I'd go as low as 6', however, maybe in the 6'0 1/2"- 6'1" range. I noticed his ID in the movie "Gran Torino" had 6'1" listed.
Arch Stanton said on 16/Feb/15
Each case can be argued individually, of course, but were many of the main actors in several of Eastwood's films actually over 6 feet? Maybe, but I'm no more certain of that than I am of Eastwood's actual height in his prime.
If you're not aware of how many guys over 6 ft were in his films then you're probably not in a place to really judge his height. Virtually every film of his , particularly in the 1960s-1980s period had multiple guys over 6ft and often had a fair few co stars of similar height.
Each case can be argued individually, of course, but were many of the main actors in several of Eastwood's films actually over 6 feet? Maybe, but I'm no more certain of that than I am of Eastwood's actual height in his prime.
If you're not aware of how many guys over 6 ft were in his films then you're probably not in a place to really judge his height. Virtually every film of his , particularly in the 1960s-1980s period had multiple guys over 6ft and often had a fair few co stars of similar height.
Anonymous1 said on 14/Feb/15
...though I stand by my consistant comments that Eastwood was generally 6'3-ish in his prime, I don't claim to know, for certain. But, the other independant variables often cited, here, are other actors' heights. Having met several in my lifetime, what I do know is that many of them were hardly what their official heights stated. And, even if I didn't know their officially listed height, I immediately knew that some of their co-stars who's height "was" listed couldn't possibly be as tall as "their official heights, based on what I was seeing as the height of the guy I met. Each case can be argued individually, of course, but were many of the main actors in several of Eastwood's films actually over 6 feet? Maybe, but I'm no more certain of that than I am of Eastwood's actual height in his prime.
...though I stand by my consistant comments that Eastwood was generally 6'3-ish in his prime, I don't claim to know, for certain. But, the other independant variables often cited, here, are other actors' heights. Having met several in my lifetime, what I do know is that many of them were hardly what their official heights stated. And, even if I didn't know their officially listed height, I immediately knew that some of their co-stars who's height "was" listed couldn't possibly be as tall as "their official heights, based on what I was seeing as the height of the guy I met. Each case can be argued individually, of course, but were many of the main actors in several of Eastwood's films actually over 6 feet? Maybe, but I'm no more certain of that than I am of Eastwood's actual height in his prime.
Arch Stanton said on 13/Feb/15
Also if you look through Rock Hudson's filmography, particularly 50s, a lot of his roles were around women, not many of Eastwood's films involved him being in romantic roles around women.
Also if you look through Rock Hudson's filmography, particularly 50s, a lot of his roles were around women, not many of Eastwood's films involved him being in romantic roles around women.
Arch Stanton said on 13/Feb/15
That's because in most of his films anon a lot of his co stars were six footers themselves. Look at Magnum Force, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, The Eiger Sanction and Escape from Alcatraz for instance.
These were films where most of the main actors were over 6 ft. If you look through his back log of films you'll find most of them in fact have multiple guys over 6 ft in them.
That's because in most of his films anon a lot of his co stars were six footers themselves. Look at Magnum Force, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, The Eiger Sanction and Escape from Alcatraz for instance.
These were films where most of the main actors were over 6 ft. If you look through his back log of films you'll find most of them in fact have multiple guys over 6 ft in them.
Arch Stanton said on 13/Feb/15
Great find Parker!! Rock Hudson was pretty much 6'5" peak, Eastwood pretty much 6'4, Hudson certainly looks no more than 4 cm taller in the comparison, and Eastwood's posture is poorer. You could argue half an inch shorter for both, but all the "Eastwood was 6'2-6'3" max is nonsense.
Great find Parker!! Rock Hudson was pretty much 6'5" peak, Eastwood pretty much 6'4, Hudson certainly looks no more than 4 cm taller in the comparison, and Eastwood's posture is poorer. You could argue half an inch shorter for both, but all the "Eastwood was 6'2-6'3" max is nonsense.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Feb/15
6ft1-2 peak is ridiculous for Eastwood.
6ft1-2 peak is ridiculous for Eastwood.
Ron B. said on 12/Feb/15
I agree Arch, Clint's not the BS type. In the military ones height is usually rounded up to the nearest whole inch. Nothing wrong with a person saying he is 6'4" if he is 6'3.5". Clint may have even been 6' 3.75".
Yes James, A strong 6'3" guy would tower over most actors who are generally short or average height.
I agree Arch, Clint's not the BS type. In the military ones height is usually rounded up to the nearest whole inch. Nothing wrong with a person saying he is 6'4" if he is 6'3.5". Clint may have even been 6' 3.75".
Yes James, A strong 6'3" guy would tower over most actors who are generally short or average height.
Judd said on 12/Feb/15
it's hard to belive that he can have lost 1/19 of his body lenght...also if with those injuries...
there's always the chance that he will measure more than 6' standing perfectly straight with his back, but if with the best pose today he is no more than 6' then i think he was 6'4" for sure, but at most 6'3"...
it's hard to belive that he can have lost 1/19 of his body lenght...also if with those injuries...
there's always the chance that he will measure more than 6' standing perfectly straight with his back, but if with the best pose today he is no more than 6' then i think he was 6'4" for sure, but at most 6'3"...
Anonymous1 said on 11/Feb/15
...2 opposite statements, here. 1) I still think, based on everything from still pictures, to scenes with other actors, to appearances with other actors...that he was 6'4 out of bed or at his absolute peak, but more 6'3.5-ish in general. BUT....I have never seen that footage of him with Rock Hudson. I'm assuming the Youtube clip is actually Eastwood and Hudson. If that's the case, I don't think there's any doubt Hudson was a big man. And Eastwood looks about even with him. I was quite shocked, actually, to see this. All I know is, 6'4 guys tower over people. I never see Eastwood as doing that in most of his films. I'm not saying this Youtube footage completely changes my mind, but it sure shakes things up. Hudson was easily at least a couple inches taller than Peter Breck in a McMillan and Wife, and Breck was 6'2.
...2 opposite statements, here. 1) I still think, based on everything from still pictures, to scenes with other actors, to appearances with other actors...that he was 6'4 out of bed or at his absolute peak, but more 6'3.5-ish in general. BUT....I have never seen that footage of him with Rock Hudson. I'm assuming the Youtube clip is actually Eastwood and Hudson. If that's the case, I don't think there's any doubt Hudson was a big man. And Eastwood looks about even with him. I was quite shocked, actually, to see this. All I know is, 6'4 guys tower over people. I never see Eastwood as doing that in most of his films. I'm not saying this Youtube footage completely changes my mind, but it sure shakes things up. Hudson was easily at least a couple inches taller than Peter Breck in a McMillan and Wife, and Breck was 6'2.
James said on 11/Feb/15
While Eastwood isn't the BS type, the publicists paid by the studios to capture the attention of the audience certainly are. One could argue, BS is all they do. Given that, was Eastwood ever six foot four? Doubtful. But given how short many actors are, he could pass for it by comparison.
While Eastwood isn't the BS type, the publicists paid by the studios to capture the attention of the audience certainly are. One could argue, BS is all they do. Given that, was Eastwood ever six foot four? Doubtful. But given how short many actors are, he could pass for it by comparison.
jervis said on 11/Feb/15
Even if he was 6ft3 and not 6ft4 he s still lost at least 3inches.lf you can belive he lost 3 why not 4?lf he was lying about his height and had normal aging shrinkage,that would have made him between 6ft1 and 6ft2 peak.If he was that height then there will have to be a lot of down grades.Mybe Rock Hudson was only 6ft3.5.
Even if he was 6ft3 and not 6ft4 he s still lost at least 3inches.lf you can belive he lost 3 why not 4?lf he was lying about his height and had normal aging shrinkage,that would have made him between 6ft1 and 6ft2 peak.If he was that height then there will have to be a lot of down grades.Mybe Rock Hudson was only 6ft3.5.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Feb/15
Eastwood isn't the BS type Ron. Obviously he got measured at around 6'4", whether it was in gym daps or whatever though is questionable.
Eastwood isn't the BS type Ron. Obviously he got measured at around 6'4", whether it was in gym daps or whatever though is questionable.
Ron B. said on 10/Feb/15
Hey Parker,
A little testy are we? Of course someone 6'3" or 6' 3.5" could exaggerate their height to 6'4". I have known people who have done it. Its very common for someone to round their heights a half inch or so. Wow age 15, lol.
Hey Parker,
A little testy are we? Of course someone 6'3" or 6' 3.5" could exaggerate their height to 6'4". I have known people who have done it. Its very common for someone to round their heights a half inch or so. Wow age 15, lol.
jtm said on 10/Feb/15
Considering Bradley appears to have footwear advantage, Clint still looks close to 6' at 85 years of age.
more like the other way around and i think cooper's listing is generous but eastwood's posture looks terrible.
Considering Bradley appears to have footwear advantage, Clint still looks close to 6' at 85 years of age.
more like the other way around and i think cooper's listing is generous but eastwood's posture looks terrible.
jervis said on 9/Feb/15
Even if he was say 6ft3 peak that would mean a loss of 3inches that is still more than the average height loss,so there is some sort of health problem there,unless his height at peak was only 6ft2 or 6ft1.5 and all his costars in his films also lied about there hights too.
Even if he was say 6ft3 peak that would mean a loss of 3inches that is still more than the average height loss,so there is some sort of health problem there,unless his height at peak was only 6ft2 or 6ft1.5 and all his costars in his films also lied about there hights too.
Parker said on 9/Feb/15
Ron B. says on 8/Feb/15
Hey Parker, lots of people exaggerate their own heights a bit
Lots of short people yes, not one of 6'4. Why would he give a rats a*** whether he was 6'3 or 6'4. He said there was one guy taller in his year at 6'5 age 15.
Ron B. says on 8/Feb/15
Hey Parker, lots of people exaggerate their own heights a bit
Lots of short people yes, not one of 6'4. Why would he give a rats a*** whether he was 6'3 or 6'4. He said there was one guy taller in his year at 6'5 age 15.
jervis said on 9/Feb/15
What hight do you think he was Matt?
What hight do you think he was Matt?
Matt said on 8/Feb/15
Losing 4 inches just because of age seems unlikely. I'm pretty sure he never had any extensive back surgeries. I think on average people tend to lose 1-2" max. He just exaggerated his height back in the day.
Losing 4 inches just because of age seems unlikely. I'm pretty sure he never had any extensive back surgeries. I think on average people tend to lose 1-2" max. He just exaggerated his height back in the day.
Ron B. said on 8/Feb/15
Hey Parker, lots of people exaggerate their own heights a bit. Just because Clint Eastwood said he was 6'4" does not make it so.
Why on earth would he lie??? Lots of people exaggerate their heights
Hey Parker, lots of people exaggerate their own heights a bit. Just because Clint Eastwood said he was 6'4" does not make it so.
Why on earth would he lie??? Lots of people exaggerate their heights
Danimal said on 7/Feb/15
Bradley Cooper looks a good 1.5" taller than Clint today based on that pic. He's certainly not 6'0.5" (which would put him at taller than Cooper) as Rob has him listed. I'm sort of surprised you're ignoring very good evidence Rob.
Bradley Cooper looks a good 1.5" taller than Clint today based on that pic. He's certainly not 6'0.5" (which would put him at taller than Cooper) as Rob has him listed. I'm sort of surprised you're ignoring very good evidence Rob.
Danimal said on 7/Feb/15
Clint was between 6'3" and 6'4" peak. Today he's between 5'11" and 6'0".
Clint was between 6'3" and 6'4" peak. Today he's between 5'11" and 6'0".
Arch Stanton said on 7/Feb/15
Rob maybe the 6 ft flat might be spot on now? He looks to have a lost a bit more of late.
Rob maybe the 6 ft flat might be spot on now? He looks to have a lost a bit more of late.
Parker said on 7/Feb/15
Ron B. says on 6/Feb/15
Quartt, I am not debating with anyone. I do not believe that Eastwood was 6'4" peak. That's my opinion and alot of people agree with it.
Yes, but a lot of people don't, and thankfully one is the editor of this site. 6'4 for Eastwood at peak. He said himself he was 6'4 at age 15. Why on earth would he lie? He had 2 inches over 6'2 Robert Urich in Magnum Force, same height as 6'4 George Kennedy in the Eiger Sanction.
Considering Bradley appears to have footwear advantage, Clint still looks close to 6' at 85 years of age.
Click Here
Ron B. says on 6/Feb/15
Quartt, I am not debating with anyone. I do not believe that Eastwood was 6'4" peak. That's my opinion and alot of people agree with it.
Yes, but a lot of people don't, and thankfully one is the editor of this site. 6'4 for Eastwood at peak. He said himself he was 6'4 at age 15. Why on earth would he lie? He had 2 inches over 6'2 Robert Urich in Magnum Force, same height as 6'4 George Kennedy in the Eiger Sanction.
Considering Bradley appears to have footwear advantage, Clint still looks close to 6' at 85 years of age.
Click Here
Ron B. said on 6/Feb/15
Quartt, I am not debating with anyone. I do not believe that Eastwood was 6'4" peak. That's my opinion and alot of people agree with it.
Quartt, I am not debating with anyone. I do not believe that Eastwood was 6'4" peak. That's my opinion and alot of people agree with it.
James Edward Crowley Maximus Meridius said on 5/Feb/15
Rob is it possible Clint Eastwood could be 5ft 11.5in now will you downgrade his current height at some point he will be 85 this year he could be 5ft 10in when he is 90 and 5ft 9in when he is 95 there is a chance he could lose even more height in a span between 5 years and 10 years.
Editor Rob
Rob is it possible Clint Eastwood could be 5ft 11.5in now will you downgrade his current height at some point he will be 85 this year he could be 5ft 10in when he is 90 and 5ft 9in when he is 95 there is a chance he could lose even more height in a span between 5 years and 10 years.
Editor Rob Looking 5ft 11.5 but measuring taller - I believe Clint can look smaller than he might actually measure.
jervis said on 5/Feb/15
If Clint was not 6ft4 peak that means George Kennedy was not 6ft4 because both men wete the same hight in iger sanction and tunderbolt.As for Arnold he is a well knowen lift wearer and always stands with perfect posture.If you had a young Clint and a young Arnold standing beside each other bear foot both in perfect posture i think Clint would have about3inches on him,but we dont.If Clint was not6ft4 peak and only 6ft2.5 you will have to down grade lots of actors like Lee Marvin ,Rock Hudson ,George Kennedy ,Graeg Wallcot etc.
If Clint was not 6ft4 peak that means George Kennedy was not 6ft4 because both men wete the same hight in iger sanction and tunderbolt.As for Arnold he is a well knowen lift wearer and always stands with perfect posture.If you had a young Clint and a young Arnold standing beside each other bear foot both in perfect posture i think Clint would have about3inches on him,but we dont.If Clint was not6ft4 peak and only 6ft2.5 you will have to down grade lots of actors like Lee Marvin ,Rock Hudson ,George Kennedy ,Graeg Wallcot etc.
Pierre said on 4/Feb/15
Look at pictures of Clint Eastwood with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Look at pictures of Clint Eastwood with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
James Edward Crowley Maximus Meridius said on 4/Feb/15
Rob Clint Eastwood could be 5ft 11.5in will downgrade he is current height at some point he will be 85 this year he could be 5ft 10in when he is 90 and 5ft 9in when he is 95 there is a chance he could lose even more height in a span between 5 years and 10 years.
Rob Clint Eastwood could be 5ft 11.5in will downgrade he is current height at some point he will be 85 this year he could be 5ft 10in when he is 90 and 5ft 9in when he is 95 there is a chance he could lose even more height in a span between 5 years and 10 years.
qartt said on 4/Feb/15
Ron B. saying 'I am right does not win a debate', providing evidence and explaining does. Produce full length pictures of clint looking 6'2 in the 70s. You so far have just produced a list of people who you think lie about their height. The problem I have is when I look at photos of those people with other celebrities I end up having to downgrade everybody including people with photos with rob. Do we downgrade Rob to 5'6 1/2 ouch e.g. Rob with larry holmes, larry holmes with ali and ali with clint
Ron B. saying 'I am right does not win a debate', providing evidence and explaining does. Produce full length pictures of clint looking 6'2 in the 70s. You so far have just produced a list of people who you think lie about their height. The problem I have is when I look at photos of those people with other celebrities I end up having to downgrade everybody including people with photos with rob. Do we downgrade Rob to 5'6 1/2 ouch e.g. Rob with larry holmes, larry holmes with ali and ali with clint
Ron B. said on 4/Feb/15
M. Ali was never 6'3". He was 6'2". George Foreman was 6'2.5" to 6'3" and looked noticeably taller than Ali in their "rumble in the jungle".
M. Ali was never 6'3". He was 6'2". George Foreman was 6'2.5" to 6'3" and looked noticeably taller than Ali in their "rumble in the jungle".
jervis said on 3/Feb/15
I checked out that episode and yeah he looks the same height as Woody Strode. This indicates 6'4'' as you say but then as always unless you have seen someone in person it's hard to be certain about someone's height and even then how do you tell 6'4'' from 6'3'' or 6'5''.
I checked out that episode and yeah he looks the same height as Woody Strode. This indicates 6'4'' as you say but then as always unless you have seen someone in person it's hard to be certain about someone's height and even then how do you tell 6'4'' from 6'3'' or 6'5''.
Judd said on 3/Feb/15
Sincerly rob i have always been skeptical about his 6'4"...i think that he was a strong 6'3" is likelier!
For example, in 1973 (Eastwood was 43) had a role in a movie with David Soul, who you met and you listed him at 5'11" and 6'0.5" peak. Personally I think he was a flat 6'0" is S&H, but maybe he actually was 6'0.5".
However, the topic of the comment is that in 1973 between Soul and Eastwood there weren't 3.5" for sure! Eastwood had max 2-2,5" on him (being very generous 3") and I don't think Soul wore lifts there.
IMO Eastwood was a strong 6'3" at peak and today is in the 6' zone, but with bad posture make him appear shorter!
Sincerly rob i have always been skeptical about his 6'4"...i think that he was a strong 6'3" is likelier!
For example, in 1973 (Eastwood was 43) had a role in a movie with David Soul, who you met and you listed him at 5'11" and 6'0.5" peak. Personally I think he was a flat 6'0" is S&H, but maybe he actually was 6'0.5".
However, the topic of the comment is that in 1973 between Soul and Eastwood there weren't 3.5" for sure! Eastwood had max 2-2,5" on him (being very generous 3") and I don't think Soul wore lifts there.
IMO Eastwood was a strong 6'3" at peak and today is in the 6' zone, but with bad posture make him appear shorter!
jervis said on 31/Jan/15
In an episode of rawhide he is the same hight as 6ft4 Woody Strode.I think in his youth if he was not 6ft4 he was very near to it.People just have to belive that like Heston he has lost a lot of hight as he aged,also Garner and ive noticed Donald Sutherland has droped a few inches too.
In an episode of rawhide he is the same hight as 6ft4 Woody Strode.I think in his youth if he was not 6ft4 he was very near to it.People just have to belive that like Heston he has lost a lot of hight as he aged,also Garner and ive noticed Donald Sutherland has droped a few inches too.
Arch Stanton said on 31/Jan/15
He's not standing straight Thomas. Later in the video they're at a punch back and Clint briefly looks 1-1.5 inches taller and again not standing great.
He's not standing straight Thomas. Later in the video they're at a punch back and Clint briefly looks 1-1.5 inches taller and again not standing great.
Thomas said on 31/Jan/15
quart at the 14 and 15 second mark of the youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO63MjUkeH4 clint eastwood is standing up directly behind Ali. They look to be the same exact height.
quart at the 14 and 15 second mark of the youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO63MjUkeH4 clint eastwood is standing up directly behind Ali. They look to be the same exact height.
frenchythefry said on 29/Jan/15
I saw Ali about 15 years ago on a flight to LA. The first thing I said to myself, after 'Wow,' that's Muhhmad Ali' was Jesus, I never thought he was so tall. I grew up in the 80's and he was still a big star, but whenever I saw him on TV I figured he was just an average guy 5 11 or 6 foot, but I would say even when I saw him in c. 2000 he could have been 6' 3 easy, and this was old and bent with Parkinson's, so I have no trouble believing the 6'3 during his fighting days.
Foreman always looked bigger to me, but they were listed at the same height. The eye plays tricks. I also give Clint 6'4 without much disbelief. It's guys like Shwarznegger and Stalone who are always borrowing inches.
By the way height should not be mistaken for presence. At his full height my Dad was just under 6feet, but people always remember him to me as much taller. They also always credit him with a full head of hair when he was actually receeding like Jack Nicholson, so glamour however understood can deceive.
Ali 6'3
Clint 6'4
I saw Ali about 15 years ago on a flight to LA. The first thing I said to myself, after 'Wow,' that's Muhhmad Ali' was Jesus, I never thought he was so tall. I grew up in the 80's and he was still a big star, but whenever I saw him on TV I figured he was just an average guy 5 11 or 6 foot, but I would say even when I saw him in c. 2000 he could have been 6' 3 easy, and this was old and bent with Parkinson's, so I have no trouble believing the 6'3 during his fighting days.
Foreman always looked bigger to me, but they were listed at the same height. The eye plays tricks. I also give Clint 6'4 without much disbelief. It's guys like Shwarznegger and Stalone who are always borrowing inches.
By the way height should not be mistaken for presence. At his full height my Dad was just under 6feet, but people always remember him to me as much taller. They also always credit him with a full head of hair when he was actually receeding like Jack Nicholson, so glamour however understood can deceive.
Ali 6'3
Clint 6'4
Arch Stanton said on 29/Jan/15
That Ali put 6'2.5 on his passport I think is honest, I don't think he's the sort of guy who'd BS about that, and it's not as if you could argue it was a shoe measurement as under 6'2" peak for him is silly. If Clint hadn't have been noticeably taller he's not said anything. And I don't think Clint was really the sort of guy who'd BS about it if he wasn't really near it. He had the legs of am even taller guy of something like 6'5-6'6" guy.
That Ali put 6'2.5 on his passport I think is honest, I don't think he's the sort of guy who'd BS about that, and it's not as if you could argue it was a shoe measurement as under 6'2" peak for him is silly. If Clint hadn't have been noticeably taller he's not said anything. And I don't think Clint was really the sort of guy who'd BS about it if he wasn't really near it. He had the legs of am even taller guy of something like 6'5-6'6" guy.
Arch Stanton said on 29/Jan/15
Yeah there's about 1.5 inches between Ali and Clint.
Yeah there's about 1.5 inches between Ali and Clint.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Jan/15
Difficult to argue under 6'4" with Ali!
Difficult to argue under 6'4" with Ali!
qartt said on 23/Jan/15
thomas, there is a video on youtube of clint eastwood with muhammed ali on the david frost show in 1970. Ali was listed 6'2 1/2 to 6' 3 in his boxing days. Ali states how surprise he is how much taller clint is in comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO63MjUkeH4
You could argue 6' 3 1/2 for clint if you assume ali is 6'2
thomas, there is a video on youtube of clint eastwood with muhammed ali on the david frost show in 1970. Ali was listed 6'2 1/2 to 6' 3 in his boxing days. Ali states how surprise he is how much taller clint is in comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO63MjUkeH4
You could argue 6' 3 1/2 for clint if you assume ali is 6'2
thomas said on 22/Jan/15
I've watched all Clint Eastwoods movies. It is my belief, he was at his peak 6'2.5" and know around 6'tall.
I've watched all Clint Eastwoods movies. It is my belief, he was at his peak 6'2.5" and know around 6'tall.
Ron B. said on 22/Jan/15
6'3" and a bit of change
Never looked a full 76 inches
6'3" and a bit of change
Never looked a full 76 inches
Anon said on 21/Jan/15
@jervis: Bill Travers was indeed listed at 6'6".
@jervis: Bill Travers was indeed listed at 6'6".
184.3cm said on 19/Jan/15
There are photos from the 70's where Arnold towers Stallone in the gym while Sly has footwear advantage. Clint at a flat 6'3 peak is rubbish he was a towering figure in Rawhide during the 50's and in all the Sergio Leone Westerns after that. In Dirty Harry he looked more 6'3.5 So even by the 70's i thought he had maybe lost a fraction. Was for sure close to 6'4.
There are photos from the 70's where Arnold towers Stallone in the gym while Sly has footwear advantage. Clint at a flat 6'3 peak is rubbish he was a towering figure in Rawhide during the 50's and in all the Sergio Leone Westerns after that. In Dirty Harry he looked more 6'3.5 So even by the 70's i thought he had maybe lost a fraction. Was for sure close to 6'4.
jervis said on 19/Jan/15
If Arnold was as low as 5.10,what about all the photos of him with Clint were Clint is not much taller.He would have had to be wearing 4inch lifts to get near Clints hight even if Clint was 6ft3.
If Arnold was as low as 5.10,what about all the photos of him with Clint were Clint is not much taller.He would have had to be wearing 4inch lifts to get near Clints hight even if Clint was 6ft3.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Jan/15
LOL if he wore lifts he'd have looked 6'6". Just look at his legs, that was a guy genuinely near 6'4". Clint would be the last guy I'd have expected to have ever worn lifts!!
LOL if he wore lifts he'd have looked 6'6". Just look at his legs, that was a guy genuinely near 6'4". Clint would be the last guy I'd have expected to have ever worn lifts!!
Sunvalley said on 18/Jan/15
I stood next to Arnold in Sun Valley Idaho at a high end Craft Fair. This was 1996. There is no way he was near 6 foot. I would guess 5'10". He was wide and a broad shouldered man for sure, but his height was no where near his claimed height. My father, who was there as well could not believe how "short" he was as we all have this mental image of Arnold in our minds.
I stood next to Arnold in Sun Valley Idaho at a high end Craft Fair. This was 1996. There is no way he was near 6 foot. I would guess 5'10". He was wide and a broad shouldered man for sure, but his height was no where near his claimed height. My father, who was there as well could not believe how "short" he was as we all have this mental image of Arnold in our minds.
jervis said on 18/Jan/15
Has anybody ever taught that Clint may have worn lifts in his younger years but as he aged he couldnoonger wear them,that could explane his dramatic hight loss.
Has anybody ever taught that Clint may have worn lifts in his younger years but as he aged he couldnoonger wear them,that could explane his dramatic hight loss.
jervis said on 18/Jan/15
Just saw an old rawhide show on youtube with an old british actor named Bill Travers in it.Now if you check his hight it says 1.98m that is 6ft6 inches,Clint is in a fighting scean with him and in more sceans and he looks easly 6ft4 in comparason.But i dont know if 6ft6 is the correct hight listing for Bill Travers.
Just saw an old rawhide show on youtube with an old british actor named Bill Travers in it.Now if you check his hight it says 1.98m that is 6ft6 inches,Clint is in a fighting scean with him and in more sceans and he looks easly 6ft4 in comparason.But i dont know if 6ft6 is the correct hight listing for Bill Travers.
Judd said on 18/Jan/15
In my opinion he has never been 6'4"...he was a strong 6'3", like 6'3.25", while today he does look in the 6' zone...
In my opinion he has never been 6'4"...he was a strong 6'3", like 6'3.25", while today he does look in the 6' zone...
Steve said on 17/Jan/15
Rob, is it possible for someone that tall to lose so much height? Eastwood is in his eighties, but is in remarkably good shape considering.
I wonder how long he'll keep working. At 84 he's made the Guinness Book of World Records for being the oldest film director still on the job. American Sniper is a terrific film.
Editor Rob
Rob, is it possible for someone that tall to lose so much height? Eastwood is in his eighties, but is in remarkably good shape considering.
I wonder how long he'll keep working. At 84 he's made the Guinness Book of World Records for being the oldest film director still on the job. American Sniper is a terrific film.
Editor Rob you can still be in decent shape but suffer more disc degeneration than others.
Danimal said on 17/Jan/15
Judd says on 12/Jan/15
Rob probably he needs a downgrade, today! Look there: Click Here
He does look no more than 5'11.5" next to Bradley Cooper (6'0.5")...
I usually call it right on the money. To my eyes he has looked to be in the 5'11" range for a while now.
Judd says on 12/Jan/15
Rob probably he needs a downgrade, today! Look there: Click Here
He does look no more than 5'11.5" next to Bradley Cooper (6'0.5")...
I usually call it right on the money. To my eyes he has looked to be in the 5'11" range for a while now.
Rory said on 16/Jan/15
I dont think 6'3.5 can be ruled out for Clints peak, I think 6'3.75 would be a fair listing, always looked a weak 6'4 to me.
I dont think 6'3.5 can be ruled out for Clints peak, I think 6'3.75 would be a fair listing, always looked a weak 6'4 to me.
Parker said on 15/Jan/15
Judd says on 12/Jan/15
Rob probably he needs a downgrade, today! Look there: Click Here
He does look no more than 5'11.5" next to Bradley Cooper (6'0.5")...
Agreed = Looks under 6' now next to Bradley
Editor Rob
Judd says on 12/Jan/15
Rob probably he needs a downgrade, today! Look there: Click Here
He does look no more than 5'11.5" next to Bradley Cooper (6'0.5")...
Agreed = Looks under 6' now next to Bradley
Editor Rob the older you get, sometimes the harder it can become to stand close to your measured height.
jervis said on 15/Jan/15
I think posture is very important when judging Clints hight,he can easley drop 2inches with bad posture.If he can look 6ft even at 84 with Cooper,he could be taller if he stood stright for a change.I think he was 6ft4 standing stright with very good posture as a very young man,but he never stands like this in everyday life he is always in bad posture.So its very hard to judge him in his youth and old age.
I think posture is very important when judging Clints hight,he can easley drop 2inches with bad posture.If he can look 6ft even at 84 with Cooper,he could be taller if he stood stright for a change.I think he was 6ft4 standing stright with very good posture as a very young man,but he never stands like this in everyday life he is always in bad posture.So its very hard to judge him in his youth and old age.
jervis said on 15/Jan/15
It could have been Clint Walker you met Adrain.
It could have been Clint Walker you met Adrain.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Jan/15
Actually that photo I posted Clint was higher up on a ramp. The other photo you can see he's shorter than Cooper, although I wouldn't rule out lifts of some kind for Cooper, not that he needs them, but he can often look taller than 6'0.5.
Actually that photo I posted Clint was higher up on a ramp. The other photo you can see he's shorter than Cooper, although I wouldn't rule out lifts of some kind for Cooper, not that he needs them, but he can often look taller than 6'0.5.
Emil 183 cm said on 13/Jan/15
Adrian, you're either 176-177 cm tall or maybe it wasn't Clint Eastwood you met
Adrian, you're either 176-177 cm tall or maybe it wasn't Clint Eastwood you met
Silent_D said on 12/Jan/15
He has lost a lot of height since his 6 foot 4 peak. I think 6 foot now is about right.
He has lost a lot of height since his 6 foot 4 peak. I think 6 foot now is about right.
Judd said on 12/Jan/15
Rob probably he needs a downgrade, today! Look there: Click Here
He does look no more than 5'11.5" next to Bradley Cooper (6'0.5")...
Rob probably he needs a downgrade, today! Look there: Click Here
He does look no more than 5'11.5" next to Bradley Cooper (6'0.5")...
Sam said on 12/Jan/15
No, have too many awards season films to catch up on and it seems that it is not the best effort from the few reviews I've read of it.
No, have too many awards season films to catch up on and it seems that it is not the best effort from the few reviews I've read of it.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Jan/15
Rob, who do you think was taller peak, Eastwood or Wayne?
Editor Rob
Rob, who do you think was taller peak, Eastwood or Wayne?
Editor Rob for both of them there is more potential to have dipped a little under the 6ft 4 mark.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Jan/15
@ Danimal, do you think he only looks 5 ft 11 with Bradley Cooper here?? Click Here
@ Danimal, do you think he only looks 5 ft 11 with Bradley Cooper here?? Click Here
Anonymous1 said on 10/Jan/15
...obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, there seems to be a semi-consensus that Eastwood was losing height, even by the 1980's. Personally, I find that ridiculous, and the only changes I see in him by the 1980's are that his pompadour hair was much flatter due to thinning, and he had gained a good degree of bulk, off and on, for various films. I think he looked about 6'3-plus-ish, in the 1980's, because he was never really over that, unless you count just being out of bed or footwear. Now the mid-1990's, that's when things did begin changing. A little over 6 foot now, from a little over 6'3-ish. The fact is, if you use your thumb and first finger to show the span of 3 inches, it really isn't as much as you think. The man always had kind of a slightly curved spine...and I don't mean the "hump". From front on, it's like his spine was always in the position of a slight question mark.
...obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, there seems to be a semi-consensus that Eastwood was losing height, even by the 1980's. Personally, I find that ridiculous, and the only changes I see in him by the 1980's are that his pompadour hair was much flatter due to thinning, and he had gained a good degree of bulk, off and on, for various films. I think he looked about 6'3-plus-ish, in the 1980's, because he was never really over that, unless you count just being out of bed or footwear. Now the mid-1990's, that's when things did begin changing. A little over 6 foot now, from a little over 6'3-ish. The fact is, if you use your thumb and first finger to show the span of 3 inches, it really isn't as much as you think. The man always had kind of a slightly curved spine...and I don't mean the "hump". From front on, it's like his spine was always in the position of a slight question mark.
Danimal said on 9/Jan/15
Roy says on 9/Jan/15
This listing is very inaccurate.
In the Irish Pub in Pattaya in Thailand there is pic of the pub manager with Clint Eastwood dated 1969.
Clint Eastwood looked a proper 6 feet 4 inches guy.
and no looses 3.5 inches in height
No one loses 3.5"?? Really??? Medicine and science begs to differ with you.
Roy says on 9/Jan/15
This listing is very inaccurate.
In the Irish Pub in Pattaya in Thailand there is pic of the pub manager with Clint Eastwood dated 1969.
Clint Eastwood looked a proper 6 feet 4 inches guy.
and no looses 3.5 inches in height
No one loses 3.5"?? Really??? Medicine and science begs to differ with you.
Roy said on 9/Jan/15
This listing is very inaccurate.
In the Irish Pub in Pattaya in Thailand there is pic of the pub manager with Clint Eastwood dated 1969.
Clint Eastwood looked a proper 6 feet 4 inches guy.
and no looses 3.5 inches in height
This listing is very inaccurate.
In the Irish Pub in Pattaya in Thailand there is pic of the pub manager with Clint Eastwood dated 1969.
Clint Eastwood looked a proper 6 feet 4 inches guy.
and no looses 3.5 inches in height
Ron B. said on 8/Jan/15
I don't believe he a full 6'4" at peak. Close but no cigar.
Btw, I don't believe Dan Stroud is a full 6'2" either.
I don't believe he a full 6'4" at peak. Close but no cigar.
Btw, I don't believe Dan Stroud is a full 6'2" either.
184.3cm said on 7/Jan/15
Is maybe similar to Wayne a guy who was just a quarter inch short of the 6'4 mark. Id bet on that more than him being a 6'4.25 guy at peak. Small fractions though i think his 6'4 claim is fair just like John Wayne's claim.
Is maybe similar to Wayne a guy who was just a quarter inch short of the 6'4 mark. Id bet on that more than him being a 6'4.25 guy at peak. Small fractions though i think his 6'4 claim is fair just like John Wayne's claim.
Danimal said on 6/Jan/15
MrTBlack says on 5/Jan/15
@Adrian
He has dowangers hump. Most men who were his height at his age shrink to 6'2-6'2.5" but that makes you lose much more height than normal.
No, the majority of his height loss comes from scoliosis of the spine. The hump (from Osteoporosis) doesn't help though,
MrTBlack says on 5/Jan/15
@Adrian
He has dowangers hump. Most men who were his height at his age shrink to 6'2-6'2.5" but that makes you lose much more height than normal.
No, the majority of his height loss comes from scoliosis of the spine. The hump (from Osteoporosis) doesn't help though,
Danimal said on 6/Jan/15
By Dead Pool (1986), he had definitely lost some height next to Liam Neeson, where as if he had stood next to him in the 1970's, you probably couldn't separate the 2 heights from each other.
By Dead Pool (1986), he had definitely lost some height next to Liam Neeson, where as if he had stood next to him in the 1970's, you probably couldn't separate the 2 heights from each other.
Danimal said on 6/Jan/15
Arch Stanton says on 5/Jan/15
Yeah you're right Damimal I think, generally I think he started looking 6'3" range by 1982-3, in Firefox and Sudden Impact age seemed to be getting its hold on him, certainly by Pale Rider he was no longer looking a full 6'4".
Yeah, in Escape from Alcatraz (1979), he still looked 6'4", but those 4 years in between that and Sudden Impact (never saw Firefox, so I can't comment on 1982), he did appear to have lost some height. I don't think that it was age as much as his scoliosis started to become noticeable.
Arch Stanton says on 5/Jan/15
Yeah you're right Damimal I think, generally I think he started looking 6'3" range by 1982-3, in Firefox and Sudden Impact age seemed to be getting its hold on him, certainly by Pale Rider he was no longer looking a full 6'4".
Yeah, in Escape from Alcatraz (1979), he still looked 6'4", but those 4 years in between that and Sudden Impact (never saw Firefox, so I can't comment on 1982), he did appear to have lost some height. I don't think that it was age as much as his scoliosis started to become noticeable.
James B said on 6/Jan/15
Arch Stanton says on 5/Jan/15
Watch Coogan's Bluff Joe and him with 6'2" Don Stroud if you can't see 6'4"!
He had on 2 inch cow boy boots in that film..........
Arch Stanton says on 5/Jan/15
Watch Coogan's Bluff Joe and him with 6'2" Don Stroud if you can't see 6'4"!
He had on 2 inch cow boy boots in that film..........
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/15
Joe. Eastwood clearly had more than an inch on Ford even in the 90s with height loss!!
Joe. Eastwood clearly had more than an inch on Ford even in the 90s with height loss!!
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/15
Yeah you're right Damimal I think, generally I think he started looking 6'3" range by 1982-3, in Firefox and Sudden Impact age seemed to be getting its hold on him, certainly by Pale Rider he was no longer looking a full 6'4".
Yeah you're right Damimal I think, generally I think he started looking 6'3" range by 1982-3, in Firefox and Sudden Impact age seemed to be getting its hold on him, certainly by Pale Rider he was no longer looking a full 6'4".
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/15
Watch Coogan's Bluff Joe and him with 6'2" Don Stroud if you can't see 6'4"!
Watch Coogan's Bluff Joe and him with 6'2" Don Stroud if you can't see 6'4"!
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/15
Nah Joe he looked 6'3.5-6'4" range I thought up until early 80s. Firefox (1982) was the first film I thought he looked more 6'3 range than 6'4". There's one scene in which he's stood in the doorway in the cafe in Sudden Impact (1983) in the iconic "Make my day" scene though where he still looked easily 6'4".
Nah Joe he looked 6'3.5-6'4" range I thought up until early 80s. Firefox (1982) was the first film I thought he looked more 6'3 range than 6'4". There's one scene in which he's stood in the doorway in the cafe in Sudden Impact (1983) in the iconic "Make my day" scene though where he still looked easily 6'4".
James B said on 5/Jan/15
Anyone here agree clint did not look 6'4 in Dirty Harry?
Anyone here agree clint did not look 6'4 in Dirty Harry?
James B said on 5/Jan/15
Rob 6'3.75 for clints peak could be bang on.
Rob 6'3.75 for clints peak could be bang on.
Joe said on 5/Jan/15
I think he was close to 6'4" in the 1960s, when he was Dirty Harry in the 1970s he looked 6'3". By the late 80s and 90s he was around 6'2". There were a few photos of Eastwood with Scwharzeneegger in the 1990s, and Eastwood seemed to be an inch taller and Arnie's peak height was 6'1" (although he claimed to be 6'2"), He also had an inch on Harrison Ford in the 1990s as well. He lost a lot of height, he is now nearly 84 years old.
I think he was close to 6'4" in the 1960s, when he was Dirty Harry in the 1970s he looked 6'3". By the late 80s and 90s he was around 6'2". There were a few photos of Eastwood with Scwharzeneegger in the 1990s, and Eastwood seemed to be an inch taller and Arnie's peak height was 6'1" (although he claimed to be 6'2"), He also had an inch on Harrison Ford in the 1990s as well. He lost a lot of height, he is now nearly 84 years old.
didhe said on 5/Jan/15
No human WALKING (try a wheelchair) this earth can lose nearly 4 inches. I think his peak was more likely 6'3... and today 6'1. Thats fair enough, and "only" a 2 inches loss.
Editor Rob
No human WALKING (try a wheelchair) this earth can lose nearly 4 inches. I think his peak was more likely 6'3... and today 6'1. Thats fair enough, and "only" a 2 inches loss.
Editor Rob thoracic kyphosis, ankylosing spondylitis, scoliosis (when an adult), osteoporosis...these can lead to large losses in height.
MrTBlack said on 5/Jan/15
@Adrian
He has dowangers hump. Most men who were his height at his age shrink to 6'2-6'2.5" but that makes you lose much more height than normal.
@Adrian
He has dowangers hump. Most men who were his height at his age shrink to 6'2-6'2.5" but that makes you lose much more height than normal.
Danimal said on 5/Jan/15
Joe says on 30/Dec/14
Eastwood was never a full 6'4". My most educated guess would be 6'2.5" maybe 6'3" in his peak. He lost height even during his peak career acting years. I think he was 6'2" around the time he was portraying Dirty Harry.
Are you kidding me? In Magnum Force (1973) he had 3" on then 6'1" Hal Holbrook, 2" on Tim Matheson, about 3.5" on David Soul, 2" on 6'2" Robert Urich. Just watch the movie for yourself. That said, he DID began to look shorter by Sudden Impact (1983).
Joe says on 30/Dec/14
Eastwood was never a full 6'4". My most educated guess would be 6'2.5" maybe 6'3" in his peak. He lost height even during his peak career acting years. I think he was 6'2" around the time he was portraying Dirty Harry.
Are you kidding me? In Magnum Force (1973) he had 3" on then 6'1" Hal Holbrook, 2" on Tim Matheson, about 3.5" on David Soul, 2" on 6'2" Robert Urich. Just watch the movie for yourself. That said, he DID began to look shorter by Sudden Impact (1983).
Danimal said on 5/Jan/15
To those claiming he's 6'1" today, he's not even close to that. He was struggling with 6'0" flat already for a few years now. Wouldn't be surprised if he's 5'11" today.
To those claiming he's 6'1" today, he's not even close to that. He was struggling with 6'0" flat already for a few years now. Wouldn't be surprised if he's 5'11" today.
jtm said on 4/Jan/15
dicaprio ia not not even 5'11.
dicaprio ia not not even 5'11.
adrian said on 3/Jan/15
There is NO WAY he has schrunk to 184. I stood next to him a few months ago. I am exactly 186, I was wearing 1 inch shoes and he was still towering over me. He is for sure still 6'4, absolutely. 184 is total nonsense, sorry
There is NO WAY he has schrunk to 184. I stood next to him a few months ago. I am exactly 186, I was wearing 1 inch shoes and he was still towering over me. He is for sure still 6'4, absolutely. 184 is total nonsense, sorry
Sam said on 2/Jan/15
I agree with those who claim 6'3.5"-6'4" peak, 6'3" by the early 90s, 6'0"-6'1" today for Clint. I guess there were always be those who think Clint was at peak only about 6'2" but those people are wrong. 90% of Clint's co-stars from the 60s and 70s would need to be shrunk an inch or two from their listings.
I agree with those who claim 6'3.5"-6'4" peak, 6'3" by the early 90s, 6'0"-6'1" today for Clint. I guess there were always be those who think Clint was at peak only about 6'2" but those people are wrong. 90% of Clint's co-stars from the 60s and 70s would need to be shrunk an inch or two from their listings.
Nemo said on 2/Jan/15
Rob, Leonardo DiCaprio height 6 foot. Leo and Clint Click Here
Clint Eastwood peak height was 6ft 4in. Today 6ft 1in
Rob, Leonardo DiCaprio height 6 foot. Leo and Clint Click Here
Clint Eastwood peak height was 6ft 4in. Today 6ft 1in
Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
Click Here Only an inch taller?? Looks like early 90s too there when he'd already lost an inch.
Click Here Only an inch taller?? Looks like early 90s too there when he'd already lost an inch.
Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
If you doubt Charlton Heston was 6'2.5 see Wreck of the Mary Deare and Touch of Evil. Barely shorter than Gary Cooper and could look 2 inches taller than Orson Welles in some scenes.
If you doubt Charlton Heston was 6'2.5 see Wreck of the Mary Deare and Touch of Evil. Barely shorter than Gary Cooper and could look 2 inches taller than Orson Welles in some scenes.
Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
Click Here Not sure when that was taken but compare the chin levels.. 6'3.5" peak is arguable I think like Wayne but neither of them really generally looked under it. By the late 80s and early 90s though I'd agree he was looking 6'3" flat.
Click Here Not sure when that was taken but compare the chin levels.. 6'3.5" peak is arguable I think like Wayne but neither of them really generally looked under it. By the late 80s and early 90s though I'd agree he was looking 6'3" flat.
Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
Joe says on 31/Dec/14
He lost a lot of his height whether he was 6'4" or 6'3", I genuinely believe that his peak height was 6'3". I still do not buy he was full 6'4" in his younger years. In one of the Academy Awards, Eastwood stood with Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg. Ford was allegedly 6'1" in his prime, and Eastwood appeared to be only an inch or two taller than Ford. Regardless he was still a big guy when he was in his prime.
That was the 1990s, he'd already lost height by then. Compare him to Charlton Heston at the 1972 awards I think it was and you'll see he was noticeably taller. Heston wasn't far off 6'3" himself.
Joe says on 31/Dec/14
He lost a lot of his height whether he was 6'4" or 6'3", I genuinely believe that his peak height was 6'3". I still do not buy he was full 6'4" in his younger years. In one of the Academy Awards, Eastwood stood with Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg. Ford was allegedly 6'1" in his prime, and Eastwood appeared to be only an inch or two taller than Ford. Regardless he was still a big guy when he was in his prime.
That was the 1990s, he'd already lost height by then. Compare him to Charlton Heston at the 1972 awards I think it was and you'll see he was noticeably taller. Heston wasn't far off 6'3" himself.
Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
You don't buy it Joe, but your guess is hardly an "educated" one when most of the evidence peak points to a full 6'4" rather than 6'3"...
You don't buy it Joe, but your guess is hardly an "educated" one when most of the evidence peak points to a full 6'4" rather than 6'3"...
Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
Yes by late 80s, early 90s he was looking 6'3" ish generally, looked about that with Neeson too. I think he began losing height in his 50s. He was 60 around that time.
Yes by late 80s, early 90s he was looking 6'3" ish generally, looked about that with Neeson too. I think he began losing height in his 50s. He was 60 around that time.
Joe said on 31/Dec/14
He lost a lot of his height whether he was 6'4" or 6'3", I genuinely believe that his peak height was 6'3". I still do not buy he was full 6'4" in his younger years. In one of the Academy Awards, Eastwood stood with Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg. Ford was allegedly 6'1" in his prime, and Eastwood appeared to be only an inch or two taller than Ford. Regardless he was still a big guy when he was in his prime.
He lost a lot of his height whether he was 6'4" or 6'3", I genuinely believe that his peak height was 6'3". I still do not buy he was full 6'4" in his younger years. In one of the Academy Awards, Eastwood stood with Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg. Ford was allegedly 6'1" in his prime, and Eastwood appeared to be only an inch or two taller than Ford. Regardless he was still a big guy when he was in his prime.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Dec/14
192-193cm could be on the money for his peak. Similar to John Wayne
192-193cm could be on the money for his peak. Similar to John Wayne
Arch Stanton said on 31/Dec/14
If Eastwood was just 6'2", Don Stroud was 5'11" range in Coogan's Bluff and Lee Marvin struggling with 6' in Paint your Wagon !! Seriously, there's a wealth of evidence to indicate 6'4" on the nose peak. 6'3.5-6'4 is arguable but anything under that, especially sub 6'32 is laughable. Yes, with poor posture he could often seem shorter, but I think it's pretty clear he was very close to it.
Editor Rob
If Eastwood was just 6'2", Don Stroud was 5'11" range in Coogan's Bluff and Lee Marvin struggling with 6' in Paint your Wagon !! Seriously, there's a wealth of evidence to indicate 6'4" on the nose peak. 6'3.5-6'4 is arguable but anything under that, especially sub 6'32 is laughable. Yes, with poor posture he could often seem shorter, but I think it's pretty clear he was very close to it.
Editor Rob someone had asked about when he lost height. It is hard to say, but there was a scene in the Rookie I think it was inside a house and he briefly had a conversation with Tom Skerritt and I thought looked about 4 inches taller, so pulling 6ft 3 off in early 90's still possible.
Arch Stanton said on 31/Dec/14
In the Eiger Sanction Eastwood looked very similar to George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott, in fact Eastwood edged out Walcott in that film although it looked the other way around in Joe Kidd. If
you've seen the Naked Gun you'll know that Kennedy was easily 3 than O.J. Simpson who was supposed to have been measured at 6'1 in his football days.
In the Eiger Sanction Eastwood looked very similar to George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott, in fact Eastwood edged out Walcott in that film although it looked the other way around in Joe Kidd. If
you've seen the Naked Gun you'll know that Kennedy was easily 3 than O.J. Simpson who was supposed to have been measured at 6'1 in his football days.
Arch Stanton said on 31/Dec/14
If Eastwood was just 6'2" as Dirty Harry, Hal Holbrook and David Soul were struggling with 5 ft 11, Tim Matheson and Robert Ulrich were 6 ft max, Liam Neeson was never a hair over 6'3" etc. LOL.
If Eastwood was just 6'2" as Dirty Harry, Hal Holbrook and David Soul were struggling with 5 ft 11, Tim Matheson and Robert Ulrich were 6 ft max, Liam Neeson was never a hair over 6'3" etc. LOL.
Sam said on 31/Dec/14
@filmfan, I think it's all just an educated guess, you can see Clint's curved back if you look closely at pictures in the last 15 years or so, it can even appear he has a "dowager's hump" at the top of his back. I always come him to Sidney Poitier has another older guy who had the luck to maintain straight back and seemed to have lost almost nothing with age, at least until the last couple years.
@filmfan, I think it's all just an educated guess, you can see Clint's curved back if you look closely at pictures in the last 15 years or so, it can even appear he has a "dowager's hump" at the top of his back. I always come him to Sidney Poitier has another older guy who had the luck to maintain straight back and seemed to have lost almost nothing with age, at least until the last couple years.
Parker said on 31/Dec/14
Wish I could find the quote, but in an interview from some years ago he did say he was 6'4 at age 15, and there was only one taller guy (6'5) in his year.
Why would he lie? Doesn't really make any difference if your 6'3 or 6'4 does it?
Wish I could find the quote, but in an interview from some years ago he did say he was 6'4 at age 15, and there was only one taller guy (6'5) in his year.
Why would he lie? Doesn't really make any difference if your 6'3 or 6'4 does it?
Arch Stanton said on 31/Dec/14
Joe says on 30/Dec/14
Eastwood was never a full 6'4". My most educated guess would be 6'2.5" maybe 6'3"
LOL, Eastwood edged out Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and Sutherland had two inches on Connery easily in the Great Train Robbery. Are you telling me Connery was max 6 ft? Eastwood had about 2.5 inches on Jeff Bridges are you telling me Bridges was also only 6 ft. The Arnie photos were taken about 1995 when he had already lost 1-1.5 inches and was actually looking about 6'2.5 by then.
Joe says on 30/Dec/14
Eastwood was never a full 6'4". My most educated guess would be 6'2.5" maybe 6'3"
LOL, Eastwood edged out Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and Sutherland had two inches on Connery easily in the Great Train Robbery. Are you telling me Connery was max 6 ft? Eastwood had about 2.5 inches on Jeff Bridges are you telling me Bridges was also only 6 ft. The Arnie photos were taken about 1995 when he had already lost 1-1.5 inches and was actually looking about 6'2.5 by then.
Joe said on 30/Dec/14
Eastwood was never a full 6'4". My most educated guess would be 6'2.5" maybe 6'3" in his peak. He lost height even during his peak career acting years. I think he was 6'2" around the time he was portraying Dirty Harry. In some old photos of him an Arnold Schwarzenegger, who I believe was 6'1" in his prime, Eastwood is an inch or a little taller than Arnie. Seems like today in his old age he is a full 6 feet tall.
Eastwood portrayed Cowboys, and wore boots, my guess is the 6'4" measurement is him with boots on.
Eastwood was never a full 6'4". My most educated guess would be 6'2.5" maybe 6'3" in his peak. He lost height even during his peak career acting years. I think he was 6'2" around the time he was portraying Dirty Harry. In some old photos of him an Arnold Schwarzenegger, who I believe was 6'1" in his prime, Eastwood is an inch or a little taller than Arnie. Seems like today in his old age he is a full 6 feet tall.
Eastwood portrayed Cowboys, and wore boots, my guess is the 6'4" measurement is him with boots on.
James B said on 27/Dec/14
He looked a full 6'4 in play misty for me
He looked a full 6'4 in play misty for me
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Dec/14
Eastwood looks a decent 6ft1 in Gran Torino. The height loss is entirely in his upper body. He still has very long legs
Eastwood looks a decent 6ft1 in Gran Torino. The height loss is entirely in his upper body. He still has very long legs
Marv said on 22/Dec/14
Just seen Gran Torino on TV in the UK today. His posture is pretty bad in that, with humped upper back & really sideways bent lower spine. It's easy to see why he's lost 3 inches in height. I'd buy 6'4" in his younger days
Just seen Gran Torino on TV in the UK today. His posture is pretty bad in that, with humped upper back & really sideways bent lower spine. It's easy to see why he's lost 3 inches in height. I'd buy 6'4" in his younger days
Ron B. said on 22/Dec/14
Never looked a full 6'4" to me.
Never looked a full 6'4" to me.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Dec/14
Only Greg Walcott looked a bit taller in that film Brad.
Only Greg Walcott looked a bit taller in that film Brad.
Brad said on 21/Dec/14
Easy 6-4 in Joe Kidd.
Easy 6-4 in Joe Kidd.
Danimal said on 19/Dec/14
Mr. Kaplan says on 23/Oct/14
Morgan Freeman was never 6'3". He's 6'2". You can tell because he's shorter than 6'3" Sidney Poitier.
Morgan Freeman was over a flat 6'3" imo. He used to claim being close to 6'4" at his peak.
Mr. Kaplan says on 23/Oct/14
Morgan Freeman was never 6'3". He's 6'2". You can tell because he's shorter than 6'3" Sidney Poitier.
Morgan Freeman was over a flat 6'3" imo. He used to claim being close to 6'4" at his peak.
James B said on 18/Dec/14
In reference to his loss remember as well there is just good a chance he was 6'3.5 as the full 6'4.
In reference to his loss remember as well there is just good a chance he was 6'3.5 as the full 6'4.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Dec/14
Difficult to pinpoint exactly where he began losing height Bud but he could give a bit smaller impression even in films like Firefox and Sudden Impact in 1982-3 and barely edged out Moriatry in Pale Rider. I think he looked more a strong 6'3" throughout most of the 80s, but he didn't seem to generally look sub 6'3" really until about 1994 or 1995. Bridges of Madison County was one of the first I think where he really looked 6'2" range.
Difficult to pinpoint exactly where he began losing height Bud but he could give a bit smaller impression even in films like Firefox and Sudden Impact in 1982-3 and barely edged out Moriatry in Pale Rider. I think he looked more a strong 6'3" throughout most of the 80s, but he didn't seem to generally look sub 6'3" really until about 1994 or 1995. Bridges of Madison County was one of the first I think where he really looked 6'2" range.
Bud said on 12/Dec/14
rob when he started to lose height?at what year he was 6'2 and 6'3?
and why he lost so much height?
Editor Rob
rob when he started to lose height?at what year he was 6'2 and 6'3?
and why he lost so much height?
Editor Rob by late 80's I think he had started losing a bit and through the 90's shipped an inch that decade
James B said on 12/Dec/14
Yeah 6'3 flat is too low for his peak but he could have been 192cm
Yeah 6'3 flat is too low for his peak but he could have been 192cm
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Dec/14
The flat 6ft3 is too low for his peak. By the late 80's-early 90's he looked closer to that though.
The flat 6ft3 is too low for his peak. By the late 80's-early 90's he looked closer to that though.
Arch Stanton said on 4/Dec/14
Oh yeah they actually look little like each other of course, it just goes to show what they can do to alter one's appearance and image!
Oh yeah they actually look little like each other of course, it just goes to show what they can do to alter one's appearance and image!
Sam said on 1/Dec/14
Arch & James, on that Bravados poster I feel like the big image looks like a cross between Peck and Eastwood, there's another poster from that movie where it also looks like a cross between them, just inaccurate renderings of Peck I guess because their features are not that similar actually.
Arch & James, on that Bravados poster I feel like the big image looks like a cross between Peck and Eastwood, there's another poster from that movie where it also looks like a cross between them, just inaccurate renderings of Peck I guess because their features are not that similar actually.
Ron B. said on 1/Dec/14
I believe Clint's peak height was 6'3", w/o shoes. I do not think he was a legitimate 6'4". Yes, he did look taller in some of his movies but he had a lean rangy body type which can make him seem a bit taller. A legitimate 6'3" nothing to sneeze at.
I believe Clint's peak height was 6'3", w/o shoes. I do not think he was a legitimate 6'4". Yes, he did look taller in some of his movies but he had a lean rangy body type which can make him seem a bit taller. A legitimate 6'3" nothing to sneeze at.
jervis said on 29/Nov/14
6ft4 in shoes I think peak
6ft4 in shoes I think peak
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 or shoe 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.