How tall is Clint Eastwood - Page 16

James said on 26/Nov/12
Minimum 191cm peak

Gus said on 25/Nov/12
I reckon Eastwood was 191cm peak,of which he stayed till late 70s early 80s. 36 inch leg inseam,40 inch chest,6'3 inches tall,till about 1977.

James said on 25/Nov/12
It would not surprise me if liam neson would be near 1 inch taller than Clint Eastwood when they were both at there peaks.

James said on 25/Nov/12
6'3 flat in 1984?

angeleyes said on 25/Nov/12
I thought he looked slightly shorter than Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and in the more recent Space Cowboys. I do believe however that both were about 6'4'' at one time. Maybe not quite as tall as Jeff Goldblum or Liam Neeson who look a little over 6'4'' but just on the mark perhaps.

Arch Stanton said on 25/Nov/12
Vegas says on 24/Nov/12
city heat was on tv the other night, clint looks 6'2 max in that compared to burt reynolds, reynolds was completely dwarfed by 6'6 nfl measured gary godsey about 8-9 years ago

A while back Rising Force posted a picture showing Reynold's lifts in that film. Reynolds looked 6 ft 1 in his lifts and was still a bit shorter than Eastwood even in the tip toes scene. Nothing under 6'3.5" in 1984.

Vegas said on 24/Nov/12
city heat was on tv the other night, clint looks 6'2 max in that compared to burt reynolds, reynolds was completely dwarfed by 6'6 nfl measured gary godsey about 8-9 years ago

Arch Stanton said on 23/Nov/12
Wayne to me usually looked 6'3"-6'4" like Eastwood. I 've never watched a John Wayne movie and thought he looked as big as Rock Hudson on screen. I'm going through his films at the moment, started with Range Feud.

James said on 23/Nov/12
No I haven't... Sometimes Wayne could look 6'5 in some of his films

Arch Stanton said on 22/Nov/12
James have you seen the Searchers? John Wayne could look 6'2"-6'3" at times like Eastwood.

James said on 21/Nov/12
Arch what about.....

Donald Sutherland 6'3.25 (191cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'3.75 (192cm)

Do u agree?

Arch Stanton said on 20/Nov/12
Alison Eastwood is taller than Scott in heels! He can't be more than 5'10 surely.

James said on 17/Nov/12
6'3 maybe arch? He looks close too how tall his dad was at peak

His other son is short so he ain't so lucky.

Arch Stanton said on 17/Nov/12
Click Here

Dunno James, his son looks over 6'2" here.

James said on 17/Nov/12
Buy he did edge out Donald Sutherland mark

Mark said on 16/Nov/12
I knew a 6'6 guy. It's beyond tall. Eastwood, with 2 inch cowboy boots (Coogan's Bluff), never dwarfed people in them the way a 6'6 guy does. He was/is tall, for sure. But I'll always stick with 6'3-ish, "maybe" 6'4 early in the day. And I'm not prepared to say (type) that Don Stroud was realy 6'2.

James said on 16/Nov/12
His son is one of those 6'2 guys who looks 6'4

Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/12
Rob, what do you think the height difference his here between Kyle and the trumpet player? When Kyle stands straighter it has to be easily 12 inches?

Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/12
Click Here

James, here's Eastwood's son, I regularly play along on my guitar to their stuff, really good. He looks 6'2" next to Clint but you have to admit his son looks 6'4" here too, look at the height difference between him and the trumpet player, like a 10 inch height difference at least!

Arch Stanton said on 15/Nov/12
Dmeyer says on 12/Nov/12
Hé bits DiCaprio too hard to be less than 184cm

Yeah I still think if he stood up as straight as possible he could scrape 6'1" earlier in the day.

Dmeyer said on 12/Nov/12
Hé bits DiCaprio too hard to be less than 184cm

Arch Stanton said on 12/Nov/12
Stroud was a similar height to Robert Davi in License to Kill. And peak height Davi could have been 6'2.5". I don't think Stroud is under 6'2' but its possible, 6'1" I doubt, maybe today he is that height.

James said on 11/Nov/12
Would u not rule put 6'3.75 for a peak Clint Eastwood arch?

James said on 11/Nov/12
I thought Connery looked 6'1 with Russia with love. However I don't think 6'1 peak is possible since he was bigger than 6ft Harrison ford

Arch Stanton said on 11/Nov/12
Click Here

Recent photograph, scroll down, not looking too well...

Arch Stanton said on 11/Nov/12
Connery looked 6'1.5" tops in Never Say Never again in 1983 next to those 6'4" and 6'4.5" actors.

James said on 11/Nov/12
The 6'8 guy looks like Clive Owen lol

James said on 11/Nov/12
Connery must have been 187cm then by 1980

Arch Stanton said on 11/Nov/12
I'll watch Play Misty for Me tonight, from what I remember he did look 6'4" in that film but in one scene with a 6' listed cop he oddly looked 6'2.5"-6'3".

Click Here

Hehe James, even a 6'5"guy can look 6'2" at times. But the guy on the left, his brother, is 6'8"!

Arch Stanton said on 11/Nov/12
Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Connery. A 1970 Eastwood was 6'4" range.

James said on 10/Nov/12
Arch - Sutherland's peak has been downgraded too 6'3.5..... could you tell the difference if Eastwood was 6'3.75 and Sutherland 6'3.5?

U never know Sutherland could have been just 6'3 flat peak but then he did have 2 inches in Sean Connery.

James said on 10/Nov/12
Not sure about 6'2 but 6'3.5 range peak is debatable for sure

I did not think he looked taller than 6'4 in coogans bluff... maybe they made door frames smaller for that film?

I thought as well he looked 6'3 compared too George Kennedy in Eiger sanction and that was with his hair all high up.

Arch Stanton said on 10/Nov/12
You also overlooked Copnovelist that Eastwood had two inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film, even accounting for footwear.

Arch Stanton said on 10/Nov/12
Copnovelist195 says on 9/Nov/12
I read a biography of him that said he was 6ft2 in his prime. In Space Cowboys (2000), he is about two inches shorter than 6ft4 Donald Sutherland. In Coogan's Bluff (1968) he can walk under doorways wearing cowboy boots with elevated heels and a stetson, plus he had big hair that stood up.

Funny, but in Kelly's Heroes shot in 1969, Eastwood edged out Sutherland, I gather you've never seen that film. By 2000 Eastwood had already shrunk to 6'2" range.

Copnovelist195 said on 9/Nov/12
I read a biography of him that said he was 6ft2 in his prime. In Space Cowboys (2000), he is about two inches shorter than 6ft4 Donald Sutherland. In Coogan's Bluff (1968) he can walk under doorways wearing cowboy boots with elevated heels and a stetson, plus he had big hair that stood up. A 6ft4 man couldn't walk under doorways in that gear. I once went to Mann's Chinese Restaurant on the Hollywood Strip, and matched my hands up to his imprints in the pavement and he had enormous hands. So did Charlton Heston. Mine matched up exactly with James Stewart and Cary Grant.

James said on 9/Nov/12
Well she is 5'1 Arch. Clint Eastwood at 192-193cm was just about very tall.

Arch Stanton said on 9/Nov/12
Click Here

Judi Dench mentions Eastwood being"immensely tall" here.

James said on 8/Nov/12
Looks 5'11-5'11.5 in that photo Shaun.

I wonder how a peak Clint would measure up next too Hugh? I think there would be 2 inches between the 2.....

Clint Eastwood 6'3.75 (192cm)
Hugh Jackman 6'1.5 (187cm)
Maybe?

I have no doubt thought that Clint Eastwood would have towered David Beckham by easily 4 inches in his prime. I wonder sometimes if Beckham is more 5'11 than 6ft

Arch Stanton said on 8/Nov/12
Nah, he's a family man.

Click Here

He looks nowhere near 6'2" in that photo!!

James said on 7/Nov/12
Arch I suspect Hugh is an alcoholic don't u? He has that look sometimes (especially his eyes) that suggests he is a drinker not too mention he is looking very thin at the moment.

Arch Stanton said on 7/Nov/12
Clint Eastwood is known for being inconsistent with people though, he'll be friendly with some and plain mean and rude to others. You'd think he'd have more in common with Jackman than JT, you'd never think Eastwood would cast an ex Nsync kid with curly hair who dated Britney in his film would you? Jackman's looks tend to vary quite a bit, with a slick quiff and a grey suit or something at times he can look as good as any guy can possibly look, but I've also seen him with very short hair, in shoes and his face looking quite anaemic looking and he looked barely better than average.

James said on 7/Nov/12
Arch Stanton says on 7/Nov/12
LOL. nah he'd smile at Beckham, shake his hand and then turn around and scowl and hiss "You aint too bright kid".

There was an article from 2007 where clint eastwood stated that he was looking foward too meeting beckham. don't know if the article is fake or not though?

Arch Stanton said on 7/Nov/12
LOL. nah he'd smile at Beckham, shake his hand and then turn around and scowl and hiss "You aint too bright kid".

James said on 5/Nov/12
Hey Arch off topic but do you Clint Eastwood would give David Beckham an attitude like he did with Hugh Jackman if they met in person lol?

James said on 5/Nov/12
Arch since David is 184cm would that have made Clint Eastwood 192cm?

Arch Stanton said on 5/Nov/12
About 3 inches excluding the hair advantage.

James said on 3/Nov/12
Shaun how many inches taller than David soul did he look too you?

Arch Stanton said on 3/Nov/12
He did look 6'4" to me because of his lanky legs. Watch him walk in Fistful of Dollars and his legs while he is being beaten up, super long.

James said on 31/Oct/12
If u did not know his height how tall do u think he looked in his 1960s westerns?

Arch Stanton said on 31/Oct/12
Shaun = Arch Stanton OK James?

Yeah he did look 6'4"-6'5" in boots but didn't look 6 ft 6 in boots and hat, that's the strange thing. A lanky legit 6'4" in cowboy boots and hat should give a 6'7" impression you'd think...

James said on 31/Oct/12
He did not look 6'4 in his spaghetti western films from the 1960s

angeleyes said on 30/Oct/12
6'4'' in prime and looked it. Now about 6'1'' I guess.

James said on 30/Oct/12
I think Timberlake tends too have poor posture making him look 5'11ish but I think 183 or 184cm is on target for Justin.

Shaun said on 30/Oct/12
Squinty eyes and receding hair line with black hair, that's about it LOL. James why are you so convinced Timberlake is at least 6 ft? I think he's nearer 5'11, wasn't he shorter than David Beckham?

James said on 29/Oct/12
I have a DVD box set of some of seagals films and one of my friends thought he looked like pierce brosnan on one of the DVD covers....

Shaun said on 29/Oct/12
Not really, never though that...Can't think of anybody who really looks like Seagal, he's quite unique looking..

James said on 29/Oct/12
Shaun this is off topic but don't you think Steven seagal in his his early films looked very similar too a young Gregory peck? There colouring is identical as well

James said on 28/Oct/12
no timberlake ain't under 6ft

Mathew said on 26/Oct/12
Timberlake is more a 5'11.5" than 6'0".

Van said on 26/Oct/12
Clint was a legitimate 6'3.5-6'4 in hid prime. He's now closer to 6'1.5.

James said on 22/Oct/12
I think Timberlake is around 183-184cm range like Clint Eastwood.

James said on 22/Oct/12
Timberlake is the 6ft

Shaun said on 21/Oct/12
Click Here

Maybe 2 cm difference is right after all..

Shaun said on 21/Oct/12
Rob, are you sure Eastwood only has half an inch on Timberlake? Looks nearer 2 inches to me. There is a chance Timberlake is 5 ft 11 and Eastwood is near 6 ft 1 if standing straight.

Shaun said on 21/Oct/12
Click Here

Justin Timberlake is 6'0.5"-6'1" James? Sure he is.

Shaun said on 21/Oct/12
Click Here

Justin Timberlake is 6'0."-6'1" James? Sure he is.

James said on 20/Oct/12
Edgar Hudson was slightly taller than Clint Eastwood in Eiger sanction

EdgarHernandez said on 19/Oct/12
clint eastwood has work in his posture lately:
Click Here
Click Here
clint also has the "E.T. neck", just by bending his neck he can lost alot of height. In this pics he looks between 3 to 4 inches taller than justin timberlake, a guy who i put between 6ft and 5ft 11.
Click Here
Click Here
clint is looking very healty, looks like he improved his posture and lost maybe 10 pounds(he wasn't fat but he was quite wider a cuple of years ago.)
i admit, he looks taller for this.
in gettyimages have appear new photos of clint in his younth, and he surely looks like a thin(but fit) 6f 4:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
looking the pictures i agree with something, clint bone structure was of a narrow shoulder guy, clint had to work hard to make the ilusion of broad shoulders

bs said on 15/Oct/12
It doesn't matter about the hair or the height:) You have to have more going than that!

Silent d said on 12/Oct/12
He is definitely not 6 foot 4 now. Back problems and brittle bones stunted his growth now. I only can see him as 184cm now. I think he was 6 foot 4 in his really old movies pre 1985.

James said on 12/Oct/12
Geez what is it about bald men being the most attractive lol we have Connery, Beckham and bruce willis etc who could score more women than guys like lionel messi, Hugh grant or tom cruise hands down. Guess times are changing.

James said on 12/Oct/12
Shaun says on 12/Oct/12
nah, I think'll he's be a bald fella and look more like Connery does now, although vanity might make him go down the hair treatment route..

someone mentioned that clint eastwood wore like a bit of a hairpeace in play misty for me :)

Shaun said on 12/Oct/12
nah, I think'll he's be a bald fella and look more like Connery does now, although vanity might make him go down the hair treatment route..

James said on 11/Oct/12
Shaun do u think David will look like how 80 year old clint does today when he reaches 80?

Shaun said on 11/Oct/12
Click Here

Beckham has perfected the Eastwood squint LOL. If Beckham dressed in Eastwood's dollars clothes with hat the resemblance would shock people. But look at his appearance now compared to the early curtains day of Man United.... He's clearly spent an awful lot on improving his appearance.

Legit 6 footer said on 10/Oct/12
Ok Shaun it's me Brad and I'll admit you do raise a point on Camera angles, and I think Connery may have been 6'1 3/4" by that time. I firmly stand by that Eastwood was a clear and strong 6'4" in his prime. Maybe even rose to 6'4 1/2" fresh out of bed.

James said on 10/Oct/12
Clint Eastwood shrinking from 193cm too 191cm between 1973-1975 is not impossible since you can actually ever so slightly shrink in height in your 30s. Osteoporosis really can rob you of height rapidly.

I think maybe Clint started too look shorter than 6'4 in thunderbolt and Lightfoot. By 1994 was looking no taller than 6'2 (188cm)

Some will argue 6'3 for him in the 90s but in pics with 194cm neeson and 188-189cm Morgan freeman looked less than 191cm.

James said on 10/Oct/12
Shaun yeah I thought Clint looked 6'3 range in city heat.

Still though I certain that Hudson had 1 inch on Clint in Eiger sanction

Shaun said on 10/Oct/12
I watched City Heat last night, full film is on youtube James. Burt Reynolds only looked 3-4 inches shorter than Eastwood in it but I suspect he was wearing lifts. A running gag in the film was Eastwood calling him "shorty", he makes a joke of Reynold's height early on and at the end Reynolds goes on tiptoes purposefully when Eastwood calls him shorty and he wasn't far off Eastwood's height on tip toes in lifts. Reynolds wasn't short at all around 5 ft 11 I think but I think the fact he was known to be very height conscious was why that gag was put into the film.

jfm said on 9/Oct/12
I met Clint back in 2002 when he was in Boston filming the movie "Mystic River". I'm 6'4" and he was at least two inches shorter than me. Clint has slouched shoulders. I'd put him at a 6'1 1/2" now and probably 6'3" in his prime. Clint was friendly to me.

James said on 8/Oct/12
He must be going crazy if he claimed 6'4 at age 73. Maybe he was simply stating his peak height. In his youth probably measured 6'3.75 after a long day.

Still watch Eiger sanction and you will see that Kennedy is taller than clint. The only way Clint looked 6'4 in comaprison would be if Kennedy was 6'5. The scene I am reffering too in the film is when they meet the European rock climbers for the first time... one of the rock climbers If I remember had several inches Clint Eastwood.

James said on 8/Oct/12
Shaun says on 7/Oct/12
Are any of certain of heights listed on here? No. But he has 6'1.5" written down on his publicity card and Eastwood had 6'4" which in all honesty I think he looked most of the time. Don't start the 189cm tops trolling again James...


When did i say he was 189cm tops? if remember right you were the one that hinted he might be 189cm since he his waxwork was measured at 197cm

Shaun says on 22/Sep/12
Click Here

I believe that's the waxwork which somebody said measures 6'5.5. Not sure if that's with the hat too, but he isn't standing fully straight his legs are apart. I suppose in boots and hat you'd expect him to be at least 6 ft 7. This doesn't diminish the Clint was 6'2.5" does it though, in fact it strengthens that argument!

Willy said on 7/Oct/12
If Eastwood states 6'4'' at the age of 73, when he already began struggling with 6'2'', then I'm beginning to wonder if he ever was 6'4'' to begin with. In any case, I just rewatched For A Few Dollars More and would have expected Clint to look 6'5'' in his cowboy boots and also noticeably taller than 6'2'' Lee Van Cleef, but both wasn't the case. He seemed to have an inch on Van Cleef and looked about 6'4'' in his footwear to me. Both would indicate 6'3'' as barefoot peak height.

Shaun said on 7/Oct/12
Click Here

Eastwood at the age of 25 in 1955. Looks pretty towering and look at his posture.

Shaun said on 7/Oct/12
It would be good to enbody a 6'8"-7'2 guy for a day to two and see what's like but the thought of having to cart around a body that big for life would be a nightmare I've sure. 6 ft 5 is the tallest I'd ever want to be and even that's pushing it.

Shaun said on 7/Oct/12
Are any of certain of heights listed on here? No. But he has 6'1.5" written down on his publicity card and Eastwood had 6'4" which in all honesty I think he looked most of the time. Don't start the 189cm tops trolling again James...

James said on 5/Oct/12
When u see this guy in rawhide he looks normal in stature NEVER would I have imagined he was 6'4. In play Misty for he looked 193cm for sure though like a very tall man. In films like fistful of dollars and good bad and ugly looked 189cm. Maybe it was the way these were shot or something?

Shaun what makes u so sure the black guy was 6'1.5?

James said on 5/Oct/12
Nope I remember Kennedy had a noticible edge on Eastwood. But was Clint wearing low cut shoes in the scenes they shared

Chris Robinson said on 4/Oct/12
I am firmly of the belief that Eastwood was in the 6 4" range in his youth. He was quoted early on as having trouble finding parts because of his height. Watch the good The bad and the Ugly - there's a scene where a long line of men is being taken to the prison - eastwood towers over everyone. His reduction in recent years is not surprising because of his age and posture.

night crawler said on 4/Oct/12
lol sorry guys the old james is back.

shaun did you see the youtube video i posted?

Shaun said on 3/Oct/12
Night Crawler is James right? 6 ft 7, what's this? Go back to your old name, Night Crawler sucks. I thought they looked the same height range, I saw it recently actually. Clint still look ed 6 ft 4 in Escape from Alcatraz next to the 6'1.5" black guy in the library so no, he didn't begin losing height at 45.

night crawler said on 3/Oct/12
Sorry rob lol I have a habit of being a bit of a troll sometimes. I also forgot that my new nexus 7 I pad has my Original IP address. My Bad :(

Lol 6ft7 I wish. I am only roughly 5ft10

night crawler said on 3/Oct/12
he seemed tall even as a kid

shaun go too 4:41 in this youtube video
Click Here

Doesn't he look like the spitting image of david beckham when he was a child? Even down too the squinty eyes and smile lol.

night crawler said on 2/Oct/12
Has anyone seen Eiger sanction? Clint Eastwood looked shorter than George Kennedy in that film. Take into account as well that that George was 50 by 1975. Even with his high hairstyle he looked only 6'3 in comparison and 6'2-6'3 if he had a flatter hairstyle.

I think clints loss of height must have started between 1974-1975

Shaun said on 2/Oct/12
night crawler says on 26/Sep/12
Well too me he certainly did not look over 194cm in coogans bluff and he had on some big heels in that film


Can I comment as well that a young Clint Eastwood resembled David Beckham or am I just crazy?

Is that James? Yes David Beckham as times does resemble a young Clint, but I think that's intentional, he's clearly heavily influenced by Eastwood, James Dean and Steve McQueen, he's even perfected the squint.

SteveB said on 1/Oct/12
Never struck me as a solid 6'4" guy. I'd say 6'3" max.

Liam said on 29/Sep/12
He looked about 6 foot 6 in Any which way you can.

Henrik said on 29/Sep/12
Very long legs indeed, Shaun.

Shaun said on 27/Sep/12
Click Here

Look at the size of his legs sitting down. He has the legs of a 6 ft 6 - 6 ft 7 guy for sure.

night crawler said on 26/Sep/12
Well too me he certainly did not look over 194cm in coogans bluff and he had on some big heels in that film


Can I comment as well that a young Clint Eastwood resembled David Beckham or am I just crazy?

Shaun said on 26/Sep/12
Got to me said though that there's not many guys who can make Eastwood seem average appearance/masculinity in photographs, Connery looks a much a stronger, more virile man in those pics doesn't he.

Shaun said on 26/Sep/12
Well Brad Sutherland had an easy two inches on Connery in Great Train Robbery and Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Clint had shrunk to 6'3" ish by 1990 and his posture as usually is slumped, plus he's facing the camera and Eastwood is at the side. On screen Eastwood looked 2 inches taller than Connery in my opinion.

Brad said on 23/Sep/12
In the pic below he looked 6'3" next to the 6'2 1/2" Connery.

Silent d said on 22/Sep/12
He is clearly a little taller than timberlake who is at least 182cm. 184cm for eastwood is right.

Shaun said on 22/Sep/12
Click Here

I believe that's the waxwork which somebody said measures 6'5.5. Not sure if that's with the hat too, but he isn't standing fully straight his legs are apart. I suppose in boots and hat you'd expect him to be at least 6 ft 7. This doesn't diminish the Clint was 6'2.5" does it though, in fact it strengthens that argument!

Shaun said on 22/Sep/12
Yes, I myself was surprised to see Clint was 6 ft 4 at one time but I'd never particularly noticed his height and I'd probably have guessed 6 ft 2 once upon a time,. But if you watch his films intently and pay attention in particular to his height in my opinion he did look 6'4"ish. The only thing I ever doubted was that I don't think he ever looked as tall as 6 ft 6 in cowboy boots which are supposed to give 1.5-2 inches. He looked 6'4"-6'5" in boots in the dollars trilogy for instance. However I believe at the Cinecitta Studios in Rome they measured him up and a waxwork was produced of him at the time and its now in some CA museum and I think somebody said the statue is 6'5.5" in boots or something but I think that was also with hat.

Shaun said on 22/Sep/12
I saw The Eiger Sanction again the other night and thought he easily looked same height range as George Kennedy. Its funny how many people think 6 ft 2 for him. To me he always looked lanky range on screen in his films and gave off the impression of a guy around 6 ft 4. You compare how Sean Connery looks to Clint Eastwood on screen and Eastwood makes Connery look a stocky average tall guy in my opinion. He never looked "huge" as such in a way like John Wayne or Rock Hudson did but he always looked rangy and very lanky legged. I think you could argue 6'3.5" but no lower for his peak height.

Lenad said on 20/Sep/12
i cant buy anything more than 6'3 peak

Bojan said on 19/Sep/12
He has obviously lost a lot of height. Today's height is around 6ft, peak height was maybe 6ft 3. He wasn't more than 1 inch bigger than Lee Van Cleef, who was supposed to be 6ft 2. I would say, 189cm peak, 183 today.

magic said on 16/Sep/12
His height has always been given as 6'3'' or 6'4''. I think this is probably correct for his youth to middle age. I think his good looks when young distracted from his sheer size.

Jason said on 16/Sep/12
Clint's shorter than John Goodman in his latest movie.

James said on 14/Sep/12
oh yeah and another height comparison pic of connery and clint eastwood
Click Here

James said on 14/Sep/12
hey its poster james... remember me?

have not visited this site in ages but anyway this is a one off post just cause i came across some very interesting pics of eastwood from 1990 where he looks not over 6'2. the difference between him and liam neeson as well looks similar too the size difference between him and tim robbins.

Click Here
Click Here

this is the most shocking photo becasue assuming connery was still 6'2 in 1990 )some even say he was measured 6'1 1/2 peak)then clint eastwood looks 6'1 (185cm) compared too connery.

Click Here



More too the point though clearly he looks nowhere near 6'4 let alone 6'3 in these pics from nearly 23 years ago.

Mr. Kaplan said on 14/Sep/12
Clint was 6'3.5" peak.

zebra said on 13/Sep/12
I met Clint in '08, Denver, CO. He was a quiet, small man about 5'9 or 5'10 and acepted the Congressional Medal of Honor for depicting the military positively in his films. He was soft spoken and had a soft hand shake. Not in character at all.

Shaun said on 12/Sep/12
Did anybody see his speech at the Republican convention recently with the chair thing? For 82 he looks in exceptional health it has to be said. They showed a few side shots of him and I thought he looked at least 6'1 range and still obviously a tall guy.

Cyclosarin said on 9/Sep/12
They have his costumes from heartbreak ridge and gran Torino on display side by side in the Warner Bros tour museum. You can see clearly he lost height by the shoulder levels.

mrbobh5344 said on 4/Sep/12
I'm reading "American Rebel" about Eastwood. Of interest is that he is left handed but was 'forced' at school as a child to do more right handed. Look in some of his films and you'll see him throw things as a lefty. Also, the book notes that he was shorter than the character Gill Favor on Rawhide. Fleming was 6'4". I believe it's quite possible Eastwood was just 'close' to 6'4". The book's author did a lot of research and I would think/hope he got the height issue correct. It is a pretty interesting book. Regardless, Eastwood always looked very tall and I could easily buy 6'3"+ in his prime.

Henrik said on 2/Sep/12
Len says on 30/Aug/12
I don't think Clint ever looked 6-4, even back in the day.

-----

He could have a tendency of giving a shorter appearance when being alone, which I find quite ironic, since "lanky" people are supposed to look taller than they are according to many. In the Dirty Harry films, I could have thought that he was 6'1".

But he was at least two inches taller than 6'1.5" Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, so he definitely looked around 6'4" in that film. He also edged out 6'2" actors, like Lee Van Cleef (who some argue was closer to 6'3").

Len said on 30/Aug/12
I don't think Clint ever looked 6-4, even back in the day.

matt789 said on 25/Aug/12
my dad met eastwood way back in 1982 i think my dad was about 21 then and was done growing he said that eastwood was two inches taller then him and my dad is 6 ft1 so east wood was a ligitment 6 ft 3 back then

Shaun said on 24/Aug/12
Of course a half inch difference in theory would not notice on screen, all we can really say is "based on him being 6'4" peak legitimately, he started to look a little shorter in the 80s".

Shaun said on 24/Aug/12
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 22/Aug/12
He may still measure 6"1 if he could stand straight. In Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino he was looking 186-187cm range. His peak height was still debatable. If he was still close to 6"4 in The Dead Pool in 1988 at age 58 then perhaps he could have been a fraction over 6"4 in the 60s and 70s?

6'4.25" Neeson had an inch on him in The Dead Pool and he looked about 6'3" in that film. He was still 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz in 1979 but in Sudden Impact in 1983 he did look a little shorter than previous Dirty Harry movies. Pale Rider he looked to edge out Michael Moriarty who I think is 6'3" so he could have been 6'3.5" by mid 80s.

Mark said on 23/Aug/12
At 5 inches taller than someone, you can see over their head. At 6 inches taller, your "nose" is higher than the top of a guy's head. Of course, no one knows what heights are legit, but there were alot of guys Eastwood worked with, in the 70's and 80's, who were supposedly 5'10 (I'm not spending 3 hours looking them all up again). Never once, if even one of these guys really was 5'10, did Eastwood look a half a foot taller than them. I still go with 6'3 peak, maybe a bit over out of bed and certainly with shoes on.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Aug/12
He may still measure 6"1 if he could stand straight. In Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino he was looking 186-187cm range. His peak height was still debatable. If he was still close to 6"4 in The Dead Pool in 1988 at age 58 then perhaps he could have been a fraction over 6"4 in the 60s and 70s?

Shaun said on 20/Aug/12
Musicman says on 16/Aug/12
I was in the door and window business for 10 years and in regard to a door height being 6'6" is incorrect. A door jam is 6'8" tall, the half inch part the door closes against to stop the door is 6'7 and a half inches therefore making a door 6'7 and one quarter inch for an interior door in a house because you have a 1/4 inch between the bottom of the door and the floor with carpet. Not only that but my dad and I met Clint before back in the late 90's. I'm 5'11" in shoes, my dad was 6'2 and a half in shoes and Clint was at least and inch and a half taller than my dad standing straight up side by side. so if you doubt that Clint was ever 6'4", you are wrong, I've met him, he's my favorite actor. because of his upper back problems now he's about 6'2" because he slumps and is older too. 6' one half inch is a joke and just inaccurate, he's not lost 4 inches or even 3, I outta know I've met the man.

Doubtful, whilst I agree on 6'4 peak by late 90s he had definitely lost height. He was looking barely 6'3" mid 90s.

Musicman said on 16/Aug/12
I was in the door and window business for 10 years and in regard to a door height being 6'6" is incorrect. A door jam is 6'8" tall, the half inch part the door closes against to stop the door is 6'7 and a half inches therefore making a door 6'7 and one quarter inch for an interior door in a house because you have a 1/4 inch between the bottom of the door and the floor with carpet. Not only that but my dad and I met Clint before back in the late 90's. I'm 5'11" in shoes, my dad was 6'2 and a half in shoes and Clint was at least and inch and a half taller than my dad standing straight up side by side. so if you doubt that Clint was ever 6'4", you are wrong, I've met him, he's my favorite actor. because of his upper back problems now he's about 6'2" because he slumps and is older too. 6' one half inch is a joke and just inaccurate, he's not lost 4 inches or even 3, I outta know I've met the man.

mcfan said on 14/Aug/12
loss in height is hereditary. ask your genes why you lose height. women will lose more height then men. (exceptions: Lindsey Wagner etc)

nmod said on 14/Aug/12
@Rob: Thanks a lot.

little sue said on 14/Aug/12
Another tip is to keep on your feet a lot, I read the other day that if you spend 5 hours or more a day on your feet it lowers the chances of Osteophoris which is what shortens a lot of heights when you are elderly, especially in women

nmod said on 13/Aug/12
@Rob: Some of the over 70's listed on here have only lost 0.5-1 in with age, whereas others like Eastwood have lost over 3 in.
Is there anything that can be done to minimize the loss of height as we age or is it just luck of the draw?

Mark said on 13/Aug/12
...height, build and muscles aside, I've never seen a film where I'd say Eastwood was broad shouldered. More muscular in some movies, than others, but always quite narrow to me. Being on film adds 10 pounds, if anything, and I've seen Eastwood in those western overcoats "still" looking very slender...shoulders included.

Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Denny Miller still looks near 6'4"

Click Here

Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Denny Miller was the first blonde Tarzan BTW in 1959 in case the name didn't twig. Big guy and much more built than Eastwood but similar proportions and features.

Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Rob can you start a page for Denny Miller. I saw him in a film the other day and he looked a ringer for Clint Eastwood, a genuine 6'4" and looked very tall and screen. I guessed his height at 6'4" without even checking as you can just tell. He was wearing cowboy boots and must have been 6'6" range in them.

Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Click Here

In High Plains Drifter. Judging by his shoulder/collar bone definition I'd say he was a very keen swimmer.

Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Cranberries says on 6/Aug/12
@Xhavier: Shaq has a 48-inch inseam.
Also, I have those "perfect proportions" you speak of at 6'4" and my legs are too short I think. Despite being a muscular 18 yo 6'4" 220, my short bones and small frame make me look smaller.

Also, I think Clint was not particularly leggy but average for his height.

Clint has longer legs than Tim Robbins and has the legs of a 6'6" man. He always looked leggy in my opinion but he worked out a lot through his career and whilst thin build (an ecto) he was actually quite broad, see his shoulders in High Plains Drifter for instance.

Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
@Cranberries "Despite being a muscular 18 yo 6'4" 220, my short bones and small frame make me look smaller." Short bones and small frame at 6'4" and 220 pounds? Eh? One would describe a 6'4" 220 pound guy as nothing but solid, long bones, solid frame like Tom Brady etc. I don't know how you could be as tall as 6'4" and as heavy as 220 pounds and not be a big guy!! You mean you're naturally an ecto with thin bone structure and are a hard gainer I think. A 6'4" guy would never have short bones, quite the opposite LOL! I wouldn't mind being built like an Olympic swimmer or something at that sort of height and weight I love that long lean look but I'm not exactly hard done by with my own frame, if a little top heavy.

Mark said on 7/Aug/12
Wingnut...if people didn't question heights for conversation's sake, sites like this wouldn't exist. That aside, and purely for conversation's sake, I have known many people in my life who claim to be a height I know they can't possibly be, based on my own height. And, I've met famous people who are often at least 2 inches lower than their stated height. And, if we're not talking Eastwood's peak height, but more recent height, he still claims 6'4, in interviews, which is clearly not the case. And so, it's open for conversation. I'm sure he was around 6'4 at one point. But, this is a dsicussion site. I'm 47, and still an inch taller out of bed. Add a gel cushion and arch support to my shoes, and I have 2 more inches. That makes me, a 6 footer, 6'3 in the morning if I go out. But, I'm really nowhere near 6'3, barefoot and by day's end (6 ft). So if this is a fun site to shoot the bull on, was Eastwood measured early in the day? Was he rounded up, even then? Who knows.

EdgarHernandez said on 7/Aug/12
Hob: Inseam is related alot with height, if you know someone proportions, you can guess better his height, clint was a long fellow, but unlike prowse, who is big bones and big(and was huge when young), clint was a long fellow with long legs and thin bone structure, one of the reasons he seldom apered imposing.

wingnut said on 7/Aug/12
Why does anybody guestion this guys height?
All his life-if you read about him-he's stated 6'4".
If he stated he was 6' people on this site would
claim he was only 5'9-5'10.
It makes me laugh.Why would anyboby claim to be
this very tall height if they were'nt.
Sure if you were 5'10-5'11 I can understand you might
want to bump it up to 6'.But if somebody who says
they are 6'4"-especially when famous-they usually are.

Mark said on 6/Aug/12
Some men may shrink with age, but big men still always look tall. With Eastwood, as when he is on talk shows or briefly on his wife's reality show, he just doesn't look imposing. Not saying he looks short, but just not like a man who was once a full 6 feet four inches. At that height, you can almost see over the top of the head of a six-footer. I never saw that in Esatwood, and certainly don't now. I do, however, think he, like Mike Farrell of MASH, has all his height in his legs. I've seen both men run, and they do it with that lanky, my long legs are in business for themselves stride. But, that means nothing in terms of height. My neighbor is 81, and is all legs. But, he's about 5'9. Looks tall, if standing alone.

Hob said on 6/Aug/12
lol. why people here keep talking about inseam. it was not quite relate to height chat..

Cranberries said on 6/Aug/12
@Xhavier: Shaq has a 48-inch inseam.
Also, I have those "perfect proportions" you speak of at 6'4" and my legs are too short I think. Despite being a muscular 18 yo 6'4" 220, my short bones and small frame make me look smaller.

Also, I think Clint was not particularly leggy but average for his height.

Xhavier said on 5/Aug/12
I have noticed that leg length/inseam seems to be part of this thread for some reason.

A note on that:
Full inseam = Distance from crotch bone to ground
Pants inseam = Distance from bottom of where things hangs (roughly) to ground

A perfectly proportional 6ft 4in man would have:
Full inseam: 36.5 inches
Pants inseam: 33.5 inches

The average 6ft 4in man has the following:
Full inseam: 38 inches
Pants inseam: 35 inches


A 38 inch pants inseam would be regular for a perfectly proportional 6ft 10in man, and it is average for a 7ft 1in man.

So either way with a 36in pants inseam, Clint is a leggy fellow.

Henrik said on 2/Aug/12
A full 6'4" at his peak. 6'3 1/2" is the lowest I'd go with.

Hob said on 31/Jul/12
if he really 6'4 peak i think he is still 6'1.5 now. other hand he was 6'4 in shoe at peak so he is 6'0.5 now much believable.

bill said on 27/Jul/12
190 cm at peak and 185 cm now

EdgarHernandez said on 26/Jul/12
care to explain diamonddave7.............how you came to that conclusion?

diamonddave7 said on 23/Jul/12
Eastwood has never been more than 6'2". He looks tall because of his build, tree trunk straight. Probably 6' 0.5" now like the editor says.

Hob said on 13/Jun/12
maybe he did not lost 4.5", he look this lost because he drop his posture as he get older now. i bet he lost a max 2.5"

Danimal said on 8/Jun/12
Edgar_Hernandez says on 6/Jun/12

Click Here
a very famous photo, if you look this you notice that clint is close enought that his shoulder is touching rock hudson shoulder, they have the same shoulder level, lee marvin even with the advantaje of being the one closer still looks noticiable shorter than both rock and clint, by the way the photo is full of big guys.

You can already see in that group photo that Clint is already standing with his hips forward and neck and back arched. That was 1969. In other words, his horrible posture started as early as the late 60's, which is when height loss (while minimal) probably started to occur (when he was in his late 30's). The bones didn't calcify probably until a decade later when height loss started to become a little noticeable. As he got older and continued stand with that God awful posture (shoulders slumped forward, hips pushed forward and upper back arched over), it started to harden and the height loss started to set in and increase as he grew older. Even if he stood as straight as he could humanly possibly try to these days, the way his upper torso has crippled, he couldn't even hit 6'1" today. I would be surprised if he's just over a flat 6'0" today, headed for 5'11" by the time he hits 90 years old.

Edgar_Hernandez said on 7/Jun/12
another thing that i see clint doing alot is the way how he does weights, wich maybe have something to do with his height lost, first look this one:
Click Here
if you notice he push his hip inside his head is pushed to the front and he cleary is bent, he is not standing straight(wich is the proper way to do it)
Click Here
the last one was from the alcatraz movie, in that movie has in pretty good shape but he already have a noticiable bend in his back here is the evolution of clints back:
Click Here clint as a child, notice the long legs
Click Here clint back show a natural pronunced bent(reminicent to his actual state).
this article found here: Click Here
states that clint reached his full height at 16, and there was just one kid taller, at 6ft 5, kids wich such big grown spurt at early age, tend to be very lanky. The article states that clint disliked beibng forced to sports just for being tall.
clint posture reminded straight for years
1961: Click Here
1963: Click Here
1966: the full dollar trylogi clint maintains great posture, specialy in the good the bad and the ugly in the walk from the desert, where he pulls off a very pround and straight posture(very in character).
1966-1969: not much changed, still good posture.
1970: Click Here a slightly bend appears.
1974: Click Here the posture that clint would use for much of his life is complety set, slopped shoulders, hips pushed to the front, and head looking to the front(see the fullm movie of lightfoot and thunderbolt and you se it).
1978: Click Here clint bend is more pronunced but he still can straighted up if he wish(like in bronco billy).
1979-1984: not much has changed
1986: Click Here clint posture improves alot thanks to the fact that he played a militar and he pushed his posture alot, posible tha last time clint could reach his foul height if he forces his posture as much as he could.
1988: Click Here the bend becomes permanet and he no longer could straighted up complety, posible 6ft 3.5 in "good posture" and 6ft 2.5 or 3 in regular one.
1988-94: huge period with no changes, clint hasn't lost any height still taller than gene hackman who has good posture.
1995: Click Here
Click Here clint bend is more pronunced, wich makes his torso to look a big deal shorter than his legs, by this point is safe to said that clint pase from being solid 6ft 3 to just 6ft 3(althought photo grafic evidence show that he could look just 6ft 2 at thimes).
1996: Click Here
Click Here
Click Here clint bend is bad enough that he now is the same height of donal sutherland who he had advantaje of .5 in to 1 in kellys heros, and he no longer looks close to a head taller than eli walsh, he still held his oun with liam nesson despite nesson big camera advantaje.
1997 to 2001: not big changes.
2002: Click Here clint bend is cleary noticiable and by this point is complety safe to said that he no longer reach 6ft 3 forcing posture, 6ft 2 posible.
2003: Click Here the bent in his back puts clint in the are of 6ft 2 to 6ft 2.5(maybe) tim robbins looks in some photos of the event to be 2 to 2.5 inches taller.
2004: Click Here clint bent is worse, probably 6ft 2 if forced.
2007: Click Here clint bend makes him bi this point to reach 6ft 2 in a good day and 6ft 1.5 normaly.
2012: Click Here a huge hunch is noticiabke in his back, he no longer can stand straight, is body is complety disproporcional, his jacked suits like a trench coat, if you follow this time line you will see that 3.5 inches lost is not imposible.

Edgar_Hernandez said on 6/Jun/12
i agree with james, in the orangutan films he was probably 6ft 3.5, not to mention that he bulked up alot for that films:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
the photos above are from the first orangutan film, "any wich way you can".
clint peak weight is said to be 216 pouns and to be honest he look this weight, just look that bicep, for a guy with long limbs to get a noticiable big bicep takes alot of efort.
I would said that clint was 6ft 4 since he was 19(whe he took weightlifting) to posible 1975 or late 70s.
his first wife maggie was abaut 5ft 4 or 3, and he always looks to be at his shoulder level, not big boots, just very confortable low heeled shoes:
Click Here
here both barefoot and clint looking bulkier than usual:
Click Here
a very famous photo, if you look this you notice that clint is close enought that his shoulder is touching rock hudson shoulder, they have the same shoulder level, lee marvin even with the advantaje of being the one closer still looks noticiable shorter than both rock and clint, by the way the photo is full of big guys.
Click Here
also while searching the series rawhide, i saw that some of the regulars were big guys or close to clint height, wich would make him look more average as a cowboy, and make his height not a distraction for the audience(unlike clint walker in the show of cheyenne, where is height is a runing gang).

Jon said on 5/Jun/12
Actually, check out "Million Dollar Baby" ...he's well short of Morgan Freeman (6'2") ...So he must of shrunk a whole bunch!!

James said on 14/Feb/12
in the orng-utan films he was clearly 6'3 1/2 :)

In 1988
Liam Neeson 6'4.25 (194cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'3 (191cm)

Henrik said on 14/Feb/12
Mustangford says on 13/Feb/12
Realistically192cm at peak in shoes. Yeah, I think 189,to a weak stretch to 190cms. Clints around 180-183cm today. Liam neeson appeared to be 4cm taller than clint in the dead pooPeru deadpool. clint may have been 189 centimetres or 190 centimetres tall. so that means that liam neeson may have been 193cm or 194,we can clearly see atleast 4cms difference. so in conclusion Pp poit is not impossible to cite eastwood at the 190 centimetres height range. let's not forget that eastwood was in his mid 50s so it is possible that he had lost 1 centimetre in height



Clint was in The Dead Pool, as you say, about 6'3". But at the time, he had already lost about an inch of his height.

I thought that Liam Neeson gave more of a 6'5" impression in that movie, by the way. He looked to be edging Jim Carrey quite good.

Mustangford said on 13/Feb/12
Realistically192cm at peak in shoes. Yeah, I think 189,to a weak stretch to 190cms. Clints around 180-183cm today. Liam neeson appeared to be 4cm taller than clint in the dead pooPeru deadpool. clint may have been 189 centimetres or 190 centimetres tall. so that means that liam neeson may have been 193cm or 194,we can clearly see atleast 4cms difference. so in conclusion Pp poit is not impossible to cite eastwood at the 190 centimetres height range. let's not forget that eastwood was in his mid 50s so it is possible that he had lost 1 centimetre in height

wingnut said on 13/Feb/12
In the orang-utan films he was clearly 6'4".

James said on 10/Feb/12
he would have been 6'4 all day at his peak.... i guess maybe after a long day on his feet at his absolute low at night he might have measured 6'3.75 (192cm) although maybe not?

Henrik said on 10/Feb/12
James says on 9/Feb/12
he could have been 194cm range in the morning at his peak and i don't think he would drop under 193cm in the evening..... i think by 1976 he would have defenintly measured 6'3.5 (192cm) in the evening though.

Well, a person usually shrinks 2cm or 0.75 inches during the day. So 193cm or 6'4" flat in the evening would mean 195cm (6'4.75") in the morning, which I suppose isn't impossible.

It's of course possible that he used to shrink less than the average, though.

Danimal said on 9/Feb/12
Col says on 7/Feb/12
Eastwood documented as 6'5" in a biography.In Dirty Harry, he looked a tall guy against a standard 6'6" door height...probably 6'3" to 6'4" in his heyday....maybe an inch or two shorter now.

An inch or two shorter now? hahaha... He's barely 6'0" FLAT today and there is PLENTY of proof of that.

James said on 9/Feb/12
he could have been 194cm range in the morning at his peak and i don't think he would drop under 193cm in the evening..... i think by 1976 he would have defenintly measured 6'3.5 (192cm) in the evening though.

Henrik said on 9/Feb/12
I got it wrong on the second. It was supposed to be 6'4", not 192cm.

193cm (6'4") in the mid-day.

Henrik said on 9/Feb/12
I think this was his peak:

194cm (6'4.25") in the morning.
193cm (192cm) in the mid-day.
192cm (6'3.5") in the evening.

James said on 8/Feb/12
he was not 6'5. the most he could have been is 6'4.25 (194cm)

Tommy said on 8/Feb/12
I am sure he claimed 6'3 himself at one point. Maybe someone else remembers that being on this page. I can't find the quote. I think that at least suggests he wasn't a full 6'4 at his peak.

Col said on 7/Feb/12
Eastwood documented as 6'5" in a biography.In Dirty Harry, he looked a tall guy against a standard 6'6" door height...probably 6'3" to 6'4" in his heyday....maybe an inch or two shorter now.

Danimal said on 2/Feb/12
avi says on 29/Jan/12
nah he was never over 6'3

yAh, he was

Danimal said on 2/Feb/12
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?

James used to say 6'2" for Clint for his prime height and then he went up to 6'5".. He's ALL over the place!

James said on 1/Feb/12
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?

Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Liam Neeson 6'4.25 (194cm)

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?

James said on 30/Jan/12
defo more 6'4 than 6'3

Silent d said on 29/Jan/12
Solid 6 footer. Some short actors are bad ass.

avi said on 29/Jan/12
nah he was never over 6'3

James said on 29/Jan/12
5'9 is not really short but maybe at the lower end of average these days

Danimal said on 29/Jan/12
avi says on 5/Jan/12
there is no way he should lose this much height. he had to be 6'3 peak and strong 6'1 now.

haha... Strong 6'1"??? He hasn't seen 6'1" in a long time. He was still a little over 6'0" up until a few years ago.. YES, he HAS lost this much height. Curvature (severe osteoporosis) of the spinal column and advanced age (in his 80's) makes people lose INCHES in height. There is MEDICAL PROOF to back this up. All you do is make yourself sound ignorant when you just don't like the idea of him having lost as much height as he did and continues to do so (well over 3")..

Jack said on 29/Jan/12
I class myself as short 5'9" and am sure Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris were taller than me. Yes I was a Charles Bronson fan he looked part, but a lot of so called tough looking duds in the movies today look sissies compared to Eastwood, Wayne and co. Being tall certainly helps!

EdgarHernandez said on 28/Jan/12
charles bronson was beliable as a thought, all around badass guy because he looked like he was carved in rock, then burn with fire and exposed to the elements. Not to mention that he was a purple heart award guy for his militar times, also, he was working in mines at 10 years old, he was a badass playing basicaly himself.

Mark said on 28/Jan/12
Short tough guy; Robert Conrad. His height never made a difference to me in watching Wild Wild West. Regarding Eastwood; if you're 6'3, you can claim 6'4 because in shoes, sneakers or out of bed you probably are. But Eastwood bever looked like a solid 6'4 guy, who would then be 6'5 out of bed. If he filmed western scenes soon after a nap or within a reasonable ammount of time after getting up early, add boots and you would have a potential 6'7 Eastwood on film in early westerns. That's madness. 6'3-ish in the old days, 3-ish inches shorter, now.

Henrik said on 27/Jan/12
Jack says on 27/Jan/12
Well.... would you take a short tough guy seriously, come on you small man syndrome guys, get real, Clint Eastwood is 6'4." Do you imagine Tom Cruise as Dirty Harry, come on even if he was standing on a box he wouldn't look right would he?

Well, people seemed to like Charles Bronson and take him seriously in the Death Wish series. And there are of course Bruce Lee, Van Damme and Chuck Norris.

Jack said on 27/Jan/12
Well.... would you take a short tough guy seriously, come on you small man syndrome guys, get real, Clint Eastwood is 6'4." Do you imagine Tom Cruise as Dirty Harry, come on even if he was standing on a box he wouldn't look right would he?

Silent d said on 26/Jan/12
I'll say 6 foot considering his age and posture.

EdgarHernandez said on 25/Jan/12
exacly 2 or 2.5 in the minute 1:28 of diference, and clint alredy have a very sloppy posture for all the scene.

Henrik said on 25/Jan/12
But yes, it probably is due what you wrote.

Henrik said on 25/Jan/12
wingnut says on 24/Jan/12
Henrik i think his torso looks longer simply because he has his shirt hanging
out over his waist.In fact if you look at eastwood he always tucks his tops
into his trousers making his legs appear longer.

The last picture, I wrote. He is sitting there.

James said on 25/Jan/12
Henrik says on 24/Jan/12
With listed 6'1.5" (though not on this site) Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, 1979:

Click Here

Do you think he was shorter than 6'4" in that movie, James?

In Escape from Alcatraz clint eastwood was 6'3 so yes.

wingnut said on 24/Jan/12
Henrik i think his torso looks longer simply because he has his shirt hanging
out over his waist.In fact if you look at eastwood he always tucks his tops
into his trousers making his legs appear longer.

Henrik said on 24/Jan/12
With listed 6'1.5" (though not on this site) Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, 1979:

Click Here

Do you think he was shorter than 6'4" in that movie, James?

James said on 23/Jan/12
he was 6'4 up unitll the mid too late 1970's

Henrik said on 21/Jan/12
You might of course be right, wingnut. But his torso seem to cannot help looking extremely long in my last picture.

Henrik said on 20/Jan/12
Mark says on 19/Jan/12
...in another 10 years, Eastwood will be a set of skinny legs with a head on top of them. Even ratio looks best, regarding this lengthy discussion about leg or torso height. I could care less about a woman's leg length. Overly long legs on a guy, IMO, do not look all that masculine.

Well, the study I referred to stated that people found excessively long legs less attractive, on both sexes. Still, I would personally easily choose Rock Hudson's leggy build over for instance Tom Brady's long torso build of similar height.

Hudson, a quite leggy 6'5":

Click Here

Long torso 6'5"-6'6":

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

Click Here
Click Here

Mark said on 19/Jan/12
...in another 10 years, Eastwood will be a set of skinny legs with a head on top of them. Even ratio looks best, regarding this lengthy discussion about leg or torso height. I could care less about a woman's leg length. Overly long legs on a guy, IMO, do not look all that masculine.

Henrik said on 18/Jan/12
2nd truth, you seem to suffer of Napoleon complex, and not just a little. We all know that Clint was never the epitome of masulinity and that he had very "few" ladies in his life. But whatever.

I guess all the teenagers who wear the pants as low as possible are much more "masculine and powerful" than Sean Connery in a suit? Haha. Saying that having long legs is "feminine" makes no sense, as females and males have clearly differently shaped legs.

"According to Swami et al., this can be explained by the
fact that since women have higher leg-to-body ratio (LBR)
than men, sexual selection over time should promote
women with higher LBR (increased femininity) and men
with lower LBR (higher masculinity). However, it is
questionable whether women have higher LBR than men,
throwing this explanation into doubt. Many studies show
either that there is no sexual dimorphism in relative leg
length within many human populations (Flugel, Greil, &
Sommer 1983; Martin & Saller, 1958) or that 17-year-old
boys (Martorell, Malina, Castillo, Mendoza, & Pawson,
1988) and adult men (Eveleth, 1978) have relatively longer
legs and shorter trunks than women. More recently,
Dangour, Schilg, Hulse, & Cole (2002) have shown that
18-year-old boys from Southeast England have relatively
longer legs than girls."
Click Here

"One hundred men and 118 women were asked to assess the previous termattractivenessnext term of the silhouettes using a seven-point scale. We found that male and female pictures with shorter than average legs were perceived as less attractive by both sexes. Although longer legs appeared to be more attractive, this was true only for the slight (5%) leg length increase; excessively long legs decreased body previous termattractivenessnext term for both sexes."
Click Here

James said on 18/Jan/12
Anything less than 6'4 (193cm) is out of the question.

EdgarHernandez said on 16/Jan/12
the funny thing 2nd truth, is that for nearly a century, being a tall guy, with long legs, broand shoulders and thick build, was the ultimate masculine ideal, and for be honest it look like still kind of is. as fr height, is pretty foolish at this point to put clint as low as 6ft 3 flat(6ft 3.5-.75 could be his lowest).

2nd truth said on 16/Jan/12
he had to have been
6 and half to 6 foot 2
in his prime i doubt
a flat 6 3 for him

i mean he has long legs short torso
that is very not masculine at all

not to hate but longer torso and short legs
are pretty nice in their own way
b pitt for exmaple long torso short legs

dolfph is no way a lady killer i am 5 8
and i pull off gorgoues girls that dolf
would have dreamed of

i am sorry height had nothing to do with human exisitence
for all i no is this guy might never even been a solid 6 footer

just enjoy life
i have swept about 10 girls offf their feet
in front of their 6 foot 2 boyfriends and im
5 9 to 5 foot 10 in shoes
belive me if life was about being perfect
we would not EXIST

and i have notice as a male when i dont
wash my face with no soap or products
women just jump over my face because i
dont clean it
so fellas you have to up your game in diffrent
ways

James said on 12/Jan/12
rock hudson was 6'5 or a fraction less

Jimmy L said on 11/Jan/12
Rock Hudson was 6"6 people. It is in his biography (1.98m), the guy had those long legs, Clint at peak was a solid 1,93m / 1,94m

James said on 9/Jan/12
in play misty for me looked a solid 6'4

avi said on 5/Jan/12
there is no way he should lose this much height. he had to be 6'3 peak and strong 6'1 now.

James said on 4/Jan/12
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Rock Hudson 6'4.75 (195cm)
George Kennedy 6'4 (193cm)
David Soul 6'0.5 (184cm)
Reni Santino 6'1 or 6'2? Not sure because clint only had 2 inhces on him in diry harrty but maybe that was just cause of his posture making him 6'3?

James said on 3/Jan/12
dave says on 3/Jan/12
James you are forgeting Stroud was not bear foot in that film,he was also wearing cowboy boots.If Clint was only 6f2 then how come he was the same hight as George Kennedy.

I am not saying he is 6'2 because with david soul he looked a legit 6'4.

dave said on 3/Jan/12
James you are forgeting Stroud was not bear foot in that film,he was also wearing cowboy boots.If Clint was only 6f2 then how come he was the same hight as George Kennedy.

Shaun said on 3/Jan/12
LOL so we're back to 6'2" for Clint. LOL James sorry but I'm not going back into that one again. Its a New Year. This is my last post on the Clint page.

James said on 2/Jan/12
Rob its interesting that shaun mentioned that clint eastwood had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2 don stroud in coogans bluff.... in those big heeled shoes he wore in that film gave him a 2 inch height boost and if he was 6'4 and wore 2 inches boots surely he would have had 4 inches on Stroud. anyway i don't really think clint eastwood looked 6'6 in those 2 inch heels he wore throughout the whole film.

In Dirty Harry as well clint only had 2 inches on Reni Santoni who I M D B have down at 6ft (183cm). if reni was only 6' then again clint only looked a strong 6'2 in comparison.


do you think maybe i could be into something here Rob? I know quite a few people belive clint eastwood stood no taller than 6'2 peak. A peak of 6'2.25 (189cm) seems unlikely for clint but who knows?

Silent d said on 30/Dec/11
183cm because of his old age and above it says he lost at least 3 inches and developed a dowagers hump.

James said on 30/Dec/11
Shaun says on 29/Dec/11
Considering he had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film...

Like i said he was 6'4 but looked shorter

Shaun said on 29/Dec/11
Considering he had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film...

James said on 28/Dec/11
Shaun says on 28/Dec/11
Voight actually looks 2 inches shorter than Eastwood did in my opinion. Certainly his legs are shorter. And I can't think of a single minute of Coogan's Bluff where he looked anything under 6'4". That was one of his "tallest" films.

disagree i thought he looked no taller than 6'3 in that movie.

Shaun said on 28/Dec/11
Voight actually looks 2 inches shorter than Eastwood did in my opinion. Certainly his legs are shorter. And I can't think of a single minute of Coogan's Bluff where he looked anything under 6'4". That was one of his "tallest" films.

EdgarHernandez said on 27/Dec/11
james, i naver have sugest tht clint was 6ft 5, i will the last person to do that, i think 6ft 4 was fine for him

Gus said on 27/Dec/11
Click Here

To me 190cm Voight looked in the same measure on screen as Eastwood as a 1960s cowboy.

James said on 27/Dec/11
last night i saw some of coogans bluff and i thought clint eastwood looked 6'2ish or 6'3 in that film not 6'4.

edgar u suggesting clint eastwood was 6'5?

EdgarHernandez said on 27/Dec/11
R. my friend you are a very bad case. ok lets first look at this single picture, just this one:
Click Here
clint is closer to 6ft 5 rock hudson, sure you can say rock is just 6ft 3(wich is very unlikle for not to say BS) but there is 6ft 2 michael cain in the same line that he is, draw a line and you will see that there is at last 3 inches in diference between the 2, dont belive in caine being 6ft 2?, try 6ft 2 lee marvin who is next to clint and is at last 2 inches shorter(taking in acount that he is one step from clint), you try to call BS in those 2 heights?, lets see james stewart who is a very well know 6ft 3(for most of his life and sure he was at the time of this photo) and makes those 3 guys heights seem consistent.
dont belive yet? lets see stewart whit john wayne:
Click Here
john with his tipical dont care pose, hip relaxed head tild while stewart is more straight look the same as each other. you can call bs in one, maybe 2 of the guys who apear in that photo, but you cant call that on all of them.

James said on 26/Dec/11
looks 6'1 with james cromwell

R. said on 25/Dec/11
Yall are all idiots clint eastwood is 6 foot 1 john wayne 6 foot 2 and they both wore 1 to 2 inch cowboy boots, so they looked taller but they are not in truth.

miko said on 25/Dec/11
Click Here

Eastwood and 6'5.5 James Cromwell.

James said on 25/Dec/11
i did originally think that clint eastwood was between 6'4-6'5 becuase of david souls original 6'1 listing on this site.

like i said obviously the way he carried himself in some parts of dirty harry made him look a flat 6'3.

James said on 24/Dec/11
Shaun says on 23/Dec/11
Soul looked 6'-6'1" I think. More chance Clint was 194 than 191 if you do the comparisons. Taller than Sutherland for example who I believe was 192cm.

Well i don't think clint eastwood look over 193cm with david soul. and didn't u say that sutherland had 2 inches on sean connery?

Shaun said on 23/Dec/11
I 'll agree though that he could often look 6'4" in the boots as opposed to legit though..

Shaun said on 23/Dec/11
I think if you were to have measured Clint in cowboy boots in the 60s he'd have been somewhere around 6'5.5".

Shaun said on 23/Dec/11
Soul looked 6'-6'1" I think. More chance Clint was 194 than 191 if you do the comparisons. Taller than Sutherland for example who I believe was 192cm.

James said on 23/Dec/11
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women. I mean Grace Jones is not exactly your average woman...

Like the guy in guy from underseige 2 dolph lundgren has got a very intimidating looking facing/build. lundgren is a guy i REALLY would not want to piss off and he would probably kick my 5'9 ass. Even though i am very muscular and work out he would own me in a fight LOL.

i heard that some robbers tried too steal from his house but when they saw a picture of dolph and realised it was his home they fled immediatley.

on a sidenote if reni santoni is 6'1 then i would say that clint eastwoods posture perhaps made him appear 190cm range in dirty harry and probably 193cm if he stood up straight which he rarely did.

Vegas said on 22/Dec/11
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women.
_________

Click Here

Shaun said on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women. I mean Grace Jones is not exactly your average woman...

James said on 22/Dec/11
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Tman says on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!

The chances of Clint Eastwood measuring shorter than volunteer #13 in his prime are very slim. Don't know Jame,s Challenger #13 is close to 6'4" and doesn't look as big as Nick Brimble either but he does look very tall range.

Shaun do you think david soul could have been under 184cm?

Shaun said on 22/Dec/11
Tman says on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!

The chances of Clint Eastwood measuring shorter than volunteer #13 in his prime are very slim. Don't know Jame,s Challenger #13 is close to 6'4" and doesn't look as big as Nick Brimble either but he does look very tall range.

Gus said on 22/Dec/11
Naa Lundgren was just scary looking,rocky 4 for Godsake,not sure women would go for that,his wallet on the other hand ! Its unfair to say Clint looks 6'1 range in dirty Harry,bearing in mind Reni Santoni was probably 6'1 and he had two inches on him.

Tman said on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!

James said on 20/Dec/11
well edgar here;s a better reference scene
Click Here

seriously if i did not know clint eastwoods height i would have guessed him at 6'1 range in the dirty harry police station scene above. a huge contrast too how tall he looks compared too how tall nick brimble looks thats for sure.

dolph lundgren as well in big trouble in little tokyo looked much bigger than clint eastwood.

EdgarHernandez said on 20/Dec/11
clint, is put far away in that clip james, he is at las 2 meters away from the old bald guy, the guy in withe suit is to close to the camera, in fact clint show his height as soon as the guy walt towards to clint. Clint is the kind of guy who dont look his height unless he is standing with one guy to compare himself, i meet a guy like that in my university, he was solid 6ft, but alot of people thought that i was taller than him, but as soon as i stod side by side, it was oviusly an inch of diference between the 2.

James said on 19/Dec/11
lol shaun i mean come on compare my clips of nick brimble in the bill police station scene
Click Here

too how tall clint eastwood looks in the diry hary police station scene
go too 1:58
Click Here

seriously clint just looks 'tall' wheare brimble looks exceptional/super tall. i'd say nick give a 1.5 inch taller impression than eastwood and that is what 6'4 is suppoused too look like. i notice as well that nick has broad shoulders whereas clint has kinda sloping shoulders like arnold schawanneger.

hard too believe nick brimble and clint eastwood would have been the same height in reality.

James said on 19/Dec/11
Shaun says on 18/Dec/11
On an added note, thanks James for that nostalgia clip!!! I love cult British TV and seeing all those cars I used to see in my childhood made it cool!!!

come on shaun you have too admit clint eastwood has never looked as big or as imposing as the 6'4 guy in my clip.

Shaun said on 18/Dec/11
On an added note, thanks James for that nostalgia clip!!! I love cult British TV and seeing all those cars I used to see in my childhood made it cool!!!

Shaun said on 18/Dec/11
Yeah I recognized him as a younger version of the height page picture we have. I can always spot how a legit 6'4" looks on screen, they are usually broad shouldered and really look imposing and he looked every bit of it. But in my opinion Clint Eastwood could look that way in a lot of his Dirty Harry movies. Coogan's Bluff he looked the full 6'4" in frame regardless of boots. Remember that often a lot of his costars were tall themselves. I have watched Dirty Harry many times like Magnum Force and Clint to me did look close to 6'4". You may be right that he looked more 6'3" a lot of the time.

James said on 18/Dec/11
Shaun says on 17/Dec/11
Either way though James I think he was genuinely close enough to claim to be 6 ft 4. He had the two "lanky inches" beyond normal tall guys on screen like Van Cleef etc

Well like i have said in the past clint eastwood really looked like a regular tall guy on screen or maybe upper end of regular and never really looked exceptionally big like tim robbins but don't get me wrong clint defenintly looked well over 6ft. 6'4 is out of the realms of your average tall guy.

too me on screen he looked like a 6'3 guy a lot of the time granted he could look super tall like in coogans bluff but that was just becaue he was in cowboy boots. i think he was a 6'4 guy but could look 6'3 because of the way he carried himself and also his head was quite narrow and not very wide or prominent.

for example this is a text book example of a big looking 6'4 man... go too 8:02, 8:39 and 16:52 in the youtube clip too see what i mean. clint eastwood has never really given that type of tall impression on screen unlike this 6'4 man. the big guy in the video i posted has a pic with rob on this site and if you want too find him his name is "nick brimble."
Click Here

too be fair though if you look at at photo of this guy unlike clint he looks too have a mesomorphic body type, like broad shoulders and very wide and more prominent facial features such as a very sqaure jaw etc just like dolph lundgren. don't get me wrong clint had very strong and masculine feature but his head was not very big.

Click Here
Click Here

6'4 mesomorphic types will always look massive and in clint eastwoods defense at least he could pull more women than dolph lundgren and nick brimble LOL.

on a last note too me 5'11.5-6'3 is your typicall tall guy range.

Shaun said on 17/Dec/11
Either way though James I think he was genuinely close enough to claim to be 6 ft 4. He had the two "lanky inches" beyond normal tall guys on screen like Van Cleef etc

James said on 16/Dec/11
no 6'4 (193cm) peak

maio said on 16/Dec/11
peak 6 ft 3.5 in/192 cm, nowadays, according with rob, he's 6 ft 0.5-0.75 in...

James said on 14/Dec/11
Clint Eastwood MIGHT have measured at 6'3.75 (192cm) before bed at his peak its not impossible and would have been 6'4 (193cm) in the afternoon and 6'4.5 (194cm) in the morning. Basically still a solid 6'4 anyway. d

in the old photo with arnie he looks 6'2 (188cm).

Henrik said on 13/Dec/11
I too think he was a solid 6'4".

EdgarHernandez said on 13/Dec/11
Julian, i think clint at his higest was a solid 6ft 4, and technically, dowager hump is just the ordinary name to kyphosis, for that mater, clint could opt for the operation(he got the money plus the healt), the operation is percutaneous vertebroplasty, basicaly the inject cement between the disks to fix the bend as much as posible, so the pacient regains some height, clint got that option. But maybe he would opt for a body brace and streching exercises.

Julian said on 12/Dec/11
I think Clint Eastwood height is 6'1 respectively at the present.
Click Here or Click Here
Furthermore, if Clint Eastwood really has dowagers hump or hyper-kyphosis how much does a person really lose?
So how can anyone of you predict his peak? He could have been 6'3-6'6, for that matter? Anyone?

James said on 5/Dec/11
I saw the film 'Where Eagles Dare' last night and i thought clint eastwood looked under 6'4 in that film. could look 6'3 at times in that film but not 6'4 at all.

James said on 4/Dec/11
i still think he was a legit 193cm unless david soul was under 184cm?

Tman said on 3/Dec/11
191,5cm peak!

EdgarHernandez said on 3/Dec/11
gus, proportions have alot to do with height, an the leng of a leg is a very good guess to proyect an aproximation of the heigh of someone.

Henrik said on 2/Dec/11
Gus says on 2/Dec/11
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:

1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care?

Well firstly,thankyou for sparing me the insults. Secondly Ive come on here to look into Clint Eastwoods height-not to see about Reeves inseam.Anyway its all light hearted banter !

Then simply don't read my posts. Was it that hard? I suppose so.

Gus said on 2/Dec/11
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:

1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care?

Well firstly,thankyou for sparing me the insults. Secondly Ive come on here to look into Clint Eastwoods height-not to see about Reeves inseam.Anyway its all light hearted banter !