How tall is Clint Eastwood - Page 19

James said on 27/Jul/11
Yeah true Andrea. Neither are really standing at there tallest in the photo.

Still though Eastwood was 3-4 inches taller than David Soul. so 193 or 194cm seems on target for his peak.

ANDREA[ITA] said on 27/Jul/11
Well next to 184 cm Lenord Nemoy, counting that clint is also closer to the camera, i see no more than 7 cms!

Shaun said on 27/Jul/11
Now you see James how ridiculous your Eastwood looks 6'2" claims are.

James said on 26/Jul/11
ANDREA[ITA] says on 26/Jul/11
Sorry James, its the first time im looking clint eastwood's page. Im just wondering how he lost 3.5 inches! I agree that he's about 184 today but how can you say he's 6ft4? I mean... You have some photos? Some proofs?

probably lost virtually around 4 inches.

here's the proof
Click Here

194cm Clint Eastwood vs 184cm Lenord Nemoy
Click Here

ANDREA[ITA] said on 26/Jul/11
Sorry James, its the first time im looking clint eastwood's page. Im just wondering how he lost 3.5 inches! I agree that he's about 184 today but how can you say he's 6ft4? I mean... You have some photos? Some proofs?

James said on 26/Jul/11
if Santoni was only 183cm then Clint Eastwood should have been 4-5 inches taller than him.

James said on 26/Jul/11
correction he would measure at 196 or 195cm in the morning at his peak. 193cm before bed at his peak.

James said on 26/Jul/11
Even though i hate to admit, it is true goldblum still looked 1 inch taller than sutherland even with bad postuer and a slouch in a photo i have just seen of them.

James said on 26/Jul/11
yep but 3-4 inches taller than david soul in magum foce. that would indicate that he might have a hair over 6'4.

Shaun said on 26/Jul/11
Compared to most he looked a legit 6'4". Looked that height next to George Kennedy, Don Stroud, Charlton Heston etc. I admit though he didn't look 3 or 4 inches taller than Santoni in Dirty Harry, more like 2 inches.

Shaun said on 26/Jul/11
Lillo thomas says on 25/Jul/11
Gus James claimed that Clint Eastwood was 6-2.5 to 6-3 at best in his peak many times .

He did yes but then I think he really that actually he was underestimating him because he realised that 6'5" Rock Hudson was barely taller, he was the same height as George Kennedy and that he was even taller than Donald Sutherland who had two inches minimum on Sean Connery who at one point in the day measured 6'2" peak. SO I think that's where his 6'4.5" is coming from. I can imagine Eastwood measuring 194cm in the morning in his prime. Certainly 6'4" in my view, although 6'3.5" at some point in the day possible. I think Rob is right that you can argue both 192 and 194 cm for his peak. 6'4" is fair.

adam 2 said on 26/Jul/11
Eastwood was never OVER 6-4. So lets clear that one up.

Sutherland has been stated 6-3 before. In many a films he looks that height. He is a sloucher, remember that.

Lee Van Cleef was 6-2 prime. Eastwood had close to two inches on him. Eastwood was maybe slightly taller than Sutherland who himself was about two inches shorter than Goldblum.

Then there is the pic where Robbins has about half a foot on Clint....

James said on 25/Jul/11
i changed my mind because i saw more phots of clint eastwood with guys like Rock Hudson.

Also i saw magnum force and he looked quite a lot taller than david soul. that is why i changed my mind on 6'2-6'3 peak for clint eastwood.

Lillo I never said tht eastwood was 6'2-6'3 at best.

Lillo thomas said on 25/Jul/11
Gus James claimed that Clint Eastwood was 6-2.5 to 6-3 at best in his peak many times .

James said on 25/Jul/11
George Kennedy and Clint Eastwood probably in the 6'4-6'4.5 range.

Lillo thomas said on 25/Jul/11
James is hilarious . Downgrading everyone for months and now he is giving the max height posible . For example arguing to death that Clint Eastwood was 6-2 range in his prime . Now he is saying that Clint was 6-4 range in his prime. lol

Sam said on 25/Jul/11
I did catch a bit of The Eiger Sanction on TV the other day and its clear that George Kennedy and he are the same height: 6'4". In a hotel lobby they are on even ground and were eyeball to eyeball and much taller than the other actors.

James said on 25/Jul/11
I doubt sutherland was that much shorter than 6'4 at his peak

Gus said on 24/Jul/11
Danimal says on 24/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.

He was NOT 6'5" in the morning kid. You realize you have gone from 6'2" to 6'5" for him. Try and give the site a rest for a bit. It's the summer. You post on this page EVERYDAY. Not healthy for a 20 year old kid.

Clearly nobody has said Clint was 6'2,not even James,im sure James used to say 6'3 not 6'2.

James said on 24/Jul/11
Danimal says on 24/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.

He was NOT 6'5" in the morning kid. You realize you have gone from 6'2" to 6'5" for him. Try and give the site a rest for a bit. It's the summer. You post on this page EVERYDAY. Not healthy for a 20 year old kid.

Why is it not healthy danimal?

Danimal said on 24/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.

He was NOT 6'5" in the morning kid. You realize you have gone from 6'2" to 6'5" for him. Try and give the site a rest for a bit. It's the summer. You post on this page EVERYDAY. Not healthy for a 20 year old kid.

adam2 said on 24/Jul/11
Ridiculous estimates. Robbins would be at least an inch taller.

And dont trust on one or two films. Yes Sutherland was two inches taller than Connery and Eastwood had a slight edge on Sutherland but remember THE OTHER films.

In DR TERRORS HOUSE OF HORRORS Sutherland is two inches shorter than Christopher Lee. In INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS Sutherland is clearly close to two inches shorter than Jeff Goldblum. In THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE Sutherland looks about 6-3. In THE DIRTY DOZEN Sutherland is about four inches shorter than 6-6 Clint Walker. etc etc....

Eastwood doesnt look anything over 6-4. Never.

James said on 24/Jul/11
jake says on 23/Jul/11
James, how tall are you again?

176cm

jake said on 23/Jul/11
James, how tall are you again?

James said on 22/Jul/11
Guys can i also point out that in Arlington Road Jeff Bridges might have been a fraction shorter than he was in thunderbolt and lightfoot so that is why he might have a appeared a little shorter next too robbins. so in 1974 bridges might have been 187cm and in 1999 186cm.

But yeah i would agree i think there is a chance a peak tim robbins would have had an edge on a peak clint eastwood. the difference may have even looked greater if clint eastwood had posture.

James said on 22/Jul/11
If Robbins is 6'5 then yes Clint Eastwood a fraction shorter at his peak.

Robbins unlike Clint Eastwood stands with very good posture and has broader shoulders and different proportions.

James said on 22/Jul/11
Vegas says on 21/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
eastwood might have been the same or 'almost' the same height as tim robbins at his peak.
____________

same height no, robbins is noticeably taller next to jeff bridges in arlington road compared to eastwood in thunderbolt and lightfoot

shaun, glover was about an inch shorter than adam baldwin in predator 2

but robbins has very very much better posture than eastwood.

adam2 said on 22/Jul/11
Eastwood as tall as Tim Robbins at his peak? Ridiculous.

Robbins I think is 6-5. A solid 6-5. Eastwood doesnt tower like a 6-5 man. More likely a weak 6-4 man with a bad posture.

Vegas said on 21/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
eastwood might have been the same or 'almost' the same height as tim robbins at his peak.
____________

same height no, robbins is noticeably taller next to jeff bridges in arlington road compared to eastwood in thunderbolt and lightfoot

shaun, glover was about an inch shorter than adam baldwin in predator 2

James said on 21/Jul/11
at least 6'4 flat peak

Lillo Thomas said on 21/Jul/11
Clint Eastwood was 6-4 flat in his prime nothing more.

James said on 21/Jul/11
eastwood might have been the same or 'almost' the same height as tim robbins at his peak.

In 1974 by the time of thunderbolt and lightfoot clint eastwood might have started too dip just a tiny amount under 194cm or he could have still been 6'4.25 (194cm) by the time of that film or just 6'4 (193cm). his posture in that film was starting too get worse and you could kinda notice the arch in his back more.

Was 6'3.25 or 6'3.5 from 1977 up untill 1993 maybe?

James said on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.

Shaun said on 21/Jul/11
Danny Glover was 6'3.5", had about two inches on Robert Davi actually.

Shaun said on 21/Jul/11
Well Yao Ming was 11 pounds at birth, Eastwood was 11 and a half pounds. As I said his birth weight and size was that of a baby which would grow into a giant man! Although he was clearly never a giant lol 6'4" is still very tall range.

Gus said on 20/Jul/11
Well what does it for me is,Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. Numerous great shots,whole body shots,of Clint and Bridges,Jeff Bridges who I consider a sure thing 186cm guy,with poor posture Clint looked no more than a strong 6'2 next to him,but on 2/3 occasions where he does extend his back out,possibly has as much as 3 inches on Bridges-obviously backing the 6'4 theory..IMO if you measured Eastwood during fistfull of dollars time,midday with good posture-would have been a flat 6'4,trouble was his lazy back,often hung around the 191cm mark.

James said on 20/Jul/11
Dirty Harry 6'4.25 (194cm)
Magnum Force 6'4.25 (194cm)
The Enforcer 6'4 (193cm)
Any Which Way You can 6'3.5 (192cm)
Unforgiven 6'3.5 (192cm)
In The Line of Fire 6'3 (191cm)
Bridges of Madison County 6'2.5 (189cm)

In his 20's on his best day might have even measured at 6'4.5 (194cm).

James said on 20/Jul/11
aun says on 20/Jul/11
James where is the evidence he began losing height in the early 70s? He didn't really look any shorter until the early 80s. He looked a strong 6'3" in the late 80s next to Neeson. And as thebad says which I 100% agree with he still looked an easy 6'3" in Unforgiven. In In the line of Fire looked a solid 6'3" and looked this height next to Arnie around this time. I don't believe he dipped under 6'3" until 1994-1995 when he appeared to be more a strong 6'2" in Bridges of Madison County, I'd have guessed 6'2.5" around that time.

not early but mid to late 70's i think he lost just about 1 inch. Maybe 6'3.75 (192cm) or 6'4 (193cm) in the Enforcer and 6'4.25 or 6'4.5 in Magnum Force?

I think by 1977 was no taller than a strong 6'3 like 192cm. so between 1973-1975 dropped from 6'4.25 (194cm) to 6'4 (193cm) and from 1975-1977 dipped down more to 6'3.5 (192cm).

6'3.5 in Any Which Way You can and could have still been 6'3 1/2 in the Deadpool.

In the early 90's i think shrunk from 6'3.5 too 6'3 flat. so around 6'3 flat by the time of line of fire. he looked very similar in height to danny glover in 1992 as well.

i agree shaun he started to go under 6'3 in 1994 or 1995.

lillo thomas said on 20/Jul/11
Insisting to death that he was 6-2.5 and 6-3 at best for months and now saying that he is 6-4 and change peak . LOL.

James said on 20/Jul/11
maybe i was being a bit hastey saying clint eastwood was only a flat 6'3 in the late 70's/early 80's so probably in 1977 and 1980 6'3 1/2 (192cm).

i think in the 70's shrunk from 6'4-6'5 too 6'3-6'4.

Not sure if he was as tall as 6'3 1/2 in the deadpool? In the Line of Fire probably was not over 6'3.

Shaun said on 20/Jul/11
James where is the evidence he began losing height in the early 70s? He didn't really look any shorter until the early 80s. He looked a strong 6'3" in the late 80s next to Neeson. And as thebad says which I 100% agree with he still looked an easy 6'3" in Unforgiven. In In the line of Fire looked a solid 6'3" and looked this height next to Arnie around this time. I don't believe he dipped under 6'3" until 1994-1995 when he appeared to be more a strong 6'2" in Bridges of Madison County, I'd have guessed 6'2.5" around that time.

James said on 20/Jul/11
his height loss became an issue in the late 70's when he shrunk to 6'3.

No taller than 6'3 flat in the Deadpool as well. He also had at least 3 inches on David Soul so he was still at least 6'4 in Magnum Force.

throughout the 70's he lost a good 1 inch in height.

thebad7 said on 20/Jul/11
6'4" is correct for Eastwood as a young man. I don't believe height loss became an issue for him until around the time he did UNFORGIVEN in 1992.

Consider it from these perspectives:
1. The Dollars Films: As a young man (mid 30s), he starred alongside Western Legend Lee Van Cleef in the final two Dollars films. Van Cleef was a legitimate 6'2" and there are plenty of scenes in both FAFDM and GBU in which the two actors stand face-to-face with good posture. Eastwood had about 1.5"-2" on Van Cleef, pointing to 6'4" for Eastwood. Also note that both actors were wearing cowboy boots with similar heels (1"-1.5" heel).
2. MAGNUM FORCE: I always like to use this as a reference since it ought to put to bed any notions that Clint was shorter than 6'4" at peak. Clint holds his own against several 6'1"+ actors in this film: he has 6'2" actors Robert Urich and Tim Matheson by 2", and this with Urich and Matheson having footwear advantage (1" combat boots vs. flat-soled sneakers for Eastwood). Eastwood also has David Soul, Hal Holbrook, and Mitchell Ryan (all of whom are approx. 6'0"-6'1" tall) by 3".
3. THE DEAD POOL: There is a good scene in this film in which a then 58 year old Eastwood stands face-to-face with a young (early 30s) Liam Neeson. Neeson has Eastwood by a hair (hair = 1"). Assuming that Neeson is minimum 6'4", which he was, and some change to go along with it, Eastwood was at the bare minimum 6'3 1/2" tall.
4. UNFORGIVEN: Everybody is wearing cowboy boots with similar heels. Eastwood has 1"-1.5" on legit 6'2" actors Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman. Still 6'3"+ at this stage.
5. MILLION DOLLAR BABY: Standing next to Morgan Freeman, Eastwood looked about even, and in some shots, a bit shorter. 6'2" approximately at this point.

Also, Eastwood did several mid-70s pictures with legit 6'4" George Kennedy--a man who towered over practically everybody in Hollywood at that time--and in particular, in 1974's THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT, Eastwood looks to be the same height as Kennedy with no discernable difference between the two men.

Today, however, is a different story. Age catches up to everybody--even Hollywood legends. Eastwood is a great actor and a great director, and I love his films. I also admire that he's always been very health conscious, and he looks very good for an 81 year old man. At best, he's probably no taller than 6'1"-6'1 1/2" at the most today.

tb7

Candace said on 19/Jul/11
I met him in his pre-Dirty Harry days. I am 5'7" and I didn't come to his shoulder. He was definitely at least 6'4". And he had on golf shoes, not boots so it was all him. What really struck me however was how incredibly skinny he was.

James said on 19/Jul/11
Legit/Strong 6'4 barefoot
Legit/Strong 6'5 in shoes

James said on 19/Jul/11
Danimal I never said he was 6'5 but since very tall people loose more height during the day he could have measured at 6'5 out of bed or maybe 6'5.25.

A strong 6'4 he was NOT 6'5.

By the time of the Enfrocer he was between 6'3-6'4.

James said on 19/Jul/11
He was never a proper 6'5 but he might have been 194cm. I think at peak closer to 6'4 than 6'5 for sure. 6'3 with bad posture in his prime.

Shaun said on 19/Jul/11
Click Here

If you look how high the top of his head is compared to everybody else and how high his head looks above the street in the following clip of The Enforcer to me he most certainly looks a solid 6'4". I can always tell the difference between a 6'2" guy and a 6'4" guy on screen .

Shaun said on 19/Jul/11
Yeah I think he looked the tallest in The Enforcer in all the Dirty Harry films, followed by Magnum Force.

Danimal said on 18/Jul/11
James says on 17/Jul/11
if a 1950's clint eastwood got out of bed after his best nights sleep he would measure at 6'7 in timberland shoes.

And you used to have him at 6'2" and now he's 6'5" peak?

Mark said on 18/Jul/11
At 5 inches taller, you can just see over someone's head. Yeah, Eastwood was clearly a few inches over Guardino. But a true 6'4 guy would DWARF a 5'10-ish guy. That wasn't the case. I agree with myself when I say that Eastwood was probably 6'3 to 6'3.5 on an average day (after any extra bed height went away), and I agree with Mike when he says Eastwood "over" 6'4...at any point, barefoot, is just too hard to swallow. I'm 6 foot, and know 6'5 guys. Eastwood was never, ever 6'5. 99% of all of this is speculation. But I'd bet my life on that.

James said on 18/Jul/11
Funny how in Magnum Force and Dirty Harry Clint Eastwood might have been around 194cm and yet in those films he looked shorter than he did in the enforcer. by the time of the enforcer was starting too dip below 6'4.

He seemed a solid 6'3 in Escape Alcatraz and Any Which Way you Can and even in the line of fire still looked around the 6'3 mark.

Shaun I never said he looked 6'2.5 max in the Enforcer. I thought he actually looked around a flat 6'4 in that movie even though he might have been more like 6'3 1/2 by that stage.

James said on 18/Jul/11
By the time of the Enforcer probably was 192cm. he lost a good 1 inch of height throughout the 70's.

I also saw the Line of Fire last night and thought Clint Eastwood looked 6'3 (191cm) in that film. By 1995 he was 6'2 and change.

James said on 18/Jul/11
1,94 meteres is not impossible for his peak

James said on 17/Jul/11
if a 1950's clint eastwood got out of bed after his best nights sleep he would measure at 6'7 in timberland shoes.

Shaun said on 17/Jul/11
As I said the Connery vs Sutherland and Eastwood vs Sutherland is proof enough for me he was 6'4". I watched The Enforcer last night and I personally thought he looked like a legit 6'4". I know you've seen it James and said he looked 6'2.5" max but he did have 5 or 6 inches on 5'10" Harry Guardino.

Terryman said on 17/Jul/11
1,93 meters is a bit generous for clint

James said on 16/Jul/11
Mike says on 15/Jul/11
We just seem to be going back and forth with the same posters, here, with an unreal trend among some towards suggesting Eastwood was even "taller" than 6'4, which, in itself is stretching it, to me. I'll be back on when some other opinions surface, perhaps with facts or photos to back them up. Eastwood was a tall skinny guy. But 6'3 to 6'3.5 is far more believable than bordering on 6'5. I don't know if some "want" him to have been that tall, or what. But that's no 6'5 guy walking around in the movies in the 60's and 70's. And shots with Eastwood and Rock Hudson are hardly in proportion, if that's cited as evidence to back up a taller Eastwood.

3-4 inches taller than 6'1 David Soul in Magnum Force, slightly taller than Donald Sutherland and for sure looked taller than 6'2 Lee Van Cleef. Could walk around shorter in his movies like 6'3 cause of his of his posture and proportions.

the guy has lost a remarkable amount of height from his peak cuase out of bed in 1973 could have measured a fraction over 6'5.

Mike said on 15/Jul/11
We just seem to be going back and forth with the same posters, here, with an unreal trend among some towards suggesting Eastwood was even "taller" than 6'4, which, in itself is stretching it, to me. I'll be back on when some other opinions surface, perhaps with facts or photos to back them up. Eastwood was a tall skinny guy. But 6'3 to 6'3.5 is far more believable than bordering on 6'5. I don't know if some "want" him to have been that tall, or what. But that's no 6'5 guy walking around in the movies in the 60's and 70's. And shots with Eastwood and Rock Hudson are hardly in proportion, if that's cited as evidence to back up a taller Eastwood.

James said on 15/Jul/11
I think clint was between 6'4-6'5 peak and started to loose height in the early to mid 70's.

Shaun said on 13/Jul/11
Eastwood was almost 12 lbs at birth. Usually babies born that weight end up being giant sized adults. Lots of the 7' basketball players are that sort of weight at birth

Gus said on 10/Jul/11
James never said Eastwood was 6'2,said he may have been 6'2.5 with bad posture,its obvious Clint wasnt 6'2,thats common sense,but definately not over 6'4,ive always thought 192cm with good posture myself.

Mike said on 9/Jul/11
Eastwood was not ever..ever, just under 6'5. Laughable.

Danimal said on 8/Jul/11
James says on 6/Jul/11
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.75 (192cm)
Rock Hudson 6'5 (196cm)

So, you've gone from 6'2" peak to 6'4.25" for Eastwood?

James said on 8/Jul/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 7/Jul/11
James, Eastwood was never 194cm

Not impossible he was not a big amount shorter than 6'7 James Arness and nearly as tall as rock hudson. in the same photo with hudson looked more than 2 inches taller than Michael Caine.

Clint Eastwoods in some ways is like Keanu Reeves for example small head, kinda scrawy and not very wide shoulders so that is probably why he looked shorter. unlike robbins he was not broad shoulderd or big boned.

with his bad posture and build he would give of a 189-190cm illusion on screen in his early films. basicly he was a weak 6'4 1/2 guy so really virtually he was over the 6'4 193cm mark by only a very small fraction not even signifigant. Of course though he was not 195cm or 196cm.

Like Brad said "Legit/strong 6'4 guy peak"

I am off too New York for one week so looking forward to debating more with you guys when i get back :)

James said on 8/Jul/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 7/Jul/11
James, Eastwood was never 194cm

Not impossible he was not a big amount shorter than 6'7 James Arness and nearly as tall as rock. in the same photo with hudson looked more than 2 inches taller than Michael Caine.

Clint Eastwoods in some ways is like Keanu Reeves for example small head, kinda scrawy and not very wide shoulders so that is probably why he looked shorter.

I am off too New York for one week so looking forward to debating more with you guys when i get back :)

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/Jul/11
James, Eastwood was never 194cm

Mike said on 7/Jul/11
lol..Eastwood was now OVER 6'4, peak? Not in a million years.

James said on 6/Jul/11
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.75 (192cm)
Rock Hudson 6'5 (196cm)

James said on 6/Jul/11
Yeah i agree he didn't look 6'4 but he really was though there is evidense to suppourt it. that and in the 1960's and early 70's films were not shot in the same way they are today making the actors not look taller then they really are perhaps.

T said on 5/Jul/11
thats sheb whooley standing next to clint not fleming

jtm said on 5/Jul/11
matt damon is 5'8 but i agree that eric fleming was 6'3.

Terryman said on 5/Jul/11
in the pic by vegas eric fleming looks as though he could edge eastwood if he were to stand at his tallest! Again just shows that 193cm is bull for clint eastwood peak.

Terryman said on 5/Jul/11
1,91-2 meters peak,6'4 is madness for his peak he just never ever looked over 6'3 no matter how thin he was at times!

Vegas said on 4/Jul/11
photos... i watched multiple episodes and they looked the same height, look same height in this shot too Click Here

Shaun said on 4/Jul/11
@Vegas, no Eastwood was a good inch taller than Fleming, see the photos.

Shaun said on 4/Jul/11
Actually Eric Fleming was once listed as 6' on i m d b as was Matt Damon! In reality Fleming was 6'3" and Matt Damon 5'9".5"

James said on 3/Jul/11
193-194cm barefoot peak and over 6'5 in a decent pair of cow boy boots.

In the late 70's 191cm.

Danimal said on 3/Jul/11
Shaun says on 2/Jul/11
The shower scene. I believe he was the same height as another 6'4" without clothes James.

Again, that actor has also been listed at 6'3" on i m d b, as well as 6'3". Safe to say that Clint was somewhere between those 2 heights in the late 70's.

James said on 2/Jul/11
Shaun says on 2/Jul/11
The shower scene. I believe he was the same height as another 6'4" without clothes James.

wasn;t he also shorter than a 6'3 guy in the shower scene?

Danimal says on 2/Jul/11
James says on 1/Jul/11
Strong 6'4 peak

????? You went from 6'2" to strong 6'4" for his peak height?? Wow do you change your mind all the time.

I saw teh photos of him near rock hudson.

Shaun said on 2/Jul/11
The shower scene. I believe he was the same height as another 6'4" without clothes James.

James said on 2/Jul/11
Truthman says on 1/Jul/11
James

Goldblum was noticable taller than Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"

Sutherland was 2 inches taller than sean connery

Danimal said on 2/Jul/11
James says on 1/Jul/11
Strong 6'4 peak

????? You went from 6'2" to strong 6'4" for his peak height?? Wow do you change your mind all the time.

Danimal said on 2/Jul/11
Shaun says on 1/Jul/11
Eastwood was the same height as the 6'4" listed actor in 1979's Escape from Alcatraz.

The actor your speaking of has also been listed as 6'3".

James said on 1/Jul/11
Eastwood was 6'3 in Escape from Alcatraz. Might have looked taller becuase of the clothing he had on etc.....

Truthman said on 1/Jul/11
James

Goldblum was noticable taller than Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"

James said on 1/Jul/11
Strong 6'4 peak

Shaun said on 1/Jul/11
Eastwood was the same height as the 6'4" listed actor in 1979's Escape from Alcatraz.

Mark said on 30/Jun/11
Like Eastwood (maybe 6'4 at the extreme peak, in my opinion), most guys who I know who are 6'3 to 6'5, hunch a bit more every year. One guy, about age 57, always claimed 6'4, but between his slouch and my good posture, his 6'4 is barely over my 6 foot. If memory serves, he appeared taller 10 years ago.

James said on 30/Jun/11
a possibily clint shrunk from 6'4 to 6'3 between 1973-1977. a lot can happen in 4 years since its a long time.

EdgarHernandez says on 28/Jun/11
James you are 22, i am just 2 years younger(when you had 22, i still just one year yunger). but seriusly james i also surprised, what phot, fact changed your mind?

cause clint was slightly taller than donald sutherland

James said on 30/Jun/11
EdgarHernandez says on 28/Jun/11
James you are 22, i am just 2 years younger(when you had 22, i still just one year yunger). but seriusly james i also surprised, what phot, fact changed your mind?

i am still 21 but i will be 22 in a few months.

True Lillo Thomas

Shaun Brad said on this page that in 1977 clint eastwood was 6'3. clint i think began losing height in the mid to late 70's.

lillo thomas said on 29/Jun/11
James you can spot 6-2 and 6-4 guys easy in large crowds like concerts , malls etc. 2 inches isn't a big difference . Big diference is anything over 4 inches . 6-6 6-7 guys are rare even in large crowds ; concerts malls . etc. At best I see 1 6-7 guy in malls very few times a year.

Shaun said on 29/Jun/11
James says on 27/Jun/11
1973-6'4.25 (194cm)
1975-6'3.75 (192cm)
1977-6'3.25 (191cm)
1980-6'3 (191cm)

WTF??

How about

1973 - 6'4"
1975 -6'4"
1977-6'4"
1980 -6'4"

He didn't begin to lose height until the 80s.

EdgarHernandez said on 28/Jun/11
James you are 22, i am just 2 years younger(when you had 22, i still just one year yunger). but seriusly james i also surprised, what phot, fact changed your mind?

James said on 28/Jun/11
Danimal says on 27/Jun/11
Shaun says on 26/Jun/11
Goldblum not 6'4"?? You're a weird dude James, wasn't too long ago you were saying 6'4.5" peak..

He's an indecisive, arrogant and impressionable 20 year old Shaun.

I will be 22 in only a few months actually danimal. Why you saying all that about me? What have i done to you?

Terryman said on 28/Jun/11
1,92 meters peak!

James said on 28/Jun/11
LOL Shaun I never claimed for 'years' that eastwood 6'3.5 max.

lillo thomas yeah will smith might be over 6'1 but its only by a fraction. and also i do think some guys are or were 6'4 such as....

Liam Neeson
David Hasselhoff
Tim Robbins
Jim Parrack (maybe?)
Clint Eastwood
John Corbett
Dennis Haysbert
Dolph Lundgren
Stephen Fry
Bill O'Reily

guys who i think may be under 6'4 just by how tall they look and watching more of there films are.

Conan O'Brien
Steven Seagal
Bob Saget
Jeff Goldblum
Randy Orton

James said on 28/Jun/11
Shaun says on 27/Jun/11
James something seems to have persuaded you Eastwood was an easy 6'4" peak when for years you've claimed he was 6'3.5" MAX. May I ask what changed your mind? All I know is if you compare Connery to Sutherland and then compare Sutherland to Eastwood he was not under 6'4" peak. He was the same height as George Kennedy I think, and Kennedy was supposed to have been 6'4.5" peak. Rob, I recall you saying you;ve met George Kennedy. Do you think 6'4.5" unlikely for his peak given that you said he's barely above 6' ?

because connery was suppoused to be a strong 6'2 and sutherland was 2 inches taller and eastwood was a fraction taller than sutherland.

lillo thomas 6'2 guys look tall and are not that common and 6'4 is 2 inches over the 6'2 mark and 2 inches is a lot by the way. that is why i think 6'4 is quite rare.

EdgarHernandez said on 28/Jun/11
I have a theory of why clint lost height, first lets see the early and child clint:
Click Here
already had his "crazy long legs, and a unquep posture.
Click Here
i think clint was very predisposed to have back problems in his life time, (look the second picture)
This text is very very good, in this one it saids that clint reached his full height at 16 years old, and for that he was forced to play basket ball(much like john wayne was forced to sports, in his case for his build was football)
Click Here
Lets analize this clint begean in the bascket ball team, an sport for tall people(he was put in the sport for that), but he prefer ultimately weight training, if he just stick for bascked ball and athletic sport( not lifthing weights) maybe he would keep his height more. On top of that notice the posture of clint in his exercise with dumbells:
Click Here
now with a barbell:
Click Here
I notice how his posture is always not complety straight wich should be if he want to dont injure his back or cause a bend of it. Second lets analize this, if he train with weights alot of you ask, why he never looked big?
Click Here
if you read the article you discover that clint usual workout is 3 to 4 hours at for 3 or four days at week, when he wants to bulk, he simple quite his cardio workout and begin to do one hour at day for a full week, he trains his back legs and chest, but it saids nothing abaut his abs(who i suspect that he train normal to little), it also mentions his weird sleep abits, it said that even he sleep well(so maybe is not fault of dayly spine compresion for lack of sleep), but while filming he said to sleep at 6 am, and wake to 3 pm, wich i find, unseting and just after wake up he goes stright to the gym wich i dont find to normal.

One thing they point point out is the obsecion of clint with fitness, and how he train "like a demon" wich could lead to bad results.
In resumen the evidence shows very bad back(even in early age), exesive weight training since the age of 19, wich is now 61 years lifthing weights(he should lighted up after he was 50)and looks like clint never train his abs in the way it should have done(he is reporte for most of his life to had 10% of body fat or less, wich is for his body very posible, so if he train his abs it should be visible easily) his abs would have done better to keep his posture correct, at last for more time.

Tina said on 27/Jun/11
I met Mr Eastwood on 12/23/1978. My living hero on screen. Please please please get this message to him to make the second half of Grapes of Wrath and or Doomfarers of Coramonde which would make for a 4 movies in a row......epic like Lord of the Rings and of that style..........................

Danimal said on 27/Jun/11
Shaun says on 26/Jun/11
Goldblum not 6'4"?? You're a weird dude James, wasn't too long ago you were saying 6'4.5" peak..

He's an indecisive, arrogant and impressionable 20 year old Shaun.

James said on 27/Jun/11
1973-6'4.25 (194cm)
1975-6'3.75 (192cm)
1977-6'3.25 (191cm)
1980-6'3 (191cm)
1995-6'2.5 (189cm)
1997-6'2 (188cm)
2000-6'1.5 (187cm)
2005-6'1 (185cm)
2011-6'0.25 (184cm)

only a matter of time before he hits 183cm...... its strange with clint eastwood it seems during the 1974-1977 era he dropped from a strong 6'4 to 6'3 and he remained the 191cm mark for 17 years then all off a sudden droped down to 189cm in the mid 90's and his height loss seemd too speed up a lot from there on. In the Enforcer which came out in 1976 he seemed 192cm them just 1 year later probably shrunk to 191cm.

lillo thomas said on 27/Jun/11
James insist that Will Smith is over 6-1 , when clearly he is not but downgrade some legit ( peak and current height) 6-4 guys. That's strange . It seems James believe that the 6-4 height is a very strange phenomenon . 6-4 guys are rare but is very easy to spot 6-4 guys in large crowds . I would say that 6-6 6-7 and plus are really the VERY RARE heights.

Shaun said on 27/Jun/11
James something seems to have persuaded you Eastwood was an easy 6'4" peak when for years you've claimed he was 6'3.5" MAX. May I ask what changed your mind? All I know is if you compare Connery to Sutherland and then compare Sutherland to Eastwood he was not under 6'4" peak. He was the same height as George Kennedy I think, and Kennedy was supposed to have been 6'4.5" peak. Rob, I recall you saying you;ve met George Kennedy. Do you think 6'4.5" unlikely for his peak given that you said he's barely above 6' ?

James said on 27/Jun/11
Shaun says on 26/Jun/11
Goldblum not 6'4"?? You're a weird dude James, wasn't too long ago you were saying 6'4.5" peak..

Sometimes when i study a stars height and compare them to other people who are listed the same i can change my mind on how tall i think a celeb. its just basicly learning new things etc but i could be wrong.

James said on 26/Jun/11
looking at some clips of clint eastwood in heartbreak ridge on youtube but i don't know why cause even with good posture in that movie did not look over 6'2 (188cm).

Presumably in 1986 when that film came out clint eastwood stood at 6'3 (191cm)? Defenintly looked a detectable amount under 6'4 by the time of that movie. a 1-1.5 inch height loss at 56 is quite impressive.

James said on 26/Jun/11
1,93-1'94meters peak

Shaun said on 26/Jun/11
Goldblum not 6'4"?? You're a weird dude James, wasn't too long ago you were saying 6'4.5" peak..

Mark said on 25/Jun/11
Sure Connery could have been measured at 6'2.4. But I'm sure that if that's true, it was his out of bed or up from a nap height. "I'm" almost an inch taller in the morning. This would make Connery, once settled, 6'1.5, which is what I'd say he was.

Terryman said on 25/Jun/11
1,91-2metres peak,he looks like he could beat the crap out of everybody even at old age!

James said on 24/Jun/11
Vegas says on 24/Jun/11
james, sutherland was clearly shorter than jeff goldblum back in 78 in invasion of the body snatchers and in that movie goldblum is asked his height and he answers 6'4 flat

I am not even convinced goldblum was a full 6'4

EdgarHernandez said on 24/Jun/11
Mark, sean connery was once measured at 6ft 2.4, james just do the math of if connery used to be that height)(a strong 6ft 2 or just 6f 2), that mean that a 2 inches taller donald sutherland who is chorter than clint in his prime will make clint slightly taller than 6ft 4, of curse i also think that is a little hard to find it likely, but of curse is not imposible.

James said on 24/Jun/11
he looked taller than 5'11 recently next to Ammie Hammer

Vegas said on 24/Jun/11
james, sutherland was clearly shorter than jeff goldblum back in 78 in invasion of the body snatchers and in that movie goldblum is asked his height and he answers 6'4 flat

Danimal said on 23/Jun/11
EdgarHernandez says on 21/Jun/11
eastwood looks really old with freeman in the celebration of frema birthday, clint has lost all the muscle that once he used to have, probably weight barely 175, 180 pounds and he looks worst proportionated than ever:
Click Here
Click Here
the worts ofender is this photo, clint practicaly used a normal suit as a trench coat:
Click Here
looks were his legs begin, he simple still has some fatures of a very tall guy who lost a big deal of height, but oddly enought, he when pushes posture gains like one inch in height, just look this 2 time when he make himself stod straight:
Click Here
Click Here

He's rocking 5'11" in these photos with Morgan Freeman and Poitier. The man has lost close to 5" since the 1970's..

Mark said on 23/Jun/11
...this is making me chuckle. For whatever reason, Eastwood's peak height keeps going up. In ten years, some here will say he was 7'2. Sean Connery at almost 6'3? Not in my opinion. I'm 6 even. With gel inserts and sneakers, an hour after I get up, I measure at 6'2.5. So, it's reasonable to assume that if, like at my doctor's, I was measured in shoes, I'd be listed at 6'2.5. Am I 6'2.5? No chance. I think Legend nailed it.

James said on 23/Jun/11
6'4.25 prime
6'0.25 now

Legend said on 22/Jun/11
6'3.75 prime

5'11.25 now

James said on 22/Jun/11
Mark says on 22/Jun/11
...I see a pattern, here, of some almost hoping Eastwood was actually "taller" than 6'4. My guess is, he was 6'3, and scraped 6'4 right out of bed or after laying down for a nap. Nothing suggests otherwise. AS for a 6'3 Eastwood meaning other actor's heights would have to be downgraded, yeah, that sounds about right. Stroud? 6'1. Everything I read said Eastwood's regular weight was 190. Being on film adds weight to you. For him to still look skinny..not thin, skinny...tells me he was no way over 200 pounds, except during the filming of certain movies. You can argue all you want, but I see no evidence to point to anything else. What many here don't realize, is NONE of us can tell precisely how tall he was, based on other actors, doorframes or anything else. His current "look" makes much more sense if he was roughly 6'3, and 190.

Remember he was slightly taller than donald sutherland who had 2 inches on sean connery........

So maybe
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'4 (193cm)
Sean Connery 6'2.25 (189cm) I don't think sean connery is 189cm but apprently he was measured that tall....

Mark said on 22/Jun/11
...I see a pattern, here, of some almost hoping Eastwood was actually "taller" than 6'4. My guess is, he was 6'3, and scraped 6'4 right out of bed or after laying down for a nap. Nothing suggests otherwise. AS for a 6'3 Eastwood meaning other actor's heights would have to be downgraded, yeah, that sounds about right. Stroud? 6'1. Everything I read said Eastwood's regular weight was 190. Being on film adds weight to you. For him to still look skinny..not thin, skinny...tells me he was no way over 200 pounds, except during the filming of certain movies. You can argue all you want, but I see no evidence to point to anything else. What many here don't realize, is NONE of us can tell precisely how tall he was, based on other actors, doorframes or anything else. His current "look" makes much more sense if he was roughly 6'3, and 190.

James said on 22/Jun/11
6'4 flat evening. Morning 6'5.25.

James said on 22/Jun/11
193cm in the evening i think maybe at his peak?

Shaun said on 22/Jun/11
@ Danimal. He was reportedly 220 pounds in Every which way but loose. And his regularly weight in the 70s was reportedly around 215. He was carrying more muscle then you might think. Its easy to think of him as a lanky guy but he had really broad shoulders and chest in his prime. Obviously not built like john Wayne or somebody but not the skinny rake some people think.

Shaun said on 22/Jun/11
I think 6'3.5" evening height at peak. Morning 6'4.5".

Shaun said on 22/Jun/11
@ Mark. But he had the frame of a 6'4" guy in Coogan's Bluff even when he walked through the apartment barefoot without his hat. That's my point is that he looked like a legit 6'4" barefoot just by his frame and looked 6'6" in with boots and hat. I saw the heels on the boots and they were 1.5 max. Barely more than the average loafers. Eastwood ha dan EASY two inches on 6'2" Don Stroud, looked more like 3 inches at times . If Eastwood was 6'2" as some claim then Stroud is barely 6'. We then downgrade Robert Davi and Timothy Dalton to 6' flat who were all roughly the same height in License to Kill which is ridiculous. He had to have been 6'4" compared to Donald Sutherland too. At times Eastwood could look 194cm and he could also look 192cm. Out of bed peak i think he was pushing 6'5". 6'4" as Rob says is fair as he could look a little above it and below it. But for peak you cannot argue he was under 6'3.5".

5'8.498765 said on 21/Jun/11
xkon said:
"Looks shorter than 6'1.5" Carrey and Arnold:

Click Here"


Well, in that photo he seems taller than Carrey and shorter than Arnold.
Since both of them are alledgelly the same height (I'd say Arnold was 6'2 in 1995), someone is using lifts: Arnold, so he appears near 6'4, while Carrey is clearly 6'1.5, just half an inch taller than 5'11 Nicole Kidman wearing 3" heels (which would make her look 6'1).

So that would make Clint around 6'2.5, and since he is not standing straight, and considering Arnold's lifts and Seagal's clearly massive cuban heels, Clint might have been 6'3 spot on back in 1995, he is clearly 2" taller than would-be 6'1 heel wearing Kidman. Case closed.

In The Unforgiven he looks exactly the same height of then-still 6'3 Morgan Freeman, so him being 6'4 is not completely out of the question, given his rapidly decresing height in recent years, now he looks 6'1.5 at best next to now 6'2 Freeman. Clearly Eastwood has shrinked a lot, but he's far from being a defenseless old man, he is still pretty fit for an 80 y.o.

T said on 21/Jun/11
@Daminal the reason i say 220-225 is because i'm 6'4" and 206 lbs and he looks alot bigger than me

EdgarHernandez said on 21/Jun/11
eastwood looks really old with freeman in the celebration of frema birthday, clint has lost all the muscle that once he used to have, probably weight barely 175, 180 pounds and he looks worst proportionated than ever:
Click Here
Click Here
the worts ofender is this photo, clint practicaly used a normal suit as a trench coat:
Click Here
looks were his legs begin, he simple still has some fatures of a very tall guy who lost a big deal of height, but oddly enought, he when pushes posture gains like one inch in height, just look this 2 time when he make himself stod straight:
Click Here
Click Here

James said on 21/Jun/11
I don't know if clint eastwood was a proper 6'4.5 at his peak but anyway.....

Peak
Morning: 6'5.25 (196cm)
Mid Morning: 6'4.75 (195cm)
Lunchtime: 6'4.5 (194cm)
Afternoon: 6'4.25 (194cm)
Evening: 6'4 (193cm)



In 2 inch cow boy boots might have measured at 6'6.25 (198cm) might have even given off a 6'7 illusion in his boots with his hairstyle and long legs etc....

James said on 21/Jun/11
rob do you think a peak of 6'4.25 (194cm) is possible for clint eastwood? he was a fraction taller than donald sutherland in 1970 and almost as tall as rock hudson.

James said on 21/Jun/11
i think clint eastwood stood at 192cm in the Enforcer. Probably stood at 193-194cm in Magnum Force but by the mid to late 70's his height loss began.

I think probably around 1974-1975 clint eastwood lost 1-2cm in height so i think maybe 6'3.75 in the Enforcer and 6'4.25 in Magun Force.

Mark said on 20/Jun/11
I just Googled Eastwood and Freeman. The majority of photos have Freeman taller (Click Here). Good grief....what DID happen to Eastwood?? It looks like this guy lost 4 inches, easy.

Mark said on 20/Jun/11
...He's definitely now shorter than Morgan Freeman, based on their appearance together at the AFI salute to Freeman. As for his look in Coogan's Bluff, remember the style of the times. His pants were very narrow in the legs and ankles, the suit was trim at the waist and broad in the shoulders. Put that on a guy over 6 feet, give him 2 inch heels and a cowboy hat and you have a really tall looking guy.

Shaun said on 20/Jun/11
Pink Cadellac was from 1989 I think. Odd that he'd begin to look 6'3" by that period, like he did in Dead Pool.

Danimal said on 20/Jun/11
T says on 20/Jun/11
also saw pink cadellac the other day and he looked even bigger, 220 225 lbs maybe.
(its clint season on an english t.v. channel at the moment)

The man never weighed that much. 200 pounds at the very most.

Wizard said on 20/Jun/11
What is the growth of Clint Eastwood in the early '80s / late '70s?

Parker said on 20/Jun/11
Solid 6'4 in his 30's.

T said on 20/Jun/11
also saw pink cadellac the other day and he looked even bigger, 220 225 lbs maybe.
(its clint season on an english t.v. channel at the moment)

T said on 20/Jun/11
when i say massive i dont mean "arnie" massive i just mean he seemed to tower over everyone by a long way

James said on 19/Jun/11
Shaun says on 19/Jun/11
I agree generally he just looks very tall not massive but in Coogan's bluff he really did I thought. Broad shouldered as well as tall. In fact he reminded me of Clint Walker in that film in frame.

Too me in his early films he fluctuated between looking tall and very tall.

Shaun said on 19/Jun/11
I agree generally he just looks very tall not massive but in Coogan's bluff he really did I thought. Broad shouldered as well as tall. In fact he reminded me of Clint Walker in that film in frame.

James said on 18/Jun/11
Shaun says on 18/Jun/11
Well both I and T thought he looked massive in Coogan's Bluff and looked around 6'6" in the boots and hat.

He looked tall but i don't know about 'massive'. A guy who would look massive on screen would be people like tim robbins, vince vaughn and dolph lundgren. I suppouse in a 'fist fall of dollars' he did look massive or borderline giant sized since his hair and cowboy boots would have made him 6'6?

Shaun said on 18/Jun/11
Well both I and T thought he looked massive in Coogan's Bluff and looked around 6'6" in the boots and hat.

Viper said on 18/Jun/11
Shaun says on 17/Jun/11
@Nick. Eastwood was taller than Donald Sutherland who had two inches on Sean Connery. Do the maths you ignorant fool.

Which proves that Connery was 6-1

Mike said on 18/Jun/11
"Massive" is nevera word I'd use to describe Eastwood. Tall, lean...but certainly not 6'6, even "in" cowboy boots. Somebody like Chuck Connors, in The Rifleman. Now here's a guy who looks massive. Eastwood 6'6 in boots? I won't believe that till my dying day.

James said on 18/Jun/11
194cm is not impossible

T said on 18/Jun/11
saw coogans bluff last night, and i know he was in cowboy boots,but he looked massive.probably 6'6" in those boots

Shaun said on 17/Jun/11
Honestly if you watch Coogan's Bluff he was not under 6'4". PLus he walked about barefoot in the film in an apartment and looked like a legit 6'4" er. if you see that film you should have no problems believing he was around that height.

Shaun said on 17/Jun/11
I watched Coogan's Bluff just now and Eastwood most certainly looked a legit 6'4" in that film. He looked massive I have to say. Had an easy two inches on 6'2" Don Stroud too. He was wearing boots and a hat at times but looked as if he'd have been 6'6" range wearing them. But I was just watching his frame in the film and he looked every bit of 6'4" James.

James said on 17/Jun/11
If Donald Sutherland was 193cm then clint eastwood looked 194cm in comparison.

Sam said on 17/Jun/11
This is ridiculous. Any doctor will tell you that 10 cm height loss is very much possible. See Rob's own article "Height Loss"

Shaun said on 17/Jun/11
@Nick. Eastwood was taller than Donald Sutherland who had two inches on Sean Connery. Do the maths you ignorant fool.

Nick said on 17/Jun/11
Come on! stop the nonsense loosing 10cm in height is impossible unless someone chop off some part of your limbs or they pull off some spine disks. Clint Eastwood was around 188cm he does look that in all his earliest movies and I'm a big fan I've seen those all many times. Maybe nowadays he stands 183/4cm which is reasonable.

Danimal said on 17/Jun/11
andrew says on 4/Jun/11
I was standing 15 to 20 feet away from Eastwood at the country club in Brentwood and he was about 63 years of age. I'm a solid 6 footer and he was easily five inches taller than me.I have a brother at 6'41/2" and he seemed almost an inch taller than my brother. So- believe me he was taller than 6'4"!And maybe he had long monkey arms on him which made him seem larger...maybe.

15-20 feet away??? You CANNOT judge someone's height when they are standing 20 feet away from you. NO WAY.

Danimal said on 17/Jun/11
James says on 6/Jun/11
not much shorter than seagal
Click Here

VERY biased pic. My God, can't you see the pic is tilted in Clint's favor?

James said on 15/Jun/11
EdgarHernandez says on 14/Jun/11
sean, my granfathe(who was the same height of the editor rob) lost full 3 inches of height by his 74 years, he pretty much dont take care of himself, have lung roblems and bowel legs(alot of his height was from his legs). one uncle of my mom, went from 6ft(he is 94 now) to simply 5ft 8 or 9.(depends if he is triying to stod straight)/

I know a guy who is 50 and is like roughly 6'2 i think today. apperently he used to be 6'4 when he was younger but he lost height cause of a heart virus and possibly basketball injuries.

EdgarHernandez said on 14/Jun/11
sean, my granfathe(who was the same height of the editor rob) lost full 3 inches of height by his 74 years, he pretty much dont take care of himself, have lung roblems and bowel legs(alot of his height was from his legs). one uncle of my mom, went from 6ft(he is 94 now) to simply 5ft 8 or 9.(depends if he is triying to stod straight)/

sean89 said on 14/Jun/11
rob how can a man young clint eastwood in late 60s 70s 40 plus year shrunk 4 inches is a hell of lot hieght loss.

Mike said on 13/Jun/11
..that photo of Sutherland and Connery is ridiculously distorted. I've seen no evidence here...none...that suggests Eastwood was ever anything but an extremely weak 6'4, peak. So many assumptions, here, of precisely how tall other actors are.

James said on 12/Jun/11
do you think 6'4.25 (194cm) for Clint Eastwoods peak?

adam2 said on 12/Jun/11
It is amazing how badly he has aged. Look at Gene Hackman, he looks well over a decade younger than Clint.

Shaun said on 12/Jun/11
The biggest piece of evidence that he was 6'4" to me is based on Sean Connery who as we know was a solid 6'1.5" peak and very close to 6'2" legit. Very few would dispute this.

Click Here

Donland Sutherland had a solid two inches on Connery making him about 6'3.5" peak. Yet Clint was still a little tallr, see Kelly's Heroes. So he had to 6'4". even if he could look more like a 6'2.5" guy

Shaun said on 12/Jun/11
Well, if there's one thing Adam he always had time for his kids, even if he grossly disrespected his wife with all of those affairs. As for Sondra Locke I'd have changed the locks and told her to vanish too!

Gus said on 11/Jun/11
For me he looked 189/190cm in deadpool,1.25 inches shorter than 6'4 Neeson taking into account posture and age,probably an inch off his peak.Thing is when I see 6'4.25 Dulph Lundgren in rocky 4,i cannot honestly say Clint was that size at peak..191/192 with good posture at peak,im always going to be drawn to-posture 189/190cm.

James said on 11/Jun/11
Gus says on 11/Jun/11
Its clear with Clints posture he stood at around 189/190cm,with good posture id add 0.75 inches-no more,to say 2 inches is far to much,he would have to have been walking like primate for that,peak 192cm posture 190cm is in my opinion just about right.

clint eastwood was barely shorter than rock hudson in the late 1960's......

EdgarHernandez said on 11/Jun/11
the film adam is the so bad is good heartbreak ridge, is one of the self paroding films of clint, were he just make fun ot over de top badass stereotipes(in tis case a badass sargent).

adam2 said on 11/Jun/11
Shaun, the way he handled his affairs wasnt always that admirable. Remember his wife and kids.

James said on 11/Jun/11
Shaun says on 10/Jun/11
James says on 8/Jun/11
would u guys agree in the deadpool as well clint eastwood looked no higher than 187cm with poor posture and 191cm when he actually stood up properly? his posutre probably makes him appear near 2 inches shorter than he really was.

No I wouldn't. At worst he looked 1-1.5 inches shorter than 6'4.25" Liam Neeson. He did not look under 6'3" in Dead Pool. Sorry.

He was 6'3 by that stage so surely his bad posture would have made him look shorter right?

Gus said on 11/Jun/11
Its clear with Clints posture he stood at around 189/190cm,with good posture id add 0.75 inches-no more,to say 2 inches is far to much,he would have to have been walking like primate for that,peak 192cm posture 190cm is in my opinion just about right.

Shaun said on 11/Jun/11
I've read Clint: The Life And Legend and was indeed astounded to learn just how many women he had affairs with. He is even more of a legend in my view for that!

Mark said on 10/Jun/11
...I think lifting heavy weights and poor posture "can" catch up with a guy. One side note; Is it just me or does anyone else get completely annoyed at how Eastwood has now, apparently, made his voice all gutteral for every movie he's in? He doesn't talk that way in real life, and I wish he'd drop it. It bugged me in Heartbreak Ridge, but that was just one movie. Now, he seems to think he needs to do it for every movie. So distracting.

adam2 said on 10/Jun/11
Good points, James and EdgarHernandez. Yes, Clint probably was close to 6-4 prime but he certainly doesnt stand that tall when it comes to his private life.

It is amazing what movies can do. When we see a CE film we assume that what we see on screen is somehow like he is in real life. We know that real life and movies are two different things but still we feel a bit betrayed when we read for example that "the decent lone wolf Clint" is a no-holds barred womanizer, narcist and most likely something of a sociopath. Read "Clint: The Life And Legend"

James said on 10/Jun/11
EdgarHernandez says on 9/Jun/11
Maybe that is the reaso why he aged badly Adam2: He was to afraid of getting old that he abuse to much of his body, to much exercise, to mucho self inflicted trauma to get old and useless, he simple dont get a life in complety pace. Connery take himself very calm over the years, eat well, and could't care less how he look, in fact the actractive of connery in screen was that, his self steem was so high that he simple was likeable in alot of roles, he dont try to look young(like monroe that take that operation in the face that make him look like a stoner) he knows his age and he is very ok with that, clint is not ok with getting old. And james, do you remember that movie when clint plays a militar guy, a sargent i think, in that movie, he displays the best posture that i ever seen in clint, a whole film were clint stod straight the whole film.

when was that film made edgar?

Shaun said on 10/Jun/11
James says on 8/Jun/11
would u guys agree in the deadpool as well clint eastwood looked no higher than 187cm with poor posture and 191cm when he actually stood up properly? his posutre probably makes him appear near 2 inches shorter than he really was.

No I wouldn't. At worst he looked 1-1.5 inches shorter than 6'4.25" Liam Neeson. He did not look under 6'3" in Dead Pool. Sorry.

EdgarHernandez said on 9/Jun/11
Maybe that is the reaso why he aged badly Adam2: He was to afraid of getting old that he abuse to much of his body, to much exercise, to mucho self inflicted trauma to get old and useless, he simple dont get a life in complety pace. Connery take himself very calm over the years, eat well, and could't care less how he look, in fact the actractive of connery in screen was that, his self steem was so high that he simple was likeable in alot of roles, he dont try to look young(like monroe that take that operation in the face that make him look like a stoner) he knows his age and he is very ok with that, clint is not ok with getting old. And james, do you remember that movie when clint plays a militar guy, a sargent i think, in that movie, he displays the best posture that i ever seen in clint, a whole film were clint stod straight the whole film.

James said on 8/Jun/11
would u guys agree in the deadpool as well clint eastwood looked no higher than 187cm with poor posture and 191cm when he actually stood up properly? his posutre probably makes him appear near 2 inches shorter than he really was.

In any which way you can though he actually stood with quite good posture in that film and looked no less than a legit 6'3. Same as well in the Enforcer he looked a solid 6'3 in that movie and in Escape from Alcartraz also.

I really don't know why i just struggled to see 6'4 in Magnum Pi and Dirty Harry.

Like Brad said in 1977 was 6'3 and was that height up until like 1994 or 1995 when he shrunk down to 6'2.5.

James said on 8/Jun/11
most of the time looked 6'2.5 or 6'3 in his old films

James said on 8/Jun/11
EdgarHernandez says on 7/Jun/11
in that pic, james, clint already lost height, and he is triying to stay tall, and he looks between 6ft 2.5 to 6ft 3. so james put just and ich more to his peack and you have him as a 6ft 4 and peak.

If he was 1 inch taller than he was in that pic that would mean 6ft3.5 to 6ft4 you mean?

EdgarHernandez said on 7/Jun/11
in that pic, james, clint already lost height, and he is triying to stay tall, and he looks between 6ft 2.5 to 6ft 3. so james put just and ich more to his peack and you have him as a 6ft 4 and peak.

Truthman said on 7/Jun/11
Yeah James, at leat 2 inches.

Click Here

James said on 6/Jun/11
not much shorter than seagal
Click Here

James said on 6/Jun/11
danimal has your step brother been officially measured at 6'4?

EdgarHernandez said on 5/Jun/11
James, in the most polite form: What kind of question was that?
Of curse steven will be wearing footwear, and not barefoot(maybe not so much but i dubt that steven will be barefoot). And for that mater, the only thing that i am sure that is not inflated abaut seagal, is his height, he always looks very tall, untill he gained like 80 pounds(maybe more) and then all his carer go down hill, but he was and still could be considered a big guy.

andrew said on 4/Jun/11
I was standing 15 to 20 feet away from Eastwood at the country club in Brentwood and he was about 63 years of age. I'm a solid 6 footer and he was easily five inches taller than me.I have a brother at 6'41/2" and he seemed almost an inch taller than my brother. So- believe me he was taller than 6'4"!And maybe he had long monkey arms on him which made him seem larger...maybe.

Danimal said on 2/Jun/11
James says on 1/Jun/11
Danimal says on 1/Jun/11
James says on 30/May/11
In Seagals early films often there would be guys close to his height.

I am not convinced that steven seagal is 6'5 or the 6'4 he claims becuase he likes to exzaggerate everything about himself.

Met him in 2002 and he was every bit 6'4" +...

Was he wearing big shoes or was he barefoot?

Barefoot. He came to our Aikido and Iaido dojo here in Montreal, Quebec. It was the fall of 2002. He gave a demonstration (barefoot). He was heavy and VERY tall. My step brother is 6'4" and he was at least his height if not taller at THAT point (almost 9 years ago). One of the best fighters in the world.

Anonymous said on 8/Jul/09
robbins is 6ft5 maybe 6ft5 and a half.I think clint was 6ft3 when young and is now 6ft1.He posture is bad and he is an old man so he can look 6ft or a bit less .This rubbish about Robbins being only 6ft4 and a half has to stop.I think Robbins was always 2and and a half inches taller than clint and now clint is old and has lost 2 inches he is now 4 and a half inches shorter than Robbins.I have seen to many pictures of clint in his younger days looking 6ft3 for it not to be the case.

Doug said on 8/Jul/09
Miles please look at him next to Tim Robbins in the late 2000s today and try arguing the man is only an inch or two shorter. Robbins is 6'4.5", Eastwood is 4-5 inches shorter, no doubts

miles smiles said on 7/Jul/09
Some of this talk of Eastwood shrinking down as low as 6-0 is totally puzzling. I saw him on the streets of Carmel in the 90's, and he still looked a solid 6-2.5, maybe 6-3. He can have extremely relaxed posture, especially in photos.

peteyork said on 7/Jul/09
mark, you do not have to anything to shrink my father is 76 and lost 3 inches. Knees, 27 little cushions in your spine, neck problems will all cost you height before we get to the loss of bone density, and damaged spines that curve at angles. For eastwood compare million dollar baby with the unforgiven. Thats two inches in ten years, because he got old. Rob did you ever do a height loss page?

peteyork said on 7/Jul/09
dirtyharry you better redo all the heights of the site and remove one and half inches off every one, if you have morgan Freeman as 6'1. In the seventies with redford he looked 6'3, even in 2000 with Caine and Bale he looked at least 6'2. I guess Brad pitt is 5'9 after all, if you look at SeVen photos. 6'3 for tim robbins, 6'2 for liam neilson. That fits 6'1 for eastwood before he lost height. Hey i am same height as lee marvin 5'10 3/4. i could go through rob's entire site but i getting bored. Going dirtyharry go through clints movies correcting his co-stars heights, then try john wayne to.

Frank2 said on 7/Jul/09
"adam says on 5/Jul/09
Hudson was at least 6-5 peak. Eastwood was 6-4 peak. Wayne was 6-3 and wore big boots with big lifts."

No, Wayne didn't wear lifts.

Tell me Adam, just when did you meet Wayne? Were you on a Wayne set? I met him at least two times, one of them when he was starring in ROOSTER COGBURN with Kate Hepburn. I watched them film an interior scene on a Universal soundstage. I saw Wayne wearing cowboy boots and I saw him with regular street shoes. He didn't wear lifts. His torso was so long that he had custom car maker George Barris raise the roof of his station wagon so his head wouldn't hit the headliner. This business of you lurking around with the Wayne lifts rumor tells me you have an agenda going.

dirtyharry said on 7/Jul/09
I've just seen Million dollar Baby for the first time...fanastic!. Eastwood looks a good 2" shorter tham Morgan Freeman. But, wait here's the really weird thing, in other certain scenes he appear equal height. Now we all know and have seen the height commentaries on Freeman(6'1"). Therefore, Eastwood must be around the 5'11" mark. I think though that Eastwood is 6ft and Freeman measures in at 6ft 1.5in. That would give a better estimate. In all the recent photos next with these two, there appears to be a 1.5"-2" disceprancie. I still honestly believe that Eastwood was no more than 189cm barefoot in his heyday. There is no way the guy has shrunk from 193 cm to 180 or 183cm. The guy kept fit all through his life and still maintains a fitness regime to rival any college jock. Ibelive hes lost around 5 -6cm in all from his original height. One last thing John Wayne was decidedly shorter toward the end of his career. Quite possibly down to 6'1" in the last western mvies he made.

filmfan said on 5/Jul/09
Eastwood was taller by about 2 inches than Lee Marvin in Paint Your Wagon. Marvin was well over 6ft at least 6'2''. I genuinely believe Eastwood was 6'4'' in his youth and until later middle age. The guys on this site who say he wasn't all that tall are wrong.

adam said on 5/Jul/09
Hudson was at least 6-5 peak. Eastwood was 6-4 peak. Wayne was 6-3 and wore big boots with big lifts.

Mark said on 4/Jul/09
I don't belive Dylon McDermott is 6'0, based on seeing him with others onscreen. I'd go with the 5'10.5 estimates. This, then, puts Eastwood at more like 6'2, in 1993. This, once agin, begs my question; What DID Eastwood do to shrink? He's obviously in fantastic shape, even now. So, how does a 6'4 guy lose 2 inches of height by age 62, if he's in great shape? Yessir, the one's very tough to figure.

Mark said on 3/Jul/09
Good picture, Frank2, but if you hold a straight edge exactly horizontal from the top of Marvin's head to the top of Eastwood's (adjusting for hair), it "appears" they are quite close in height. And that's with Eastwood ever so slightly in the foreground. On a side note, I have no idea how tall Eastwood was, or is. But he is still one tough dude at 78, as exemplified in Grand Tarino.

Danimal said on 3/Jul/09
Frank2 says on 2/Jul/09
Look what I found!

Click Here

Back row left to right: 6'5" Rock Hudson, 6'4" John Wayne, 6'1" Yves Montand
Front row: left to right: 6'2" Lee Marvin, 5'9" Robert Evans, 5'4" Barbra Streisand, 6' Bernard Donnenfeld (Paramount VP Production) and 6'4" Clint Eastwood.

Eastwood would be DWARFED by his younger self.

Doug said on 3/Jul/09
TW Clint was taller than legit 6'2.5"-6'3" Morgan Freeman even in 1992.

Doug said on 3/Jul/09
TW I think Clint looked a solid 6'2" in Madison County. Granted he didn't look 6'3" or 6'4" at all but I think you'll find he was taller than 6' or 6'1" in 1995. In my view in the mid to late 90s he had begun to lost height and was down to 6'2". We know he was still at least 6'3" in 1992 in the Unforgiven and in 1993 he actually looked still near 6'4" in comparison to his 6' co star in In the Line of Fire. I think he began to lose height around 1994. I'm certain Clint was still a solid 6'2" in Madison

Frank2 said on 3/Jul/09
Clint with 6'3" Walter Matthau:

Click Here

Eastwood with 6'2" Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Click Here

And Eastwood with 6'2" Gene Hackman:

Click Here

Frank2 said on 3/Jul/09
Eastwood with Donald Sutherland who's peak height was also 6'4", taken in 1994:

Click Here

TW said on 3/Jul/09
In The Bridges of Madison County(1995), Clint looked only 6 - 6'1" max. and weak. I think he was never 6'4" tall man, rather 6'2" in his best.

Doug - I mean the guard who led Morris (Clint) from his cell to Warden/Alcatraz Head. That older and bald-headed guy was clearly much taller than Clint. Who was that guy? It wasn't Blair Burrows(he played fight guard).

Frank2 said on 2/Jul/09
Look what I found!

Click Here

Back row left to right: 6'5" Rock Hudson, 6'4" John Wayne, 6'1" Yves Montand
Front row: left to right: 6'2" Lee Marvin, 5'9" Robert Evans, 5'4" Barbra Streisand, 6' Bernard Donnenfeld (Paramount VP Production) and 6'4" Clint Eastwood.

Doug said on 2/Jul/09
LOL there were loads of guards in that film. Do you mean Blair Burrows who was a stuntman on lots of Eastwoods films but played a guard in this film?

TW said on 2/Jul/09
On 13th minute of Escape from Alcatraz movie, there were Clint and the prison guard taller than him about one inch. Who played that role?

Daniel said on 2/Jul/09
I never saw Roger Moore look taller than 1.83m in Live and Let Die. Certainly in The Saint days he could have been 1.85m, but nothing more.

TampaTony said on 2/Jul/09
Eastwood starred in a film with Liam Neeson 20 years ago and they looked exactly the same height.Can't remember the film name, sorry.

Doug said on 2/Jul/09
Ali, you are basing you belief upon one picture where Moore is looking a lot smaller. In virtually every picture video footage of the two men they are very close in height. Moore never wore lifts, only on the odd occasion as in Live and Let Die to reduce the height difference between him and 6'4-6'5" Yaphet Kotto, the 6'3" steel arm dude and the 6'6" Jefferey bloke. I don't know if you really noticed Ali but please do that Moore came within an inch or two of Kotto in lifts. A 5'11" guy would never have come close. Believe me and everybody else here than Moore was minimum 6'1" barefoot in his prime, you should believe the tailors when they say they measured Moore at 6'1.25". In the scenes with Kotto he was in the 6'3" range in lifts. Plus Bernard Lee was 6'1" in his prime. Probably by Bond days he was 6' flat, that's how he always looked to me. Nobody else here thinks Moore was under 6' in his prime. Even today he has 2-3 inches on supposed 5'11" Jerry Hall, was taller than supposed 6'1.5" Paul o Grady etc. Granted Moore had an medium sized frame and was not as rugged and muscular as Connery but he was still over 6'.

Anonymous said on 1/Jul/09
Hugh 190cm says on 1/Jul/09
Moore at 5ft11 is ridiculous.

So is 6'2" for Eastwood today.

Hugh 190cm said on 1/Jul/09
Moore at 5ft11 is ridiculous.

adam said on 1/Jul/09
Bernard Lee was definitely over six feet. In THE THIRD MAN Lee is next to Joseph Cotten who was at least 6-1, probably 6-2, and Lee looks almost the same height. Lee was very possibly 6-1.

Leung said on 30/Jun/09
Ali, your height estimate for Roger Moore is rubbish, 5

Lenad said on 30/Jun/09
I doubt he was ever a full 6'4

Ali said on 30/Jun/09
Doug I understand what you are saying. I have great
respect for Mr(was it sir?)Moore. I really enjoy his
acting.

However, he really is not and never was a tall guy. Altough
5'11 in those days was tall I assume.

You have seen yourself the picture with Connery in which he is
substiantiallly shorter lenghtwise and also in the width. Connery
is a genuine 6ft+(6'1-6'1.5) and Moore looks average.

His shoulders, face etc..are all smaller than Connery.
You can't be 5'11 one day and 6'1 another day. The
only explanation is lifts.

Don't forget that Bond in the book is 6'1 guy. Well
Moore was shorter, but was really classy and handsome
and actually a perfect bond. So they just wrote/said
he was 6'1.

If he was taller barefoot than Bernard lee, than Bernard
lee is smaller than 6ft. Probably 5'10. I really can't remember
how tall Bernard lee was, so I am speculating.

I mean if Roger Moore was 6'1.5 then Connery was 6'3.5, which
he wasn't.

Roger Moore was 5'11 max+ some good lifts which made him 6+. That
is what I think.

Doug said on 30/Jun/09
I think Eastwood was pushing 6'5" in cowboy boots no more, like John Wayne. Two 6'2.5"-6'3" men in my view wearing 2 inch boots, that's how they looked to me, maybe i'm wrong.

Doug said on 30/Jun/09
Agree with Ed Eastwood looks between 6' and 6'1" next to Robbins. Yes Hugh Jackman does certianly resemble Eastwood facially and in stature. I think Eastwood would have been a little taller than him at peak though, 6'3" ish barefoot. I think he was measured at 6'4" in sneakers, no doubts he looked 6'4" in footwear. Yet the 6'4" figure seems to add up in comparison to other actors. Only if the heights of every other actor are inflated will the 6'4" figure not seem right.

Doug said on 30/Jun/09
I agree in part Hugh, it doesn't add up though in comparison to Tim Robbins. Robbins claims he is 6'5" out of bed and 6'4.5" through the day. Eastwood or Whitaker look nowhere near just 3 inches shorter do they? I see 4-5 inches. All I know is if Robbins is 6'4.5" then Eastwood can't be more than 6'0.5" barefoot, it doesn't add up.

Hugh 190cm said on 30/Jun/09
Moore was 6ft1.5-6ft2 in his prime. Connery was 6ft2.5 peak and Caine was 6ft2 flat peak.

Hugh 190cm said on 30/Jun/09
If he's between 6ft and 6ft1 then Sydney Poitier and Forest Witaker are between 6ft-6ft1 aswell which is ridiculous. I think Eastwood was 6ft4 because in the 80's he still looked 6ft3+. And he probably had lost height by that time.

Ed(1) said on 29/Jun/09
I still have a really hard time seeing Eastwood as a legit 6ft4 peak, 6ft3 yes, but not a genuine 6ft4. I've always thought he looked comparable in size to Hugh Jackman, a good 6ft2-6ft2.5, and in cowboy boots 6ft4-6ft4.5. Maybe I'm wrong, but he's never come across as tall as say Christopher Reeve, Jeff Goldblum, Liam Neeson, or David Morse.

Today I think it's safe to say he looks between 6ft-6ft1. In these pics with Tim Robbins(6ft5) I see an easy 4+ inches difference.
Click Here

Doug said on 29/Jun/09
Moore was roughly 3.5 inches shorter than Christopher Lee. If Moore was 6'1.25" on the dot, Christopher Lee was 6'4.75" (195cm) which I can assure you is also deadly accurate.

Doug said on 29/Jun/09
Also Roger Moore was barefoot in Man with the Golden Gun and he looked every inch of a legit 6'1" in the karate school.

Doug said on 29/Jun/09
Ali, Moore was barefoot in Live and Let Die in a dressing gown next to 6'1" Bernard Lee in hos very opening scene and was still taller than Bernard Lee was in shoes. It is a very odd claim to make given that the Bond taylors have officially measured all the Bonds barefoot and state Moore was 6'1.25" when playing Bond. If the professional tailors measured him and that their measurmeents are known to be extremely accurate. Moore was the same height as Brosnan 6'1.25" legit barefoot. A shade shorter than Connery. The barefoot measurments by them should be taken exactly as the truth. Roger Moore in the 1970s at least was 6'1.25", likely a little taller in his 20s and 30s.

Ali said on 29/Jun/09
Doug ever heard of lifts? I have seen
that video before which you mention.
Roger Moore wore lifts at special occasions.

He is 5'11 peak height. And 6'1 with lifts.

Doug said on 29/Jun/09
If they hadn;t lost height by 1988 then Caine and Connery were 6'2" and Moore 6'1.5". Minimal difference trust me.

Doug said on 29/Jun/09
Exactly Big Mac that's what I mean, check out Sir Roger Moore and Sir Sean Connery meet on youtube. Connery is identical in height to 6'1.5" Michael Caine and Roger Moore is barely 0.5 inches shorter. Ali please watch this video and you'll see you;ve been mistaken. All three men are 6'1 ers. Moore a flat 6'1" and Connery and Caine 6'1.5".

Doug said on 29/Jun/09
Hugh how would 5'10" -5'11" Brad Pitt ever be able to look taller than a near legit 6'2" Clint Eastwood lol! Does the man look near 6'2" compared to Tim Robbins?? If Eastwood is near 6'2" barefoot today he will be 6'3" in shoes. Pitt has appeared as being at least an inch taller than Eastwood. Does it make sense that Brad Pitt pulled off a good 6'4"in shoes to look taller LOL. 6'1" out of bed max today.

Hugh 190cm said on 29/Jun/09
Eastwood is close to 6ft2 nowadays. 187-188cm. 184cm is too low. Peak Eastwood was 6ft4 give or take 1cm.

BigMac said on 29/Jun/09
There is a clip on Youtube of Connery and Moore standing next to one another @ the 1988 Oscars.

Doug said on 29/Jun/09
Ali thats the one picture where i said before Moore looks a lot shorter, I don't know how. Check out other pictures and even videos on Youtube and you'll see the difference is minimal.

Ali said on 28/Jun/09
Doug check the picture:

Click Here

Connery is at least 2 inches taller. Furthermore
Connery is a big man and Moore's body is average.

If you watch the bond movies and pay really attention
you will notice that Moore is not really tall. Connery
is tall and big.

peteyork said on 28/Jun/09
Taller than Sutherland in kelly's Heros. Remember what Frank2 says about framing a shot before you bring up Telly Savalis, he was on a box. Then there is coogan's bluff, walking through a crowd, so tall you can see his eyes above the crowd. Paint your wagon, three inches taller than lee marvin.

Doug said on 28/Jun/09
Roger Moore never tall? LOL maybe next to Christopher Lee. Connery and Moore were similar in height - "towers above him" LOL you need glasses Ali. Show me one instance of where Connery towers above him!!

Ali said on 27/Jun/09
Roger Moore was never really tall. There is a picture
of Moore with Connery(6'1.5) and Connery towers over Moore.
Moore looks average compared to Connery.

Clint Eastwood was a tall guy in his prime.
I think between 6'2 and 6'2.5. He never
reached 193cm IMO. he might have been
190 cm peak.

Danimal said on 27/Jun/09
Big King says on 23/Jun/09
Danimal you animal! Tim Robbins was no more than 6'5" max.

Eastwood could hit a weak 6'3" nowadays.

Kid, that would be that there is only 2" between Tim and Clint today according to you. Clint is struggling with a FLAT 6'0" today and Tim is OVER 6'5" EASILY.

Mark said on 26/Jun/09
Just watched Joe Kidd, and the guy who played the sheriff (last name Walcott), is listed at 6'4. I tend to put Eastwood at a so-called "weak" 6'4. But, it astounds me how he could have lost so much height, and it clearly seems so. I had a guy, today at work, tell me he's 6'3. He's not a bragging type, and is about 50. For months, I've been 6 and 1/4, morning or night. Today, I was 5'11 and 3/4'ths. Go figure. Anyway, now way this guy is at least 3 inches taller than me. I can't tell you the number of times, over my life, friends claim to be a certain height, but they can't possibly be. People either exaggerate on purpose, or shrink, or just don't know what their height is. I'd still like to know about Eastwood's back injuries.

Ed T. said on 26/Jun/09
As James said on June 14th, best bet for Eastwood's peak height is 6'3.5"-6'4".
If Eastwood was 6'4" he most likely was not a very strong 6'4". I disagree with those who say that Eastwood was 6'4" with ease. As Adam has stated regarding John Wayne, Eastwood was near "6'4". Also I believe several of his co-stars in "Magnum Force", such as David Soul and Tim Matheson were shorter than their listed heights. If Eastwood was "an easy" 6'4", more people would have the impression that he was 6'5". I see very few of the posters on this page claiming that he was 6'5". Was Eastwood any taller than his buddy Donald Sutherland? Sutherland , like Eastwood, was a very tall guy, but he most likely fell just short of 6'4" ( probably 6'3.5").

Doug said on 24/Jun/09
180 is too low for Eastwood today. I think he is about 184 cm today.

Doug said on 24/Jun/09
Dirty Harry, Roger Moore is two inches taller than 5'11" Jerry Hall today. Moore is about 6 foot today NOT 5'10". At peak Moore was 6'1.5".

Doug said on 24/Jun/09
Eastwood is nowhere near 6'3" today LOL. Robbins is about 6'5" barefoot. He looked it easily in the 80s and early 90s but by the late 90s he was looking nearer 6'2", today 6'1" max,

Big King said on 23/Jun/09
Danimal you animal! Tim Robbins was no more than 6'5" max.

Eastwood could hit a weak 6'3" nowadays.

dirty harry said on 23/Jun/09
Mr Eastwood's 5'11" 1.8m today. It's obvious. Tim Robbins has said:"i'm 6'4.5" sometimes been 6'5" in the morning. I'm 6'2" without shoes. One ofmy friends is a legit 6'5" and in photos next to him the top of my head is 1" over his eyebrow line. In that photo Eastwood's head is well under his sight line. Sidney poitier and looks a legit 6'1" and forest whittaker a good 6ft.

Eastwood would have been 6'2" in his prime. That was well documented and obvious. Everybody can see that the guys have shrunk in height over the past 20 years. He's nearly 80 for God's Sake! The same thing has happened to Sir Roger Moore: he was 6'1" in his heyday! Now he's about 5'10". Clint Eastwood was never 6'4". If this was true his height would be around 6'1"/6'2". look at the picture of Morgan Freeman next to Eastwood -quite clearly a 2" distiction. Free was a good 6'3" when he was younger now 6'1". Eastwood is 180 tall today.

Hugh 190cm said on 22/Jun/09
6ft3+ in the 80's.

TELLEM said on 22/Jun/09
Doug says on 22/Jun/09
Danimal Robbins is 6'6" in shoes as somebody said in a film he stood against a height board and he was 6'6". SO without them he is 6'5" minimum. I saw about a 5 inch difference between Eastwood and Robbins. If Robbins is 6'6" in shoes then Eastwood is 6'1" in shoes. This supports my theory that Eastwood is 6' flat barefoot today.

i agree.

Doug said on 22/Jun/09
Danimal Robbins is 6'6" in shoes as somebody said in a film he stood against a height board and he was 6'6". SO without them he is 6'5" minimum. I saw about a 5 inch difference between Eastwood and Robbins. If Robbins is 6'6" in shoes then Eastwood is 6'1" in shoes. This supports my theory that Eastwood is 6' flat barefoot today.

Danimal said on 19/Jun/09
Tim Robbins has been said to be 6'7" by former actors who worked with him on set. The man is at least 6'6". How can we not see that he has half a foot on Clint today. Either Clint is 5'11", or Tim is close to 6'7" in reality. NO WAY is he only 6'4.5"-6'5". That's laughable. He towered THEN 6'3" Morgan Freeman in 1994.

adam said on 18/Jun/09
Im backh...

Yes Doug, I agree. We both shared the same thoughts about John Wayne`s and Clint Eastwood`s heights. We both thought that they were about 6-3 max. But like you said, there seems to be so much proof that we have to accept these things and believe what these people keep saying -they were both 6-4.

James said on 18/Jun/09
I still think today Tim Robbins is 6'5. Maybe 6'5.5 in his 20's.

Doug said on 18/Jun/09
I know it really is an incredible height loss, a genuine case of shrinkage. It doesn't seem humanly possible given that Robbins is 5 inches taller today but Eastwood was very close to a legit 6'4" at peak, the proof is overwhelming.

filmfan said on 18/Jun/09
From that pic below it's hard to believe Robbins and Clint were ever close in size. But Robbins is supposedly 6'5'' and Eastwood 6'4'' in prime. Now there looks about 5-6 inches difference.