Add a Comment4763 comments
Average Guess (277 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.38in (191.5cm)
Current: 5ft 11.97in (182.8cm)
mike said on 27/Jan/07
Misha, trust me you can lose 3 inches. My grandad is 83 and now measures about 5'8 and in his prime was a strong 6 foot.
Anonymous said on 27/Jan/07
Clint was 6'4'' or thereabouts when younger. If you look at old photos the guy is very tall. He was noticeably taller than Lee Marvin who was at least 6'2'', check out Paint Your Wagon. He was also taller than 6'2'' Lee Van Cleef. Nowadays he looks about 6'1'' to 6'2'' so he has lost height but this occasionally happens with males in older age.
Misha said on 27/Jan/07
Delphonic, you're right, a shrinkage of even three inches seems colossal and
thus highly unlikely. For me personally to go from 5'11.5" to 5'9" has an aura of the unreal about it. Years ago an article in Life Magazine put Kirk Douglas at six feet, but when he and Woody Strode fight to the death in "Spartacus"(a death temporarily aborted for both of them) the 6'4" Strode looks nearly a foot taller than Kirk Douglas. In some of the scenes in "Unforgiven" I thought Morgan Freeman was slightly taller than Clint Eastwood, but I thought Freeman was 6'5" based on his dwarfing Brad Pitt in "Se7en". However, someone had fed me an erroneously tall height for Brad Pitt - give him 5'10" and everything falls into place. It's amazing how often changing the height of one person can make the controversy regarding three or four other people evaporate.
Garry said on 27/Jan/07
FWIW, just saw the repeat from about a month ago of Clint on Letterman and when he first walked out, they appeared to be almost dead even in height - I would wager on about 6'1.5", as the concensus on Letterman seems to be a little off his claimed 6'2".
Anthony said on 26/Jan/07
Highly doubt it. Clint always looked legit. There were never lift rumors with him. With Wayne, it was a pretty widespread rumor. Clint was a legit 6'4 in his youh.
Jake W. said on 26/Jan/07
Looks to be a solid 6 footer, nothing more, next to Glenn.
Misha said on 26/Jan/07
Firstly, thank you, Delphonic, you owe me no apology - I bit back at you harder than I should have the first time. Yes, it's quite droll that you assumed I was a woman and I definitely take it in good fun. But speaking of poor Clint Eastwood, an iconic figure who I can't imagine not always being with us, I practically fell out of my chair laughing when Glenn revealed that he was developing a dowager's hump - it's so hilariously contrary to the image of total
masculinity and raw physical power he still exudes from every pore. But looking at the new photo, I agree with everyone else - it's difficult to give him anything over six feet if there are no angle distortions at work. In fact, he's struggling to hold three inches over Glenn - look at the top of Clint's forehead, not his hair, as the flash has rendered Glenn's hair invisible but has artificially heightened Eastwood's locks. I had a thought, and I'd be interested in what some you think of it: my dad was a fine athlete, but only jogged during the last decade of his life. I saw him go from 5'10.5" to at most 5'9" in eight or ten years. I know Clint jogs regularly. I think all that pounding on the pavement, stretched out over half a lifetime, gives the legs, knees and back a terrible crunching. I calculated it and we're talking about coming down hard, often on asphalt or concrete, millions of times. Not only do the joints in your legs begin to compress, the numerous vertebrae that run from the top of the cervical spine down to your coccyx (tail bone) also compress, perhaps significantly. I've always been aware of this, and hence have stuck to cycling to avoid that pounding down of the musculoskeletal system. In a guy with a long torso like Clint Eastwood, forget the legs, I say his spine alone could have shrunk a full two inches. Lastly, there could have been a spinal surgery that was kept from the general public. I'm not a rumor monger, I'm just saying his height loss has clearly been dramatic, so all of us are looking for reasonable explanations. I couldn't possibly give him less than 6'3" as a younger man, and can easily accept the standard 6'4" as his maximum. Lastly, it's a little sad to see such a great guy cling so tenaciously to his original imposing stature by stating the old 6'4" as recently as 2003 - clearly he himself is having trouble dealing with the loss of height.
Height Tracker said on 26/Jan/07
I think that Clint was about 6'3" in his prime. You have to remember that he's in his late 70's now and will have naturally lost some height. I have seen a ton of his movies, including all of the Dirty Harry's. He always towered everyone in his earlier films, and his shoes looked very flat and not suspect. He is also probably one of my favorite actors and a legend.
Ed said on 26/Jan/07
Delphonic, you have a point there, I've always thought Eastwood looked about 6ft2-6ft3, but based on all of the 6ft4 claims, I bought it. Especially after seeing The Dead Pool, in which he was about an inch or more shorter than Liam Neeson. It's very possible Eastwood was only about 6ft2 or a bit more in his hey day, and based on all of the westerns he did wearing cowboy boots, giving him 2 inches on a already tall and lanky frame, the 6ft4 listing worked. His 3 inch height loss without any known ailment seems a bit much, maybe it's more like 1.5 inches.
delphonic said on 26/Jan/07
Could it be that Clint was one of those naturally tall guys (6' 1" to 6' 2") who wore big boots/lifts to look crazy tall (6' 4") in his youth? Kinda like John Wayne supposedly did? Just a theory, as it seems unlikely that he's shrunk like 4 inches, even at his age.
Anthony said on 26/Jan/07
Looks 6'1 at best with Glenn. Could be the angle.
John said on 26/Jan/07
Glenn.... What were your impressions of his height when this was taken. And Rob, what does your master eye see as the height in this photo
[Editor Rob: I don't care about the height, I want to strangle the guy in the background between them who half wrecked the pic! He stole glenn's focus!
nah, kiddin about the guy, clint does look struggling to be over 6ft there
and please just stop using other names, stick to the one nick, its really not hard. Eventually, it might annoy me to the point of deleting every comment, as a few folk who try using other nicks eventually find out...all their comments get wiped!]
delphonic said on 26/Jan/07
Misha - I owe you an apology for sizing you up as some social climbing vixen. That's hilarious that you aren't even a woman for starters. I guess that's what I get for making assumptions. But hey, like everything on this site, it's all in good fun.
S.J said on 26/Jan/07
wow he really shrunk allot Didnt he i thought u ussually Shrink about 2Cm's
Misha said on 25/Jan/07
Sorry for the typos in my last post - not that it's a big deal, but I meant
"Sasha" not "Sahsa" and "Natasha" not "Natahsa", also "especially" rather than
"expecially" (an "especially" dreadful typo). That's it for now.
Glenn said on 25/Jan/07
Misha-no bootlicking here either,but you express yourself with class and your always welcome to healthy chin wag with me,and hopefully the others.as for the others,I hope they now understand your point.which was it just wasnt debating,but resurrecting the dead,over and over,with some barbs thrown in.so I got your point and I really appreciate your words.as for Bruce and that short photo,Ill get back to you on that.I cant see the pic at the moment on this cell phone.talk to you soon.
Misha said on 25/Jan/07
Glenn, thank you for your kind words (I have to keep that part of it short so Delphonic doesn't find more material to augment his accusation that I'm acting like an obsequious groveling sycophant toward you). I studied over a hundred photos of Bruce Willis, and can easliy give him 5'11" based on the impression of height that he projected in those photos. So your low end and my high end are really only half an inch apart, close enough to reach out and shake hands in a truce. There's just one single photo that's preventing our closing the book on the Willis controversy, and it's among those on his own section in this site, the photo where he's standing next to Justin Long. There's a consensus that Justin is 5'9" - I will now buy even six feet for Bruce Willis. But look carefully at their footwear, which is clearly in evidence for both of them. Justin is wearing what used to be called "deck shoes". These are very low-cut canvas shoes that have almost no heel on them. As the white strip wrapping around the toes flares back to the heel there's practically no lift upward. On the other hand, Bruce is wearing leather dress shoes that have boot-like properties: as they flare along the bottom of the sole back toward the heel, it is very obvious that an elevation gain of at least a solid inch is obtained, and since the sole is fastened to the shoe above the heel, the wearer will also gain whatever the thickness of the sole is, in additional to the build-up of material inside the shoe right at the heel that we can't see. The point is, Bruce is just very slightly taller than Justin in the photo, really about the same height, and is clearly gaining more additional stature from his shoes than Justin is from the ones he's wearing. Glenn, I'm not trying to knock the beehive over again, I am just honestly trying to make sense of this photo, because it is very puzzling. What do you think is going on here?
Anonymous said on 24/Jan/07
couldn't have said it better myself, delphonic. mike c..ps..see below and Duke page..
delphonic said on 24/Jan/07
Misha - So let me get this straight, you can politely and eloquently present your theories of personal doubt about the elaborate range of heights different people claim to have seen certain celebs at and that's fine. But if anyone else has the audacity to express their doubts (based on photos or any other "supposed" sightings other than Glenn's verifiable sightings), then they are reduced to aggravating nitwits and their opinions totally dismissed??
Obviously, Glenn's contributions have made the site, whether you agree with all of his subjective perceptions of those encounters or not. While there is no reason to disrespect him (even if you disagree), that does not mean that schmoozing him makes your disagreements anymore credible. However, it is possible to appease Glen (your apparent goal) without belittling everyone else who happens to disagree with him on a couple of celebs. Disagreement is not disrespect, but name calling is.
You seem like an articulate, tall and most likely attractive woman who is probably used to quickly and easily bonding with those at the top of the totem pole in any situation in order to improve your own standing. But this isn't a corporate boardroom or social climbing cocktail party where there may be publishers or producers present. It's simply a discussion board about the vain and essentially meaningless (although intriguing and entertaining) topic of celeb's height. Feel free to relax and have fun with it ;-)
dmeyer said on 23/Jan/07
looked 6'1 2 year ago
Glenn said on 23/Jan/07
Lest we forget the 5-5,5-6 claims of film crew that worked with Stallone.even the non believers of 5-10.5 agree thats insanity.people are plain stupid.thats all.means that Sly was 5-9 in his then 50s posture and they were expecting a 6-2 superhero.the tall film hand downplays him to feel better.the 5-5 stagehand pegs Sly at his height.its all psychological.
Glenn said on 23/Jan/07
Im not going to make a mistake of 4 inches,thats for sure.1,maybe 2,with the mysterious posture some have.Misha-you make a point I never thought of.but like its been said,people cant gauge height.and I think the real answer is that we arnt celebs.though I heard 5-6 to 5-10 for me.if you were a celeb,youd get a myriad of guesses.people want celebs to be short like them.or tall like them.I saw 6-1,and a illusion of 6-2 once.my friend who cant tell height brought up that Willis was 6-3.so that means,he is 6-1 tops,as he looks in films.more realistic is 6ft.and possibly 5-11 if he wears lifts.no taller than 6-1,no smaller than 5-11.I have 5-11 friends that appear 5-9(ala Stallone and Colin Farrel) due to posture and or weight,and friends that are thin 6-1ers,bad posture, that appear 5-11(possibly Willis).thanks for your words Misha, and you,and most here are valuable to the site.so is your theories and input.didnt mean to come on strong.do express yourself without meeting celebs.thats what the site is for.
sf said on 22/Jan/07
Misha - I'm barely over 5'6" and have been guessed at almost 5'10" by someone. A lot can be said about people's ability to judge others' heights...
misha said on 22/Jan/07
Glenn, Sorry, I chose Willis at random before seeing all the grief you've gone through with some of these nitwits on major stars - rather than metamorphose into one of these aggravating perpetual naysayers, I'm won't check back with
comments until I have some personal "in the flesh" sightings to contribute. But please explain something to me - I'm pretty much between 5'11" and 6'0" - I don't sit around obsessing about height, but the times it has come up as I have interacted with people up close face-to face, my height has generally been estimated at six even (because I'm wearing shoes) or 5'11" - the point is,
no one has ever thought I was 5'10", even a mere inch-and-a-half shorter than I am, or for that matter 6'1", an inch-and-a-half taller - maybe a few times
people who are poor judges of height or innate flatterers have guessed
6'1" because I have long thin features and can look taller than I am from a near distance. So my question is, why would a film professional at arm's length from Bruce Willis be nearly a half-a-foot off in his estimation of Willis' height? Going in the other direction, would anyone ever mistake this actor for 6-6 or 6-7? Do you see my point? I'm not trying to stir up controversy that nevers ends like some of these guys, I'm just honestly curious how this could happen and am interested in getting your expert opinion.
Thanks again for your site.
Glenn said on 22/Jan/07
Your right.lets believe random people of claims of 5-8 for Willis.never mind that I see him once a month and that he looked 6-2 to me in his low cut sneakers and shorts.the man is no smaller than 5-11,no taller than 6-1.with 6ft the most realistic as he looks it in films.my friend just the other night said Willis was a regular at his Starbucks.my friend is 5-11 and estimated Willis at 6-3! obviously,he cant tell height.but thats close enough to the 6-1 I usually see him at.
supes78 said on 21/Jan/07
I can't believe he's lost 3 inches over the decades! I can see bodybuilders and some atheletes losing height more rapidly after back surgeries and too much stress on muscle joints over the decades, but I can't see how an average guy can loose that much height naturally.
delphonic said on 21/Jan/07
Misha - well put! Now if only you could get through to the people that prefer to use the "public function" pics to endlessly argue that Stallone, Clooney, Bloom and Farrell are like 5' 11" and Pitt is like 6'. They prefer to ignore the pics and sightings where they are undoubtedly shorter. Either these guys have all disappeared for 6 months at some point to have limb-lengthening surgery and the long and complicated rehab (doubtful), or they are indeed the shorter heights they have been caught at when not in "advanced footwear".
Jackie said on 21/Jan/07
Re Misha: Wow, Misha. What an eloquent comment! And yes, for the most part it is true, though not entirely. When you write that "If someone spots a star at a swimming pool in his bare feet and he is eyeball to eyeball with the spotter's own 5'9", isn't it obvious that this is the star's true height?" you ignore the fact that people's heads/faces can have different compositions if you will. I know most about my favorite actor Warren Beatty, but he serves as a good example for this. While his "eyeballs" are significantly below the slightly taller Morgan Freeman's, the part of his head ABOVE his eyebrows takes away almost all of that height difference between the two of them, rendering it almost non-existent. So, if a shorter man than Beatty with a longer lower part of his face than top part of his face would come "eyeball to eyeball" with someone like Beatty, he could therefore say "I looked him in the eye so he must be my (lower) height" because he would not be able to judge how much difference in height exists above eyebrow level..... Just a thought.
misha said on 20/Jan/07
Plaudits for a most interesting site that documents human vanity with unimpeachable evidence. Yet somehow, the most obvious principle one would apply in determining the true height of a given individual is frequently overlooked in these occasionally heated commentaries: that no one can possibly be any taller than the LOWEST height at which they have been accurately measured. If someone spots a star at a swimming pool in his bare feet and he is eyeball to eyeball with the spotter's own 5'9", isn't it obvious that this is the star's true height? I think it's okay to add an inch when stating your height, because we go through life appearing in shoes, rarely barefoot, and shoes generally add an inch to an inch and-a-half. But what puzzles me is the amount of debating that goes on if the aforementioned star is seen at a public function and appears to be 6'0". Endless speculation and argument follow. Why? The star has been measured at 5'9", and so now he is clearly wearing three inches' worth of heels. End of story. All of this needless bickering should stop. No one can be any taller than the lowest height they've been measured at. Another interesting point: camera angles can and do endlessly deceive, but overall body shots in a film where you can see a man's legs exposed, along with the general height of his torso, can be quite revealing. For example, actors like Sylvester Stallone, Mel Gibson, and even Russell Crowe have short legs and rather squat builds. This is not to say they can't be esthetically pleasing and handsome, but claims that they are 5'11' or even 6'0" are ludicrous. These three superstars are manifestly around 5'9", though Crowe could be as tall as 5'10" and Stallone could be as short as 5'7" - he walked right by me at a driving range a dozen years ago (so he could have lost even more height by now)and with golf shoes and spikes he was no more than 5'9", three inches under my "hair under" six feet. So in the name of sanity, in an effort to prevent much of the disastrous nonsense that can clog up and mar the commentaries, the shortest verified height of a given individual is obviously his maximum height - if he's never been seen in bare feet then he's even shorter than the shortest verified height. Someone can only be the lowest height they are measured at or even shorter - they can never be taller! Thus all other taller "sightings" involve shoes with lots of heel and possibly even lifts augmenting the shoes. Am I the only person who gets this? But let's also be careful not to attach too much importance to height anyway. Many of our most
gifted actors such as Kirk Douglas, Alan Ladd, Marlon Brando, James Dean, Paul Newman, Montomery Clift, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro and Johnny Depp were/are all 5'9" or less, and there are of course countless others. Depth of talent and physical height are (fortunately) unrelated. But in closing let me say again that this is a fascinating site - clearly there is a height patrol out there actively working to expose those celebrities who insist
on farcically exaggerating their statures!
sf said on 13/Jan/07
It's strange how some people shrink more than others, but I would suspect, overall, the taller you are, the more room for shrinkage. which, physcially, is true. There is more space between your discs, etc, more body to shrink. And, gravity will take a little bit bigger toll on someone who is taller. Did I spell toll right? Still doesn't explain why Clint seems to have lost so much, while others don't seem to. I think Jimmy Stewart was still pretty tall when he died, etc.
Anyway, I agree with MHouillon who thinks clint was probably 6.3 and 1/2 and rounded up. Just lines up with a lot I've heard about Clint.
Glenn said on 12/Jan/07
Photo with always comes first.no time for autographs on this guy.didnt do anything for anyone after the first night with me.lucky.
Mike said on 12/Jan/07
Bob Arnold's still 6 even, the arnold/clint pic was from the mid 1990's Arnold was over 6'1 then Clint was prolly dwon to 6'3, i guess Clint lost .5 inch in the past month according to this site...lol Glenn congrats on finally getting Clint Eastwood did you get an autograph and/or picture????
Anonymous said on 10/Jan/07
I am myself 6 feet 1, and when I talked about seven years ago with Clint Eastwood we had the same height. So I think your facts are right (Thorsten Rasmussen)
dmeyer said on 9/Jan/07
he looked no shorter than 6'1 when i met him possibly 186 cm
said on 7/Jan/07
I am confused.How can Clint be 185 now? Here is a pic with him and Arnie, and Clint is no more than one inch taller, and Arnie is for sure under 6'.
Does maybe Arnie wear lifts?
How someone can shrink that much, this is really amazing.
MHouillon said on 5/Jan/07
Oh, man. I said this before ! Clint rounded up his heyday-height. He was about 6'3.5 (192cm) and has shrunk to 186cm (approx. 6'1.25) these days.
Danimal said on 22/Dec/06
Letterman has claimed both 6'2"-6'2.5" for years and used to look it next to other stars of the same height (Joe Montana, Bill Murray, Kelsey Gramer, the late John Candy, Arnold Schwarzenneger and MANY others).
Height Tracker said on 21/Dec/06
I saw that Letterman episode and to me they pretty much looked the same height. Is Letterman really 6'1.5"?
Markus said on 20/Dec/06
Bob H, my dad is 6'2" and aged 71.
He was this height when he was 25, and he still is at 71 so obviously not everyone shrinks with age...it more has to do how healthy your body is.
Anonymous said on 20/Dec/06
Eastwood was on Letterman a few days ago. Looked maybe 1/2 an inch shorter than Dave.
Bob H. said on 12/Dec/06
Clint was barely taller than James Woods in BLOODWORK. Except for John Wayne, it appears that most men do shrink a few inches after 60 or so. I do believe that Woods wears lifts. They were clearly visible in last weeks SHARK. It appears that Clint in likely in the 6'1" range these days. Still respectably
tall for a 70 plus year old man.
sf said on 11/Nov/06
Wonder what it is about him that has caused such "shrinkage?" Why do some people lose so much? Poor diet and lack of physical activity can definitely do it, even when you're younger, but that sure doesn't describe Clint. Oh, I forgot to say this, too, he worked out at my gym when he was here, but I missed him. They say he worked out pretty hard.
Glenn said on 10/Nov/06
I think I remember you now mentioning this a long time ago.
sf said on 10/Nov/06
Yes, that's my claim to fame, seeing Clint at the local Hy-Vee supermarket in my town. Last thing you'd expect, but very cool. Of course, it was big news when he and Merryl Streep were here. The movie was filmed in a town called Winterset not too far away. Imagine seeing the guy at 11:30, shopping by himself, in your hometown. Huh? Clint Eastwood? I wanted to say something, but I left him alone.
A good friend actually had lunch with him when he was here. Long story but she met some of his crew, they invited her to lunch, and there was Clint.
Tiny Tim actually moved to Des Moines for some reason before he died, then to Minneapolis. Is saw him perform a couple of times (why not?) and got his pic and autograph (the pic was with me, him and my girlfriend at the time) which I'm sure I've since thrown away.
That's the sum total of my Celebrity spotter career.
Glenn said on 10/Nov/06
I didnt know that sf.thats cool.I met Tiny too.sweet guy.
Gramps said on 9/Nov/06
Bob...you're in denial, buddy.
Bob said on 9/Nov/06
Maybe Clint was really taller than Charlton Heston.I don't know, but it is strange,because to me, Charlton Heston looks taller.
sf said on 9/Nov/06
I've said this before, but I stood 10 feet away from Clint Eastwood in one of the most innocent, unassuming times you could ever imagine. A time when he was definitely not wearing lifts, had no one to impress, and was all by himself - at a local supermarket in Des Moines, IA, at 11:30 at night, when he was grocery shopping, while filming "The Bridges of Madison County. Imagine my surprise! Wearing sweats, a white t-shirt, tennis shoes, and walking around with a shopping cart. Watched him for while, saw him leaning against his shopping cart while talking to a woman, and he looked all of 6'2" to 6'3". This was early 90's and he may have lost some height by then, since he seems to be one who has lost a lot, and he was in his early/mid 60's.
Haven't met any celebrities in my life (if you don't count Tiny Tim and seeing the Ultimate Warrior work out at my gym) but if I ever got to see one, Clint was the one I would have liked to have seen. Pretty lucky.
sam said on 9/Nov/06
Why could he not have been taller than Charlton Heston, Bob? Are you both of their physicians? It's been widely agreed that Eastwood has shrunk a couple of inches, so if he is only 6'1.5" now, he should be dwarfed by Robbins.
Bob said on 8/Nov/06
Clint Eastwood could never have been taller than Charlton Heston.
He never could have been 6-4 in his prime.
he must have been wearing lifts all the time
Gramps said on 7/Nov/06
Clint certainly has the height advantage over Heston in Anthony's photo below. Keep in mind the photo is of a young and healthy Clint Eastwood back in the early 1970s (I would guess). Certainly 35 years and health issues have pulled him down to his current 6'1" or so.
dmeyer said on 5/Nov/06
when i met him he looked 186 cm
mike c said on 4/Nov/06
Bob, The Duke, A Life in Pictures is a book that will put all the arguments to rest. Shows Clint next to Marvin (6'2")while they looks on as John Wayne (6'4.5") is cutting a cake...all are dressed in suits..guess Wayne was standing on a box next to 6'5" Rock Hudson...and by the magic of photography, Clint was made to look 2-3 inches taller than Marvin...by the way, Clint and Marvin are wearing dress shoes..but, maybe Clint had 3 inch lifts in them...do yourselves a favor and buy the book! You haven't done your homework!!
Mikex said on 2/Nov/06
Bob, your wrong on this. Clint was about 6'4'' when young. He's clearly taller than Lee Marvin in Paint Your Wagon, Marvin was 6'2''. Look at old photos of Clint in biographies, he towers over people. On this page there are comments from people who were shocked to see how big he was in real life when they met.I admit that he looks shorter now, 6'2'' at most and possibly less. Glenn in comments below says he saw him looking 6'4'' in the early 90s but from recent sightings guesses 6 ft. Clint had definitely shrunk with age but it must remembered he is well into his 70s.
As for the photo with Heston which I saw linked from this sight, Eastwood looks taller than Heston by an inch or more.
Baz said on 21/Oct/06
Worth looking at the book by Patrick McGilligan called Clint: His Life and Legend", which is an unauthorised book. Plenty of chance for those who dislike him to have a go but the comments on his height all say what a towering bloke he was in his prime. No mention of lifts, which sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. Certainly his height is obvious in Dirty Harry & films like Eiger Sanction where he eyeballs 6'4" Greg Walcott (and he is a big guy) and the equally tall Bruce M Fischer in Alactraz and City Heat, not to mention guys like George Kennedy. Age & very poor posture, which he has always had, mean he is now 6'2" max, as highlighted when he stands by Morgan Freeman.
Claire said on 21/Oct/06
I remember him appearing on a chat show in the UK about 20 years back (around when Pale Rider came out) called "Aspel & Company" & he absolutely towered over host Michael Aspel. In a newspaper interview a few days later he remarked "what a very large man" Eastwood was. Aspel is 5`10" & Clint looked 6 inches taller.
Dave said on 21/Oct/06
Reading all the comments so far, it seems most actors are exactly 2 inches shorter than "officially" listed. Come on guys; what are the chances that every actor has added exactly 2 inches to their height? My mate, who 6`4 1/4", has met Clint (around the mid 90`s) & says even then Clint was only a fraction shorter & clearly 6`4". Also, in the Dead Pool he is the same height as Neeson in a couple of scenes where they are standing & talking. He looks shorter when walking next to him because he does slouch & push his pelvis forward when walking. He will, at 75+ years old, have lost a few inches & this is common in tall people. My Grandad was noticeably shorter before he died.
Mike said on 20/Oct/06
I met Clint about 17 years ago on a trip to the states. I`m exactly 6`3" & he was a little taller than me, most certainly 6`4". His posture is now very slouchy & this has caused him to lose a good couple of inches.
Anthony said on 20/Oct/06
She was very sick for quite some time. Truly a miracle she made it out okay.
Mikex said on 20/Oct/06
Anthony women shrink more than men on average in old age. Men usually lose an inch or at most two. Women can shrink upto 3 or more inches. Your great aunt seems to have shrunk a huge amount though. Must have had seriosu health issues.
Anthony said on 19/Oct/06
I think in his prime, Eastwood was an easy 6'4. Watch him in "Dirty Harry", he looks it with ease.
As for shrinking as much as Clint have, it's not too uncommon. Whatabout I'm about say is truth: I have a great aunt who stood 5'4 in her youth, and nowadays is about 4'9. She had so many health problems that it shaved that many inches off her height. So if my great aunt can lose 8 inches by the time she's in her early 70s', Clint can lose nearly three by the time he's nearing 80.
dmeyer said on 16/Oct/06
when i met him he looked 1.5 to 2 inches taller than me
Gotxo said on 15/Oct/06
True Gramps, as Larry tolds us the signs of a swelling hunch reveal that the bone tissue is degrading, maybe osteoporosis.
Danimal said on 15/Oct/06
That's not true Sam. There are so many factors as to why someone would shrink. Obvious reasons are: Osteoperosis, which usually takes off at least 2" and then we have back,neck and other surgeries, which can reduce more height, etc...
Gramps said on 14/Oct/06
Clint must have (maybe still is) suffered from some disease or condition that has shortened him. He has definitely lost a good three inches since his prime.
Glenn said on 13/Oct/06
Clint with a slouch nowadays looks a shocking 6ft.in the early 90s he was 6-4,easily.
sam said on 13/Oct/06
who shrinks 6-7 cms..
people only shrink an inch or so when they get older
mike said on 13/Oct/06
d-meyer i see u alot of ur posts on these famous stars on this site i belive ur estimates of these celebs, I'm close to 6'2 and i saw lint in his EARLIER films he looked at least 6'3 if NOT 6'4, he def looked taller then me on film then i would have (i'm guessing), now of days hes 6'1 to 6'2 in my opinion even though i havent meant him, i CAN have a opinion though, how tall r u and ur guessing clints 6'1 to 6'2 now of days???? How tall do u think stallone is also eveyrone's wondering bout him seriously
dmeyer said on 9/Oct/06
when i met him he looked 2 inches on me maybe 1.5 inches i had 0.25 inches heels advatage 6'1 to 6'1.5
Gramps said on 6/Oct/06
I just watched "Pale Rider" on AMC with Clint (age 55) and the 6'4" Michael Moriarty. Clint consistently looked close to an inch taller (both wearing western boots). While I am quite certain Clint never reached 6'5" even in his twenties, I think he was AT LEAST 6'4" in his prime, perhaps a half inch more.
Anonymous said on 6/Oct/06
I was sceptical of Clint being 6'4''. He doesn't look huge in films. In the spaghetti westerns he looks like a rangy 6'2'' guy. However when you look at Paint your Wagon, Eastwood is clearly taller than 6'2'' Lee Marvin by a good couple of inches. Also I've seen photos of him looking very tall. In one pic in a biography he looms over Roger Moore who was himself a fairly tall man of at least 6 ft. The difference is big like about 3 or 4 inches.
This Tim Robbins guy towers over Clint now. Certainly there is much more of a difference than their offical heights of 6'4'' and 6'5'' suggest.
mike said on 6/Oct/06
cantstop pics prove clints at least 6'5 now of days he either had leg surgery or sly's lifts....lol the mans still a solid 6'1 or closer 6'2 when stretched out now of days was 6'3.5 to 6'4 when younger
Jake said on 5/Oct/06
Okay, maybe the angle makes Clint look a bit shorter. But its a much truer pic than the thumbnail Cantstop posted. And it does show there is no way Clint is even close to 6'4" now. I think he may have been 6'3" or possibly even 6'4" way back when, but he seems 6'1" now.
MHouillon said on 5/Oct/06
Just watched "Magnum Force", which I think is still taking place in Clint's "prime". To be honest: I think his peak-height was 192cm (6'3.5"), which he rounded up, 'cause you know... 6'4 sounds much better. Nowadays he is 187cm (6'1.5").
Maccahon said on 2/Oct/06
I got to meet Clint recently in France. I am 6`4, and he appeared to be shorter than me. I would guess 6`3.
mike c said on 2/Oct/06
Angles, Jake, angles! Buy The Duke, A Life In Pictures..go to pages 76/77..Lee Marvin was 6'2"/...tell me, after studying the pics that Clint wasn't 6'4"..check out the shoes....and while you're at it, look at Wayne next to 6'3" Jimmy Steward...your pic and Cantstop's pic prove it...
said on 2/Oct/06
I've been trying to post this pic many many times... Please let this comment throught, Rob. Clint Eastwood doesn't look very tall here next to 6'4.5" Tim Robbins: Click Here[Editor Rob: some characters in urls occasionally causes problems]
Anonymous said on 2/Oct/06
Don't understand that photo with Robbins. There's a number of shots of Eastwood with Robbins at the time Mystic River was released and Robbins dwarfed Eastwood by 3 to 4 inches.
Danimal said on 29/Sep/06
I believe that's a MUCH younger Clint if I'm not mistaken. Either that, or Tim was really bending the knees to appear that short. Thing is, Tim would have only had about an 1" on Clint when Clint was in his prime.
said on 29/Sep/06
looks very tall here next to big Tim RobbinsClick Here
Mr. E said on 28/Sep/06
good suggestion...will definately check it out....The Duke, according to legend, was taken right off the USC football team because they got sick of putting Alan Ladd on a box.
mike c said on 25/Sep/06
Mr. E. with all due respect, no need to grandfather Clint..just buy The Duke,A life in Pictures..by Rob L. Wagner....pages 76 and 77 are very interesting....they show how tall Clint and the Duke really were..case closed....remember, Lee Marvin was 6'2" and Rock Hudson was 6'5" or a little more or less....great pictures..try to buy it at Barnes and Noble...
Mr. E said on 23/Sep/06
Just because Clint is Clint, I'll give him 6'4"....but then again, my Dad calls himself 6'4".....he's 6'2" I think being A Navy Masterchief adds an inch or two.....Evidence point that Clint was once 6'4".....Lets grandfather him in people.....
Anonymous said on 20/Sep/06
I think he's definitely down to about 6'1'' or 6'2'' at most these days.As someone had poined out he's an old man these days, well into his 70s so perhaps his height loss isn't surprising. These guys are captured on film in their prime and that's how we still think of them many years on.
Brad said on 17/Sep/06
How can he be 6' 1" now? That seems really short for somebody 6' 4" in Play Misty For Me. The guy owned the screen in every motion picture back then. Everybody was under his height.
Stephen said on 14/Sep/06
Clint Eastwood is one of my favorite all time actors. I dont think that he was ever quite 6'4". He looked to be about 6'3.5" (without shoes)in his prime years. 6'1.5" is about right for his current height.
Anonymous said on 9/Sep/06
Brad, only an idiot would steal Clint Eastwood's parking space even if he isn't 6'4'' anymore.
Danimal said on 6/Sep/06
MArkus, he had had serious back problems and is very hunched over and his chest is caving in, probably due to osteoperosis, which is rare for men. Anyways, he's almost 80, which doesn't help. I guess keeping in shape his whole life didn't do much for him in his later years.
Glenn said on 6/Sep/06
And a legit 6-4 even in 1993.
Brad said on 5/Sep/06
Legit 6' 4" in '71. He's dropped a couple like his shoulders and walk. He used to walk like Dr. Harry: very tall out of the saddle.
Markus said on 5/Sep/06
I almost can't believe that people can shrink that much over the years!
But I always thought he looked tall, nowadays nothing like that anymore...
Hmm wonder how much height I will lose off my 6'4" haha
Glenn said on 5/Sep/06
I thought Freeman was 6-2.5 to 6-3.saw him once with Ms.Daisy in 1990.just like the movie.serious.
Danimal said on 4/Sep/06
Isn't Freeman 6'2.5" though, or even 6'2"?
Glenn said on 4/Sep/06
I witnessed him shrink from 6-4 to 6ft from 1993 to 2003.
trueheight said on 4/Sep/06
Clint had already shrunk to 6'3 by 1990 when Unforgiven was filmed; he was the same height as freeman and a bit taller than Hackman; He looks just 6'1 now; He used to look huge in the dirty harry films
mike c said on 26/Aug/06
Mikex, just buy The Duke,A life in Pictures..by Rob L. Wagner....pages 76 and 77 are very interesting....they show how tall Clint and the Duke really were..you can scan the pics, save them to your hard drive, and then send them to your friends as attachments to your e-mail..The pics. prove without a doubt that Clint was 6'4" and the Duke was 6'4"+..not sure about Hudson...just look at the shoes...go to the Wayne page and read my mathematical proof that Wayne was 6'4"+ ..apply the formula to Clint's pics and the discussion is over. Enjoy!
Danimal said on 23/Aug/06
Mikex, it's possible, I just don't know how it's done. Sorry.
Mikex said on 17/Aug/06
I've got a Clint Eastwood documentary in which he appears briefly in a scene with Rock Hudson. They are the same height. This I think proves that Clint was a genuine 6'4'' and also shows that Hudson was not the 6'6'' that some people think he was. I've got this doc. on dvd. Is it possible for me to get a freeze frame picture of this scene from the dvd and download this onto my computer? If I could do this I could email it to Rob to put up on the site if he so wishes. I'm not an expert on computers so I don't know how complicated this is to do.
Danimal said on 16/Aug/06
Osteoperosis can also knock off 2 inches. My mom was 5'3" in her youger days and is now 5'1" (she's 60), due to osteoperosis. Let's hope it's stabilized.
Gotxo said on 16/Aug/06
Danimal: Yep, one of my friends had to have one intervertebral disk removed and
parts of others. He was 187cm before the operation, now he looks 184-185cm.
trueheight said on 16/Aug/06
he was very noticeably shorter than Freeman
Danimal said on 15/Aug/06
You can lose over an inch after undergoing back surgery. That could account for his height loss from 2002 to 2004.
Superman said on 14/Aug/06
He actually looked a tiny bit taller than Jeff Daniels (6'3") in Blood Work (2002). Then in 2004 he was suddenly shorter than Morgan Freeman, a guy he used to be taller than. Who cares anyway, Clint is still the man.
Anonymous said on 10/Aug/06
Read recently that Clint's back problems don't allow him to straighten up to his old 6'4" anymore so he is about 6'2" now, still pretty tall.
Viper652 said on 10/Aug/06
I walk the stairs sometimes by 2 steps as well. Its just the cool thing to do.
George H said on 10/Aug/06
Some people shrink, a lot. Others, though, don't. I had an uncle who died at 93 at the EXACT SAME height as in one of his driver's licences we found of when he was in his thirties! He always stood straight throughout his entire life and was physically very fit until the last two weeks of his life. He always walked at marching speed.:) and took the stairs by two steps at one time until he was approaching 90!
mcfan said on 10/Aug/06
I see comments below about how he was never 6'4. Well, he was taller than Donald Sutherland and just about eye to eye with George Kennedy. Why is this a surprise that a man of 76 y/o has shrunk? My grandfather was 5'7 when he was 75, but was 5'9 in his younger days. Shortly before he passed away at age 87, he was less than 5'6. My grandmother, as do most women, shrunk a considerable amount. She was, I'm told, 5'6 but when she died at 93 was 5'0.
Jack said on 4/Aug/06
Back in the days of Dirty Harry he was very very tall, he was taller than everyone in that movie even bystanders! As people may of mentioned on here he is suffering from one chronic back ache and has taken him down to abot 6"1 or 2. There is a notable difference in Million Dollar Baby.
Jake said on 20/Jul/06
I don't know, he does look around 6'4" in a lot of old pics, or at least 6'3". There is no doubt he has shrunk. I can't see him being as tall as 6'4" John Wayne, though.
Anonymous said on 20/Jul/06
Unlike some physically big stars such as John Wayne or Charlton Heston, Clint Eastwood doesn't give an impression of huge size when on screen. You'd guess he's tall but 6'2'' say. This I think is deceiving. I think his good looks and fine features distract from his size. Not only was he sickeningly handsome when young he was also extremely tall. Most of us would settle for one of those qualities which is why we're not movie stars.
Anonymous said on 20/Jul/06
Jake, I think your wrong about Clint never being 6'4''. I've seen lots of photos of Clint where he towers over guys like Roger Moore who was 6' to 6'1'' in his prime. Also he was definitely taller than Lee Marvin in Paint your Wagon and Marvin was 6'2'' without a doubt. I also seen a clip with him in a scene with Rock Hudson and they were approx. the same height. Yeah he's smaller today 6'2'' at most I think.
Gotxo said on 20/Jul/06
Gramps- I belive you, besides i think that Larry has said a similar shrunkment for his mom too. But let's not forget that women loss mor height than man in average, also tend to suffer osteoporosis in a bigger % than men.
Larry has pointed out to a clue that might be right, if Clint has a slight hump can be due to bone tissue problems, wich are more frecuent in slight build guys
(less bone thickness). That is Clint profile, and some years back he started to
lossing weight/bulk too.
rwfender said on 20/Jul/06
i heard women shrink more than men in their old age..ecspecially if they suffer from osteoperosis. i think its very common for a lot of men to only shrink an inch when they get older even though results can vary.
I think Clint might have been more 6'3ish in his youth, then again if he was 6'4 and lost a lot of height from back surgeries i guess that could be possible
Larry said on 20/Jul/06
Yeah - it seems like a lot of height loss for a large male, but James Garner appears to have suffered a similar fate. ???
Lmeister said on 20/Jul/06
"Blondie" was 6'4''in his prime nowadays he is around 6'1''- 6'2''.
mike said on 19/Jul/06
nice eastwood/costner pic he still looks a solid 2 inches taller then costner, costner looks shot/trashed eastwood looks alil tipsy too..lol
Gramps said on 19/Jul/06
Well Jake, my mother has lost more than 3" from 50-80 years of age, with no related medical problems.
Jake said on 18/Jul/06
1993? He lost 2.5" in 13 years? Thats insane, if it is true...
Glenn said on 18/Jul/06
WRONG.I saw 6-4 in 1993.
Jake said on 17/Jul/06
He was never 6'4", he has a lot of you guys fooled, I think anyways. I'd give him 6'3" in his prime and 6'1.5" now. People don't shrink more than 2", unless there is some sort of serious medical condition. My mother is middle aged and has had a lot of back problems, even back surgery but is still as tall as ever, for example.
upandaway said on 13/Jun/06
well..I saw a special features thing on a movie..and he said he IS 6'4 but because of back problems, now he slouches and seems around 6'2.
Ed said on 7/Jun/06
Does anyone know if Eastwood has admitted to any health problems that could cause such a loss in height. I think 6ft3 to 6ft3.5 would be accurate for Clint back in the good old days, but now he can look just a little over 6ft. I've seen info on osteoporosis at the doc's office, and have read Larry's comments, but does Clint really show these signs. He still seems to have great posture, is in great shape for his age, doesn't seem too hunched, but seems 3 inches shorter, what gives?
Larry said on 3/Jun/06
Thanks Gotxo! :-) Calcification can occur in any vertebrate (even reptiles) and is caused by (usually): injury forming a protective SITE, arthritis, or a misaligned joint. The spinal colume IS a very complex hinged joint. Your friend's case IS typical. Loss of one vertebrate in most locations on the spine CAN result in the loss of an inch. It COULD occur in less time than 6 years. A vertebrae CAN be replaced with a "place-keeper" made from a spongy "block".
Sam - You say Clint has a hump? Hmmm, THAT's a sign of osteoperosis. That condition IS more common in females of European extraction who are of slight build. BUT, it DOES hit males too. Clint's been pretty skinny most of his life, but he bulked up in the 80's. Now he's skinny again & has a "caved in" look to his torsoe; that can be a sign of osteoperosis as well. I had an 80 year old aunt who had lost 5"! So, maybe...???
Gotxo said on 2/Jun/06
I like your opinions, you show why you think something and leave space to people to form their own opinion. Yes 2'5" it's excessive, one of my frineds had to be taken several intervertebral disks and has decreased to 184-185cm from his former 187cm, this has happened continously in a slow shrinkage during a 6 year time-span. He lost at least one disk and some parts of others, the cause was calcification.Is that normal?
Larry said on 2/Jun/06
I must admit I resisted believing Clint had shrunk 2.5 inches in height, but these photos are "wearing me down". He DOES look 2-3 inches shorter than in his glory days as an actor. From the angle of a developmental biologist I can tell you that the MAJOR cause of height-loss in bipedal mammals is osteoporosis, followed by several varieties of spinal curvature. Sculiosis could do it, but is normally a condition that manifests in childhood. Spinal injuries that require a fusion or a removal can cause height loss. I recently had a hip replacement (& femur) due to a crash & they have been very attentive to the length of my affected limb. Part of the therapy is stretching the muscles & tendons out manually by the therapist. So, I wonder if Clint has suffered spinal problems?
Gonzalo said on 1/Jun/06
The pic with Daniels is taking in a boat, so it is not the best place to compare people heights.
Eastwood was 6`4 in his prime but he looks much shorter nowadays. Around 6`1 at the most
said on 31/May/06
Looking maybe just slightly taller than 6'1" Kevin Costner recently:Click Here
said on 31/May/06
What's going on with his height relative to Jeff Daniels in this photo:Click Here
Daniels is supposedly about 6'3"...must have a serious slouch going on. That hump on Clint is starting to form by the time of the photo.
Mikex said on 30/May/06
Funny thing is although he looks a good 2 or 3 inches shorter than in his prime his posture seems unaffected. He stills stand straight and upright.
said on 20/May/06
Clint with the 6'2" Sheb Wooley...Click Here
said on 20/May/06
Clint just seven years ago with the 6'2.5" Dennis Leary...Click Here
said on 20/May/06
Clint about 35 years ago with the 6'3" Charlton Heston...Click Here
said on 19/May/06
Only seven years ago with the 6'2.5" Dennis Leary...Click Here
Ted said on 16/May/06
My sister walked past him on the street in San Fran and said he was about the same height as her husband 6'3" (this was probably about 10 years ago)
Bleemo said on 15/May/06
Hmm but if Tim really is 6'5 I'd say Clin is about 3 inches shorter still making him 6'2ish in his 70's. I've watched the fistfull trilogy lately and one thing that dawned on me is this, he's most famous for cowboy roles i.e. Gunsmoke, fistfull trilogy, Josey Wells, Pale Rider, Unforgiven.
Put a lean, 6'2 inch man in cowboy boots and a hat and he will appear like a 6'4 man easily. I'm not saying that he WAS only 6'2 at his peak, but I'm not totally counting it out, this is Hollywood we're talking about afterall. Personally I think this guy was atleast 6'3 though, he was a lanky dude.
the rock said on 14/May/06
one can easily make out in the movie the good the bad and the ugly that this guy towers over most ....
clearly a 6 ' 4" guy ..... with shoes 6'6" +
Gramps said on 14/May/06
Yes, best to remember Clint in his "glory days," but appreciate his great directing today!
mcfan said on 11/May/06
I watched my grandfather go from being 5'8 at age 70 to 5'4 at age 86 now. Clint is an old man. He has horrible posture. It almost looks like his chest and stomach caved in. If you watch Unforgiven, he's taller than Freeman. A decade later he's shorter than Freeman. He's definitely shrinking.
We know he was once 6'4 as Lee Van Cleef once said.
[Editor Rob: he looks to me he might be developing doweger hump a bit.]
Gramps said on 10/May/06
Comparing Clint to the 6'5" Robbins and 5'10" Bacon in the picture offered by Anonymous, Clint looks about 6'1" IMO.
said on 10/May/06
Again I'm amazed by the difference between Clint and Robbins, Click Here
I know the angle may exaggerate a little but even so the differnce is really big. Guys usually just lose an inch or at most two inches in height as they age. If Clint was 6'4'' when young he looks to have lost about 4 inches.
Viper652 said on 9/May/06
I was looking at the pic of Robbins with Eastwood, and I thought, Robbins looks taller then his stated 6-4.5, or even a little taller then 6-5. It wouldnt surprise me If he is downgrading his height a little bit.
Glenn said on 7/May/06
The most Robbins looks to me is 6-5.5. 6-5,the least.
Anonymous said on 7/May/06
With the shot of Tim Robbins and Eastwood where there is a big height difference I wonder if Robbins is actually taller than 6'5'' but knocked his height down to make it easier to get parts when starting out. Because Robbins is officially 6'5'' no one believes that Clancy Brown who he stared with in Shawshank is 6'3'' or 6'4'' as Robbins appeared to tower over Clancy. Eastwood does seem to have gone into shrinking hyperdrive though.
Glenn said on 7/May/06
Its the weidest thing.cant figure it out.
The Horse of FUNK said on 7/May/06
What caused him to shrink so much? Osteoporosis? Back injury? Purely gravity? I know genetics can play a role, too.
Glenn said on 6/May/06
I agree.he was the tallest person in this event of about 200 people circa 1992.looked 6-5.but its true,saw him a few times in the last 3 years and he is now 6ft!
Ron Burns said on 5/May/06
I saw CLint 20 or so years ago when he was mayor of Carmel. He looked very tall
6-7 or so!! But he had shoes on, but I can't believe he was less than 6-4 without shoes. He was a giant. You can't go by movies - they do funny camera angles to make people look taller or shorter as they want to show. Same with pictures - sometimes depth destorts - pics are not 3-D. But I was close to Clint back then and was absolutly amazed by his height. Haven't seen him since - haven't a clue if he's a lot shorter now - but I doubt he could be down to 6-0!
Mikex said on 30/Apr/06
I think Eastwood was 6'4'' when young but has shrunk more than most. As I mentioned on Rock Hudson's page, I saw a clip in which they appeared briefly on screen together. Clint was the same height as Rock and no one doubts whether Hudson was 6'4'', some claim he was even taller. Still, in that shot with Robbins that is linked from this site there looks a 3 or 4 inch height difference. Strange.
Ed said on 29/Apr/06
I think Clint had to be close to 6ft4 in his early days, maybe really 6ft3.5. If you watch the Dead Pool like Mikex mentioned you can see he's maybe an inch shorter than Liam Neeson. Worst case scenario is that he was 6ft3 in his prime, and by the time of Dead Pool maybe 6ft2 to 6ft2.5, with Neeson being a little shorter than he's cited. If that's the case than a 1.5 inch to 2inch loss is possible. I saw a chart at the doctor's office a while back explaining osteoporosis in elderly people, and a 2 inch loss is very common. At least that's what the chart said!
dmeyer said on 26/Apr/06
the pick height is important since evrebody shrink after 50 or 60
Gramps said on 21/Apr/06
If you watch Clint in any of his movies (or "Rawhide") from the fifties through at least the mid-seventies, Clint certainly looks all of 6'4" - - and there are plenty of full-form shots from which to judge. I personally believe he now suffers from some medical condition that has amplified his loss of height through aging. Based on several recent photos shown here, I can't see him any better than 6'1" today (+/- 0.5").
Mikex said on 20/Apr/06
In photos with Tim Robbins the height difference looks very substantial, a good 4 inches. It's difficult to know what to think. Is Robbins taller than 6'5'', has Clint shrunk more than most, was he ever really 6'4'' to start with? It's complicated by the fact that people who claim to have seen him in person estimate his height at anything from 6' to 6'4''. I think the consenus on this forum is that many celebrities for whatever reason are actually an inch or two shorter than their official heights, in the old days any actor of 5'8'' or above seemed to be described as a 6 footer in publicity material. Clint does look like a tall guy in all the photos taken of him when young and often seems to tower over other actors including guys who are supposed to be tall. However any height loss over 2 inches in guys is unusual.
Link said on 19/Apr/06
shrinking 4 inches would make him a hunchback, he either wasnt 6'4 when he was younger, he has a major spine problem, or hes simply still 6'4 maybe 6'3
MOF said on 18/Apr/06
Met him during Flags, I'm 5'11 and he looked 6ft, maybe 6'1...
Frank2 said on 18/Apr/06
Stanley, do me a favor. Take out a tape measure and then measure from the center of your eyes to the top of your head. If you have a normal-sized head for an adult male you'll probably come up with about five inches. Taking that into account, looking at shots where people come up to eye level, they are about five inches shorter. I realize it's not exact science, but it's close enough to make an estimate. Of course it's better to be next to someone, especially for a while to really judge their height properly.
MHouillon said on 18/Apr/06
I guess Eastwood was 6'3-6'3.5 at his peak and rounded up to 6'4 (sounds better for a guy like him). Now looks like a 187cm guy, just like Rob has listed him at.
Stanley said on 17/Apr/06
Frank2 I don't mean to be rude, but what are you measuring your assumption on?
How can you look at a picture and say someone is 5 and a half inches taller than someone else? I think you measure people by your height! I'm 5'10 even in stocking feet, I usually wear nike shoes with a 1 1/2 inch sole. I have a friend tha's 6'0 even and I know I'm not taller than he is, but I can only tell that when we walk past anything that shows us a reflection. I can see that he's a little taller than I am, but when we're standing together I'd swear we're the same height.
Anonymous said on 17/Apr/06
isnt that quite ironic, an actor who hates cameras?
sam said on 17/Apr/06
Rob, please stick to these heights (6'4"/6'1.5")...no matter how many people say he was 6'3" in the day and 6' feet even or under today.
said on 16/Apr/06
Eastwood is five and a half inches taller than Penn: Click Here
That makes Clint about 6'1.5". Penn is 5' 8". Clint lost two and a half inches, but he's now in his seventies so that's expected. But then Sean just might be pulling a....what did you call it when you stand on your tiptoes?
Penn with Eastwood: Click Here
Penn and Kevin Bacon who some believe is only 5'10": Click Here
It looks like about a two inch difference to me.[Editor Rob: the crudup technique, maybe...currently 6ft 1.5 looks about right for eastwood, maybe he's lost more because he is noticeably taller than average]
Frank2 said on 16/Apr/06
Penn is on a box with Eastwood.
Glenn said on 16/Apr/06
I saw him look 6-4 in 1992.and 6ft in 2004.hates cameras.
Gramps said on 15/Apr/06
Stanley, can I have a pull on that doobie?
Mikex said on 15/Apr/06
There is a picture on the Rock Hudson height showing Clint as a young man. He was defintely 6'4''
Stanley Foreman said on 15/Apr/06
I remember in a pop idol book back in the 60's, that's equivalent to today's
16 magazine Clint Eastwood was listed as 6'1 then when he was on Rawhide.
They were wrong then, and I think you're all wrong now! Clint Eastwood still
appears to me to be 6'3 or 6'4 easily. His spine may be slightly bent forward, but I'll be if you were to meet him in person, he'd be a lot taller than you
think he is still.
Gramps said on 14/Apr/06
Boy, it's hard to believe I may finally be taller than "Blondie!" (I'm 6'0 1/8" barefoot today.)
said on 13/Apr/06
If you go by this photo of Clint with the 5'8.5" Sean Penn, Eastwood looks 6 feet even at most!Click Here[Editor Rob: yeah, maybe he's developing a kind of Dorringer's Hump in his latter years. With Ang Lee who is maybe nearish 5ft 8]
said on 13/Apr/06
It's sad to see how much height Clint has lost over the years. He was a genuine 6'4" in his prime:Click Here
...but now can't reach 6'2". My mother is nine years older than Clint and has lost three inches since her prime - - she's now 4'9". The same percentage loss would put Clint at 6'0.25" in his eighties, so 6'1.75" now is very likely, perhaps even generous.[Editor Rob: still fit for his age, by what I've read about him...]
Mikex said on 11/Apr/06
Just watched the Deadpool and there is not a great deal of difference between Neeson and Eastwood. Gievn tha Clint was already late 50s or early 60s by then a height of 6'4'' for his prime seems reasonable. I don't believe that he was ever shorter than 6'3''.
Superman said on 26/Mar/06
Jim Carey is listed at 6'2", but Morgan Freeman was taller in "Bruce Almighty," by and inch and a half. Clint Eastwood and Liam Neeson, both listed at 6'4", but Liam looked an inch taller, but was wearing boots. Clint's posture has changed, and differnet ethnic groups and people (genetically) shrink at a different rate. Morgan Freeman looks about 6'3" in his prime. In the movie, "Street Smart," with Christopher Reeve who IS a solid 6'4" (Man of Steel)--Chris is over an inch taller or more. Gene Hackman in his prime was 6'2', but has lost height over time. I saw him eye to eye with 6'2" Warren Beatty. And Hulk Hogan is only about 6'4". Pierce Brosnan is not 6'2", but maybe 6 and a half inch. Sly Stallone is about 5'8 1/2". Rick Springfield is a tall 6'2".
Clark In Texas
mike c said on 8/Mar/06
Horatio, please look carefully at the recent pics of CE..his posture is not excellent..he tends to bend slightly to one side and favors one of the legs...great posture during the spaghetti westerns, not debate on this, but now, age and pain, I suspect, are taking their toll...6'4" without a doubt in prime.....no debate on that..Still one of the best in my book..up there with the Duke...
Horatio said on 4/Mar/06
I don't know about Clint Eastwood's height, but the man has excellent posture, and possesses a certain youthful energy rare for a man of his age. Possible he might have shrunk, but not by much. Height loss is something that's more of a concern amongst women due to hormone changes after menopause.
larry said on 1/Mar/06
Clint wears tennis shoes when he's directing. I've seen a number of photos of him directing everything from "Unforgiven" to "Million Dollar Baby". And they don't look like the magic type either. :-) So, they might only add 1/2" to 1" to height, whereas cowboy boots add anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 inches. I've seen full length photos of him at awards shows and benefits and he was clearly wearing regular dress shoes, NOT cowboy boots. He ceratainly looks a solid 6'4" in most of his movies over many years, but maybe has lost a cm or two. He looks about the same height as Morgan Frreman in "Unforgiven" and 6'2" Gene hackman (if he IS 6'2") is looking up at Clint. So, I think he's at least over 6'2" now. But he looks 6'3" or more to me. I've never seen him personally, but have seen many of his movies. DOES he have back problems??? I've never heard that verified.
mike c said on 24/Feb/06
Sangrehoven, you do know that Kennedy is 81 yrs. old..back in the late 80's he was pushing sixty-five..everything I've ever read about him lists him as 6.4.5" tall...everything I've ever read about CE states his height as 6.4" ..take into consideration camera angles, etc...that's why he and GK are the same height in the Eiger Sanction....you do yourself a favor and buy The Duke, A Life in Pictures...page 77 shows Clint with John Wayne (6.4- 6'4.5") and Jimmy Stewart (6.3")...look at the shoes and tell me Clint was 6'1" tall or there abouts....look who standing next to him....research Lee's height.
sangrehoven said on 24/Feb/06
I don't know how tall Eastwood is now or when he was young.I always assumed between 6-2&6-4. I have noticed in his early films, he was photographed a lot of the time with the camera shooting up at him. In the late 1980's I worked on the "Dallas" tv show and saw George Kennedy and Patrick Duffy together and they both appeared to be the same height. Duffy is listed at 6-2 and Kennedy at 6-4. Possibly Kennedy shrunk some in old age? If Kennedy was really 6-2 and Eastwood really 6-2 that explains them being the same height in the Eiger Sanction. I'm 6' and Duffy appeared to be 2 inches taller than me.
dmeyer said on 15/Feb/06
he lokked 6'1.5" when i met him on million dollar baby he was about 4 cm taller than me but i had 1.25" heels and he had 1" heels so 6'1.5" sounds good
Tall Guy said on 14/Feb/06
From IMDB: "He stood tall at 6' 4" at his peak, but due to recent back problems, the tallest he can stretch to is 6' 2". "
So i guess he's around 6'1-6'2 now.
mike c said on 21/Jan/06
316..it's possible...my grandfather was 6' in his youth...down to my height, 5'6" at 90...curvature of the spine, legs bowed, etc. you get the picture....you do know about gravity!? ps..CE's posture is not ok when you take a careful look..he was 6'4" in his prime, today, mabye 6'2"...who cares, he's still a leyend.
316 said on 21/Jan/06
And to think this guy was said to be 6'4 in his earlier days, sheesh is a 2.25" really possible for a guy whose posture luks kinda ok even today, compared to lots of other old hollywood stars.
Tiger said on 14/Jan/06
McFly: Why would you put non-height allegations on a website that discusses height? Even if true, and I reckon not,this is no one's business. Please give all of us the name of the source or book or website where Clint is "insecure about his real height of 6-1". When interviewed for an AMC tribute to Clint in the mid-90's, Locke was very pleasant and quite receptive to the questions being asked. There did not appear to be any animosity, nor did she mention anything you've created here. Disappointing again!
tomking said on 8/Jan/06
This is the correct height of him. When he was younger in the western he was 189cm without shoes.
patrick said on 26/Dec/05
189cm tall by his early 70's. currently 185.5 to 187tall at most correct mearsurment..
Gramps said on 23/Dec/05
Height Tracker: BINGO!
Height Tracker said on 22/Dec/05
I agree Tiger; McFly just loves writing a bunch of crap on this website and offering no evidence whatsoever. If you go on almost any actor's site on this page, you'll see that McFly has made some ridiculous post and that he has not given anything to back it up.
Codex said on 21/Dec/05
it is obvious from Clint's films in the 70's that he was indeed 6'4 inchs tall.
Bottom line is without a measuring tape how would we know for sure?
Look at the way he towers over his co-stars in his old films, and his general posture is clearly around the 6'4 mark.
So clearly he has lost some height over the years, this is to be expected, the height loss could have started as early as the 1980's, if you watch the film Dead Pool, made in 1988, you will see Clint stands about the same height as Liam Neeson who is 6'3.
Tiger said on 21/Dec/05
Show me where Sondra Locke even knew John Wayne. Where and when did she say that Clint wore lifts? Interview, magazine article, etc.? Come on McFly, you are diluting the discussions!
Tiger said on 20/Dec/05
McFly: please direct me to where it is documented that Clint Eastwood wore lifts in ANY film. Where is this well-known fact located? Is everyone in the universe 5-11? You have already shown you have no idea what you are talking about(one should read your comments on the Elvis page). You would make an excellent journalist: a lot to say, but no facts and no documentation.
mike c said on 18/Dec/05
irshdavey..think before you write.Just because most people don't agree with you doesn't mean they're idiotic...It just means you can't back up what you say...like a child who insists he's right because..just because...
bob said on 17/Dec/05
At his peak, Clint definitely was 6'4" (you can see from films like Dirty Harry, Kelly's Heroes (when he's next to Donald Sutherland) and some of his westerns where he's next to other tall actors). Apparently he's had back surgery which has, along with increasing age, made him lose about 1-2 inches in height so he is about 6'1" - 6'2" now, as you can see from the Tim Robbins photo from the Oscars.
mike c said on 17/Dec/05
He wore a toupee! So do millions of men.!.I don't, because I'm perfect! even though I'm balding as I write...wore lifts! Of course! How tall was he with lifts...6'6"? If not, he still was 6'4" tall..not in the later yrs. after his surgery, but 6'4/6'4 1/2" nontheless in his prime!!Go back to the 30's and 40's...just too many movies and situations to be anything less...than 6'4" tall!!!!
J. said on 17/Dec/05
A petty nit-pick: you should put him as a US actor/director. He's directed several high profile films.
Tiger said on 15/Dec/05
To back up MikeC: Clint and George Kennedy appeared together in 'The Eiger Sanction'. They do seem to be the EXACT same height throughout the movie. Listings: www.tv-com and www.filmbug.com both list Kennedy at 6'4
movieposterswebshop.com and www.imdb.com list Kennedy at 6'4 1/2
Tiger said on 15/Dec/05
The movie that Bigfan refers to when he says "Clint wears no boots in some sequences " is 'Coogan's Bluff' from 1968. Clint does appear a bit taller than his 6'2" co-star Don Stroud. Don Stroud has done a few movies with Clint (including 'Joe Kidd' from 1972). Clint definitely has Don beat by 2-3 inches from my perspective. But, as has been stated, camera angles, depth, etc. do come into play.
Gramps said on 14/Dec/05
Bigfan: is being a "nazbrock" something good? It sounds good. Or is it just an utterance of the delusional???
mike c said on 14/Dec/05
NO offense taken Bigfan!.I'm sure Gramps agrees, but try to be original when you write a comment...ok?..I know this is all in fun, considering that the only way to find out is to corner Clint and physically measure him....I don't think any of us has the balls to do it..his lawyers would put us in the poor house yesterday! But, come on, really, try to be original..I've seen all his movies!..do I remember each title, all the characters....? no, but he's was one tall guy!.In the mountain climbing movie he is face to face with George Kennedy ..George is 6'4"...maybe I'm wrong, but they're the same height...Gramps, some guys just don't get it..try the beer experiment..the worse thing that can happen is you learn about camera angles and the way movies make stars appear taller than they really are.... and the beer can be good..but, can't dispute face to face with shoes showing...ps...in the the Ralf Moeller pic. look at Clint's right hip...come on, a blind man can see the posture ...also, draw a straight line from Arnold's chin to Clint's chin...basic math, guys...by the way, I don't mind a little sarcasm..but, no name calling because that means you don't have a leg to stand on...get the picture?. ps. are you referring to The Gauntlet?
Tiger said on 14/Dec/05
When and where did they say this? Duke did a lot more movies with other actors/actresses than he did with Mitchum. I can't think of any movie he did with Darin. IF TRUE,shouldn't there be quote after quote after quote that suggests Duke wore lifts, not just one or two? Shouldn't it be very easy information to track down.I believe Mitchum was being sarcastic about "Duke being buried in them" because according to the Orange County Register of 6/13/79: "... the Wayne family had a private and short service at an unknown location. The service and reception was for family only. Duke was laid to rest in an unmarked grave..." No mention of Mitchum being anywhere around during the funeral and other ceremonies.
John said on 14/Dec/05
Robert Mitchum and Bobby Darin confirmed the Duke wore lifts. Mitchum even said Wayne was buried in them!
Bigfan said on 14/Dec/05
I'm 6'1.25" exactly and many people say that I appear taller, I think height can be increased or decreased by the weight, because I'm 65Kg.
Eastwood is very slender , so I think it's possible that Clint was 6'1" or 6'2".
Sorry if I hurt you, Gramps or Mike c, you nazbrocks!
If Clint was 6'4", it means that he was 6'6" in westerns?
Mike c, watch this movie, in New-York, Clint wears no boots in some sequences, won't tell you the movie...you need to do some research!
Tiger said on 14/Dec/05
John: can you name ANYONE who did NOT wear lifts ? Also, you say this matter-of-fact. Where did you find these pieces of information on these stars wearing lifts ? What book, magazine article, interview, or website did they come from ?
John said on 14/Dec/05
Yes he is. Many other Western stars like John Wayne and Elvis Presley wore lifts, so why not Eastwood.
Gramps said on 13/Dec/05
I agree with you completely, Mike. BTW, that Ralf Moeller picture is excellent. Moeller is listed here (and everywhere!) as 6'6". I would say Clint is about 3.5" shorter than Moeller, especially considering Clint is slouching and looks to be standing on one foot. Even if Moeller was only 6'5.5" here, that still puts Clint at a solid 6'2" today. (Ignore Arnold - - God only knows how tall he REALLY was in this photo!)
J-Dog said on 13/Dec/05
Tiger, I couldn't agree with you anymore mate. The people who just through out the
"lift" comments and suggest that everyone must wear them is wearing thin. No one has any proof that any celebrity that appears to tall to one's ego, must then be wearing lifts. I can understand educated downsizing but doing it for other reasons seems funny to me. Clint Eastwood is not 5'11", and he certainly isn't 5'11" now. Hahahahaha.
Tiger said on 13/Dec/05
Clint Eastwood is 5'11? Are you absolutely kidding me? I think I've seen it all now. I thought people on the Elvis page were bad. Holy cow! 6-4 to 5-11! I think all these 'lifts' people should be held accountable for their comments. Give us a reference and/or some evidence to where this is stated. It seems that if someone can't back-up what they say nor has any leg to stand on, the celebrity must be wearing lifts. This is RIDICULOUS! Here is how silly this sounds: I have no idea who Editor Rob is, know nothing about the man. I think he may be 6', but only because he wears lifts. Sorry Rob; just an example of how silly this has become :)
Codex said on 13/Dec/05
Here is an interesting photo, Arnold Schwarzenegger on the left Ralf Moeller in the middle and Clint Eastwood on the right.
John said on 13/Dec/05
I walked past Clint on the set of "Flags of Our Fathers" and he was no more than 5'11 in ordinary shoes. I reckon he was 6'1 at his peak and always wore lifts to make himself look 6'3 or 6'4 on screen.
Gramps said on 12/Dec/05
1) Clint is 75 years old here.
2) The camera angle is favorable to Robbins. The camera is at about chest height pointing upwards with Robbins more in the foreground and therefore "taller." Granted that Robbins is several inches taller than Clint here, and now, but that does not speak for Clint's height back in the '50s.
mike c said on 12/Dec/05
Guys, take two cans of beer, and put them side by side on your dresser or something that is approx. 4 feet high.....step back about 6 feet..the cans obviously are the same in height.( I'm 5.51/2 so you tall guys might not be able to appreciate this)..now, move the can on the left straight back about 5 inches or so..step back to your initial position( 6 feet from the cans)..the can on the left is now slightly taller..(we all know it's not, but the illusion is there-really guys, there's no such thing as magic, unless you work for the government).NOW, take a giant step to the right (you were still about 6 feet from the dresser when you moved to the right)...the can on the left is still taller..I think that's the angle of the photo everyone is referring to with Tim Robbins..if I'm wrong, drink the beer anyway...Clint was 6.4, but now gravity has taken its toll....6.2..do you agree Gramps?
goonie said on 11/Dec/05
Clint is one of my favorite actors. Not that it matters but he can't be 6'4", even at his peak. If you look at this image at imdb with Tim Robbins there's quite a few inches between the two. With Tim Robbins own height being as high as 6'5" and as low 6'3", Clint would barely be scraping 6'. Had a friend who worked as an extra on Mystic River up here in MA and he said that Clint seemed as tall as myself. 6'1" barefoot.
Gramps said on 11/Dec/05
Mike: I sanction your comments. ;-)
mike c said on 10/Dec/05
Bigfan..let me get this straight.!..Blondie is tall, but he's no taller than 6'1" - 6'2"...great observation!...how, pray tell,.did you arrive at that? I don't think you have seen all his movies...if you had, you did not observe..just like the Duke's movies in the 30's and 40's...guess you observed him with Van Cleef in the Italian movies...and Freeman in Unforgiven......you're right..couldn't have been taller than 6'1"....!!..of course the height goes up with boots...he's in WESTERNS!! Sandles/dress shoes are out in westerns!ps I'm sure you saw the movie where he climbed mountains..just as tall as the co-star..who, by the way is/was 6'4".......won't tell you the movie..you need to do some research!
Gramps said on 10/Dec/05
Bigfan, you must be about 5'6", cause saying 'Blondie' was only 6'1"-6'2" is utterly ridiculous.
Bigfan said on 10/Dec/05
I saw all his movies and I think he has never been taller than 6'1"-6'2" at his peak, but 6'1" is not small and with boots on, he seems to be 6'3"-6'4" at least. Moreover, he is really fit and slender and that increases his height. But he is tall.
mcfan said on 9/Dec/05
Women typically lose more height than men in their later years. I did have a great-uncle, though, that seemed to keep his 6'2 inch frame until his death in his 80s. This is apparently pretty rare. Most people do lose some of their height at least. If you look at the Rolling Stones, Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were pretty much the same height during the British Invasion. Mick today is about 2 inches taller than Keith.
Eastwood's height really shot down over the last ten years. He was slightly taller than Morgan Freeman in "Unforgiven" but probably an inch shorter than him in "Million Dollar Baby."
Gramps said on 6/Dec/05
My mother is almost 85 and has dropped from 5'0" to about 4'8". Yikes!
Mario Nariano said on 6/Dec/05
There is nothing strange about losing 4 inches. I have grand-uncle who is 72 years, he was 5 ft 11 at his peak (according to himself) and when he was last measured he was 5 ft 6.5. I know more poeple who have losed that much height. I also know a friend (69 years) of my grandfather who says that he was 6 foot at his peak, and he claims that he is still 6 ft. He does look it.
The Avarage person lose 2,5 inches when he has reached the 75 or 80 years.
Gotxo said on 6/Dec/05
Thnx Gramps & Mike, hope when i'm on my 58 im so healthy as you both.
0.25 to 0.5 is not a great concern, give me your formula!! :D
Gramps said on 6/Dec/05
Gotxo: I am 6'0" barefoot today at 58 (measured by both my wife and son) and was 6'0.25" at my peak at twenty or so.
mike c said on 5/Dec/05
Gramps, you're right on! Like John Wayne, people don't take the time to view the movies when he and Clint were in their prime...they don't take the time to observe...I was 5'6" when measured by the army recruiters in '66....about 5'5 1/2" now on a good day..did a lot of heavy weight lifting/gymnastics in my time...paying for it now...also celebrated 40th high school reunion this yr..many of my friends have indeed lost some height. For the record I'm 58!
Gotxo said on 5/Dec/05
You frighten me Gramps!
I hope i'll be the same kind of guy as you in the future and not the incredible shrinking man as your friend! BTW wich is your age? One of my best frineds was an exact 187cm (measured for the basketball team) and he had had removed some intervertebral disk due to calcification, that happened when he was 24 and hasn't lost many height, he's still over 6'1" .
Gramps said on 4/Dec/05
Guys, guys! There is absolutely no way possible that Clint Eastwood is 5'11" today. None. I believe he was near 6'4" in his twenties, but that he has shrunk a LOT. I mentioned elsewhere on this site that I attended my 40-year high school reunion last summer and was shocked to see an old friend of mine who had been a strong 6'2" but was now no better than 5'10". During that same interval I had only lost maybe 1/4". I think some people have other factors at work, whether disease, hormones, lifestyle, etc. that may affect their declining height. Clint is obviously one of those people.
MOF said on 4/Dec/05
I repeat, I was there as well Picture... I am 5'11 and he was taller than I was and we were wearing the same shoes. He is 6'1 max.
Jason said on 4/Dec/05
I guess Clint must have been 6'4'' in his cowboy boots.
Picture said on 4/Dec/05
Eastwood must have worn lifts in his earlier movies because he looked 5'11 max this summer.
MOF said on 3/Dec/05
I was there as well Picture, he is not 5'11, I'm 5'11 exactly and he was about two inches taller. He's definately not 187cm, more like 184-5cm.
Picture said on 3/Dec/05
I was standing near Eastwood while he was filming "Flags of Our fathers" this summer. There's no way he was 6'4 even at his peak, he's no more than 5'11.
sam said on 17/Nov/05
I find it hard to believe that Lee Marvin was less than 6'2" at his peak. In those pics with Eastwood, I think the ground is in Eastwood's favor. I definitely think Eastwood at the time of Paint Your Wagon was had at least 2 inches on Marvin. Eastwood- 6'3"-6'4" at peak (6'1"-6'2" today); Marvin- 6'2" at his peak (6'1" or a little less by the late 1960s).
MOF said on 17/Nov/05
During Flags of our Fathers he seemed to be struggling with 6'1, he is not closer to 6'2, I stood next to him and talked to him and he was just about 2 inches taller than me (5'11).
Gramps said on 16/Nov/05
I guess you could say that about anybody on this site in an effort to prove a point. Let's see the facts!
Gramps said on 15/Nov/05
Marvin must have been a "tall" 6'0", because here he stands beside another 6'0" actor, Lloyd Bochner:
Gramps said on 12/Nov/05
Clint was a full 6'4" in his prime.
Check him here against the 6'2" Lee Marvin:
[Editor Rob: the marvin height I'm still not sure just how tall he was in his earlier career. In big heat he did look fairly tall though...but by Gorky Park, he really did not look that tall.]
JimmyW said on 11/Nov/05
I was told, second-hand, from a friend who meet Eastwood on a San Francisco film set years ago (in the late 1980s) and he said he was really tall, 6'4"ish. It's hard to deny that he has lost a couple of inches, and everyone here seems to agree that Eastwood was once 6'3"-6'4" and is now about 6'1.5".
Gramps said on 9/Nov/05
Yes, in all of Clint's early work (1950s through mid-1970s), he ALWAYS looked very tall. In the past 20 years, though, he has definitely lost 2" or a bit more.
John said on 9/Nov/05
Eastwood only looks 1 inch taller than the 6'3 Heston in that picture, which I assume was taken in the Seventies. Eastwood was for sure 6'4 in his younger days, little over 6'1 now.
mike c said on 5/Nov/05
Great photo, Gramps!like John Wayne...he was 6'4" at peak...people who say different have not seen all his movies...people shrink with age..already said, my grandfather was an even 6' feet tall all of his young adult life...was my height (5'6") when he was in his 90's..who cares how tall he's now..still kicking ass directing movies and acting...he's one of the best!
Gramps said on 22/Oct/05
Clint was a solid 6'4" in his prime - - he towered over everybody. Check this 30 year-old photo of him with Charlton Heston, where Clint is a good 1.5-2.0" taller.
Unfortunately, Clint looks to have lost a good 2" with advancing age as he now blends in well with others and no longer towers over them.
mike c said on 9/Oct/05
Clint in Bloodwork is as tall or taller than Daniels, who's 6'3".
MHouillon said on 8/Oct/05
Rob, this becomes more and more unrealistic. Clint IS 6'2" maximum. (By the way: Is that too small for all you "hard-guy-with-gun-lovers"?) His height is not 6'4". That's ridiculous. Why have you changed it, Rob ? Did you forget your own picture of Clint and 6'5" Tim Robbins ? Clint was at least 3 inches shorter!
And CoolJ is completely right. Your site has the ACTUAL Heights of the celebs. Many times you downgraded stars because they are not as tall as in their heydeys. Why do you make in Clints case an exception ? It would be better to mention his former height but state his actual height.
You say, that you use the 6'4" because of his 60's and 70's movies (that made him famous). Would you state 5'10" McCauly Culkin as a 4'9" just because he was this height when he made "Home Alone"?
[Editor Rob: maybe I should list him 187cm as his height from last movie and then mention 60's he was 6ft 4? I think I've done half and half for many shrunken stars...maybe it's better to list current heights and then also mention how tall they looked in previous decades? Regardless of whether I list a star's current height or peak height if they've shrunk I'll mention what I reckon they are presently.
CoolJ said on 4/Oct/05
The guy is still alive.. Why not just make a note about his PEAK Height and list his current... I mean for consistency-sake at least!!
[Editor Rob: lol, I'm inconsistant with shrinking celebrities ;) I do mention his current height of 'marginally under 6ft 2' though]
mcfan said on 20/Aug/05
I'm pretty sure Dennis Leary claims to be 6'2. Whether or not he is that height, I http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0139668/3don't know but it shows Clint is taller.
mcfan said on 17/Aug/05
This photo might help somewhat: http://www.vh1.com/sitewide/flipbooks/img/movies/premiere_photos/m/million_dollar_baby/51815736PK004_million.jpg
McFan said on 14/Aug/05
I saw Donald Sutherland on "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers." He was a half-inch to an inch shorter than Jeff Goldblum making him around 6'3.5-4 range. So, how is Clint only 6'1.5? I also saw where Clint was standing next to Schwarzenegger in the 90s where he was an inch taller than him. Now, I know Arnold is said to wear lifts making him 6'2. That would make Clint 6'3 then. He was also a couple inches taller than Lee Van Cleef. Van Cleef admitted this himself in an interview that Eastwood was taller than him. Since he is old, 6'2 isn't out of the question but he was definitely 6'3 until recent times and was 6'4 in his prime.
[Editor Rob: yes in the last few years Clint visibly appears in the 187cm range. But I've mentioned this and will give Clint the 6ft 4 which he did look in the 60's and 70's]
CelebHeights Editor said on 7/Aug/05
Here is a quote from Clint from A racquetball interview (in July 2003) - "I'm about 6'4' and weigh around 205 pounds".
TNTinCA said on 27/Jul/05
Did anyone see Million Dollar Baby? Was it my imagination, or did Clint appear shorter than Morgan Freeman? (Who is 6'2 and change)
I am a huge Clint fan and seeing earlier movies with him in there, he really did appear to be very tall. I think a lot of this height decrease is age related. His posture was very bad in Million Dollar Baby. I would have put him at the 6'1" range. But honestly, in the Dirty Harry movies, he really did appear to be 6'4". Is it possible to lose 3 inches with age?
McFan said on 21/Jul/05
Just saw "Million Dollar Baby." I'm now confused. Clint looks an inch taller than Morgan Freeman. If Morgan Freeman is taller than Jim Carrey by an inch then he's 6'3. If Clint is taller than Freeman, then he's 6'4. The Tim Robbins/Eastwood photo might be deceptive. Having said that, Clint is now 75 years old. Most people shrink 1-3 inches by then so he can't be 6'4.
[Editor Rob: A lot of the positions where clint stood may have suggested that to some people (after all, Eastwood was framing himself), but to me he still looked marginally shorter...eye line of site did not suggest to me clint being 6ft 3 ;)]
McFan said on 19/Jul/05
One thing strange about Eastwood is in the way he stands. He looks very hunched over in the back. Maybe this would account for him looking smaller than he really is.
sf said on 17/Jul/05
Stood a few feet away from Clint Eastwood when he was in Iowa filming "Bridges of Madision County." This is the truth - he was shopping by himself, at about 11:30 at night, in a supermarket in West Des Moines, Iowa (Bridges is set in Winterset, not too far away). I couldn't believe my luck to have gone to the store at this time - certainly didn't expect to be shopping with Clint Eastwood. Anyway, even at this time (still being in his 60's) I put him at 6'2' or 6'3". He was pretty tall.
8-ball said on 8/Jul/05
Older folks with that Eastwood hunch may not measure as tall as they once did, from head to toe, but you can still see there's 6'3-4"(190cm) worth of person there. It's not that they've "shrunk," but rather settled like an old house. Moreover, they still look tall...or large at least.
Parker said on 1/Jul/05
I remember an interview with him in the 80's - He mentioned he was 6'4 at 16. They had one boy in his school taller at 6'5.
Andy said on 28/Jun/05
Looking at Clint standing next to 5'5 Dustin Hoffman at this year's Oscars, he's clearly no more than 6'1 now. In the 1960s he was definitely 6'3, not as tall as John Wayne but still very tall.
Hallber said on 21/Jun/05
I don't know. He looked pretty tall and lanky in Dirty Harry/westerns. I think he was taller (6ft 3-4in) as a young man but he is almost 80. So I expect he has shrunk to around 6ft 1 or 2. My father was 5ft 9 when I was a child. When I got to adulthood, I grew to 5ft 8in and, just before my father died, he barely reached my earlobe - which meant he was about 5ft 4 - 5ft 5 when he died, shrinkage of 4 - 5in. So it is possible.