Add a Comment5611 comments
Average Guess (445 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.84in (182.5cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.84in (182.5cm)
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.
...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
6'4.25 prime
6'0.25 now
Legend said on 22/Jun/11
6'3.75 prime
5'11.25 now
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 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.
...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.
6'4 flat evening. Morning 6'5.25.
James said on 22/Jun/11
193cm in the evening i think maybe at his peak?
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.
@ 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".
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".
@ 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.
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
@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
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....
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.
Editor Rob
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.
Editor Rob I think just 6ft 4 is fair for him, sometimes a fraction more or less than 6ft 4 could be argued as equally well.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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
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 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.
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 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.
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
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.
"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
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
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.
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.
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.
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"
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. 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.
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.
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 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 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)/
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.
Editor Rob
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.
Editor Rob it's a fair amount but not impossible. If it was 5ft 8 man then losing 4 is a reaally huge amount, not as comparable to a 6ft 4 man losing 4 inches.
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.
..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?
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.
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
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!
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.
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......
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).
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
...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"
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
James said on 6/Jun/11
danimal has your step brother been officially measured at 6'4?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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).
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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'.
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 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.
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.
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
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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, 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 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.
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".
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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").
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.
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".
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,
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hugh 190cm said on 17/Jun/09
Looks between 6ft1 and 6ft2 nowadays and 6ft4 peak.
Looks between 6ft1 and 6ft2 nowadays and 6ft4 peak.
Hugh 190cm said on 17/Jun/09
Looks roughly eye level with Sydney Pointier whose a genuine 6ft2 guy. 187cm clearly. He's also the same height as Whitaker in that pic.
From that pic it looks like this: Robbins 6ft5.5, Eastwood, 6ft1.5-6ft2, Whitaker 6ft2 flat and Poitier 6ft2-6ft2.5.
Looks roughly eye level with Sydney Pointier whose a genuine 6ft2 guy. 187cm clearly. He's also the same height as Whitaker in that pic.
From that pic it looks like this: Robbins 6ft5.5, Eastwood, 6ft1.5-6ft2, Whitaker 6ft2 flat and Poitier 6ft2-6ft2.5.
Frank2 said on 16/Jun/09
Robbins is 6'5". I've seen him in person. He's always the tallest person in the room and usually by half a head taller than the next tall man.
Robbins is 6'5". I've seen him in person. He's always the tallest person in the room and usually by half a head taller than the next tall man.
Doug said on 15/Jun/09
Yeah he looks pretty even with 6'2" Whitaker. Strage thing is why the hell does Robbins look 6'6"-6'7" in comparison? Is RObbins really "only" 6'4.5" or is he nearer 6'6" which he seems to often look? RObbins definately seems to reach 6'6" in shoes.
Yeah he looks pretty even with 6'2" Whitaker. Strage thing is why the hell does Robbins look 6'6"-6'7" in comparison? Is RObbins really "only" 6'4.5" or is he nearer 6'6" which he seems to often look? RObbins definately seems to reach 6'6" in shoes.
Frank2 said on 15/Jun/09
FYI Tim Robbins is at least 6'5". But look how much Clint has shrunk. Back when I saw Clint in the 1970s, he'd have only been an inch shorter than Robbins is today. But Sidney Poitier has also lost some height. In his prime he was 6'2 1/2". I know since I worked with him.
FYI Tim Robbins is at least 6'5". But look how much Clint has shrunk. Back when I saw Clint in the 1970s, he'd have only been an inch shorter than Robbins is today. But Sidney Poitier has also lost some height. In his prime he was 6'2 1/2". I know since I worked with him.
James said on 15/Jun/09
I must say in that pic Tim Robbins look every bit of 6'5. Forest Whitaker looks like 186cm.
I must say in that pic Tim Robbins look every bit of 6'5. Forest Whitaker looks like 186cm.
Brad said on 14/Jun/09
6' 4" to 1980 with ease, maybe even later.
6' 4" to 1980 with ease, maybe even later.
James said on 14/Jun/09
A sure 6'3.5-6'4 guy at peak.
A sure 6'3.5-6'4 guy at peak.
Frank2 said on 13/Jun/09
I mentioned this once before. Back in 1975 when composer John Williams was recording his score for THE EIGER SANCTION, I was on the Universal scoring stage when Eastwood walked in. He was wearing loafers and he towered over me. He was definitely 6'4". John Williams was 5'10" and came up to Eastwood's nose!
I mentioned this once before. Back in 1975 when composer John Williams was recording his score for THE EIGER SANCTION, I was on the Universal scoring stage when Eastwood walked in. He was wearing loafers and he towered over me. He was definitely 6'4". John Williams was 5'10" and came up to Eastwood's nose!
mike c said on 13/Jun/09
Hugh, you're 100% right. When Clint stands perfectly straight he's still minimum 6'2"..tends to hunch forward because of his back. Notice how his hips are-one is slightly higher than the other when he's in a frontal view. 6'4" no doubt in prime and still a legend both in acting and in directing. mike c
Hugh, you're 100% right. When Clint stands perfectly straight he's still minimum 6'2"..tends to hunch forward because of his back. Notice how his hips are-one is slightly higher than the other when he's in a frontal view. 6'4" no doubt in prime and still a legend both in acting and in directing. mike c
Parker said on 13/Jun/09
Watched Magnum Force again the other night. Eastwood looked every bit of 6'4.
Watched Magnum Force again the other night. Eastwood looked every bit of 6'4.
Doug said on 13/Jun/09
Saw a film with Eastwood in it last night from 1999. Eastwood looked nowhere near 6'4".
Saw a film with Eastwood in it last night from 1999. Eastwood looked nowhere near 6'4".
Ed(1) said on 12/Jun/09
Yeah but Hugh the listing for Eastwood referred to him as having been 6ft2, not currently. Now a days I'd say he's 6ft plus, and peak 6ft2.5-6ft3.
As for Connery, I don't think he's much more then a weak 6ft1 these days, with a peak of near 6ft2.
As for the others, I'd peg Mcqueen at around 5ft8-5ft9 tops, 6ft1.5 peak for Arnie, Marvin a solid 6ft1-6ft2, Willis 5ft11ish, and The Rock at around 6ft3.
Yeah but Hugh the listing for Eastwood referred to him as having been 6ft2, not currently. Now a days I'd say he's 6ft plus, and peak 6ft2.5-6ft3.
As for Connery, I don't think he's much more then a weak 6ft1 these days, with a peak of near 6ft2.
As for the others, I'd peg Mcqueen at around 5ft8-5ft9 tops, 6ft1.5 peak for Arnie, Marvin a solid 6ft1-6ft2, Willis 5ft11ish, and The Rock at around 6ft3.
Hugh 190cm said on 12/Jun/09
The 5ft11 and 6ft claims are laughable. Eastwood still looks tall. Nowhere near 6ft4. Today he's near 6ft2.
The 5ft11 and 6ft claims are laughable. Eastwood still looks tall. Nowhere near 6ft4. Today he's near 6ft2.
Hugh 190cm said on 12/Jun/09
Ed, I would more or less agree with those listings. Eastwood to me looks close to 6ft2 nowadays when standing with goo posture. Daniel Craig looks at least 5ft10 to me and could be taller. The Rock is not quite 6ft4 but close (approx. 192cm) Sean Connery nowadays is definately 6ft2. Lee Marvin was 6ft2. Bruce Willis to me looks closer to 6ft but can look 5ft11. McQueen was a solid 5ft10. Arnie at peak 6ft2, now closer to 6ft. Lundgren isn't quite 6ft5. but close.
Ed, I would more or less agree with those listings. Eastwood to me looks close to 6ft2 nowadays when standing with goo posture. Daniel Craig looks at least 5ft10 to me and could be taller. The Rock is not quite 6ft4 but close (approx. 192cm) Sean Connery nowadays is definately 6ft2. Lee Marvin was 6ft2. Bruce Willis to me looks closer to 6ft but can look 5ft11. McQueen was a solid 5ft10. Arnie at peak 6ft2, now closer to 6ft. Lundgren isn't quite 6ft5. but close.
Ed(1) said on 8/Jun/09
In the most recent issue of Muscle and Fitness they have a section on Hollywood Action Stars with impressive physiques, Eastwood is one of abovementioned. What's interesting though is they list him as having been 6ft2! The others on the list are given both shorter and taller listings then usually seen, for example: Daniel Craig listed at 5ft10, The Rock at 6ft4.5, Sean Connery at 6ft2, Lee Marvin at 6ft2, Bruce Willis at 5ft11, Steve Mcqueen at somewhere between 5ft7-5ft10, Arnold Schwarzenegger at 6ft2, Van Damme at 5ft9, Dolph Lundgren at 6ft5.5, and Hugh Jackman at 6ft2.5.
What's funny is they don't even bother to give Stallone a height listing. LOL
Maybe he's a mystery to them as well?
In the most recent issue of Muscle and Fitness they have a section on Hollywood Action Stars with impressive physiques, Eastwood is one of abovementioned. What's interesting though is they list him as having been 6ft2! The others on the list are given both shorter and taller listings then usually seen, for example: Daniel Craig listed at 5ft10, The Rock at 6ft4.5, Sean Connery at 6ft2, Lee Marvin at 6ft2, Bruce Willis at 5ft11, Steve Mcqueen at somewhere between 5ft7-5ft10, Arnold Schwarzenegger at 6ft2, Van Damme at 5ft9, Dolph Lundgren at 6ft5.5, and Hugh Jackman at 6ft2.5.
What's funny is they don't even bother to give Stallone a height listing. LOL
Maybe he's a mystery to them as well?
Danimal said on 7/Jun/09
Mike says on 30/May/09
5'11 seems outrageous...and YET, it WOULD explain some strange height revealing pictures of Eastwood with others. Well, once again, I ask....Does ANYONE here know the nature of these alleged back surgeries? What caused the need for them? One reason I ask is because I just started bench pressing again. I know I've read Eastwood could bench over 300 at one time. Could this be bad for one's spine?
Bench pressing is fine for the spine. He suffers from osteoporosis and curvature of the spine. He is also 80 years old. You cannot compare yourself to him.
Mike says on 30/May/09
5'11 seems outrageous...and YET, it WOULD explain some strange height revealing pictures of Eastwood with others. Well, once again, I ask....Does ANYONE here know the nature of these alleged back surgeries? What caused the need for them? One reason I ask is because I just started bench pressing again. I know I've read Eastwood could bench over 300 at one time. Could this be bad for one's spine?
Bench pressing is fine for the spine. He suffers from osteoporosis and curvature of the spine. He is also 80 years old. You cannot compare yourself to him.
Outlaw said on 3/Jun/09
It's pretty clear that Eastwood was definitely 6'4" in his prime. But now a days, he has shrunk a ton. Watching something like Million Dollar Baby or looking at pictures where he's with Morgan Freeman (6'2.5"), he looks at least an inch and a half shorter.
Today, I'll say the bottom line is: 6'0.5" for Eastwood. But certainly 6'4" up until he was about 55 or so.
Take care and may the Lord be with y'all.
It's pretty clear that Eastwood was definitely 6'4" in his prime. But now a days, he has shrunk a ton. Watching something like Million Dollar Baby or looking at pictures where he's with Morgan Freeman (6'2.5"), he looks at least an inch and a half shorter.
Today, I'll say the bottom line is: 6'0.5" for Eastwood. But certainly 6'4" up until he was about 55 or so.
Take care and may the Lord be with y'all.
Yaspaa said on 3/Jun/09
I'm 6'4 punks! and I'm wearing slippers Click Here Clint had been born 40 or so years later,who knows...bub..punk...potato potahto Click Here
I'm 6'4 punks! and I'm wearing slippers Click Here Clint had been born 40 or so years later,who knows...bub..punk...potato potahto Click Here
RisingForce said on 3/Jun/09
I'll believe the 5'11" claim when I see a link to it. Until then I don't buy it.
I'll believe the 5'11" claim when I see a link to it. Until then I don't buy it.
TELLEM said on 31/May/09
Hugh 190cm says on 28/May/09
I doubt very much that Clint is 5ft11! He's now a 187cm and maybe a bit more. 6ft4 in his prime.
he stated 5'11 now, and 6'3 peak!
Hugh 190cm says on 28/May/09
I doubt very much that Clint is 5ft11! He's now a 187cm and maybe a bit more. 6ft4 in his prime.
he stated 5'11 now, and 6'3 peak!
TELLEM said on 31/May/09
so hes now 5'11, and was 6'3 PEAK. that eliminates 6'4 since it came straight from his MOUTH!
so hes now 5'11, and was 6'3 PEAK. that eliminates 6'4 since it came straight from his MOUTH!
Mike said on 30/May/09
5'11 seems outrageous...and YET, it WOULD explain some strange height revealing pictures of Eastwood with others. Well, once again, I ask....Does ANYONE here know the nature of these alleged back surgeries? What caused the need for them? One reason I ask is because I just started bench pressing again. I know I've read Eastwood could bench over 300 at one time. Could this be bad for one's spine?
5'11 seems outrageous...and YET, it WOULD explain some strange height revealing pictures of Eastwood with others. Well, once again, I ask....Does ANYONE here know the nature of these alleged back surgeries? What caused the need for them? One reason I ask is because I just started bench pressing again. I know I've read Eastwood could bench over 300 at one time. Could this be bad for one's spine?
Doug said on 30/May/09
Agree with Danimal that Eastwood is nowhere near a legit 6'2" barefoot today. Have you seen how he looks compared to Tim Robbins? 4-5 inches shorter. Clint is around 6' flat today barefoot. Peak he was close to 6'4" undoubtedly as hard as it is to believe next to Robbins nowadays. Dreadful height loss. Still the man though. Peak 6'3" today 5'11" is not impossible and quite likely but still looks a little over 6' to me in shoes anyway.
Agree with Danimal that Eastwood is nowhere near a legit 6'2" barefoot today. Have you seen how he looks compared to Tim Robbins? 4-5 inches shorter. Clint is around 6' flat today barefoot. Peak he was close to 6'4" undoubtedly as hard as it is to believe next to Robbins nowadays. Dreadful height loss. Still the man though. Peak 6'3" today 5'11" is not impossible and quite likely but still looks a little over 6' to me in shoes anyway.
MIchitaka said on 30/May/09
I have seen many his film and I feel when he was young more than 192,
but now about 187. Form Japan.
I have seen many his film and I feel when he was young more than 192,
but now about 187. Form Japan.
Danimal said on 29/May/09
Hugh 190cm says on 28/May/09
I doubt very much that Clint is 5ft11! He's now a 187cm and maybe a bit more. 6ft4 in his prime.
HAHA... No, he's not 187 today. I can VERY MUCH believe he is down to 5'11". He has been looking like he has been struggling with 6'0" for a while now. Arnold was 2" taller than him last year in a pic, was he not?
Hugh 190cm says on 28/May/09
I doubt very much that Clint is 5ft11! He's now a 187cm and maybe a bit more. 6ft4 in his prime.
HAHA... No, he's not 187 today. I can VERY MUCH believe he is down to 5'11". He has been looking like he has been struggling with 6'0" for a while now. Arnold was 2" taller than him last year in a pic, was he not?
mike c said on 29/May/09
Dean, I remember reading a while back that Clint stated for a magazine that he was 6'4" in prime. mike c
Dean, I remember reading a while back that Clint stated for a magazine that he was 6'4" in prime. mike c
Hugh 190cm said on 28/May/09
I doubt very much that Clint is 5ft11! He's now a 187cm and maybe a bit more. 6ft4 in his prime.
I doubt very much that Clint is 5ft11! He's now a 187cm and maybe a bit more. 6ft4 in his prime.
Dean said on 28/May/09
Eastwood stated categorically in an interview during a golf tournament several months ago that he is now 5'11" due to numerous back surguries . He stated his prime height at 6'3" . That's from the horse's mouth .
Eastwood stated categorically in an interview during a golf tournament several months ago that he is now 5'11" due to numerous back surguries . He stated his prime height at 6'3" . That's from the horse's mouth .
call said on 24/May/09
Was 6'4, He is 6'2 now
Was 6'4, He is 6'2 now
Doug said on 21/May/09
Wayne and Eastwood looked exactly the same height to me. i had always thought both men 6'3" but having studied both of them for ages 6'4" it is then.
Wayne and Eastwood looked exactly the same height to me. i had always thought both men 6'3" but having studied both of them for ages 6'4" it is then.
Anonymous said on 20/May/09
THIS GUY IS AMAZING...I GOT A QUICK INTERVIEW FROM HIM AT THE SB FILM FESTIVAL THIS YEAR AND HE IS JUST SO NICE.I WOULD SAY HE IS 6'1 OR 6'2 TOPS.
THIS GUY IS AMAZING...I GOT A QUICK INTERVIEW FROM HIM AT THE SB FILM FESTIVAL THIS YEAR AND HE IS JUST SO NICE.I WOULD SAY HE IS 6'1 OR 6'2 TOPS.
Tony G. said on 19/May/09
I happened to talk in person to George Kennedy a few weeks ago. He was at an autograph show in Burbank. Of course, I asked him about height. He confirmed that he is (or was) 6'4". And "maybe a little more." I then asked him about John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Dan Blocker since he has been in movies or TV shows with all three of them. He said all of them were about the same height (6'4"). The only ones he could remember who were noticeably taller were Chad Everett and James Arness. He didn't seem to know any exact figures, even his own height, and probably didn't care!
I happened to talk in person to George Kennedy a few weeks ago. He was at an autograph show in Burbank. Of course, I asked him about height. He confirmed that he is (or was) 6'4". And "maybe a little more." I then asked him about John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Dan Blocker since he has been in movies or TV shows with all three of them. He said all of them were about the same height (6'4"). The only ones he could remember who were noticeably taller were Chad Everett and James Arness. He didn't seem to know any exact figures, even his own height, and probably didn't care!
mike c said on 19/May/09
In the Eiger Sanction Clint is standing face to face with George Kennedy (6'4") and they are both the same height. No doubt whatsoever, Clint, 6'4" at peak. Doug, as I discussed many times on the Wayne site, the surroundings affect our perception of an actor's height. That's why Clint sometimes looks shorter than what we expect him to be. Easy 2"+ taller than Lee Van Cleef in the sphagetti westerns. mike c
In the Eiger Sanction Clint is standing face to face with George Kennedy (6'4") and they are both the same height. No doubt whatsoever, Clint, 6'4" at peak. Doug, as I discussed many times on the Wayne site, the surroundings affect our perception of an actor's height. That's why Clint sometimes looks shorter than what we expect him to be. Easy 2"+ taller than Lee Van Cleef in the sphagetti westerns. mike c
Doug said on 19/May/09
Maybe it was the ground but I saw 1/2 inch difference. Eastwood then I now officially declare a legit 6'4" at peak, the proff that he was around 6'4" is overwhelming. Often looked more like a 6'2.5"-6'3" to me though.
Maybe it was the ground but I saw 1/2 inch difference. Eastwood then I now officially declare a legit 6'4" at peak, the proff that he was around 6'4" is overwhelming. Often looked more like a 6'2.5"-6'3" to me though.
Bri said on 19/May/09
Doug. Watch Eiger Sanction. Clint & Walcott are eye to eye in an early scene where Walcott gets his ass kicked (as usual!). Both in dress shoes, both exactly equal in height ie both 6'4"
Doug. Watch Eiger Sanction. Clint & Walcott are eye to eye in an early scene where Walcott gets his ass kicked (as usual!). Both in dress shoes, both exactly equal in height ie both 6'4"
Doug said on 18/May/09
A weak 6'2"? Eastwood is more like a weak 6'1" nowadays. I've lost count of the times he has looked 6'-6'1" in recent years compared to guys like Tim Robbins etc.
A weak 6'2"? Eastwood is more like a weak 6'1" nowadays. I've lost count of the times he has looked 6'-6'1" in recent years compared to guys like Tim Robbins etc.
Doug said on 18/May/09
Heres something interesting. Just watched Joe Kidd from 1972 and watched Eastwood walking side by side with Gregory Walcott who is listed at 6'4". Eastwood had boots on, the sheriff had flatter dress shoes and both men were a very similar height but to me it looked pretty clear that Walcott was a little taller than Eastwood by about half an inch. Accounting for footwear compared to Walcott Eastwood looked a strong 6'3", 6'3.5" I'd say. He was undoubtedly a little shorter than Walcott. Eastwood in that film was only about 1.5 inches taller than 6'2" Don Stroud too again backing up the 6'3.5". The 192cm looks about right in Joe Kidd anyway.
Heres something interesting. Just watched Joe Kidd from 1972 and watched Eastwood walking side by side with Gregory Walcott who is listed at 6'4". Eastwood had boots on, the sheriff had flatter dress shoes and both men were a very similar height but to me it looked pretty clear that Walcott was a little taller than Eastwood by about half an inch. Accounting for footwear compared to Walcott Eastwood looked a strong 6'3", 6'3.5" I'd say. He was undoubtedly a little shorter than Walcott. Eastwood in that film was only about 1.5 inches taller than 6'2" Don Stroud too again backing up the 6'3.5". The 192cm looks about right in Joe Kidd anyway.
GUK said on 13/May/09
Doug. Holliwood has always used small doorframes for male actors in westerns and large ones in shots of women to make them look petite. I was told that on the Universal studios tour some years ago as they pointed out the tricks on some of the sets
Doug. Holliwood has always used small doorframes for male actors in westerns and large ones in shots of women to make them look petite. I was told that on the Universal studios tour some years ago as they pointed out the tricks on some of the sets
Hugh 190cm said on 13/May/09
Clint is now officialy a weak 6ft2 guy.
Clint is now officialy a weak 6ft2 guy.
RisingForce said on 12/May/09
clint was atleast as tall as 6-4 donald sutherland in kelly's heroes.
clint was atleast as tall as 6-4 donald sutherland in kelly's heroes.
ross said on 9/May/09
His peak 192cm. Now he is 187-188cm but not shorter. Morgan Freeman is taller than him today and he is 189-190cm.
His peak 192cm. Now he is 187-188cm but not shorter. Morgan Freeman is taller than him today and he is 189-190cm.
Davis said on 6/May/09
I Read in an old magazine he was 6ft5 when young
I Read in an old magazine he was 6ft5 when young
Jervis said on 2/May/09
James Cromwell is 6ft7" not 6ft5".
James Cromwell is 6ft7" not 6ft5".
Doug said on 2/May/09
Ya know. The more I focus on Clint the more I'm starting the believe he was the full 6'4" barefoot at peak. Standing underneath a 6'8" likely doorframe with boots and hat he was only 1 inch off the door frame in Josey Wales. This means with cowboy boots and a hat he was in the 6'7" range. Take away the hat and the boots the man was undoubtedly minimum 6'3", likely 6'4". in Josey Wales he looked every inch of 6'4" legit. In some scenes he gave a 6'6" impression with certain camera angles.
Ya know. The more I focus on Clint the more I'm starting the believe he was the full 6'4" barefoot at peak. Standing underneath a 6'8" likely doorframe with boots and hat he was only 1 inch off the door frame in Josey Wales. This means with cowboy boots and a hat he was in the 6'7" range. Take away the hat and the boots the man was undoubtedly minimum 6'3", likely 6'4". in Josey Wales he looked every inch of 6'4" legit. In some scenes he gave a 6'6" impression with certain camera angles.
Daniel said on 1/May/09
I think Rob has him correct, 1.85m now, 1.93m (at least) peak
I think Rob has him correct, 1.85m now, 1.93m (at least) peak
Hugh 190cm said on 1/May/09
6ft1.5 nowadays. He's had a long history of injuries which may have resulted in height loss. From watching his western movies I can see 6ft4. In the 80's and 90's he still looked 6ft3+ next to guys like Jim Carrey (6ft1.5-6ft2) and Morgan Freeman (6ft2.5-6ft3). Today MR. Eastwood is still well over 6ft. Maybe not the commanding 6ft4 man that he was but a genuinely tall man none the less. I think there is a chance this guy could be 6ft2 even. If he hadn't had all those injuries I reckon this guy would still be close to 6ft4 today.
6ft1.5 nowadays. He's had a long history of injuries which may have resulted in height loss. From watching his western movies I can see 6ft4. In the 80's and 90's he still looked 6ft3+ next to guys like Jim Carrey (6ft1.5-6ft2) and Morgan Freeman (6ft2.5-6ft3). Today MR. Eastwood is still well over 6ft. Maybe not the commanding 6ft4 man that he was but a genuinely tall man none the less. I think there is a chance this guy could be 6ft2 even. If he hadn't had all those injuries I reckon this guy would still be close to 6ft4 today.
miko said on 1/May/09
Eastwood is really struggling here next to a slouching 6"5 James Cromwell.
6"1 (185cm) is the maximum he can be today. Any taller is unrealistic. Even under 6"0 guys such Pitt/Schwarzenegger are taller today with lifts.
Eastwood is really struggling here next to a slouching 6"5 James Cromwell.
6"1 (185cm) is the maximum he can be today. Any taller is unrealistic. Even under 6"0 guys such Pitt/Schwarzenegger are taller today with lifts.
Bigman said on 30/Apr/09
Well Anyway. I'd say he is 6'0 1/2" today actually.
Well Anyway. I'd say he is 6'0 1/2" today actually.
Anonymous said on 30/Apr/09
Nowadays Eastwood is around 187cm. The proof is in films like Gran Torino.
Nowadays Eastwood is around 187cm. The proof is in films like Gran Torino.
Sam said on 30/Apr/09
It said 6'3", Bigman.
It said 6'3", Bigman.
Anonymous said on 29/Apr/09
6ft = 72 inches = 182.88cm
So anyone in the 182 cm range most of the day is essentially 6ft.
6ft = 72 inches = 182.88cm
So anyone in the 182 cm range most of the day is essentially 6ft.
Bigman said on 29/Apr/09
I think in " Gran Torino" his physical sheet has him down at 6'1".
I think in " Gran Torino" his physical sheet has him down at 6'1".
Luis said on 29/Apr/09
Thank you again Doug. I can see that you're a good observator in heights and you've answered all my doubts. I suppose people here look at me as a very tall boy because I'm the tallest person in my family and between my friends too. In addition, I often wear a mountain boots which give me the height of 186 cm. Barefoot 1.82, with trainers 1.84 more or less and with these boots 1.86 cm...Yes, the three are high heights here in Spain.
Sometimes, the height's appearance of people depends on their body construction. I have seen people who are 5'11" who looks taller. Maybe because they're very slim, or with good musculature, you know. For example, I have very long legs (more or less is the same case as David Beckham, his legs seem too long) and this helps to look taller. A lot of people who are not expert in height tell me that I should be near of 190 cm!!! Very often is the appearance of the body construction, I've seen people who are 5'11'' (180 cm) who seems taller than people who are 6'2'' (by sepparate, of course, not one next to other)
For example, I used to think that Ving Rhames was a giant of 6'3", and when I saw in a lot of webs (including this) that he's not over 180 cm, I was surprised. Why? Because his great musculature helps very much to look bigger.
By the way, I have also commented in the heights of Ving Rhames, Jim Carrey, John Travolta and David Beckham. Take a look, if you want, specially David Beckham because there are a lot of comments about spanish football players. I gave my opinion there, because here in Spain is incredible how people exaggerate the heights. Take a look, maybe you find it interesting.
Thank you again.
Thank you again Doug. I can see that you're a good observator in heights and you've answered all my doubts. I suppose people here look at me as a very tall boy because I'm the tallest person in my family and between my friends too. In addition, I often wear a mountain boots which give me the height of 186 cm. Barefoot 1.82, with trainers 1.84 more or less and with these boots 1.86 cm...Yes, the three are high heights here in Spain.
Sometimes, the height's appearance of people depends on their body construction. I have seen people who are 5'11" who looks taller. Maybe because they're very slim, or with good musculature, you know. For example, I have very long legs (more or less is the same case as David Beckham, his legs seem too long) and this helps to look taller. A lot of people who are not expert in height tell me that I should be near of 190 cm!!! Very often is the appearance of the body construction, I've seen people who are 5'11'' (180 cm) who seems taller than people who are 6'2'' (by sepparate, of course, not one next to other)
For example, I used to think that Ving Rhames was a giant of 6'3", and when I saw in a lot of webs (including this) that he's not over 180 cm, I was surprised. Why? Because his great musculature helps very much to look bigger.
By the way, I have also commented in the heights of Ving Rhames, Jim Carrey, John Travolta and David Beckham. Take a look, if you want, specially David Beckham because there are a lot of comments about spanish football players. I gave my opinion there, because here in Spain is incredible how people exaggerate the heights. Take a look, maybe you find it interesting.
Thank you again.
Doug said on 29/Apr/09
Yes you will be considered a strong 5'11" if you are 181-182cm and never fall below 181cm and a weak 6'0. Alex on this website is what you'd call a strong 6'0 in that by the end of the day barefoot he as far as I'm aware doesn't fall under 6'. You will be taller in the morning than in the evening I shrink 3/4 of an inch every day. Most legit 5'11.5" guys will pull off the 6'1" in good boots/shoes. A lot of men around your height, Bruce Willis, Leo DeCaprio, Vin Diesel, Justin Timberlake, John Malkovich, David Beckham, Dave Grohl, Arnold Schwarzennegger today perhaps etc will pull off the 6'1" at times but will often look a legit 6' to most people. Most of those above with perhaps the exception of David Beckham would be considered a "strong 5'11" pretty much grazing 6'.
Yes you will be considered a strong 5'11" if you are 181-182cm and never fall below 181cm and a weak 6'0. Alex on this website is what you'd call a strong 6'0 in that by the end of the day barefoot he as far as I'm aware doesn't fall under 6'. You will be taller in the morning than in the evening I shrink 3/4 of an inch every day. Most legit 5'11.5" guys will pull off the 6'1" in good boots/shoes. A lot of men around your height, Bruce Willis, Leo DeCaprio, Vin Diesel, Justin Timberlake, John Malkovich, David Beckham, Dave Grohl, Arnold Schwarzennegger today perhaps etc will pull off the 6'1" at times but will often look a legit 6' to most people. Most of those above with perhaps the exception of David Beckham would be considered a "strong 5'11" pretty much grazing 6'.
Luis said on 28/Apr/09
Doug: Yes, you're right and you have reason in the mayority of things. Americans come from England people (you know that better than me, I suppose) so a great percentage should be descendants of Scottish and European people in general. I didn't know anything about the origins of Sutherland or Eastwood, and thanks one more time for the information. I didn't know that about Croatians. You're right also in the height of Prince Felipe, he's about 197 cm without doubt. He dwarfs everybody.
In the other hand, yes, here is Spain 5'9" is the average height for men. And I'm not sure, but I think it has increased 1 cm, to 177 cm more or less. The new generations are taller, as you said before. I often see 15 year-old children with the same height as me (I'm 24 and I'm a weak 6'0 barefoot and 6'1" with shoes or trainers).
Another question, Doug, please: I checked my height in the pharmacy machine three times since last Christmas, different days. First time, the ticket said 181 cm. The last two others, 182 cm (The three times barefoot). I don't care about my real height barefoot is 181 or 182 cm (I suppose 182, two against one...you know) My question is: Is a 181-182 cm person what you called in your system a "weak 6'0"? I'm not very sure.
Thanks again, partner.
Doug: Yes, you're right and you have reason in the mayority of things. Americans come from England people (you know that better than me, I suppose) so a great percentage should be descendants of Scottish and European people in general. I didn't know anything about the origins of Sutherland or Eastwood, and thanks one more time for the information. I didn't know that about Croatians. You're right also in the height of Prince Felipe, he's about 197 cm without doubt. He dwarfs everybody.
In the other hand, yes, here is Spain 5'9" is the average height for men. And I'm not sure, but I think it has increased 1 cm, to 177 cm more or less. The new generations are taller, as you said before. I often see 15 year-old children with the same height as me (I'm 24 and I'm a weak 6'0 barefoot and 6'1" with shoes or trainers).
Another question, Doug, please: I checked my height in the pharmacy machine three times since last Christmas, different days. First time, the ticket said 181 cm. The last two others, 182 cm (The three times barefoot). I don't care about my real height barefoot is 181 or 182 cm (I suppose 182, two against one...you know) My question is: Is a 181-182 cm person what you called in your system a "weak 6'0"? I'm not very sure.
Thanks again, partner.
Doug said on 28/Apr/09
Also remember Luis that a massive percentage of Americans correct me if I'm wrong I believe it is in the region of at least 80% have European ancestry, particularly German, English, Irish. The other proportion is Hispanic or blacks. Most of the American population today are there because of the emmigration to the new world of their greatgreat great grandparents etc to America in the 19th century, the Dutch even earlier in the 18th century.
Also remember Luis that a massive percentage of Americans correct me if I'm wrong I believe it is in the region of at least 80% have European ancestry, particularly German, English, Irish. The other proportion is Hispanic or blacks. Most of the American population today are there because of the emmigration to the new world of their greatgreat great grandparents etc to America in the 19th century, the Dutch even earlier in the 18th century.
Doug said on 28/Apr/09
Eastwood isn't "blonde" as such but he still fits the bill of the Northern European, notably tall, blue eyes, pale complexion lighter brown hair etc. Of course he was called "blondie" by Tuco, and referred to be Lee van Cleef as "golden haired" but hardly Peter Schmeicel eh?
Eastwood isn't "blonde" as such but he still fits the bill of the Northern European, notably tall, blue eyes, pale complexion lighter brown hair etc. Of course he was called "blondie" by Tuco, and referred to be Lee van Cleef as "golden haired" but hardly Peter Schmeicel eh?
Doug said on 28/Apr/09
Interestingly Luis, Eastwood has Scots-Irish ancestry so does Donald Sutherland (well Scottish I know of anyway). A lot of Scots-Irish have Scandinavian ancestry from the Vikings when they landed in Scotland and Ireland but it is complex as it is mixed mixed Celts etc. The tall blue eyed fair haired guys, I wouldn't doubt for a second that both Eastwood and Sutherland have the genes.
Interestingly Luis, Eastwood has Scots-Irish ancestry so does Donald Sutherland (well Scottish I know of anyway). A lot of Scots-Irish have Scandinavian ancestry from the Vikings when they landed in Scotland and Ireland but it is complex as it is mixed mixed Celts etc. The tall blue eyed fair haired guys, I wouldn't doubt for a second that both Eastwood and Sutherland have the genes.
Doug said on 28/Apr/09
Hey Luis. I'm from the UK but I have Scandinavian ancestry which are taller on average. Interesting as Felipe, Prince of Asturias is 6'5.5". He must be regarded as a giant in Spain. Thats huge anywhere in the world. Surpised 5'9" is average when I went it was more 5'6", younger generaiton is taller though. Actually USA is not known for its height or the UK either, you are somewhat right about Germans and Swedes (and Norwegians and Danes) but it is the Dutch and Croatians who are known especially for being tall.
Hey Luis. I'm from the UK but I have Scandinavian ancestry which are taller on average. Interesting as Felipe, Prince of Asturias is 6'5.5". He must be regarded as a giant in Spain. Thats huge anywhere in the world. Surpised 5'9" is average when I went it was more 5'6", younger generaiton is taller though. Actually USA is not known for its height or the UK either, you are somewhat right about Germans and Swedes (and Norwegians and Danes) but it is the Dutch and Croatians who are known especially for being tall.
Luis said on 27/Apr/09
Doug, thanks for the information. As I said before, I'm a spanish boy and I didn't know that USA were so famous in people's great height, in this case USA should have the same height popularity as Germany or Sweden, I suppose.
Here in Spain the average height for men is 175-176 cm (5'9" in your system) more or less. I don't know where are you from (USA? England?) but I'm sure that you understand me.
Doug, thanks for the information. As I said before, I'm a spanish boy and I didn't know that USA were so famous in people's great height, in this case USA should have the same height popularity as Germany or Sweden, I suppose.
Here in Spain the average height for men is 175-176 cm (5'9" in your system) more or less. I don't know where are you from (USA? England?) but I'm sure that you understand me.
Doug said on 27/Apr/09
Luis if you are a legit 5'11.5" in Spain you will be considered particularly tall as you will be nearly 6'1" in shoes. In many parts of Italy, particularly in the south too this is considered very tall. I'm 6'2" barefoot in the morning and am well built and when I went to Italy and Spain with my parents I've had restaurant waiters and bus drivers etc comment saying what a massive son they have. The thing is I'm THAT big not really, some 6'4"-6'6" fellas I've met dwarf me, I just am compared to a lot of the guys on the street there and stand out!!. I don't often get comments in the UK but in Spain and Italy people seem to look at me as huge! It was the same in Indonesia where the men are even shorter. Yes Eastwood and Sutherland were a little over 190cm barefoot at peak, Eastwood today is no more than 186cm though as an old man. Sutherland is likely 188cm today.Both men were and still are very tall for their age. You rarely see 80 year old men over 6 foot.
Luis if you are a legit 5'11.5" in Spain you will be considered particularly tall as you will be nearly 6'1" in shoes. In many parts of Italy, particularly in the south too this is considered very tall. I'm 6'2" barefoot in the morning and am well built and when I went to Italy and Spain with my parents I've had restaurant waiters and bus drivers etc comment saying what a massive son they have. The thing is I'm THAT big not really, some 6'4"-6'6" fellas I've met dwarf me, I just am compared to a lot of the guys on the street there and stand out!!. I don't often get comments in the UK but in Spain and Italy people seem to look at me as huge! It was the same in Indonesia where the men are even shorter. Yes Eastwood and Sutherland were a little over 190cm barefoot at peak, Eastwood today is no more than 186cm though as an old man. Sutherland is likely 188cm today.Both men were and still are very tall for their age. You rarely see 80 year old men over 6 foot.
Doug said on 27/Apr/09
Eastwood was definately not 6'5" at peak. 6'4" max.
Eastwood was definately not 6'5" at peak. 6'4" max.
filmfan said on 25/Apr/09
I've seen the Hudson clip. It's included in a Clint Eastwood documentary. They do look similar in height. Until recent yrs Eastwood has looked about 6'4'' to me. I mean it's possible he was 6'3'' but I can't see him being any shorter than this.
I've seen the Hudson clip. It's included in a Clint Eastwood documentary. They do look similar in height. Until recent yrs Eastwood has looked about 6'4'' to me. I mean it's possible he was 6'3'' but I can't see him being any shorter than this.
Mike said on 24/Apr/09
What are these reports about Eastwood having back problems? I've never read that until these posts.
What are these reports about Eastwood having back problems? I've never read that until these posts.
Daniel said on 24/Apr/09
So you guys are saying Clint was 6'5'' peak? I wouldn't discard it, but many people here would disagree.
So you guys are saying Clint was 6'5'' peak? I wouldn't discard it, but many people here would disagree.
Luis said on 24/Apr/09
I have a doubt: All the celebrities's heights in this web are their height barefoot? Or with any lifts?
I'm surprised. I'm spanish (so excuse my english if it is not very good) and I couldn't imagine the height of some of them. Here in Spain I haven't seen old men taller than me (I'm 182 cm barefoot, so 185 cm with shoes or trainers). And I'm surprised about Jack Palance, Donald Sutherland or Clint Eastwood, all of them are over 190 cm!!!! It's clear that it depends on the country, but here everyone tell me that I'm huge (and I'm slim, not muscular or bulky). I would like to see this people looking at this 3 men, for example, hahaha.
Glenn, Mammun, or someone, please answer with mi question at the beginning, please. And congratulations for the web!!!
I have a doubt: All the celebrities's heights in this web are their height barefoot? Or with any lifts?
I'm surprised. I'm spanish (so excuse my english if it is not very good) and I couldn't imagine the height of some of them. Here in Spain I haven't seen old men taller than me (I'm 182 cm barefoot, so 185 cm with shoes or trainers). And I'm surprised about Jack Palance, Donald Sutherland or Clint Eastwood, all of them are over 190 cm!!!! It's clear that it depends on the country, but here everyone tell me that I'm huge (and I'm slim, not muscular or bulky). I would like to see this people looking at this 3 men, for example, hahaha.
Glenn, Mammun, or someone, please answer with mi question at the beginning, please. And congratulations for the web!!!
Doug said on 24/Apr/09
I didn'y even say Hudson wore lifts earlier in his career. I said he was a legit 6'5% at peak. What I did say is that in the Reagan picture where he looks 6'6" he was wearing lifts on that day (according to some source) due to his ill health and decline.
I didn'y even say Hudson wore lifts earlier in his career. I said he was a legit 6'5% at peak. What I did say is that in the Reagan picture where he looks 6'6" he was wearing lifts on that day (according to some source) due to his ill health and decline.
Doug said on 24/Apr/09
Adam it was in 1984 when his health was failing with AIDS. I didn't say it somebody said below he had lost height by the 1980s and with his ill health wore lifts before his death. I found it hard to believe myself but he had 5-6 inches on Reagan in 1984.
Adam it was in 1984 when his health was failing with AIDS. I didn't say it somebody said below he had lost height by the 1980s and with his ill health wore lifts before his death. I found it hard to believe myself but he had 5-6 inches on Reagan in 1984.
Jervis said on 23/Apr/09
The film is called NEVER SAY GOODBYE and it was made in 1956.
The film is called NEVER SAY GOODBYE and it was made in 1956.
adam said on 23/Apr/09
Doug says on 22/Apr/09
Mmm the more I think about it seems probable Clint was a legit 6'4" barefoot. If he is matching Rock Hudson in his prime he aint a hair under 6'4" tall ****! Hudson was 6'4.5"-6'5" at peak, looked 6'6" next to Reagan in the 80s but is was reported he was wearing lifts.
I disagree there. Rock Hudson wore lifts? Nonsense. Hudson was very very likely at least 6-5 peak. If Clint really was about the same height as Hudson in the 50s then there`s no question about the 6-4 thing.
Doug says on 22/Apr/09
Mmm the more I think about it seems probable Clint was a legit 6'4" barefoot. If he is matching Rock Hudson in his prime he aint a hair under 6'4" tall ****! Hudson was 6'4.5"-6'5" at peak, looked 6'6" next to Reagan in the 80s but is was reported he was wearing lifts.
I disagree there. Rock Hudson wore lifts? Nonsense. Hudson was very very likely at least 6-5 peak. If Clint really was about the same height as Hudson in the 50s then there`s no question about the 6-4 thing.
Doug said on 22/Apr/09
Mmm the more I think about it seems probable Clint was a legit 6'4" barefoot. If he is matching Rock Hudson in his prime he aint a hair under 6'4" tall ****! Hudson was 6'4.5"-6'5" at peak, looked 6'6" next to Reagan in the 80s but is was reported he was wearing lifts.
Mmm the more I think about it seems probable Clint was a legit 6'4" barefoot. If he is matching Rock Hudson in his prime he aint a hair under 6'4" tall ****! Hudson was 6'4.5"-6'5" at peak, looked 6'6" next to Reagan in the 80s but is was reported he was wearing lifts.
Daniel said on 22/Apr/09
peteyork is right. Neeson must be (or have been) easily 6'5''
peteyork is right. Neeson must be (or have been) easily 6'5''
Jervis said on 22/Apr/09
I have seen a clip from the fifties were Clint is standing beside Rock Hudson,and both men are the same hight.Has anybody else seen this clip?if so could they try and put it on this site.If everybody saw it they would change there mind about Clints hight or maybe think Hudson was not as tall as they taught.
I have seen a clip from the fifties were Clint is standing beside Rock Hudson,and both men are the same hight.Has anybody else seen this clip?if so could they try and put it on this site.If everybody saw it they would change there mind about Clints hight or maybe think Hudson was not as tall as they taught.
Brad said on 22/Apr/09
6' 4" 1950's to the late 70's easy. Leone made him look like a building in Spain in '65. 6' 6" in boots and even taller looking with the shots up.
6' 4" 1950's to the late 70's easy. Leone made him look like a building in Spain in '65. 6' 6" in boots and even taller looking with the shots up.
peteyork said on 21/Apr/09
clint lost an inch between 1968 coogan's bluff and dead pool 1985 wheen neeson had about an inch on him, by the unforgiven with morgan he was about 6'3, morgan has a good two inches on clint now.
clint more than any other actor you can trace his height loss and yet people still keep saying he was only 6'2. that makes wayne 6'1, jimmy stewart 6 and 1/2, caine 5'11 1/2, marvin 5'11 1/2, hudson 6'2 to 6'3. sutherland 6'1 1/2, goodberg 6'2 1/2
clint lost an inch between 1968 coogan's bluff and dead pool 1985 wheen neeson had about an inch on him, by the unforgiven with morgan he was about 6'3, morgan has a good two inches on clint now.
clint more than any other actor you can trace his height loss and yet people still keep saying he was only 6'2. that makes wayne 6'1, jimmy stewart 6 and 1/2, caine 5'11 1/2, marvin 5'11 1/2, hudson 6'2 to 6'3. sutherland 6'1 1/2, goodberg 6'2 1/2
peteyork said on 21/Apr/09
guys you are nuts quoting 6'2 when he was young, lee marvin is supposed to be 6'2 and is at leat 6'1, look at the movie paint your wagon, you know where lee marvin sinks under a wandering star. Clint has at least two may be three inches on lee marvin. nobody on here has ever argued lee marvin beening under 6'1. Clint has back problems for years he has lost 4 inches. neeson quote below about clint being at least 3 inches shorter sums up the point better than anything. clint was about inch to half inch shorter in the dead pool in his fifties when he already had back problems. people argue neeson is 6'4 to 6'5 some 6'3 1/2 when slouching. However when he was interviewed by conan o'brien quoted as 6'4 1/2 to 6'3 1/2 he was obviously taller.
guys you are nuts quoting 6'2 when he was young, lee marvin is supposed to be 6'2 and is at leat 6'1, look at the movie paint your wagon, you know where lee marvin sinks under a wandering star. Clint has at least two may be three inches on lee marvin. nobody on here has ever argued lee marvin beening under 6'1. Clint has back problems for years he has lost 4 inches. neeson quote below about clint being at least 3 inches shorter sums up the point better than anything. clint was about inch to half inch shorter in the dead pool in his fifties when he already had back problems. people argue neeson is 6'4 to 6'5 some 6'3 1/2 when slouching. However when he was interviewed by conan o'brien quoted as 6'4 1/2 to 6'3 1/2 he was obviously taller.
Doug said on 21/Apr/09
Didn't look 6'4" in Dirty Harry? Are you kidding? His co-star cop in it Reni Santoni is listed at 6'3". Eastwood had two inches on him. I thought Santoni looked around 6'2" and Eastwood 6'4". If you see Eastwood stand underneath a doorway you can see 6'4"!
Didn't look 6'4" in Dirty Harry? Are you kidding? His co-star cop in it Reni Santoni is listed at 6'3". Eastwood had two inches on him. I thought Santoni looked around 6'2" and Eastwood 6'4". If you see Eastwood stand underneath a doorway you can see 6'4"!
Jervis said on 20/Apr/09
Yes the Clint in the Humphreys clip looks 6ft4".it looks to me he has lost 4 inches since then,sometimes i think maybe its not the same person,maybe there are two Clints.Up to his early sixties he still looked 6ft2 and half and you could say then he lost about 1 inch because of age.But to lose another 2 inches since then is a bit strange to me.To see a man who looked clearly taller than average sized actors like Matt Damon now being only slightly taller just dose not add up.
Yes the Clint in the Humphreys clip looks 6ft4".it looks to me he has lost 4 inches since then,sometimes i think maybe its not the same person,maybe there are two Clints.Up to his early sixties he still looked 6ft2 and half and you could say then he lost about 1 inch because of age.But to lose another 2 inches since then is a bit strange to me.To see a man who looked clearly taller than average sized actors like Matt Damon now being only slightly taller just dose not add up.
Doug said on 20/Apr/09
People also forget how broad framed Eastwood was. Check out his torso size compared to Humphreys. Eastwood was slim with good muscle tone but still had a broad chest and shoulders. He had to weigh 195-205 pounds which is still quite light for a man his size.
People also forget how broad framed Eastwood was. Check out his torso size compared to Humphreys. Eastwood was slim with good muscle tone but still had a broad chest and shoulders. He had to weigh 195-205 pounds which is still quite light for a man his size.
Doug said on 20/Apr/09
My estimate was always around 190cm barefoot. 193cm (6'4") in shoes, and 194-5 in cowboy boots. Same as John Wayne. If Clint was 6'4" barefoot why wasn't he around 6'6" in cowboy boots thats the question I always ask. I thought he looked between 6'4" and 6'5" in cowboy boots in the Dollars trilogy but not more than this. 6'2.5-6'3" would seem a more likely barefoot estimate which would explain how he constantly looked 6'4".
My estimate was always around 190cm barefoot. 193cm (6'4") in shoes, and 194-5 in cowboy boots. Same as John Wayne. If Clint was 6'4" barefoot why wasn't he around 6'6" in cowboy boots thats the question I always ask. I thought he looked between 6'4" and 6'5" in cowboy boots in the Dollars trilogy but not more than this. 6'2.5-6'3" would seem a more likely barefoot estimate which would explain how he constantly looked 6'4".
Doug said on 20/Apr/09
John Humphreys is minimum 5'8" I thought he always looked nearer 5'10" myself.
John Humphreys is minimum 5'8" I thought he always looked nearer 5'10" myself.
Doug said on 20/Apr/09
Yes filmfan it really is a shocking height loss. If you see Eastwood standing next to Robbins he is 4-5 inches shorter and you would think it dead impossible to think the man was ever even close in height to Robbins. You'd think maybe 6'2" but definately not 6'4". Yet the evidence is there to suggest he was around this height.
Yes filmfan it really is a shocking height loss. If you see Eastwood standing next to Robbins he is 4-5 inches shorter and you would think it dead impossible to think the man was ever even close in height to Robbins. You'd think maybe 6'2" but definately not 6'4". Yet the evidence is there to suggest he was around this height.
Doug said on 20/Apr/09
Jervis maybe. Eastwood always looked 6'4" in shoes. I always thought he was 6'2.5-6'3" barefoot similar to John Wayne. However seeing him barefoot standing underneath a 6'8" doorframe plus how he often looks I see a legit 6'3"-6'4" barefoot at peak. One thing is clear though he was definately above the 6'2" mark barefoot at peak. Somewhere between 189 and 193.
Jervis maybe. Eastwood always looked 6'4" in shoes. I always thought he was 6'2.5-6'3" barefoot similar to John Wayne. However seeing him barefoot standing underneath a 6'8" doorframe plus how he often looks I see a legit 6'3"-6'4" barefoot at peak. One thing is clear though he was definately above the 6'2" mark barefoot at peak. Somewhere between 189 and 193.
Lenad said on 20/Apr/09
In dirty Harry he doesnt look 6'4 at all more like 6'2
In dirty Harry he doesnt look 6'4 at all more like 6'2
adam said on 19/Apr/09
I see at least eight inches. Clint had to be 6-4 then.
I see at least eight inches. Clint had to be 6-4 then.
Jervis said on 18/Apr/09
If John Humphrys was 5ft8" then Clint was 6ft4" and has shrunk about 4 inches.But the question is,was John Humphrys 5ft8"?I Think Clint was 6ft2"and half to 6ft3"max peak.He started to shrink from his mid sixties and is now, bear foot about 5ft11"and a half,and just over 6ft in shoes.
If John Humphrys was 5ft8" then Clint was 6ft4" and has shrunk about 4 inches.But the question is,was John Humphrys 5ft8"?I Think Clint was 6ft2"and half to 6ft3"max peak.He started to shrink from his mid sixties and is now, bear foot about 5ft11"and a half,and just over 6ft in shoes.
filmfan said on 18/Apr/09
I reckon he was probably about 6'4'' when young. He looked tall in too many films and with too many other tall actors for his height to be exaggerated. The only slight doubt I have is caused by the photos of Tim Robbins and Eastwood together at the time of Mystic River. Robbins is 6'5'' yet towers over Eastwood in the photos. There looks like 4 to 6 inches height difference. I know people shrink with age but the difference is massive. Someone has mentioned this below I think and this does raise a little doubt to my mind as to Eastwood being 6'4''.
I reckon he was probably about 6'4'' when young. He looked tall in too many films and with too many other tall actors for his height to be exaggerated. The only slight doubt I have is caused by the photos of Tim Robbins and Eastwood together at the time of Mystic River. Robbins is 6'5'' yet towers over Eastwood in the photos. There looks like 4 to 6 inches height difference. I know people shrink with age but the difference is massive. Someone has mentioned this below I think and this does raise a little doubt to my mind as to Eastwood being 6'4''.
Doug said on 18/Apr/09
The standard door frame in my house and pretty much most houses IS 6'8". Clint is within four inches of the door frame in most of his films so it is obvious he was in the 6'4" range even if only in shoes.
The standard door frame in my house and pretty much most houses IS 6'8". Clint is within four inches of the door frame in most of his films so it is obvious he was in the 6'4" range even if only in shoes.
Doug said on 18/Apr/09
Pete does Clint at 6'4" really look a myth in the JOhn Humpreys clip on YouTube in 1967?
Pete does Clint at 6'4" really look a myth in the JOhn Humpreys clip on YouTube in 1967?
Doug said on 18/Apr/09
Woaahh excellent clip Terry. Jon Humphreys is a Welsh presenter, he looks a lot better now as old with silver hair than he did then! If Humphreys was 5'8" Clint is obviously a clear 6'4". He looks massive. I see a clear 8 inch height difference, a tiny bit under a head taller.
Woaahh excellent clip Terry. Jon Humphreys is a Welsh presenter, he looks a lot better now as old with silver hair than he did then! If Humphreys was 5'8" Clint is obviously a clear 6'4". He looks massive. I see a clear 8 inch height difference, a tiny bit under a head taller.
Doug said on 18/Apr/09
I definately think Clint was 6'4", in shoes anyway. Perhaps a strong 6'3" barefoot and with his quiff gave a full 6'4" impression, dunno -I don't think he looked 6'5" in shoes he looked 6'4" in footwear.
I definately think Clint was 6'4", in shoes anyway. Perhaps a strong 6'3" barefoot and with his quiff gave a full 6'4" impression, dunno -I don't think he looked 6'5" in shoes he looked 6'4" in footwear.
Doug said on 18/Apr/09
Well I was watching Dirty Harry yesterday and watching Clint walking about and he was definately in the 6'4" range. In the office he stood around 4 inches under the door frame which is 6'8". He had very long legs, vergin on looking lanky if it wasn't for a good build. When you look at Clint he seemed to have those two extra inches which is enough to give somebody a "very tall" status, markedly above 6'1" or 6'2" normally "tall" guys. He was definately minimum 6'3" barefoot no doubts, I don't think its impossible that he was around 6'4". The strange thing though is how he often didn't look it, you see the Neeson pictures and Neeson towered above Clint. Today Tim Robbins makes it virtually impossible to think that Clint was ever in the 6'4" range as he dwarfs Eastwood but he has lost a huge amount of height somehow.
Well I was watching Dirty Harry yesterday and watching Clint walking about and he was definately in the 6'4" range. In the office he stood around 4 inches under the door frame which is 6'8". He had very long legs, vergin on looking lanky if it wasn't for a good build. When you look at Clint he seemed to have those two extra inches which is enough to give somebody a "very tall" status, markedly above 6'1" or 6'2" normally "tall" guys. He was definately minimum 6'3" barefoot no doubts, I don't think its impossible that he was around 6'4". The strange thing though is how he often didn't look it, you see the Neeson pictures and Neeson towered above Clint. Today Tim Robbins makes it virtually impossible to think that Clint was ever in the 6'4" range as he dwarfs Eastwood but he has lost a huge amount of height somehow.
Terry said on 17/Apr/09
Not sure if anyone has seen this clip from 1967. Jon Humphrys is a reporter from the UK and he is "a modest 5 foot 8", as he has said in interviews. Look how tall the big guy is! 6'4" no bother
Click Here
Not sure if anyone has seen this clip from 1967. Jon Humphrys is a reporter from the UK and he is "a modest 5 foot 8", as he has said in interviews. Look how tall the big guy is! 6'4" no bother
Click Here
Jervis said on 16/Apr/09
I just measured the door frame in my apartment and it is 80 inches which is 6ft8 inches.Also I just saw some photos of Clint on the set of his new film,he is standing beside Matt Damon,there almost the same hight,maybe Clint is about 1 inch taller.That would mean he is now about 5ft11.Even if he was 6ft2"peak it still means he has shrunk by 3 inches which is a lot.
I just measured the door frame in my apartment and it is 80 inches which is 6ft8 inches.Also I just saw some photos of Clint on the set of his new film,he is standing beside Matt Damon,there almost the same hight,maybe Clint is about 1 inch taller.That would mean he is now about 5ft11.Even if he was 6ft2"peak it still means he has shrunk by 3 inches which is a lot.
Jervis said on 16/Apr/09
I just measured the door frame in my apartment and it is 80 inches which is 6ft8 inches.Also I just saw some photos of Clint on the set of his new film,he is standing beside Matt Damon,there almost the same hight,maybe Clint is about 1 inch taller.That would mean he is now about 5ft11
I just measured the door frame in my apartment and it is 80 inches which is 6ft8 inches.Also I just saw some photos of Clint on the set of his new film,he is standing beside Matt Damon,there almost the same hight,maybe Clint is about 1 inch taller.That would mean he is now about 5ft11
dityharry said on 16/Apr/09
rising force what the hell you on man 6'8" door frames. When did this ever happen. Everybody knows the standard universal door frame size is aprox 6'6". But everybody knows it's more like 6'5". Oh and another thing. Everything is downsized in the movies and TV. This has been done for years. Hollywood stsarted this great illusionary trick way back in the early forties. This made all the stars taller and bigger than they really are.
Clint Eastwood was 189cm at his peak and is around 185.5cm now. He was never 6'4". Anonymous, I shake your hand man you know the real deal.
rising force what the hell you on man 6'8" door frames. When did this ever happen. Everybody knows the standard universal door frame size is aprox 6'6". But everybody knows it's more like 6'5". Oh and another thing. Everything is downsized in the movies and TV. This has been done for years. Hollywood stsarted this great illusionary trick way back in the early forties. This made all the stars taller and bigger than they really are.
Clint Eastwood was 189cm at his peak and is around 185.5cm now. He was never 6'4". Anonymous, I shake your hand man you know the real deal.
Doug said on 15/Apr/09
Clint at 6'1" and slumped and Pitt at 5'10.5" in his 3 inch shoes 6'1.5" and military posture explains it, tip toe tricks also aren't an impossibility especially in the ones where he looks notieceably taller.
Clint at 6'1" and slumped and Pitt at 5'10.5" in his 3 inch shoes 6'1.5" and military posture explains it, tip toe tricks also aren't an impossibility especially in the ones where he looks notieceably taller.
Doug said on 15/Apr/09
JP, Pitt it may shock you lives in lifts and along with guys like Stallone is one of the best known lift wearers in the business but he typically hides it very well see his height page. Those pictures with CLint, Pitt was wearing his biggest munsters which gave him around 3 inches on his barefoot height (as he knew he'd be standing next to a six footer guy). In some pictures at that event CLint is clearly taller I think its to do with posture.
JP, Pitt it may shock you lives in lifts and along with guys like Stallone is one of the best known lift wearers in the business but he typically hides it very well see his height page. Those pictures with CLint, Pitt was wearing his biggest munsters which gave him around 3 inches on his barefoot height (as he knew he'd be standing next to a six footer guy). In some pictures at that event CLint is clearly taller I think its to do with posture.
Mike said on 14/Apr/09
...For what it's worth, Clint Walker had heart problems some years back. So, he's not exactly "healthy". As for Eastwood, a simple Google search of his past will show he started out as a stunt double for the famous ventriloquist dummy, Mortimer Snerd. 4'5, tops.
...For what it's worth, Clint Walker had heart problems some years back. So, he's not exactly "healthy". As for Eastwood, a simple Google search of his past will show he started out as a stunt double for the famous ventriloquist dummy, Mortimer Snerd. 4'5, tops.
Hugh 190cm said on 13/Apr/09
I think Eastwood might be 6ft2 in the morning nowadays. I still think Eastwood was close to 6ft4 in the late 80's. Hence why he looked 2 inches taller than Jim Carrey in the Dead Pool.
I think Eastwood might be 6ft2 in the morning nowadays. I still think Eastwood was close to 6ft4 in the late 80's. Hence why he looked 2 inches taller than Jim Carrey in the Dead Pool.
JP said on 12/Apr/09
I don't doubt this estimate, but I'm rather confused because I saw a load of photos online with Brad Pitt and clint together and in nearly all of them they look the same height and in some Brad Pitt is taller, does Pitt were lifts anybody know? i was under the impression that he didn't but at 5'11" he's doing pretty well to look 6'1" or more.
I don't doubt this estimate, but I'm rather confused because I saw a load of photos online with Brad Pitt and clint together and in nearly all of them they look the same height and in some Brad Pitt is taller, does Pitt were lifts anybody know? i was under the impression that he didn't but at 5'11" he's doing pretty well to look 6'1" or more.
Doug said on 12/Apr/09
I always thought 6'3". If he was legit 6'4" barefoot he was an unusually tall man. I guess there is a lot of evidence to suggest he actually was 6'4" at peak but thats a huge amount of height to lose.
I always thought 6'3". If he was legit 6'4" barefoot he was an unusually tall man. I guess there is a lot of evidence to suggest he actually was 6'4" at peak but thats a huge amount of height to lose.
RisingForce said on 10/Apr/09
I was just watching Play Misty For Me and Clint is in very flat shoes throughout the movie and even barefeet at one point. You can tell when he walks through doorways(6-8) that he was around 6-4. Clint in barefeet dwarfed 5-8 listed Jessica Walter in flat shoes by easily 7, 8 inches.
I rarely comment on this page because I think Rob has him listed correctly. Clint was 6-4.
I was just watching Play Misty For Me and Clint is in very flat shoes throughout the movie and even barefeet at one point. You can tell when he walks through doorways(6-8) that he was around 6-4. Clint in barefeet dwarfed 5-8 listed Jessica Walter in flat shoes by easily 7, 8 inches.
I rarely comment on this page because I think Rob has him listed correctly. Clint was 6-4.
Anonymous said on 10/Apr/09
If you look at the Cemetry scene in the dead pool Clints standing on an incline while Neeson is further down the slope however later when they are walking together side by side and the camera's following them you can see they are both actually pretty much both even with one another. I'd say 6ft 4" for Eastwood. More in the 6.1 region these days.
If you look at the Cemetry scene in the dead pool Clints standing on an incline while Neeson is further down the slope however later when they are walking together side by side and the camera's following them you can see they are both actually pretty much both even with one another. I'd say 6ft 4" for Eastwood. More in the 6.1 region these days.
Hugh 190cm said on 10/Apr/09
Looks level with Donald. I'd say 187cm. Donald Sutherland is about 6ft2 or 6ft2.5.
Looks level with Donald. I'd say 187cm. Donald Sutherland is about 6ft2 or 6ft2.5.
Hugh 190cm said on 10/Apr/09
184cm is very low for Eastwood. He still looks at least 6ft1 and I'd say he's still close to 6ft2. I'd say Clint is in the 186cm-187cm range nowadays and will stay in that range for another ten years.
184cm is very low for Eastwood. He still looks at least 6ft1 and I'd say he's still close to 6ft2. I'd say Clint is in the 186cm-187cm range nowadays and will stay in that range for another ten years.
Doug said on 10/Apr/09
Interestingly check out how Rock Hudson looks in comparison to Reagan and then check out how Eastwood looks in comparison to Reagan. Hudson was WAY taller than Eastwood. Eastwood only had two inches on Reagan. Hudson had at least four inches and towered him, Eastwood didn't. I'm beginning to seriously doubt Eastwood was ever a legit 6'4" barefoot now as this would put Hudson at 6'6" or 6'7". If Hudson was 6'5" Eastwood was 6'3", at least by the 80s.
Interestingly check out how Rock Hudson looks in comparison to Reagan and then check out how Eastwood looks in comparison to Reagan. Hudson was WAY taller than Eastwood. Eastwood only had two inches on Reagan. Hudson had at least four inches and towered him, Eastwood didn't. I'm beginning to seriously doubt Eastwood was ever a legit 6'4" barefoot now as this would put Hudson at 6'6" or 6'7". If Hudson was 6'5" Eastwood was 6'3", at least by the 80s.
Patrick said on 9/Apr/09
Doug: juts one word "yes"! He's simply incredibla in more ways than one. He never aged and will never do. To think people like Clark Gable, Gary Cooper and so many stars could have lasted much longer if only they ahd adopted a better way of life! No smoking, carefully eating and drinking. Genes are certainly in Clint's side as they are for the "other" big Clint...Walker!
I don't think Clint E. will shrink any longer. He's NO James Garner!
Doug: juts one word "yes"! He's simply incredibla in more ways than one. He never aged and will never do. To think people like Clark Gable, Gary Cooper and so many stars could have lasted much longer if only they ahd adopted a better way of life! No smoking, carefully eating and drinking. Genes are certainly in Clint's side as they are for the "other" big Clint...Walker!
I don't think Clint E. will shrink any longer. He's NO James Garner!
Doug said on 7/Apr/09
I think Eastwood will be around in the next 10 years. It is in his genes to live into his 90s as both his parents supposedly did and you must admit he is in fantastic shape for a 78 year old man.
I think Eastwood will be around in the next 10 years. It is in his genes to live into his 90s as both his parents supposedly did and you must admit he is in fantastic shape for a 78 year old man.
Doug said on 4/Apr/09
Yeah he did look extremely tall in some of the old westerns I agree, but I think the impression was enhanced by the height the cowboy boots and hat gave him. You put a 6'3" big man like Eastwood in big boots and a hat and the man will be looking enormous. I think Eastwood was pushing 6'5" in those cowboy boots especially in the Dollars trilogy, can't seen I've seen him looking 6'6" except in the odd scene. Therefore if he was 6'3" barefoot, with two inch cowboy boots and a hat he looks extremely tall. Also remember throughout the 60s.70s and 80s Eastwood wore his hair bouffed up and along with his strong forehead also made him look taller. The man consistently looked 6'4"ish to me in regular shoes as did John Wayne. I think both guys were around 6'3"ish either slightly below or over barefooted.
Yeah he did look extremely tall in some of the old westerns I agree, but I think the impression was enhanced by the height the cowboy boots and hat gave him. You put a 6'3" big man like Eastwood in big boots and a hat and the man will be looking enormous. I think Eastwood was pushing 6'5" in those cowboy boots especially in the Dollars trilogy, can't seen I've seen him looking 6'6" except in the odd scene. Therefore if he was 6'3" barefoot, with two inch cowboy boots and a hat he looks extremely tall. Also remember throughout the 60s.70s and 80s Eastwood wore his hair bouffed up and along with his strong forehead also made him look taller. The man consistently looked 6'4"ish to me in regular shoes as did John Wayne. I think both guys were around 6'3"ish either slightly below or over barefooted.
RisingForce said on 4/Apr/09
Eastwood is closer to the camera than Sutherland, which is why he looks taller than he really is. Standing side by side, equal distances from the camera it's clear that Sutherland would be taller.
Eastwood is closer to the camera than Sutherland, which is why he looks taller than he really is. Standing side by side, equal distances from the camera it's clear that Sutherland would be taller.
Hello said on 4/Apr/09
Click Here
He's the same height as Donald Sutherland today, maybe even a hair taller. Maybe we need to rethink his height, or rethink Sutherland's height?
Click Here
He's the same height as Donald Sutherland today, maybe even a hair taller. Maybe we need to rethink his height, or rethink Sutherland's height?
Hello said on 4/Apr/09
Clint was 6'4" at his peak, PERIOD. He looks extremely tall in those old westerns, said he was 6'4", and everyone believed him because they were all craning their necks to look up at him.
You start losing height in your 40's, so even in the 70's Clint was losing height. Definitely by the 80's he was getting shorter, and it just continued gradually from then and accelerated in the last decade.
Clint was 6'4" at his peak, PERIOD. He looks extremely tall in those old westerns, said he was 6'4", and everyone believed him because they were all craning their necks to look up at him.
You start losing height in your 40's, so even in the 70's Clint was losing height. Definitely by the 80's he was getting shorter, and it just continued gradually from then and accelerated in the last decade.
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.