Add a Comment5726 comments
Average Guess (475 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.77in (182.3cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.77in (182.3cm)
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.
Alex said on 3/Apr/09
Lol yea, the dude just shrank 3 full inches. I mean ya, 3 inches is medically recognized as the most extreme amount of height a man loses due to old age, and it is suggested at the age of 90 +(While many credible medical sources express 2 inches as the max), but its Clint Eastwood. I mean he used to be SIX FOUR , but now he is SIX ONE....3 FULL inches....ok.
Lol yea, the dude just shrank 3 full inches. I mean ya, 3 inches is medically recognized as the most extreme amount of height a man loses due to old age, and it is suggested at the age of 90 +(While many credible medical sources express 2 inches as the max), but its Clint Eastwood. I mean he used to be SIX FOUR , but now he is SIX ONE....3 FULL inches....ok.
Clark said on 2/Apr/09
Sorry Big King.....but under certain conditions and illness like cancer. Human being can lose a lot of their original height. I would double check your sources or consult a dr. specializing in geriatrics or orthopedics.
Sorry Big King.....but under certain conditions and illness like cancer. Human being can lose a lot of their original height. I would double check your sources or consult a dr. specializing in geriatrics or orthopedics.
Bob said on 1/Apr/09
Clint Eastwood was 6' 3 1/2" at his peak. Due to fairly recent back surgery he is now about 6'2". He still works out and stays in great shape though for 79 years old in May.
Clint Eastwood was 6' 3 1/2" at his peak. Due to fairly recent back surgery he is now about 6'2". He still works out and stays in great shape though for 79 years old in May.
Mike said on 1/Apr/09
Rusty; Yes, you see him walking on the western streets. But, it's a technique known as "forced perspective", whereby an individual in the foreground is filmed at the same focus as people way in the backround...making the person in the foreground appear much taller, on screen. Even the orangutang in Every Which Way But Loose was actually a 5 pound baby chimp, so as to make 4'5 Eastwood look bigger than he was or is.
Rusty; Yes, you see him walking on the western streets. But, it's a technique known as "forced perspective", whereby an individual in the foreground is filmed at the same focus as people way in the backround...making the person in the foreground appear much taller, on screen. Even the orangutang in Every Which Way But Loose was actually a 5 pound baby chimp, so as to make 4'5 Eastwood look bigger than he was or is.
Doug said on 1/Apr/09
Anybody who honestly thinks Eastwood was 6'4"-6'4.5" barefoot at peak Google image Eastwood and Robbins cache.daylife.com and try to imagine how it could be humanly possible for a man to shrink THAT much compared to a man (Robbins) who stands legitimately at this height now. Sure Eastwood has lost an unusual amount of height but THAT much?
Anybody who honestly thinks Eastwood was 6'4"-6'4.5" barefoot at peak Google image Eastwood and Robbins cache.daylife.com and try to imagine how it could be humanly possible for a man to shrink THAT much compared to a man (Robbins) who stands legitimately at this height now. Sure Eastwood has lost an unusual amount of height but THAT much?
Doug said on 1/Apr/09
Google image Eastwood and Robbins at cache.daylife.com. Extremely difficult to believe Eastwood was ever in the same sort of range. You;d think it humanly possible for the man to shrink THAT much, by 4-5 inches. I bet Eastwood would have still been around 1.5 inches shorter than 6'4.5" barefoot Robbins at peak.
Google image Eastwood and Robbins at cache.daylife.com. Extremely difficult to believe Eastwood was ever in the same sort of range. You;d think it humanly possible for the man to shrink THAT much, by 4-5 inches. I bet Eastwood would have still been around 1.5 inches shorter than 6'4.5" barefoot Robbins at peak.
Doug said on 1/Apr/09
Mmm the more I've thought about it and watched his films, the more I seriously doubt Eastwood was ever 6'4" barefoot. A legit 6'4" barefoot is really borderline giant it is really thats heading into basketball player territory. The man was very tall granted but I think it more likely he was around 190 and 193 in shoes.
Mmm the more I've thought about it and watched his films, the more I seriously doubt Eastwood was ever 6'4" barefoot. A legit 6'4" barefoot is really borderline giant it is really thats heading into basketball player territory. The man was very tall granted but I think it more likely he was around 190 and 193 in shoes.
Big King said on 31/Mar/09
Well, there is a source needed that he has lost almost 4 inches!!! Did he have any surgeries or so? A human isn't able to lose 3 inches, even he becomes a creepy, old man. I read that a human can only lose 2 inches if he gets older.
Well, there is a source needed that he has lost almost 4 inches!!! Did he have any surgeries or so? A human isn't able to lose 3 inches, even he becomes a creepy, old man. I read that a human can only lose 2 inches if he gets older.
Rusty said on 30/Mar/09
Harold says on 28/Mar/09
I just saw Eastwood in a photo with Herve Villechaise. Eastwood is one...maybe two inches taller. Eastwood was never more than 4'5. He stood on a table in every movie he was in. FACT.
That is lie, I saw him walking in those old westerns and I see him walking on the street once in a while. Now id say he looks 6'1" and at peak a strong 6'3", 6'4" out of bed maybe.
Harold says on 28/Mar/09
I just saw Eastwood in a photo with Herve Villechaise. Eastwood is one...maybe two inches taller. Eastwood was never more than 4'5. He stood on a table in every movie he was in. FACT.
That is lie, I saw him walking in those old westerns and I see him walking on the street once in a while. Now id say he looks 6'1" and at peak a strong 6'3", 6'4" out of bed maybe.
mike c said on 29/Mar/09
Come now, Harold. It's a known fact that Herve was 1" taller than Clint. Just read the Inquirer!
Come now, Harold. It's a known fact that Herve was 1" taller than Clint. Just read the Inquirer!
Harold said on 28/Mar/09
I just saw Eastwood in a photo with Herve Villechaise. Eastwood is one...maybe two inches taller. Eastwood was never more than 4'5. He stood on a table in every movie he was in. FACT.
I just saw Eastwood in a photo with Herve Villechaise. Eastwood is one...maybe two inches taller. Eastwood was never more than 4'5. He stood on a table in every movie he was in. FACT.
Hugh 190cm said on 28/Mar/09
Eastwood looked like a 6ft3+ guy in the ninties. Today he's around 6ft2 or possibly a shade below. Still tall. 6ft4 as a young man.
Eastwood looked like a 6ft3+ guy in the ninties. Today he's around 6ft2 or possibly a shade below. Still tall. 6ft4 as a young man.
RisingForce said on 27/Mar/09
I've seen In The Line Of Fire many times, one of my favorite Eastwood movies. I also liked The Unforgiven quite a bit. I agree he can look 6'4" there. He did seem shorter than 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool which was 4-5 years before. But I didn't see Neeson's footwear, people forget that even tall men wear boots. not to look taller but because they like the style. Neeson could have easily had a footwear advantage. Eastwood seemed a lot taller than Neeson in the Cemetary scene in that movie though, but that was outside where ground levels will really vary.
I've seen In The Line Of Fire many times, one of my favorite Eastwood movies. I also liked The Unforgiven quite a bit. I agree he can look 6'4" there. He did seem shorter than 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool which was 4-5 years before. But I didn't see Neeson's footwear, people forget that even tall men wear boots. not to look taller but because they like the style. Neeson could have easily had a footwear advantage. Eastwood seemed a lot taller than Neeson in the Cemetary scene in that movie though, but that was outside where ground levels will really vary.
Doug said on 25/Mar/09
DId you see "In the Line of Fire", Rising, and "Unforgiven". Eastwood was taller than Morgan Freeman by at least an inch and seemd to have four inches on his 6' co-star in In the Line of Fire. In 1993 Eastwood still looked near 6'4", in shoes anyway. However compared to Ralph Moeller and Arnie in 1994 he barely looked 6'3" in a photo I've seen.
DId you see "In the Line of Fire", Rising, and "Unforgiven". Eastwood was taller than Morgan Freeman by at least an inch and seemd to have four inches on his 6' co-star in In the Line of Fire. In 1993 Eastwood still looked near 6'4", in shoes anyway. However compared to Ralph Moeller and Arnie in 1994 he barely looked 6'3" in a photo I've seen.
RisingForce said on 24/Mar/09
Jervis, I suspect Clint had lost height and was only 6'3" by the time of that film in 1990. Clint looked shorter than 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool(1988) and I saw a 1993 article where Clint was listed 6'3". Sheen also could be the 5'10" that he claims or he may have worn lifts.
Regardless I think that Clint was 6'4" peak, 6'3" by the late 80's/early 90's and now 6'1" max.
Jervis, I suspect Clint had lost height and was only 6'3" by the time of that film in 1990. Clint looked shorter than 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool(1988) and I saw a 1993 article where Clint was listed 6'3". Sheen also could be the 5'10" that he claims or he may have worn lifts.
Regardless I think that Clint was 6'4" peak, 6'3" by the late 80's/early 90's and now 6'1" max.
Sam said on 23/Mar/09
In Gran Torino, a file on Clint's character lists him as 6'3"
In Gran Torino, a file on Clint's character lists him as 6'3"
#(Hugh)# said on 22/Mar/09
6ft4 in his prime is correct. I think nowadays he's around 6ft1 to 6ft2.
6ft4 in his prime is correct. I think nowadays he's around 6ft1 to 6ft2.
Doug said on 22/Mar/09
Yeah I agree Jervis but I think Jeff Bridges has always looked nearer 6'2 at peak, thats what I thought he was. Its difficult to see how Eastwood could have been over 6'3" barefoot. Most people say "Clint almost was 6'4" but surely they judge him by how they regularly viewed him in boots/shoes. Yes I believe the man was around 6'4" throughout much of his career but in shoes. He has always looked like a 6'3" guy to me which is still particularly tall but I'm pretty certain he was always measured in sneakers/shoes. He was undoubtedly taller than a flat 6'2" at peak for sure though.
Yeah I agree Jervis but I think Jeff Bridges has always looked nearer 6'2 at peak, thats what I thought he was. Its difficult to see how Eastwood could have been over 6'3" barefoot. Most people say "Clint almost was 6'4" but surely they judge him by how they regularly viewed him in boots/shoes. Yes I believe the man was around 6'4" throughout much of his career but in shoes. He has always looked like a 6'3" guy to me which is still particularly tall but I'm pretty certain he was always measured in sneakers/shoes. He was undoubtedly taller than a flat 6'2" at peak for sure though.
Anonymous said on 19/Mar/09
Not 186 cm, Doug...6'2" at his peak...this means the 186-188 cm range...And yes Jervis, you're almost right...in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot Clint Eastwood is max 1'1/2"- 2'(3,75-5,1 cm)taller than Jeff Bridges(which is 183-184 cm in my opinion,not 6'1")
Not 186 cm, Doug...6'2" at his peak...this means the 186-188 cm range...And yes Jervis, you're almost right...in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot Clint Eastwood is max 1'1/2"- 2'(3,75-5,1 cm)taller than Jeff Bridges(which is 183-184 cm in my opinion,not 6'1")
Jervis said on 19/Mar/09
It seems to me that almost all the people on this site think clint was less than 6ft4" peak.I think his peak should be changed to 6ft3".I was watching the rookie last night in which clint stared with Charlie Sheen.It was from 1990 so clint would have been 60 years old.If Sheen was 5ft9" as listed on this site there is no way clint was 7" taller than him.In fact clint only looked 6ft1"next to sheen sometimes.If you did not no how tall Sheen was and you heard Clint was 6ft4" you would think Sheen was at least 5ft11"as I did when i saw the film in the cinema in 1990.Also in WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART he did not look 4" taller than the 6ft"Jeff Fahey,or in TUNDERBOLT AND LIGHT FOOT he did not look 3" taller than the 6ft1" Jeff Bridges.
It seems to me that almost all the people on this site think clint was less than 6ft4" peak.I think his peak should be changed to 6ft3".I was watching the rookie last night in which clint stared with Charlie Sheen.It was from 1990 so clint would have been 60 years old.If Sheen was 5ft9" as listed on this site there is no way clint was 7" taller than him.In fact clint only looked 6ft1"next to sheen sometimes.If you did not no how tall Sheen was and you heard Clint was 6ft4" you would think Sheen was at least 5ft11"as I did when i saw the film in the cinema in 1990.Also in WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART he did not look 4" taller than the 6ft"Jeff Fahey,or in TUNDERBOLT AND LIGHT FOOT he did not look 3" taller than the 6ft1" Jeff Bridges.
Doug said on 19/Mar/09
It would appear that Clint was measured in shoes/sneakers, surely?
It would appear that Clint was measured in shoes/sneakers, surely?
Doug said on 19/Mar/09
I think Wayne and Eastwood were definately of a very similar height at peak though. Both were particularly tall men but in my view both men reached 6'4" in boots, Wayne perhaps 6'4.5" in boots at peak. But I have been watching a lot of films of late and it really is difficult in many films to see Wayne at a legit 6'4" it has to be said. If Eastwood was the full 6'4" peak he would regularly reach the 6'5.5-6'6" range in cowboy boots same as Wayne which in my view both men never did, I think it is pretty clear to most these guys were well below 6'6" in boots. 6'4" in boots, 6'2.5-6'3.25" barefoot it just seems to add up.
I think Wayne and Eastwood were definately of a very similar height at peak though. Both were particularly tall men but in my view both men reached 6'4" in boots, Wayne perhaps 6'4.5" in boots at peak. But I have been watching a lot of films of late and it really is difficult in many films to see Wayne at a legit 6'4" it has to be said. If Eastwood was the full 6'4" peak he would regularly reach the 6'5.5-6'6" range in cowboy boots same as Wayne which in my view both men never did, I think it is pretty clear to most these guys were well below 6'6" in boots. 6'4" in boots, 6'2.5-6'3.25" barefoot it just seems to add up.
Mike said on 18/Mar/09
My first reaction to Dirty Harry's post, below, was "oh, c'mon...". But you know, it would explain alot of height discrepencies. I agree with more of it than I disagree with it.
My first reaction to Dirty Harry's post, below, was "oh, c'mon...". But you know, it would explain alot of height discrepencies. I agree with more of it than I disagree with it.
Doug said on 18/Mar/09
I must admit I agree with most of what dirty harry has said below although Clint has lost more height than an inch clearly. Eastwood looked 6'4" in boots, so was a likely 6'3" without. I think hes lost nearer 2 inches today. 6'2.5" is not out of the question peak but thats a bare minimum barefoot. 191 I think is a good estimate at peak. A lot of people do judge heights by people in shoes/boots. Clint Walker again in my view was around 6'4.5" and 6'6" in boots.
I must admit I agree with most of what dirty harry has said below although Clint has lost more height than an inch clearly. Eastwood looked 6'4" in boots, so was a likely 6'3" without. I think hes lost nearer 2 inches today. 6'2.5" is not out of the question peak but thats a bare minimum barefoot. 191 I think is a good estimate at peak. A lot of people do judge heights by people in shoes/boots. Clint Walker again in my view was around 6'4.5" and 6'6" in boots.
Doug said on 18/Mar/09
186 peak for Eastwood The Truth? Are you kidding? The man not below 190 barefoot peak for sure, he was noticeably taller than legit 6'2" guys even those closer to 6'3". Did you not see Eastwood being clearly taller than Morgan Freeman in the early 90s? The very lowest peak barefoot height for Eastwood is 189cm. Personally I think Eastwood was around 191-192 barefoot peak. He has looked too tall in most of his films not have been above 6'2".
186 peak for Eastwood The Truth? Are you kidding? The man not below 190 barefoot peak for sure, he was noticeably taller than legit 6'2" guys even those closer to 6'3". Did you not see Eastwood being clearly taller than Morgan Freeman in the early 90s? The very lowest peak barefoot height for Eastwood is 189cm. Personally I think Eastwood was around 191-192 barefoot peak. He has looked too tall in most of his films not have been above 6'2".
dirty harry said on 18/Mar/09
Look people please!
John Wayne was a big guy but not quite as big as we might suspect. He stood 6'2.5" bare foot.
James Garner stood 6'1" in his hey day.
Clint East wood stood about the same as the Duke 6'2.5" (Clint is around 6'1.5" now, give or take a cm at 186.7cm.
Clint Walker(yet,again another big actor, but shorter than his publicity resume says 6'6" -6'7". I dont' think so!!!. Actual height 6'4.5".
Clint's lost a bit of height, yeah, but 3 solid inches come on you people keep it real. 4cm at the most, but it's probably on 3cm, which is the average height loss any way for someone over 60.
The pictures are there to see, the films and comaparative sources are there for all to see. Let's keep it real. Clint would have stood 190cm in the morning anyway as a young man. so in 3cm trainer heels he would stand 6'4" to some one under 6ft!
Look people please!
John Wayne was a big guy but not quite as big as we might suspect. He stood 6'2.5" bare foot.
James Garner stood 6'1" in his hey day.
Clint East wood stood about the same as the Duke 6'2.5" (Clint is around 6'1.5" now, give or take a cm at 186.7cm.
Clint Walker(yet,again another big actor, but shorter than his publicity resume says 6'6" -6'7". I dont' think so!!!. Actual height 6'4.5".
Clint's lost a bit of height, yeah, but 3 solid inches come on you people keep it real. 4cm at the most, but it's probably on 3cm, which is the average height loss any way for someone over 60.
The pictures are there to see, the films and comaparative sources are there for all to see. Let's keep it real. Clint would have stood 190cm in the morning anyway as a young man. so in 3cm trainer heels he would stand 6'4" to some one under 6ft!
adam said on 18/Mar/09
Yes, I`d say Donald Sutherland was more likely 6-3
Yes, I`d say Donald Sutherland was more likely 6-3
Mike said on 17/Mar/09
....I can "almost" see Eastwood as 6'4, at one point, but never can go along with Sutherland being 6'4. If Soul was over 6', was Glasier over 5'10? Not to me. Getting back to John Wayne....I definitely give him a solid 6'4. How dis Eastwood lose 3 inches, for a fit guy? Sheesh. Seems like alot.
....I can "almost" see Eastwood as 6'4, at one point, but never can go along with Sutherland being 6'4. If Soul was over 6', was Glasier over 5'10? Not to me. Getting back to John Wayne....I definitely give him a solid 6'4. How dis Eastwood lose 3 inches, for a fit guy? Sheesh. Seems like alot.
Patrick said on 17/Mar/09
filmfan and Daniel, thanks! Soryy Mike for even if i mixed you up with "the other" Mike, you definitely are mcuh more interesting! I still disagree about Soul. BTW, in Kelly's heroes, Clint is at least, I mean "at least", as tall as 6'4 Donald Sutherland. Claiming him 6'2 tops is simply non sense. To think those who say that never ever saw a 6'2 man. As for a soon 79 years old man, i wish I'd be like him at...65! I am 56 and remember, perfectly, the outrageous heels Mike you refer to. The problem is that everybody wore more or less the same kind of shoes, which makes everyone stacking up anybody else!
filmfan and Daniel, thanks! Soryy Mike for even if i mixed you up with "the other" Mike, you definitely are mcuh more interesting! I still disagree about Soul. BTW, in Kelly's heroes, Clint is at least, I mean "at least", as tall as 6'4 Donald Sutherland. Claiming him 6'2 tops is simply non sense. To think those who say that never ever saw a 6'2 man. As for a soon 79 years old man, i wish I'd be like him at...65! I am 56 and remember, perfectly, the outrageous heels Mike you refer to. The problem is that everybody wore more or less the same kind of shoes, which makes everyone stacking up anybody else!
Mike said on 15/Mar/09
David Soul...5'11, tops
David Soul...5'11, tops
Daniel said on 14/Mar/09
filmfan is absolutely right, in my modest opinion
filmfan is absolutely right, in my modest opinion
filmfan said on 14/Mar/09
David Soul was a tall guy. He was only a little shorter than David Walliams when he guest starred on Little Britain. Walliams is 6'2''. Not all film stars heights are inflated. Eastwood has always looked very tall although in the last decade he has lost some height it appears. The guy is almost 80 so it's not surprising he doesn't have perfect posture anymore. He always looked 6'4'' or thereabouts to me in the old films. Even when working with tall actors Clint looked genuinely tall.
David Soul was a tall guy. He was only a little shorter than David Walliams when he guest starred on Little Britain. Walliams is 6'2''. Not all film stars heights are inflated. Eastwood has always looked very tall although in the last decade he has lost some height it appears. The guy is almost 80 so it's not surprising he doesn't have perfect posture anymore. He always looked 6'4'' or thereabouts to me in the old films. Even when working with tall actors Clint looked genuinely tall.
The Truth said on 14/Mar/09
Clint Eastwood's height, in my opinion:
6'2"(186-188 cm)at his peak (and without heels)
6'- 6'1.1/4 (183-185 cm)now
Clint Eastwood's height, in my opinion:
6'2"(186-188 cm)at his peak (and without heels)
6'- 6'1.1/4 (183-185 cm)now
Jervis said on 13/Mar/09
I agree Doug,6ft3" peak.
I agree Doug,6ft3" peak.
Doug said on 13/Mar/09
Clint has lost far more than an inch in height Jervis. He really has lost 2-3 inches. I think he was 6'3" barefoot peak, hes nearer 6'1" now max.
Clint has lost far more than an inch in height Jervis. He really has lost 2-3 inches. I think he was 6'3" barefoot peak, hes nearer 6'1" now max.
No one said on 12/Mar/09
Clint Eastwood is 6'1" according to his biography at the age of 78.He very well and most likely was 6'3" in his 70's movies
Clint Eastwood is 6'1" according to his biography at the age of 78.He very well and most likely was 6'3" in his 70's movies
Mike said on 11/Mar/09
Patrick, I'm "not" the Mike who claims Wayne was 5'8. I stand by anything I wrote, below, and believe Soul was 5'11...tops. Take away those 70's heels, the guy was average height. If Eastwood really is 6'4, Soul wore lifts, high heels or he stood on something. Read my posts about James Garner on this page, fairly recently, and on his own page. Alleged heights of Garner, as well as those we compare him to, are so all over the board, there is going to be no way to solve this current debate, objectively. I met Kenny Rogers, Robert WAgner, and James Coburn in person(1983). I have no clue what their heights are listed as here, on top or in the discussions. But, as a 5.11.5 (regular shoes)17 year old, I'd have put them as Rogers-6'1(cowboy boots), Wagner-6'0(strong heeled shoes) and Coburn-6'0(moccassins). Compare those estimates, to whatever the discussions say. Everything is, I'm sure, all over the board. I'm not debating Eastwood's height, as much as Soul's.
Patrick, I'm "not" the Mike who claims Wayne was 5'8. I stand by anything I wrote, below, and believe Soul was 5'11...tops. Take away those 70's heels, the guy was average height. If Eastwood really is 6'4, Soul wore lifts, high heels or he stood on something. Read my posts about James Garner on this page, fairly recently, and on his own page. Alleged heights of Garner, as well as those we compare him to, are so all over the board, there is going to be no way to solve this current debate, objectively. I met Kenny Rogers, Robert WAgner, and James Coburn in person(1983). I have no clue what their heights are listed as here, on top or in the discussions. But, as a 5.11.5 (regular shoes)17 year old, I'd have put them as Rogers-6'1(cowboy boots), Wagner-6'0(strong heeled shoes) and Coburn-6'0(moccassins). Compare those estimates, to whatever the discussions say. Everything is, I'm sure, all over the board. I'm not debating Eastwood's height, as much as Soul's.
Da Man said on 10/Mar/09
I agree with Doug
I agree with Doug
Jervis said on 10/Mar/09
If Soul was 5ft11" then Eastwood was 6ft1".Lee marvin was 5ft11" George Kennady was 6ft1",Jeff Bridges is 5ft11" Gean Hackman is 6ft.I Could go on all day taking 2 inches of all actors who stared with eastwood.Because i think Eastwood was 6ft3" peak,that means soul could not have been 5ft11".If he was that means that Eastwood did not shrink,he was 6ft1" then and is 6ft1" now.
If Soul was 5ft11" then Eastwood was 6ft1".Lee marvin was 5ft11" George Kennady was 6ft1",Jeff Bridges is 5ft11" Gean Hackman is 6ft.I Could go on all day taking 2 inches of all actors who stared with eastwood.Because i think Eastwood was 6ft3" peak,that means soul could not have been 5ft11".If he was that means that Eastwood did not shrink,he was 6ft1" then and is 6ft1" now.
Patrick said on 10/Mar/09
I forgot 6'3 J.C. Lynch who looks the same height as Clint in Gran Torino and if taller, barely so by less than one inch as he appears in the movie at least.
I forgot 6'3 J.C. Lynch who looks the same height as Clint in Gran Torino and if taller, barely so by less than one inch as he appears in the movie at least.
Patrick said on 10/Mar/09
But if you are the Mike who lists John Wayne as 5'8...will you admit we all can doubt your opinion?
Soul was always way over 5'11! Just open your eyes. As for Clint, whoever saw him until the mid eighties can see he towers over anybody in such a way we can talk about "dwarfing" many of them. In 1999 True Crime, he's far taller than James Woods and a good inch taller than Denis Leary who is everything but short! In Space Cow Boys, he is not even dwarfed by James Cromwell! He sure should be if only at the time, a weak 6'2. In Gran Torino, who can say he looks just 6'1 as often claimed here? That's ridiculous. THis man a great and big and still tall, whatever sense you can take those words.
But if you are the Mike who lists John Wayne as 5'8...will you admit we all can doubt your opinion?
Soul was always way over 5'11! Just open your eyes. As for Clint, whoever saw him until the mid eighties can see he towers over anybody in such a way we can talk about "dwarfing" many of them. In 1999 True Crime, he's far taller than James Woods and a good inch taller than Denis Leary who is everything but short! In Space Cow Boys, he is not even dwarfed by James Cromwell! He sure should be if only at the time, a weak 6'2. In Gran Torino, who can say he looks just 6'1 as often claimed here? That's ridiculous. THis man a great and big and still tall, whatever sense you can take those words.
Doug said on 10/Mar/09
Actually in Josey Wales Clint looked like he'd be around 6'4" even barefoot. He towered above his cast members in one scene with the little bar tender he looks 6'6". 6'4" at 15 is extremely tall. He must have absolutely towered his classmates at school. Mostly though Clint from the 1960s to the early 1990s looked 6'4" in shoes, no taller which would make him nearer 6'3" peak barefoot.
Actually in Josey Wales Clint looked like he'd be around 6'4" even barefoot. He towered above his cast members in one scene with the little bar tender he looks 6'6". 6'4" at 15 is extremely tall. He must have absolutely towered his classmates at school. Mostly though Clint from the 1960s to the early 1990s looked 6'4" in shoes, no taller which would make him nearer 6'3" peak barefoot.
_-_-_-Hugh-_-_-_/ said on 9/Mar/09
I can buy the full 6ft4 peak. Now he looks close to 6ft2.
I can buy the full 6ft4 peak. Now he looks close to 6ft2.
Mike said on 9/Mar/09
Paul Michael Glasier was never a bit over 5'10. He was clearly shorter than Garner on a '74 episode of Rockford, and I always read he was 5'10. No way Soul was 3 inches taller. I put Soul at 5'11, no more. I've beat the drum on this long enough.
Paul Michael Glasier was never a bit over 5'10. He was clearly shorter than Garner on a '74 episode of Rockford, and I always read he was 5'10. No way Soul was 3 inches taller. I put Soul at 5'11, no more. I've beat the drum on this long enough.
Jervis said on 8/Mar/09
I think from looking at clint he was peak 6ft3",now he is 6ft2",but can look shorter because of bad posture.This means he has only lost 1 inch, which seems more normal.George Kennady was 6ft3",Lee Marvin was 6ft1",Clint was the same as Kennady in one movie,and 2" taller than Marvin in another,but he never looked 2" taller than 6ft2" actors to me only about 1 inch making him 6ft3".If his peak was changed to 6ft3" i think most people could accept that.
I think from looking at clint he was peak 6ft3",now he is 6ft2",but can look shorter because of bad posture.This means he has only lost 1 inch, which seems more normal.George Kennady was 6ft3",Lee Marvin was 6ft1",Clint was the same as Kennady in one movie,and 2" taller than Marvin in another,but he never looked 2" taller than 6ft2" actors to me only about 1 inch making him 6ft3".If his peak was changed to 6ft3" i think most people could accept that.
Parker said on 8/Mar/09
I remember an interview with Clint talking about his school days. He said at 15 he was 6'4, with one guy in his year 6'5. I watched Magnum Force again last night and he had a least a couple of inches on David Soul,Tim Matheson and Robert Urich, all listed 6'1/6'2 on this site. He's claimed 6'4 and looked 6'4 20 years ago - don't understand the debate.
I remember an interview with Clint talking about his school days. He said at 15 he was 6'4, with one guy in his year 6'5. I watched Magnum Force again last night and he had a least a couple of inches on David Soul,Tim Matheson and Robert Urich, all listed 6'1/6'2 on this site. He's claimed 6'4 and looked 6'4 20 years ago - don't understand the debate.
Mike said on 7/Mar/09
I don't have any photos or papers showing Soul to be less, equal to or more than 6'1. And I don't know what that would prove. He wore lifts? High heels? Do I believe Brad Pitt is taller than Eastwood? No way. I'll repeat; through the 70's and 80's, I always read Soul was 5'11. I, personally, would never put Soul at 6'1, and though I enjoy this site, I do not believe every single height listing is necessarily accurate. And so, a 6'4 Eastwood would have been alot taller than Soul, in 1973. Regarding my friend's father, the story was "conveyed" to me 20 years ago. His meeting Eastwood could have been 5 or 10 years before that. Either way, I do not suscribe to this "absolute" notion that guys just automatically shrink in their 50's and early 60's. I'm simply tossing in some more opinions on this. As I also post about James Garner's height, I'll repeat here (to show discrepencies exist for everyone's height) how I just saw a pic of Garner and Clint Walker, from roughly 40 years ago. It looked as if Garner was just a couple inches shorter of Walker, who is noted for being 6'5, 6'6 or even 6'7. Yet, during the same time frame, Garner is Dwarfed by Chuck Connors, who was reportedly 6'5 or 6'6. Garner was barely taller than Johnny Carson on Laugh-In(also from the 1960's), and well under the 6'4 Tom Selleck on Rockford Files (he couldn't have shrunk that much by 1978). So, who's height is accurate? Soul's? Walkers? Who knows. My opinion, Soul-5'11, Garner 6'1, Connors 6'5, Walker 6'5 or 6'6, and Eastwood 6'3.
I don't have any photos or papers showing Soul to be less, equal to or more than 6'1. And I don't know what that would prove. He wore lifts? High heels? Do I believe Brad Pitt is taller than Eastwood? No way. I'll repeat; through the 70's and 80's, I always read Soul was 5'11. I, personally, would never put Soul at 6'1, and though I enjoy this site, I do not believe every single height listing is necessarily accurate. And so, a 6'4 Eastwood would have been alot taller than Soul, in 1973. Regarding my friend's father, the story was "conveyed" to me 20 years ago. His meeting Eastwood could have been 5 or 10 years before that. Either way, I do not suscribe to this "absolute" notion that guys just automatically shrink in their 50's and early 60's. I'm simply tossing in some more opinions on this. As I also post about James Garner's height, I'll repeat here (to show discrepencies exist for everyone's height) how I just saw a pic of Garner and Clint Walker, from roughly 40 years ago. It looked as if Garner was just a couple inches shorter of Walker, who is noted for being 6'5, 6'6 or even 6'7. Yet, during the same time frame, Garner is Dwarfed by Chuck Connors, who was reportedly 6'5 or 6'6. Garner was barely taller than Johnny Carson on Laugh-In(also from the 1960's), and well under the 6'4 Tom Selleck on Rockford Files (he couldn't have shrunk that much by 1978). So, who's height is accurate? Soul's? Walkers? Who knows. My opinion, Soul-5'11, Garner 6'1, Connors 6'5, Walker 6'5 or 6'6, and Eastwood 6'3.
Jervis said on 7/Mar/09
Mike eastwood is 78 years old,almost 20 years ago he would have been 59 or 60,not in his 40s.He was starting to lose hight by then about 6ft3",that was around the time of the dead pool were he was about 1 inch shorter than liam neeson.
Mike eastwood is 78 years old,almost 20 years ago he would have been 59 or 60,not in his 40s.He was starting to lose hight by then about 6ft3",that was around the time of the dead pool were he was about 1 inch shorter than liam neeson.
Tony G. said on 7/Mar/09
Mike, David Soul is listed as 6'1" on this very site. If you can post some photos showing him to be less (at his peak), I'll be happy to look at them.
Mike, David Soul is listed as 6'1" on this very site. If you can post some photos showing him to be less (at his peak), I'll be happy to look at them.
Mike said on 6/Mar/09
Tony, I never wrote that I thought Soul's current height was 5'11. I have no idea what it was. As a kid in the 70's, I read every kind of magazine about the TV shows of the day. For whatever reason, I have an uncanny knack for remembering numbers, dates, ages...related to TV shows and their stars. David Soul was unanimously listed as being 5'11, in the 70's...which is also the time when Magnum Force was made. I have no preconceived agenda as to proving one thing or another on this site. All I know is Soul was written up as 5'11 often, never ever looked 6'1 to me, and therefore, it makes me question Eastwood being a solid 6'4.
Tony, I never wrote that I thought Soul's current height was 5'11. I have no idea what it was. As a kid in the 70's, I read every kind of magazine about the TV shows of the day. For whatever reason, I have an uncanny knack for remembering numbers, dates, ages...related to TV shows and their stars. David Soul was unanimously listed as being 5'11, in the 70's...which is also the time when Magnum Force was made. I have no preconceived agenda as to proving one thing or another on this site. All I know is Soul was written up as 5'11 often, never ever looked 6'1 to me, and therefore, it makes me question Eastwood being a solid 6'4.
Tony G. said on 5/Mar/09
Mike, at the time of that movie (Magnum Force, 1973), David Soul was 6'1". I don't know why you are comparing Soul's current height. But in the photo I posted, Clint looks easily 3 inches taller than 6'1" Soul.
Mike, at the time of that movie (Magnum Force, 1973), David Soul was 6'1". I don't know why you are comparing Soul's current height. But in the photo I posted, Clint looks easily 3 inches taller than 6'1" Soul.
Mr s said on 5/Mar/09
Just seen the film gran torino, he still looks well over six foot to me.
Just seen the film gran torino, he still looks well over six foot to me.
Mike said on 4/Mar/09
Regarding David Soul; Since Starsky and Hutch days, I read he was 5'11, and Paul Michael G. was 5'10. If so, a 6'4 Clint would have been 5 inches taller than Soul. Didn't seem so. I have an old college buddy, who's dad told me het met Eastwood (his dad told me this almost 20 years ago, when both Eastwood and my friend's dad were in their 40's). He said he (my friend's dad) was 6'4, and Eastwood was taller. Only, my friend's dad may have been tall, but was no way 6'4. "Maybe" 6'2. Bottom line? I have no idea how tall Eastwood was/is. I'd guess 6'3, and say that he got measured in the morning...making him close to 6'4.
Regarding David Soul; Since Starsky and Hutch days, I read he was 5'11, and Paul Michael G. was 5'10. If so, a 6'4 Clint would have been 5 inches taller than Soul. Didn't seem so. I have an old college buddy, who's dad told me het met Eastwood (his dad told me this almost 20 years ago, when both Eastwood and my friend's dad were in their 40's). He said he (my friend's dad) was 6'4, and Eastwood was taller. Only, my friend's dad may have been tall, but was no way 6'4. "Maybe" 6'2. Bottom line? I have no idea how tall Eastwood was/is. I'd guess 6'3, and say that he got measured in the morning...making him close to 6'4.
Doug said on 4/Mar/09
Interestingly Eastwood's son Kyle Eastwood the jazz bassist is listed as 6'4" too. Inherited the very tall genes by the looks of it.
Interestingly Eastwood's son Kyle Eastwood the jazz bassist is listed as 6'4" too. Inherited the very tall genes by the looks of it.
Patrick said on 3/Mar/09
I agree with filfan 100% save for i always saw him 6'4. He's huge in any movie and not as short nowadays. In gran torino, he looks exactly 6'2, being taller than anyone alse (i know "they" are short but "all"!).
Facing Sidney Poitier in 2005 or so, he was clearly taller No, he looks 6'2 or 6'1.3/4 but not less. Why denying what is in fornt of oneself?
Apart from that, he is "7' plus" to me, as a man and Actor-Director. The very last real star. A living legend for ever...
I agree with filfan 100% save for i always saw him 6'4. He's huge in any movie and not as short nowadays. In gran torino, he looks exactly 6'2, being taller than anyone alse (i know "they" are short but "all"!).
Facing Sidney Poitier in 2005 or so, he was clearly taller No, he looks 6'2 or 6'1.3/4 but not less. Why denying what is in fornt of oneself?
Apart from that, he is "7' plus" to me, as a man and Actor-Director. The very last real star. A living legend for ever...
Tony G. said on 3/Mar/09
Clint looks every bit of 6'4" when standing next to 6'1" David Soul in the movie "Magnum Force."
Click Here
Clint looks every bit of 6'4" when standing next to 6'1" David Soul in the movie "Magnum Force."
Click Here
filmfan said on 2/Mar/09
I don't understand the debate to be honest. Clint always looked about 6'4'' to my eyes. I'd say that these days he's about 6'1'' to 6'2'' or so but when young he was always very tall looking. I mean he could have been 6'3'' 3/4 but he was certainly about 6'4''.
I don't understand the debate to be honest. Clint always looked about 6'4'' to my eyes. I'd say that these days he's about 6'1'' to 6'2'' or so but when young he was always very tall looking. I mean he could have been 6'3'' 3/4 but he was certainly about 6'4''.
Doug said on 28/Feb/09
Its not only Adam who has emphasised this point James! Personally I think John Wayne was in the same category as Eastwood and Sutherland. 6'4" in shoes.
Its not only Adam who has emphasised this point James! Personally I think John Wayne was in the same category as Eastwood and Sutherland. 6'4" in shoes.
-_-_-(Hugh)-_-_-/ said on 25/Feb/09
He did look the same height as Kennedy who in my opinion was a strong 6ft4.
He did look the same height as Kennedy who in my opinion was a strong 6ft4.
Lenad said on 25/Feb/09
When you look at him next to Jim Carrey, 6'3 at peak sounds better.
When you look at him next to Jim Carrey, 6'3 at peak sounds better.
adam said on 23/Feb/09
George Kennedy was indeed 6-4.
George Kennedy was indeed 6-4.
Doug said on 23/Feb/09
I must admit I am a huge fan of the guy and have watched his films over and over, a favourite actor of mine. At least 95% of the time from all his films I always think, this guy looks a good example of a 6'3". I can see 6'4" in shoes peak but not barefoot. He was undoubtedly taller than 6'2" you can tell this, even in 1993 he had 4 inches on his co star who is 5'11"-6'0". There are a lot of things about Clint being 6'4" barefoot that don't add up, a legit 6'4" in shoes would regularly look 6'5", in cowboy boots 6'6". Clint was never in this range. Yes he was 6'4" peak but thats a maximum in his shoes. 6'2.75" is a possibility, no lower. A strong 6'3" I think is more accurate, it explains a lot of things.
I must admit I am a huge fan of the guy and have watched his films over and over, a favourite actor of mine. At least 95% of the time from all his films I always think, this guy looks a good example of a 6'3". I can see 6'4" in shoes peak but not barefoot. He was undoubtedly taller than 6'2" you can tell this, even in 1993 he had 4 inches on his co star who is 5'11"-6'0". There are a lot of things about Clint being 6'4" barefoot that don't add up, a legit 6'4" in shoes would regularly look 6'5", in cowboy boots 6'6". Clint was never in this range. Yes he was 6'4" peak but thats a maximum in his shoes. 6'2.75" is a possibility, no lower. A strong 6'3" I think is more accurate, it explains a lot of things.
Mike said on 22/Feb/09
Spot on Jervis! I`ve said before that every actor in the world must be inflating their height by 2" if Eastwood was only ever 6'4". GeorgeKennedy & him were always eye to eye, as was Greg Walcott & both were legit 6'4" guys.
Spot on Jervis! I`ve said before that every actor in the world must be inflating their height by 2" if Eastwood was only ever 6'4". GeorgeKennedy & him were always eye to eye, as was Greg Walcott & both were legit 6'4" guys.
brotha said on 21/Feb/09
Unforgiven is on now and Eastwood looks an inch taller than Morgan back then. Ejel, Clint was 6'4" peak no doubt, barefoot even in 91. I swear to whatever I can when I say that I'm positive I saw Morgan Freeman over a yr ago in morning slippers (no height gain) and he was right at 6'3", maybe 6'2.5", but I was still shocked that he dwarfed me so much while I right by him. I've seen a few other celebs in my hotel, mostly golfers, and commentators. Tiger I've seen, Nick Faldo stays there every year for the Buick, he's a good 6'2", Tiger is right at 6'. The guy from Angel & Bones(tv) whatever his name is about a flat 6'. I would say I'm a decent judge of height and I know how tall Freeman is.
Unforgiven is on now and Eastwood looks an inch taller than Morgan back then. Ejel, Clint was 6'4" peak no doubt, barefoot even in 91. I swear to whatever I can when I say that I'm positive I saw Morgan Freeman over a yr ago in morning slippers (no height gain) and he was right at 6'3", maybe 6'2.5", but I was still shocked that he dwarfed me so much while I right by him. I've seen a few other celebs in my hotel, mostly golfers, and commentators. Tiger I've seen, Nick Faldo stays there every year for the Buick, he's a good 6'2", Tiger is right at 6'. The guy from Angel & Bones(tv) whatever his name is about a flat 6'. I would say I'm a decent judge of height and I know how tall Freeman is.
Jervis said on 21/Feb/09
Rubbish if Clint was 6ft2 peak then kennady was 6ft2 and Marvin was 6ft as clint was clearly the same as kennady in Eiger Sanction and 2" taller than Marvin in Paint Your Wagon.Also this rubbish about cowboy boots,everybody wore cowboy boots in westerns so it just balanced everything off.On saying that I think Clint was a solid 6ft3" peek bare foot,but not 6ft2",he has lost a bit of hight because of age and he stands with a stoop when he stands up stright he is still 6ft2" with people like John Cusack,not bad for a man who will be 79years old in may.
Rubbish if Clint was 6ft2 peak then kennady was 6ft2 and Marvin was 6ft as clint was clearly the same as kennady in Eiger Sanction and 2" taller than Marvin in Paint Your Wagon.Also this rubbish about cowboy boots,everybody wore cowboy boots in westerns so it just balanced everything off.On saying that I think Clint was a solid 6ft3" peek bare foot,but not 6ft2",he has lost a bit of hight because of age and he stands with a stoop when he stands up stright he is still 6ft2" with people like John Cusack,not bad for a man who will be 79years old in may.
Ed T. said on 21/Feb/09
I think that Doug is right on the mark with his strong 6'3" barefoot estimate of Clint. Anything under than 6'3" peak barefoot is highly unlikely. Clint seemed to have a good inch and maybe slighlty more on William Smith in "Any Which Way You Can". Smith always seemed to be a legit 6'2" guy. No less than 6'3" peak barefoot for Clint but never quite the full 6'4" peak either.
I think that Doug is right on the mark with his strong 6'3" barefoot estimate of Clint. Anything under than 6'3" peak barefoot is highly unlikely. Clint seemed to have a good inch and maybe slighlty more on William Smith in "Any Which Way You Can". Smith always seemed to be a legit 6'2" guy. No less than 6'3" peak barefoot for Clint but never quite the full 6'4" peak either.
mike c said on 21/Feb/09
Clint was at least 2" taller than Cleef in all their movies. Use your pause button whenever they're face to face.
Clint was at least 2" taller than Cleef in all their movies. Use your pause button whenever they're face to face.
Ejel Khan said on 20/Feb/09
Peak height for Clint never 6'4", but 6'2" in peak and 6'1" seems right.
Peak height for Clint never 6'4", but 6'2" in peak and 6'1" seems right.
\-_-_-(Hugh)-_-_-/ said on 19/Feb/09
Arnie was 6ft2 prime.
Arnie was 6ft2 prime.
Joe said on 19/Feb/09
I agree with Keith. Lee Van Cleef was 6'2 and during the 2 movies he did with Clint in his early years, they looked to be about the same height.
I agree with Keith. Lee Van Cleef was 6'2 and during the 2 movies he did with Clint in his early years, they looked to be about the same height.
Doug said on 19/Feb/09
Thats how I've alway seen Clint Steve (not having the honor to meet the guy in person). He was certainly 6'4" in shoes through most of his years I'm sure, he was very likely nearer 6'5" in those cowboy boots especially in the 60s and 70s. Barefoot though I think he couldn't have been quite the full 6'4", he was pretty close to it at peak though I'm sure. I think a strong 6'3" is a better barefoot estimate.
Thats how I've alway seen Clint Steve (not having the honor to meet the guy in person). He was certainly 6'4" in shoes through most of his years I'm sure, he was very likely nearer 6'5" in those cowboy boots especially in the 60s and 70s. Barefoot though I think he couldn't have been quite the full 6'4", he was pretty close to it at peak though I'm sure. I think a strong 6'3" is a better barefoot estimate.
Steve said on 17/Feb/09
Clint was 6'4" in golf shoes, stood eye to eye with him at pro-am in 1983. That would put him 6'4-6'5 in boots. Awesome dude. Gave kids autographs when Garner just passed them by. The governator is 6' at best.
Clint was 6'4" in golf shoes, stood eye to eye with him at pro-am in 1983. That would put him 6'4-6'5 in boots. Awesome dude. Gave kids autographs when Garner just passed them by. The governator is 6' at best.
\\-_-_-(Hugh)-_-_-/ said on 13/Feb/09
Neeson did have about an inch on Eastwood back in 1988 but I say 6ft3.5 for Eastwood because Neeson was likely over 6ft4 seeming he was younger. Eastwood still looks tall today. Close to 6ft2 if not 6ft2.
Neeson did have about an inch on Eastwood back in 1988 but I say 6ft3.5 for Eastwood because Neeson was likely over 6ft4 seeming he was younger. Eastwood still looks tall today. Close to 6ft2 if not 6ft2.
\-_-_-(Hugh)-_-_-/ said on 13/Feb/09
Eastwood was still probably close to 6ft4 during the 80's and early to mid 90's. Definately a 6ft4 guy in the 60's though.
Eastwood was still probably close to 6ft4 during the 80's and early to mid 90's. Definately a 6ft4 guy in the 60's though.
Tom said on 6/Feb/09
I talked with him at an Oscar party in LA a few years ago. I was surprised he wasn't taller. About 6-2.
I talked with him at an Oscar party in LA a few years ago. I was surprised he wasn't taller. About 6-2.
AKK said on 5/Feb/09
I agree that he's lost height over the years. Just saw him on Ellen's show, and he's barely head over her, putting him just about the 6'2(assuming she's 5'6" and his head's about 8 inches) mark.
I agree that he's lost height over the years. Just saw him on Ellen's show, and he's barely head over her, putting him just about the 6'2(assuming she's 5'6" and his head's about 8 inches) mark.
RisingForce said on 4/Feb/09
That may be right. He was 58 when The Dead Pool came out but he still looked very tall. Neeson did kind of tower over Jim Carrey in that film too.
That may be right. He was 58 when The Dead Pool came out but he still looked very tall. Neeson did kind of tower over Jim Carrey in that film too.
Hugh said on 4/Feb/09
6ft4 when he was younger sounds accurate. I'd say be the time of the Dead Pool it was Neeson at 6ft4.5 and Eastwood 6ft3.5.
6ft4 when he was younger sounds accurate. I'd say be the time of the Dead Pool it was Neeson at 6ft4.5 and Eastwood 6ft3.5.
RisingForce said on 27/Jan/09
He already seemed to have lost height by the time of The Dead Pool(1988). 6'4" Liam Neeson was taller than Eastwood. Eastwood was likely around 6'3" by that time and 6'4" when he was younger.
He already seemed to have lost height by the time of The Dead Pool(1988). 6'4" Liam Neeson was taller than Eastwood. Eastwood was likely around 6'3" by that time and 6'4" when he was younger.
Doug said on 27/Jan/09
I agree with those below. I think Eastwood was very possibly 6ft2.75 barefoot and was around 6'4" in shoes at peak. In cowboy boots very possibly 6'4.5". People get used to seeing others in shoes in everyday life so for those who met him and said "6'4 in the early 90s" I don't doubt he was, but in shoes. He does look like he has lost 3 inches these days down do his back problems however fit he may be. I think he has gone from 6'2.75" down to 5'11.75'" barefoot these days, and is 6'1" max in shoes today. The picture with Pitt shows that he clearly isn't even 6'2" these days as even if Pitt was in munsters he couldn't look 6'3". Undoubtedly a tall man but I sincerely doubt the 6'4" peak was a barefoot measurement otherwise he'd be 6'5"-6'6" which he never was in shoes. I feel pretty confident he was 189-191cm not 193cm barefoot at peak.
I agree with those below. I think Eastwood was very possibly 6ft2.75 barefoot and was around 6'4" in shoes at peak. In cowboy boots very possibly 6'4.5". People get used to seeing others in shoes in everyday life so for those who met him and said "6'4 in the early 90s" I don't doubt he was, but in shoes. He does look like he has lost 3 inches these days down do his back problems however fit he may be. I think he has gone from 6'2.75" down to 5'11.75'" barefoot these days, and is 6'1" max in shoes today. The picture with Pitt shows that he clearly isn't even 6'2" these days as even if Pitt was in munsters he couldn't look 6'3". Undoubtedly a tall man but I sincerely doubt the 6'4" peak was a barefoot measurement otherwise he'd be 6'5"-6'6" which he never was in shoes. I feel pretty confident he was 189-191cm not 193cm barefoot at peak.
Doug said on 27/Jan/09
I agree with those below. I think Eastwood was very possibly 6ft2.75 barefoot and was around 6'4" in shoes at peak. In cowboy boots very possibly 6'4.5". People get used to seeing others in shoes in everyday life so for those who met him and said "6'4 in the early 90s" I don't doubt he was, but in shoes. He does look like he has lost 3 inches these days down do his back problems however fit he may be. I think he has gone from 6'2.75" down to 5'11.75'" barefoot these days. The picture with Pitt shows that he clearly isn't even 6'2" these days as even if Pitt was in munsters he couldn't look 6'3". Undoubtedly a tall man but I sincerely doubt the 6'4" peak was a barefoot measurement otherwise he'd be 6'5"-6'6" which he never was in shoes. I feel pretty confident he was 189-191cm not 193cm barefoot at peak.
I agree with those below. I think Eastwood was very possibly 6ft2.75 barefoot and was around 6'4" in shoes at peak. In cowboy boots very possibly 6'4.5". People get used to seeing others in shoes in everyday life so for those who met him and said "6'4 in the early 90s" I don't doubt he was, but in shoes. He does look like he has lost 3 inches these days down do his back problems however fit he may be. I think he has gone from 6'2.75" down to 5'11.75'" barefoot these days. The picture with Pitt shows that he clearly isn't even 6'2" these days as even if Pitt was in munsters he couldn't look 6'3". Undoubtedly a tall man but I sincerely doubt the 6'4" peak was a barefoot measurement otherwise he'd be 6'5"-6'6" which he never was in shoes. I feel pretty confident he was 189-191cm not 193cm barefoot at peak.
thekiddd said on 27/Jan/09
I'm pretty sure in Gran Torino, his height is listed as 6'1". I guess he now claims 6'1" huh Rob?
I'm pretty sure in Gran Torino, his height is listed as 6'1". I guess he now claims 6'1" huh Rob?
Da Man said on 25/Jan/09
James, do you honestly think Clint has lost a full 3" of height? Considering the shape he is in (which is good for his age), and the fact that his posture isn't bad at all for a man his age, I think the 3" height loss is a total crock. I doubt he's lost more than 1"-1.5" of height.
James, do you honestly think Clint has lost a full 3" of height? Considering the shape he is in (which is good for his age), and the fact that his posture isn't bad at all for a man his age, I think the 3" height loss is a total crock. I doubt he's lost more than 1"-1.5" of height.
Ed(1) said on 25/Jan/09
Keith I don't think you could be too far off the mark! Personally I've always seen Eastwood appearing on screen at a height similar to Hugh Jackman(6ft2.75). In fact he looked in that video to have almost the same exact body type and proportions, not to mention they even look a bit alike. I've never met him so maybe he was 6ft4, but a legit 6ft4 would make him 6ft6 or taller in his Spaghetti Westerns when you factor in the cowboy boots, and that seems way off! Also you're right, in the Dirty Harry films his big puffy brushed back hair and 70's style heeled dress shoes gave him an even taller impression.
Without obviously meeting him back in the 70's, I'd guess he was scraping 6ft3 and now hovers a little over 6ft. This would still make him 6ft4+ inshoes, and even if he was only 6ft2.5 in the 80's/90's he'd still pull off looking 6ft4+ in cowboy boots(Unforgiven) and near 6ft4 in dress shoes(In the Line of Fire).
Here's a comparison video clip of Jackman at an awards ceremony, and even though they're not together they do look very similar in size:
Click Here
Keith I don't think you could be too far off the mark! Personally I've always seen Eastwood appearing on screen at a height similar to Hugh Jackman(6ft2.75). In fact he looked in that video to have almost the same exact body type and proportions, not to mention they even look a bit alike. I've never met him so maybe he was 6ft4, but a legit 6ft4 would make him 6ft6 or taller in his Spaghetti Westerns when you factor in the cowboy boots, and that seems way off! Also you're right, in the Dirty Harry films his big puffy brushed back hair and 70's style heeled dress shoes gave him an even taller impression.
Without obviously meeting him back in the 70's, I'd guess he was scraping 6ft3 and now hovers a little over 6ft. This would still make him 6ft4+ inshoes, and even if he was only 6ft2.5 in the 80's/90's he'd still pull off looking 6ft4+ in cowboy boots(Unforgiven) and near 6ft4 in dress shoes(In the Line of Fire).
Here's a comparison video clip of Jackman at an awards ceremony, and even though they're not together they do look very similar in size:
Click Here
Keith said on 25/Jan/09
When yall say his peak height was 6'4", surely yall cannot mean him to have been 6'4" barefoot because he was NEVER 6'4" barefoot, and that goes for other actors as well, when yall state someones height, certainly you mean it "barefoot" ? I'm 5'11" dead even barefoot but I don't go around telling people I'm 6'0".... even though my hiking shoes that I wear all the time make me 6'0", it comes down to 2 different heights, a "true height" and a "variable height",I would say Clint Eastwood was 6'2" barefoot in his prime making him 6'4"-to-6'4.5" with those cowboy boots he wore in the spaghetti westerns and also those dress shoes he wore in the dirty harry movies had a solid 1.5"-to-2" heel making him around 6'3.5"-to-6'4" in the dirty harry movies, I feel strongly that he was never ,ever , over 6'2" barefooted....remember also that back in the 60's and 70's he wore his hair combed up and back giving a strong illusion to a 6'5"-to-6'5.5" height, his hair and footwear could have given the illusion of 3" to 3.5" tacked on to his 6'2" height back in his younger days. Now I would say with his age and spinal deterioration ...I would say maybe 6'1" barefooted if not 6'0.75", so I would agree with this site listing 6'1" , but no way was he 6'4" BAREFOOTED!- even when he was 30 yrs old, hahahah!
When yall say his peak height was 6'4", surely yall cannot mean him to have been 6'4" barefoot because he was NEVER 6'4" barefoot, and that goes for other actors as well, when yall state someones height, certainly you mean it "barefoot" ? I'm 5'11" dead even barefoot but I don't go around telling people I'm 6'0".... even though my hiking shoes that I wear all the time make me 6'0", it comes down to 2 different heights, a "true height" and a "variable height",I would say Clint Eastwood was 6'2" barefoot in his prime making him 6'4"-to-6'4.5" with those cowboy boots he wore in the spaghetti westerns and also those dress shoes he wore in the dirty harry movies had a solid 1.5"-to-2" heel making him around 6'3.5"-to-6'4" in the dirty harry movies, I feel strongly that he was never ,ever , over 6'2" barefooted....remember also that back in the 60's and 70's he wore his hair combed up and back giving a strong illusion to a 6'5"-to-6'5.5" height, his hair and footwear could have given the illusion of 3" to 3.5" tacked on to his 6'2" height back in his younger days. Now I would say with his age and spinal deterioration ...I would say maybe 6'1" barefooted if not 6'0.75", so I would agree with this site listing 6'1" , but no way was he 6'4" BAREFOOTED!- even when he was 30 yrs old, hahahah!
mike c said on 24/Jan/09
Great video, Terry! Heston 6'3" and Clint clearly 6'4".
Great video, Terry! Heston 6'3" and Clint clearly 6'4".
Terry said on 24/Jan/09
Check out this clip of Clint temporarily filling in for Charlton Heston at an Oscar ceremony in 1972. They are briefly together from 1:05 onwards. Clint has a clear edge over him
Click Here
Check out this clip of Clint temporarily filling in for Charlton Heston at an Oscar ceremony in 1972. They are briefly together from 1:05 onwards. Clint has a clear edge over him
Click Here
Hugh said on 24/Jan/09
Freeman might've been 6ft3 in his prime. He still looks like a 6ft2+ guy. Eastwood I'd say is roughly an inch shorter than Frreman if he had good posture. 186-187cm.
Freeman might've been 6ft3 in his prime. He still looks like a 6ft2+ guy. Eastwood I'd say is roughly an inch shorter than Frreman if he had good posture. 186-187cm.
Da Man said on 22/Jan/09
He looked 2+" shorter than 6'3" John Carroll Lynch in Gran Torino.
He looked 2+" shorter than 6'3" John Carroll Lynch in Gran Torino.
jake said on 22/Jan/09
In Gran Torino, 6-2 briefly appears on his character's medical documents. I'd say that's accurate, or close to it. Eastwood is probably just under 6 ft 2 in, maybe 6' 1
In Gran Torino, 6-2 briefly appears on his character's medical documents. I'd say that's accurate, or close to it. Eastwood is probably just under 6 ft 2 in, maybe 6' 1
brotha said on 21/Jan/09
James, Freeman is 6'3" easy, maybe more. I recently saw him; this puts Eastwood at around 6'1" today. I agree he was about 2" shorter than Morgan in Million Dollar Baby. Does this clear things up, Danimal?
James, Freeman is 6'3" easy, maybe more. I recently saw him; this puts Eastwood at around 6'1" today. I agree he was about 2" shorter than Morgan in Million Dollar Baby. Does this clear things up, Danimal?
Hugh said on 20/Jan/09
I find that hard to believe James. Freeman owning Clint by 2.5 inches! in Unforgiven it was Vice Versa.
I find that hard to believe James. Freeman owning Clint by 2.5 inches! in Unforgiven it was Vice Versa.
Tim said on 19/Jan/09
I beleive Clint has aways been 6 ft 2 in. He may have wore two inch shoe lifts to make him appear 6 ft 4 in, in his movies. But 6 ft 2 in sounds about right.
I beleive Clint has aways been 6 ft 2 in. He may have wore two inch shoe lifts to make him appear 6 ft 4 in, in his movies. But 6 ft 2 in sounds about right.
Hugh said on 19/Jan/09
6ft1-6ft2 nowadays. 6ft4 peak.
6ft1-6ft2 nowadays. 6ft4 peak.
Danimal said on 19/Jan/09
brotha says on 18/Jan/09
I've posted on the Freeman board several times about my encounter with Morgan. He was easily 3.5 inches taller than me face to face, and he was wearing morning slippers. I'm almost 5'11.5" barefoot and was wearing normal heeled 3/4 inch shoes. That makes Clint at least 6'1" still.
No it doesn't. Have you seen OTHER pics of Clint next to legit height people? He is struggling with a FLAT 6'0" today.
brotha says on 18/Jan/09
I've posted on the Freeman board several times about my encounter with Morgan. He was easily 3.5 inches taller than me face to face, and he was wearing morning slippers. I'm almost 5'11.5" barefoot and was wearing normal heeled 3/4 inch shoes. That makes Clint at least 6'1" still.
No it doesn't. Have you seen OTHER pics of Clint next to legit height people? He is struggling with a FLAT 6'0" today.
Danimal said on 19/Jan/09
washethatall says on 18/Jan/09
was clint really 6'4 and lost three inches???
No, it's all ONE BIG JOKE!!! GOTCHA!!!! ;)
washethatall says on 18/Jan/09
was clint really 6'4 and lost three inches???
No, it's all ONE BIG JOKE!!! GOTCHA!!!! ;)
brotha said on 18/Jan/09
I've posted on the Freeman board several times about my encounter with Morgan. He was easily 3.5 inches taller than me face to face, and he was wearing morning slippers. I'm almost 5'11.5" barefoot and was wearing normal heeled 3/4 inch shoes. That makes Clint at least 6'1" still.
I've posted on the Freeman board several times about my encounter with Morgan. He was easily 3.5 inches taller than me face to face, and he was wearing morning slippers. I'm almost 5'11.5" barefoot and was wearing normal heeled 3/4 inch shoes. That makes Clint at least 6'1" still.
washethatall said on 18/Jan/09
was clint really 6'4 and lost three inches???
was clint really 6'4 and lost three inches???
Bill said on 18/Jan/09
I'd place Clint at around 6'2" these days. That's my height. I met him on the set of Mystic River and we were standing face to face. He did have the hunched over posture of an older man though. I'd say he was easily 6'4" in his prime. Very impressive guy to meet in person. He just exudes coolness.
I'd place Clint at around 6'2" these days. That's my height. I met him on the set of Mystic River and we were standing face to face. He did have the hunched over posture of an older man though. I'd say he was easily 6'4" in his prime. Very impressive guy to meet in person. He just exudes coolness.
Danimal said on 17/Jan/09
Dave T. says on 15/Jan/09
I just saw him on Letterman. Letterman is 6-2,Clint towered over him. Didn't see his footwear however.
First of all, Letterman is lucky if he is 6'1" today (he's in his 60's) and Clint could not have towered him, seeing Arnold is taller than Clint today based on recent pics of them together.
I given Clint 6'0"-6'1" today and 6'3"-6'4" in his prime.
Dave T. says on 15/Jan/09
I just saw him on Letterman. Letterman is 6-2,Clint towered over him. Didn't see his footwear however.
First of all, Letterman is lucky if he is 6'1" today (he's in his 60's) and Clint could not have towered him, seeing Arnold is taller than Clint today based on recent pics of them together.
I given Clint 6'0"-6'1" today and 6'3"-6'4" in his prime.
Terry said on 17/Jan/09
I was reading an article in this mornings Daily Express newspaper (in the UK) about the rugby union plyer Simon Shaw. He said he used to be 6`9.5" but is now "only"(!!!) 6`8", and he is now 35. Spinal compression does happen with the taller men, particularly in physically active people. I saw Eastwood on Letterman a few days ago & he still looks a tall guy, around 6`2" to me. He clearly does walk with a slouch & with his spine "bent" to one side so that would explain a height loss of 2-3" quite easily in a 78 year old man who has walked like that all his life. just look at his films from the past. It`s not as uncommon as many repliers on this site think
I was reading an article in this mornings Daily Express newspaper (in the UK) about the rugby union plyer Simon Shaw. He said he used to be 6`9.5" but is now "only"(!!!) 6`8", and he is now 35. Spinal compression does happen with the taller men, particularly in physically active people. I saw Eastwood on Letterman a few days ago & he still looks a tall guy, around 6`2" to me. He clearly does walk with a slouch & with his spine "bent" to one side so that would explain a height loss of 2-3" quite easily in a 78 year old man who has walked like that all his life. just look at his films from the past. It`s not as uncommon as many repliers on this site think
glenn said on 17/Jan/09
usually a grump.always a good story with him.classics.ill get into that maybe in my next post.bed time for me.
usually a grump.always a good story with him.classics.ill get into that maybe in my next post.bed time for me.
clooby said on 17/Jan/09
It's hard to judge height on film and photos. Height can be tricky when comparing other actors, becasue one could be slouching slightly or standing away or on one knee to which will appear smaller.
It's hard to judge height on film and photos. Height can be tricky when comparing other actors, becasue one could be slouching slightly or standing away or on one knee to which will appear smaller.
Hugh said on 16/Jan/09
I hear he's auite a quite and reserved individual. What was your impression of him as a person, glenn?
I hear he's auite a quite and reserved individual. What was your impression of him as a person, glenn?
glenn said on 15/Jan/09
thats possible elf.but was the tallest one at a packed party i snuck into in 1993.by far.saw him today.surprised to see he was closer to 6-1 than the 6ft i saw in the last 5 years.
thats possible elf.but was the tallest one at a packed party i snuck into in 1993.by far.saw him today.surprised to see he was closer to 6-1 than the 6ft i saw in the last 5 years.
Dave T. said on 15/Jan/09
I just saw him on Letterman. Letterman is 6-2,Clint towered over him. Didn't see his footwear however.
I just saw him on Letterman. Letterman is 6-2,Clint towered over him. Didn't see his footwear however.
Elf said on 14/Jan/09
Glenn, when you say Eastwood was 6'4" in the early 90s I gather this is how he appeared in shoes? Is it likely that he was in reality 6'3" barefoot, the height he has always appeared to me up until the 90s?
Glenn, when you say Eastwood was 6'4" in the early 90s I gather this is how he appeared in shoes? Is it likely that he was in reality 6'3" barefoot, the height he has always appeared to me up until the 90s?
glenn said on 13/Jan/09
looks 6ft to me now in person.6-4 in the early 90s.
looks 6ft to me now in person.6-4 in the early 90s.
Ed(1) said on 13/Jan/09
I thought he looked all of 6ft tops in Gran Torino, and sometimes more like 5ft11. I suppose it's possible he's still 6ft1, but if I were to guess I'd say 6ft3 peak and scraping 6ft now. I've never met him though, so maybe he was a legit 6ft4 back in the day?
I thought he looked all of 6ft tops in Gran Torino, and sometimes more like 5ft11. I suppose it's possible he's still 6ft1, but if I were to guess I'd say 6ft3 peak and scraping 6ft now. I've never met him though, so maybe he was a legit 6ft4 back in the day?
Anonymous said on 13/Jan/09
seen a pic recently of jamie cullum with clint eastwood and eastwood was a whole head above him,cullum was not even up to his chin.cullum is 5 ft 5 right?
id say eastwood is 6ft 1 now and i doubt he was ever 6ft 4
seen a pic recently of jamie cullum with clint eastwood and eastwood was a whole head above him,cullum was not even up to his chin.cullum is 5 ft 5 right?
id say eastwood is 6ft 1 now and i doubt he was ever 6ft 4
James2 said on 13/Jan/09
looks about 6'1 in Gran Torino, but he was a beast back in the day
looks about 6'1 in Gran Torino, but he was a beast back in the day
Ali said on 9/Jan/09
No doubt Clint was a tall man in his
younger years. I don't think he was 6'4
though. 6-3 and maybe slightly taller.
Nowayadays he is about 6 foot. He has
lost quite some hight and has bad posture.
I have a friend who is 192 cm and he is really
tall. Clint never looks that tall. Definitely
a tall man when he was young, but not 6-4 IMO.
Some think he still is 188 cm today. No way! He is
considerable shorter. He is about 183 cm now.
No doubt Clint was a tall man in his
younger years. I don't think he was 6'4
though. 6-3 and maybe slightly taller.
Nowayadays he is about 6 foot. He has
lost quite some hight and has bad posture.
I have a friend who is 192 cm and he is really
tall. Clint never looks that tall. Definitely
a tall man when he was young, but not 6-4 IMO.
Some think he still is 188 cm today. No way! He is
considerable shorter. He is about 183 cm now.
Ali said on 9/Jan/09
No doubt Clint was a tall man in his
younger years. I don't think he was 6'4
though. 6-3 and maybe slightly taller.
Nowayadays he is about 6 foot. He has
lost quite some hight and has bad posture.
I have a friend who is 192 cm and he is really
tall. Clint never looks that tall. Definitely
a tall man when he was young, but not 6-4 IMO.
No doubt Clint was a tall man in his
younger years. I don't think he was 6'4
though. 6-3 and maybe slightly taller.
Nowayadays he is about 6 foot. He has
lost quite some hight and has bad posture.
I have a friend who is 192 cm and he is really
tall. Clint never looks that tall. Definitely
a tall man when he was young, but not 6-4 IMO.
Sam said on 8/Jan/09
Here is Clint with his main competitor at trying-to-shrink-the-most-from-being-6'4ish:
Click Here
Here is Clint with his main competitor at trying-to-shrink-the-most-from-being-6'4ish:
Click Here
adam said on 7/Jan/09
Clint has shrunk a lot. At least 3 inches, possibly 4. And Pitt wears elevator shoes so he looks 6-1.
Clint has shrunk a lot. At least 3 inches, possibly 4. And Pitt wears elevator shoes so he looks 6-1.
Newcomer said on 5/Jan/09
hey guys i just saw this picture here:
Click Here
Does this mean Clint has shrunk to Pitt's height or has Pitt gained height?
hey guys i just saw this picture here:
Click Here
Does this mean Clint has shrunk to Pitt's height or has Pitt gained height?
Hugh said on 5/Jan/09
Same with me Adam. My height fluctuates. I'm really 6ft2.75 but I have been described as high as 6ft4. BW 182cm! get real!
Same with me Adam. My height fluctuates. I'm really 6ft2.75 but I have been described as high as 6ft4. BW 182cm! get real!
Mister Lennon said on 1/Jan/09
Clint looked the same than Sutherland in Kelly's heroes. But,in space cowboys, Sutherland looked a little bit taller than Eastwood.
I still guess a solid 6'3 guy at peak for Clint, and now about 6'1 or 6'1 and a half.
Clint looked the same than Sutherland in Kelly's heroes. But,in space cowboys, Sutherland looked a little bit taller than Eastwood.
I still guess a solid 6'3 guy at peak for Clint, and now about 6'1 or 6'1 and a half.
adam said on 1/Jan/09
BW, the difference there isn
BW, the difference there isn
Hugh said on 14/Dec/08
I'd say Eastwood was a little over 6ft3 during the late 80's. These days I'm going to put my money on a daring 187cm.
I'd say Eastwood was a little over 6ft3 during the late 80's. These days I'm going to put my money on a daring 187cm.
Hugh said on 11/Dec/08
Yeah but by then Clint had lost a cnetimtere or so. But peakwise he was definately 6ft4.
Yeah but by then Clint had lost a cnetimtere or so. But peakwise he was definately 6ft4.
Mister Lennon said on 10/Dec/08
I agree with Neeson being a solid 6'4 guy.
But not with Eastwood being 6'4 too. He always looked a solid 6'3 guy, not a full 6'4, but close. In the dead pool, Neeson had an inch or close on clint.
I agree with Neeson being a solid 6'4 guy.
But not with Eastwood being 6'4 too. He always looked a solid 6'3 guy, not a full 6'4, but close. In the dead pool, Neeson had an inch or close on clint.
Lenad said on 10/Dec/08
A solid 189cm if not a bit more for his peak. Probably a proper 190cm guy back then.
A solid 189cm if not a bit more for his peak. Probably a proper 190cm guy back then.
mike c said on 9/Dec/08
How did he look, Glen?
How did he look, Glen?
glenn said on 9/Dec/08
sounds extreme,but possible.bumped into him in the street 2 weeks ago.
sounds extreme,but possible.bumped into him in the street 2 weeks ago.
adam said on 9/Dec/08
James, I agree. Neeson was definitely around 194cm peak. Clint was 6-4.
James, I agree. Neeson was definitely around 194cm peak. Clint was 6-4.
Baz said on 8/Dec/08
Dead Pool: exact same height on flat gound, chaps. Check it carefully. As I have said many times before, every actor in the world who has ever stood next to Mr E must be inflating their own heights by 2" as well. What are the chances? Slim & none, with slim being out of town!!! Article recently in the UK sunday paper The Observer had an interview with Mr E The interviewer said "he is one of the few actors who is as tall as he seems on screen"
Dead Pool: exact same height on flat gound, chaps. Check it carefully. As I have said many times before, every actor in the world who has ever stood next to Mr E must be inflating their own heights by 2" as well. What are the chances? Slim & none, with slim being out of town!!! Article recently in the UK sunday paper The Observer had an interview with Mr E The interviewer said "he is one of the few actors who is as tall as he seems on screen"
adam said on 7/Dec/08
You can`t spot a half an inch difference, Anonymous. But I agree with you -Clint was 6-4 peak.
You can`t spot a half an inch difference, Anonymous. But I agree with you -Clint was 6-4 peak.
Anonymous said on 5/Dec/08
James, I would say in that scene from The Dead Pool that the difference is not even an inch between Neeson and Clint. I would say half an inch at best. There's absolutely no question to me that Clint was once 6'4".
James, I would say in that scene from The Dead Pool that the difference is not even an inch between Neeson and Clint. I would say half an inch at best. There's absolutely no question to me that Clint was once 6'4".
adam said on 29/Nov/08
George Kennedy was a huge man. At least 6-4. If Clint was the same height as him then there`s nothing to argue about.
George Kennedy was a huge man. At least 6-4. If Clint was the same height as him then there`s nothing to argue about.
Baz said on 27/Nov/08
Harry. how do you explain Eastwood being the exact same height as both George Kennedy & Greg Walcott, who are both known to be 6'4". Unless they, like eeryone, is lying about their height. Highly unlikely.
Harry. how do you explain Eastwood being the exact same height as both George Kennedy & Greg Walcott, who are both known to be 6'4". Unless they, like eeryone, is lying about their height. Highly unlikely.
harry said on 27/Nov/08
Please refer to Click Here and see an old picture of Clint and Arnie together - I rest my case, the guy is 6'2". Now compare it with the new recent pictures of Arnie and Clint gracing the net;there is no noticeable difference is there. He hasn't shrunk or suffered back problems - come on you people. He's a hollywood icon for God's Sake. It's what you want to believe. It's all about the Clint mystique guys. Now, I'm sure your'e all going to say yeah Harry, whatever man, why don't you put a sock in it, oh, and you may also say well, these pitures have been messed with and people are always creating misleading images etc, on the net. But I think it is plain to see here that the guy was never 6ft4in tall;always has been 6'2", and may I add;he still is!
Please refer to Click Here and see an old picture of Clint and Arnie together - I rest my case, the guy is 6'2". Now compare it with the new recent pictures of Arnie and Clint gracing the net;there is no noticeable difference is there. He hasn't shrunk or suffered back problems - come on you people. He's a hollywood icon for God's Sake. It's what you want to believe. It's all about the Clint mystique guys. Now, I'm sure your'e all going to say yeah Harry, whatever man, why don't you put a sock in it, oh, and you may also say well, these pitures have been messed with and people are always creating misleading images etc, on the net. But I think it is plain to see here that the guy was never 6ft4in tall;always has been 6'2", and may I add;he still is!
Mike said on 27/Nov/08
...by the way, maybe more like 409 or 50 years ago, 6'2 WAS really big. My uncle had a TERRIBLE time buying clothes and shoes. Nevertheless, I'd still put Eastwood at 6'4 peak, and no way is he just 6 foot now.
...by the way, maybe more like 409 or 50 years ago, 6'2 WAS really big. My uncle had a TERRIBLE time buying clothes and shoes. Nevertheless, I'd still put Eastwood at 6'4 peak, and no way is he just 6 foot now.
Mike said on 27/Nov/08
...I've yet to read about "well documented back problems". Not saying they're not true, but I haven't read one word about Eastwood having back problems, and I'm a 43 year old who keeps tabs on various stars I grew up watching, like Garner (well documented back problems, and now stroke).
...I've yet to read about "well documented back problems". Not saying they're not true, but I haven't read one word about Eastwood having back problems, and I'm a 43 year old who keeps tabs on various stars I grew up watching, like Garner (well documented back problems, and now stroke).
Scott said on 26/Nov/08
In 'Escape From Alcatraz' Eastwood looked a solid 2 inches taller than Patrick McGoohan who is definitely at least 6'1.
CE was possibly 6'3.75 in his prime.
But I think we can all forgive this icon for rounding up a couple of mm?
In 'Escape From Alcatraz' Eastwood looked a solid 2 inches taller than Patrick McGoohan who is definitely at least 6'1.
CE was possibly 6'3.75 in his prime.
But I think we can all forgive this icon for rounding up a couple of mm?
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.