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)
Baz said on 26/Nov/08
Adam: someone talkng sense at last! The posture aspect is spot on. Mr E always walked in a slouchy way & his spine seemed to curve both inwards & to the right, making him walk "short". I was watching the Eiger Sanction the other day & when Mr E was standing nose to nose with Greg Walcott, who IS 6'4", he is exactly the same height. The same applies to scenes with big George Kennedy. Yet, when he walks next to Kennedy he is shorter due to his posture when walking.
Also, a good point about Van Cleef. He, like every actor in the world, must be lying about his height by 2 inches if Mr E is only 6'2". What are the odds on every actor being 2" shorter than listed? About the same as me swiming to the moon! Doubters, get over it. The man WAS 6'4" & due to well documented back problems is between 6'1" & 6'2" - FACT!!! Just look at scenes with other tall actors on flat ground. Even in the oft quoted Dead Pool, look at the scene outside the freezer warehouse when him & Neeson first meet. Mr E looks 2" shorter when walking next to Neeson, but when he stands next to him he is the same height. I`m sure we'll have the "he wears lifts" or "he was on stilts" cobblers that some seem to dream up but, as said before, LOOK CAREFULLY!!! 6'4" as was, bit less now. Cheers guys!
Adam: someone talkng sense at last! The posture aspect is spot on. Mr E always walked in a slouchy way & his spine seemed to curve both inwards & to the right, making him walk "short". I was watching the Eiger Sanction the other day & when Mr E was standing nose to nose with Greg Walcott, who IS 6'4", he is exactly the same height. The same applies to scenes with big George Kennedy. Yet, when he walks next to Kennedy he is shorter due to his posture when walking.
Also, a good point about Van Cleef. He, like every actor in the world, must be lying about his height by 2 inches if Mr E is only 6'2". What are the odds on every actor being 2" shorter than listed? About the same as me swiming to the moon! Doubters, get over it. The man WAS 6'4" & due to well documented back problems is between 6'1" & 6'2" - FACT!!! Just look at scenes with other tall actors on flat ground. Even in the oft quoted Dead Pool, look at the scene outside the freezer warehouse when him & Neeson first meet. Mr E looks 2" shorter when walking next to Neeson, but when he stands next to him he is the same height. I`m sure we'll have the "he wears lifts" or "he was on stilts" cobblers that some seem to dream up but, as said before, LOOK CAREFULLY!!! 6'4" as was, bit less now. Cheers guys!
adam said on 26/Nov/08
Harry 6-2 wasn
Harry 6-2 wasn
harry said on 26/Nov/08
Look Eastwood was and always has been 6'2". He's always looked tall, because that is tall. Average height for UK guys 5'9" (1.75m);average height for US guys 5'10" 1.78m). Eastwood was peak 6'2.5" peak up to his 60's, then by now 78years plus he has lost perhaps an inch!. Still 6'1 -6'1.5 (1.85-187m)now today. Watched all 3 of the western trilogy from the 60's. You can palinly see he was about the magic 6'4" in his cowboy heels. I agree George E. My dad is in his early 70's and he's still a solid 6'2". I know that he's only lost about an inch. Because I can look him level in the eye in the last few years.
what about John cleese another famous 6'4" celebrity he knocking 70 and he hasn't shrunk! Look on Bradd Pitt's Celeb height chart;even George clooney has admitted that the guys height can change to 6'1"(which means he's wearing lifts. This 6'4" business is something that has got in to the peoples 'subconcious psychy;a permeated myth that is all part of the Clint Eastwood mythology. He was 6'2" 1.88m. Today this is still recognised as tall, but over 30 years ago. 6'2" was incredibly tall.
Look Eastwood was and always has been 6'2". He's always looked tall, because that is tall. Average height for UK guys 5'9" (1.75m);average height for US guys 5'10" 1.78m). Eastwood was peak 6'2.5" peak up to his 60's, then by now 78years plus he has lost perhaps an inch!. Still 6'1 -6'1.5 (1.85-187m)now today. Watched all 3 of the western trilogy from the 60's. You can palinly see he was about the magic 6'4" in his cowboy heels. I agree George E. My dad is in his early 70's and he's still a solid 6'2". I know that he's only lost about an inch. Because I can look him level in the eye in the last few years.
what about John cleese another famous 6'4" celebrity he knocking 70 and he hasn't shrunk! Look on Bradd Pitt's Celeb height chart;even George clooney has admitted that the guys height can change to 6'1"(which means he's wearing lifts. This 6'4" business is something that has got in to the peoples 'subconcious psychy;a permeated myth that is all part of the Clint Eastwood mythology. He was 6'2" 1.88m. Today this is still recognised as tall, but over 30 years ago. 6'2" was incredibly tall.
Mike said on 25/Nov/08
...I just looked at the much talked about Eastwood/Pitt pic. No way. I don't believe it for one second. What...Eastwood is now like 5'10?? No way. It's either trick photography, Pitt is on a box, Pitt is wearing lifts or we're all collectively nuts. But no way is Pitt bigger than Dirty Harry.
...I just looked at the much talked about Eastwood/Pitt pic. No way. I don't believe it for one second. What...Eastwood is now like 5'10?? No way. It's either trick photography, Pitt is on a box, Pitt is wearing lifts or we're all collectively nuts. But no way is Pitt bigger than Dirty Harry.
Mister Lennon said on 25/Nov/08
Danimal, why i could want that Clint is shorter than he is?? Thats is non sense. I posted that because i think that and that is my impression of his movies at his peak, a strong 6'3.
Danimal, why i could want that Clint is shorter than he is?? Thats is non sense. I posted that because i think that and that is my impression of his movies at his peak, a strong 6'3.
George H. said on 25/Nov/08
Pitt is a known heel (outside) and lift (inside) wearer. Just compare him to Morgan Freeman in Seven where he's several inches shorter and then a year or something later he and Freeman were photographed at an award show or premiere and Pitt was about half an inch TALLER than Freeman! And don't give me that **** that Freeman is in his seventies and therefore lost height, because not everybody loses height as they get older. I have plenty examples of that amongst my friends and relatives.
Pitt is a known heel (outside) and lift (inside) wearer. Just compare him to Morgan Freeman in Seven where he's several inches shorter and then a year or something later he and Freeman were photographed at an award show or premiere and Pitt was about half an inch TALLER than Freeman! And don't give me that **** that Freeman is in his seventies and therefore lost height, because not everybody loses height as they get older. I have plenty examples of that amongst my friends and relatives.
Danimal said on 24/Nov/08
Mister Lennon says on 21/Nov/08
I think that Clint was 6'3 or 6'3 and a half at peak and now 6'1 or so. He didnt look a full 6'4. Probably a strong 6'3, but i dont think that he was a 6'4 guy at his peak.
You don't think he was, or you just don't want him to be?
Mister Lennon says on 21/Nov/08
I think that Clint was 6'3 or 6'3 and a half at peak and now 6'1 or so. He didnt look a full 6'4. Probably a strong 6'3, but i dont think that he was a 6'4 guy at his peak.
You don't think he was, or you just don't want him to be?
Elf said on 24/Nov/08
The pics with Pitt really are freaky. He looks no taller than 5 ft 11. I'd have expected him to have towered above Pitt. Yet Pitt looks 1.5 inches taller. Weird. How could a genuine 6 ft 4 inch man have lost 4-5 inches in height? Back trouble or not that is an extreme amount of height to lose. Christopher Lee is even older but does he look near 6 foot flat these days? No! Lee is still 6'3" at least. Except for the odd scene I think most of us agree that Eastwood was never a full 6'4" barefoot. In most of his films he always looked 6'3" max I think, perhaps 6'4" in large cowboy boots only which is what he was probably measured in. If I had never seen him before and saw him on film for the first time I'd have estimated 6'2 and a half" - 6'3".
The pics with Pitt really are freaky. He looks no taller than 5 ft 11. I'd have expected him to have towered above Pitt. Yet Pitt looks 1.5 inches taller. Weird. How could a genuine 6 ft 4 inch man have lost 4-5 inches in height? Back trouble or not that is an extreme amount of height to lose. Christopher Lee is even older but does he look near 6 foot flat these days? No! Lee is still 6'3" at least. Except for the odd scene I think most of us agree that Eastwood was never a full 6'4" barefoot. In most of his films he always looked 6'3" max I think, perhaps 6'4" in large cowboy boots only which is what he was probably measured in. If I had never seen him before and saw him on film for the first time I'd have estimated 6'2 and a half" - 6'3".
adam said on 24/Nov/08
In DIRTY HARRY he is taller than the 6-3 Gonzales guy. And once again: He was taller than Lee Van Cleef, Gian Maria Volonte, Donald Sutherland (?), Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman and so on... The man was 6-4 peak. Nowadays a lot shorter.
In DIRTY HARRY he is taller than the 6-3 Gonzales guy. And once again: He was taller than Lee Van Cleef, Gian Maria Volonte, Donald Sutherland (?), Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman and so on... The man was 6-4 peak. Nowadays a lot shorter.
harry said on 24/Nov/08
That picture of Pitt next to Clint angelina, we really don't know if they were fooling around, you know Bradd could have been on tip toe, sp giving the appearance of being taller. we can't see the floor. He was probably goofing around and stood for the picture stretched up to 4inches on his tip toes. It may have been a little joke they were secretly having with each other. Mind you know, having said this, what about those famous pictures recently from the guardian with Arnold Scwhenegger(apologies for the spelling), what was going on there: they looked level height. Very strange indeed. But I still maintain that he was around 189cm peak. Watched him in Dirty Harry and The Enforcer again last night. You've got to admit the guys bloody class isn't he.
That picture of Pitt next to Clint angelina, we really don't know if they were fooling around, you know Bradd could have been on tip toe, sp giving the appearance of being taller. we can't see the floor. He was probably goofing around and stood for the picture stretched up to 4inches on his tip toes. It may have been a little joke they were secretly having with each other. Mind you know, having said this, what about those famous pictures recently from the guardian with Arnold Scwhenegger(apologies for the spelling), what was going on there: they looked level height. Very strange indeed. But I still maintain that he was around 189cm peak. Watched him in Dirty Harry and The Enforcer again last night. You've got to admit the guys bloody class isn't he.
Hugh said on 23/Nov/08
He still looks close to 6ft2 at times. I think 186-187cm is possible.
He still looks close to 6ft2 at times. I think 186-187cm is possible.
Mister Lennon said on 21/Nov/08
I think that Clint was 6'3 or 6'3 and a half at peak and now 6'1 or so. He didnt look a full 6'4. Probably a strong 6'3, but i dont think that he was a 6'4 guy at his peak.
I think that Clint was 6'3 or 6'3 and a half at peak and now 6'1 or so. He didnt look a full 6'4. Probably a strong 6'3, but i dont think that he was a 6'4 guy at his peak.
adam said on 21/Nov/08
Harry, good post but I disagree: Clint was more than 6-2 peak. And yes, he has lost a HUGE amount of height. That is extremelly rare but not impossible by no means.
That what you told about height loss is pretty much true but as usual -things won`t go by the book in every single cases. Clint has lost over 3 inches now, I think it`s pretty obvious.
If he were only 6-2, then we would have to downgrade so many actors. Around 6-4 peak and nowadays barely six feet or something. Life is so very strange.
Harry, good post but I disagree: Clint was more than 6-2 peak. And yes, he has lost a HUGE amount of height. That is extremelly rare but not impossible by no means.
That what you told about height loss is pretty much true but as usual -things won`t go by the book in every single cases. Clint has lost over 3 inches now, I think it`s pretty obvious.
If he were only 6-2, then we would have to downgrade so many actors. Around 6-4 peak and nowadays barely six feet or something. Life is so very strange.
harry said on 21/Nov/08
You know, I think it's pretty obvious that the guy was(as a younger man,188 cm),always has been throughout his entire working life. According to the medical association: men lose 1cm after 40years of age a decade. A healthy male may just lose 1". But sometimes due to bad bones(osteoperosis), this may be more extreme, something like 3" which is a significant amount. Height loss increases more after 70 years of age. Now Eastwood is 78 plus, so I think he may have lost uo to 5cm in all. (2"). But he has always been a healthy guy, so he may only have lost 1". So, today he is possibly 6'0" 183cm to 6'1" 185cm barefoot. Once again, I think he has always been 6'2" until about his 70's with the bodies natural shrinkage. 1" to 3" shrinkage can occur depending on the individual. 3" shrinkage usually only happens in the more extreme cases of bad genes. That picture with Brad Pitt makes him appear top be at least 1.5" shorter than Pitt. But if Clint has shrunk at least 2" making him 6'1" in shoes, then it is possible for a 5'10" bloke with the appropiate lifts to slightly be a shade taller that Clint. I think Brad Pitt is and has always been around the 5'10" mark.
You know, I think it's pretty obvious that the guy was(as a younger man,188 cm),always has been throughout his entire working life. According to the medical association: men lose 1cm after 40years of age a decade. A healthy male may just lose 1". But sometimes due to bad bones(osteoperosis), this may be more extreme, something like 3" which is a significant amount. Height loss increases more after 70 years of age. Now Eastwood is 78 plus, so I think he may have lost uo to 5cm in all. (2"). But he has always been a healthy guy, so he may only have lost 1". So, today he is possibly 6'0" 183cm to 6'1" 185cm barefoot. Once again, I think he has always been 6'2" until about his 70's with the bodies natural shrinkage. 1" to 3" shrinkage can occur depending on the individual. 3" shrinkage usually only happens in the more extreme cases of bad genes. That picture with Brad Pitt makes him appear top be at least 1.5" shorter than Pitt. But if Clint has shrunk at least 2" making him 6'1" in shoes, then it is possible for a 5'10" bloke with the appropiate lifts to slightly be a shade taller that Clint. I think Brad Pitt is and has always been around the 5'10" mark.
glenn said on 20/Nov/08
6-4 in 1992.tallest man at a party.towered everyone and made it obvious.now seems 6ft to me.so yeah,6-5 with the dress shoes.i agree,in movies he looked 6-3.
6-4 in 1992.tallest man at a party.towered everyone and made it obvious.now seems 6ft to me.so yeah,6-5 with the dress shoes.i agree,in movies he looked 6-3.
Ed T. said on 20/Nov/08
Ed(1), I don't think your wrong. Although, I might give Eastwood a 6'3.5" peak as opposed to a 6'3" flat. I think your pretty accurate with a 6'1-6'2" impression of Van Cleef.
Although I have not seen "Any Which Way You Can", 1980, in some time, I had the impression that Eastwood was not that much taller than William Smith ( who played Jack Wilson ). I have seen William Smith listed at 6'2". I did not get the impression that Clint was a full two inches taller than Smith ( maybe one inch or a little more than one inch). I could be wrong, as it has been a while since I have seen that film.
Ed(1), I don't think your wrong. Although, I might give Eastwood a 6'3.5" peak as opposed to a 6'3" flat. I think your pretty accurate with a 6'1-6'2" impression of Van Cleef.
Although I have not seen "Any Which Way You Can", 1980, in some time, I had the impression that Eastwood was not that much taller than William Smith ( who played Jack Wilson ). I have seen William Smith listed at 6'2". I did not get the impression that Clint was a full two inches taller than Smith ( maybe one inch or a little more than one inch). I could be wrong, as it has been a while since I have seen that film.
Ed(1) said on 20/Nov/08
Maybe he was 6ft4, but I can't say I've ever seen it, except for in his western films when he wore cowboy boots! In my opinion the majority of the time Eastwood has looked 6ft2-6ft3 tops, and I honestly can say I've never got the impression of a legit 6ft4 guy like Jeff Goldblum, Liam Neeson, or Christopher Reeve when watching him on screen! Maybe I'm wrong though?
Glenn you said he looked 6ft4 when you saw him, how long ago was this? Also is that 6ft4 with his shoes on, or more like 6ft5 making him 6ft4 barefoot?
Adam,
Van Cleef looked 6ft1-6ft2 to me, so if Eastwood was pushing 6ft3 back in the late 60's-mid 70's, that's how he could appear taller!
Maybe he was 6ft4, but I can't say I've ever seen it, except for in his western films when he wore cowboy boots! In my opinion the majority of the time Eastwood has looked 6ft2-6ft3 tops, and I honestly can say I've never got the impression of a legit 6ft4 guy like Jeff Goldblum, Liam Neeson, or Christopher Reeve when watching him on screen! Maybe I'm wrong though?
Glenn you said he looked 6ft4 when you saw him, how long ago was this? Also is that 6ft4 with his shoes on, or more like 6ft5 making him 6ft4 barefoot?
Adam,
Van Cleef looked 6ft1-6ft2 to me, so if Eastwood was pushing 6ft3 back in the late 60's-mid 70's, that's how he could appear taller!
Brad said on 20/Nov/08
He was taller than Lee Van Cleef who wasn't lower than 6' 2". Put the cowboy boots on: he was a building in '65. He owned all the Italian & Spain actors big.
He was taller than Lee Van Cleef who wasn't lower than 6' 2". Put the cowboy boots on: he was a building in '65. He owned all the Italian & Spain actors big.
Ed(1) said on 19/Nov/08
In The Dead Pool he looked to be about 1-1.5" shorter then Neeson(6ft4), who was slouching as usual in that film! I could see him at 6ft2.5 in 1988, with a consistent decline since then. I guess it's possible Neeson could have been 6ft4.5?
Yeah that pic with Pitt his hysterical! Pitt looks to have him by 2", so that really makes me wonder about Eastwood's current height. If Pitt is 5ft11, and was wearing say 2" heeled boots he'd be around 6ft1, making Eastwood only 5ft11 these days! That seems off! I don't know what to make of that photo, because I seriously doubt Pitt has 4" lifts! LOL
In The Dead Pool he looked to be about 1-1.5" shorter then Neeson(6ft4), who was slouching as usual in that film! I could see him at 6ft2.5 in 1988, with a consistent decline since then. I guess it's possible Neeson could have been 6ft4.5?
Yeah that pic with Pitt his hysterical! Pitt looks to have him by 2", so that really makes me wonder about Eastwood's current height. If Pitt is 5ft11, and was wearing say 2" heeled boots he'd be around 6ft1, making Eastwood only 5ft11 these days! That seems off! I don't know what to make of that photo, because I seriously doubt Pitt has 4" lifts! LOL
adam said on 19/Nov/08
Then how do you explain that he was taller than Lee Van Cleef. Van Cleef was according to Frank2 a close 6-3!
Then how do you explain that he was taller than Lee Van Cleef. Van Cleef was according to Frank2 a close 6-3!
Ed(1) said on 19/Nov/08
Magnum Force was on TV last night, and to be honest Clint looked maybe 6ft3 tops in that film, and that was with his bushy hair! I really have a hard time buying the 6ft4 peak height. Maybe he was that in cowboy boots, but barefoot I don't think so! That would make him 6ft5.5 6ft6 in his cowboy boots back in the late 60's-mid 70's!
Now a days he looks around 6ft. Check out this recent pic with Brad Pitt, who's definitely wearing some serious lifts? LOL
Click Here
Magnum Force was on TV last night, and to be honest Clint looked maybe 6ft3 tops in that film, and that was with his bushy hair! I really have a hard time buying the 6ft4 peak height. Maybe he was that in cowboy boots, but barefoot I don't think so! That would make him 6ft5.5 6ft6 in his cowboy boots back in the late 60's-mid 70's!
Now a days he looks around 6ft. Check out this recent pic with Brad Pitt, who's definitely wearing some serious lifts? LOL
Click Here
RisingForce said on 19/Nov/08
Well he was 63 then so it's possible.
Well he was 63 then so it's possible.
RisingForce said on 16/Nov/08
In this article from 1993 Clint is listed as 6'3"
Click Here
Then again Charlie Sheen is listed as 5'10" in it and Jason Scott Lee is listed as 5'11" and those probably aren't correct.
In this article from 1993 Clint is listed as 6'3"
Click Here
Then again Charlie Sheen is listed as 5'10" in it and Jason Scott Lee is listed as 5'11" and those probably aren't correct.
adam said on 16/Nov/08
Eastwood was 6-4. What is this BS that he DIDNT look 6-4 in the Dollars trilogy. The man was about two inches taller than Lee Van Cleef who isn`t under 6-2. Frank2 even said that he thought that Van Cleef was closer to 6-3!
Eastwood was 6-4. What is this BS that he DIDNT look 6-4 in the Dollars trilogy. The man was about two inches taller than Lee Van Cleef who isn`t under 6-2. Frank2 even said that he thought that Van Cleef was closer to 6-3!
Elf said on 15/Nov/08
Just seen in the line of Fire. The scene where Eastwood and Dylan McDermott enter the apartment Eastwood looks every inch 6'4". He is roughly two inches off the door frame and looks a full four inches taller than his co-star. He looks like a 6'4" guy in that example
Just seen in the line of Fire. The scene where Eastwood and Dylan McDermott enter the apartment Eastwood looks every inch 6'4". He is roughly two inches off the door frame and looks a full four inches taller than his co-star. He looks like a 6'4" guy in that example
Russ said on 12/Nov/08
OK Eastwood fans. I am going to tell a true story (again), that I posted here about a year ago. Way back in the 1970's I was on camping trip with my friends. We were in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. As I was walking into a sporting goods store, I saw some people coming out of the store. I opened and held the door for them. As I looked up, I realized it was Clint Eastwood (with a gal pal). He looked at me and said, "Thank you". I replied with, "You're welcome, Mr Eastwood". As they were walking away, I heard the woman say, "Who was that?". I think Clint said, "I don't know..".
As I entered the sporting goods store, some of the gals inside were going crazy with excitement. Yet, some people didn't have a clue as to what was going on. Anyway, Clint was not only tall, he was pretty big across the shoulders: a good 6'3" and not skinny.
OK Eastwood fans. I am going to tell a true story (again), that I posted here about a year ago. Way back in the 1970's I was on camping trip with my friends. We were in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. As I was walking into a sporting goods store, I saw some people coming out of the store. I opened and held the door for them. As I looked up, I realized it was Clint Eastwood (with a gal pal). He looked at me and said, "Thank you". I replied with, "You're welcome, Mr Eastwood". As they were walking away, I heard the woman say, "Who was that?". I think Clint said, "I don't know..".
As I entered the sporting goods store, some of the gals inside were going crazy with excitement. Yet, some people didn't have a clue as to what was going on. Anyway, Clint was not only tall, he was pretty big across the shoulders: a good 6'3" and not skinny.
Hugh said on 11/Nov/08
In Leung's defense. Freeman was taller than Clint in Million Dollar Baby. As of 1994 Clint was 6ft3 to 6ft3.5.
In Leung's defense. Freeman was taller than Clint in Million Dollar Baby. As of 1994 Clint was 6ft3 to 6ft3.5.
Leung said on 10/Nov/08
If I recall correctly Freeman is taller than Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby.
If I recall correctly Freeman is taller than Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby.
Elf said on 10/Nov/08
I agree Stevo
I agree Stevo
stevo said on 10/Nov/08
wow 6'4? he never looked it. id buy 6'2. 6 ' 3 is pushing it.
wow 6'4? he never looked it. id buy 6'2. 6 ' 3 is pushing it.
Elf said on 6/Nov/08
Interesting Harry. I;ve always seen Dylan Mcdermot as under 6 foot, so it wouldn't be difficult for Eastwood to tower above him. This is exactly what I'm referring to when a lot of the time Eastwood looks 6'2" rather than 6'4" compared to other people but occasionally there are scenes when he looks very tall. In most of Bridges over Madison County he looked 6'2" rather than 6'4" in 1995 too. 6'4" is a very high claim, but we know this couldn't have been a genuine barefoot measurment otherwise he would consistently be looking 6'5"+ and be close to Fred Thompson's height.
Interesting Harry. I;ve always seen Dylan Mcdermot as under 6 foot, so it wouldn't be difficult for Eastwood to tower above him. This is exactly what I'm referring to when a lot of the time Eastwood looks 6'2" rather than 6'4" compared to other people but occasionally there are scenes when he looks very tall. In most of Bridges over Madison County he looked 6'2" rather than 6'4" in 1995 too. 6'4" is a very high claim, but we know this couldn't have been a genuine barefoot measurment otherwise he would consistently be looking 6'5"+ and be close to Fred Thompson's height.
Vibram said on 6/Nov/08
Eastwood still looked peak height of 6ft3.75 in the late 1970's and early 80's when he was 50 and began bulking up for the Alcatraz and Any Which Way films.
Even at 62/63 he had slimmed somewhat but looked 3.5" taller than 5ft11 Dylan McDermott in the film In The Line Of Fire (1993). He began hitting the gym again and looked more muscular at the grand age of 70 in Space Cowboys where his bent spine was obvious. Looks 6ft these days, so just under 4" loss in total.
Eastwood still looked peak height of 6ft3.75 in the late 1970's and early 80's when he was 50 and began bulking up for the Alcatraz and Any Which Way films.
Even at 62/63 he had slimmed somewhat but looked 3.5" taller than 5ft11 Dylan McDermott in the film In The Line Of Fire (1993). He began hitting the gym again and looked more muscular at the grand age of 70 in Space Cowboys where his bent spine was obvious. Looks 6ft these days, so just under 4" loss in total.
harry said on 6/Nov/08
I wonder if Mr Eastwood has ever visited this sight. Now I would love to hear his comments. But we know that he'd say he was 6'4". Dammit!
I wonder if Mr Eastwood has ever visited this sight. Now I would love to hear his comments. But we know that he'd say he was 6'4". Dammit!
harry said on 6/Nov/08
Exactly Elf. I've just watched in the "line of Fire"(another great film from the old pro). His co stars in thatDylan Mcdermot(listed as 6'), and Rene russo (5'8") respevtively give a great indication to the tall man's stature. Next to Rene(scene at the window he looks 6'2". There are the other scenes of Clint walking down corridors next to Dylan Mcdermot were he looks every bit the 6'4". But, then we get other scenes were there only appears to be a small 2inches between them. I don't believe that dylan mcdermot is 6'0". Does any body else feel this to be true? Oh, and lest we forget the brief, but interseting height discrepancy between Fred Thompson and Clint towards the end of the film. Now Fred Dalton Thompson is listed a a giant 6'6" of a man. but others have said that this is more like 6'4.5". there is atleast 4" height difference there. I am interested though to find out how this 1.88 height came from regarding Mr Eastwood - it just appeared.
Exactly Elf. I've just watched in the "line of Fire"(another great film from the old pro). His co stars in thatDylan Mcdermot(listed as 6'), and Rene russo (5'8") respevtively give a great indication to the tall man's stature. Next to Rene(scene at the window he looks 6'2". There are the other scenes of Clint walking down corridors next to Dylan Mcdermot were he looks every bit the 6'4". But, then we get other scenes were there only appears to be a small 2inches between them. I don't believe that dylan mcdermot is 6'0". Does any body else feel this to be true? Oh, and lest we forget the brief, but interseting height discrepancy between Fred Thompson and Clint towards the end of the film. Now Fred Dalton Thompson is listed a a giant 6'6" of a man. but others have said that this is more like 6'4.5". there is atleast 4" height difference there. I am interested though to find out how this 1.88 height came from regarding Mr Eastwood - it just appeared.
Elf said on 4/Nov/08
I agree completely Harry. In old Hollywood even today, there is often the 2 inch inflation trick, many stars are billed two inches taller than they actually are. I personally think Eastwood though is not the sort of man who would exaggerate his height. I genuinely think he was 6'3 barefoot and 6 ft 4 in footwear at his peak the same as yourself. This is perhaps how he was always measured. Facing the facts if Eastwood was a genuine 6'4 barefoot, he'd be an easy 6'5 in normal shoes all of the time, possibly 6 ft 6 in boots for many of his films. He has never looked this tall except for the odd scene in the Dollars trilogy when he was wearing a hat and had on thick boots but he was clearly never as tall as this. If he was 6ft2.5 -6 ft 3 barefoot he'd be hitting bang on 6'4 for every time he is on film and for most of his life.
I agree completely Harry. In old Hollywood even today, there is often the 2 inch inflation trick, many stars are billed two inches taller than they actually are. I personally think Eastwood though is not the sort of man who would exaggerate his height. I genuinely think he was 6'3 barefoot and 6 ft 4 in footwear at his peak the same as yourself. This is perhaps how he was always measured. Facing the facts if Eastwood was a genuine 6'4 barefoot, he'd be an easy 6'5 in normal shoes all of the time, possibly 6 ft 6 in boots for many of his films. He has never looked this tall except for the odd scene in the Dollars trilogy when he was wearing a hat and had on thick boots but he was clearly never as tall as this. If he was 6ft2.5 -6 ft 3 barefoot he'd be hitting bang on 6'4 for every time he is on film and for most of his life.
harry said on 4/Nov/08
Baz: Interesting stuff, yeah, but, How would Sondra Locke really know his true height unless she phsyically wipped out the steel tape measure and and asked him. Don't forget Clint was probably 6'2.5" as I have said, So, he was practically a giant of a man to her. Why should she question this? But there is a brilliant scene- as you will know - which is a great indicator of his physical stature: the one in the bedroom where he is stood opposite his female co-star(both in bare feet, he is in his underwear). Now I don't know the height of the female actress and her name as escaped my memory, but she came up to the top of his eyebrows. Making her a good 5'8" or 5'9". But having said all that though, wasn't that a great film?
Baz: Interesting stuff, yeah, but, How would Sondra Locke really know his true height unless she phsyically wipped out the steel tape measure and and asked him. Don't forget Clint was probably 6'2.5" as I have said, So, he was practically a giant of a man to her. Why should she question this? But there is a brilliant scene- as you will know - which is a great indicator of his physical stature: the one in the bedroom where he is stood opposite his female co-star(both in bare feet, he is in his underwear). Now I don't know the height of the female actress and her name as escaped my memory, but she came up to the top of his eyebrows. Making her a good 5'8" or 5'9". But having said all that though, wasn't that a great film?
Elf said on 2/Nov/08
Yup I watched Pale Rider last night and Clint is roughly half an inch taller than Morirarty. Yet both men in watching them don't look as tall as 6'4, certainly not Morirarty. They look 6'3 max. In some of the scenes from a distance although there is no facial resemblance, Clint's figure reminded me a bit of Julian Glover who I believe is 6'3.
Yup I watched Pale Rider last night and Clint is roughly half an inch taller than Morirarty. Yet both men in watching them don't look as tall as 6'4, certainly not Morirarty. They look 6'3 max. In some of the scenes from a distance although there is no facial resemblance, Clint's figure reminded me a bit of Julian Glover who I believe is 6'3.
Elf said on 1/Nov/08
I've been watching a few of Clints older films recently. The boots and the hat and long coat can really give an impression of being 2-3 inches taller he really does look 6ft 4 - 6 ft 5 in Dollars trilogy. but I've looked at scenes with him in without a hat and it isn't impossible to think he may have been near this height at his peak. He measured up to all the guys who were supposedly 6'4. About half an inch shorter than George Kennedy in 1975 who I;ve mostly seen listed as 6'4.5, he actually looked about half an inch taller than Moriarty, and all the guys like Vincent Price and Donald Sutherland who were listed at 6'4 at peak and it always seems to be about right. Yet i often see pictures of Clint in normal clothes with family members or other actors outside of films and he nevers looks the towering figure you'd expect from a full 6'4 guy even before he lost a few inches due to back problems. I stand by the belief that he was genuinely measured 6'4 in shoes/boots when he was a lot younger and in reality stood 6ft2.5 - 6'3 maximum barefoot at peak as did many of the guys given a full 6'4. This way it would be easy to appear 6'4 throughout much of his career alongside other cast member who were probably measured the same way. A genuine 6 ft 4 barefoot and with no tippy toes and a tight marker on the top of the head really is very very tall check it out. If he was this height he would look towering to guys even who are 6ft, but he didn't and as rightly said below many of the guys in those Italian westerns were typically short guys that you see in countries like Italy and Spain. I'm 6 ft 1.5 barefoot and with Timberland boots and good posture I am verging on 6'3 and look it to most but I'm not! BTW anybody know the height of Mario Brega, the tall, fat prison guard from GBU? I've heard he was between 6ft2-6 ft4 but Clint looked a little taller.
I've been watching a few of Clints older films recently. The boots and the hat and long coat can really give an impression of being 2-3 inches taller he really does look 6ft 4 - 6 ft 5 in Dollars trilogy. but I've looked at scenes with him in without a hat and it isn't impossible to think he may have been near this height at his peak. He measured up to all the guys who were supposedly 6'4. About half an inch shorter than George Kennedy in 1975 who I;ve mostly seen listed as 6'4.5, he actually looked about half an inch taller than Moriarty, and all the guys like Vincent Price and Donald Sutherland who were listed at 6'4 at peak and it always seems to be about right. Yet i often see pictures of Clint in normal clothes with family members or other actors outside of films and he nevers looks the towering figure you'd expect from a full 6'4 guy even before he lost a few inches due to back problems. I stand by the belief that he was genuinely measured 6'4 in shoes/boots when he was a lot younger and in reality stood 6ft2.5 - 6'3 maximum barefoot at peak as did many of the guys given a full 6'4. This way it would be easy to appear 6'4 throughout much of his career alongside other cast member who were probably measured the same way. A genuine 6 ft 4 barefoot and with no tippy toes and a tight marker on the top of the head really is very very tall check it out. If he was this height he would look towering to guys even who are 6ft, but he didn't and as rightly said below many of the guys in those Italian westerns were typically short guys that you see in countries like Italy and Spain. I'm 6 ft 1.5 barefoot and with Timberland boots and good posture I am verging on 6'3 and look it to most but I'm not! BTW anybody know the height of Mario Brega, the tall, fat prison guard from GBU? I've heard he was between 6ft2-6 ft4 but Clint looked a little taller.
Baz said on 1/Nov/08
Harry. You should read the unauthorised biography of Clint written a few years back. In it, people who have become "enemies", eg Sondra Locke, have good reason to say that he wore lifts, he`s not really that tall, etc etc. They all state what a tall bloke he was. Also, have you really watched Play Misty properly? He looks ridiculously tall in that. The bloke was 6'4" in his prime; be in no doubt of that. He has curvature of the spine, as some doctor blokey said on here months ago. Look at his posture & that gives away why his height has suffered.
Harry. You should read the unauthorised biography of Clint written a few years back. In it, people who have become "enemies", eg Sondra Locke, have good reason to say that he wore lifts, he`s not really that tall, etc etc. They all state what a tall bloke he was. Also, have you really watched Play Misty properly? He looks ridiculously tall in that. The bloke was 6'4" in his prime; be in no doubt of that. He has curvature of the spine, as some doctor blokey said on here months ago. Look at his posture & that gives away why his height has suffered.
mike c said on 31/Oct/08
Yaspaa, did you mean this page? Click Here
or this one?
Click Here
He's 6'4" and Clint clearly looked as tall or taller than he in Pale Rider. I have the movie and have seen it countless times. Now, to which site are you referring? mike c
Yaspaa, did you mean this page? Click Here
or this one?
Click Here
He's 6'4" and Clint clearly looked as tall or taller than he in Pale Rider. I have the movie and have seen it countless times. Now, to which site are you referring? mike c
harry said on 31/Oct/08
Ray: As you know there are quite a lot of these videos on You Tube with Clint seen walking to wards a hidden camera of setand/or walking next to one of the stars of the picture(The Changeling withe Angelina Jolie). It states Angelina Jolie's height at 5' 6.75". If you look at all the recent publicity pictures of Clint and Jolie stood together, you can definitely see that the guy is no where near 6'4 (193cm). That's if Angelina jolie is this height(maybe in heels yeah, but even if she is this reported height. Clint still looks no taller than 6'2". Now 3" is a hell of alot of height to lose don't you think. He always looked 188 -189 max. 20 feet away can create a power ful illusion. Also the people who were surrounding him may have all been average height - including the city cops; not all cops are huge sixfooters - infact, some are well below average height. this is not a new phenommenon - we all know that Mr Eastwood is the star,calls the shots, the head honcho, he will always auditon, select actors who are all either average height or below. If you think about it in all his earlier pictures most of the males co-stars have reached, perhaps 5' 9" - 5'10". This already give the film audience the illusion that the guys stands head and shouders above the rest 6'5" in his shoes. I do agree now that Clint is nearly 80, he may have shrunk by about 5 -6cm in height.
Ray: As you know there are quite a lot of these videos on You Tube with Clint seen walking to wards a hidden camera of setand/or walking next to one of the stars of the picture(The Changeling withe Angelina Jolie). It states Angelina Jolie's height at 5' 6.75". If you look at all the recent publicity pictures of Clint and Jolie stood together, you can definitely see that the guy is no where near 6'4 (193cm). That's if Angelina jolie is this height(maybe in heels yeah, but even if she is this reported height. Clint still looks no taller than 6'2". Now 3" is a hell of alot of height to lose don't you think. He always looked 188 -189 max. 20 feet away can create a power ful illusion. Also the people who were surrounding him may have all been average height - including the city cops; not all cops are huge sixfooters - infact, some are well below average height. this is not a new phenommenon - we all know that Mr Eastwood is the star,calls the shots, the head honcho, he will always auditon, select actors who are all either average height or below. If you think about it in all his earlier pictures most of the males co-stars have reached, perhaps 5' 9" - 5'10". This already give the film audience the illusion that the guys stands head and shouders above the rest 6'5" in his shoes. I do agree now that Clint is nearly 80, he may have shrunk by about 5 -6cm in height.
glenn said on 30/Oct/08
clint was 6-4.i witnessed it.
clint was 6-4.i witnessed it.
Patrick said on 30/Oct/08
Mike: John Russel was well the
Mike: John Russel was well the
harry said on 30/Oct/08
I don't think Clint was ever 6'4". This is something that has been around for over 30 yrs in interviews, biogrpahies etc. I think this image has come from his early days in the Spagetti Westerns - he wore 2inch cowboys boots and a tall hat. He's always been a solid 6'2" throughout his career. Because he has always maintained a ridig fitness programme, his thin rangy figure has made him appear even taller. If you look at him in Play misty for me he never looked 6'4''. that would have made his female co-star at least 6foot tall!
He's always looked a lanky 6'1 1/2" - 2. I'm a legit 6'2" and can appear 6'3 1/2" in 4cm boots to most people.
I don't think Clint was ever 6'4". This is something that has been around for over 30 yrs in interviews, biogrpahies etc. I think this image has come from his early days in the Spagetti Westerns - he wore 2inch cowboys boots and a tall hat. He's always been a solid 6'2" throughout his career. Because he has always maintained a ridig fitness programme, his thin rangy figure has made him appear even taller. If you look at him in Play misty for me he never looked 6'4''. that would have made his female co-star at least 6foot tall!
He's always looked a lanky 6'1 1/2" - 2. I'm a legit 6'2" and can appear 6'3 1/2" in 4cm boots to most people.
Elf said on 29/Oct/08
I had no idea Michael Moriarty was 6'3. I was assuming he was nearer 6 foot or average height. In that case Clint looked 6'4 in 1985. I;ve just seen the scene from Good the Bad where Clint is about to be hanged by Tuco in the hotel bedroom and that has to be the tallest I;ve ever seen him look. He looks massive 6'5 or 6'6 in that scene, similar to Clint Walker. He also looks this height in the scene where he and Tuco get off their horses and walk before the drunk captain/bridge conflict scene. In other scenes and in later films looks 6'4.
I had no idea Michael Moriarty was 6'3. I was assuming he was nearer 6 foot or average height. In that case Clint looked 6'4 in 1985. I;ve just seen the scene from Good the Bad where Clint is about to be hanged by Tuco in the hotel bedroom and that has to be the tallest I;ve ever seen him look. He looks massive 6'5 or 6'6 in that scene, similar to Clint Walker. He also looks this height in the scene where he and Tuco get off their horses and walk before the drunk captain/bridge conflict scene. In other scenes and in later films looks 6'4.
Ray Spakowski said on 28/Oct/08
I stood about 20 feet from him in Savannah while he was directing a scene from the "Garden of Good and Evil" several years ago. He was wearing low-heeled loafers and seemed to tower over everybody near him, including a couple of
city cops. My wife has several tall cousins (guys) in the 6'3" to 6'4" range,
and Clint, at that time, would fit in that category.
I stood about 20 feet from him in Savannah while he was directing a scene from the "Garden of Good and Evil" several years ago. He was wearing low-heeled loafers and seemed to tower over everybody near him, including a couple of
city cops. My wife has several tall cousins (guys) in the 6'3" to 6'4" range,
and Clint, at that time, would fit in that category.
Mike said on 24/Oct/08
...John Russell....the main villain from Pale Rider (Stockburn with his deputies?). Yeah...I noticed, if it's the same guy, he's quite tall in a color John Wayne western. The closest 2 shot of he and Eastwood is during their duel, and it's hard to tell.
...John Russell....the main villain from Pale Rider (Stockburn with his deputies?). Yeah...I noticed, if it's the same guy, he's quite tall in a color John Wayne western. The closest 2 shot of he and Eastwood is during their duel, and it's hard to tell.
Patrick said on 23/Oct/08
I 100% agree, as myself an old biker, Ron when he says on 16/Oct/08
"What shows me how tall he is in Magnum Force. He gets on a Kawasaki 1000 Police bike and his knees are angled up when on the foot pegs. He looks huge on a big motorocycle." Very well nnoticed and posted Ron.
Clint was taller than Michael Moriarty (a great actor too)in Pale Rider. Anyway, Clint, in 1986 was not the guy he used to be any more. He's visibly taller than the yet listed 6'3 John Russell (a true western face if any!)who sure was getting on in years at the time.
I 100% agree, as myself an old biker, Ron when he says on 16/Oct/08
"What shows me how tall he is in Magnum Force. He gets on a Kawasaki 1000 Police bike and his knees are angled up when on the foot pegs. He looks huge on a big motorocycle." Very well nnoticed and posted Ron.
Clint was taller than Michael Moriarty (a great actor too)in Pale Rider. Anyway, Clint, in 1986 was not the guy he used to be any more. He's visibly taller than the yet listed 6'3 John Russell (a true western face if any!)who sure was getting on in years at the time.
Yaspaa said on 22/Oct/08
Mike C,check the Michael Moriarty page.
Mike C,check the Michael Moriarty page.
Mike C said on 20/Oct/08
Michael Moriarty is 6'4"..Clint was as tall or taller than he in Pale Rider. Watch the movie on cd and use the pause button. mike c
Michael Moriarty is 6'4"..Clint was as tall or taller than he in Pale Rider. Watch the movie on cd and use the pause button. mike c
Hugh said on 20/Oct/08
I don't think CLint is 6ft. More 6ft1-2 nowadays.
I don't think CLint is 6ft. More 6ft1-2 nowadays.
Anonymous said on 17/Oct/08
A three inch loss is really a big difference. I've always thought Clint looked 6 ft 4 in the Dollars films, he really towered above everybody, maybe it was the cowboy boots and the hat and the long coat which gives that impression. However in later films I have been quite surprised to see him against people who are around average height and he never looked the way in comparison a 6ft 4 guy would look. In Pale Rider compare him to his cast members and he is not the towering figure you'd expect from a 6'4 guy. Compared to them he didn't look anything more than 6 ft 2. I'd place him at 6'2 1/2 barefoot peak, 6'4 with boots. These days 6'1 barefoot looks accurate.
A three inch loss is really a big difference. I've always thought Clint looked 6 ft 4 in the Dollars films, he really towered above everybody, maybe it was the cowboy boots and the hat and the long coat which gives that impression. However in later films I have been quite surprised to see him against people who are around average height and he never looked the way in comparison a 6ft 4 guy would look. In Pale Rider compare him to his cast members and he is not the towering figure you'd expect from a 6'4 guy. Compared to them he didn't look anything more than 6 ft 2. I'd place him at 6'2 1/2 barefoot peak, 6'4 with boots. These days 6'1 barefoot looks accurate.
Ron said on 16/Oct/08
What shows me how tall he is in Magnum Force. He gets on a Kawasaki 1000 Police bike and his knees are angled up when on the foot pegs. He looks huge on a big motorocycle.
What shows me how tall he is in Magnum Force. He gets on a Kawasaki 1000 Police bike and his knees are angled up when on the foot pegs. He looks huge on a big motorocycle.
Patrick said on 16/Oct/08
To look tall on screen you need to be very tall or have one of these very special complexions which provide you some grandeur. For me Bob Mitchum, Sean Connery or Peter Graves were so.
Burt Lancaster, taken alone, looked taller than he was.
Some as Peter Lupus, need to be beside other people to look as tall as they really are.
Clint always looked tall until he reached more than 50. He appeared so, on his own as well as surrounded with people almost always smaller than him. I sure think of George Kennedy who never ever looked taller in the two movies they made together.
To look tall on screen you need to be very tall or have one of these very special complexions which provide you some grandeur. For me Bob Mitchum, Sean Connery or Peter Graves were so.
Burt Lancaster, taken alone, looked taller than he was.
Some as Peter Lupus, need to be beside other people to look as tall as they really are.
Clint always looked tall until he reached more than 50. He appeared so, on his own as well as surrounded with people almost always smaller than him. I sure think of George Kennedy who never ever looked taller in the two movies they made together.
Lenad said on 16/Oct/08
Nah James he looked a flat 6'3 to me.
Nah James he looked a flat 6'3 to me.
George H. said on 14/Oct/08
He was quite tall in his younger days, and it wasn't all due to cowboy boots. I don't think he wore special shoes in his Dirty Harry or other seventeis movies, yet he was almost always the tallest guy around. The only one who got close or just a bit over him was George Kennedy. Coming from a family with plenty over 6'3" he always gave me the impression to be in the 6'3", but even more so 6'4" range in his twenties through to late forties.
He was quite tall in his younger days, and it wasn't all due to cowboy boots. I don't think he wore special shoes in his Dirty Harry or other seventeis movies, yet he was almost always the tallest guy around. The only one who got close or just a bit over him was George Kennedy. Coming from a family with plenty over 6'3" he always gave me the impression to be in the 6'3", but even more so 6'4" range in his twenties through to late forties.
Lenad said on 13/Oct/08
His peak should be changed to 6'3.
His peak should be changed to 6'3.
Rick said on 13/Oct/08
Please don't forget about camera angles and some actors when being filmed stand on uneven ground sometimes on 6" stages or platforms that's built along an entire walkway of a scene, hidden from view ofcourse. An example of this is for an off topic actor Richard Gere.
Please don't forget about camera angles and some actors when being filmed stand on uneven ground sometimes on 6" stages or platforms that's built along an entire walkway of a scene, hidden from view ofcourse. An example of this is for an off topic actor Richard Gere.
Roger said on 12/Oct/08
Did Clint undergo any form of surgery, like hip replacement?
Because this shrinkage is unreal. He is equal to Arnold today and almost towered him 20 years ago.
Did Clint undergo any form of surgery, like hip replacement?
Because this shrinkage is unreal. He is equal to Arnold today and almost towered him 20 years ago.
Hugh said on 10/Oct/08
6ft4 I can buy as his peak height. I looked gigantic in those western films. But I think 6ft1 flat does seem I little low. Maybe 186-187cm. In Million Dollar Baby he looked maybe 1 inch shorter than Morgan Freeman.
6ft4 I can buy as his peak height. I looked gigantic in those western films. But I think 6ft1 flat does seem I little low. Maybe 186-187cm. In Million Dollar Baby he looked maybe 1 inch shorter than Morgan Freeman.
Patrick said on 8/Oct/08
Mike,6 inches are after all, nothing more than half a head or a bit more for a man as Hingle who has a massive one but not long.
In 1977
Mike,6 inches are after all, nothing more than half a head or a bit more for a man as Hingle who has a massive one but not long.
In 1977
Mike said on 5/Oct/08
...Just watched Sudden Impact, again. Clint is taller than Pat Hingle, but not by a huge, huge ammount. I never thought of Hingle as tall. If he was(is), say 5'10, a 6'4 Eastwood would be a full 6 inches taller. So, either Hingle is/was taller than you think, or Eastwood was never really 6'4.
...Just watched Sudden Impact, again. Clint is taller than Pat Hingle, but not by a huge, huge ammount. I never thought of Hingle as tall. If he was(is), say 5'10, a 6'4 Eastwood would be a full 6 inches taller. So, either Hingle is/was taller than you think, or Eastwood was never really 6'4.
KindaAnonymousDuctchfella said on 5/Oct/08
In the Daily Show with Jon Stewart he still looks like about 4.5 to 5 inches taller than 1m70 Stewart (You can probably still watch it on youtube daily show from the second of October). Which is not very difficult I admit, but then he should be about 5.11.75/1m82, not considering that Stewart plausibly is wearing +1inch lifts, which puts Eastwood Eastwood at 6foot to 6foot1 (183-185). I do though have the idea that the man was very close to 6foot4 at his peak, especially when you see him walking in the famous youvegottoaskyourselfaquestion/robberyscene in the first Dirty Harry film, he seems 6foot4.75 or something in shoes. 6 ft 5 in boots in Dollarstrilogy. He is as far as I know only really outheighted, if that is a correct Anglosaxon word, by Fred D. Thompson (about 6ft5) in in the line of fire which is a 1993 or something movie, and later and irrelevant, by lots of people in Million Dollar Baby which was made in 2006.
In the Daily Show with Jon Stewart he still looks like about 4.5 to 5 inches taller than 1m70 Stewart (You can probably still watch it on youtube daily show from the second of October). Which is not very difficult I admit, but then he should be about 5.11.75/1m82, not considering that Stewart plausibly is wearing +1inch lifts, which puts Eastwood Eastwood at 6foot to 6foot1 (183-185). I do though have the idea that the man was very close to 6foot4 at his peak, especially when you see him walking in the famous youvegottoaskyourselfaquestion/robberyscene in the first Dirty Harry film, he seems 6foot4.75 or something in shoes. 6 ft 5 in boots in Dollarstrilogy. He is as far as I know only really outheighted, if that is a correct Anglosaxon word, by Fred D. Thompson (about 6ft5) in in the line of fire which is a 1993 or something movie, and later and irrelevant, by lots of people in Million Dollar Baby which was made in 2006.
Mister Lennon said on 3/Oct/08
The movie with Liam Neeson and Clint Eastwood was the black list and it was made in 1990. I think that Clint never was a full 6'4, but maybe closer. I have always saw him as a solid 6'3 guy, maybe close to 6'4 at peak but not a real 6'4.
Today, maybe he is in the 6'1 range or even less.
The movie with Liam Neeson and Clint Eastwood was the black list and it was made in 1990. I think that Clint never was a full 6'4, but maybe closer. I have always saw him as a solid 6'3 guy, maybe close to 6'4 at peak but not a real 6'4.
Today, maybe he is in the 6'1 range or even less.
Hugh said on 3/Oct/08
I'm suprised by this though. Clint must have had some major injuries over the course of ten years to effect his height by that much.
I'm suprised by this though. Clint must have had some major injuries over the course of ten years to effect his height by that much.
Lenad said on 2/Oct/08
He did look around 6'3 in his youth.
He did look around 6'3 in his youth.
Yaspaa said on 2/Oct/08
Clint was shorter than Liam so Liam must be taller than 6'4,riiiight!
Clint was shorter than Liam so Liam must be taller than 6'4,riiiight!
Yaspaa said on 1/Oct/08
Man in lifts could,Van Cleef was always in boots aswell and he didn't look 6'2 next to James Mason. I think he was over 6'2 mind maybe barefoot 6'3 prime for Clint. Donald Sutherland looks under 6'1 next to Kiefer or has he also lost a great deal of height.
Man in lifts could,Van Cleef was always in boots aswell and he didn't look 6'2 next to James Mason. I think he was over 6'2 mind maybe barefoot 6'3 prime for Clint. Donald Sutherland looks under 6'1 next to Kiefer or has he also lost a great deal of height.
adam said on 1/Oct/08
Van Cleef is over 6-1, Sutherland definitely a very close (if not over!) 6-4 prime. Why do you downgrade everyone?
Like James said: Aging Clint was taller than Morgan Freeman who sure as hell wasn`t under 6-2
Van Cleef is over 6-1, Sutherland definitely a very close (if not over!) 6-4 prime. Why do you downgrade everyone?
Like James said: Aging Clint was taller than Morgan Freeman who sure as hell wasn`t under 6-2
Yaspaa said on 30/Sep/08
Lee Van Cleef - barely 6'1........Don Sutherland - strong 6'2 (prime). I also got measured at school and it was in the shoes I was wearing as was Clint's school measurement no doubt.
I bet newspapers at the time were all quoting Clint at 6'4 and that piece of unfounded information permeated into everyone's brains which in turn permeated into their kids brains etc. Why would he lie? Why does everone lie? ,to make themselves seem better than they are,they are movie stars after all. Exaggerated resume's stay with them. Actors heights can be manipulated easily on screen, (Iron Man springs to mind.) Larry Hankin from Escape From Alcatraz looks like the 6'4 guy he is listed at and was taller than Clint in that movie. 5'10 was also Bob Hope's listed height i.e in footwear. Smell the roses people.
Lee Van Cleef - barely 6'1........Don Sutherland - strong 6'2 (prime). I also got measured at school and it was in the shoes I was wearing as was Clint's school measurement no doubt.
I bet newspapers at the time were all quoting Clint at 6'4 and that piece of unfounded information permeated into everyone's brains which in turn permeated into their kids brains etc. Why would he lie? Why does everone lie? ,to make themselves seem better than they are,they are movie stars after all. Exaggerated resume's stay with them. Actors heights can be manipulated easily on screen, (Iron Man springs to mind.) Larry Hankin from Escape From Alcatraz looks like the 6'4 guy he is listed at and was taller than Clint in that movie. 5'10 was also Bob Hope's listed height i.e in footwear. Smell the roses people.
Mister Lennon said on 30/Sep/08
I have always seen him as a 6'2 and a half or a 6'3 guy at peak. Now probably 6'1 or 6'1 and a half. Liam Neeson looks an strong 6'3 or 6'4 and was clearly taller than clint in the black list.
I have always seen him as a 6'2 and a half or a 6'3 guy at peak. Now probably 6'1 or 6'1 and a half. Liam Neeson looks an strong 6'3 or 6'4 and was clearly taller than clint in the black list.
adam said on 30/Sep/08
Clint had about 2 inches on the 6-2 Lee Van Cleef. Clint was also about the same height as Donald Sutherland who`s 6-4 as well. In Unforgiven Clint looks taller than Gene Hackman who`s not under 6-2. I havent seen all Dirty Harry movies but in the first one he looks taller than his partner in that movie. Cant remember the actors name but he`s 6-3 if I remember correctly.
And yes, it is possible to lose as much as 4 inches in height. It happens extremely rarely but Clint has had bad back since he was 16 years old and so on... Believe me, losing 4 inches is possible. The taller you are, the more you can lose.
Remember Bob Hope. He was 5-10 and dropped down to about 5-6. He wasn`t tall and he wasn
Clint had about 2 inches on the 6-2 Lee Van Cleef. Clint was also about the same height as Donald Sutherland who`s 6-4 as well. In Unforgiven Clint looks taller than Gene Hackman who`s not under 6-2. I havent seen all Dirty Harry movies but in the first one he looks taller than his partner in that movie. Cant remember the actors name but he`s 6-3 if I remember correctly.
And yes, it is possible to lose as much as 4 inches in height. It happens extremely rarely but Clint has had bad back since he was 16 years old and so on... Believe me, losing 4 inches is possible. The taller you are, the more you can lose.
Remember Bob Hope. He was 5-10 and dropped down to about 5-6. He wasn`t tall and he wasn
Parker said on 30/Sep/08
In the Magnum Force scene with Tim Matheson,Robert Urich and David Soul Clint is clearly taller than all 3. I've seen Urich quoted at 6'2 on several sites, also Tim Matheson. I think you need more than an inch to look clearly taller. I do think he was 6'4 prime. 6/6'1 now.
In the Magnum Force scene with Tim Matheson,Robert Urich and David Soul Clint is clearly taller than all 3. I've seen Urich quoted at 6'2 on several sites, also Tim Matheson. I think you need more than an inch to look clearly taller. I do think he was 6'4 prime. 6/6'1 now.
Parker said on 30/Sep/08
Sorry James, can't remember the source. It was a newspaper interview. Quite some years back now.
Sorry James, can't remember the source. It was a newspaper interview. Quite some years back now.
David said on 29/Sep/08
I could see 6'3 for Eastwood, definitely no shorter though. He looks 6'3 and 6'4 both in the Dirty Harry movies. In the Dead Pool he definitely looks less than Liam Neeson, and its unlikely he had lost much height at this point. If he was 6'4 it was probably a morning height, and not a strong 6'4. Even though 6'3 is plenty tall, being 6'4 sounds better, its about as tall as one can get without begginning to sound freakish.
I could see 6'3 for Eastwood, definitely no shorter though. He looks 6'3 and 6'4 both in the Dirty Harry movies. In the Dead Pool he definitely looks less than Liam Neeson, and its unlikely he had lost much height at this point. If he was 6'4 it was probably a morning height, and not a strong 6'4. Even though 6'3 is plenty tall, being 6'4 sounds better, its about as tall as one can get without begginning to sound freakish.
Height Tracker said on 29/Sep/08
Ed T. you should take into account that in that scene Matheson is wearing boots while Clint is wearing pretty flat shoes. Thus, the height discrepancy is somewhat smaller than it otherwise would be.
Ed T. you should take into account that in that scene Matheson is wearing boots while Clint is wearing pretty flat shoes. Thus, the height discrepancy is somewhat smaller than it otherwise would be.
Parker said on 29/Sep/08
I remember Clint doing an interview some years back. He said he was 6'4 at 16, and there was only one guy taller in his school year at 6'5. Why would he say that if it wasn,t true?
I remember Clint doing an interview some years back. He said he was 6'4 at 16, and there was only one guy taller in his school year at 6'5. Why would he say that if it wasn,t true?
Mike said on 28/Sep/08
...can't say I agree a 6'4 Eastwood could now be 6 even. I could be wrong, but I don't believe it.
...can't say I agree a 6'4 Eastwood could now be 6 even. I could be wrong, but I don't believe it.
Ed T. said on 27/Sep/08
Adam, as I'm writing this, "Magnum Force" is on televison. There is a scene at the shooting range where Eastwood is standing next to Tim Matheson ( playing one of the 4 Rogue Cops). In that scene, although Clint is taller than Matheson, I don't think he is by two inches. I think the absolute maximum height for Matheson would be 6'2" ( I remember thinking he was more like 6'1" in Animal House). If Matheson was 6'2", I could see Clint being less than a full 6'4". Still very tall even if 6'3.5". Really does it matter if Eastwood was 6'3.5" or 6'4"? No. But I do think there is some evidence that says that maybe Clint was not a definite 6'4".
Adam, as I'm writing this, "Magnum Force" is on televison. There is a scene at the shooting range where Eastwood is standing next to Tim Matheson ( playing one of the 4 Rogue Cops). In that scene, although Clint is taller than Matheson, I don't think he is by two inches. I think the absolute maximum height for Matheson would be 6'2" ( I remember thinking he was more like 6'1" in Animal House). If Matheson was 6'2", I could see Clint being less than a full 6'4". Still very tall even if 6'3.5". Really does it matter if Eastwood was 6'3.5" or 6'4"? No. But I do think there is some evidence that says that maybe Clint was not a definite 6'4".
Da Man said on 27/Sep/08
adam says on 25/Sep/08
"But he was without a doubt a legit 6-4 peak."
Yet he never looked it. This guy did not lose 3 inches.
adam says on 25/Sep/08
"But he was without a doubt a legit 6-4 peak."
Yet he never looked it. This guy did not lose 3 inches.
adam said on 25/Sep/08
6-4 prime but has lost several inches. Just saw a picture and he was towered by Tim Robbins. The picture is from 2005 and in that pic he looked like solid 4 inches shorter than Tim. So he`s not 6-1 or over anymore, that`s obvious... I`d say barely an even six feet these days, maybe even less. But he was without a doubt a legit 6-4 peak.
6-4 prime but has lost several inches. Just saw a picture and he was towered by Tim Robbins. The picture is from 2005 and in that pic he looked like solid 4 inches shorter than Tim. So he`s not 6-1 or over anymore, that`s obvious... I`d say barely an even six feet these days, maybe even less. But he was without a doubt a legit 6-4 peak.
adam said on 23/Sep/08
Yep, Clint isn
Yep, Clint isn
mike c said on 22/Sep/08
adam, I've posted the fact that my grandfather (died at 102 years of age) was 6' in his youth.....when I last saw him in person at 92, he as my height (5'6") and shrinking. He had curvature of the spine and he always leaned forward..so, Clint's loss is not unnatural..on the contrary, many people lose height...it's just that some lose more than others. Glad you're in the ballpark with Wayne and Eastwood. mike c
adam, I've posted the fact that my grandfather (died at 102 years of age) was 6' in his youth.....when I last saw him in person at 92, he as my height (5'6") and shrinking. He had curvature of the spine and he always leaned forward..so, Clint's loss is not unnatural..on the contrary, many people lose height...it's just that some lose more than others. Glad you're in the ballpark with Wayne and Eastwood. mike c
Hugh said on 21/Sep/08
Clint was 6ft4 at his peak and his now 6ft1-6ft2.
Clint was 6ft4 at his peak and his now 6ft1-6ft2.
adam said on 19/Sep/08
He was 6-4 peak. Nowadays he is most likely under 6-1. He is old and has back problems. It`s BS claiming that "you cant lost more than 2,567 inches! It
He was 6-4 peak. Nowadays he is most likely under 6-1. He is old and has back problems. It`s BS claiming that "you cant lost more than 2,567 inches! It
mike c said on 18/Sep/08
Yes, straighten Gavins out and they would be identical in height. Just look at the chin line and raise it up a hair for Gavins..No way would he be 1" taller than Clint. Great photo, Frank 2. Mike C
Yes, straighten Gavins out and they would be identical in height. Just look at the chin line and raise it up a hair for Gavins..No way would he be 1" taller than Clint. Great photo, Frank 2. Mike C
Hugh said on 16/Sep/08
I agree with a legit 6ft4 at his peak. I find it hard to beleive he's lost 3 inches though. I think he could be scrapping 6ft2 now.
I agree with a legit 6ft4 at his peak. I find it hard to beleive he's lost 3 inches though. I think he could be scrapping 6ft2 now.
adam said on 15/Sep/08
Gavin would be a little taller yes, but Gavin might also be more than 6-4. I do believe Clint was a solid 6-4 prime.
Gavin would be a little taller yes, but Gavin might also be more than 6-4. I do believe Clint was a solid 6-4 prime.
Tony G. said on 14/Sep/08
Yes, Frank2, they look almost exactly the same height.
Yes, Frank2, they look almost exactly the same height.
Ed T. said on 14/Sep/08
Frank,
Gavin appears to be leaning in. If he is not leaning I would estimate Gavin has at least a half inch on Eastwood.
Frank,
Gavin appears to be leaning in. If he is not leaning I would estimate Gavin has at least a half inch on Eastwood.
Frank2 said on 13/Sep/08
Here's 6'4" John Gavin( who I've met and believe me, he's at least that tall!) with Eastwood and actress/TV hostess Susan Stafford:
Click Here
Eastwood looks to be about the same height as Gavin.
Here's 6'4" John Gavin( who I've met and believe me, he's at least that tall!) with Eastwood and actress/TV hostess Susan Stafford:
Click Here
Eastwood looks to be about the same height as Gavin.
Hugh said on 13/Sep/08
He was a solid 6ft4 at his peak. I really do not know how he has lost so much height. I think 6ft1.5-6ft2 is his height nowadays.
He was a solid 6ft4 at his peak. I really do not know how he has lost so much height. I think 6ft1.5-6ft2 is his height nowadays.
Brad said on 5/Sep/08
6' 4" for a few decades. Put the boots on and you get a real deal 6' 6", now add the hat and he looks even taller. I wonder who he votes for president?
6' 4" for a few decades. Put the boots on and you get a real deal 6' 6", now add the hat and he looks even taller. I wonder who he votes for president?
adam said on 4/Sep/08
James, and now he`s fat? Nope. Eastwood has always been slender. Thin is a wrong word. He`s always been a tall, slender and definitely a muscular man. Jimmy Stewart was thin: He didn
James, and now he`s fat? Nope. Eastwood has always been slender. Thin is a wrong word. He`s always been a tall, slender and definitely a muscular man. Jimmy Stewart was thin: He didn
Pauster said on 2/Sep/08
I just got the Rawhide DVD.... I totally believe 6'4". He is the tallest one on the show, buy at least 3". That other guy must have a bad memory. "Get'em up, move'em out!"
I just got the Rawhide DVD.... I totally believe 6'4". He is the tallest one on the show, buy at least 3". That other guy must have a bad memory. "Get'em up, move'em out!"
Frank2 said on 1/Sep/08
Yes, I did. Nice man. But a mountain! At least 6'4".
Yes, I did. Nice man. But a mountain! At least 6'4".
Danimal said on 31/Aug/08
adam says on 31/Aug/08
Frank2, did you ever meet George Kennedy?
I am not Frank2, but George was a legit 6'4" man, seeing he had at least 2-3" on O.J. Simpson in the Naked Gun movies and this was him as an old man at this point.
adam says on 31/Aug/08
Frank2, did you ever meet George Kennedy?
I am not Frank2, but George was a legit 6'4" man, seeing he had at least 2-3" on O.J. Simpson in the Naked Gun movies and this was him as an old man at this point.
adam said on 31/Aug/08
Frank2, did you ever meet George Kennedy?
Frank2, did you ever meet George Kennedy?
adam said on 30/Aug/08
JW, I dont believe either that John Wayne was 6-4. But come on buddy: Arnold isn`t 5-10. He was a close 6-2 peak, and still six feet. Eastwood was a legit 6-4 prime... and George Kennedy under 6-4! Jesus... If anything, the man was closer to 6-5.
JW, I dont believe either that John Wayne was 6-4. But come on buddy: Arnold isn`t 5-10. He was a close 6-2 peak, and still six feet. Eastwood was a legit 6-4 prime... and George Kennedy under 6-4! Jesus... If anything, the man was closer to 6-5.
JW said on 29/Aug/08
Mike--The picture proves nothing. Clint Eastwood is closer to the camera so he appears taller. The surface they are on is not visible and neither are their shoes. Arnie is only 5'10" or 5'11" anyway, so Eastwood would definitely appear taller at 6'1".
For those who insist that Clint Eastwood was 6'4" consider that with cowboy boots he would be 6'6". If he wore a hat, that would add another 3 or 4 inches making his total length about 6'9" or 6'10". He would not be able to walk through a standard sized door. Eastwood never appeared that tall.
I have already pointed out that Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height. In the photo I mentioned, they are right together and their shoulders are even. Clint is wearing cowboy boots and Ebsen is wearing shoes. Fess Parker has on moccasin boots which probably have almost no heel and he still towers over both of them. There is no way that a person 6'4" would look so small next to a person who is 6'5" as Fess Parker is.
People seem amazed about Clint Eastwood's current height or lack of it. The truth is he never was that tall to begin with. Some of the other actors who were billed as being 6'4" but were actually less include John Wayne, George Kennedy, Dan Blocker, Denny Miller, and Max Baer, Jr.
Mike--The picture proves nothing. Clint Eastwood is closer to the camera so he appears taller. The surface they are on is not visible and neither are their shoes. Arnie is only 5'10" or 5'11" anyway, so Eastwood would definitely appear taller at 6'1".
For those who insist that Clint Eastwood was 6'4" consider that with cowboy boots he would be 6'6". If he wore a hat, that would add another 3 or 4 inches making his total length about 6'9" or 6'10". He would not be able to walk through a standard sized door. Eastwood never appeared that tall.
I have already pointed out that Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height. In the photo I mentioned, they are right together and their shoulders are even. Clint is wearing cowboy boots and Ebsen is wearing shoes. Fess Parker has on moccasin boots which probably have almost no heel and he still towers over both of them. There is no way that a person 6'4" would look so small next to a person who is 6'5" as Fess Parker is.
People seem amazed about Clint Eastwood's current height or lack of it. The truth is he never was that tall to begin with. Some of the other actors who were billed as being 6'4" but were actually less include John Wayne, George Kennedy, Dan Blocker, Denny Miller, and Max Baer, Jr.
Hugh said on 28/Aug/08
Clint was 6ft4 up till about 20 years ago. He shrunk gradually from there. Today he's 187-188cm.
Clint was 6ft4 up till about 20 years ago. He shrunk gradually from there. Today he's 187-188cm.
Mike said on 27/Aug/08
With regards to the Dead Pool with Neeson, there are scenes where he is standing next to Neeson on level ground (such as the warehouse scene, about 20 minutes or so in) & he is exactly the same height. Yet, when walking next to Neeson, Clint looks noticeably shorter. I`ve seen this in several of his films & his posture is dreadful when walking. I remember some back doctor writing about it on here a while back. Similar scenes are in Eiger Sanction, where walking next to 6'4" George Kennedy he is slouching badly and thus shorter, but standing next to him he is the same height. Unless Kennedy, Neeson & lots of other actors are all lying about being 6'4" or 6'3" (highly unlikely), then Eastwood is a legit 6'4".
With regards to the Dead Pool with Neeson, there are scenes where he is standing next to Neeson on level ground (such as the warehouse scene, about 20 minutes or so in) & he is exactly the same height. Yet, when walking next to Neeson, Clint looks noticeably shorter. I`ve seen this in several of his films & his posture is dreadful when walking. I remember some back doctor writing about it on here a while back. Similar scenes are in Eiger Sanction, where walking next to 6'4" George Kennedy he is slouching badly and thus shorter, but standing next to him he is the same height. Unless Kennedy, Neeson & lots of other actors are all lying about being 6'4" or 6'3" (highly unlikely), then Eastwood is a legit 6'4".
adam said on 27/Aug/08
Neeson could be taller than 6-4. I`d say a solid 6-4
Neeson could be taller than 6-4. I`d say a solid 6-4
Bob H. said on 26/Aug/08
On the TV series Rawhide, Eric Flemming always appeared taller than Rowdy/Clint.
Flemming's bio lists him as having been 6'4". I too believe Clint was close but not 6'4".
On the TV series Rawhide, Eric Flemming always appeared taller than Rowdy/Clint.
Flemming's bio lists him as having been 6'4". I too believe Clint was close but not 6'4".
adam said on 26/Aug/08
Yes that photo isnt very reliable - Clint looks like 5 inches taller which isnt the case. But I sure believe that he was a legit 6-4 prime. No doubts.
Yes that photo isnt very reliable - Clint looks like 5 inches taller which isnt the case. But I sure believe that he was a legit 6-4 prime. No doubts.
Mike said on 25/Aug/08
Click on this link & see the height difference between Clint & Arnie. This looks like it is from the 70's. Tell me, JW, that Clint is not 6'4". Click Here
Click on this link & see the height difference between Clint & Arnie. This looks like it is from the 70's. Tell me, JW, that Clint is not 6'4". Click Here
JW said on 23/Aug/08
Frank2--The video proves that Buddy Ebsen was taller than Dean Martin but it doesn't prove that he was 6'3". I am not sold on Dean Martin being 5'10". He looked small on the Sons of Katie Elder and Rio Bravo. Max Baer, Jr. claims to be 6'4" but realistically he could not have been over 6'3". He was about an inch shorter than Tom Lester (6'4"). On the movie The Birdmen, Baer was about 3 inches shorter than Chuck Connors. On the Beverly Hillbillies, he was also shorter than Robert Easton (height unknown). The point is that since Max Baer, Jr. was about 2 inches taller than Buddy Ebsen on the Beverly Hillbillies, Ebsen could only have been about 6'1".
On one episode of the Beverly Hillbillies, Buddy Ebsen looks about 4 inches shorter than Robert Foulk (6'5"). On this episode, it has nothing to do with camera angle or uneven ground. Foulk may have only been 6'4" at the time because he appeared to be the same size as Tom Lester when they appeared together on Green Acres. Foulk was huge but he was not as tall as Chuck Connors or James Arness. Another actor who made Buddy Ebsen look small was Peter Whitney (height unknown).
On the first season of Barnaby Jones, the character that Buddy Ebsen portrayed was described as being 73 inches tall. Although script heights are seldom accurate, it seems unlikely that the Barnaby Jones character would be 6'1" unless there was some basis for it.
I contend that Clint Eastwood's alleged height of 6'4" is as bogus as Dean Martin being 5'10 and Buddy Ebsen being 6'3". Until someone can produce a picture of Eastwood standing next to a genuinely tall actor (not Lee Marvin), I am not convinced.
Frank2--The video proves that Buddy Ebsen was taller than Dean Martin but it doesn't prove that he was 6'3". I am not sold on Dean Martin being 5'10". He looked small on the Sons of Katie Elder and Rio Bravo. Max Baer, Jr. claims to be 6'4" but realistically he could not have been over 6'3". He was about an inch shorter than Tom Lester (6'4"). On the movie The Birdmen, Baer was about 3 inches shorter than Chuck Connors. On the Beverly Hillbillies, he was also shorter than Robert Easton (height unknown). The point is that since Max Baer, Jr. was about 2 inches taller than Buddy Ebsen on the Beverly Hillbillies, Ebsen could only have been about 6'1".
On one episode of the Beverly Hillbillies, Buddy Ebsen looks about 4 inches shorter than Robert Foulk (6'5"). On this episode, it has nothing to do with camera angle or uneven ground. Foulk may have only been 6'4" at the time because he appeared to be the same size as Tom Lester when they appeared together on Green Acres. Foulk was huge but he was not as tall as Chuck Connors or James Arness. Another actor who made Buddy Ebsen look small was Peter Whitney (height unknown).
On the first season of Barnaby Jones, the character that Buddy Ebsen portrayed was described as being 73 inches tall. Although script heights are seldom accurate, it seems unlikely that the Barnaby Jones character would be 6'1" unless there was some basis for it.
I contend that Clint Eastwood's alleged height of 6'4" is as bogus as Dean Martin being 5'10 and Buddy Ebsen being 6'3". Until someone can produce a picture of Eastwood standing next to a genuinely tall actor (not Lee Marvin), I am not convinced.
MHouillon said on 19/Aug/08
I see Eastwood as a 192cm (6'3.5) in his peak and nowadays as a 186cm (6'1.5).
Due to age and back problems has lost 6cm! (2.25 inches.)
I see Eastwood as a 192cm (6'3.5) in his peak and nowadays as a 186cm (6'1.5).
Due to age and back problems has lost 6cm! (2.25 inches.)
Yaspaa said on 17/Aug/08
6'4.5.......... his heels were not that big!
6'4.5.......... his heels were not that big!
Frank2 said on 17/Aug/08
No, the case ain't closed since Wayne was 6'4". Met him, shook his hand and saw him several times on the Uni lot. I saw him wearing street shoes (no lifts) and he towered over me and just about everyone else.
No, the case ain't closed since Wayne was 6'4". Met him, shook his hand and saw him several times on the Uni lot. I saw him wearing street shoes (no lifts) and he towered over me and just about everyone else.
adam said on 17/Aug/08
Napier was 6-6 to 6-7.
Arness was 6-7.
Eastwood was 6-4 to 6-4
Napier was 6-6 to 6-7.
Arness was 6-7.
Eastwood was 6-4 to 6-4
Frank2 said on 16/Aug/08
How come 5'10" Lee J. Cobb was three inches shorter than 5'11" Bill Holden in GOLDEN BOY? Then, later on when they appeared together in THE DARK PAST, they were the exact, same height. Tell me why it is that Kirk Douglas was the same height as 5'9" Tony Curtis in SPARTACUS yet Douglas at his peak was only 5'8"? Why is it that in the TV series BATMAN, 6'2" Adam West was at least five inches shorter than Alan Napier? Why is it that in A KISS BEFORE DYING (1956), 5'11" Robert Wagner was two inches taller than 6' Jeff Hunter? Then, in the 1958 film IN LOVE AND WAR, Hunter was an inch taller.
Answer:
THESE ARE MOVIES where make believe is common place. It's not real life.
I've met Ebson. He was 6'3". No doubt in my mind that he was at least four inches taller than me.
Check him out with 5'10" Dean Martin (wearing lifts) in Martin's old variety show:
Click Here
Then tell me he wasn't 6'3". Hell, he might have even been 6'4" back when he first started as a dancer in Hollywood.
Eastwood was 6'4" in his prime.
How come 5'10" Lee J. Cobb was three inches shorter than 5'11" Bill Holden in GOLDEN BOY? Then, later on when they appeared together in THE DARK PAST, they were the exact, same height. Tell me why it is that Kirk Douglas was the same height as 5'9" Tony Curtis in SPARTACUS yet Douglas at his peak was only 5'8"? Why is it that in the TV series BATMAN, 6'2" Adam West was at least five inches shorter than Alan Napier? Why is it that in A KISS BEFORE DYING (1956), 5'11" Robert Wagner was two inches taller than 6' Jeff Hunter? Then, in the 1958 film IN LOVE AND WAR, Hunter was an inch taller.
Answer:
THESE ARE MOVIES where make believe is common place. It's not real life.
I've met Ebson. He was 6'3". No doubt in my mind that he was at least four inches taller than me.
Check him out with 5'10" Dean Martin (wearing lifts) in Martin's old variety show:
Click Here
Then tell me he wasn't 6'3". Hell, he might have even been 6'4" back when he first started as a dancer in Hollywood.
Eastwood was 6'4" in his prime.
JW said on 15/Aug/08
Frank2--Since you insist that Buddy Ebsen was 6'3", how do you explain him being so much smaller than the actors that I mentioned? For your claim to be valid, Tom Lester would have to be 6'7"; Fess Parker and Alan Napier 6'8"; and James Arness 6'9".
Getting back to Clint Eastwood. On an episode of Maverick he did not appear very tall. He was slightly taller than Eric Fleming on Rawhide but that doesn't prove anything. Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height and neither of them were 6'4".
Frank2--Since you insist that Buddy Ebsen was 6'3", how do you explain him being so much smaller than the actors that I mentioned? For your claim to be valid, Tom Lester would have to be 6'7"; Fess Parker and Alan Napier 6'8"; and James Arness 6'9".
Getting back to Clint Eastwood. On an episode of Maverick he did not appear very tall. He was slightly taller than Eric Fleming on Rawhide but that doesn't prove anything. Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height and neither of them were 6'4".
Yaspaa said on 15/Aug/08
So you did measure him?
So you did measure him?
adam said on 14/Aug/08
Yes, that`s true. Eastwood surely was a legit 6-4 peak, no question about that. But John Wayne.. I dont believe he hit 6-4 in his prime.
Yes, that`s true. Eastwood surely was a legit 6-4 peak, no question about that. But John Wayne.. I dont believe he hit 6-4 in his prime.
Frank2 said on 13/Aug/08
I dion't know about Adam, but when I've seen Eastwood he's always towered over most everyone. I don't carry a tape measure with me. I go by what I see. He was tall enough that composer John Williams who's 5'10" came up to Eastwood's nose.
I dion't know about Adam, but when I've seen Eastwood he's always towered over most everyone. I don't carry a tape measure with me. I go by what I see. He was tall enough that composer John Williams who's 5'10" came up to Eastwood's nose.
Yaspaa said on 13/Aug/08
You measured him did you Adam?
You measured him did you Adam?
Frank2 said on 12/Aug/08
Well, Buddy WAS 6'3". I met him and he towered over me. Just look how tall he is next to Dean Martin on his variety show which there are clips available on youtube. Martin was 5'10", wore lifts and Ebson still towers over him.
Well, Buddy WAS 6'3". I met him and he towered over me. Just look how tall he is next to Dean Martin on his variety show which there are clips available on youtube. Martin was 5'10", wore lifts and Ebson still towers over him.
adam said on 12/Aug/08
Eastwood was a legit 6-4 prime. No doubts. He didn`t/doesn`t wear any kinds of lifts or anything like that... unlike our dear buddy, mr. Duke.
Eastwood: 6-4 to 6-4
Eastwood was a legit 6-4 prime. No doubts. He didn`t/doesn`t wear any kinds of lifts or anything like that... unlike our dear buddy, mr. Duke.
Eastwood: 6-4 to 6-4
Frank2 said on 11/Aug/08
Buddy Ebsen was 6'3". I saw him several times, once on the set of THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES. No way was he 6'1". Fess was closer to 6'6" in his prime. Met him too. Now, he's one of the nicest people, period.
Buddy Ebsen was 6'3". I saw him several times, once on the set of THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES. No way was he 6'1". Fess was closer to 6'6" in his prime. Met him too. Now, he's one of the nicest people, period.
JW said on 10/Aug/08
Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height. There is a photograph of them when they appeared on the Danny Kaye show during the 1960s. Fess Parker (6'5") is in the same picture and is a few inches taller than both of them even though he is not even standing up straight. There is no way that Clint Eastwood could have ever been 6'4". About 6'1" would be a more reasonable estimate.
Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height. There is a photograph of them when they appeared on the Danny Kaye show during the 1960s. Fess Parker (6'5") is in the same picture and is a few inches taller than both of them even though he is not even standing up straight. There is no way that Clint Eastwood could have ever been 6'4". About 6'1" would be a more reasonable estimate.
Yaspaa said on 9/Aug/08
I'm going to attract more scorn here but I never like John Wayne the big lumbering oaf never instigated any excitement in me whatsoever so I won't be purchasing the book. 6'4 for Wayne though.
I'm going to attract more scorn here but I never like John Wayne the big lumbering oaf never instigated any excitement in me whatsoever so I won't be purchasing the book. 6'4 for Wayne though.
Frank2 said on 9/Aug/08
I met Clint on the Universal scoring stage when John Williams was recording his score for THE EIGER SANCTION. Clint was a tall guy. When he walked on, he towered over everyone. He was a man of few words so he only said "hello" and that was it. And I subsequently saw Eastwood at events such as the Academy Awards. Didn't speak to him there. He just walked by me and he was at least 6'3". His claim of 6'4" is not at all out of hand.
I met Clint on the Universal scoring stage when John Williams was recording his score for THE EIGER SANCTION. Clint was a tall guy. When he walked on, he towered over everyone. He was a man of few words so he only said "hello" and that was it. And I subsequently saw Eastwood at events such as the Academy Awards. Didn't speak to him there. He just walked by me and he was at least 6'3". His claim of 6'4" is not at all out of hand.
Yaspaa said on 9/Aug/08
Thanks for the welcome mike c,I predict many arguements in the future lol,but thats what I like. Now was George Kennedy 6'4 or 6'4 in shoes,all americans give their height in shoes especially movie stars so comparing Van Cleef and Kennedy is a moot point. Marvin doesn't look 6'2 with 5'10 Keenan Wynn or with Paul Newman posted earlier.
AAAA,yeah I've seen that shot but it's not convincing enough.
Thanks for the welcome mike c,I predict many arguements in the future lol,but thats what I like. Now was George Kennedy 6'4 or 6'4 in shoes,all americans give their height in shoes especially movie stars so comparing Van Cleef and Kennedy is a moot point. Marvin doesn't look 6'2 with 5'10 Keenan Wynn or with Paul Newman posted earlier.
AAAA,yeah I've seen that shot but it's not convincing enough.
Height Tracker said on 9/Aug/08
Frank2 so did you actually ever meet Clint Eastwood in person? I know you've met a lot of the stars and it would surprise me if you've never met this icon.
Frank2 so did you actually ever meet Clint Eastwood in person? I know you've met a lot of the stars and it would surprise me if you've never met this icon.
AAAA said on 8/Aug/08
Yassappa .....
A lot of his cowboy movies are hard to get good still off of. Leone was notorious for his setup of camera work, and those who follwed in directing followed suit. Simply put... he shot at stange angles for dramatic effect. FEw and far pictures exist and I have seen about 3 but they are HARD to find. And people had a tendency to shoot clint from low angles anyway. That, combined with his height made him absolutely looming in a lot of his early films. Look at Click Here
Daniels and Eastwood in 2002 "Bloodwork". Daniels has bad posture and Clint has definitly shrunk some by now. I think if they straightend out Daniels would be a bit taller. Rob has him at 6'3. Clint must have been at least 6'3 to shrink and still appear this tall in his early 70's at this point. My opinion. I know it isn't a full body shot, but their bodies look to matvh up to me from what is displayed. Hope to hear you all soon
Yassappa .....
A lot of his cowboy movies are hard to get good still off of. Leone was notorious for his setup of camera work, and those who follwed in directing followed suit. Simply put... he shot at stange angles for dramatic effect. FEw and far pictures exist and I have seen about 3 but they are HARD to find. And people had a tendency to shoot clint from low angles anyway. That, combined with his height made him absolutely looming in a lot of his early films. Look at Click Here
Daniels and Eastwood in 2002 "Bloodwork". Daniels has bad posture and Clint has definitly shrunk some by now. I think if they straightend out Daniels would be a bit taller. Rob has him at 6'3. Clint must have been at least 6'3 to shrink and still appear this tall in his early 70's at this point. My opinion. I know it isn't a full body shot, but their bodies look to matvh up to me from what is displayed. Hope to hear you all soon
Frank2 said on 8/Aug/08
Lee Marvin was most definitely 6'2". I know since I once had the pleasure of meeting him at a screening back in the mid-1970s. I looked up at him and I'm 5'11". He was at least three inches taller than me. David Carradine is now about 6' or was the last time I saw him in person which was several years ago. Don't know how tall he was when he was younger, but I suspect he was 6'1". James Mason was 5'11" in his prime and didn't appear to lose height as he got older. I saw him many times since he and my dad were good friends.
In his prime, Clint was a tall man. At least 6'3". No doubt he could have been 6'4". But these days he's lost some height. After all, he's closing in on 80.
Lee Marvin was most definitely 6'2". I know since I once had the pleasure of meeting him at a screening back in the mid-1970s. I looked up at him and I'm 5'11". He was at least three inches taller than me. David Carradine is now about 6' or was the last time I saw him in person which was several years ago. Don't know how tall he was when he was younger, but I suspect he was 6'1". James Mason was 5'11" in his prime and didn't appear to lose height as he got older. I saw him many times since he and my dad were good friends.
In his prime, Clint was a tall man. At least 6'3". No doubt he could have been 6'4". But these days he's lost some height. After all, he's closing in on 80.
mike c said on 8/Aug/08
Yaspaa. Welcome aboard. Do yourself a favor and buy The Duke, A Life in Pictures. It's loaded with vintage photos of the Duke. There's a picture of Clint with Marvin, Hudson, Wayne, Stewart, Borgnine, et.al ..clearly shows Clint's and Marvin's footwear. Tell us Marvin was never 6'2"..Clint was still at his best height....6'4"..Let us know. mike c ps. Saw a commercial with Van Cleef and George Kennedy (6'4") and Lee is about 2 inches shorter..
Yaspaa. Welcome aboard. Do yourself a favor and buy The Duke, A Life in Pictures. It's loaded with vintage photos of the Duke. There's a picture of Clint with Marvin, Hudson, Wayne, Stewart, Borgnine, et.al ..clearly shows Clint's and Marvin's footwear. Tell us Marvin was never 6'2"..Clint was still at his best height....6'4"..Let us know. mike c ps. Saw a commercial with Van Cleef and George Kennedy (6'4") and Lee is about 2 inches shorter..
Yaspaa said on 8/Aug/08
Lee Van Cleef was never 6'2,he's a smidge taller than David Carradine and 2" taller than James Mason,6'1 max. Lee Marvin was also never 6'2 more 6'0 as the pic with a 5'10 guy shows on the Marvin page.
All this so called evidence on the net I simply can't find,footwear is obscured or the angle is no good and I'll say it again,there is no way Clint was close to 6'6 in his boots.
Patrick,where are these pics you mention?,are they recent or vintage?
Lee Van Cleef was never 6'2,he's a smidge taller than David Carradine and 2" taller than James Mason,6'1 max. Lee Marvin was also never 6'2 more 6'0 as the pic with a 5'10 guy shows on the Marvin page.
All this so called evidence on the net I simply can't find,footwear is obscured or the angle is no good and I'll say it again,there is no way Clint was close to 6'6 in his boots.
Patrick,where are these pics you mention?,are they recent or vintage?
Gonzalo said on 8/Aug/08
Are you kidding, Daniel? you don
Are you kidding, Daniel? you don
Daniel said on 7/Aug/08
Who's the guy beside Clint, and how tall is he?
Who's the guy beside Clint, and how tall is he?
mike c said on 7/Aug/08
Thanks, Patrick. I missed your post....didn't scroll down enough. This post and that of Wayne are tough....it seems some people can't accept the obvious. Clint was at least 2" taller than Lee Van Cleef (6'2") in their movies yet people still insist Clint was not tall at all. That's the beauty of the internet..all the proof is there for the asking..you just have to know where to look. Take care.
Thanks, Patrick. I missed your post....didn't scroll down enough. This post and that of Wayne are tough....it seems some people can't accept the obvious. Clint was at least 2" taller than Lee Van Cleef (6'2") in their movies yet people still insist Clint was not tall at all. That's the beauty of the internet..all the proof is there for the asking..you just have to know where to look. Take care.
Patrick said on 6/Aug/08
Yes Mike C you are right...as usual!
Nobody answered about what I wrote on 18/07/08! I thought it was quite interesting yet and checkable by anyone easily!
Yes Mike C you are right...as usual!
Nobody answered about what I wrote on 18/07/08! I thought it was quite interesting yet and checkable by anyone easily!
sf said on 4/Aug/08
You are right, mike c...
You are right, mike c...
Roger said on 3/Aug/08
There are now photos of Clint actually being shorter than Arnold Schwarzenegger - Clint cannot possibly be even 6'2'' anymore, not even standing erect.
There are now photos of Clint actually being shorter than Arnold Schwarzenegger - Clint cannot possibly be even 6'2'' anymore, not even standing erect.
mike c said on 2/Aug/08
Guys, I've said twice before on this site. My grandfather was 6' when in his early twenties. He died at age 102 and was my height 5'6"..he had curvature of the spine and walked humped over. So, it's possible to lose more than 1 inch as you get older. Clint, 6'4" in prime and now 6'2" when he stands erect.mike c
Guys, I've said twice before on this site. My grandfather was 6' when in his early twenties. He died at age 102 and was my height 5'6"..he had curvature of the spine and walked humped over. So, it's possible to lose more than 1 inch as you get older. Clint, 6'4" in prime and now 6'2" when he stands erect.mike c
sf said on 30/Jul/08
No, that's an "average" height lost. Some people will lose more, and some less. Many men will lose at least a few inches, because of old age and continued lack of exercise. People don't realize how important exercise is to your height, as well. Just building muscle supports and reinforces your skeletal structure. However, Clint has exercised, but always seems to have had issues with his back/posture.
No, that's an "average" height lost. Some people will lose more, and some less. Many men will lose at least a few inches, because of old age and continued lack of exercise. People don't realize how important exercise is to your height, as well. Just building muscle supports and reinforces your skeletal structure. However, Clint has exercised, but always seems to have had issues with his back/posture.
.... said on 30/Jul/08
u only loose about an inch max throughout ur whole life, i read up about growth and losing height...
u only loose about an inch max throughout ur whole life, i read up about growth and losing height...
john mikey said on 28/Jul/08
Hi all,
this mikey.i am 87. earlier 60s i was the only personal manager for actor clint.i knew his profile very well. his height aslong as 6.1 dont waste your time.
Hi all,
this mikey.i am 87. earlier 60s i was the only personal manager for actor clint.i knew his profile very well. his height aslong as 6.1 dont waste your time.
Mazon said on 27/Jul/08
Isn't 3 inches too much for someone to lose, even in late 70's?
Isn't 3 inches too much for someone to lose, even in late 70's?
sf said on 23/Jul/08
Maz - don't know if your info is correct, but it sure backs up the video. No way is that dude 5'10".
Clint is one of the few dudes I've seen from 10 feet away, wearing tennis shoes. He was in his early 60's and 6'2" to 6'3".
Maz - don't know if your info is correct, but it sure backs up the video. No way is that dude 5'10".
Clint is one of the few dudes I've seen from 10 feet away, wearing tennis shoes. He was in his early 60's and 6'2" to 6'3".
Yaspaa said on 21/Jul/08
Phil tells porkies obviously. 5'8 for Humphrys,so in reality 5'7.5,that would make Clint 6'3,I wonder what footwear was being worn?
Phil tells porkies obviously. 5'8 for Humphrys,so in reality 5'7.5,that would make Clint 6'3,I wonder what footwear was being worn?
Maz said on 21/Jul/08
Phil: John Humphrys quoted himself at 5`8" in an interview a few years ago. Maybe that will solve the argument. Clint still looks very lanky in that film though
Phil: John Humphrys quoted himself at 5`8" in an interview a few years ago. Maybe that will solve the argument. Clint still looks very lanky in that film though
Yaspaa said on 21/Jul/08
If Clint was 6'4 he would have been close to 6'6 in his cowboy boots,come on,no way.
If Clint was 6'4 he would have been close to 6'6 in his cowboy boots,come on,no way.
sf said on 21/Jul/08
Well, he's not 5'10" in that video, that's all I can say. Not trying to be negative, but don't think the other guy is barely taller than 5'7" to 5'8". You must have seen him in his elevator shoes...
Well, he's not 5'10" in that video, that's all I can say. Not trying to be negative, but don't think the other guy is barely taller than 5'7" to 5'8". You must have seen him in his elevator shoes...
Yaspaa said on 20/Jul/08
Holy **** Height Tracker you are right,sorry my brain fart,thats 5'11-6'0 Carmen Argenziano even so however I don't see 4-5". Clint peak 6'4 in his boots. I'm going to watch a maverick episode with Clint in tonight so I may have a different opinion later. Dan Hedaya lol
Holy **** Height Tracker you are right,sorry my brain fart,thats 5'11-6'0 Carmen Argenziano even so however I don't see 4-5". Clint peak 6'4 in his boots. I'm going to watch a maverick episode with Clint in tonight so I may have a different opinion later. Dan Hedaya lol
mike c said on 19/Jul/08
I agree with Height Tracker. Rent the video for the complete cast of Sudden Impact. I don't see Dan Hedaya..maybe I'm wrong! mike c
I agree with Height Tracker. Rent the video for the complete cast of Sudden Impact. I don't see Dan Hedaya..maybe I'm wrong! mike c
Height Tracker said on 18/Jul/08
Dan Hedaya was not in Sudden Impact Yaspaa nor is he in any of your pictures.
Dan Hedaya was not in Sudden Impact Yaspaa nor is he in any of your pictures.
Phil said on 18/Jul/08
Sf: don't forget the quiff!!! It really adds to the illusion of being taller. I had a decent one when I was about 18 & it added a good 1" or so to me. How I wish I still had it & not the very bare look I now sport! Trust me, Humph is 5'10".
Sf: don't forget the quiff!!! It really adds to the illusion of being taller. I had a decent one when I was about 18 & it added a good 1" or so to me. How I wish I still had it & not the very bare look I now sport! Trust me, Humph is 5'10".
Anonymous said on 18/Jul/08
Clint towers over the guy in the interview. OK the interviewer isn't a big guy but Eastwood looks very tall. I've never really understood the debate about Clint's height in that he's always looked about 6'4''. With age he has lost some height I agree.
Clint towers over the guy in the interview. OK the interviewer isn't a big guy but Eastwood looks very tall. I've never really understood the debate about Clint's height in that he's always looked about 6'4''. With age he has lost some height I agree.
patrick said on 18/Jul/08
I still don't understand you don
I still don't understand you don
Yaspaa said on 18/Jul/08
The top of Humphrys head is just below Clint's nose,so we are talking 7-7.5 inches which would make Clint 6'5.5 plus Humphrys doesn't look to have the frame of a 5'10 guy. I respect your opinion but I'm not convinced.
The top of Humphrys head is just below Clint's nose,so we are talking 7-7.5 inches which would make Clint 6'5.5 plus Humphrys doesn't look to have the frame of a 5'10 guy. I respect your opinion but I'm not convinced.
sf said on 18/Jul/08
I'm with Yaspaa - if Clint's 6'4", the other dude's only 5'8", tops...No can trust that Jon Humprys is 5'10" in that - not even close.
I'm with Yaspaa - if Clint's 6'4", the other dude's only 5'8", tops...No can trust that Jon Humprys is 5'10" in that - not even close.
Phil said on 17/Jul/08
That must make me 6'1" and, as much I wish I was, I am not!! Remember, Clint has an "Elvis quiff" in that clip so he will look taller. Trust me, Jon Humphrys is a notch over 5'10", making Mr E 6'4".
That must make me 6'1" and, as much I wish I was, I am not!! Remember, Clint has an "Elvis quiff" in that clip so he will look taller. Trust me, Jon Humphrys is a notch over 5'10", making Mr E 6'4".
Yaspaa said on 17/Jul/08
He's not 5'10 that would put Clint closer to 6'5.
He's not 5'10 that would put Clint closer to 6'5.
mike c said on 16/Jul/08
great job, Phil! Love the interview...6'4" easily!!
great job, Phil! Love the interview...6'4" easily!!
Phil said on 15/Jul/08
Here's an interview clip from 1967 of Clint with the UK's Jon Humphrys. Check out the height difference. Jon is a shade over 5'10" & I know that is accurate as I have stood next to him & I am exactly 6'0".
The big guy is easily 6'4", end of story, all you naysayers!!
Click Here
Here's an interview clip from 1967 of Clint with the UK's Jon Humphrys. Check out the height difference. Jon is a shade over 5'10" & I know that is accurate as I have stood next to him & I am exactly 6'0".
The big guy is easily 6'4", end of story, all you naysayers!!
Click Here
Yaspaa said on 14/Jul/08
He is pictured with 5'9 (at best) Dan Hedaya,Clint just doesn't look like a 6'4 guy. It's from Sudden Impact Click Here
He is pictured with 5'9 (at best) Dan Hedaya,Clint just doesn't look like a 6'4 guy. It's from Sudden Impact Click Here
Yaspaa said on 14/Jul/08
If Tyson stood up straight there,the top of his head would be at Clint's eyeline making Clint around 4.5" taller.
If Tyson stood up straight there,the top of his head would be at Clint's eyeline making Clint around 4.5" taller.
AAAA said on 13/Jul/08
He was the same height, If not taller than Jeff Daniels in Bloodwork and Daniels is a 6'3 man. clint looked 6'4 to me in his younger days. And that pic I posted of him and Tyson together in the 80's, if Iron mike is really only 5'9.5, clint still looked 6'4 next to him then.
Here is the pic I found like 2 yrs ago. It has been posted again and again from time to time. Click Here
If tyson is only 5'9.5 Clint looks 6'4. If tyson is taller, clint looks taller
He was the same height, If not taller than Jeff Daniels in Bloodwork and Daniels is a 6'3 man. clint looked 6'4 to me in his younger days. And that pic I posted of him and Tyson together in the 80's, if Iron mike is really only 5'9.5, clint still looked 6'4 next to him then.
Here is the pic I found like 2 yrs ago. It has been posted again and again from time to time. Click Here
If tyson is only 5'9.5 Clint looks 6'4. If tyson is taller, clint looks taller
Erkki Junkkarinen said on 13/Jul/08
In For a few dollars more Clint seemed to be at least an inch taller than Lee Van Cleef, maybe even 2 inches. I'd say he was something between 6'3 and 6'4 in his prime.
In For a few dollars more Clint seemed to be at least an inch taller than Lee Van Cleef, maybe even 2 inches. I'd say he was something between 6'3 and 6'4 in his prime.
Danimal said on 11/Jul/08
Why is Glenn's pic still up?
Why is Glenn's pic still up?
Yaspaa said on 10/Jul/08
he didn't look 6.5" taller than Burt Reynolds in 'City Heat',more 4.5".
he didn't look 6.5" taller than Burt Reynolds in 'City Heat',more 4.5".
Yaspaa said on 9/Jul/08
5'0 is a very large Orangutan,they do have 8'0 arm spans though.
5'0 is a very large Orangutan,they do have 8'0 arm spans though.
adam said on 9/Jul/08
No way in hell was he ever taller or the same height as Rock Hudson who was at least 6-5.
No way in hell was he ever taller or the same height as Rock Hudson who was at least 6-5.
Brad said on 8/Jul/08
6' 4" peak. Even with massive heel, Burt Reynolds had to look up at him in '84.
6' 4" peak. Even with massive heel, Burt Reynolds had to look up at him in '84.
Yaspaa said on 7/Jul/08
You beat me to the punch there sf,he doesn't sound like he's screwing around. " Do you know who that was,Cwint Eastwood".
You beat me to the punch there sf,he doesn't sound like he's screwing around. " Do you know who that was,Cwint Eastwood".
sf said on 7/Jul/08
Now I'm starting to wonder if Ant is just plain being sarcastic and screwing with us...what do you think, Yaspaa?
Now I'm starting to wonder if Ant is just plain being sarcastic and screwing with us...what do you think, Yaspaa?
sf said on 5/Jul/08
Ant - are you joking? Those Chinese guys "mistook" Paul Hogan for Clint Eastwood because they were paid to do so, in a movie, called Crocodile Dundee. It's not real. I'd also like to see this orangutan that's 6 feet tall, especially the one in the other movie that isn't even close to 6 feet tall.
Ant - are you joking? Those Chinese guys "mistook" Paul Hogan for Clint Eastwood because they were paid to do so, in a movie, called Crocodile Dundee. It's not real. I'd also like to see this orangutan that's 6 feet tall, especially the one in the other movie that isn't even close to 6 feet tall.
clark said on 5/Jul/08
Maximum height of a male Orangutan is about five feet.
Maximum height of a male Orangutan is about five feet.
Ant said on 4/Jul/08
Apparently some chinese guys once mistook Paul Hogan for clint eastwood so Clint can't be 6ft 4!! Come on watch his films some of them are from an era when we weren't all so height obsessed and he was and is a tall man. Plus he towers over the monkey (orangutan I know) who must be at least 6ft tall!! Have you seen one of those orange blighters up close? Massive!!
Apparently some chinese guys once mistook Paul Hogan for clint eastwood so Clint can't be 6ft 4!! Come on watch his films some of them are from an era when we weren't all so height obsessed and he was and is a tall man. Plus he towers over the monkey (orangutan I know) who must be at least 6ft tall!! Have you seen one of those orange blighters up close? Massive!!
Yaspaa said on 4/Jul/08
The shot is misleading ,but we aren't talking about a single inch. Lee's heels aren't visible,lucky for you guys.
Clint is at LEAST 6'4?,come on 6'4 is absolute maximum and I doubt Clint would have wanted to look small next to Rock Hudson,there's the lifts. Gregg Henry is 5'10.5,but they made him look 6'2 om Gilmore Girls next to Edward Herrmann.
The shot is misleading ,but we aren't talking about a single inch. Lee's heels aren't visible,lucky for you guys.
Clint is at LEAST 6'4?,come on 6'4 is absolute maximum and I doubt Clint would have wanted to look small next to Rock Hudson,there's the lifts. Gregg Henry is 5'10.5,but they made him look 6'2 om Gilmore Girls next to Edward Herrmann.
Anonymous said on 4/Jul/08
Yaspaa, that phot of Lee Marvin with Paul Newman is misleading. Newman has on cowboy boots and Marvin is badly slouching to say the least. Marvin was 6'2'' without a doubt. Glenn who I believe has been barred said that he met Clint in the late 80s early 90s and he looked at least 6'4''. I've got a Clint doc on dvd in which he has a bit part in a Rock Hudson film and he is approx the same height as Hudson. Hudson was 6'4'' to 6'5''.
Yaspaa, that phot of Lee Marvin with Paul Newman is misleading. Newman has on cowboy boots and Marvin is badly slouching to say the least. Marvin was 6'2'' without a doubt. Glenn who I believe has been barred said that he met Clint in the late 80s early 90s and he looked at least 6'4''. I've got a Clint doc on dvd in which he has a bit part in a Rock Hudson film and he is approx the same height as Hudson. Hudson was 6'4'' to 6'5''.
patrick said on 4/Jul/08
Mark, If ever such pain was so easy to cure, that for sure would be the death of all the physicians of this world!
Drinking (water) helps anyway to keep you in better health but that
Mark, If ever such pain was so easy to cure, that for sure would be the death of all the physicians of this world!
Drinking (water) helps anyway to keep you in better health but that
Yaspaa said on 3/Jul/08
Mark,just make sure you eat correctly and you will reach your maximum height.
Mark,just make sure you eat correctly and you will reach your maximum height.
Mark said on 2/Jul/08
"I repeat that inter vertebrae
"I repeat that inter vertebrae
Yaspaa said on 2/Jul/08
Patrick ,you know me,I just like to argue.
Patrick ,you know me,I just like to argue.
Jason said on 1/Jul/08
I don't think he was 6'4'', either, but I could certainly buy 6'3''.
I don't think he was 6'4'', either, but I could certainly buy 6'3''.
patrick said on 1/Jul/08
Yaspaa, for once my opinion really diverges from yours ; I
Yaspaa, for once my opinion really diverges from yours ; I
Yaspaa said on 1/Jul/08
6'2 my arse.
6'2 my arse.
Yaspaa said on 30/Jun/08
Lee Marvin was never anywhere near 6'2 Click Here doesn't look it next to Paul Newman,Marvin was probably 6'0.
Lee Marvin was never anywhere near 6'2 Click Here doesn't look it next to Paul Newman,Marvin was probably 6'0.
Anonymous said on 30/Jun/08
He's nearly 80 so it's not surprising he's a lot smaller than in his prime. Look at Paint Your Wagon. Eastwood is definitely taller than Lee Marvin and Marvin was a legit 6'2'' plus.
He's nearly 80 so it's not surprising he's a lot smaller than in his prime. Look at Paint Your Wagon. Eastwood is definitely taller than Lee Marvin and Marvin was a legit 6'2'' plus.
Yaspaa said on 29/Jun/08
I'm going to stick my neck out here,hung drawn and quartered I may be, yet I feel the yearning to voice my doubt over Clint's 6'4 height. He always looked like a 6'2 guy to me. If you think of Dolph Lundgren,Clint never had that very very tall look about him. He is still capable of good posture and is able to stand up straight. Where has the height gone? He has lost an inch at most. Bring it on!
I'm going to stick my neck out here,hung drawn and quartered I may be, yet I feel the yearning to voice my doubt over Clint's 6'4 height. He always looked like a 6'2 guy to me. If you think of Dolph Lundgren,Clint never had that very very tall look about him. He is still capable of good posture and is able to stand up straight. Where has the height gone? He has lost an inch at most. Bring it on!
Joe said on 26/Jun/08
how can he lose 3 inches? he's not a hulk hogan.
how can he lose 3 inches? he's not a hulk hogan.
Danimal said on 26/Jun/08
Going to miss ya Glenn! Been on this site even before you came around, but you were always fun and patient. Hope you still post every now and then!
Going to miss ya Glenn! Been on this site even before you came around, but you were always fun and patient. Hope you still post every now and then!
glenn said on 24/Jun/08
danimal-im surprised you didnt know i have a crystal ball.
danimal-im surprised you didnt know i have a crystal ball.
Ant said on 23/Jun/08
Whats he like Glenn? I always imagined him to be pretty cool. Any one who doubts his 6ft 4 height watch Dirty Harry or Paint Your wagon. he was a big fellah, even then he had rounded shoulders and slight curvature of his back. Similar in build to Hugh Jackman but Jackmans posture is better, different era but both tall well built men. Makes me sick lol
Whats he like Glenn? I always imagined him to be pretty cool. Any one who doubts his 6ft 4 height watch Dirty Harry or Paint Your wagon. he was a big fellah, even then he had rounded shoulders and slight curvature of his back. Similar in build to Hugh Jackman but Jackmans posture is better, different era but both tall well built men. Makes me sick lol
Robroy said on 23/Jun/08
I read years ago in the 80s that Clint was 6'4". I understand what you're saying about Eli Wallach, but it's common practice in movies to shoot from altered angles to make actors look taller, or use mechanical devices (heels, raised flooring, etc.,) to make two actors with divergent heights appear closer, in most cases to be able to fit them into scenes together. As for back issues, I was 6'2" all of my adult life, until 5 years ago when I had a vertebra fused. I lost a full inch in height, now having to stretch pretty hard on a good day just to hit 6'1". This is VERY common for people with severe back problems.
I read years ago in the 80s that Clint was 6'4". I understand what you're saying about Eli Wallach, but it's common practice in movies to shoot from altered angles to make actors look taller, or use mechanical devices (heels, raised flooring, etc.,) to make two actors with divergent heights appear closer, in most cases to be able to fit them into scenes together. As for back issues, I was 6'2" all of my adult life, until 5 years ago when I had a vertebra fused. I lost a full inch in height, now having to stretch pretty hard on a good day just to hit 6'1". This is VERY common for people with severe back problems.
Danimal said on 23/Jun/08
miko says on 30/May/08
Glenn is below 6"0 barefoot possible now? Or possible in the future?
Let me get this straight. You're asking Glenn (who of course is a licensed doctor/fortune teller), to predict whether Clint will lose even more height?
miko says on 30/May/08
Glenn is below 6"0 barefoot possible now? Or possible in the future?
Let me get this straight. You're asking Glenn (who of course is a licensed doctor/fortune teller), to predict whether Clint will lose even more height?
patrick said on 23/Jun/08
Dear Gonzalo, once more, you're absloutely right: Clint looks and is clearly taller by about 2 inches than Lee Van Cleef.I complain those who cannot see that! He wore cow boy boots? Yes...as all of the others!
Dear Gonzalo, once more, you're absloutely right: Clint looks and is clearly taller by about 2 inches than Lee Van Cleef.I complain those who cannot see that! He wore cow boy boots? Yes...as all of the others!
Gonzalo said on 18/Jun/08
Mark, Eastwood looked 4-5 cms taller than Van Cleef in Leone
Mark, Eastwood looked 4-5 cms taller than Van Cleef in Leone
glenn said on 17/Jun/08
he was 6-4.enough bull.
he was 6-4.enough bull.
Mark said on 12/Jun/08
I'm not convinced that Clint was ever 6'4 at his peak. He certainly didn't look a whopping 9 inches taller then 5'7 Eli Wallach in "The Good the Bad and the Ugly." Likewise I didn't notice much difference between him and 6'2 Lee Van Cleef. Also I find it hard to believe someone could lose 3 inches in height through age unless through major spinal deformation or severe hunchback. In the picture above however his posture seems quite solid and straight for a man in his 70's. My guess is that Clint Eastwood's current height is around 6'1, and peak height was around 6'2 1/2.
I'm not convinced that Clint was ever 6'4 at his peak. He certainly didn't look a whopping 9 inches taller then 5'7 Eli Wallach in "The Good the Bad and the Ugly." Likewise I didn't notice much difference between him and 6'2 Lee Van Cleef. Also I find it hard to believe someone could lose 3 inches in height through age unless through major spinal deformation or severe hunchback. In the picture above however his posture seems quite solid and straight for a man in his 70's. My guess is that Clint Eastwood's current height is around 6'1, and peak height was around 6'2 1/2.
Daniel said on 5/Jun/08
For Clint Eastwood, 6'4'' peak and 6'+ now sounds very reasonable to me. As some of the guys said before, he looked visibly shorter than Freeman in Million Dollar Baby. Yes, I think it's possible he lost 3 inches or even a bit more. Even a not so tall guy, like US bluesman Johnny Winter (who I think wasn't less than 6 feet in his youth), looks 5'8'' nowadays at 60+ years old, because of a very bad health condition and weakness, I guess.
For Clint Eastwood, 6'4'' peak and 6'+ now sounds very reasonable to me. As some of the guys said before, he looked visibly shorter than Freeman in Million Dollar Baby. Yes, I think it's possible he lost 3 inches or even a bit more. Even a not so tall guy, like US bluesman Johnny Winter (who I think wasn't less than 6 feet in his youth), looks 5'8'' nowadays at 60+ years old, because of a very bad health condition and weakness, I guess.
patrick said on 4/Jun/08
Once more, I agree Glenn who, I remind you, saw Clint (as the others!) many times.
First Clint was never ever
Once more, I agree Glenn who, I remind you, saw Clint (as the others!) many times.
First Clint was never ever
Mike said on 3/Jun/08
Clint was 6'3.5 to 6'4.5 for his peak today 6'0.5, lost 3 inches id say
Clint was 6'3.5 to 6'4.5 for his peak today 6'0.5, lost 3 inches id say
John said on 3/Jun/08
I agree with anonymous, I think he was 6-3 tops on his prime. He was very thin so he can looks even taller than he really was. Today he looks the same height as Schwarzenegger (6-0), and 1 inch over Brad Pitt. Or he had terrible back issues.
I agree with anonymous, I think he was 6-3 tops on his prime. He was very thin so he can looks even taller than he really was. Today he looks the same height as Schwarzenegger (6-0), and 1 inch over Brad Pitt. Or he had terrible back issues.
Anonymous said on 30/May/08
i met clint 4 years go he looked 185 186 cm he migh have lost another 0.5 to 1 cm by now 6 ft 1 is not bad for a 77 years old
i met clint 4 years go he looked 185 186 cm he migh have lost another 0.5 to 1 cm by now 6 ft 1 is not bad for a 77 years old
miko said on 30/May/08
Glenn is below 6"0 barefoot possible now? Or possible in the future?
Glenn is below 6"0 barefoot possible now? Or possible in the future?
Anonymous said on 29/May/08
I dont think Clint was ever 6'4. I would say 6'3 in his Prime.
I dont think Clint was ever 6'4. I would say 6'3 in his Prime.
glenn said on 28/May/08
clint was 6-4.he is barely 6-1 now.with the illusion of 6ft.
clint was 6-4.he is barely 6-1 now.with the illusion of 6ft.
A.RAY said on 28/May/08
clint is 6'4" tall & it goes well with his personality. It is like a brand logo or symbol that is pasted with his name.
clint is 6'4" tall & it goes well with his personality. It is like a brand logo or symbol that is pasted with his name.
dmeyer said on 27/May/08
clint is no taller than 6 ft 1 in today and he looks 1.5 to 2 in taller than pitt in cannes festival pics and brad has high cut footwear 99 percent elevator wish means he dosnt even look 6 ft with elevators on that could give estimates of 5 ft 10 to 5 ft 10.5 for him
clint is no taller than 6 ft 1 in today and he looks 1.5 to 2 in taller than pitt in cannes festival pics and brad has high cut footwear 99 percent elevator wish means he dosnt even look 6 ft with elevators on that could give estimates of 5 ft 10 to 5 ft 10.5 for him
Gonzalo said on 22/May/08
I saw him yesterday in this movie with George Kennedy and they looked identical in height. Kennedy was really tall, around 1`93-94
I saw him yesterday in this movie with George Kennedy and they looked identical in height. Kennedy was really tall, around 1`93-94
Bob H. said on 19/May/08
Watched "Million Dollar Baby" last night. 77 year old Clint is now a couple inches shorter than Morgan Freeman. While no longer the tough looking guy he was, it's still great to see Clint in a movie.
Watched "Million Dollar Baby" last night. 77 year old Clint is now a couple inches shorter than Morgan Freeman. While no longer the tough looking guy he was, it's still great to see Clint in a movie.
Clark said on 16/May/08
Clint was definetly taller than David letterman in his day.
Clint was definetly taller than David letterman in his day.
Clark said on 16/May/08
Chris 175...yes people can lose a lot of height with age and illness. Rock Hudson was close to 6'5" at his peak and had lost over 3-4 inches in height with his illness. He died weighing about 120 pounds.
Chris 175...yes people can lose a lot of height with age and illness. Rock Hudson was close to 6'5" at his peak and had lost over 3-4 inches in height with his illness. He died weighing about 120 pounds.
Anonymous said on 12/May/08
James, I've got a book in which a young Clint stands next to a young Roger Moore. Clint is a fair bit taller. Moore was 6ft plus. Eastwood was about 6'4'' in his youth.
James, I've got a book in which a young Clint stands next to a young Roger Moore. Clint is a fair bit taller. Moore was 6ft plus. Eastwood was about 6'4'' in his youth.
mee said on 10/May/08
there is picture,where are brad pitt (180 cm) and Clint Eastwood posing,and brad was like one inch taller...
there is picture,where are brad pitt (180 cm) and Clint Eastwood posing,and brad was like one inch taller...
Hugh said on 10/May/08
He is 6ft1 and no less. I find that very hard to beleive thant anyone could lose 4 inches.
He is 6ft1 and no less. I find that very hard to beleive thant anyone could lose 4 inches.
clark said on 8/May/08
I will see if I can find out about height loss. It can vary with diff ethnic groups ,bone density, lifestyle, etc. But as a general rule: you can start to notice about the age of 60. The human body is a marvel of engineering, but cannot maintain that optimum physique forever. Interesting how some shorter people have a better posture even when they start to lose height.
I will see if I can find out about height loss. It can vary with diff ethnic groups ,bone density, lifestyle, etc. But as a general rule: you can start to notice about the age of 60. The human body is a marvel of engineering, but cannot maintain that optimum physique forever. Interesting how some shorter people have a better posture even when they start to lose height.
Anonymous said on 5/May/08
Eastwood must be well into his 70s. Give the guy a break. There's no way he can be the superb physical specimen he was in his younger days.
Eastwood must be well into his 70s. Give the guy a break. There's no way he can be the superb physical specimen he was in his younger days.
TNTinCA said on 2/May/08
I am curious: does anyone know what the statistical average height loss is for the average male? I know height loss due to age is mentioned frequently on this site and I was curious if anyone had any reference data to offer.
I am curious: does anyone know what the statistical average height loss is for the average male? I know height loss due to age is mentioned frequently on this site and I was curious if anyone had any reference data to offer.
Hugh said on 29/Apr/08
6ft1.5 maybe?
6ft1.5 maybe?
cm / inches said on 29/Apr/08
He dosn't look 185 cm at all , in that pic maybe more 178 cm !? but anyway , I wouldn' believe him was 192 cm or 193 it's ridiculus , maybe more 187 cm !!?
He dosn't look 185 cm at all , in that pic maybe more 178 cm !? but anyway , I wouldn' believe him was 192 cm or 193 it's ridiculus , maybe more 187 cm !!?
glenn said on 24/Apr/08
this is the only time i dont agree with hugh.clint is 6-1 tops now,giving the illusion of 6ft.
this is the only time i dont agree with hugh.clint is 6-1 tops now,giving the illusion of 6ft.
Ray said on 22/Apr/08
He looked less than 2 inches taller than Jay Leno (5'11")on the Space cowboys DVD extras. I'd say nowadays he's 6'1" at best. Losing 3 inches in height still amazes me though...
He looked less than 2 inches taller than Jay Leno (5'11")on the Space cowboys DVD extras. I'd say nowadays he's 6'1" at best. Losing 3 inches in height still amazes me though...
Hugh said on 21/Apr/08
I think Clint Eastwood was a solid 193cm in his youth and his now around 6ft2.
I think 6ft1 is ridiculous. And James, 6ft4 onwards is giant.
I think Clint Eastwood was a solid 193cm in his youth and his now around 6ft2.
I think 6ft1 is ridiculous. And James, 6ft4 onwards is giant.
Dollar said on 7/Apr/08
James - 6'4 is pretty giant to me at 5'7. The different between 6'6 and 6'4 is unnoticeable to us 5'10 and under crowd, and Clint was definitely considered a giant by most in his hay day when the average height of Americans was close to mine.
James - 6'4 is pretty giant to me at 5'7. The different between 6'6 and 6'4 is unnoticeable to us 5'10 and under crowd, and Clint was definitely considered a giant by most in his hay day when the average height of Americans was close to mine.
Mattiew_- said on 5/Apr/08
Clint shrunk a lot in the recent years ...
He was at least as tall if not taller than Freeman in "Unforgiven" .
Prime Clint --> 6'4
Unforgiven Clint --> around 6'3.25
Nowadays ---> about 6'0.75-6'1
Clint shrunk a lot in the recent years ...
He was at least as tall if not taller than Freeman in "Unforgiven" .
Prime Clint --> 6'4
Unforgiven Clint --> around 6'3.25
Nowadays ---> about 6'0.75-6'1
thecynther said on 4/Apr/08
easily 6'3 or 6'4 in his prime.he towers over everyone in his movies from the 60s,and more so because he had a 'twig' like figure (shoulder and waist the same width lol), which made him look even taller.cool guy.the western movies couldnt have had a better icon.
easily 6'3 or 6'4 in his prime.he towers over everyone in his movies from the 60s,and more so because he had a 'twig' like figure (shoulder and waist the same width lol), which made him look even taller.cool guy.the western movies couldnt have had a better icon.
Hugh said on 28/Mar/08
Definately 6ft4 at his peak. A giant infact. I think he's around the 6ft2 range nowadays.
Definately 6ft4 at his peak. A giant infact. I think he's around the 6ft2 range nowadays.
patrick said on 27/Mar/08
Mike c, will you be surprised if I agree with you? Kevint, "why" and what are you basing on your statement:
Mike c, will you be surprised if I agree with you? Kevint, "why" and what are you basing on your statement:
Gonzalo said on 26/Mar/08
Clint looking very similar in height to Lou Gosset Jr, listed here 1`92
Click Here
Clint looking clearly taller than Spanish opera singer Pl
Clint looking very similar in height to Lou Gosset Jr, listed here 1`92
Click Here
Clint looking clearly taller than Spanish opera singer Pl
mike c said on 25/Mar/08
Well said, Kevint, but I refer you to John Wayne, A Life in Pictures....has a full length shot of Clint and Lee Marvin (both dressed in suits and dress shoes) with Wayne, Hudson, and of course Stewart...buy the book or at least look at the photo and then we'll talk about Clint never being 6'4". Go to the Wayne page and see the album put together by my buddy Gonzalo...it has this classic photo..trust me, the discussion is over on Clint. No doubt 6'4". Mike C ps. I course you would have to know that Stewart was 6'3", Hudson was 6'5", and Wayne, at that time, was down a tad from his 6'4.5 in prime...
Well said, Kevint, but I refer you to John Wayne, A Life in Pictures....has a full length shot of Clint and Lee Marvin (both dressed in suits and dress shoes) with Wayne, Hudson, and of course Stewart...buy the book or at least look at the photo and then we'll talk about Clint never being 6'4". Go to the Wayne page and see the album put together by my buddy Gonzalo...it has this classic photo..trust me, the discussion is over on Clint. No doubt 6'4". Mike C ps. I course you would have to know that Stewart was 6'3", Hudson was 6'5", and Wayne, at that time, was down a tad from his 6'4.5 in prime...
Kevint said on 24/Mar/08
Very few actors in Hollywood have ever been 6' 4", although many have claimed that as a publicity height. In my opinion, only James Arness and Clint Walker were 6' 4" or taller, at least among real movie stars (sports stars who made movies, like Michael Jordan, being disqualified).
So I don't buy Clint as 6' 4" even in his youthful prime; most actors are well under six feet, and any actor that height would loom over most cast members, something that Eastwood rarely did.
Comparing his height to other actors who were also supposedly the same size doesn't make any difference.
I think there's less "height upgrading" in modern Hollywood but in the classic 20th century cinema, with publicists, no actor was under six feet tall and no actress was over 125 pounds.
Very few actors in Hollywood have ever been 6' 4", although many have claimed that as a publicity height. In my opinion, only James Arness and Clint Walker were 6' 4" or taller, at least among real movie stars (sports stars who made movies, like Michael Jordan, being disqualified).
So I don't buy Clint as 6' 4" even in his youthful prime; most actors are well under six feet, and any actor that height would loom over most cast members, something that Eastwood rarely did.
Comparing his height to other actors who were also supposedly the same size doesn't make any difference.
I think there's less "height upgrading" in modern Hollywood but in the classic 20th century cinema, with publicists, no actor was under six feet tall and no actress was over 125 pounds.
Jim said on 22/Mar/08
Just been watching "Joe Kidd". Clint is the same height as 6'4" Greg Walcott in several scenes on flat floors. Mr E also has 2" on 6'2" Don Stroud in one scene. He was easily 6'4" in his prime. He is very "slouchy" even then, though. Hence, his shrunke look now.
Just been watching "Joe Kidd". Clint is the same height as 6'4" Greg Walcott in several scenes on flat floors. Mr E also has 2" on 6'2" Don Stroud in one scene. He was easily 6'4" in his prime. He is very "slouchy" even then, though. Hence, his shrunke look now.
mike c said on 20/Mar/08
NO Height Tracker, but I saw and heard the interview.I'm not talking 1970, I'm talking last year, maybe a tad longer. I wish I could have recorded it, but it took me by surprise. Both he and Bill are seated...wide camera view...a blind man can see they're both around the same height. Maybe someone has it or has at least a picture of both Bill and Clint. I don't need a measuring tape to use common sense and see what's in front of me...two very tall guys, albeit Clint on the decline....respect your opinion, though.
NO Height Tracker, but I saw and heard the interview.I'm not talking 1970, I'm talking last year, maybe a tad longer. I wish I could have recorded it, but it took me by surprise. Both he and Bill are seated...wide camera view...a blind man can see they're both around the same height. Maybe someone has it or has at least a picture of both Bill and Clint. I don't need a measuring tape to use common sense and see what's in front of me...two very tall guys, albeit Clint on the decline....respect your opinion, though.
Chris175 said on 20/Mar/08
i dont think he has lost 3 inches thats rediculus, my grandad was 183cm on his army cert when he was 19 and he is no less than 180 now, people shrink yes but not by 3 inches, i think the tallest he ever made it was 6-2.5 to 6-3 and he has shrunk a bit
i dont think he has lost 3 inches thats rediculus, my grandad was 183cm on his army cert when he was 19 and he is no less than 180 now, people shrink yes but not by 3 inches, i think the tallest he ever made it was 6-2.5 to 6-3 and he has shrunk a bit
Height Tracker said on 20/Mar/08
mike c do you have the video to this interview?
mike c do you have the video to this interview?
mike c said on 19/Mar/08
Bill is 6'4" and Clint was just about his height in spite of years he has on Bill.....look at the interview when they're facing each other, albeit seated.
Bill is 6'4" and Clint was just about his height in spite of years he has on Bill.....look at the interview when they're facing each other, albeit seated.
Clark said on 16/Mar/08
Bill O Reilly--like him or not, stated that he interviwed Eastwood. And that they were about the same height. Bill O reilly is still a VERY tall man.
But that was in the late 70's!!!
Bill O Reilly--like him or not, stated that he interviwed Eastwood. And that they were about the same height. Bill O reilly is still a VERY tall man.
But that was in the late 70's!!!
Clark said on 16/Mar/08
Bill O Reilly--like him or not, stated that he interviwed Eastwood. And that they were about the same height. Bill O reilly is still a VERY tall man.
Bill O Reilly--like him or not, stated that he interviwed Eastwood. And that they were about the same height. Bill O reilly is still a VERY tall man.
miko said on 9/Mar/08
I think Clint was probably a little under 6"4 at his peak (maybe 6"3.75), but nowadays he's looking about 6"0.
I think Clint was probably a little under 6"4 at his peak (maybe 6"3.75), but nowadays he's looking about 6"0.
glenn said on 7/Mar/08
thanks patrick and james for understanding im not trying to be a dick and rule house here.my point is to keep all options open, especially those that havnt met celebs.im wrong sometimes at gauging.not on certain names though.
thanks patrick and james for understanding im not trying to be a dick and rule house here.my point is to keep all options open, especially those that havnt met celebs.im wrong sometimes at gauging.not on certain names though.
patrick said on 6/Mar/08
glenn: I understand what you try to say in all these pages and I trust you, definitely. It is not easy for you I imagine to have to defend one's point of you, you whom saw "them", while others, basing themselves upon just "their
glenn: I understand what you try to say in all these pages and I trust you, definitely. It is not easy for you I imagine to have to defend one's point of you, you whom saw "them", while others, basing themselves upon just "their
glenn said on 2/Mar/08
nothing is too high for spacey or matthew.they both 5-11.unless he had it higher.you think rob is accurate,and he is for the most part.but theres alot more mistakes on the site than a few.id say a dozen important names.but out of a thousands of names in general,thats great.as for how he estimates half inches,has my head scratching.i always got a kick out of mel gibson 5-9.5.hell,who knows,maybe he is right.
nothing is too high for spacey or matthew.they both 5-11.unless he had it higher.you think rob is accurate,and he is for the most part.but theres alot more mistakes on the site than a few.id say a dozen important names.but out of a thousands of names in general,thats great.as for how he estimates half inches,has my head scratching.i always got a kick out of mel gibson 5-9.5.hell,who knows,maybe he is right.
mike c said on 2/Mar/08
Thank you, Danimal....great video. You're right on...Clint at minimum 6'3", down a bit from 6'4"..I suspect that if he could straighten himself out, he'd be taller than McMahon. But, they do seem to be about the same height. Mike C
Thank you, Danimal....great video. You're right on...Clint at minimum 6'3", down a bit from 6'4"..I suspect that if he could straighten himself out, he'd be taller than McMahon. But, they do seem to be about the same height. Mike C
dmeyer said on 29/Feb/08
rob is increadibly accurate ,exept for very few guys like spacey and mccaunoghey they were too high at some point
rob is increadibly accurate ,exept for very few guys like spacey and mccaunoghey they were too high at some point
Danimal said on 29/Feb/08
Here's Clint in 1992 on The Tonight Show standing up next to 6'2" Dave Letterman and an aging 6'3.5" Ed McMahon. Clint was still at least 6'3" at this stage and what appeared to be in GREAT physical shape: Click Here
Here's Clint in 1992 on The Tonight Show standing up next to 6'2" Dave Letterman and an aging 6'3.5" Ed McMahon. Clint was still at least 6'3" at this stage and what appeared to be in GREAT physical shape: Click Here
glenn said on 28/Feb/08
rob does what he wants.6-1 for clint isnt as inaccurate as other listings here.the very few that is.rob does good overall.
rob does what he wants.6-1 for clint isnt as inaccurate as other listings here.the very few that is.rob does good overall.
Jake Is Back said on 28/Feb/08
Its hard to picture a man who was once 6'4" looking up to Brad Pitt. Maybe this is actually the case with Eastwood, but he looks 5'11", 6' tops next to Pitt and Jolie.
Its hard to picture a man who was once 6'4" looking up to Brad Pitt. Maybe this is actually the case with Eastwood, but he looks 5'11", 6' tops next to Pitt and Jolie.
glenn said on 27/Feb/08
ive been saying clint was 6ft for the last 5 years, for ages.
ive been saying clint was 6ft for the last 5 years, for ages.
patrick said on 25/Feb/08
For those who doubt how "shrunk" a man can get because of age, back problem etc.: have you recently seen Jerry Lewis? He was indeed, far shorter than Clint but not short at all and arguably taller than Dean Martin. (The latter had to wear some kind of lifts to look as tall or taller). Now, Jerry Lewis is most probably less than 5
For those who doubt how "shrunk" a man can get because of age, back problem etc.: have you recently seen Jerry Lewis? He was indeed, far shorter than Clint but not short at all and arguably taller than Dean Martin. (The latter had to wear some kind of lifts to look as tall or taller). Now, Jerry Lewis is most probably less than 5
Gramps said on 23/Feb/08
Danimal: you beat me to the punch! Go man!
Danimal: you beat me to the punch! Go man!
Danimal said on 23/Feb/08
Robert Vodak says on 23/Feb/08
When Clint was shooting the westerns in the 60's he was 6'3". I'm sure the cowboy boots made a big hieght difference.
And you state this as a FACT because you were his personal assistant who measured him during that era? Give me a break.
Robert Vodak says on 23/Feb/08
When Clint was shooting the westerns in the 60's he was 6'3". I'm sure the cowboy boots made a big hieght difference.
And you state this as a FACT because you were his personal assistant who measured him during that era? Give me a break.
Anonymous said on 23/Feb/08
Lee Van Cleef and Lee Marvin were over 6ft and Eastwood was visibly taller than either. Eastwood like John Wayne was about 6'4''.
Lee Van Cleef and Lee Marvin were over 6ft and Eastwood was visibly taller than either. Eastwood like John Wayne was about 6'4''.
Robert Vodak said on 23/Feb/08
When Clint was shooting the westerns in the 60's he was 6'3". I'm sure the cowboy boots made a big hieght difference.
When Clint was shooting the westerns in the 60's he was 6'3". I'm sure the cowboy boots made a big hieght difference.
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.