How tall is Clint Eastwood - Page 22

Add a Comment5611 comments

Average Guess (445 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.84in (182.5cm)
glenn said on 9/Jul/07
again,he was 6-4.i saw it.he had dress shoes on always.he was a tall freak in a crowd of people.
Croat said on 9/Jul/07
I'd say around 6'3'' at his peak, possibly a bit taller. Not quite 6'4''.
dmeyer said on 5/Jul/07
he come a guy like eastwood thats in good shape lost 3 in
dmeyer said on 5/Jul/07
theron walked by me she had floor advatage she seemed 6'2 she is very tall in heels
david . said on 20/Jun/07
Charlize Theron is stated here at 5'9 3/4" and i distinctly remember being shocked she was slightly taller than him when she was giving him an oscar couple years ago
dmeyer said on 10/Jun/07
in person looked 6'1 while shooting million dollar baby
dmeyer said on 10/Jun/07
they say average men loose 3 cm at 70 he lost 7.5 cm it is a lot but i think between 70 and 80 thats were they loose a lot
mike c said on 10/Jun/07
I know, SF....he sure was small at 6'4".....very disappointing!
sf said on 10/Jun/07
Dissapointed that Eastwood was ONLY 6'4"????? That IS dissapointing!!!

mike c said on 9/Jun/07
I'm 5'6", to me he's gigantic in both stature and character.....two giants, Wayne and Eastwood. Mike C
Anonymous said on 8/Jun/07
But slim, if your about 6'3'' that still makes Clint about 6'4'' which is what he has always claimed. Of course he's not gigantic but still big to say the least.
sunnyside slim said on 5/Jun/07
in 1975, waiting on line to see a hot new comic named steve martin in san francisco, i stood right next to The Man With No Name, aka clint eastwood. i am (or was)a hair under 6'3" and clint was indeed about 1" taller. somehow i was disappointed- i wanted him to be huge and he was barely taller than me. he was a regular guy who didn't ask for star treament.
Gonzalo said on 24/May/07
You are welcome, MikeC. I think Glenn has said it loud and clear: 6`4 in 1992, 6 feet in 2006. He has definitely shrunk
mike c said on 23/May/07
Guys, go the John Wayne page and view the photos that Gonzalo sent for me. They include a pic of Eastwood with Lee was 6'2" tall would you say Clint is? 6'2?! Thanks, again, Gonzalo.
Anonymous said on 23/May/07
Looked about the same height as Jeff Daniels in Bloodwork. Daniels is supposed to be 6'3'' so may be Clint hasn't shrunk much. What I don't understand is why Clint is dwarfed in photos with Tim Robbins at the time Mystic River was released where there looks a good 4 inch height difference. If Robbins is 6'5'' Clint looks 6'1''. Look on google and check it out.
Anonymous said on 22/May/07
Clint lost 3 inches in height over the years? That's gotta be kidding. We are talking about almost 10cm difference!!! Although he is aging still there is no way he's shrinked by that much.
Chris said on 14/May/07
Mel Gibson described Clint as a huge guy standing 6 foot five, on Leno.
5'11.5 guy said on 13/May/07
Clint looked friggin' huge next to all those little Spanish guys in the dollars trilogy. 6'4 barefoot, 6'6 in cowboy boots.
Height Tracker said on 10/May/07
Kevin T that's ridiculous. Clint was not short by any stretch of the imagination; and that had nothing to do with him starring in Westerns.
Kevin T said on 10/May/07
Clint was a beloved actor in western movies, which means he has automatically grown at least 2" in the popular imagination. Name three actors who starred in western films who are dubbed "that short guy".
Anonymous said on 8/May/07
Clint Eastwood is a legend. He was a very tall and handsome man in his prime. Hollywood celebrities are not like your average man in the street they have special qualities that most of us don't possess. You or I could not have been films stars if only we'd had the breaks. We just aren't talented or attractive enough. Making out that Clint wasn't that tall is a load of crap.
John Spencer said on 30/Apr/07
I met Clint Eastwood twice when he was filming in San Francisco. The first time was around '86 or '87. The next time was a couple of years later at Washington Square in front of the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul. I was 6'1" at the time, and as I stood within 5 to 6 feet of him, he towered over me. I was shocked at his height and broad shoulders. He would have been about 57 to 60 at those times. I can easily believe he was definitely 6'4" if not an inch taller. I was 37 to 40 at those times and now I am only a little over 6'. We do lose height with age.
Brad said on 23/Apr/07
He looked his tallest in "Dirty Harry" but then again he had final casting say in his films and towered over his leading ladies and most men.
chris said on 18/Apr/07
He's had a serious back problem which has made him lose about 2.5 - 3" max
Gramps said on 16/Apr/07
Yes, he's lost about 3+" from his 6'4" peak. Medical issues have obviously played a role in his shrinkage.
dmeyer said on 15/Apr/07
he looks 3 cm taller than watanabe so stell 6'1 he was about 1.75 to 2 inch taller than me when i met him a solid 6'1
Peet said on 15/Apr/07
Now , he is about 6'1''. 6'0.5'' at least and 6'2'' max.
Anthony said on 13/Apr/07
I thought he looked taller because of his boots and frame. He stood no less than 6'4. He looked big in "Dirty Harry", too.
chris said on 11/Apr/07
Anthony, I've watched The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly several times, Clint did look tall, about 6'4" considering he would have been in his prime height from the 60s - 70s, this movie was made around 66' or 67' I think, but I don't think Clint looked 6'5", let alone 6'6"!
Brad said on 7/Apr/07
6' 4" from the time he hit Hollywood til the mid 70's. He looked shorter in "Hang Em High" with the U.S. actors compared to all the Barcelona & Rome guys with Leone save Van Cleef.
Anthony said on 2/Apr/07
I just got finished watching "The Good, The Bad And The Ugly". In his cowboy boots I thought Clint seemed 6'5-6'6, so definitely 6'4 barefoot.
lillo thomas said on 30/Mar/07
i think that clint was about 6'3 barefoot in his prime. to someone lose 3 inches is incredible. most men shrink between 1 and 2 inches. my father is 74 years old and shrunk only half, he is now 5'11. his peak height is 5'11.5.
maybe some men when they get that age shink 3 inches but is hard to me imagine that massive lost of height of a normal man that wasnt in sports, wresting etc.
Danimal said on 29/Mar/07
6'2" at most? No. If you think he is 6'0"-6'1" in the pic with Glenn, you believe that he was only 1" taller in other pics with men who were 5'8" as Glenn is? Clint towered over 6'0" men, let alone 5'8" guys like Glenn (no offence Glenn ;)).
Danimal said on 29/Mar/07
Sutherland was 6'4". I have an old black and white British horror movie from 1965 with him and Christopher Lee, who was 6'5" and they appeared the same height. Sutherland was a solid 6'4" and that's what he was listed at in his day.
Viper said on 28/Mar/07
Sutherland has always been 6-3.
glenn said on 26/Mar/07
sutherland looked 6-3.
Height Tracker said on 26/Mar/07
Glenn how tall did sutherland look to you?
glenn said on 26/Mar/07
bumped into sutherland the other day.turned me down.clint was 6-4 in the early 90s.i witnessed it.
Jamie said on 25/Mar/07
Well, the Biography Channel said he grew to be "six foot" in his late teens, and never elaborated further. Clint looks old in this picture, but he's in good shaped and probably not as slumped as people image. Here, he looks 6-0, maybe 6-1. I'd think he was, at most, 6-2 in his prime.
Viper said on 21/Mar/07
Sutherland was really 6-4? I thought he was 6-3 peak.
Danimal said on 20/Mar/07
Sutherland was a solid 6'4" in his younger days. If Goldblum had an inch on him, it's because Sutherland lost an inch since his younger days. Either that, or Goldblum was 6'5" and not his claimed 6'4".
Brad said on 20/Mar/07
6' 4" in the early seventies. Hard to tell in the Spaghetti Westerns since he was working with almost all Italian/Spanish cast members who he dwarfed. Leone loved to put the camera very low looking up to make him really big.
Gramps said on 14/Mar/07
AAAA, I think it's called "The Hunchback of Carmel." Seriously though, Clint has lost at least three inches from his peak 6'4" in the past 20 years or so, especially the last 5-10. Don't know the cause, but I'm sure he knows. BTW, "kyphosis" is the medical term for that hump back.
AAAA said on 13/Mar/07
dude was 6'4 when younger, I think we established that. He has had some major shrinkage, but as rob has pointed out time and time again, he now has terrible posture and is developing one of those humps. That takes even more height away, as he can't really stand up straight anymore. Rob, what are those humps called again. You said it once before.
Gonzalo said on 13/Mar/07
He looked very tall to me when he was young, around 6`4. I thought he was taller than Sutherland in Kelly. And Sutherland was a little bit shorter than Jeff Goldblum. That would make Eastwood as tall as Goldblum. Does anybody here think Goldblum is not 6`4? No? I thought so
Bob H. said on 12/Mar/07
The 28 Feb entry below with the link to Revenge Of The Creature shows a young Clint that is just an inch or so taller than 6'1" John AGAR. That would lead me to believe that Clint was likely 6'2" TO 6'3" in his prime. Take a look.
Robert said on 12/Mar/07
If I compare 6-4 David Hasselhoff with Estwood's height as a young man, Hasselhoff looks taller and more than just a little bit.
He is still in good shape for his age.So, how can he have shrunk that much?
Did they knock with a hammer on his head in order to make him shorter?
glenn said on 12/Mar/07
never looked that tall? i saw him at 6-4 in the early 90s.
Robert said on 11/Mar/07
6-4 for Eastwod's peak height seems really weird, because he has never looked that tall.
Anonymous said on 9/Mar/07
Robert, I think your wrong. Cromwell was 6'7'' so of course Eastwood was shorter. I do think Eastwood was 6'4'' when young though. He was a big man. I think people who say Eastwood was 6'2'' at best are nuts. How come he towered over Lee Marvin in Paint your Wagon? Marvin was a big 6'2'' or maybe 6'3''.
Height Tracker said on 9/Mar/07
Well Robert, Clint never claimed more than 6'4" and Cromwell is currently around 6'5". So yes, you are right that Cromwell is taller now than Clint ever was. However, I personally think that Clint's bare minimum height when he stood barefoot as a young man was 6'3". I refuse to believe anything under 6'3" for Eastwood at his peak and 6'4" seems possible to me.
Robert said on 8/Mar/07
I mean that Cromwell's actual height is defenitely more than Clint Eastwood's peak height.
dmeyer said on 8/Mar/07
but cromnwell was 6'6.5 at peak
Height Tracker said on 8/Mar/07
Robert that doesn't really make sense.
Robert said on 8/Mar/07
I doubt that Clint Eastwood was 6-4 in his peak. I admit that he was tall, but not 6-4. If you compare his peak height with James Cromwell's height now that is 6-5, it seems logically that Easwood was more than one inch shorter.
Anonymous said on 1/Mar/07
he was a little taller than Chirac listed here 187 cm
glenn said on 28/Feb/07
good guess least you didnt say he was 5-8.thanks for the input.the sly page has alot of kooks.mike c,gramps,and most of you are family to me.
Height Tracker said on 28/Feb/07
Check out Clint when he was 25. Not much of a video to gage his height, but still interesting to see him as a very young man.
Click Here
Gramps said on 28/Feb/07
Hmmmmmmm...I'd guess about 5'9" to 5'9.5". Just a guess though.
mike c said on 27/Feb/07
like you both glenn and gramps....Clint 6'2.5" now if he were to stand up straight and his back would allow him to....great site...
AAAA said on 27/Feb/07
On a side note....I believe Clint was a legit 6'4 in his youth and was still close as early as 4 or 5 years ago. Now he is a 6'0-6'.25 guy. I was watching one of the Dirty Harry's and I noticed that in the 60's he did have a brushed back Ben Affleck type cut, and it was even bigger in the 70's. And this to the fact that he was a lean legit 6'4 and that is where these giant sitings from years ago come in. I am too lazy to use tiny url, but seriously. He had big hair along with being 6'4.
glenn said on 27/Feb/07
hi gramps.nice to finally meet glad you spoke.i was beginning to think you couldnt stand my ways.which you have a right not easy to deal with.but,im a loyal friend to the end.i shouldve spoke up always make interesting the way,whats your guess on stallones height?
Gramps said on 27/Feb/07
Hey Glenn, no offense intended. I've been trying to just take "rifle" shots at the issues in which I've been interested. No neglect intended.
glenn said on 27/Feb/07
and not to mention skit away from any comments i make.
glenn said on 27/Feb/07
you know what i love about gramps? he never once mentioned my name or my pics in the 15 months ive been on here.i think i even commented on something he said long ago.and of course,no reply.gee,isnt that peculiar? not starting trouble with him,because i gotta respect the idea of its better to say nothing at all,which is obviously the case here.but after 15 months i dont need to continue to be silent about it.ill be shocked if its jealosy,which is highly doubtful in all seriousness,at least in his case.the man is mature enough im sure.
Gramps said on 26/Feb/07
I think you guys are right, they do look too young for 2003, which was the date given with the photo.
Danimal said on 26/Feb/07
2003??? Uhhhh, no. That was defintely the 1990's. A 2003 Clint looked MUCH older than that! Hogan has been promoting his show since the late 80's.
Height Tracker said on 26/Feb/07
Gramps are you sure that photo was taken in 2003? Arnold and Clint both look a lot younger (and taller haha) in that picture.
Gramps said on 26/Feb/07
Here is Clint with Arnold in 2003 where Clint looks almost 2" taller:
Click Here
The Horse of FUNK said on 25/Feb/07
Because, Danimal, that would support Arnold still being a big guy in the 6'1 - 6'2 range. And we can't have that, now can we? Like I've said before, people on here can be very selective with what they use as 'evidence'.
mike c said on 25/Feb/07
As always, Gramps, you're right on..well most of the time....Arnie with 2" inch lifts, and Clint not giving a s***....he's in a class all by himself now that the Duke is not around..2 of a kind...!Mike C ps great pic. though!!
anonymous said on 25/Feb/07
oh my, he really has lost some height.
Gramps said on 25/Feb/07
OMG...they must be on a staircase with Arnold on a higher stair. Haha. I can guarantee that Arnold is wearing his best pair of lifts that day, and Clint couldn't care less. Scary photo, though.
Danimal said on 24/Feb/07
Why has no one commented on this VERY recent pic of Arnold and Clint, where Arnold is clearly taller than him: Click Here
Gramps said on 24/Feb/07
Thanks, mike c. J-Dog's pic is great, as Jackson is listed here as 5'9" and Tyson as 5'9.5". It looks like there is at LEAST 8" difference between Jackson and Clint. Although this would place Clint at 6'5" (not at all likely), it clearly puts him around 6'4" anyway, even in his late 50s.
mike c said on 24/Feb/07
Great pic, J-Dog...boy, I think 6'3-6'2" minimum..even with his malady..6'4" definitely in the sphagetti westerns...isn't Tyson 5'10"? Gramps, he towers over them!! mc ps Gramps, glad you're back...missed your common sense..well, most of the time!
J-Dog said on 24/Feb/07
Click Here
Gonzalo said on 22/Feb/07
Thanks, Mike C. I haven`t posted lately in John Wayne`s page. I`ve focused myself in other people. I don`t have anything new to say about Wayne.
Eastwood, by the way, looked shorter than president Jacques Chirac, who must be a little bit over 6`1 these days. Eastwood has lost four inches, as Glenn has told us.
Gramps said on 21/Feb/07
Gonzalo, my mistake, I see your pic - - definitely a two inch difference back in the nineties.
Gramps said on 21/Feb/07
Hey Gonzalo, couldn't get your link to work (log in screen only), but perhaps the photo was this one of Clint with the 6'2" Hackman:
Click Here
...although Clint was already in his 60s for "Unforgiven."
Here's another, more recent photo of the two:
Click Here
mike c said on 20/Feb/07
Great pic. Gonzalo..nice to hear from you...missed you. Mike C...
Gonzalo said on 20/Feb/07
Clint, near his prime looks taller than Gene Hackman in this pic
Click Here
mike c said on 19/Feb/07
Thank you, Doctor..glad you included Kennedy and Hudson..appreciate your contribution. Mike C
Dr Ed Michaels, UK said on 19/Feb/07
I am a back specialist in the UK & have recently come across this excellent site. I thought I could explain what has actually happened to Mr Eastwood over the years. Clint suffers with a curvature of the lower spine. If you look closely in films when he has his torso on view, eg the "Clyde" films & even as far back as Coogan's Bluff, there is a marked slanting of his lower spine to the right hand side. You can clearly see this when he is walking in many of his films, particularly in his later ones (mid eighties onwards). This can easily cause a significant height reduction. Try it yourself by bending your lower spine to one side to artificially create this condition & record the drop in height. 3 inches is easily achieved. This is a version of scoliosis (lumbar scoliosis) & explains why he has shrunk. Looking at pictures of him in the 60's & 70's you can see he is his listed height of 6'4", particularly when standing next to other equally tall actors. One can think of people like George kennedy, Rock Hudson, Gregg Walcott et al & he is easily their height. I hope this explains to all his fans out there. He was very tall & has certainly shrunk but this is a medical condition & not as uncommon as many of you may think. Kind regards, Dr Ed Michaels.
Gramps said on 17/Feb/07
Definitely looking 6'4" beside the 6'3" Charlton Heston:
Click Here
Looking at LEAST 6'4" here with the 6'2" Lee Marvin (far left) in this slanted photo:
Click Here
Another with Marvin:
Click Here
And with the 6'2" Sheb Wooley in "Rawhide:"
Click Here
glenn said on 17/Feb/07
it was funny actually.and original.
sf said on 16/Feb/07
oh wait, I was wrong - still there. Sorry! And, not that funny, really.
sf said on 15/Feb/07, Rob, you erase my hilarious comment..
mike c said on 13/Feb/07
Come on guys, let's ask Glenn how big his heels are before saying Clint is 6' in this pic....I see at least 5-6" diff...Ade, you're right...easy 6'4" in his prime..talent wise, he's still one of the very best and is still in his prime.!!!ps. Ade, I hope you're a girl because if you're not, and you grabbed his hand and dribbled, he'd kick the s*** out of you....
Ade said on 13/Feb/07
And sorry for drifting away from topic, lol. In the late eighties he was still 6'4", so I'm starting to think he actually might have been over 6'4" at his peak.
Ade said on 13/Feb/07
Clint has to be the coolest guy on the planet. No matter what age or height he is. If I ever met him I'd probably fall on my knees, cling to his hand and start whimpering and dribbling.
dmeyer said on 13/Feb/07
when i met him even thaugh he looked way shorter than 6'4 he didnt look under 6'1 at the very lest 6'0.75 185 flat
AAAA said on 13/Feb/07
I hate to say it because the man is a living legend, and one of the coolest tough guys ever, but I think he needs to be dropped to 6 ft. He doesn't look 6'1 here
Gonzalo said on 13/Feb/07
Well, I think Glenn has said it several times: Clint was 6`4 years ago and 6 feet now. He really has shrunk
Glenn said on 13/Feb/07
As I said before,Clint was 6-4 in the early 90s.I witnessed that.he is 6ft now.
misha said on 13/Feb/07
I was waiting to see if a sort of consensus formed regarding Clint Eastwood's height loss, and the prevailing viewpoint seems to have hardened into an acceptance of four full inches. I think the photo of him with Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson creates a devastating perspective when compared to the recent one with Glenn. I, too, would be interested in hearing what Glenn thinks, as he was standing right there. Though camera angles can vary endlessly, if the photo is accurate, I agree with Danimal - the man is clearly struggling with an
even six feet. To put it in stark relief, go to the earlier photo and place Glenn in it at about an inch-and-a-half below Mike Tyson (which I think would be dead-on), then move him to the left so he's standing in front of Eastwood. Glenn's eyes will rest on top of Clint's bow tie. Now look at the recent photo - Glenn's eyes are above the base of Eastwood's nose. I measured that anatomical difference on myself and got over five inches. If nothing else,
this proves retrospectively that in his early days, Clint Eastwood was
indeed a genuine six-four. But it also proves that he is not now 6'1.5" to
6'2", as some posit, because that would have made his top height 6'6" or very near it, something I don't think anyone is now claiming or ever has claimed. Interesting calculations.

Editor Rob
add to height loss, if he's got a forward hunch of shoulders if he unhunched he might be taller, see that in old men a lot
Mike said on 12/Feb/07
Clint looks 6 to 6'1 in the pic with Glenn, hey Glenn what was your estimate of Clint when you saw him recently, the same as mine??? (obv he was def 6'3 to 6'4 easily when he was younger)
GW said on 10/Feb/07
I've just watched dirty harry. The guy must have been 6'4 back then he hardly fits in the car. Yet on this pic he looks no more than 4 inches taller than Glenn
Danimal said on 9/Feb/07
It's amazing how M.J. and Tyson were practically just below Clint's nose in that pic and they are both about 2" taller than Glenn, yet Glenn is 3-4" above the bottom of Clint's nose now. The man is struggling with 6'0" today. He's lost what would appear to be about 4".
sf said on 9/Feb/07
Is that Clint or the "Ghost Rider"???
Anonymous said on 9/Feb/07
It's a bit unusual I think for guys rather than women to shrink 3 inches. Guys usually lose about an inch and women 2 or more I guess. I don't buy into Clint being a 6'2'' guy when young, he was genuinely very tall I believe. Bigger in person than on film unlike most actors.
Chris said on 8/Feb/07
My dad is turning 83 in march, he is 5'10'' now, and was 5'11 and 3/4'' in his youth.
Gonzalo said on 7/Feb/07
He looked very tall in his prime, around 6`4. Now he has shrunk. He doesn´t look taller than 6`1
sam said on 7/Feb/07
Poor Clint's going to be 5'4" if you give him a couple decades!...actually, I don't think shrinking 3 inches is that uncommon with old age..
Glenn said on 7/Feb/07
Yeah,apple.thats what I saw too in the early 90s.
apple said on 6/Feb/07
saw him on leno last night and he seem about leno's height. so i'd day 6ft or so now a days. but i did see him in the 90's in pebble beach he was def 6'4
AAAA said on 4/Feb/07
what i meant was he wasn't in his 30's in this photo, he was obviously almost 60 here, yet he is still huge. If tyson and jackson are both in the 5'9 to 5'9.5 area, then he is way over 6 foot in that pic. He is like 6'3 to 6'4. It is only recently that he has begun to shrink.
misha said on 4/Feb/07
He does look older but don't be too misled by the graying temples - Michael Jackson still looks human, and Mike Tyson wears a goofy, charming grin that seems to predate the beginning of his long and tragic downward spiral. I would guess the photo to have been taken around 1988. Comparing his height in this photo with the recent one above is an exercise in shock. The poor guy is falling apart generally - there's an extreme close-up of him making the rounds lately on billboards at bus stops in L.A., and his face looks like the skins of fifty lizards stitched together.
mike c said on 3/Feb/07
He's still 6'2'+ in spite of his physical problems....Was definitely 6'4" just like the Duke...take it to the bank!
Tall&Handsome said on 27/Jan/07
3 inches is very believable. My gramps is 87 and around 5'7". When I see pictures of him in his 30s, he looks at least 5'11". I am not looking forward shrinking.
mike c said on 27/Jan/07
said it before on the Duke grandfather was 6' all his 90 he was my height...5'6"..curvature of the spine, loss of muscle mass, etc... Clint, not matter what his height is NOW, if still one of the best!!!right next to the DUKE at 6'4"
MHouillon said on 27/Jan/07
Clint didn't loose 3 inches (7,5 cm) !!! It is just that he was about 6'3.5 (192cm) and has shrunk to 186cm (approx. 6'1.25) these days.
= So a little over two inches.
misha said on 27/Jan/07
Go back and look at the extensive spine injury/laminectomy/disc surgery material that got posted from June 06 through August 06. I wasted years doing demand letters to insurance companies for clients with back injuries. I've studied hundreds of MRIs and read countless reports from orthopedic surgeons
describing various types of trauma to the spine and the medical outcomes. The height shrinkage from reparative surgery (when it occurs) is irreverible. Organic deterioration from osteoporosis and changes in the curvature of the spine also cause height loss that can rarely be gained back. This appears to be what's happened to Clint Eastwood - it fits perfectly and nothing else does - there's just no other way to explain the loss of three solid inches, which the above photograph with Glenn clearly indicates.
mike said on 27/Jan/07
Misha, trust me you can lose 3 inches. My grandad is 83 and now measures about 5'8 and in his prime was a strong 6 foot.
Anonymous said on 27/Jan/07
Clint was 6'4'' or thereabouts when younger. If you look at old photos the guy is very tall. He was noticeably taller than Lee Marvin who was at least 6'2'', check out Paint Your Wagon. He was also taller than 6'2'' Lee Van Cleef. Nowadays he looks about 6'1'' to 6'2'' so he has lost height but this occasionally happens with males in older age.
Misha said on 27/Jan/07
Delphonic, you're right, a shrinkage of even three inches seems colossal and
thus highly unlikely. For me personally to go from 5'11.5" to 5'9" has an aura of the unreal about it. Years ago an article in Life Magazine put Kirk Douglas at six feet, but when he and Woody Strode fight to the death in "Spartacus"(a death temporarily aborted for both of them) the 6'4" Strode looks nearly a foot taller than Kirk Douglas. In some of the scenes in "Unforgiven" I thought Morgan Freeman was slightly taller than Clint Eastwood, but I thought Freeman was 6'5" based on his dwarfing Brad Pitt in "Se7en". However, someone had fed me an erroneously tall height for Brad Pitt - give him 5'10" and everything falls into place. It's amazing how often changing the height of one person can make the controversy regarding three or four other people evaporate.
Garry said on 27/Jan/07
FWIW, just saw the repeat from about a month ago of Clint on Letterman and when he first walked out, they appeared to be almost dead even in height - I would wager on about 6'1.5", as the concensus on Letterman seems to be a little off his claimed 6'2".
Anthony said on 26/Jan/07
Highly doubt it. Clint always looked legit. There were never lift rumors with him. With Wayne, it was a pretty widespread rumor. Clint was a legit 6'4 in his youh.
Jake W. said on 26/Jan/07
Looks to be a solid 6 footer, nothing more, next to Glenn.
Misha said on 26/Jan/07
Firstly, thank you, Delphonic, you owe me no apology - I bit back at you harder than I should have the first time. Yes, it's quite droll that you assumed I was a woman and I definitely take it in good fun. But speaking of poor Clint Eastwood, an iconic figure who I can't imagine not always being with us, I practically fell out of my chair laughing when Glenn revealed that he was developing a dowager's hump - it's so hilariously contrary to the image of total
masculinity and raw physical power he still exudes from every pore. But looking at the new photo, I agree with everyone else - it's difficult to give him anything over six feet if there are no angle distortions at work. In fact, he's struggling to hold three inches over Glenn - look at the top of Clint's forehead, not his hair, as the flash has rendered Glenn's hair invisible but has artificially heightened Eastwood's locks. I had a thought, and I'd be interested in what some you think of it: my dad was a fine athlete, but only jogged during the last decade of his life. I saw him go from 5'10.5" to at most 5'9" in eight or ten years. I know Clint jogs regularly. I think all that pounding on the pavement, stretched out over half a lifetime, gives the legs, knees and back a terrible crunching. I calculated it and we're talking about coming down hard, often on asphalt or concrete, millions of times. Not only do the joints in your legs begin to compress, the numerous vertebrae that run from the top of the cervical spine down to your coccyx (tail bone) also compress, perhaps significantly. I've always been aware of this, and hence have stuck to cycling to avoid that pounding down of the musculoskeletal system. In a guy with a long torso like Clint Eastwood, forget the legs, I say his spine alone could have shrunk a full two inches. Lastly, there could have been a spinal surgery that was kept from the general public. I'm not a rumor monger, I'm just saying his height loss has clearly been dramatic, so all of us are looking for reasonable explanations. I couldn't possibly give him less than 6'3" as a younger man, and can easily accept the standard 6'4" as his maximum. Lastly, it's a little sad to see such a great guy cling so tenaciously to his original imposing stature by stating the old 6'4" as recently as 2003 - clearly he himself is having trouble dealing with the loss of height.
Height Tracker said on 26/Jan/07
I think that Clint was about 6'3" in his prime. You have to remember that he's in his late 70's now and will have naturally lost some height. I have seen a ton of his movies, including all of the Dirty Harry's. He always towered everyone in his earlier films, and his shoes looked very flat and not suspect. He is also probably one of my favorite actors and a legend.
Ed said on 26/Jan/07
Delphonic, you have a point there, I've always thought Eastwood looked about 6ft2-6ft3, but based on all of the 6ft4 claims, I bought it. Especially after seeing The Dead Pool, in which he was about an inch or more shorter than Liam Neeson. It's very possible Eastwood was only about 6ft2 or a bit more in his hey day, and based on all of the westerns he did wearing cowboy boots, giving him 2 inches on a already tall and lanky frame, the 6ft4 listing worked. His 3 inch height loss without any known ailment seems a bit much, maybe it's more like 1.5 inches.
delphonic said on 26/Jan/07
Could it be that Clint was one of those naturally tall guys (6' 1" to 6' 2") who wore big boots/lifts to look crazy tall (6' 4") in his youth? Kinda like John Wayne supposedly did? Just a theory, as it seems unlikely that he's shrunk like 4 inches, even at his age.
Anthony said on 26/Jan/07
Looks 6'1 at best with Glenn. Could be the angle.
delphonic said on 26/Jan/07
Misha - I owe you an apology for sizing you up as some social climbing vixen. That's hilarious that you aren't even a woman for starters. I guess that's what I get for making assumptions. But hey, like everything on this site, it's all in good fun.
S.J said on 26/Jan/07
wow he really shrunk allot Didnt he i thought u ussually Shrink about 2Cm's
Misha said on 25/Jan/07
Sorry for the typos in my last post - not that it's a big deal, but I meant
"Sasha" not "Sahsa" and "Natasha" not "Natahsa", also "especially" rather than
"expecially" (an "especially" dreadful typo). That's it for now.
Glenn said on 25/Jan/07
Misha-no bootlicking here either,but you express yourself with class and your always welcome to healthy chin wag with me,and hopefully the for the others,I hope they now understand your point.which was it just wasnt debating,but resurrecting the dead,over and over,with some barbs thrown I got your point and I really appreciate your for Bruce and that short photo,Ill get back to you on that.I cant see the pic at the moment on this cell to you soon.
Misha said on 25/Jan/07
Glenn, thank you for your kind words (I have to keep that part of it short so Delphonic doesn't find more material to augment his accusation that I'm acting like an obsequious groveling sycophant toward you). I studied over a hundred photos of Bruce Willis, and can easliy give him 5'11" based on the impression of height that he projected in those photos. So your low end and my high end are really only half an inch apart, close enough to reach out and shake hands in a truce. There's just one single photo that's preventing our closing the book on the Willis controversy, and it's among those on his own section in this site, the photo where he's standing next to Justin Long. There's a consensus that Justin is 5'9" - I will now buy even six feet for Bruce Willis. But look carefully at their footwear, which is clearly in evidence for both of them. Justin is wearing what used to be called "deck shoes". These are very low-cut canvas shoes that have almost no heel on them. As the white strip wrapping around the toes flares back to the heel there's practically no lift upward. On the other hand, Bruce is wearing leather dress shoes that have boot-like properties: as they flare along the bottom of the sole back toward the heel, it is very obvious that an elevation gain of at least a solid inch is obtained, and since the sole is fastened to the shoe above the heel, the wearer will also gain whatever the thickness of the sole is, in additional to the build-up of material inside the shoe right at the heel that we can't see. The point is, Bruce is just very slightly taller than Justin in the photo, really about the same height, and is clearly gaining more additional stature from his shoes than Justin is from the ones he's wearing. Glenn, I'm not trying to knock the beehive over again, I am just honestly trying to make sense of this photo, because it is very puzzling. What do you think is going on here?
Anonymous said on 24/Jan/07
couldn't have said it better myself, delphonic. mike below and Duke page..
delphonic said on 24/Jan/07
Misha - So let me get this straight, you can politely and eloquently present your theories of personal doubt about the elaborate range of heights different people claim to have seen certain celebs at and that's fine. But if anyone else has the audacity to express their doubts (based on photos or any other "supposed" sightings other than Glenn's verifiable sightings), then they are reduced to aggravating nitwits and their opinions totally dismissed??

Obviously, Glenn's contributions have made the site, whether you agree with all of his subjective perceptions of those encounters or not. While there is no reason to disrespect him (even if you disagree), that does not mean that schmoozing him makes your disagreements anymore credible. However, it is possible to appease Glen (your apparent goal) without belittling everyone else who happens to disagree with him on a couple of celebs. Disagreement is not disrespect, but name calling is.

You seem like an articulate, tall and most likely attractive woman who is probably used to quickly and easily bonding with those at the top of the totem pole in any situation in order to improve your own standing. But this isn't a corporate boardroom or social climbing cocktail party where there may be publishers or producers present. It's simply a discussion board about the vain and essentially meaningless (although intriguing and entertaining) topic of celeb's height. Feel free to relax and have fun with it ;-)
dmeyer said on 23/Jan/07
looked 6'1 2 year ago
Glenn said on 23/Jan/07
Lest we forget the 5-5,5-6 claims of film crew that worked with Stallone.even the non believers of 5-10.5 agree thats insanity.people are plain stupid.thats all.means that Sly was 5-9 in his then 50s posture and they were expecting a 6-2 superhero.the tall film hand downplays him to feel better.the 5-5 stagehand pegs Sly at his height.its all psychological.
Glenn said on 23/Jan/07
Im not going to make a mistake of 4 inches,thats for sure.1,maybe 2,with the mysterious posture some have.Misha-you make a point I never thought of.but like its been said,people cant gauge height.and I think the real answer is that we arnt celebs.though I heard 5-6 to 5-10 for me.if you were a celeb,youd get a myriad of guesses.people want celebs to be short like them.or tall like them.I saw 6-1,and a illusion of 6-2 friend who cant tell height brought up that Willis was that means,he is 6-1 tops,as he looks in films.more realistic is 6ft.and possibly 5-11 if he wears taller than 6-1,no smaller than 5-11.I have 5-11 friends that appear 5-9(ala Stallone and Colin Farrel) due to posture and or weight,and friends that are thin 6-1ers,bad posture, that appear 5-11(possibly Willis).thanks for your words Misha, and you,and most here are valuable to the is your theories and input.didnt mean to come on express yourself without meeting celebs.thats what the site is for.
sf said on 22/Jan/07
Misha - I'm barely over 5'6" and have been guessed at almost 5'10" by someone. A lot can be said about people's ability to judge others' heights...
misha said on 22/Jan/07
Glenn, Sorry, I chose Willis at random before seeing all the grief you've gone through with some of these nitwits on major stars - rather than metamorphose into one of these aggravating perpetual naysayers, I'm won't check back with
comments until I have some personal "in the flesh" sightings to contribute. But please explain something to me - I'm pretty much between 5'11" and 6'0" - I don't sit around obsessing about height, but the times it has come up as I have interacted with people up close face-to face, my height has generally been estimated at six even (because I'm wearing shoes) or 5'11" - the point is,
no one has ever thought I was 5'10", even a mere inch-and-a-half shorter than I am, or for that matter 6'1", an inch-and-a-half taller - maybe a few times
people who are poor judges of height or innate flatterers have guessed
6'1" because I have long thin features and can look taller than I am from a near distance. So my question is, why would a film professional at arm's length from Bruce Willis be nearly a half-a-foot off in his estimation of Willis' height? Going in the other direction, would anyone ever mistake this actor for 6-6 or 6-7? Do you see my point? I'm not trying to stir up controversy that nevers ends like some of these guys, I'm just honestly curious how this could happen and am interested in getting your expert opinion.
Thanks again for your site.
Glenn said on 22/Jan/07
Your right.lets believe random people of claims of 5-8 for Willis.never mind that I see him once a month and that he looked 6-2 to me in his low cut sneakers and shorts.the man is no smaller than 5-11,no taller than 6-1.with 6ft the most realistic as he looks it in friend just the other night said Willis was a regular at his friend is 5-11 and estimated Willis at 6-3! obviously,he cant tell height.but thats close enough to the 6-1 I usually see him at.
supes78 said on 21/Jan/07
I can't believe he's lost 3 inches over the decades! I can see bodybuilders and some atheletes losing height more rapidly after back surgeries and too much stress on muscle joints over the decades, but I can't see how an average guy can loose that much height naturally.
delphonic said on 21/Jan/07
Misha - well put! Now if only you could get through to the people that prefer to use the "public function" pics to endlessly argue that Stallone, Clooney, Bloom and Farrell are like 5' 11" and Pitt is like 6'. They prefer to ignore the pics and sightings where they are undoubtedly shorter. Either these guys have all disappeared for 6 months at some point to have limb-lengthening surgery and the long and complicated rehab (doubtful), or they are indeed the shorter heights they have been caught at when not in "advanced footwear".
Jackie said on 21/Jan/07
Re Misha: Wow, Misha. What an eloquent comment! And yes, for the most part it is true, though not entirely. When you write that "If someone spots a star at a swimming pool in his bare feet and he is eyeball to eyeball with the spotter's own 5'9", isn't it obvious that this is the star's true height?" you ignore the fact that people's heads/faces can have different compositions if you will. I know most about my favorite actor Warren Beatty, but he serves as a good example for this. While his "eyeballs" are significantly below the slightly taller Morgan Freeman's, the part of his head ABOVE his eyebrows takes away almost all of that height difference between the two of them, rendering it almost non-existent. So, if a shorter man than Beatty with a longer lower part of his face than top part of his face would come "eyeball to eyeball" with someone like Beatty, he could therefore say "I looked him in the eye so he must be my (lower) height" because he would not be able to judge how much difference in height exists above eyebrow level..... Just a thought.
misha said on 20/Jan/07
Plaudits for a most interesting site that documents human vanity with unimpeachable evidence. Yet somehow, the most obvious principle one would apply in determining the true height of a given individual is frequently overlooked in these occasionally heated commentaries: that no one can possibly be any taller than the LOWEST height at which they have been accurately measured. If someone spots a star at a swimming pool in his bare feet and he is eyeball to eyeball with the spotter's own 5'9", isn't it obvious that this is the star's true height? I think it's okay to add an inch when stating your height, because we go through life appearing in shoes, rarely barefoot, and shoes generally add an inch to an inch and-a-half. But what puzzles me is the amount of debating that goes on if the aforementioned star is seen at a public function and appears to be 6'0". Endless speculation and argument follow. Why? The star has been measured at 5'9", and so now he is clearly wearing three inches' worth of heels. End of story. All of this needless bickering should stop. No one can be any taller than the lowest height they've been measured at. Another interesting point: camera angles can and do endlessly deceive, but overall body shots in a film where you can see a man's legs exposed, along with the general height of his torso, can be quite revealing. For example, actors like Sylvester Stallone, Mel Gibson, and even Russell Crowe have short legs and rather squat builds. This is not to say they can't be esthetically pleasing and handsome, but claims that they are 5'11' or even 6'0" are ludicrous. These three superstars are manifestly around 5'9", though Crowe could be as tall as 5'10" and Stallone could be as short as 5'7" - he walked right by me at a driving range a dozen years ago (so he could have lost even more height by now)and with golf shoes and spikes he was no more than 5'9", three inches under my "hair under" six feet. So in the name of sanity, in an effort to prevent much of the disastrous nonsense that can clog up and mar the commentaries, the shortest verified height of a given individual is obviously his maximum height - if he's never been seen in bare feet then he's even shorter than the shortest verified height. Someone can only be the lowest height they are measured at or even shorter - they can never be taller! Thus all other taller "sightings" involve shoes with lots of heel and possibly even lifts augmenting the shoes. Am I the only person who gets this? But let's also be careful not to attach too much importance to height anyway. Many of our most
gifted actors such as Kirk Douglas, Alan Ladd, Marlon Brando, James Dean, Paul Newman, Montomery Clift, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro and Johnny Depp were/are all 5'9" or less, and there are of course countless others. Depth of talent and physical height are (fortunately) unrelated. But in closing let me say again that this is a fascinating site - clearly there is a height patrol out there actively working to expose those celebrities who insist
on farcically exaggerating their statures!
sf said on 13/Jan/07
It's strange how some people shrink more than others, but I would suspect, overall, the taller you are, the more room for shrinkage. which, physcially, is true. There is more space between your discs, etc, more body to shrink. And, gravity will take a little bit bigger toll on someone who is taller. Did I spell toll right? Still doesn't explain why Clint seems to have lost so much, while others don't seem to. I think Jimmy Stewart was still pretty tall when he died, etc.

Anyway, I agree with MHouillon who thinks clint was probably 6.3 and 1/2 and rounded up. Just lines up with a lot I've heard about Clint.
Glenn said on 12/Jan/07
Photo with always comes time for autographs on this guy.didnt do anything for anyone after the first night with me.lucky.
Mike said on 12/Jan/07
Bob Arnold's still 6 even, the arnold/clint pic was from the mid 1990's Arnold was over 6'1 then Clint was prolly dwon to 6'3, i guess Clint lost .5 inch in the past month according to this Glenn congrats on finally getting Clint Eastwood did you get an autograph and/or picture????
Anonymous said on 10/Jan/07
I am myself 6 feet 1, and when I talked about seven years ago with Clint Eastwood we had the same height. So I think your facts are right (Thorsten Rasmussen)
dmeyer said on 9/Jan/07
he looked no shorter than 6'1 when i met him possibly 186 cm
Bob said on 7/Jan/07
I am confused.How can Clint be 185 now? Here is a pic with him and Arnie, and Clint is no more than one inch taller, and Arnie is for sure under 6'.
Does maybe Arnie wear lifts?
How someone can shrink that much, this is really amazing.
Click Here
MHouillon said on 5/Jan/07
Oh, man. I said this before ! Clint rounded up his heyday-height. He was about 6'3.5 (192cm) and has shrunk to 186cm (approx. 6'1.25) these days.
Danimal said on 22/Dec/06
Letterman has claimed both 6'2"-6'2.5" for years and used to look it next to other stars of the same height (Joe Montana, Bill Murray, Kelsey Gramer, the late John Candy, Arnold Schwarzenneger and MANY others).
Height Tracker said on 21/Dec/06
I saw that Letterman episode and to me they pretty much looked the same height. Is Letterman really 6'1.5"?
Markus said on 20/Dec/06
Bob H, my dad is 6'2" and aged 71.
He was this height when he was 25, and he still is at 71 so obviously not everyone shrinks with more has to do how healthy your body is.
Anonymous said on 20/Dec/06
Eastwood was on Letterman a few days ago. Looked maybe 1/2 an inch shorter than Dave.
Bob H. said on 12/Dec/06
Clint was barely taller than James Woods in BLOODWORK. Except for John Wayne, it appears that most men do shrink a few inches after 60 or so. I do believe that Woods wears lifts. They were clearly visible in last weeks SHARK. It appears that Clint in likely in the 6'1" range these days. Still respectably
tall for a 70 plus year old man.
sf said on 11/Nov/06
Wonder what it is about him that has caused such "shrinkage?" Why do some people lose so much? Poor diet and lack of physical activity can definitely do it, even when you're younger, but that sure doesn't describe Clint. Oh, I forgot to say this, too, he worked out at my gym when he was here, but I missed him. They say he worked out pretty hard.
Glenn said on 10/Nov/06
I think I remember you now mentioning this a long time ago.
sf said on 10/Nov/06
Yes, that's my claim to fame, seeing Clint at the local Hy-Vee supermarket in my town. Last thing you'd expect, but very cool. Of course, it was big news when he and Merryl Streep were here. The movie was filmed in a town called Winterset not too far away. Imagine seeing the guy at 11:30, shopping by himself, in your hometown. Huh? Clint Eastwood? I wanted to say something, but I left him alone.

A good friend actually had lunch with him when he was here. Long story but she met some of his crew, they invited her to lunch, and there was Clint.

Tiny Tim actually moved to Des Moines for some reason before he died, then to Minneapolis. Is saw him perform a couple of times (why not?) and got his pic and autograph (the pic was with me, him and my girlfriend at the time) which I'm sure I've since thrown away.

That's the sum total of my Celebrity spotter career.
Glenn said on 10/Nov/06
I didnt know that sf.thats cool.I met Tiny too.sweet guy.
Gramps said on 9/Nov/06're in denial, buddy.
Bob said on 9/Nov/06
Maybe Clint was really taller than Charlton Heston.I don't know, but it is strange,because to me, Charlton Heston looks taller.
sf said on 9/Nov/06
I've said this before, but I stood 10 feet away from Clint Eastwood in one of the most innocent, unassuming times you could ever imagine. A time when he was definitely not wearing lifts, had no one to impress, and was all by himself - at a local supermarket in Des Moines, IA, at 11:30 at night, when he was grocery shopping, while filming "The Bridges of Madison County. Imagine my surprise! Wearing sweats, a white t-shirt, tennis shoes, and walking around with a shopping cart. Watched him for while, saw him leaning against his shopping cart while talking to a woman, and he looked all of 6'2" to 6'3". This was early 90's and he may have lost some height by then, since he seems to be one who has lost a lot, and he was in his early/mid 60's.

Haven't met any celebrities in my life (if you don't count Tiny Tim and seeing the Ultimate Warrior work out at my gym) but if I ever got to see one, Clint was the one I would have liked to have seen. Pretty lucky.
sam said on 9/Nov/06
Why could he not have been taller than Charlton Heston, Bob? Are you both of their physicians? It's been widely agreed that Eastwood has shrunk a couple of inches, so if he is only 6'1.5" now, he should be dwarfed by Robbins.
Bob said on 8/Nov/06
Clint Eastwood could never have been taller than Charlton Heston.
He never could have been 6-4 in his prime.
he must have been wearing lifts all the time
Gramps said on 7/Nov/06
Clint certainly has the height advantage over Heston in Anthony's photo below. Keep in mind the photo is of a young and healthy Clint Eastwood back in the early 1970s (I would guess). Certainly 35 years and health issues have pulled him down to his current 6'1" or so.
dmeyer said on 5/Nov/06
when i met him he looked 186 cm
mike c said on 4/Nov/06
Bob, The Duke, A Life in Pictures is a book that will put all the arguments to rest. Shows Clint next to Marvin (6'2")while they looks on as John Wayne (6'4.5") is cutting a cake...all are dressed in suits..guess Wayne was standing on a box next to 6'5" Rock Hudson...and by the magic of photography, Clint was made to look 2-3 inches taller than the way, Clint and Marvin are wearing dress shoes..but, maybe Clint had 3 inch lifts in yourselves a favor and buy the book! You haven't done your homework!!
Mikex said on 2/Nov/06
Bob, your wrong on this. Clint was about 6'4'' when young. He's clearly taller than Lee Marvin in Paint Your Wagon, Marvin was 6'2''. Look at old photos of Clint in biographies, he towers over people. On this page there are comments from people who were shocked to see how big he was in real life when they met.I admit that he looks shorter now, 6'2'' at most and possibly less. Glenn in comments below says he saw him looking 6'4'' in the early 90s but from recent sightings guesses 6 ft. Clint had definitely shrunk with age but it must remembered he is well into his 70s.

As for the photo with Heston which I saw linked from this sight, Eastwood looks taller than Heston by an inch or more.
Baz said on 21/Oct/06
Worth looking at the book by Patrick McGilligan called Clint: His Life and Legend", which is an unauthorised book. Plenty of chance for those who dislike him to have a go but the comments on his height all say what a towering bloke he was in his prime. No mention of lifts, which sounds like a bunch of hooey to me. Certainly his height is obvious in Dirty Harry & films like Eiger Sanction where he eyeballs 6'4" Greg Walcott (and he is a big guy) and the equally tall Bruce M Fischer in Alactraz and City Heat, not to mention guys like George Kennedy. Age & very poor posture, which he has always had, mean he is now 6'2" max, as highlighted when he stands by Morgan Freeman.
Claire said on 21/Oct/06
I remember him appearing on a chat show in the UK about 20 years back (around when Pale Rider came out) called "Aspel & Company" & he absolutely towered over host Michael Aspel. In a newspaper interview a few days later he remarked "what a very large man" Eastwood was. Aspel is 5`10" & Clint looked 6 inches taller.
Dave said on 21/Oct/06
Reading all the comments so far, it seems most actors are exactly 2 inches shorter than "officially" listed. Come on guys; what are the chances that every actor has added exactly 2 inches to their height? My mate, who 6`4 1/4", has met Clint (around the mid 90`s) & says even then Clint was only a fraction shorter & clearly 6`4". Also, in the Dead Pool he is the same height as Neeson in a couple of scenes where they are standing & talking. He looks shorter when walking next to him because he does slouch & push his pelvis forward when walking. He will, at 75+ years old, have lost a few inches & this is common in tall people. My Grandad was noticeably shorter before he died.
Mike said on 20/Oct/06
I met Clint about 17 years ago on a trip to the states. I`m exactly 6`3" & he was a little taller than me, most certainly 6`4". His posture is now very slouchy & this has caused him to lose a good couple of inches.
Anthony said on 20/Oct/06
She was very sick for quite some time. Truly a miracle she made it out okay.
Mikex said on 20/Oct/06
Anthony women shrink more than men on average in old age. Men usually lose an inch or at most two. Women can shrink upto 3 or more inches. Your great aunt seems to have shrunk a huge amount though. Must have had seriosu health issues.
Anthony said on 19/Oct/06
I think in his prime, Eastwood was an easy 6'4. Watch him in "Dirty Harry", he looks it with ease.

As for shrinking as much as Clint have, it's not too uncommon. Whatabout I'm about say is truth: I have a great aunt who stood 5'4 in her youth, and nowadays is about 4'9. She had so many health problems that it shaved that many inches off her height. So if my great aunt can lose 8 inches by the time she's in her early 70s', Clint can lose nearly three by the time he's nearing 80.
dmeyer said on 16/Oct/06
when i met him he looked 1.5 to 2 inches taller than me
Gotxo said on 15/Oct/06
True Gramps, as Larry tolds us the signs of a swelling hunch reveal that the bone tissue is degrading, maybe osteoporosis.
Danimal said on 15/Oct/06
That's not true Sam. There are so many factors as to why someone would shrink. Obvious reasons are: Osteoperosis, which usually takes off at least 2" and then we have back,neck and other surgeries, which can reduce more height, etc...
Gramps said on 14/Oct/06
Clint must have (maybe still is) suffered from some disease or condition that has shortened him. He has definitely lost a good three inches since his prime.
Glenn said on 13/Oct/06
Clint with a slouch nowadays looks a shocking the early 90s he was 6-4,easily.
sam said on 13/Oct/06
who shrinks 6-7 cms..
people only shrink an inch or so when they get older
mike said on 13/Oct/06
d-meyer i see u alot of ur posts on these famous stars on this site i belive ur estimates of these celebs, I'm close to 6'2 and i saw lint in his EARLIER films he looked at least 6'3 if NOT 6'4, he def looked taller then me on film then i would have (i'm guessing), now of days hes 6'1 to 6'2 in my opinion even though i havent meant him, i CAN have a opinion though, how tall r u and ur guessing clints 6'1 to 6'2 now of days???? How tall do u think stallone is also eveyrone's wondering bout him seriously
dmeyer said on 9/Oct/06
when i met him he looked 2 inches on me maybe 1.5 inches i had 0.25 inches heels advatage 6'1 to 6'1.5
Gramps said on 6/Oct/06
I just watched "Pale Rider" on AMC with Clint (age 55) and the 6'4" Michael Moriarty. Clint consistently looked close to an inch taller (both wearing western boots). While I am quite certain Clint never reached 6'5" even in his twenties, I think he was AT LEAST 6'4" in his prime, perhaps a half inch more.
Anonymous said on 6/Oct/06
I was sceptical of Clint being 6'4''. He doesn't look huge in films. In the spaghetti westerns he looks like a rangy 6'2'' guy. However when you look at Paint your Wagon, Eastwood is clearly taller than 6'2'' Lee Marvin by a good couple of inches. Also I've seen photos of him looking very tall. In one pic in a biography he looms over Roger Moore who was himself a fairly tall man of at least 6 ft. The difference is big like about 3 or 4 inches.

This Tim Robbins guy towers over Clint now. Certainly there is much more of a difference than their offical heights of 6'4'' and 6'5'' suggest.
mike said on 6/Oct/06
cantstop pics prove clints at least 6'5 now of days he either had leg surgery or sly's the mans still a solid 6'1 or closer 6'2 when stretched out now of days was 6'3.5 to 6'4 when younger
Jake said on 5/Oct/06
Okay, maybe the angle makes Clint look a bit shorter. But its a much truer pic than the thumbnail Cantstop posted. And it does show there is no way Clint is even close to 6'4" now. I think he may have been 6'3" or possibly even 6'4" way back when, but he seems 6'1" now.
MHouillon said on 5/Oct/06
Just watched "Magnum Force", which I think is still taking place in Clint's "prime". To be honest: I think his peak-height was 192cm (6'3.5"), which he rounded up, 'cause you know... 6'4 sounds much better. Nowadays he is 187cm (6'1.5").
Maccahon said on 2/Oct/06
I got to meet Clint recently in France. I am 6`4, and he appeared to be shorter than me. I would guess 6`3.
mike c said on 2/Oct/06
Angles, Jake, angles! Buy The Duke, A Life In Pictures..go to pages 76/77..Lee Marvin was 6'2"/...tell me, after studying the pics that Clint wasn't 6'4"..check out the shoes....and while you're at it, look at Wayne next to 6'3" Jimmy Steward...your pic and Cantstop's pic prove it...
Anonymous said on 2/Oct/06
Don't understand that photo with Robbins. There's a number of shots of Eastwood with Robbins at the time Mystic River was released and Robbins dwarfed Eastwood by 3 to 4 inches.
Danimal said on 29/Sep/06
I believe that's a MUCH younger Clint if I'm not mistaken. Either that, or Tim was really bending the knees to appear that short. Thing is, Tim would have only had about an 1" on Clint when Clint was in his prime.
Cantstop25 said on 29/Sep/06
looks very tall here next to big Tim Robbins

Click Here
Mr. E said on 28/Sep/06
good suggestion...will definately check it out....The Duke, according to legend, was taken right off the USC football team because they got sick of putting Alan Ladd on a box.
mike c said on 25/Sep/06
Mr. E. with all due respect, no need to grandfather Clint..just buy The Duke,A life in Rob L. Wagner....pages 76 and 77 are very interesting....they show how tall Clint and the Duke really closed....remember, Lee Marvin was 6'2" and Rock Hudson was 6'5" or a little more or less....great pictures..try to buy it at Barnes and Noble...
Mr. E said on 23/Sep/06
Just because Clint is Clint, I'll give him 6'4"....but then again, my Dad calls himself 6'4".....he's 6'2" I think being A Navy Masterchief adds an inch or two.....Evidence point that Clint was once 6'4".....Lets grandfather him in people.....
Anonymous said on 20/Sep/06
I think he's definitely down to about 6'1'' or 6'2'' at most these days.As someone had poined out he's an old man these days, well into his 70s so perhaps his height loss isn't surprising. These guys are captured on film in their prime and that's how we still think of them many years on.
Brad said on 17/Sep/06
How can he be 6' 1" now? That seems really short for somebody 6' 4" in Play Misty For Me. The guy owned the screen in every motion picture back then. Everybody was under his height.
Stephen said on 14/Sep/06
Clint Eastwood is one of my favorite all time actors. I dont think that he was ever quite 6'4". He looked to be about 6'3.5" (without shoes)in his prime years. 6'1.5" is about right for his current height.
Anonymous said on 9/Sep/06
Brad, only an idiot would steal Clint Eastwood's parking space even if he isn't 6'4'' anymore.
Danimal said on 6/Sep/06
MArkus, he had had serious back problems and is very hunched over and his chest is caving in, probably due to osteoperosis, which is rare for men. Anyways, he's almost 80, which doesn't help. I guess keeping in shape his whole life didn't do much for him in his later years.
Glenn said on 6/Sep/06
And a legit 6-4 even in 1993.
Brad said on 5/Sep/06
Legit 6' 4" in '71. He's dropped a couple like his shoulders and walk. He used to walk like Dr. Harry: very tall out of the saddle.
Markus said on 5/Sep/06
I almost can't believe that people can shrink that much over the years!
But I always thought he looked tall, nowadays nothing like that anymore...

Hmm wonder how much height I will lose off my 6'4" haha
Glenn said on 5/Sep/06
I thought Freeman was 6-2.5 to 6-3.saw him once with Ms.Daisy in 1990.just like the movie.serious.
Danimal said on 4/Sep/06
Isn't Freeman 6'2.5" though, or even 6'2"?
Glenn said on 4/Sep/06
I witnessed him shrink from 6-4 to 6ft from 1993 to 2003.
trueheight said on 4/Sep/06
Clint had already shrunk to 6'3 by 1990 when Unforgiven was filmed; he was the same height as freeman and a bit taller than Hackman; He looks just 6'1 now; He used to look huge in the dirty harry films
mike c said on 26/Aug/06
Mikex, just buy The Duke,A life in Rob L. Wagner....pages 76 and 77 are very interesting....they show how tall Clint and the Duke really can scan the pics, save them to your hard drive, and then send them to your friends as attachments to your e-mail..The pics. prove without a doubt that Clint was 6'4" and the Duke was 6'4"+..not sure about Hudson...just look at the shoes...go to the Wayne page and read my mathematical proof that Wayne was 6'4"+ ..apply the formula to Clint's pics and the discussion is over. Enjoy!
Danimal said on 23/Aug/06
Mikex, it's possible, I just don't know how it's done. Sorry.
Mikex said on 17/Aug/06
I've got a Clint Eastwood documentary in which he appears briefly in a scene with Rock Hudson. They are the same height. This I think proves that Clint was a genuine 6'4'' and also shows that Hudson was not the 6'6'' that some people think he was. I've got this doc. on dvd. Is it possible for me to get a freeze frame picture of this scene from the dvd and download this onto my computer? If I could do this I could email it to Rob to put up on the site if he so wishes. I'm not an expert on computers so I don't know how complicated this is to do.

Danimal said on 16/Aug/06
Osteoperosis can also knock off 2 inches. My mom was 5'3" in her youger days and is now 5'1" (she's 60), due to osteoperosis. Let's hope it's stabilized.
Gotxo said on 16/Aug/06
Danimal: Yep, one of my friends had to have one intervertebral disk removed and
parts of others. He was 187cm before the operation, now he looks 184-185cm.
trueheight said on 16/Aug/06
he was very noticeably shorter than Freeman
Danimal said on 15/Aug/06
You can lose over an inch after undergoing back surgery. That could account for his height loss from 2002 to 2004.
Superman said on 14/Aug/06
He actually looked a tiny bit taller than Jeff Daniels (6'3") in Blood Work (2002). Then in 2004 he was suddenly shorter than Morgan Freeman, a guy he used to be taller than. Who cares anyway, Clint is still the man.
Anonymous said on 10/Aug/06
Read recently that Clint's back problems don't allow him to straighten up to his old 6'4" anymore so he is about 6'2" now, still pretty tall.

Viper652 said on 10/Aug/06
I walk the stairs sometimes by 2 steps as well. Its just the cool thing to do.
George H said on 10/Aug/06
Some people shrink, a lot. Others, though, don't. I had an uncle who died at 93 at the EXACT SAME height as in one of his driver's licences we found of when he was in his thirties! He always stood straight throughout his entire life and was physically very fit until the last two weeks of his life. He always walked at marching speed.:) and took the stairs by two steps at one time until he was approaching 90!
mcfan said on 10/Aug/06
I see comments below about how he was never 6'4. Well, he was taller than Donald Sutherland and just about eye to eye with George Kennedy. Why is this a surprise that a man of 76 y/o has shrunk? My grandfather was 5'7 when he was 75, but was 5'9 in his younger days. Shortly before he passed away at age 87, he was less than 5'6. My grandmother, as do most women, shrunk a considerable amount. She was, I'm told, 5'6 but when she died at 93 was 5'0.
Jack said on 4/Aug/06
Back in the days of Dirty Harry he was very very tall, he was taller than everyone in that movie even bystanders! As people may of mentioned on here he is suffering from one chronic back ache and has taken him down to abot 6"1 or 2. There is a notable difference in Million Dollar Baby.
Jake said on 20/Jul/06
I don't know, he does look around 6'4" in a lot of old pics, or at least 6'3". There is no doubt he has shrunk. I can't see him being as tall as 6'4" John Wayne, though.
Anonymous said on 20/Jul/06
Unlike some physically big stars such as John Wayne or Charlton Heston, Clint Eastwood doesn't give an impression of huge size when on screen. You'd guess he's tall but 6'2'' say. This I think is deceiving. I think his good looks and fine features distract from his size. Not only was he sickeningly handsome when young he was also extremely tall. Most of us would settle for one of those qualities which is why we're not movie stars.
Anonymous said on 20/Jul/06
Jake, I think your wrong about Clint never being 6'4''. I've seen lots of photos of Clint where he towers over guys like Roger Moore who was 6' to 6'1'' in his prime. Also he was definitely taller than Lee Marvin in Paint your Wagon and Marvin was 6'2'' without a doubt. I also seen a clip with him in a scene with Rock Hudson and they were approx. the same height. Yeah he's smaller today 6'2'' at most I think.
Gotxo said on 20/Jul/06
Gramps- I belive you, besides i think that Larry has said a similar shrunkment for his mom too. But let's not forget that women loss mor height than man in average, also tend to suffer osteoporosis in a bigger % than men.
Larry has pointed out to a clue that might be right, if Clint has a slight hump can be due to bone tissue problems, wich are more frecuent in slight build guys
(less bone thickness). That is Clint profile, and some years back he started to
lossing weight/bulk too.
rwfender said on 20/Jul/06
i heard women shrink more than men in their old age..ecspecially if they suffer from osteoperosis. i think its very common for a lot of men to only shrink an inch when they get older even though results can vary.

I think Clint might have been more 6'3ish in his youth, then again if he was 6'4 and lost a lot of height from back surgeries i guess that could be possible
Larry said on 20/Jul/06
Yeah - it seems like a lot of height loss for a large male, but James Garner appears to have suffered a similar fate. ???
Lmeister said on 20/Jul/06
"Blondie" was 6'4''in his prime nowadays he is around 6'1''- 6'2''.
mike said on 19/Jul/06
nice eastwood/costner pic he still looks a solid 2 inches taller then costner, costner looks shot/trashed eastwood looks alil tipsy
Gramps said on 19/Jul/06
Well Jake, my mother has lost more than 3" from 50-80 years of age, with no related medical problems.
Jake said on 18/Jul/06
1993? He lost 2.5" in 13 years? Thats insane, if it is true...
Glenn said on 18/Jul/06
WRONG.I saw 6-4 in 1993.
Jake said on 17/Jul/06
He was never 6'4", he has a lot of you guys fooled, I think anyways. I'd give him 6'3" in his prime and 6'1.5" now. People don't shrink more than 2", unless there is some sort of serious medical condition. My mother is middle aged and has had a lot of back problems, even back surgery but is still as tall as ever, for example.
upandaway said on 13/Jun/06
well..I saw a special features thing on a movie..and he said he IS 6'4 but because of back problems, now he slouches and seems around 6'2.
Ed said on 7/Jun/06
Does anyone know if Eastwood has admitted to any health problems that could cause such a loss in height. I think 6ft3 to 6ft3.5 would be accurate for Clint back in the good old days, but now he can look just a little over 6ft. I've seen info on osteoporosis at the doc's office, and have read Larry's comments, but does Clint really show these signs. He still seems to have great posture, is in great shape for his age, doesn't seem too hunched, but seems 3 inches shorter, what gives?
Larry said on 3/Jun/06
Thanks Gotxo! :-) Calcification can occur in any vertebrate (even reptiles) and is caused by (usually): injury forming a protective SITE, arthritis, or a misaligned joint. The spinal colume IS a very complex hinged joint. Your friend's case IS typical. Loss of one vertebrate in most locations on the spine CAN result in the loss of an inch. It COULD occur in less time than 6 years. A vertebrae CAN be replaced with a "place-keeper" made from a spongy "block".
Sam - You say Clint has a hump? Hmmm, THAT's a sign of osteoperosis. That condition IS more common in females of European extraction who are of slight build. BUT, it DOES hit males too. Clint's been pretty skinny most of his life, but he bulked up in the 80's. Now he's skinny again & has a "caved in" look to his torsoe; that can be a sign of osteoperosis as well. I had an 80 year old aunt who had lost 5"! So, maybe...???
Gotxo said on 2/Jun/06
I like your opinions, you show why you think something and leave space to people to form their own opinion. Yes 2'5" it's excessive, one of my frineds had to be taken several intervertebral disks and has decreased to 184-185cm from his former 187cm, this has happened continously in a slow shrinkage during a 6 year time-span. He lost at least one disk and some parts of others, the cause was calcification.Is that normal?
Larry said on 2/Jun/06
I must admit I resisted believing Clint had shrunk 2.5 inches in height, but these photos are "wearing me down". He DOES look 2-3 inches shorter than in his glory days as an actor. From the angle of a developmental biologist I can tell you that the MAJOR cause of height-loss in bipedal mammals is osteoporosis, followed by several varieties of spinal curvature. Sculiosis could do it, but is normally a condition that manifests in childhood. Spinal injuries that require a fusion or a removal can cause height loss. I recently had a hip replacement (& femur) due to a crash & they have been very attentive to the length of my affected limb. Part of the therapy is stretching the muscles & tendons out manually by the therapist. So, I wonder if Clint has suffered spinal problems?
Gonzalo said on 1/Jun/06
The pic with Daniels is taking in a boat, so it is not the best place to compare people heights.
Eastwood was 6`4 in his prime but he looks much shorter nowadays. Around 6`1 at the most
Mikex said on 30/May/06
Funny thing is although he looks a good 2 or 3 inches shorter than in his prime his posture seems unaffected. He stills stand straight and upright.
Gramps said on 20/May/06
Clint with the 6'2" Sheb Wooley...
Click Here
Gramps said on 20/May/06
Clint just seven years ago with the 6'2.5" Dennis Leary...
Click Here
Gramps said on 20/May/06
Clint about 35 years ago with the 6'3" Charlton Heston...
Click Here
Gramps said on 19/May/06
Only seven years ago with the 6'2.5" Dennis Leary...
Click Here
Ted said on 16/May/06
My sister walked past him on the street in San Fran and said he was about the same height as her husband 6'3" (this was probably about 10 years ago)
Bleemo said on 15/May/06
Hmm but if Tim really is 6'5 I'd say Clin is about 3 inches shorter still making him 6'2ish in his 70's. I've watched the fistfull trilogy lately and one thing that dawned on me is this, he's most famous for cowboy roles i.e. Gunsmoke, fistfull trilogy, Josey Wells, Pale Rider, Unforgiven.

Put a lean, 6'2 inch man in cowboy boots and a hat and he will appear like a 6'4 man easily. I'm not saying that he WAS only 6'2 at his peak, but I'm not totally counting it out, this is Hollywood we're talking about afterall. Personally I think this guy was atleast 6'3 though, he was a lanky dude.
the rock said on 14/May/06
one can easily make out in the movie the good the bad and the ugly that this guy towers over most ....
clearly a 6 ' 4" guy ..... with shoes 6'6" +
Gramps said on 14/May/06
Yes, best to remember Clint in his "glory days," but appreciate his great directing today!
mcfan said on 11/May/06
I watched my grandfather go from being 5'8 at age 70 to 5'4 at age 86 now. Clint is an old man. He has horrible posture. It almost looks like his chest and stomach caved in. If you watch Unforgiven, he's taller than Freeman. A decade later he's shorter than Freeman. He's definitely shrinking.

We know he was once 6'4 as Lee Van Cleef once said.

[Editor Rob: he looks to me he might be developing doweger hump a bit.]
Gramps said on 10/May/06
Comparing Clint to the 6'5" Robbins and 5'10" Bacon in the picture offered by Anonymous, Clint looks about 6'1" IMO.
Anonymous said on 10/May/06
Again I'm amazed by the difference between Clint and Robbins, Click Here

I know the angle may exaggerate a little but even so the differnce is really big. Guys usually just lose an inch or at most two inches in height as they age. If Clint was 6'4'' when young he looks to have lost about 4 inches.
Viper652 said on 9/May/06
I was looking at the pic of Robbins with Eastwood, and I thought, Robbins looks taller then his stated 6-4.5, or even a little taller then 6-5. It wouldnt surprise me If he is downgrading his height a little bit.

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.