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)
Gramps said on 22/Feb/08
Tim: two thoughts: 1) Perhaps the scoliosis has taken away that 3/4". My sister has it and she had to have major surgery to straighten her spine, along with steel rods for a while; and 2) If your recent doctor visit came later in the day, your spine had probably settled some. I suppose you don't really remember now just what time of day your volleyball measurement was.
Tim: two thoughts: 1) Perhaps the scoliosis has taken away that 3/4". My sister has it and she had to have major surgery to straighten her spine, along with steel rods for a while; and 2) If your recent doctor visit came later in the day, your spine had probably settled some. I suppose you don't really remember now just what time of day your volleyball measurement was.
tim said on 21/Feb/08
when i was 18 i was marked at exactly 6'4 3/4 in the doctors office for a physical required for highschool volleyball. 6'5 was an assumption of others and myself. i have had lower back problems and scoliosis since the age of 16. 3 months ago i was measured at 6'4 flat at the doctors office for another physical for a job. BUT i completely understand your doubt.
when i was 18 i was marked at exactly 6'4 3/4 in the doctors office for a physical required for highschool volleyball. 6'5 was an assumption of others and myself. i have had lower back problems and scoliosis since the age of 16. 3 months ago i was measured at 6'4 flat at the doctors office for another physical for a job. BUT i completely understand your doubt.
TNTinCA said on 21/Feb/08
Is it possible Clint had some vertebrae fused or something? A loss of height of that magnitude is usually not attributed to simply age. 3 inches?
And I don't think his 6'4" height at his peak is inaccurate. He ALWAYS looked that tall in his movies.
Is it possible Clint had some vertebrae fused or something? A loss of height of that magnitude is usually not attributed to simply age. 3 inches?
And I don't think his 6'4" height at his peak is inaccurate. He ALWAYS looked that tall in his movies.
G-MANN said on 21/Feb/08
Perhaps Tim overestimated his height when he was younger. People don't normally lose height that young, unless something is wrong with them.
Perhaps Tim overestimated his height when he was younger. People don't normally lose height that young, unless something is wrong with them.
Gramps said on 21/Feb/08
Tim: Wow! Losing an inch by age 33 is VERY unusual barring medical issues. I would venture a guess that one of the two measurements was performed incorrectly, and maybe both. Unless you yourself have specifically noticed getting that much shorter (like versus a brother or best friend), I can't believe you could have lost an inch. I turned 60 last year and have lost no more than 1/4 inch, despite 40 years of lower back problems. I'm not doubting YOU, just the underlying facts.
Tim: Wow! Losing an inch by age 33 is VERY unusual barring medical issues. I would venture a guess that one of the two measurements was performed incorrectly, and maybe both. Unless you yourself have specifically noticed getting that much shorter (like versus a brother or best friend), I can't believe you could have lost an inch. I turned 60 last year and have lost no more than 1/4 inch, despite 40 years of lower back problems. I'm not doubting YOU, just the underlying facts.
tim said on 21/Feb/08
i agree with patrick, clint stands at least 2 or 3 inches taller than the 6'2 don stroud. Unfortainly he is wearing cowboy boots the entire movie which can add at least 2 or 3 inches. I say clint is 6'4 in this movie.
I reached the height of 6'5 at the age of 19, and i am now right at 6'4 at the age of 33. Although i am not exactly sure when i came down one inch.
i agree with patrick, clint stands at least 2 or 3 inches taller than the 6'2 don stroud. Unfortainly he is wearing cowboy boots the entire movie which can add at least 2 or 3 inches. I say clint is 6'4 in this movie.
I reached the height of 6'5 at the age of 19, and i am now right at 6'4 at the age of 33. Although i am not exactly sure when i came down one inch.
mike c said on 20/Feb/08
gramps, of course glenn could not possibly be referring to transexual..remember, let's keep it g fellows. Clint, just as the Duke, 6'4+ in prime. mike c
gramps, of course glenn could not possibly be referring to transexual..remember, let's keep it g fellows. Clint, just as the Duke, 6'4+ in prime. mike c
w said on 20/Feb/08
I agree with 6 ft 1, just look at Million Dollar Baby and see that he is of 1-2 inches shorter than Morgan Freeman, and I think that your peak was not more than 6 ft 3, it does not seem to have diminished much.
I agree with 6 ft 1, just look at Million Dollar Baby and see that he is of 1-2 inches shorter than Morgan Freeman, and I think that your peak was not more than 6 ft 3, it does not seem to have diminished much.
Manitobaboy said on 18/Feb/08
George H:
I believe that not everyone loses (significant) height but it is more obvious in those who are taller. Both Garner and Eastwood lived active lives and were hard on their frames.
The human spine shrinks as one gets older: anatomy and physiology 101. Whether it shrinks by an inch or four inches is going to depend on the depth of cushioning between the vertebrae and the person's original height... along with individual factors like diet and general health. Some people begin to lose height in their 60's, others not til they're 80 but everyone loses some height.
George H:
I believe that not everyone loses (significant) height but it is more obvious in those who are taller. Both Garner and Eastwood lived active lives and were hard on their frames.
The human spine shrinks as one gets older: anatomy and physiology 101. Whether it shrinks by an inch or four inches is going to depend on the depth of cushioning between the vertebrae and the person's original height... along with individual factors like diet and general health. Some people begin to lose height in their 60's, others not til they're 80 but everyone loses some height.
patrick said on 18/Feb/08
I agree Anonymous. In Coogan's bluff, the very good 6'2 Don Stroud, 13 year younger, always looks visibly more than 2 inches shorter than Clint; I would say 3 inches. As for the dead pool, Liam looks taller, that is true. I remember having been surprised!
I agree Anonymous. In Coogan's bluff, the very good 6'2 Don Stroud, 13 year younger, always looks visibly more than 2 inches shorter than Clint; I would say 3 inches. As for the dead pool, Liam looks taller, that is true. I remember having been surprised!
Anonymous said on 18/Feb/08
TJ I agree. Eastwood was slightly shorter than Neeson in the Dead Pool. I don't know why there is any argument about Estwood's height though. Until the last few year he has always looked about 6'4''. I mean it's not like Arnie where sometimes he looks tall and other times not so tall. Clint always appeared tall.
TJ I agree. Eastwood was slightly shorter than Neeson in the Dead Pool. I don't know why there is any argument about Estwood's height though. Until the last few year he has always looked about 6'4''. I mean it's not like Arnie where sometimes he looks tall and other times not so tall. Clint always appeared tall.
Anonymous said on 17/Feb/08
Hey Glenn. Been busy with other "stuff."
Hey Glenn. Been busy with other "stuff."
TJ said on 17/Feb/08
Er, I meant slouch a little in shots, not in shorts :-)
Er, I meant slouch a little in shots, not in shorts :-)
TJ said on 16/Feb/08
He didn't look taller than Liam Neeson in the Dead Pool. If anything, he looked the same or slightly shorter. In any case, I remember an interview from the time where Neeson said he had been asked to slouch a little in shorts to ensure the hero of the movie wasn't shorter.
He didn't look taller than Liam Neeson in the Dead Pool. If anything, he looked the same or slightly shorter. In any case, I remember an interview from the time where Neeson said he had been asked to slouch a little in shorts to ensure the hero of the movie wasn't shorter.
Mark D. said on 15/Feb/08
Definitely shorter now than Liam Neeson, he probably had lifts on or they
put him up on an incline to not look that much shorter, I would estimate.
Definitely shorter now than Liam Neeson, he probably had lifts on or they
put him up on an incline to not look that much shorter, I would estimate.
patrick said on 15/Feb/08
Do agree with you monik!
Do agree with you monik!
JOSH said on 15/Feb/08
He still looked a touch taller than 6ft 4 liam neeson in the dead pool and he was nearly 60 then. So when he was younger he was over 6ft 4 but now not as tall but still over 6feet.
He still looked a touch taller than 6ft 4 liam neeson in the dead pool and he was nearly 60 then. So when he was younger he was over 6ft 4 but now not as tall but still over 6feet.
monik said on 14/Feb/08
he looks as mario brega in the westerns 1.93 he was very tall he was the best actor and most handsome ever men in the world
he looks as mario brega in the westerns 1.93 he was very tall he was the best actor and most handsome ever men in the world
patrick said on 12/Feb/08
He certainly have George H.
When much younger, it was visible his
He certainly have George H.
When much younger, it was visible his
George H. said on 11/Feb/08
Manitobaboy, not everybody shrinks as they get older. I know plenty of older guys in real life, the oldest one reached the awesome age of 93, who barely
lost 1 inch over the course of their lives. Eastwood may have some medical condition or injury effects that caused his relatively big height loss.
Manitobaboy, not everybody shrinks as they get older. I know plenty of older guys in real life, the oldest one reached the awesome age of 93, who barely
lost 1 inch over the course of their lives. Eastwood may have some medical condition or injury effects that caused his relatively big height loss.
patrick said on 11/Feb/08
Hello mike (c)! Happy to find you here too and, once more, sharing with Glenn and many others, the 6'4 Clint's height at least until nineties.
It is obvious Clint has lost a lot of height while that not being so visible, I mean in his posture, his way of walking etc.
To tell the truth, I barely had noticed he had shrunk in space cow boys though having seen he was shorter than Donald Sutherland.
He nevertheless looked at the time, not that shorter than the
Hello mike (c)! Happy to find you here too and, once more, sharing with Glenn and many others, the 6'4 Clint's height at least until nineties.
It is obvious Clint has lost a lot of height while that not being so visible, I mean in his posture, his way of walking etc.
To tell the truth, I barely had noticed he had shrunk in space cow boys though having seen he was shorter than Donald Sutherland.
He nevertheless looked at the time, not that shorter than the
glenn said on 10/Feb/08
how ya been gramps? i hear you mike c."dont talk,shoot".
how ya been gramps? i hear you mike c."dont talk,shoot".
Gramps said on 10/Feb/08
Absolutely 6'4" back in the day.
Absolutely 6'4" back in the day.
m.caez said on 9/Feb/08
Glenn, you can lead a horse to water, but....you know. Clint 6'4" without a doubt...mike c
Glenn, you can lead a horse to water, but....you know. Clint 6'4" without a doubt...mike c
Ivan 6'2.25 said on 6/Feb/08
maybe 6'3 at his peak, losing 3 inches is enormous normaly is 1 inches.
maybe 6'3 at his peak, losing 3 inches is enormous normaly is 1 inches.
Manitobaboy said on 3/Feb/08
The taller you are, the more likely you will lose significant height as the cushioned spaces between your vertebrae will shrink more. Clint, James Garner, Jimmy Stewart - all tall guys who shrank a lot. My father was a hair over 6'1" for most of his adult life - he died at 80 and was barely 5'11".
The taller you are, the more likely you will lose significant height as the cushioned spaces between your vertebrae will shrink more. Clint, James Garner, Jimmy Stewart - all tall guys who shrank a lot. My father was a hair over 6'1" for most of his adult life - he died at 80 and was barely 5'11".
miko said on 3/Feb/08
Rob, it is possible Cliff could ever drop below 6"0?
Rob, it is possible Cliff could ever drop below 6"0?
john said on 31/Jan/08
max: 6-1, min:6-0
max: 6-1, min:6-0
glenn said on 7/Jan/08
he seems 6ft to me and looks that in my friends pics too. a 6-1 friend at that.but most people agree and see 6-1.i understand 6ft is an illusion i guess.
he seems 6ft to me and looks that in my friends pics too. a 6-1 friend at that.but most people agree and see 6-1.i understand 6ft is an illusion i guess.
dmeyer said on 7/Jan/08
glenn are you sure you saw clint 6'0 flat since i saw him at 6'1
glenn are you sure you saw clint 6'0 flat since i saw him at 6'1
glenn said on 7/Jan/08
well i saw him 6-4 in the early 90s and 6ft in the last 4 years.i never knew age can shrink someone like that,but it did.its real.im glad i saw the tall eastwood.cause i would doubt now.
well i saw him 6-4 in the early 90s and 6ft in the last 4 years.i never knew age can shrink someone like that,but it did.its real.im glad i saw the tall eastwood.cause i would doubt now.
Viper said on 7/Jan/08
Eastwood is the far exception to the rule by far.
Eastwood is the far exception to the rule by far.
VierMae said on 6/Jan/08
It's unbelievable: from 6'4 to 6'1 but both heights I'm sure are accurate...the fact is how it is possible??I mean I'm 18 and a solid 6' foot and don't want to become 5'9 at the age of 65
It's unbelievable: from 6'4 to 6'1 but both heights I'm sure are accurate...the fact is how it is possible??I mean I'm 18 and a solid 6' foot and don't want to become 5'9 at the age of 65
glenn said on 5/Jan/08
no need for pics.he was 6-4.i witnessed it.
no need for pics.he was 6-4.i witnessed it.
Yaspaa said on 5/Jan/08
I always thought Clint was around 6'2 when he was younger . Does anyone have any pictures to prove me wrong
I always thought Clint was around 6'2 when he was younger . Does anyone have any pictures to prove me wrong
mike c said on 11/Dec/07
EK, you're having a bad hair day...do you're homework, then we'll talk. 6'4" without a doubt and I can prove it!!
EK, you're having a bad hair day...do you're homework, then we'll talk. 6'4" without a doubt and I can prove it!!
Anonymous said on 11/Dec/07
Kyle looks about 2 inches taller than his father in the photo. I've read they are both 6'4''. This would tally with Clint's documented height loss. I don' doubt that Clint was about 6'4'' when young. He always looked that height in old movies or photos.
Kyle looks about 2 inches taller than his father in the photo. I've read they are both 6'4''. This would tally with Clint's documented height loss. I don' doubt that Clint was about 6'4'' when young. He always looked that height in old movies or photos.
Ejel Khan said on 11/Dec/07
Never 6'4" peak height 6'1" now he's 6'. appeared on Parkinson (UK) was an an inch taller than 5'11" Parkinson
Never 6'4" peak height 6'1" now he's 6'. appeared on Parkinson (UK) was an an inch taller than 5'11" Parkinson
AAAA said on 19/Nov/07
For those curious about his son Kyle, here is a pic from about 3 weeks ago.
Click Here
this is the best one I could find. Any thoughts, his son seems like a tall guy too.
For those curious about his son Kyle, here is a pic from about 3 weeks ago.
Click Here
this is the best one I could find. Any thoughts, his son seems like a tall guy too.
AAAA said on 18/Nov/07
I found this pic a long, time ago, before the use of tinyurl and it got delted, and someone else has posted it as well once.
Clint still looked toweringly big here with tyson and jackson
Click Here
I found this pic a long, time ago, before the use of tinyurl and it got delted, and someone else has posted it as well once.
Clint still looked toweringly big here with tyson and jackson
Click Here
Pete said on 15/Nov/07
clint is clint and always be clint. hes bigger than life. he was hansdome strong tough succesful talented etc etc. danimal, this type of men have the confidence and nothing is gonna blow it.
clint is clint and always be clint. hes bigger than life. he was hansdome strong tough succesful talented etc etc. danimal, this type of men have the confidence and nothing is gonna blow it.
sf said on 15/Nov/07
Hey Doc- I've always noticed Clint's extremly curved spine (even in earlier movies) and wondered about it. Makes sense why he could lose so much height.
Hey Doc- I've always noticed Clint's extremly curved spine (even in earlier movies) and wondered about it. Makes sense why he could lose so much height.
Dr Ed Michaels, UK said on 15/Nov/07
Hi Tubbs. Mr Eastwood could, if he "stood tall", still conceivably reach 6`3" or so. However, at the age of 77 & an almost lifelong problem of postural defects, he would find it too painful. Remember, his whole musculature has adapted to his spinal curvature over the years. The condition is certainly not as uncommon as people think. Having it for years from a young age, as Mr Eastwood clearly has, will naturaly cause problems with posture.
Hi Tubbs. Mr Eastwood could, if he "stood tall", still conceivably reach 6`3" or so. However, at the age of 77 & an almost lifelong problem of postural defects, he would find it too painful. Remember, his whole musculature has adapted to his spinal curvature over the years. The condition is certainly not as uncommon as people think. Having it for years from a young age, as Mr Eastwood clearly has, will naturaly cause problems with posture.
Danimal said on 15/Nov/07
He doesn't look 6'2" anymore. Dream on.
He doesn't look 6'2" anymore. Dream on.
tubbs said on 15/Nov/07
I doubt that he's lost 4", and I doubt someone Clint's age is that bothered about his height anymore, either way he's still a tall guy. With decent posture, considering his condition he still looks near 6'2".
I doubt that he's lost 4", and I doubt someone Clint's age is that bothered about his height anymore, either way he's still a tall guy. With decent posture, considering his condition he still looks near 6'2".
glenn said on 15/Nov/07
he is 77 years old.what does one expect in the elderly? hercules?
he is 77 years old.what does one expect in the elderly? hercules?
Danimal said on 15/Nov/07
Do you think this 4" height loss has hit the man's confidence at all? After all, he was known for his tough guy image and now he's looking like a feather can blow him over.
Do you think this 4" height loss has hit the man's confidence at all? After all, he was known for his tough guy image and now he's looking like a feather can blow him over.
tubbs said on 14/Nov/07
Curvature of the spine, scroll down and read the comments from Dr Ed Michaels, he's a back specialist, pretty informative stuff.
Curvature of the spine, scroll down and read the comments from Dr Ed Michaels, he's a back specialist, pretty informative stuff.
Anonymous said on 13/Nov/07
How did Eastwood lose 3 inches in height and go from 6"4" to 6"1" That is a BIG difference. Does anyone have an answer?
How did Eastwood lose 3 inches in height and go from 6"4" to 6"1" That is a BIG difference. Does anyone have an answer?
l0ck n l0ad said on 13/Nov/07
Does anyone know how tall his son Kyle Eastwood is?
Does anyone know how tall his son Kyle Eastwood is?
Anonymous said on 8/Nov/07
I think he was about 6'4 still in Heartbreak Ridge '85, Bo Svenson who was about 6'6+, was only about 2.5 inches taller than Mario Van Peeples than Clint was, so Clint was real close to 6'4. Also the big Swedish guy he beats up was 6'4 and Clint was all but the same height as him.
I think he was about 6'4 still in Heartbreak Ridge '85, Bo Svenson who was about 6'6+, was only about 2.5 inches taller than Mario Van Peeples than Clint was, so Clint was real close to 6'4. Also the big Swedish guy he beats up was 6'4 and Clint was all but the same height as him.
tubbs said on 8/Nov/07
I find what Dr Ed has to say very interesting. I have a friend who has the same condition as Clint with regards to scoliosis. He is a 6'1 guy ,who describes how the lower lumbar region 'collapses' on occassion, and tells me how it bends like a banana (sorry for the non technical terms) and when it does he looks around 5'11.5 at the most. However, when his back is in good shape, and he stands tall he is no doubt 6'1". My question is Dr Ed, could Clint still look 6'3", 6'4" if he stood straight, albeit in some considerable discomfort, or are there too many factors contributing to his loss of height to get up in the 6'4" region. Personally Clint still looks 6'1.5" to me.
I find what Dr Ed has to say very interesting. I have a friend who has the same condition as Clint with regards to scoliosis. He is a 6'1 guy ,who describes how the lower lumbar region 'collapses' on occassion, and tells me how it bends like a banana (sorry for the non technical terms) and when it does he looks around 5'11.5 at the most. However, when his back is in good shape, and he stands tall he is no doubt 6'1". My question is Dr Ed, could Clint still look 6'3", 6'4" if he stood straight, albeit in some considerable discomfort, or are there too many factors contributing to his loss of height to get up in the 6'4" region. Personally Clint still looks 6'1.5" to me.
sam said on 7/Nov/07
In a 1974 Playboy interview in a new book of director interviews, the journalist says Clint was 6'4" and 197 pounds.
In a 1974 Playboy interview in a new book of director interviews, the journalist says Clint was 6'4" and 197 pounds.
l0ck n l0ad said on 5/Nov/07
Watching the Dollars Trilogy films, Eastwood was between 34 - 36 years old. Take into factor that in every scene he's wearing big thick boots, he looked me somewhere between 6'3" and 6'4". I don't think he could been anything under 6'3" in his prime, not a chance.
Watching the Dollars Trilogy films, Eastwood was between 34 - 36 years old. Take into factor that in every scene he's wearing big thick boots, he looked me somewhere between 6'3" and 6'4". I don't think he could been anything under 6'3" in his prime, not a chance.
al said on 30/Oct/07
When he was young in the spaghetti westerns and the first 3 dirty harry films he looked a solid 6ft 4. He has lost a few inches of height over the years but is still over 6 feet to me.
When he was young in the spaghetti westerns and the first 3 dirty harry films he looked a solid 6ft 4. He has lost a few inches of height over the years but is still over 6 feet to me.
dmeyer said on 22/Oct/07
he looked to be solid 1.5 in unfder freeman in milion.. so 6'0.75 in he did look 185 cm range when i met him
he looked to be solid 1.5 in unfder freeman in milion.. so 6'0.75 in he did look 185 cm range when i met him
Braden.R. said on 22/Oct/07
I may be only 15 but it doesnt matter if he has lost a couple of inches really he is still about 6'2" Im only 5'8".
I may be only 15 but it doesnt matter if he has lost a couple of inches really he is still about 6'2" Im only 5'8".
George H. said on 15/Oct/07
AshnarLynx: yeah and I believe Jackie posted a couple of pictures in which Beatty was barely an inch shorter than Freeman, so by now he really is taller than Eastwood which I'm positive wasn't always the case. I think Eastwood may be one of those guys who lose about as much height as older women due to osteoporosis (sp)
AshnarLynx: yeah and I believe Jackie posted a couple of pictures in which Beatty was barely an inch shorter than Freeman, so by now he really is taller than Eastwood which I'm positive wasn't always the case. I think Eastwood may be one of those guys who lose about as much height as older women due to osteoporosis (sp)
George H. said on 15/Oct/07
AAAA: ROFLMAO you're right, Beatty's got an unusually large head, also huge hands. I checked other pictures of this event and all the tall guys (Eastwood, Reiner and Beatty) are all wearing thick soled shoes as do shorties Douglas and Crystal, but definitely no lifts like Stallone.
AAAA: ROFLMAO you're right, Beatty's got an unusually large head, also huge hands. I checked other pictures of this event and all the tall guys (Eastwood, Reiner and Beatty) are all wearing thick soled shoes as do shorties Douglas and Crystal, but definitely no lifts like Stallone.
AAAA said on 15/Oct/07
Well to be fair to clint, I think he is at the back of the half circle there, so betty may be getting some perspective boost. Beatty still looks tallish, but i still say it is mostly because of his head. The man has one sizeable noggin
Well to be fair to clint, I think he is at the back of the half circle there, so betty may be getting some perspective boost. Beatty still looks tallish, but i still say it is mostly because of his head. The man has one sizeable noggin
dmeyer said on 14/Oct/07
beatty is looking taller than 6 feet 2 rob reiner i met him 188 cm
beatty is looking taller than 6 feet 2 rob reiner i met him 188 cm
AshnarLynx said on 14/Oct/07
He has shrunk definitely. In Million Dollar Baby he looked shorter than Freeman by two inches at least. So he's probably just 6 feet now, if that's possible.
He has shrunk definitely. In Million Dollar Baby he looked shorter than Freeman by two inches at least. So he's probably just 6 feet now, if that's possible.
ed said on 13/Oct/07
clint was 6'4 but with all the back problems and getting older he has shrunk now to like 6'1.5 or 6'2 nowadays
clint was 6'4 but with all the back problems and getting older he has shrunk now to like 6'1.5 or 6'2 nowadays
Dr Ed Michaels, UK said on 13/Oct/07
Hi Catsman - The pelvis problem he appears to be suffering from will cause some shrinkage and he also has curvature of the spine. Both of these will contribute to Mr Eastwood`s significant height loss. His postural problems have been evident from his youth. If you are able to see old episodes of Rawhide it is a problem even then and it will be exacerbated by old age.
Hi Catsman - The pelvis problem he appears to be suffering from will cause some shrinkage and he also has curvature of the spine. Both of these will contribute to Mr Eastwood`s significant height loss. His postural problems have been evident from his youth. If you are able to see old episodes of Rawhide it is a problem even then and it will be exacerbated by old age.
sam said on 11/Oct/07
Warren Beatty actually looks slightly taller than Eastwood in Rob's photo, but Clint has clearly lost all those inches. Back in the 60s, I would guess that Warren would have been looking up at Clint.
Warren Beatty actually looks slightly taller than Eastwood in Rob's photo, but Clint has clearly lost all those inches. Back in the 60s, I would guess that Warren would have been looking up at Clint.
Catsman said on 9/Oct/07
Dr Ed - are you saying that the angle of the pelvis results in a curved upper spine? That is interesting. Who else have you seen with that posture?
Dr Ed - are you saying that the angle of the pelvis results in a curved upper spine? That is interesting. Who else have you seen with that posture?
patrick said on 9/Oct/07
Ed. Rob: what "Kurt" on the pic? "Kirk" yes, but Kurt...
Anyway, that feels bizarre to see them so...
I am sure what Dr Ed syas about Clint is right all th emore since because I always saw what he is talking about: scoliosis and "bad posture" du to a back problem. He pelvis is very wide and fortunately, Clint is broad shouldered or else...
He is not the same man than before for sure and that is normal! Look at my so dear Kirk Douglas! I find him great in that picture, above all considering he is 91!!!
Ed. Rob: what "Kurt" on the pic? "Kirk" yes, but Kurt...
Anyway, that feels bizarre to see them so...
I am sure what Dr Ed syas about Clint is right all th emore since because I always saw what he is talking about: scoliosis and "bad posture" du to a back problem. He pelvis is very wide and fortunately, Clint is broad shouldered or else...
He is not the same man than before for sure and that is normal! Look at my so dear Kirk Douglas! I find him great in that picture, above all considering he is 91!!!
Jim said on 8/Oct/07
He doesn't look like 185 to me..i think is more like 182/3 same height as leo d.
Editor Rob
He doesn't look like 185 to me..i think is more like 182/3 same height as leo d.
Editor Rob They dragged out all the old legends recently. Kurt is around Billy Crystal height now, Beatty looks tall there actually...Here
mike c said on 6/Oct/07
Thank you Dr. Ed...you bring intelligent discourse and facts to this debate...
Thank you Dr. Ed...you bring intelligent discourse and facts to this debate...
Dr Ed Michaels, UK said on 3/Oct/07
I added a comment on hear a few months ago about Mr Eastwood`s posture. For those newcomers, I have seen examples of his type of posture before in my role as a back specialist. Even in his younger days, you can see his pelvic girdle "leaning" or "slanting" to the right as he is standing or walking. This becomes more pronounced in his later films; for example, you can really notice it in the fims with the orang-utan, when he has his top off. Also, note the way he walks & you will clearly see this effect. This type of postural defect is a form of scoliosis and I can tell you from my experiences that this can cause a significant reduction in height. One of you mentioned Heartbreak Ridge and, funnily enough, this was on in the UK a few weeks ago. I noticed that Mr Eastwood had to "stand tall & straight" in playing a military officer and he looked close to the height of the officer played by Everett Martin who, I have read, is 6`5" tall. In his regular, everyday life, he would not be able to keep that "stand tall" posture up as it would produce some discomfort and, with his advanced years, he will clearly be shorter than in his prime by quite a surprising margin. I hope this is of interest to his fans & everyone who is contributing to this very entertaining site. Kind regards Dr Ed Michaels
I added a comment on hear a few months ago about Mr Eastwood`s posture. For those newcomers, I have seen examples of his type of posture before in my role as a back specialist. Even in his younger days, you can see his pelvic girdle "leaning" or "slanting" to the right as he is standing or walking. This becomes more pronounced in his later films; for example, you can really notice it in the fims with the orang-utan, when he has his top off. Also, note the way he walks & you will clearly see this effect. This type of postural defect is a form of scoliosis and I can tell you from my experiences that this can cause a significant reduction in height. One of you mentioned Heartbreak Ridge and, funnily enough, this was on in the UK a few weeks ago. I noticed that Mr Eastwood had to "stand tall & straight" in playing a military officer and he looked close to the height of the officer played by Everett Martin who, I have read, is 6`5" tall. In his regular, everyday life, he would not be able to keep that "stand tall" posture up as it would produce some discomfort and, with his advanced years, he will clearly be shorter than in his prime by quite a surprising margin. I hope this is of interest to his fans & everyone who is contributing to this very entertaining site. Kind regards Dr Ed Michaels
mike c said on 2/Oct/07
welcome aboard, Russ..
welcome aboard, Russ..
Russ said on 2/Oct/07
I didn't mean anything with my comment about obsession. I know it's all for fun. That's why I came back ;)
I didn't mean anything with my comment about obsession. I know it's all for fun. That's why I came back ;)
glenn said on 1/Oct/07
he was 6-4 in the early 90s.i witnessed a freakishly tall man walking about at parties and events, taller than anyone in the crowd.by far.
he was 6-4 in the early 90s.i witnessed a freakishly tall man walking about at parties and events, taller than anyone in the crowd.by far.
mike c said on 1/Oct/07
Russ, it isn't an obsession...it good clean dialogue/fun...better than all the crap that's out there. Respect your opinion.
Russ, it isn't an obsession...it good clean dialogue/fun...better than all the crap that's out there. Respect your opinion.
dmeyer said on 1/Oct/07
i agree too i aint sure he was a full 6'4 at peak more like 6'3
i agree too i aint sure he was a full 6'4 at peak more like 6'3
Height Tracker said on 1/Oct/07
I agree with Russ's 6'3" estimate. Clint always looked a tall guy in his early films but he never seemed quite the towering 6'4". 6'3" prime height fits well for him.
I agree with Russ's 6'3" estimate. Clint always looked a tall guy in his early films but he never seemed quite the towering 6'4". 6'3" prime height fits well for him.
Viper said on 1/Oct/07
You can tell sometimes that 6-4 could be a stretch, If you really know how tall 6-4 looks.
You can tell sometimes that 6-4 could be a stretch, If you really know how tall 6-4 looks.
Russ said on 30/Sep/07
It was the early 80's. Probably 1981 when I held the door open for Clint Eastwood and his gal pal. If you want to beleive that Clint was 6'4" at that time, then so be it. Maybe he was. I was 5'9" at the time and he was considerably taller than me. But, 7 inches taller? It's hard to tell at a glance. I stumbled across this site by accident. It's amusing how people can be obsessed by a person's height. Oh well. Have fun.
It was the early 80's. Probably 1981 when I held the door open for Clint Eastwood and his gal pal. If you want to beleive that Clint was 6'4" at that time, then so be it. Maybe he was. I was 5'9" at the time and he was considerably taller than me. But, 7 inches taller? It's hard to tell at a glance. I stumbled across this site by accident. It's amusing how people can be obsessed by a person's height. Oh well. Have fun.
m.caez said on 28/Sep/07
Russ, you do realize that 1 inch is the thickness of a man's thumb....how could you say that 6'4" is stretching it?
Russ, you do realize that 1 inch is the thickness of a man's thumb....how could you say that 6'4" is stretching it?
Height Tracker said on 28/Sep/07
What year was this Russ?
What year was this Russ?
Russ said on 27/Sep/07
When I was on a camping trip in California, I held the door open for Clint as he and his female companian were walking out of a sporting goods store. He was quite tall. My guess: 6' 3". 6 feet four is stretching it.
When I was on a camping trip in California, I held the door open for Clint as he and his female companian were walking out of a sporting goods store. He was quite tall. My guess: 6' 3". 6 feet four is stretching it.
mike c said on 26/Sep/07
Yes, Viper..he's lost about 1.5 inches in height. Given the age of the man, the way he holds his head with the shoulders hunched, and curvature of the spine I would say 1.5...if he were to straighten up 6'2.5"/.25" easily. I think I've said it abot three times in the last yr and a half..my grandfather was 6' in his youth..at 90, when I last saw him he was my height...5'6"...hunched over,bad curvature of the spine, etc. Just look at Clint's stance and walk in movies like Hearbreak Ridge..by the way, I think Stan is correct. Great action movie, I saw it again last night and Stan is right on the money...Viper, let's see who among the contributors has the balls to ask Clint to strip so we can get a good look at his back.....and yes, he can't help his poor posture.
Yes, Viper..he's lost about 1.5 inches in height. Given the age of the man, the way he holds his head with the shoulders hunched, and curvature of the spine I would say 1.5...if he were to straighten up 6'2.5"/.25" easily. I think I've said it abot three times in the last yr and a half..my grandfather was 6' in his youth..at 90, when I last saw him he was my height...5'6"...hunched over,bad curvature of the spine, etc. Just look at Clint's stance and walk in movies like Hearbreak Ridge..by the way, I think Stan is correct. Great action movie, I saw it again last night and Stan is right on the money...Viper, let's see who among the contributors has the balls to ask Clint to strip so we can get a good look at his back.....and yes, he can't help his poor posture.
Viper said on 26/Sep/07
So Mike, If thats the case then Clint has only lost a little over an inch in height.
So Mike, If thats the case then Clint has only lost a little over an inch in height.
stan said on 24/Sep/07
He was 6'4 in heartbreak ridge, that swede guy that he beats up in the begining was a tight end for the kc cheifs and was measured at the NFL combine at 6'3 1/2 257. When he stands right next to clint, clint is just a little taller, about a half inch. I think clint might have been pushing about 220 also.
He was 6'4 in heartbreak ridge, that swede guy that he beats up in the begining was a tight end for the kc cheifs and was measured at the NFL combine at 6'3 1/2 257. When he stands right next to clint, clint is just a little taller, about a half inch. I think clint might have been pushing about 220 also.
Bad Radio said on 22/Sep/07
wow ..he lost 3 inches..is that possible?
wow ..he lost 3 inches..is that possible?
l0ck n l0ad said on 22/Sep/07
Years ago, about 5 or 6, I read in a few articles that Eastwood was already 6 feet by the time he was 13 and fully grown to 6'4" at 15! Did anyone else hear about this? Being 6'4" at the age of 15 must have been a darn giant for his time.
Years ago, about 5 or 6, I read in a few articles that Eastwood was already 6 feet by the time he was 13 and fully grown to 6'4" at 15! Did anyone else hear about this? Being 6'4" at the age of 15 must have been a darn giant for his time.
mike c said on 5/Sep/07
AAAA, I believe that if Clint were to straighten out completely, he would be 6'2.5 at the very least. Just study pics of him with Hackman and other co-stars...I don't think he can help the poor posture....
AAAA, I believe that if Clint were to straighten out completely, he would be 6'2.5 at the very least. Just study pics of him with Hackman and other co-stars...I don't think he can help the poor posture....
AAAA said on 5/Sep/07
Thats what I meant. I wonder how much he has actually shrunk, and how much is just an old man with horrendous posture
Thats what I meant. I wonder how much he has actually shrunk, and how much is just an old man with horrendous posture
J.R. Ewing said on 4/Sep/07
Height always made Eastwood a mysterious figure in many of his films. His thin weight along with his height - good combination in his earlier films.
Height always made Eastwood a mysterious figure in many of his films. His thin weight along with his height - good combination in his earlier films.
mike c said on 28/Aug/07
AAAA, sooooo that would put CE at ~ 6'2" now or a tad taller!!!I don't think Clint is down to 6'+ now...look at your great pic.!!! Always heard SP was 6'3"+.
AAAA, sooooo that would put CE at ~ 6'2" now or a tad taller!!!I don't think Clint is down to 6'+ now...look at your great pic.!!! Always heard SP was 6'3"+.
AAAA said on 26/Aug/07
I think he is around 6'2.5-6'3. Hell he could have been 6'3 and a bit when he was younger. I thik he is pushing 80 now, so he may have lost an inch
I think he is around 6'2.5-6'3. Hell he could have been 6'3 and a bit when he was younger. I thik he is pushing 80 now, so he may have lost an inch
mike c said on 25/Aug/07
AAAA, isn't Sydney 6'3" or a tad less...?
AAAA, isn't Sydney 6'3" or a tad less...?
AAAA said on 25/Aug/07
Maybe CLint just rarley stands up straight anymore.
Still looking 6'2 in a 2007 photo with Sydney Poiteir
Click Here
Maybe CLint just rarley stands up straight anymore.
Still looking 6'2 in a 2007 photo with Sydney Poiteir
Click Here
mike c said on 19/Aug/07
Good eye, Sam! I agree. At most 1/2 of an inch....when filmed, he was on his way down a tad, heightwise..6'4" firm in his prime. Just like the Duke. mike c
Good eye, Sam! I agree. At most 1/2 of an inch....when filmed, he was on his way down a tad, heightwise..6'4" firm in his prime. Just like the Duke. mike c
JO said on 17/Aug/07
i think clint was 6ft5 when he was young.with lee van cleef or lee marvin he looks like taller...lee marvin was 190 cm
i think clint was 6ft5 when he was young.with lee van cleef or lee marvin he looks like taller...lee marvin was 190 cm
miko said on 2/Aug/07
Think he may have slipped to 6-0.5 looking a recent pictures.
Think he may have slipped to 6-0.5 looking a recent pictures.
Height Tracker said on 31/Jul/07
Yeah sam they looked very similiar in height in that movie
Yeah sam they looked very similiar in height in that movie
sam said on 31/Jul/07
Just saw about 20 minutes of The Dead Pool on TV and saw Eastwood looking at most an inch (more likely half an inch) under Liam Neeson. The height difference was imperceptible at moments.
Just saw about 20 minutes of The Dead Pool on TV and saw Eastwood looking at most an inch (more likely half an inch) under Liam Neeson. The height difference was imperceptible at moments.
JanJ said on 31/Jul/07
eastwood was in early 90's about 6'4. In 2004 he was about 6'2, now he's 6ft 1
Click Here
with 6'2 hackman [1993]
Click Here
with 6'2.5 freeman in million dollar baby [2004]
eastwood was in early 90's about 6'4. In 2004 he was about 6'2, now he's 6ft 1
Click Here
with 6'2 hackman [1993]
Click Here
with 6'2.5 freeman in million dollar baby [2004]
Mike said on 30/Jul/07
Clint looks over 6 under 6'1 with Glenn if you look at the top of their heads/ or eye levels
Clint looks over 6 under 6'1 with Glenn if you look at the top of their heads/ or eye levels
Anonymous said on 28/Jul/07
I have read you can regain lost height by using The Alexander Technique, A 77 year old woman regain the 2 inches she lost over the years by using this technique!.....something for Mr Eastwood to consider?
I have read you can regain lost height by using The Alexander Technique, A 77 year old woman regain the 2 inches she lost over the years by using this technique!.....something for Mr Eastwood to consider?
dmeyer said on 24/Jul/07
in unforgiven 15 years ago he seems similar height with freeman and hakman so 6'2ish but if he realy was 6 ft 4 then he already lost aleast 1.5 to 2 in at 62 years old wish is impressive or maybe he was 6'3.5 at peakthen in million dollar he seems 1.5 in under freeman so 6'1
in unforgiven 15 years ago he seems similar height with freeman and hakman so 6'2ish but if he realy was 6 ft 4 then he already lost aleast 1.5 to 2 in at 62 years old wish is impressive or maybe he was 6'3.5 at peakthen in million dollar he seems 1.5 in under freeman so 6'1
tubbs said on 24/Jul/07
In Magnum force he looks to have 3 maybe 4 inches on David Soul, maybe it's to do with the way it is shot, that makes other actors look taller. I have a feeling that the actors in the Dirty Harry films were mostly pretty big guys. Just check out The Dead Pool filmed in 1988, Clint in some scenes has an inch on 6'4" Neeson. In Million Dollar Baby, it did look like he had shrunk down to around the 6'1.5" region.
In Magnum force he looks to have 3 maybe 4 inches on David Soul, maybe it's to do with the way it is shot, that makes other actors look taller. I have a feeling that the actors in the Dirty Harry films were mostly pretty big guys. Just check out The Dead Pool filmed in 1988, Clint in some scenes has an inch on 6'4" Neeson. In Million Dollar Baby, it did look like he had shrunk down to around the 6'1.5" region.
mike c said on 16/Jul/07
Guys, one more time!!!! Go on the John Wayne site and look at the photos Gonzalo posted...May 21, I think. Clint is standing next to Lee Marvin (6'2")in dress shoes and a suit. Clint's more than 2" taller....Mike C
Guys, one more time!!!! Go on the John Wayne site and look at the photos Gonzalo posted...May 21, I think. Clint is standing next to Lee Marvin (6'2")in dress shoes and a suit. Clint's more than 2" taller....Mike C
Brad said on 15/Jul/07
But I thought he worked out and was about 5' 11". Hmmmm, I'll check on that.
But I thought he worked out and was about 5' 11". Hmmmm, I'll check on that.
Anonymous said on 14/Jul/07
I'm probably gonna catch hell for this but I just watched the first two Dirty Harry movies and Clint really doesn't look like a genuine 6'4 guy. He looks tall, don't get me wrong, but a real 6'4 guy usually looks like Godzilla in movies. He looks 6'2.5 or 6'3 to me. Either that or the whole cast is 6'+.
I'm probably gonna catch hell for this but I just watched the first two Dirty Harry movies and Clint really doesn't look like a genuine 6'4 guy. He looks tall, don't get me wrong, but a real 6'4 guy usually looks like Godzilla in movies. He looks 6'2.5 or 6'3 to me. Either that or the whole cast is 6'+.
Melvin said on 14/Jul/07
Stallone uses growth hormone and huge shoes.
Stallone uses growth hormone and huge shoes.
Brad said on 13/Jul/07
6' 4" for many years. In cowboy boots with Spain/Rome central casting he got away with murder in the Leone films looking really big. He cast short around himself for years.
6' 4" for many years. In cowboy boots with Spain/Rome central casting he got away with murder in the Leone films looking really big. He cast short around himself for years.
Anonymous said on 13/Jul/07
What about Stallone then? He's 60 and doesn't appear to have lost height. My guess is that Clint wasn't quite 6'4 in his prime. Probably like 6'3.5" and is maybe 6'1.5" now. I mean, losing 5 cm by the age of 77 isn't that abnormal. Especially for a tall guy.
What about Stallone then? He's 60 and doesn't appear to have lost height. My guess is that Clint wasn't quite 6'4 in his prime. Probably like 6'3.5" and is maybe 6'1.5" now. I mean, losing 5 cm by the age of 77 isn't that abnormal. Especially for a tall guy.
Melvin said on 13/Jul/07
Exactly the example I was looking for of a guy who has lifted weights his whole life and has a dowager's hump. He has had it since the 80s when he was doing those orangutan movies.
Exactly the example I was looking for of a guy who has lifted weights his whole life and has a dowager's hump. He has had it since the 80s when he was doing those orangutan movies.
glenn said on 13/Jul/07
thanks mike c. im on a cell phone and can scroll down,but its more time consuming sometimes.ill check it now though.
thanks mike c. im on a cell phone and can scroll down,but its more time consuming sometimes.ill check it now though.
mike c said on 12/Jul/07
You're one lucky guy, Glenn. I wish I could meet him or at least see him in person. Grouchy or not, he's one hell of a hero for us ol' folk..just kidding, 60 is not old, it's just not young. On my computer I'm able to scroll down and view what others have said or contributed...check out Gonzalo on the Wayne page, I think in early May.
You're one lucky guy, Glenn. I wish I could meet him or at least see him in person. Grouchy or not, he's one hell of a hero for us ol' folk..just kidding, 60 is not old, it's just not young. On my computer I'm able to scroll down and view what others have said or contributed...check out Gonzalo on the Wayne page, I think in early May.
glenn said on 12/Jul/07
i didnt see that pic yet mike,but i will.clint is usually pretty grouchy and doesnt like posing for pics.this is my only pic with him and ive been turned down repeatedly for 17 years.some get him immediately,but are rude and aggresive with him.im not like that to a 77 year old man thats a legend to boot.this pic alone was a struggle to get.
i didnt see that pic yet mike,but i will.clint is usually pretty grouchy and doesnt like posing for pics.this is my only pic with him and ive been turned down repeatedly for 17 years.some get him immediately,but are rude and aggresive with him.im not like that to a 77 year old man thats a legend to boot.this pic alone was a struggle to get.
Mike C said on 10/Jul/07
Glenn. How did he treat you? I've heard he's a gentleman to everyone except his ex's. Hope you saw the pic. Gonzalo posted on the Wayne page with Clint standing next to Lee Marvin...great shot!
Glenn. How did he treat you? I've heard he's a gentleman to everyone except his ex's. Hope you saw the pic. Gonzalo posted on the Wayne page with Clint standing next to Lee Marvin...great shot!
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.
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''.
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
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
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
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
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
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!
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!!!
sarcasm....
Dissapointed that Eastwood was ONLY 6'4"????? That IS dissapointing!!!
sarcasm....
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
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.
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.
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
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 Marvin..now Lee was 6'2" tall..how tall would you say Clint is? 6'2?! Thanks, again, Gonzalo.
Guys, go the John Wayne page and view the photos that Gonzalo sent for me. They include a pic of Eastwood with Marvin..now Lee was 6'2" tall..how 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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".
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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"!
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.
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.
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.
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 ;)).
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.
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.
Sutherland has always been 6-3.
glenn said on 26/Mar/07
sutherland looked 6-3.
sutherland looked 6-3.
Height Tracker said on 26/Mar/07
Glenn how tall did sutherland look to you?
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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, 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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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''.
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.
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.
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
but cromnwell was 6'6.5 at peak
Height Tracker said on 8/Mar/07
Robert that doesn't really make sense.
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.
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
he was a little taller than Chirac listed here 187 cm
glenn said on 28/Feb/07
good guess gramps.at 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.
good guess gramps.at 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
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.
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...
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.
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 you.im glad you spoke.i was beginning to think you couldnt stand my ways.which you have a right to.im not easy to deal with.but,im a loyal friend to the end.i shouldve spoke up sooner.you always make interesting points.by the way,whats your guess on stallones height?
hi gramps.nice to finally meet you.im glad you spoke.i was beginning to think you couldnt stand my ways.which you have a right to.im not easy to deal with.but,im a loyal friend to the end.i shouldve spoke up sooner.you always make interesting points.by 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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'.
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!!
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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
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...
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
oh wait, I was wrong - still there. Sorry! And, not that funny, really.
sf said on 15/Feb/07
aww..man, Rob, you erase my hilarious comment..
aww..man, 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....
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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)
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
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".
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"???
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.
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.
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
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..
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.
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
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
Misha....
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....
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.
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!
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.
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 page..my grandfather was 6' all his life..at 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"
said it before on the Duke page..my grandfather was 6' all his life..at 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Sorry for the typos in my last post - not that it's a big deal, but I meant
"Sasha" not "Sahsa" and "Natasha" not "Natahsa", also "especially" rather than
"expecially" (an "especially" dreadful typo). That's it for now.
Glenn said on 25/Jan/07
Misha-no bootlicking here either,but you express yourself with class and your always welcome to healthy chin wag with me,and hopefully the others.as for the others,I hope they now understand your point.which was it just wasnt debating,but resurrecting the dead,over and over,with some barbs thrown in.so I got your point and I really appreciate your words.as for Bruce and that short photo,Ill get back to you on that.I cant see the pic at the moment on this cell phone.talk to you soon.
Misha-no bootlicking here either,but you express yourself with class and your always welcome to healthy chin wag with me,and hopefully the others.as for the others,I hope they now understand your point.which was it just wasnt debating,but resurrecting the dead,over and over,with some barbs thrown in.so I got your point and I really appreciate your words.as for Bruce and that short photo,Ill get back to you on that.I cant see the pic at the moment on this cell phone.talk to you soon.
Misha said on 25/Jan/07
Glenn, thank you for your kind words (I have to keep that part of it short so Delphonic doesn't find more material to augment his accusation that I'm acting like an obsequious groveling sycophant toward you). I studied over a hundred photos of Bruce Willis, and can easliy give him 5'11" based on the impression of height that he projected in those photos. So your low end and my high end are really only half an inch apart, close enough to reach out and shake hands in a truce. There's just one single photo that's preventing our closing the book on the Willis controversy, and it's among those on his own section in this site, the photo where he's standing next to Justin Long. There's a consensus that Justin is 5'9" - I will now buy even six feet for Bruce Willis. But look carefully at their footwear, which is clearly in evidence for both of them. Justin is wearing what used to be called "deck shoes". These are very low-cut canvas shoes that have almost no heel on them. As the white strip wrapping around the toes flares back to the heel there's practically no lift upward. On the other hand, Bruce is wearing leather dress shoes that have boot-like properties: as they flare along the bottom of the sole back toward the heel, it is very obvious that an elevation gain of at least a solid inch is obtained, and since the sole is fastened to the shoe above the heel, the wearer will also gain whatever the thickness of the sole is, in additional to the build-up of material inside the shoe right at the heel that we can't see. The point is, Bruce is just very slightly taller than Justin in the photo, really about the same height, and is clearly gaining more additional stature from his shoes than Justin is from the ones he's wearing. Glenn, I'm not trying to knock the beehive over again, I am just honestly trying to make sense of this photo, because it is very puzzling. What do you think is going on here?
Glenn, thank you for your kind words (I have to keep that part of it short so Delphonic doesn't find more material to augment his accusation that I'm acting like an obsequious groveling sycophant toward you). I studied over a hundred photos of Bruce Willis, and can easliy give him 5'11" based on the impression of height that he projected in those photos. So your low end and my high end are really only half an inch apart, close enough to reach out and shake hands in a truce. There's just one single photo that's preventing our closing the book on the Willis controversy, and it's among those on his own section in this site, the photo where he's standing next to Justin Long. There's a consensus that Justin is 5'9" - I will now buy even six feet for Bruce Willis. But look carefully at their footwear, which is clearly in evidence for both of them. Justin is wearing what used to be called "deck shoes". These are very low-cut canvas shoes that have almost no heel on them. As the white strip wrapping around the toes flares back to the heel there's practically no lift upward. On the other hand, Bruce is wearing leather dress shoes that have boot-like properties: as they flare along the bottom of the sole back toward the heel, it is very obvious that an elevation gain of at least a solid inch is obtained, and since the sole is fastened to the shoe above the heel, the wearer will also gain whatever the thickness of the sole is, in additional to the build-up of material inside the shoe right at the heel that we can't see. The point is, Bruce is just very slightly taller than Justin in the photo, really about the same height, and is clearly gaining more additional stature from his shoes than Justin is from the ones he's wearing. Glenn, I'm not trying to knock the beehive over again, I am just honestly trying to make sense of this photo, because it is very puzzling. What do you think is going on here?
Anonymous said on 24/Jan/07
couldn't have said it better myself, delphonic. mike c..ps..see below and Duke page..
couldn't have said it better myself, delphonic. mike c..ps..see below and Duke page..
delphonic said on 24/Jan/07
Misha - So let me get this straight, you can politely and eloquently present your theories of personal doubt about the elaborate range of heights different people claim to have seen certain celebs at and that's fine. But if anyone else has the audacity to express their doubts (based on photos or any other "supposed" sightings other than Glenn's verifiable sightings), then they are reduced to aggravating nitwits and their opinions totally dismissed??
Obviously, Glenn's contributions have made the site, whether you agree with all of his subjective perceptions of those encounters or not. While there is no reason to disrespect him (even if you disagree), that does not mean that schmoozing him makes your disagreements anymore credible. However, it is possible to appease Glen (your apparent goal) without belittling everyone else who happens to disagree with him on a couple of celebs. Disagreement is not disrespect, but name calling is.
You seem like an articulate, tall and most likely attractive woman who is probably used to quickly and easily bonding with those at the top of the totem pole in any situation in order to improve your own standing. But this isn't a corporate boardroom or social climbing cocktail party where there may be publishers or producers present. It's simply a discussion board about the vain and essentially meaningless (although intriguing and entertaining) topic of celeb's height. Feel free to relax and have fun with it ;-)
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
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.
Lest we forget the 5-5,5-6 claims of film crew that worked with Stallone.even the non believers of 5-10.5 agree thats insanity.people are plain stupid.thats all.means that Sly was 5-9 in his then 50s posture and they were expecting a 6-2 superhero.the tall film hand downplays him to feel better.the 5-5 stagehand pegs Sly at his height.its all psychological.
Glenn said on 23/Jan/07
Im not going to make a mistake of 4 inches,thats for sure.1,maybe 2,with the mysterious posture some have.Misha-you make a point I never thought of.but like its been said,people cant gauge height.and I think the real answer is that we arnt celebs.though I heard 5-6 to 5-10 for me.if you were a celeb,youd get a myriad of guesses.people want celebs to be short like them.or tall like them.I saw 6-1,and a illusion of 6-2 once.my friend who cant tell height brought up that Willis was 6-3.so that means,he is 6-1 tops,as he looks in films.more realistic is 6ft.and possibly 5-11 if he wears lifts.no taller than 6-1,no smaller than 5-11.I have 5-11 friends that appear 5-9(ala Stallone and Colin Farrel) due to posture and or weight,and friends that are thin 6-1ers,bad posture, that appear 5-11(possibly Willis).thanks for your words Misha, and you,and most here are valuable to the site.so is your theories and input.didnt mean to come on strong.do express yourself without meeting celebs.thats what the site is for.
Im not going to make a mistake of 4 inches,thats for sure.1,maybe 2,with the mysterious posture some have.Misha-you make a point I never thought of.but like its been said,people cant gauge height.and I think the real answer is that we arnt celebs.though I heard 5-6 to 5-10 for me.if you were a celeb,youd get a myriad of guesses.people want celebs to be short like them.or tall like them.I saw 6-1,and a illusion of 6-2 once.my friend who cant tell height brought up that Willis was 6-3.so that means,he is 6-1 tops,as he looks in films.more realistic is 6ft.and possibly 5-11 if he wears lifts.no taller than 6-1,no smaller than 5-11.I have 5-11 friends that appear 5-9(ala Stallone and Colin Farrel) due to posture and or weight,and friends that are thin 6-1ers,bad posture, that appear 5-11(possibly Willis).thanks for your words Misha, and you,and most here are valuable to the site.so is your theories and input.didnt mean to come on strong.do express yourself without meeting celebs.thats what the site is for.
sf said on 22/Jan/07
Misha - I'm barely over 5'6" and have been guessed at almost 5'10" by someone. A lot can be said about people's ability to judge others' heights...
Misha - 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...
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.