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)
Rory said on 6/Jan/21
Yh I'd say Clint with Arnie there looks an inch taller, but he's standing slightly behind arnie so could well have been more like 1.5 inches. Looks I'd guess around 1985-87 time. When Clint looked near 6ft3 then.
Yh I'd say Clint with Arnie there looks an inch taller, but he's standing slightly behind arnie so could well have been more like 1.5 inches. Looks I'd guess around 1985-87 time. When Clint looked near 6ft3 then.
Ian C. said on 6/Jan/21
Well, Chaos, I wouldn't call myself a fat acceptor (if that's a term), but I'm certainly a fat tolerater. I know lots of people who are fat, and I don't think it's their fault, Although some people, like Marlon Brando or Gerard Depardieu or Elvis Presley, are/were obviously guilty of uncontrolled gluttony, most fat people cannot be fairly condemned for a moral failing.
Everybody on this Earth gains weight as he ages, unless he is actually sick. Even extremely thin people, like James Stewart or Frank Sinatra, develop paunches in middle age. People who are high in endomorphy can gain forty pounds from early youth to middle age, and there really isn't much they can do about it, short of starving themselves. Gaining weight as you age is no more an indicator of moral failure than going bald.
I am suspicious of the term "overweight," because implicit in it is an unfair moral opprobrium. Are tall people "overheight?" I don't think so.
And the obesity epidemic was a false moral panic. Go to a schoolyard in the middle of the day, and look at the children on it Very few are fat, and they mostly run around screaming and yelling, just as we did when we were children. Or go to a shopping mall on a Sunday afternoon, and look at the people. It is just not true that 60 percent of the hundreds of people you will see are fat, as any reasonable person would define that term.
Much of what people consider normal nowadays is a media invention. One of the more odious publications you can buy is Men's Health. (Which would be more accurately called, "Men's Beauty," which is its real subject.) On the cover of a typical issue of Men's Health will be a shirtless model who is about 26, and who is physically blessed, and who works out every day of his life in a gym. We are asked to believe that this an average man, and we can all look like him if we really, really try. And that ain't so. I'm annoyed by that kind of dishonesty.
Well, Chaos, I wouldn't call myself a fat acceptor (if that's a term), but I'm certainly a fat tolerater. I know lots of people who are fat, and I don't think it's their fault, Although some people, like Marlon Brando or Gerard Depardieu or Elvis Presley, are/were obviously guilty of uncontrolled gluttony, most fat people cannot be fairly condemned for a moral failing.
Everybody on this Earth gains weight as he ages, unless he is actually sick. Even extremely thin people, like James Stewart or Frank Sinatra, develop paunches in middle age. People who are high in endomorphy can gain forty pounds from early youth to middle age, and there really isn't much they can do about it, short of starving themselves. Gaining weight as you age is no more an indicator of moral failure than going bald.
I am suspicious of the term "overweight," because implicit in it is an unfair moral opprobrium. Are tall people "overheight?" I don't think so.
And the obesity epidemic was a false moral panic. Go to a schoolyard in the middle of the day, and look at the children on it Very few are fat, and they mostly run around screaming and yelling, just as we did when we were children. Or go to a shopping mall on a Sunday afternoon, and look at the people. It is just not true that 60 percent of the hundreds of people you will see are fat, as any reasonable person would define that term.
Much of what people consider normal nowadays is a media invention. One of the more odious publications you can buy is Men's Health. (Which would be more accurately called, "Men's Beauty," which is its real subject.) On the cover of a typical issue of Men's Health will be a shirtless model who is about 26, and who is physically blessed, and who works out every day of his life in a gym. We are asked to believe that this an average man, and we can all look like him if we really, really try. And that ain't so. I'm annoyed by that kind of dishonesty.
stiggles said on 5/Jan/21
I think Clint's peak height was a half inch under 6ft 2..
I think Clint's peak height was a half inch under 6ft 2..
RR said on 5/Jan/21
Here's an interesting photo of Arnie, Clint Eastwood and Sven-Ole Thorsen I found online. My guess is it must've been taken from the late 80s. Who knows the kind of footwear they each had.
Click Here
Anyone have any insights?
Here's an interesting photo of Arnie, Clint Eastwood and Sven-Ole Thorsen I found online. My guess is it must've been taken from the late 80s. Who knows the kind of footwear they each had.
Click Here
Anyone have any insights?
ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 5/Jan/21
@Ian if you weren’t a 6’4 180-pound male (I remember you said it somewhere) you’d fit right in with the fat acceptance movement
@Ian if you weren’t a 6’4 180-pound male (I remember you said it somewhere) you’d fit right in with the fat acceptance movement
Ian C. said on 4/Jan/21
Don 't get me started on BMI, James. Oops. Too late. I'm started. BMI is a flawed tool for declaring overweight, and is essentially superfluous for personal diagnosis anyway, as any doctor can tell an overweight patient at a glance, without recourse to a scale and a calculator. BMI is moderately useful as a population indicator of the general incidence of overweight and obesity. Unfortunately it has been politicized to create a phony obesity epidemic, so that government busybodies can go around telling citizens what they may and may not eat.
Grr, grr. A few years ago, when we still had the luxury to invent public health crises, we had an "obesity epidemic" that was ostensibly ubiquitous and would lead to mass illness and death. And it was nonsense. I'm 68 and I don't think that people are any fatter now in the general case in Canada than when I was 20. If I hadn't read in the papers that we were in the throes of an obesity epidemic, I wouldn't have noticed.
Back to Clint Eastwood. (Keeping to the general topic of Celebrity Heights, which for me is a welcome change.) Eastwood was very conscientious about maintaining his physical fitness, so in his case you've got a man with superior general health and strength, who also had the discipline and personal resources to stay fit. Even so, Eastwood did grow thicker in the waist as he passed into late middle age. He is now jettisoning body weight which, in the aged is a harbinger of approaching death. It will be interesting to see if he lives to be a hundred, which is all but unheard of in a man so tall.
Who might make it to a hundred? Woody Allen, who is small and strong and rich and physically well-disciplined.
Don 't get me started on BMI, James. Oops. Too late. I'm started. BMI is a flawed tool for declaring overweight, and is essentially superfluous for personal diagnosis anyway, as any doctor can tell an overweight patient at a glance, without recourse to a scale and a calculator. BMI is moderately useful as a population indicator of the general incidence of overweight and obesity. Unfortunately it has been politicized to create a phony obesity epidemic, so that government busybodies can go around telling citizens what they may and may not eat.
Grr, grr. A few years ago, when we still had the luxury to invent public health crises, we had an "obesity epidemic" that was ostensibly ubiquitous and would lead to mass illness and death. And it was nonsense. I'm 68 and I don't think that people are any fatter now in the general case in Canada than when I was 20. If I hadn't read in the papers that we were in the throes of an obesity epidemic, I wouldn't have noticed.
Back to Clint Eastwood. (Keeping to the general topic of Celebrity Heights, which for me is a welcome change.) Eastwood was very conscientious about maintaining his physical fitness, so in his case you've got a man with superior general health and strength, who also had the discipline and personal resources to stay fit. Even so, Eastwood did grow thicker in the waist as he passed into late middle age. He is now jettisoning body weight which, in the aged is a harbinger of approaching death. It will be interesting to see if he lives to be a hundred, which is all but unheard of in a man so tall.
Who might make it to a hundred? Woody Allen, who is small and strong and rich and physically well-disciplined.
James B 172cm said on 4/Jan/21
Ian C- I take it you dont believe in BMI- body mass index since it does not take into account muscle mass?
Ian C- I take it you dont believe in BMI- body mass index since it does not take into account muscle mass?
Hong said on 4/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Clint with Lee Marvin on the set of Paint your wagon,if you pause at4min15 there is a good bit,Clint and Lee are right beside each other,on level ground,Lee who is now listed at 6ft1 looks max 3 inches shorter than Clint.Marvin's footwear can bee seen during clip. Clint was wearing,boots during the movie but they looked like a regular heel,not the cowboy type heel,but givin all that, Clint does look close to 6ft4, definitely a solid 6ft3 peak.
Click Here Here's Clint with Lee Marvin on the set of Paint your wagon,if you pause at4min15 there is a good bit,Clint and Lee are right beside each other,on level ground,Lee who is now listed at 6ft1 looks max 3 inches shorter than Clint.Marvin's footwear can bee seen during clip. Clint was wearing,boots during the movie but they looked like a regular heel,not the cowboy type heel,but givin all that, Clint does look close to 6ft4, definitely a solid 6ft3 peak.
Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Jan/21
@Hong, yeah I understood the boots were from the movie but I've never seen the movie. I now understand that Clint played a rural Sheriff so his footwear was in the context of the role. Otherwise, true that Clint's heel was generally normal aside from certain footwear specific to the given role.
@Hong, yeah I understood the boots were from the movie but I've never seen the movie. I now understand that Clint played a rural Sheriff so his footwear was in the context of the role. Otherwise, true that Clint's heel was generally normal aside from certain footwear specific to the given role.
Hong said on 31/Dec/20
Clint can look shorter than 6ft now sometimes as low as 5ft10,but that is down to extreme bad posture Click Here
Clint can look shorter than 6ft now sometimes as low as 5ft10,but that is down to extreme bad posture Click Here
Lins 5'11.25 said on 31/Dec/20
So, by the time Clint Eastwood will have celebrated his 100th birthday, he should be at 4'11''. Maybe? Lol
So, by the time Clint Eastwood will have celebrated his 100th birthday, he should be at 4'11''. Maybe? Lol
Hong said on 31/Dec/20
@Tall In The Saddle,The boots he's wearing are from the movie,but these are more typical of Clint's footwear, he did wear more normal too flat shoes in general.Click Here
@Tall In The Saddle,The boots he's wearing are from the movie,but these are more typical of Clint's footwear, he did wear more normal too flat shoes in general.Click Here
Soda machine said on 30/Dec/20
Watching him to a legit 6-2 Cleef Clint wasn’t under 6-3.5. Possible weak 6-4 peak.
Watching him to a legit 6-2 Cleef Clint wasn’t under 6-3.5. Possible weak 6-4 peak.
Hong said on 29/Dec/20
Looked about 2 inches taller than now revised 6ft1 inch Lee Marvin,making him 6ft3 peak Click Here
Looked about 2 inches taller than now revised 6ft1 inch Lee Marvin,making him 6ft3 peak Click Here
Tall In The Saddle said on 29/Dec/20
@Hong
The image of Clint's heel in Coogan's Bluff is quite the revelation. Aside from Westerns, I assumed Clint generally wore a moderate, average heel. Great find.
@Hong
The image of Clint's heel in Coogan's Bluff is quite the revelation. Aside from Westerns, I assumed Clint generally wore a moderate, average heel. Great find.
Slim 6'1" said on 29/Dec/20
Could dip to 182cm today
Could dip to 182cm today
Rising174cm said on 26/Dec/20
I can buy the 6'3.5" peak although he was more like 6'3" flat by the Dead Pool with Liam Neeson and probably more like 190 cm by In The Line of Fire. However, he's now 90 and no more than 5'11.5". It wouldn't surprise me if he was only 5'11" now.
I can buy the 6'3.5" peak although he was more like 6'3" flat by the Dead Pool with Liam Neeson and probably more like 190 cm by In The Line of Fire. However, he's now 90 and no more than 5'11.5". It wouldn't surprise me if he was only 5'11" now.
Height_Guesser said on 25/Dec/20
6’ 3” (190.5 cm) flat peak and now is 5’ 11.5” (181.5 cm). A picture with president Reagan (who was a little under 6’ 0”) in 1987. He looks 3 inches taller than Reagan in that photo when you take in account Reagan is closer to the camera.
6’ 3” (190.5 cm) flat peak and now is 5’ 11.5” (181.5 cm). A picture with president Reagan (who was a little under 6’ 0”) in 1987. He looks 3 inches taller than Reagan in that photo when you take in account Reagan is closer to the camera.
Hong said on 24/Dec/20
Click Here Rob,Here's Clint's heels in Coogan's Bluff,what height, in your opinion are the heels?in the movie someone comments he has 2 inch heels,do you think they are as high as that?
Editor Rob
Click Here Rob,Here's Clint's heels in Coogan's Bluff,what height, in your opinion are the heels?in the movie someone comments he has 2 inch heels,do you think they are as high as that?
Editor RobI am sure if measuring the very back they would be close to 2 inches...actual height slightly less than that.
James B 172cm said on 23/Dec/20
Rob do you think he was 6'3 flat by 1980?
Editor Rob
Rob do you think he was 6'3 flat by 1980?
Editor Robthat is the question, by that point did he lose half inch or so...at 50 I think maybe not quite that much, but maybe a smaller fraction
James B 172cm said on 19/Dec/20
Yeah rampage he looked taller in the 1950s for sure
Yeah rampage he looked taller in the 1950s for sure
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Dec/20
James, he looked more 6ft3 flat in the 70’s-80’s. Peak though was no less than what Rob has. I think for some of the day he was 6ft4
James, he looked more 6ft3 flat in the 70’s-80’s. Peak though was no less than what Rob has. I think for some of the day he was 6ft4
cmillz said on 17/Dec/20
Thought he looked taller in Alcatraz than Dirty Harry tbh
Thought he looked taller in Alcatraz than Dirty Harry tbh
Genau said on 16/Dec/20
6ft3.75 peak 5ft11.5 now
6ft3.75 peak 5ft11.5 now
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 14/Dec/20
In Dirty Harry i find that Clint can pull off 6'4.
In Dirty Harry i find that Clint can pull off 6'4.
James B 172cm said on 13/Dec/20
Was he a flat 6’3 in escape from alacatraz?
Was he a flat 6’3 in escape from alacatraz?
Hong said on 12/Dec/20
Click Here In this one Clint looks a bit taller,it's down to posture and Clints ability to drop a lot of height in more relaxed posture.but he was IMO still a 6 ft3 guy to Selleck's 6 ft4 even at peak.
Click Here In this one Clint looks a bit taller,it's down to posture and Clints ability to drop a lot of height in more relaxed posture.but he was IMO still a 6 ft3 guy to Selleck's 6 ft4 even at peak.
James B 172c, said on 11/Dec/20
Rob in an interview with Parkinson Clint said the reason he squints is because he has very sensitive eyes especially in the sunlight.....
Editor Rob
Rob in an interview with Parkinson Clint said the reason he squints is because he has very sensitive eyes especially in the sunlight.....
Editor RobI squint my eyes too when we get sun here in Glasgow...so about 8 days of the year.
I'll put a link on Louis page, but worth watching again Clint, Reagan, Louis Gossett meeting up...
I'll put a link on Louis page, but worth watching again Clint, Reagan, Louis Gossett meeting up...
James B 172c, said on 10/Dec/20
Arch- So hankin could have been 6’3.25 then if Eastwood was 6’3 flat in 1979?
Arch- So hankin could have been 6’3.25 then if Eastwood was 6’3 flat in 1979?
Hong said on 10/Dec/20
Click Here @Arch Stanton,Hankin and Selleck did look similar next to Schwimmer,and that would make you think Clint and Selleck, a genuine 6ft4 IMO would be in return similar too,but when you see pics like this one it makes you doubt if Clint was even 6 ft2 flat.Selleck looks a good bit taller than Diana in comparison to Clint.It could be something to do with posture,Clint in his mid fifties may have lost a fraction in height.
Click Here @Arch Stanton,Hankin and Selleck did look similar next to Schwimmer,and that would make you think Clint and Selleck, a genuine 6ft4 IMO would be in return similar too,but when you see pics like this one it makes you doubt if Clint was even 6 ft2 flat.Selleck looks a good bit taller than Diana in comparison to Clint.It could be something to do with posture,Clint in his mid fifties may have lost a fraction in height.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Dec/20
Hong, Halkin there looks the same height next to Schwimmer as Tom Selleck did. Now Schwimmer could be 6'0.5-75 but Halkin and Eastwood were very similar, maybe Halkin slight edge.
Hong, Halkin there looks the same height next to Schwimmer as Tom Selleck did. Now Schwimmer could be 6'0.5-75 but Halkin and Eastwood were very similar, maybe Halkin slight edge.
Soda machine said on 7/Dec/20
6-3 legit no doubts. 5-11.75 maybe now.
6-3 legit no doubts. 5-11.75 maybe now.
James B 172c, said on 6/Dec/20
Rob is a flat 5’11 possible for Clint now or do you think he could still measure 6ft if stood straight?
Editor Rob
Rob is a flat 5’11 possible for Clint now or do you think he could still measure 6ft if stood straight?
Editor Robhe's been looking near that at times in last 2 years. What he would manage trying to stand tall for a measurement is another matter, I think he could still clear 5ft 11.
Hong said on 4/Dec/20
Click Here Clint looked very similar in height to Hankin in that movie,here is the older Halkin with 6 ft1 is Ross in friends.
Click Here Clint looked very similar in height to Hankin in that movie,here is the older Halkin with 6 ft1 is Ross in friends.
Funder_69 said on 4/Dec/20
Tad over 6’ 3” at peak and a tad under 6’ now. By the time somebody is 80 they likely lose 1.5-2 inches. Eastwood is 90 currently so losing 3 inches or even a little more is no surprise.
Tad over 6’ 3” at peak and a tad under 6’ now. By the time somebody is 80 they likely lose 1.5-2 inches. Eastwood is 90 currently so losing 3 inches or even a little more is no surprise.
James B 172c, said on 2/Dec/20
Here is Clint near 6’4 listed Larry Hankin in escape from Alcatraz
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Here is Clint near 6’4 listed Larry Hankin in escape from Alcatraz
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Slim 6'1" said on 30/Nov/20
190.5-191cm peak
190.5-191cm peak
Slim 6'1" said on 30/Nov/20
I not mentioned Clint’s steroid use as to explain why he went through such a great height loss 👍
I not mentioned Clint’s steroid use as to explain why he went through such a great height loss 👍
Hong said on 29/Nov/20
Click Here @cmillz,Here's 79 year old Clint with Baron Cohen,by this age Clint was looking in the 6 ft1 range,I think his looking still tall next to Baron Cohen,as a young man and in comparison to his contempries Clint looked a solid 6 ft3 guy too me,and IMO he would have been similar to Baron Cohen,I disagree with 6 ft3.5 for his peak and would guess 6ft3 flat is more like his peak height.
Click Here @cmillz,Here's 79 year old Clint with Baron Cohen,by this age Clint was looking in the 6 ft1 range,I think his looking still tall next to Baron Cohen,as a young man and in comparison to his contempries Clint looked a solid 6 ft3 guy too me,and IMO he would have been similar to Baron Cohen,I disagree with 6 ft3.5 for his peak and would guess 6ft3 flat is more like his peak height.
cmillz said on 28/Nov/20
Peak Eastwood edging out Sacha Baron Cohen by a half inch? No chance of that IMO.
Weak 6’3 suits him better for his peak height.
Peak Eastwood edging out Sacha Baron Cohen by a half inch? No chance of that IMO.
Weak 6’3 suits him better for his peak height.
Vincent Caleb said on 20/Nov/20
Clint was likely a person who lost a small fraction in his 50s
Clint was likely a person who lost a small fraction in his 50s
Roby Italy said on 11/Nov/20
Rob, i think he is on the 190 lbs in the past, how do you think?
Editor Rob
Rob, i think he is on the 190 lbs in the past, how do you think?
Editor RobYeah in his thinner days he could even be under that range
Slim 6'1" said on 7/Nov/20
Canson, Uve got a good point
Canson, Uve got a good point
Tall In The Saddle said on 7/Nov/20
Great question as to when Clint began losing height. At least on averages, the onset of some height loss could be guessed as early as 1980 when Clint turned 50.
As per this Carson clip, by 1992, 62 yo Clint, IMO, was close but still clearly shorter than Ed McMahon though if you freeze the intro at some points, Clint can appear that much closer in height. Clint also appeared on Carson in 1973, with excerpts of his appearance available on YouTube. Unfortunately the ALL important intro hasn't been uploaded.
It would be very interesting to see how Clint measured up next to McMahon in 1973 vs 1992.
@Hong, you're good at finding the more rare clips, perhaps you could dig for the 1973 appearance, intro included? :)
Clint's appearance on Carson 1992 Click Here
Great question as to when Clint began losing height. At least on averages, the onset of some height loss could be guessed as early as 1980 when Clint turned 50.
As per this Carson clip, by 1992, 62 yo Clint, IMO, was close but still clearly shorter than Ed McMahon though if you freeze the intro at some points, Clint can appear that much closer in height. Clint also appeared on Carson in 1973, with excerpts of his appearance available on YouTube. Unfortunately the ALL important intro hasn't been uploaded.
It would be very interesting to see how Clint measured up next to McMahon in 1973 vs 1992.
@Hong, you're good at finding the more rare clips, perhaps you could dig for the 1973 appearance, intro included? :)
Clint's appearance on Carson 1992 Click Here
Hong said on 7/Nov/20
That's Don Rickles, not Rickets,funny guy🤣
That's Don Rickles, not Rickets,funny guy🤣
Hong said on 7/Nov/20
Click Here Here's a short clip of Clint with Don Rickets.Clint is looking very tall in comparison,but I think Don was a bit on the short side anyway.
Click Here Here's a short clip of Clint with Don Rickets.Clint is looking very tall in comparison,but I think Don was a bit on the short side anyway.
Vincent Caleb said on 6/Nov/20
@Chris Junior: A-B imo.
@Chris Junior: A-B imo.
Rory said on 6/Nov/20
I think he he first started to lose height in the late 1970s,if not certainly by the 80s. I'd wager somewhere between 1978-1982 the first few mm gone and then by late 80s a solid half inch gone.
I think he he first started to lose height in the late 1970s,if not certainly by the 80s. I'd wager somewhere between 1978-1982 the first few mm gone and then by late 80s a solid half inch gone.
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 6/Nov/20
Anyone roughly know which is the year Clint started to lost height?
A. 1985-1988
B. 1989-1992
C. 1993-1995
Anyone roughly know which is the year Clint started to lost height?
A. 1985-1988
B. 1989-1992
C. 1993-1995
Hong said on 5/Nov/20
Click Here Here's a rare clip of Clint and Eric from 1962,both guys looking very tall.
Click Here Here's a rare clip of Clint and Eric from 1962,both guys looking very tall.
Canson said on 5/Nov/20
@Tall in the Saddle: agreed! And you made a good point about proof that he used roids. I’ve never heard that about him. It’s very hard to believe as he was a very good build but not the same as someone of similar size like Lou Ferrigno lol
@Tall in the Saddle: agreed! And you made a good point about proof that he used roids. I’ve never heard that about him. It’s very hard to believe as he was a very good build but not the same as someone of similar size like Lou Ferrigno lol
Canson said on 4/Nov/20
It still amazes me that he’s lost this much height. I could see 2” but 3+? He wasn’t a wrestler like Hogan. But if he was claiming 6’3 in 1988, chances are he wasn’t a full 6’4 peak nor was he 6’3.5. Maybe 6’3.25 is the better fit for him
It still amazes me that he’s lost this much height. I could see 2” but 3+? He wasn’t a wrestler like Hogan. But if he was claiming 6’3 in 1988, chances are he wasn’t a full 6’4 peak nor was he 6’3.5. Maybe 6’3.25 is the better fit for him
Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Nov/20
@Vincent Caleb
My bad. You’re correct. Apologies for that. In my mind I fused Slim and James together. The beauty of forums. They make for instant transcripts to look back on. :)
@Vincent Caleb
My bad. You’re correct. Apologies for that. In my mind I fused Slim and James together. The beauty of forums. They make for instant transcripts to look back on. :)
Vincent Caleb said on 2/Nov/20
@Tall In The Saddle:
I thought slim suggested it also, but I may be wrong.
@Tall In The Saddle:
I thought slim suggested it also, but I may be wrong.
Hong said on 1/Nov/20
@Pierre.At that time Arnold could easily pull off looking 6ft2 in a good tick pair of shoes,Clint is leaning slightly dropping a bit of height.To put Clint at 6ft.05 to 6ft1 at 65 is a bit low,he looks around 6ft3.25 in shoes compared to Arnold's 6 ft2 in shoes.Clint by aged 65 was still around 6 ft2.5 about half an inch off peak.Clint was a good 6 ft3 peak IMO and Arnold around 6 ft.75,but that's just my opinion,I could be wrong I haven't got proof.
@Pierre.At that time Arnold could easily pull off looking 6ft2 in a good tick pair of shoes,Clint is leaning slightly dropping a bit of height.To put Clint at 6ft.05 to 6ft1 at 65 is a bit low,he looks around 6ft3.25 in shoes compared to Arnold's 6 ft2 in shoes.Clint by aged 65 was still around 6 ft2.5 about half an inch off peak.Clint was a good 6 ft3 peak IMO and Arnold around 6 ft.75,but that's just my opinion,I could be wrong I haven't got proof.
Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Nov/20
@Vincent Caleb
Just for clarity it’s only James B 172 who has suggested steroid use, no one else.
@Vincent Caleb
Just for clarity it’s only James B 172 who has suggested steroid use, no one else.
Vincent Caleb said on 1/Nov/20
@James B 172: I was referring to his muscularity in comparison to steroid users, which some commenters are accusing him of taking. Yes his height may have been considered very very tall at the time though.
@James B 172: I was referring to his muscularity in comparison to steroid users, which some commenters are accusing him of taking. Yes his height may have been considered very very tall at the time though.
Pierre said on 31/Oct/20
peak 6"3' first time in the morning so strong 6"2' range peak
in his 65 around 6"0.5'/6"1' (here next to around 5"11.5' Arnold) = Click Here Click Here
Now around 5"11' range = Click Here
peak 6"3' first time in the morning so strong 6"2' range peak
in his 65 around 6"0.5'/6"1' (here next to around 5"11.5' Arnold) = Click Here Click Here
Now around 5"11' range = Click Here
James B 172c, said on 31/Oct/20
Vincent Caleb- Certainly his height of 6’3 1/2 ‘stood out’
Vincent Caleb- Certainly his height of 6’3 1/2 ‘stood out’
Vincent Caleb said on 29/Oct/20
@Tall in the saddle:
While it is not impossible, it is unlikely that he did. Nothing about his physicality ever stood out. He lost a lot of height cause he is 90 and has a bad spine.
@Tall in the saddle:
While it is not impossible, it is unlikely that he did. Nothing about his physicality ever stood out. He lost a lot of height cause he is 90 and has a bad spine.
Hong said on 27/Oct/20
@Slim6'1"" You seem very confident in your opinion Clint took roids,and are you of the opinion because of his abuse of this drug he has lost more height than average?
@Slim6'1"" You seem very confident in your opinion Clint took roids,and are you of the opinion because of his abuse of this drug he has lost more height than average?
Tall In The Saddle said on 27/Oct/20
Clint on roids? Pale Roider? Say it ain't so, Joe!
Never heard that one before. Never saw any physical evidence of same. Just saw a Clint who appeared a bit more built up, as much as one would reasonably expect from some degree of dedicated weight training.
Clint on roids? Pale Roider? Say it ain't so, Joe!
Never heard that one before. Never saw any physical evidence of same. Just saw a Clint who appeared a bit more built up, as much as one would reasonably expect from some degree of dedicated weight training.
Bobadob said on 18/Oct/20
Legit tall in youth. 5-11.5 now imo
Legit tall in youth. 5-11.5 now imo
Hyper said on 17/Oct/20
I don’t think he’s under 6’3”. He looked visibly taller than 6’2.5” Muhammad Ali.
Muhammad Ali even alluded to Clint being taller.
In comparison, Ali stated George Foreman is the same height as him (Ali).
I don’t think he’s under 6’3”. He looked visibly taller than 6’2.5” Muhammad Ali.
Muhammad Ali even alluded to Clint being taller.
In comparison, Ali stated George Foreman is the same height as him (Ali).
Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Oct/20
@Hong
Re pic of Newman and Malden. Karl is perhaps standing on slightly higher ground (step?)and appearing that much taller than Newman than one might've guessed. However, while I haven't technically addressed Newman's height before, I didn't get the general impression that he was 5'9.5". More in the realm of 5'8.5" max. and quite possibly a bit less.
Newman's Naval Enlistment photo might've lent itself to an exaggerated impression of his height. He joined in 1943 so he was 18 yo.
If backed right up against the height chart it is possible to imagine Newman hitting the 5'8" to 5'8.5" mark. Also note that Newman's eye level is aligned with about 5'3" but the top of his head, hair included, appears to reach the 5'10" mark due to angle deception. Otherwise, we'd be talking a 6" to 7" forehead, LOL, which was clearly not the case.
Click Here
Here's another pic of Newman in Naval Uniform in front of height chart involving a deceptive angle, to say the least. Possibly he grew a bit more since enlistment but technically, the value of the second photo as a ref. to height isn't very good, the first photo being somewhat better IMO.
Click Here
@Hong
Re pic of Newman and Malden. Karl is perhaps standing on slightly higher ground (step?)and appearing that much taller than Newman than one might've guessed. However, while I haven't technically addressed Newman's height before, I didn't get the general impression that he was 5'9.5". More in the realm of 5'8.5" max. and quite possibly a bit less.
Newman's Naval Enlistment photo might've lent itself to an exaggerated impression of his height. He joined in 1943 so he was 18 yo.
If backed right up against the height chart it is possible to imagine Newman hitting the 5'8" to 5'8.5" mark. Also note that Newman's eye level is aligned with about 5'3" but the top of his head, hair included, appears to reach the 5'10" mark due to angle deception. Otherwise, we'd be talking a 6" to 7" forehead, LOL, which was clearly not the case.
Click Here
Here's another pic of Newman in Naval Uniform in front of height chart involving a deceptive angle, to say the least. Possibly he grew a bit more since enlistment but technically, the value of the second photo as a ref. to height isn't very good, the first photo being somewhat better IMO.
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 15/Oct/20
I've seen the earliest films from even the late 1880s and 1890s! When you've watched a wide range of cinema, when you think about it chronologically in context, 1979 is relatively more recent. I tend to think in terms of silent period, Golden Hollywood and aftermath, the Golden period for me ended in around 1963-4. Cleopatra I think was one of the last pictures from the Golden Period.
I've seen the earliest films from even the late 1880s and 1890s! When you've watched a wide range of cinema, when you think about it chronologically in context, 1979 is relatively more recent. I tend to think in terms of silent period, Golden Hollywood and aftermath, the Golden period for me ended in around 1963-4. Cleopatra I think was one of the last pictures from the Golden Period.
Hong said on 14/Oct/20
Click Here @Tall In The Saddle,Here's a pic of Malden with 5 ft9.5 listed Paul Newman.Newman is dropping a bit of height but if he was at his tallest Malden would still have a good 4 inches on him.Newman and Michael Douglas are both listed 5ft9.5 peak.
Click Here @Tall In The Saddle,Here's a pic of Malden with 5 ft9.5 listed Paul Newman.Newman is dropping a bit of height but if he was at his tallest Malden would still have a good 4 inches on him.Newman and Michael Douglas are both listed 5ft9.5 peak.
Hong said on 13/Oct/20
@Arch Stanton,To a young person 41 years ago is a very long time ago,similar to a young person in 1979 would think 1938 was a long time ago and a movie from 1938 would seem like ancient history.
@Arch Stanton,To a young person 41 years ago is a very long time ago,similar to a young person in 1979 would think 1938 was a long time ago and a movie from 1938 would seem like ancient history.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Oct/20
Slim 6'1" said on 2/Oct/20
I hate old movies but really enjoyed escape from Alcatraz
Guessing you're a teenager. Black and white is boring LOL. I don't think of Escape from Alcatraz as an old movie, 1979. "Old" for me is pre 1965 but then I'm old enough to remember when the late 60s was only 20 years ago.
Slim 6'1" said on 2/Oct/20
I hate old movies but really enjoyed escape from Alcatraz
Guessing you're a teenager. Black and white is boring LOL. I don't think of Escape from Alcatraz as an old movie, 1979. "Old" for me is pre 1965 but then I'm old enough to remember when the late 60s was only 20 years ago.
Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Oct/20
@Hong
Karl Malden is an excellent example of legitimate and substantial height loss. He is also among the small percentage of people to reach nonagenarian status, a percentage that is increasing as time goes by but still a category of peoples very much in the minority.
In other words, the majority of the population will never realize the potential degree of height loss we actually see come to pass in many 90+ yo people.
I will say that Malden had a more severely bowed neck than Clint but his overall height loss was still apparent. For comparison, here is a shot of Madlen and Douglas from their time in THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO. Click Here
I think peak Malden was a legit 6'1". Here's a pic of Malden standing with Gregory Peck. Click Here
@Hong
Karl Malden is an excellent example of legitimate and substantial height loss. He is also among the small percentage of people to reach nonagenarian status, a percentage that is increasing as time goes by but still a category of peoples very much in the minority.
In other words, the majority of the population will never realize the potential degree of height loss we actually see come to pass in many 90+ yo people.
I will say that Malden had a more severely bowed neck than Clint but his overall height loss was still apparent. For comparison, here is a shot of Madlen and Douglas from their time in THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO. Click Here
I think peak Malden was a legit 6'1". Here's a pic of Malden standing with Gregory Peck. Click Here
Hong said on 6/Oct/20
Click Here Here's a good example of how much a person can shrink over their life.Karl Malden was 6ft1 peak,Kirk Douglas was 5ft9,Michael Douglas listed here as 5ft9.5 and aged 60 at the time of this photo and probably still at peak maybe a fraction shorter? Malden is 92 there,Kirk is 88,both old guys look 4 inches of there peak.Clint can look 4 inches shorter now aged 90 it's not so unusual.
Click Here Here's a good example of how much a person can shrink over their life.Karl Malden was 6ft1 peak,Kirk Douglas was 5ft9,Michael Douglas listed here as 5ft9.5 and aged 60 at the time of this photo and probably still at peak maybe a fraction shorter? Malden is 92 there,Kirk is 88,both old guys look 4 inches of there peak.Clint can look 4 inches shorter now aged 90 it's not so unusual.
TheDon1528 said on 6/Oct/20
6'3.5" peak
6'3.5" peak
Slim 6'1" said on 2/Oct/20
I hate old movies but really enjoyed escape from Alcatraz
I hate old movies but really enjoyed escape from Alcatraz
Tommy174 said on 1/Oct/20
@Rob another reason I can't believe he was 216 pounds is that he was about 6'3 so I can guess 200-205 pounds. But on the other hand why he would inflate his weight? He has always been a slim guy not a big guy with not so much muscle mass and fat. I know all his movies and the heaviest he probably was in 1980 in "Any Which Way You Can" but he looks barely over 205 pounds there.
Editor Rob
@Rob another reason I can't believe he was 216 pounds is that he was about 6'3 so I can guess 200-205 pounds. But on the other hand why he would inflate his weight? He has always been a slim guy not a big guy with not so much muscle mass and fat. I know all his movies and the heaviest he probably was in 1980 in "Any Which Way You Can" but he looks barely over 205 pounds there.
Editor RobI do think at his most muscular phase, he was 205-10...216 though, I don't know...
Hong said on 30/Sep/20
Click Here Here's a pic of Clint with Burt,Burt wore pretty tick heels in that movie and looked a solid 6footer,Clint looks a solid 6ft4 in his normal heeled shoes in comparison.Clint in his early 50s looked no less than 6 ft3.
Click Here Here's a pic of Clint with Burt,Burt wore pretty tick heels in that movie and looked a solid 6footer,Clint looks a solid 6ft4 in his normal heeled shoes in comparison.Clint in his early 50s looked no less than 6 ft3.
Bobadob said on 24/Sep/20
6-3.5 peak no less. Genuine tall in his youth.
6-3.5 peak no less. Genuine tall in his youth.
cmillz said on 22/Sep/20
6’3 flat is really the most I can buy for him at peak, and I don’t rule out 6’2.5-6’2.75. Never felt like he gave off a near 6’4 impression to me.
6’3 flat is really the most I can buy for him at peak, and I don’t rule out 6’2.5-6’2.75. Never felt like he gave off a near 6’4 impression to me.
James B 172cm said on 19/Sep/20
Rob I am still of the opinion that Clint looked no taller than 6’3 flat in Dirty Harry.
Who knows though was getting worse at that point but a case could be made for 6ft3 3/8 in his early 40s and a solid 6ft3.5 in the 1950s.
Rob I am still of the opinion that Clint looked no taller than 6’3 flat in Dirty Harry.
Who knows though was getting worse at that point but a case could be made for 6ft3 3/8 in his early 40s and a solid 6ft3.5 in the 1950s.
Hong said on 18/Sep/20
That would make sense Rob as by his mid sixties Clint was looking in the 6ft2 range.
That would make sense Rob as by his mid sixties Clint was looking in the 6ft2 range.
Bora said on 18/Sep/20
In the movie called Play Misty For Me, he looks like a strong 6'2"
In the movie called Play Misty For Me, he looks like a strong 6'2"
James Brett 172cm said on 17/Sep/20
looked at least 6'3 in play misty
looked at least 6'3 in play misty
Hong said on 17/Sep/20
Click Here Rob ,What is your opinion on this pic of Clint and Neeson? It's from 95,Clint would have been 65 years old,do you think the angel is in Clint or Neeson's favour,how much height do you think Neeson has on Clint?
Editor Rob
Click Here Rob ,What is your opinion on this pic of Clint and Neeson? It's from 95,Clint would have been 65 years old,do you think the angel is in Clint or Neeson's favour,how much height do you think Neeson has on Clint?
Editor RobCould be 2 inches different, the angle does look like it's boosting Liam's side higher, making it seem at least 3 inches.
Sinclair said on 6/Sep/20
Rob, how tall do you think Eric Fleming was in Rawhide?
Eastwood and Fleming looked very similar in height, but one usually looked taller than the other. I'd estimate 6'3.5" for Fleming and 6'3.75" for Eastwood.
Editor Rob
Rob, how tall do you think Eric Fleming was in Rawhide?
Eastwood and Fleming looked very similar in height, but one usually looked taller than the other. I'd estimate 6'3.5" for Fleming and 6'3.75" for Eastwood.
Editor RobThe 3.5 figure was around in newspapers at the time of the show, they made a point of that specific figure and how he was half inch shy of eastwood.
Hong said on 18/Aug/20
Click Here Clint and Lee Marvin probably some time in the mid egities,remember Marvin was only 6 years older than Clint,and he died aged just 63,although he looked much older.
Click Here Clint and Lee Marvin probably some time in the mid egities,remember Marvin was only 6 years older than Clint,and he died aged just 63,although he looked much older.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Aug/20
Rob, is 6ft3¾ still arguable?
Editor Rob
Rob, is 6ft3¾ still arguable?
Editor RobFrom the years of watching him I think overall he is a fraction under 6ft 4, 6ft 3.5 was what I ended up deciding on, but of course you could still say above or below that could still be argued...
Hong said on 9/Aug/20
Here's Clint with 5ft10 listed Alan Young,it's a full length shot,Young's posture is not great but he is wearing cowboy boots,and Clint just normal dress shoes.
Click Here
Here's Clint with 5ft10 listed Alan Young,it's a full length shot,Young's posture is not great but he is wearing cowboy boots,and Clint just normal dress shoes.
Click Here
Slim 6'1" said on 9/Aug/20
191 prime is good
183 today
191 prime is good
183 today
Hong said on 8/Aug/20
Wow Rob in that pic with Ross,Wogan and Moyles he looks taller than I would expect,he could have been 5ft10 in 1967 afterall.And that would make Clint a definite 6 ft3.5 or dare I say it the full 6 ft4 in comparison.
Editor Rob
Wow Rob in that pic with Ross,Wogan and Moyles he looks taller than I would expect,he could have been 5ft10 in 1967 afterall.And that would make Clint a definite 6 ft3.5 or dare I say it the full 6 ft4 in comparison.
Editor RobTo be fair the ground with Clint might not be perfect, but he still looked very tall back in the clip. If John was 5ft 10, that's a very tall example of Clint in the late 60's.
Hotpots said on 8/Aug/20
Minimum of 1.5 inches on lee van cleef. Had to be 6-3 absolute min. Close to 6-4 imo peak young.
Minimum of 1.5 inches on lee van cleef. Had to be 6-3 absolute min. Close to 6-4 imo peak young.
Hong said on 7/Aug/20
Click Here In the pic you sent with 6ft.05 listed Cameron,Humphrys looks about 4 inches shorter putting him in the 5ft8 range,allowing for ageing it's possible the 24 year old Humphrys was 5ft9 at the time of the Clint interview,Clint looks to have around 6 or 7 inches of height on Humphrys,so that would make Clint in the 6ft3 to 6 ft4 range in comparison, so some were in the middle 6ft3.5 my be correct.I posted a pic of Humphrys with 5 ft11.75 listed Tony Blair,and Humphrys looks in the 5 ft10 range in comparison to Blair,maybe it's just posture of footwear advantage.
Click Here In the pic you sent with 6ft.05 listed Cameron,Humphrys looks about 4 inches shorter putting him in the 5ft8 range,allowing for ageing it's possible the 24 year old Humphrys was 5ft9 at the time of the Clint interview,Clint looks to have around 6 or 7 inches of height on Humphrys,so that would make Clint in the 6ft3 to 6 ft4 range in comparison, so some were in the middle 6ft3.5 my be correct.I posted a pic of Humphrys with 5 ft11.75 listed Tony Blair,and Humphrys looks in the 5 ft10 range in comparison to Blair,maybe it's just posture of footwear advantage.
Rory said on 6/Aug/20
Humphrys looks 5ft9 with 6ft0.5 Cameron but I think Camerons at a disadvantage standing further back so he'd probably have more like 4 inches on him I'd say in reality. So I'd say Humphrys looks 5ft8-8.5 by then in his seventies and say 5ft9 peak in 1967, Clint looks I'd say 6/7 inches taller.
So my guess from the video in 1967 would be John Humphrys 5ft9 and Clint Eastwood 6ft3.5 we can't see the ground or footwear though. Seeing as those figures kind of correspond with how both men look elsewhere though you'd imagine ground and footwear was similar.
Editor Rob
Humphrys looks 5ft9 with 6ft0.5 Cameron but I think Camerons at a disadvantage standing further back so he'd probably have more like 4 inches on him I'd say in reality. So I'd say Humphrys looks 5ft8-8.5 by then in his seventies and say 5ft9 peak in 1967, Clint looks I'd say 6/7 inches taller.
So my guess from the video in 1967 would be John Humphrys 5ft9 and Clint Eastwood 6ft3.5 we can't see the ground or footwear though. Seeing as those figures kind of correspond with how both men look elsewhere though you'd imagine ground and footwear was similar.
Editor RobSee John with Jonathan Ross, near 5ft 8 Moyles and Wogan, granted him and Jonathan ain't standing great, it's not hard to imagine Humphrys was minimum 5ft 9 range in the late 60's.
Sinclair said on 4/Aug/20
Maybe Eastwood could have scraped the full 6'4" first thing in the morning in his 20s and 30s, but he did not look as tall as some other 6'4" listed actors, like George Kennedy or Gregory Walcott in the Eiger Sanction. In some of the photos with Eric Fleming barefoot, Eastwood does seem to have the edge, but I feel Fleming gave a taller presence in Rawhide. Thus, this 6'3.5" listing seems a great shout, 6'3.75" could have been accurate too. Today, I don't think Clint would be any taller than a flat 6'0".
Maybe Eastwood could have scraped the full 6'4" first thing in the morning in his 20s and 30s, but he did not look as tall as some other 6'4" listed actors, like George Kennedy or Gregory Walcott in the Eiger Sanction. In some of the photos with Eric Fleming barefoot, Eastwood does seem to have the edge, but I feel Fleming gave a taller presence in Rawhide. Thus, this 6'3.5" listing seems a great shout, 6'3.75" could have been accurate too. Today, I don't think Clint would be any taller than a flat 6'0".
Hong said on 3/Aug/20
Click Here Clint looks very much a 6 ft3.05 guy here with John Humphrys,now if only we knew how tall Humphrys Was?Do you have any idea how tall Humphrys was Rob,because I've searched high and low for his height and have come up empty handed?
Editor Rob
Click Here Clint looks very much a 6 ft3.05 guy here with John Humphrys,now if only we knew how tall Humphrys Was?Do you have any idea how tall Humphrys was Rob,because I've searched high and low for his height and have come up empty handed?
Editor RobLook at John with David Cameron, 52 years on from when he stood beside Eastwood.
Tall In The Saddle said on 30/Jul/20
@Hong
Perfect description. The Holy Grail of photos.
Celebrities are the most visually recorded people on the planet so it's funny that the Holy Grail photo can still prove more than elusive. A 100% legit barefoot 6'3.25" low is still tall enough. Rest assured there have been plenty of actors before, during and after Clint's time who have over claimed, creating a false perception of what a true 6'2", 6'3", 6'4" etc. really looks like. Clint fulfilled Hollywood's version of 6'4" and it's still a fact that he stood above the majority of the acting population. IMHO, if peak Clint appeared on say Conan O'Brien I would expect to see him equal in height. Possibly even shading Conan's own Hollywood version of 6'4" in all possibility. LOL.
@Hong
Perfect description. The Holy Grail of photos.
Celebrities are the most visually recorded people on the planet so it's funny that the Holy Grail photo can still prove more than elusive. A 100% legit barefoot 6'3.25" low is still tall enough. Rest assured there have been plenty of actors before, during and after Clint's time who have over claimed, creating a false perception of what a true 6'2", 6'3", 6'4" etc. really looks like. Clint fulfilled Hollywood's version of 6'4" and it's still a fact that he stood above the majority of the acting population. IMHO, if peak Clint appeared on say Conan O'Brien I would expect to see him equal in height. Possibly even shading Conan's own Hollywood version of 6'4" in all possibility. LOL.
Arch Stanton said on 29/Jul/20
Hard to think seeing him with Momoa he was once close in height!! Seems impossible, the incredible shrinking man! I think he could scrape 5'11 range if stood his best but 6ft is optimistic now Rob, he's 90 now.
Hard to think seeing him with Momoa he was once close in height!! Seems impossible, the incredible shrinking man! I think he could scrape 5'11 range if stood his best but 6ft is optimistic now Rob, he's 90 now.
Hong said on 28/Jul/20
@Tall In The Saddle,thanks I'm always looking for the holy grail of Clint photos,I really wanted him to be 6ft4 Peak but I've accepted he was not,it took a long time,but 6 ft3.25 is more honest, it's a pity he looks so short now in pics,it's hard to believe he was almost as tall as Momoa at peak.
@Tall In The Saddle,thanks I'm always looking for the holy grail of Clint photos,I really wanted him to be 6ft4 Peak but I've accepted he was not,it took a long time,but 6 ft3.25 is more honest, it's a pity he looks so short now in pics,it's hard to believe he was almost as tall as Momoa at peak.
Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Jul/20
@Hong
I really appreciate the photos you bring to the table. Good stuff to chew over.
Clint looking very shrunken in that shot. I mean, there are young kids there of roughly assumed age and height. Clint would've towered them at peak. Not so now. I'd be surprised that Clint is only losing 2" of his current potential. The line of his body is compromised at so many diff. points. You might've tried to replicate this too but I think Clint often stands with bent and bowed legs now which can't be seen in the photo. I get the impression that Clint only stands momentarily, semi erect for such shots before sitting down again. And why not? Dude is 90 years old. I think the pics he does pose for now must be quite the effort with some discomfort involved. Even if one had Clint as low as 6'2.5" peak (I don't of course), that's still quite a drop down to his current standing height.
@Hong
I really appreciate the photos you bring to the table. Good stuff to chew over.
Clint looking very shrunken in that shot. I mean, there are young kids there of roughly assumed age and height. Clint would've towered them at peak. Not so now. I'd be surprised that Clint is only losing 2" of his current potential. The line of his body is compromised at so many diff. points. You might've tried to replicate this too but I think Clint often stands with bent and bowed legs now which can't be seen in the photo. I get the impression that Clint only stands momentarily, semi erect for such shots before sitting down again. And why not? Dude is 90 years old. I think the pics he does pose for now must be quite the effort with some discomfort involved. Even if one had Clint as low as 6'2.5" peak (I don't of course), that's still quite a drop down to his current standing height.
Hong said on 24/Jul/20
Hi Rob,your point about how Clint measures is a very important and sometimes overlooked point.I have a stadiometer and measured myself this morning just up from 8 hours sleep,standing my tallest on stadiometer I measured 1m81cm,but then I measured myself standing with very bad posture slouching,standing with similar posture as Clint I dropped down to 1m75.5 that's 5.5 cm or 2 inches less.If Clint could stand his full height for measurment he could be still 6ft
Editor Rob
Hi Rob,your point about how Clint measures is a very important and sometimes overlooked point.I have a stadiometer and measured myself this morning just up from 8 hours sleep,standing my tallest on stadiometer I measured 1m81cm,but then I measured myself standing with very bad posture slouching,standing with similar posture as Clint I dropped down to 1m75.5 that's 5.5 cm or 2 inches less.If Clint could stand his full height for measurment he could be still 6ft
Editor RobI can stand beside my own Father and look 2 inches taller than him at age 85, but he's got bad posture...
Hong said on 22/Jul/20
@ Tall In The Saddle,I've also watched the Ali clip many times and can see Clint as 6ft3.25 max in comparison.
@ Tall In The Saddle,I've also watched the Ali clip many times and can see Clint as 6ft3.25 max in comparison.
Hong said on 22/Jul/20
Thanks Rob, judging form how he looks with Momoa,even if he stood his tallest I can't see Clint at 6 ft,5ft11 more like it.
Thanks Rob, judging form how he looks with Momoa,even if he stood his tallest I can't see Clint at 6 ft,5ft11 more like it.
Canson said on 22/Jul/20
@Tall in the Saddle: agreed. I could see that strong 6’3 range 6’3.25 maybe .5” max
@Arch: I could see him measuring 6’4 out of bed maybe throughout the first hour at best
@Tall in the Saddle: agreed. I could see that strong 6’3 range 6’3.25 maybe .5” max
@Arch: I could see him measuring 6’4 out of bed maybe throughout the first hour at best
Hong said on 20/Jul/20
Click Here Clint looks 5ft10 here with Momoa,what do you think ,Rob under 6ft now?max 5ft11 IMO.
Editor Rob
Click Here Clint looks 5ft10 here with Momoa,what do you think ,Rob under 6ft now?max 5ft11 IMO.
Editor RobCould look barely 5ft 11 at times now, but what he measures is another matter. I don't think as short as 5ft 10 mind you, but somewhere in 5ft 11 range is looking likelier.
Tall In The Saddle said on 20/Jul/20
I know it's been mentioned a lot previously but we can still return to the vision of Ali and Eastwood on Frost.
When I first saw that vision I might've given Clint up to 1" adv. over 6'2.5" Ali. Readdressing the vision several more times, all things considered, I see a definite edge but only perhaps a slight edge to Clint, which I guess would have to be at least .5" to even be discernible. So at least as I see it, Clint definitely no less than 6'3" and possible up to 6'3.5", but as Canson stated, I think 6'3.25" could be closest as he didn't appear to have a full 1" on Ali.
Unless he was standing his best, 6'2.5" Ali could look even with 6'2" Jim Brown. Otherwise, at best, Ali only appeared to hold the slightest advantage over Brown. Clint's own advantage over Ali was that little bit better than Ali's over Brown I think.
I know it's been mentioned a lot previously but we can still return to the vision of Ali and Eastwood on Frost.
When I first saw that vision I might've given Clint up to 1" adv. over 6'2.5" Ali. Readdressing the vision several more times, all things considered, I see a definite edge but only perhaps a slight edge to Clint, which I guess would have to be at least .5" to even be discernible. So at least as I see it, Clint definitely no less than 6'3" and possible up to 6'3.5", but as Canson stated, I think 6'3.25" could be closest as he didn't appear to have a full 1" on Ali.
Unless he was standing his best, 6'2.5" Ali could look even with 6'2" Jim Brown. Otherwise, at best, Ali only appeared to hold the slightest advantage over Brown. Clint's own advantage over Ali was that little bit better than Ali's over Brown I think.
Hong said on 19/Jul/20
He has been described as 6ft3 in a few articles I've read,but he himself has claimed 6ft4,on numerous occasions.I don't know if he was asked his height by the interviewer and said 6 ft3 or they just guessed it.He would have only been 6ft4 morning height and more 6ft3.25 from afternoon.
He has been described as 6ft3 in a few articles I've read,but he himself has claimed 6ft4,on numerous occasions.I don't know if he was asked his height by the interviewer and said 6 ft3 or they just guessed it.He would have only been 6ft4 morning height and more 6ft3.25 from afternoon.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Jul/20
And with Jeff Bridges...
And with Jeff Bridges...
Arch Stanton said on 19/Jul/20
Canson, did you not see him with Donald Sutherland, Hal Holbrook, David Soul and Tim Matheson in the 70s? He was very close to 6'4, it consistently adds up even if I agree at times he didn't look it. I have no doubt he'd have genuinely measured it earlier in the day. I've seen virtually every film of his and I don't think he looked as low as 6'3.-6'3.25 until the late 80s. Sudden Impact, around 1983 was when he started to look shorter I think, he was around 53 then.
Canson, did you not see him with Donald Sutherland, Hal Holbrook, David Soul and Tim Matheson in the 70s? He was very close to 6'4, it consistently adds up even if I agree at times he didn't look it. I have no doubt he'd have genuinely measured it earlier in the day. I've seen virtually every film of his and I don't think he looked as low as 6'3.-6'3.25 until the late 80s. Sudden Impact, around 1983 was when he started to look shorter I think, he was around 53 then.
Rory said on 18/Jul/20
Did he claim 6ft3 though or was he described as being 6ft3? I understand he was described as being 6ft3 which is different.
Did he claim 6ft3 though or was he described as being 6ft3? I understand he was described as being 6ft3 which is different.
Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Jul/20
@Rory
Agree, not 6'4". Just me personally, I wouldn't go as high as 6'3.75" either but I think it's a fair and reasonable upper limit to suggest and certainly not impossible. Suffice to say, even if unlikely to me, I wouldn't be willing to bet my house that he wasn't 6'3.75".
@Rory
Agree, not 6'4". Just me personally, I wouldn't go as high as 6'3.75" either but I think it's a fair and reasonable upper limit to suggest and certainly not impossible. Suffice to say, even if unlikely to me, I wouldn't be willing to bet my house that he wasn't 6'3.75".
Alir?za said on 16/Jul/20
Still quite tall guy :) I agree his peak height is over 6'3 but not solid 6'4. If he is still 6 ft, that is good height for nowadays
Still quite tall guy :) I agree his peak height is over 6'3 but not solid 6'4. If he is still 6 ft, that is good height for nowadays
Canson said on 16/Jul/20
He claimed 6’3 in the 80s, so that says a lot right there. He was never that close to 6’4”. Not as low as 6’2.5 peak but 6’3-6’3.5 range more specifically 6’3.25” is probably likely. Most guys still claim a peak height even when they can no longer measure it
He claimed 6’3 in the 80s, so that says a lot right there. He was never that close to 6’4”. Not as low as 6’2.5 peak but 6’3-6’3.5 range more specifically 6’3.25” is probably likely. Most guys still claim a peak height even when they can no longer measure it
Hong said on 14/Jul/20
I meant by evening 6ft3.25.
I meant by evening 6ft3.25.
Hong said on 14/Jul/20
Peak at tallest 6ft4 early morning by evening 6 ft4.25
Peak at tallest 6ft4 early morning by evening 6 ft4.25
Rory said on 13/Jul/20
I'd rule out 6ft2.5 and 6ft4. Prime fistful of dollars era Clint under the stadiometer would surely measure somewhere between 6ft3 and 6ft3.75. Nothing within that range would surprise me, anything else would.
I'd rule out 6ft2.5 and 6ft4. Prime fistful of dollars era Clint under the stadiometer would surely measure somewhere between 6ft3 and 6ft3.75. Nothing within that range would surprise me, anything else would.
Keith Bacchus said on 10/Jul/20
6 foot 4
6 foot 4
Hong said on 7/Jul/20
@Ethan99.I respect your opinion,but 6ft3 for Clints peak looking at all the evidence is fair,in fact he could appear close to his 6ft4 claim on occasion.6ft2 or 6ft2.5 is a bit low,but I can understand due to his bad posture and more than average height loss in old age,he can look 6ft2 range in peak years sometimes,and under 6ft now.
@Ethan99.I respect your opinion,but 6ft3 for Clints peak looking at all the evidence is fair,in fact he could appear close to his 6ft4 claim on occasion.6ft2 or 6ft2.5 is a bit low,but I can understand due to his bad posture and more than average height loss in old age,he can look 6ft2 range in peak years sometimes,and under 6ft now.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Jul/20
Kennedy would have a clear edge on Eastwood back to back...now that guy could have been a strong 6ft4
Kennedy would have a clear edge on Eastwood back to back...now that guy could have been a strong 6ft4
Ethan99 said on 3/Jul/20
Can't see him 6'3 peak most of the time. 6'2, definitely. So my guess would be 6'2.5" max.
Can't see him 6'3 peak most of the time. 6'2, definitely. So my guess would be 6'2.5" max.
Hong said on 2/Jul/20
Click Here Hi Rob I would be interested in your opinion on this pic,if Kennedy stood with similar posture to Clint and wasn't leaning,how much height would he gain,and would he be taller than Clint,and if so by roughly how much?
Editor Rob
Click Here Hi Rob I would be interested in your opinion on this pic,if Kennedy stood with similar posture to Clint and wasn't leaning,how much height would he gain,and would he be taller than Clint,and if so by roughly how much?
Editor RobGeorge could have 3cm or so in reserve there, but ground like they are standing on, is always tricky for comparisons.
James B 172cm said on 30/Jun/20
Rampage 6ft3 in the 80s but I think more 6ft2.5 in the 90s
Rampage 6ft3 in the 80s but I think more 6ft2.5 in the 90s
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Jun/20
He looked very tall in Escape From Alcatraz
He looked very tall in Escape From Alcatraz
Hong said on 29/Jun/20
The average guess here seems ok too me,max 6ft3.5 but more likely 6ft3.25 in my opinion.@movieguy12 I also considered that he may have been 6ft2, but that would put so many other actors 2 inches under their listed heights,like 6ft flat Lee Marvin,George Kennedy 6ft2.5,Charlton Heston at 6ft1,and so on.
The average guess here seems ok too me,max 6ft3.5 but more likely 6ft3.25 in my opinion.@movieguy12 I also considered that he may have been 6ft2, but that would put so many other actors 2 inches under their listed heights,like 6ft flat Lee Marvin,George Kennedy 6ft2.5,Charlton Heston at 6ft1,and so on.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/Jun/20
Still looked 6ft3 in the 80’s-90’s
Still looked 6ft3 in the 80’s-90’s
movieguy12 said on 29/Jun/20
The problem with knocking down Clint too much is that he looked 2 inches taller than a guy like James Coburn. I sometimes think that Eastwood was really only 6'2'' but then this makes Coburn a flat 6ft which seems unrealistic. I do however have trouble seeing Clint as being as tall as guys like Jeff Goldblum or Tom Selleck say who seem genuine 6'4'' guys.
The problem with knocking down Clint too much is that he looked 2 inches taller than a guy like James Coburn. I sometimes think that Eastwood was really only 6'2'' but then this makes Coburn a flat 6ft which seems unrealistic. I do however have trouble seeing Clint as being as tall as guys like Jeff Goldblum or Tom Selleck say who seem genuine 6'4'' guys.
Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Jun/20
@Hong
Very true, the uneven terrain in westerns is problematic. I try to only compare when the surface can be reasonably assumed to be even, such as indoors, bar scenes or the like. That's how I compared Clint with Buddy in the RAWHIDE episode. In all honesty, I think Clint is one of the more difficult estimates given some rather contrary samplings. Across the board and on average, I would still guess 6'3" to 6'3.25" but in some instances, compared with other actors of reasonably known height, he could appear a bit more than that. Rob's listing and the average guess for peak almost converge but for .1", a miniscule difference which is impossible to discern with the naked eye.
@Hong
Very true, the uneven terrain in westerns is problematic. I try to only compare when the surface can be reasonably assumed to be even, such as indoors, bar scenes or the like. That's how I compared Clint with Buddy in the RAWHIDE episode. In all honesty, I think Clint is one of the more difficult estimates given some rather contrary samplings. Across the board and on average, I would still guess 6'3" to 6'3.25" but in some instances, compared with other actors of reasonably known height, he could appear a bit more than that. Rob's listing and the average guess for peak almost converge but for .1", a miniscule difference which is impossible to discern with the naked eye.
Hong said on 24/Jun/20
@Tall In The Saddle,It's also difficult to compare height in westerns, because a lot is filmed outdoors on uneven terrain.If my memory serves me well,Clint said he wore the same cowboy boots he wore on rawhide in the spaghetti westerns.In Coogans Bluff the heel looked a bit higher than his usual cowboy boot.I did notice in A Perfect World a modern day western made in the early 90s,he was wearing cowboy boots and although in his eary 60s and probably around 6ft2.5 by that age,he did look 6ft4ish compared to 5ft9 Laura Dern.Your point about his posture is exactly what I've observed,Clint can drop a significant amount of height when standing with loose posture which he tended to do a peak, and still to this day.
@Tall In The Saddle,It's also difficult to compare height in westerns, because a lot is filmed outdoors on uneven terrain.If my memory serves me well,Clint said he wore the same cowboy boots he wore on rawhide in the spaghetti westerns.In Coogans Bluff the heel looked a bit higher than his usual cowboy boot.I did notice in A Perfect World a modern day western made in the early 90s,he was wearing cowboy boots and although in his eary 60s and probably around 6ft2.5 by that age,he did look 6ft4ish compared to 5ft9 Laura Dern.Your point about his posture is exactly what I've observed,Clint can drop a significant amount of height when standing with loose posture which he tended to do a peak, and still to this day.
Tall In The Saddle said on 21/Jun/20
@Hong
When in dress shoes, it's also fair to say no evidence of "lifting" for CE. Do we tend to judge Clint more in Westerns (viz cowboy boots) at his absolute peak or his later, more frequently filmed non western roles in more reg. heel? Or is it a fair balance of both?
A lot of evidence we've considered also includes Clint off screen, at events in formal wear, when we can see or safely assume dress shoes or the like and Clint stands up pretty well for a max. 6'3.5" IMO. I suppose Clint's western co-stars were just as liable to advantage themselves with a bit extra cowboy heel if inclined, so westerns can be problematic all around.
I will say in RAWHIDE at least, CE's posture was often less than ideal. Not only hunching but also leaning back from the waist beyond vertical, losing some true height. In the bare foot shots of CE and Eric Fleming supplied by Hong, it seems CE is holding more advantage on Fleming than seen on screen.
@Hong
When in dress shoes, it's also fair to say no evidence of "lifting" for CE. Do we tend to judge Clint more in Westerns (viz cowboy boots) at his absolute peak or his later, more frequently filmed non western roles in more reg. heel? Or is it a fair balance of both?
A lot of evidence we've considered also includes Clint off screen, at events in formal wear, when we can see or safely assume dress shoes or the like and Clint stands up pretty well for a max. 6'3.5" IMO. I suppose Clint's western co-stars were just as liable to advantage themselves with a bit extra cowboy heel if inclined, so westerns can be problematic all around.
I will say in RAWHIDE at least, CE's posture was often less than ideal. Not only hunching but also leaning back from the waist beyond vertical, losing some true height. In the bare foot shots of CE and Eric Fleming supplied by Hong, it seems CE is holding more advantage on Fleming than seen on screen.
Bart said on 19/Jun/20
@Hong yes that was the pic I was referring to. It’s not obvious Scott is standing on something but that would explain a lot. Hard to say how tall Clint is for sure but I’d bet 100% on
@Hong yes that was the pic I was referring to. It’s not obvious Scott is standing on something but that would explain a lot. Hard to say how tall Clint is for sure but I’d bet 100% on
Hong said on 16/Jun/20
Click Here This is typical Clint footwear,normal dress shoe's,this is what he wore in Dirty Harry.
Click Here This is typical Clint footwear,normal dress shoe's,this is what he wore in Dirty Harry.
Hong said on 15/Jun/20
@Willies,Clint only wore cowboy boots in westerns his normal footwear was usually very flat,or just a normal 2cm heel.
@Willies,Clint only wore cowboy boots in westerns his normal footwear was usually very flat,or just a normal 2cm heel.
Tall In The Saddle said on 11/Jun/20
@Jano
By Clint's age, I don't know if height loss matters so much to him if at all. Sadly a lot of people don't reach the grand milestone that Clint has, some passing at a much younger age. Without dismissing his considerable hand in his own success, Clint has been more than fortunate in many ways. IMO, CE is down to earth and truly appreciates all that has come to him. CE had good height to begin with and despite appreciable height loss he still cannot be considered short.
@Jano
By Clint's age, I don't know if height loss matters so much to him if at all. Sadly a lot of people don't reach the grand milestone that Clint has, some passing at a much younger age. Without dismissing his considerable hand in his own success, Clint has been more than fortunate in many ways. IMO, CE is down to earth and truly appreciates all that has come to him. CE had good height to begin with and despite appreciable height loss he still cannot be considered short.
jano said on 10/Jun/20
Its quit sad that his height now dissapears rapidly, in 2015 he was still taller than Tom Hanks, 183-184 there probably, but now i think he is already under 180.
Its quit sad that his height now dissapears rapidly, in 2015 he was still taller than Tom Hanks, 183-184 there probably, but now i think he is already under 180.
Nik Ashton said on 8/Jun/20
He’s about half a foot above average for his age!
He’s about half a foot above average for his age!
GTB172cm said on 7/Jun/20
Just scraping 6’0 imo.
Just scraping 6’0 imo.
movieguy12 said on 7/Jun/20
Good to see those Rawhide episodes on YouTube again. They are great for getting a look at a young Clint and comparing him height wise with other tall actors. Years ago they were available to watch but then seemed to disappear I assumed for copyright reason.
I don't think that Clint looks any taller than Eric Fleming though.
Good to see those Rawhide episodes on YouTube again. They are great for getting a look at a young Clint and comparing him height wise with other tall actors. Years ago they were available to watch but then seemed to disappear I assumed for copyright reason.
I don't think that Clint looks any taller than Eric Fleming though.
Jam Cherry said on 6/Jun/20
Old age does make u lose 3-4 inches height too Clint peak was roughly 192 cm now he’s 182 cm on good day
Old age does make u lose 3-4 inches height too Clint peak was roughly 192 cm now he’s 182 cm on good day
Hong said on 6/Jun/20
Click Here @Bart if this is the pic your referring too,then just look at Scott's left knee and see how kigh it is,he's obviously standing on something.
Click Here @Bart if this is the pic your referring too,then just look at Scott's left knee and see how kigh it is,he's obviously standing on something.
Tall In The Saddle said on 6/Jun/20
@Hong
Yeah, around the 6'3" mark, no issue with 6'3.25". For mine, 6'3.5" really pushing it but not impossible I guess. Interesting that Buddy himself was often listed as 6'3.5" peak.
I'm not necessarily a fan of the western genre but when they make on that stands out above the rest, then for me it ranks right up there with any great film of any genre. THE SEARCHERS, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, THE COWBOYS, THE UNFORGIVEN etc. All GREAT films IMO. Re Clint specifically, what about his other endeavours such as THE BEGUILED, A PERFECT WORLD and GRAN TORINO? Awesome. Great actor but even better director IF one had to choose but why bother when Clint has given us a killer combination of the best of both worlds.
@Hong
Yeah, around the 6'3" mark, no issue with 6'3.25". For mine, 6'3.5" really pushing it but not impossible I guess. Interesting that Buddy himself was often listed as 6'3.5" peak.
I'm not necessarily a fan of the western genre but when they make on that stands out above the rest, then for me it ranks right up there with any great film of any genre. THE SEARCHERS, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, THE COWBOYS, THE UNFORGIVEN etc. All GREAT films IMO. Re Clint specifically, what about his other endeavours such as THE BEGUILED, A PERFECT WORLD and GRAN TORINO? Awesome. Great actor but even better director IF one had to choose but why bother when Clint has given us a killer combination of the best of both worlds.
Bart said on 5/Jun/20
Saw a recent picture of Clint with his son Scott who is listed as 5’10 3/4. Clint May have bad posture but looked a legit 2-3 inches shorter than his son. I’d be surprised if he was still even 5’10 now at 90 years old. My grandpa as a young man he said was 6’2, his sons height. Today I’m taller than him at 5’10, so it’s not uncommon.
Saw a recent picture of Clint with his son Scott who is listed as 5’10 3/4. Clint May have bad posture but looked a legit 2-3 inches shorter than his son. I’d be surprised if he was still even 5’10 now at 90 years old. My grandpa as a young man he said was 6’2, his sons height. Today I’m taller than him at 5’10, so it’s not uncommon.
Hong said on 4/Jun/20
Click Here Here's a pic from that Danny Kaye episode,although the angel is not great for judging heights you can see their footwear very clearly.
Click Here Here's a pic from that Danny Kaye episode,although the angel is not great for judging heights you can see their footwear very clearly.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 4/Jun/20
@ Arch Stanton - It's Clint Eastwood who actually got me into watching Western films. They were just so incredible, and I especially enjoyed his film 'Pale Rider'. Then there was 'Play Misty For Me' (how marvellous was that?), and anything that Clint has been in, I will gladly see.
What a good idea! I'm going to see 'Play Misty For Me' right now!
Cheers Arch! XXX 😁👍
@ Arch Stanton - It's Clint Eastwood who actually got me into watching Western films. They were just so incredible, and I especially enjoyed his film 'Pale Rider'. Then there was 'Play Misty For Me' (how marvellous was that?), and anything that Clint has been in, I will gladly see.
What a good idea! I'm going to see 'Play Misty For Me' right now!
Cheers Arch! XXX 😁👍
Hong said on 3/Jun/20
@Tall In The Saddle,once again Clint, even with Buddy,max 6ft3 peak for Clint,it makes sense.
@Tall In The Saddle,once again Clint, even with Buddy,max 6ft3 peak for Clint,it makes sense.
Tall In The Saddle said on 3/Jun/20
As luck would have it, the RAWHIDE Ep with CE and older Buddy was recently uploaded. TBH, I got the same vibe as I did from their television appearance. Yes, so close in height that given angle, posture etc., the slightest advantage in height could swing from one to the other throughout the episode or otherwise, they appeared simply equal. BUT again, Clint still had footwear advantage, cowboy boots vs Buddy's dress shoes, which can be seen toward the end of the episode when both men walk on to a stage.
Click Here
Rawhide S4E21 Season 4 Episode 21 The Pitchwagon * Buddy Ebsen
Click Here
As luck would have it, the RAWHIDE Ep with CE and older Buddy was recently uploaded. TBH, I got the same vibe as I did from their television appearance. Yes, so close in height that given angle, posture etc., the slightest advantage in height could swing from one to the other throughout the episode or otherwise, they appeared simply equal. BUT again, Clint still had footwear advantage, cowboy boots vs Buddy's dress shoes, which can be seen toward the end of the episode when both men walk on to a stage.
Click Here
Rawhide S4E21 Season 4 Episode 21 The Pitchwagon * Buddy Ebsen
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jun/20
If Clint is still making movies at 95 that would be absolutely incredible. He's earned it, he's been meticulous with health and fitness all his life, the consistency of it pays off. Veyr few men at 90 would have the energy and willpower to make something as stressful and tedious as making a film. It's beyond most even in their prime. I know some great musicians only did one film score and quit due to the pressures of it, working 18 hour days etc. Hope he makes it to 100!
If Clint is still making movies at 95 that would be absolutely incredible. He's earned it, he's been meticulous with health and fitness all his life, the consistency of it pays off. Veyr few men at 90 would have the energy and willpower to make something as stressful and tedious as making a film. It's beyond most even in their prime. I know some great musicians only did one film score and quit due to the pressures of it, working 18 hour days etc. Hope he makes it to 100!
Hong said on 2/Jun/20
@Tall In The Saddle" that's right Clint,Hackman and Connery all hit the big 90 this year,all tall men for their generation,but now alas all probably hovering around the 6ft flat range,with Clint of course being the biggest loser"so to speak.
@Tall In The Saddle" that's right Clint,Hackman and Connery all hit the big 90 this year,all tall men for their generation,but now alas all probably hovering around the 6ft flat range,with Clint of course being the biggest loser"so to speak.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 2/Jun/20
🎂🎁9️⃣0️⃣ Happy Birthday Clint! 9️⃣0️⃣🎁🎂
A belated Happy Birthday to the great Clint Eastwood, who celebrated his 9️⃣0️⃣th Birthday on Sunday, 31st May.
6ft3.5 peak
6ft1 now
🎂🎁9️⃣0️⃣ Happy Birthday Clint! 9️⃣0️⃣🎁🎂
A belated Happy Birthday to the great Clint Eastwood, who celebrated his 9️⃣0️⃣th Birthday on Sunday, 31st May.
6ft3.5 peak
6ft1 now
movieguy12 said on 1/Jun/20
Hard to tell who is taller out of Clint and Eric Fleming. Clint had really high hair as a young guy which complicates things. He definitely looks more than a 6'2'' guy though.
Hard to tell who is taller out of Clint and Eric Fleming. Clint had really high hair as a young guy which complicates things. He definitely looks more than a 6'2'' guy though.
Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Jun/20
@Hong
Sure. When two celebs are actually equal in height or even with just .25" to .5" difference, small inconsistencies (angle, posture, footwear etc.) can swing the adv. either way. You're right about angles, that last photo you linked makes it seem that even in shoes Fleming would still be dropping height to Clint. However, as per most other photos indicate, Fleming in shoes should at least appear on par.
Clint's finally hit 90, really? I was about to type that Gene Hackman wouldn't be far behind, well, upon checking, Gene's actually ahead having turned 90 on 30 January. Sean Connery will hit the same milestone later this year.
@Hong
Sure. When two celebs are actually equal in height or even with just .25" to .5" difference, small inconsistencies (angle, posture, footwear etc.) can swing the adv. either way. You're right about angles, that last photo you linked makes it seem that even in shoes Fleming would still be dropping height to Clint. However, as per most other photos indicate, Fleming in shoes should at least appear on par.
Clint's finally hit 90, really? I was about to type that Gene Hackman wouldn't be far behind, well, upon checking, Gene's actually ahead having turned 90 on 30 January. Sean Connery will hit the same milestone later this year.
Tall In The Saddle said on 31/May/20
@Rory
I understand your reservations re postures at times but I still think the Clint/Buddy/Fess examples present as very good evidence and the only person advantaged by footwear is Clint. If equal footwear in the opening skit I might easily say 6’3” or a smidge above but the boots place a ?. The Frost show is a good print and Ali and Clint are acceptably close when they greet one another, not a lot to choose between them. Ali stating Clint to be taller should certainly be considered but at the end of the day what you can see for yourself is the hard evidence. If Ali said Frost was taller than himself then of course we would dismiss that in deference to the conflicting vision.
Since Ali and Clint a lot closer in height we could afford Ali’s opinion more validity due to what we can see and Ali’s proximity and his better view point than our own. Now I know this enters the realm of speculation but back in the day the height of 6’4” was synonymous with the name CE, included in almost every article on the man. Ali was clearly a very big fan and I am sure he read same. Possibly that factored into Ali’s comment. I personally saw only about .5” diff if that, not so noticeable even facing someone up close.
As to Fess he might’ve been a bit taller than given credit for. I’ve also wondered previously if Buddy himself stood a bit more than 6’3” at least at peak. I’ve seen a pic of an older Buddy and John Wayne and Buddy appeared very close in height.
Anyway, we’re not really disagreeing on much here - you could accept 6’3.25” at a min. and I wouldn’t argue against that height but could also accept a touch lower. In the realm of a mere .25” I think we’re definitely in acceptable error margin - meaning at least IMO one couldn’t argue vehemently with realistic conviction against .25” either side of their own estimate.
@Rory
I understand your reservations re postures at times but I still think the Clint/Buddy/Fess examples present as very good evidence and the only person advantaged by footwear is Clint. If equal footwear in the opening skit I might easily say 6’3” or a smidge above but the boots place a ?. The Frost show is a good print and Ali and Clint are acceptably close when they greet one another, not a lot to choose between them. Ali stating Clint to be taller should certainly be considered but at the end of the day what you can see for yourself is the hard evidence. If Ali said Frost was taller than himself then of course we would dismiss that in deference to the conflicting vision.
Since Ali and Clint a lot closer in height we could afford Ali’s opinion more validity due to what we can see and Ali’s proximity and his better view point than our own. Now I know this enters the realm of speculation but back in the day the height of 6’4” was synonymous with the name CE, included in almost every article on the man. Ali was clearly a very big fan and I am sure he read same. Possibly that factored into Ali’s comment. I personally saw only about .5” diff if that, not so noticeable even facing someone up close.
As to Fess he might’ve been a bit taller than given credit for. I’ve also wondered previously if Buddy himself stood a bit more than 6’3” at least at peak. I’ve seen a pic of an older Buddy and John Wayne and Buddy appeared very close in height.
Anyway, we’re not really disagreeing on much here - you could accept 6’3.25” at a min. and I wouldn’t argue against that height but could also accept a touch lower. In the realm of a mere .25” I think we’re definitely in acceptable error margin - meaning at least IMO one couldn’t argue vehemently with realistic conviction against .25” either side of their own estimate.
Andy5'9 1/2 said on 31/May/20
I think the Average guess beiNg just shy of 6 feet is too harsh i think. A strong 6FT now about 183cm maybe 184 and peak is harder
I think the Average guess beiNg just shy of 6 feet is too harsh i think. A strong 6FT now about 183cm maybe 184 and peak is harder
Hong said on 31/May/20
Click Here Maybe if Clint wants to regain a bit of his lost height he could invest in a pair of boots like Burt's😂
Click Here Maybe if Clint wants to regain a bit of his lost height he could invest in a pair of boots like Burt's😂
Hong said on 31/May/20
@TALL IN THE Saddle,I know in the second pic with Fleming he is barefoot,and Clint isn't,but allowing for this I still think with similar footwear Fleming and Clint would be the same height.In the case in which two guys are the same height you are going to get times"depending on camara angles and terrain"one is going to look sightly taller than te other and vice-versa." Generally height inflated Hollywood"you hit the nail on the head there.Still 6ft3 peak for me.
@TALL IN THE Saddle,I know in the second pic with Fleming he is barefoot,and Clint isn't,but allowing for this I still think with similar footwear Fleming and Clint would be the same height.In the case in which two guys are the same height you are going to get times"depending on camara angles and terrain"one is going to look sightly taller than te other and vice-versa." Generally height inflated Hollywood"you hit the nail on the head there.Still 6ft3 peak for me.
Hong said on 31/May/20
Click Here I take your point @Rory,but 90% of the pics of Clint and Hackman from the 1990s that you can see on line,Clint still looks around 1.5 inches taller,and at thay time Clint looked lnow more than 6ft2.5 and sometimes 6ft2 flat.Here's a rare pic of Clint and Hackman from 1978.
Click Here I take your point @Rory,but 90% of the pics of Clint and Hackman from the 1990s that you can see on line,Clint still looks around 1.5 inches taller,and at thay time Clint looked lnow more than 6ft2.5 and sometimes 6ft2 flat.Here's a rare pic of Clint and Hackman from 1978.
Hong said on 31/May/20
Happy 90th Mr Eastwood and many more years to come🎉
Happy 90th Mr Eastwood and many more years to come🎉
Rory said on 30/May/20
@Tall in the saddle
That video of Ebsen,Clint and Fess which you always refer to is unreliable. Why ? Differing postures,different footwear and hats mean height comparison is impossible, especially when debating the tiny difference that there would be between Ebsen and Clint. You can tell both would be quite a similar range but then we would have known that anyway. It's useless for being more precise. Ebsen was also in a Rawhide episode where I felt Clint looked slightly taller than him. He did look more 6ft3 flat though next to Fess I'll concede.
The Ali one is probably the last thing anyone who wants to downgrade Clints height should reference. When a 6ft2.5 guy actually says this guys taller than me that's pretty conclusive that he is clearly taller I think. Forget a grainy video where they hardly stand next to each other at all.
@Hong
Clint next to Hackman varies massively. They can look the same or Clint can look 2 inches taller and anywhere inbetween. Hackman by 1992/93 would probably have been 6ft1.5. Peak 6ft1.75-2.
I probably could accept 6ft3.25 peak now for Clint but that would be the lowest I'd go considering he usually pulled off about 6ft3 even with loose posture.
@Tall in the saddle
That video of Ebsen,Clint and Fess which you always refer to is unreliable. Why ? Differing postures,different footwear and hats mean height comparison is impossible, especially when debating the tiny difference that there would be between Ebsen and Clint. You can tell both would be quite a similar range but then we would have known that anyway. It's useless for being more precise. Ebsen was also in a Rawhide episode where I felt Clint looked slightly taller than him. He did look more 6ft3 flat though next to Fess I'll concede.
The Ali one is probably the last thing anyone who wants to downgrade Clints height should reference. When a 6ft2.5 guy actually says this guys taller than me that's pretty conclusive that he is clearly taller I think. Forget a grainy video where they hardly stand next to each other at all.
@Hong
Clint next to Hackman varies massively. They can look the same or Clint can look 2 inches taller and anywhere inbetween. Hackman by 1992/93 would probably have been 6ft1.5. Peak 6ft1.75-2.
I probably could accept 6ft3.25 peak now for Clint but that would be the lowest I'd go considering he usually pulled off about 6ft3 even with loose posture.
Hong said on 30/May/20
Click Here @Tall In The Saddle,here's one both Clint and Fleming are barefoot,Clint is a bit disadvantaged because he is on he lower part of the grass,but Fleming is also not standing to his full potential.
Click Here @Tall In The Saddle,here's one both Clint and Fleming are barefoot,Clint is a bit disadvantaged because he is on he lower part of the grass,but Fleming is also not standing to his full potential.
Nik Ashton said on 29/May/20
I wonder what he claims nowadays!
I wonder what he claims nowadays!
Tall In The Saddle said on 29/May/20
I always felt RAWHIDE co star Eric Fleming generally held a slight edge on CE. Fleming himself was listed as 6’4” at times but was more realistically in the zone of 6’3”.
In his younger days Clint did appear that much taller but consistently so without any curious anomalies outside of the movie in which he was made to appear virtually equal to Rock Hudson. Perhaps Clint was able to float 6’4” amongst a generally height inflated Hollywood community. The Ali and Ebsen comparisons are better quality than most and I think they show Clint as 6’3” tops. The Ebsen comparison has one obvious variable to account for though - Clint has clear cowboy boot advantage but still appears to barely edge Ebsen if at all. Again, with boot advantage looks to be struggling with 6’3” max next to Fess Parker in moccasins.
I always felt RAWHIDE co star Eric Fleming generally held a slight edge on CE. Fleming himself was listed as 6’4” at times but was more realistically in the zone of 6’3”.
In his younger days Clint did appear that much taller but consistently so without any curious anomalies outside of the movie in which he was made to appear virtually equal to Rock Hudson. Perhaps Clint was able to float 6’4” amongst a generally height inflated Hollywood community. The Ali and Ebsen comparisons are better quality than most and I think they show Clint as 6’3” tops. The Ebsen comparison has one obvious variable to account for though - Clint has clear cowboy boot advantage but still appears to barely edge Ebsen if at all. Again, with boot advantage looks to be struggling with 6’3” max next to Fess Parker in moccasins.
Hong said on 29/May/20
Click Here an example of Clints height in 2002 around the same time as the pics with Robbins.You can see givin Jeff Daniels posture if he strightend himself up he would edge Clint,but with his posture Clint has the edge looking the taller of the two.Giving it is generally belived that Daniels was around 6ft2 to 6ft3 range Clint would be in the 6ft1.5 range at that stage of life.
Click Here an example of Clints height in 2002 around the same time as the pics with Robbins.You can see givin Jeff Daniels posture if he strightend himself up he would edge Clint,but with his posture Clint has the edge looking the taller of the two.Giving it is generally belived that Daniels was around 6ft2 to 6ft3 range Clint would be in the 6ft1.5 range at that stage of life.
Hong said on 28/May/20
Click Here and Hackman in 93 aged 63,pics like this confuse me because by age 63 Clint was looking 6ft2.5 but still looked about 2 inches taller than Hackman who was listed as 6ft2? unless Hackman was around 6f.5 by 63 and lost 1.5 inces by aged 63.
Click Here and Hackman in 93 aged 63,pics like this confuse me because by age 63 Clint was looking 6ft2.5 but still looked about 2 inches taller than Hackman who was listed as 6ft2? unless Hackman was around 6f.5 by 63 and lost 1.5 inces by aged 63.
Hong said on 28/May/20
@movieguy12.When Mystic River was made Clint was in his early 70s and had already lost a fair bit of height,true he looked know more than 6ft1 with Robbins.Clint was never 6ft4 he was IMO 6ft3,even at peak Robbins would have been 2 inches taller.Heston was around 6ft2.5 Clint was slightly taller,Coburn was around 6ft1 Clint was about 2 inches taller ,and Bridges was around 6ft1 peak too Clint looked around 2 inchs taller.
@movieguy12.When Mystic River was made Clint was in his early 70s and had already lost a fair bit of height,true he looked know more than 6ft1 with Robbins.Clint was never 6ft4 he was IMO 6ft3,even at peak Robbins would have been 2 inches taller.Heston was around 6ft2.5 Clint was slightly taller,Coburn was around 6ft1 Clint was about 2 inches taller ,and Bridges was around 6ft1 peak too Clint looked around 2 inchs taller.
Hong said on 28/May/20
If the youtube link doesn't come through,the rawhide episode was called Hostage Child,if you just serch James Coburn Rawhide it will come up,the scene in which Clint and Coburn are together is there.
If the youtube link doesn't come through,the rawhide episode was called Hostage Child,if you just serch James Coburn Rawhide it will come up,the scene in which Clint and Coburn are together is there.
Hong said on 28/May/20
Click Here try again Coburn and Clint in 1993.
Editor Rob
Click Here try again Coburn and Clint in 1993.
Editor RobWith url's make sure there is a space after the end of the url. If there's a full-stop or no space it won't convert properly.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 28/May/20
@ Hong - Indeed, that is a rare picture, and quite a wonderful one at that!
X😃X
Clint gets 6ft3.75 peak
and he can have 6ft1 for today.
@ Hong - Indeed, that is a rare picture, and quite a wonderful one at that!
X😃X
Clint gets 6ft3.75 peak
and he can have 6ft1 for today.
movieguy12 said on 28/May/20
Clint looked much shorter than Tim Robbins in photos from the time of Mystic River. No way did Clint look 6'4'' if Robbins was 6'5''. There are some who say Robbins is 6'7'' but he is usually given as 6'5''. Then again there is the fact that Clint looked legitimately tall as a younger man, taller than guys like Charlton Heston, Jeff Bridges and James Coburn all over 6ft.
Two separate posters on this site claim to have met a still relatively young 40s Clint and both guessed him as about 6'2''. One of them is under the Robert Ryan page, the other guy mentions encountering him on a skiing holiday saying he was the same height as his 6'2'' friend. The stories sound convincing but don't explain how Clint looked taller than 6'2'' guys when on screen. Unless the supposed 6'2'' guys were only 6ft.
Clint looked much shorter than Tim Robbins in photos from the time of Mystic River. No way did Clint look 6'4'' if Robbins was 6'5''. There are some who say Robbins is 6'7'' but he is usually given as 6'5''. Then again there is the fact that Clint looked legitimately tall as a younger man, taller than guys like Charlton Heston, Jeff Bridges and James Coburn all over 6ft.
Two separate posters on this site claim to have met a still relatively young 40s Clint and both guessed him as about 6'2''. One of them is under the Robert Ryan page, the other guy mentions encountering him on a skiing holiday saying he was the same height as his 6'2'' friend. The stories sound convincing but don't explain how Clint looked taller than 6'2'' guys when on screen. Unless the supposed 6'2'' guys were only 6ft.
Hong said on 26/May/20
Click Here 12 here's a clip of that episode of rawhide with Coburn,Clint looks a comfortable 6ft3 in comparison,I also agree his costar Eric Fleming and himself looked very similar in height,and Fleming is listed as 6ft3.@Tall In The Saddle,good points.I don't believe Clint is bothered much about his height loss,otherwise he would be wearing cowboy boots or lifts inside his shoes or both,and standing his tallest,take Burt Reynolds for example,he was wearing cowboy boots right till the end.
Click Here 12 here's a clip of that episode of rawhide with Coburn,Clint looks a comfortable 6ft3 in comparison,I also agree his costar Eric Fleming and himself looked very similar in height,and Fleming is listed as 6ft3.@Tall In The Saddle,good points.I don't believe Clint is bothered much about his height loss,otherwise he would be wearing cowboy boots or lifts inside his shoes or both,and standing his tallest,take Burt Reynolds for example,he was wearing cowboy boots right till the end.
Tall In The Saddle said on 25/May/20
At the end of the day 6’3” is no mean height and under the right circumstances, with slight variances in heels, angles and postures, a legit 6’3” can stand very well against a legit 6’4” and also get a “boost” from fellow 6’3” guys falsely claiming 6’4” themselves - of which there were many. So much so that true 6’4” guys could get away with claiming 6’5” or at least having that height thrust upon them. I wonder if Clint finds the height loss disconcerting or maybe by his age it’s something you don’t give two figs about.
At the end of the day 6’3” is no mean height and under the right circumstances, with slight variances in heels, angles and postures, a legit 6’3” can stand very well against a legit 6’4” and also get a “boost” from fellow 6’3” guys falsely claiming 6’4” themselves - of which there were many. So much so that true 6’4” guys could get away with claiming 6’5” or at least having that height thrust upon them. I wonder if Clint finds the height loss disconcerting or maybe by his age it’s something you don’t give two figs about.
movieguy12 said on 25/May/20
Someone posted a link years ago of an episode of Rawhide when Clint starred alongside James Coburn. Clint looked about 2 inches taller although his hair was very high. Coburn is usually given as 6'1'' to 6'2''. I think Eastwood looked similar in height to the series lead Eric Fleming. Clint was genuinely tall in his youth I guess and you can't go under 6'3'' prime I don't think.
Someone posted a link years ago of an episode of Rawhide when Clint starred alongside James Coburn. Clint looked about 2 inches taller although his hair was very high. Coburn is usually given as 6'1'' to 6'2''. I think Eastwood looked similar in height to the series lead Eric Fleming. Clint was genuinely tall in his youth I guess and you can't go under 6'3'' prime I don't think.
Hong said on 23/May/20
My own opinion is Clint was not as tall as Seagal,even at peak he would have been about an inch shorter.The 6ft4 thing with Clint was just an exaggeration of his height over the years which just stuck.I don't think he would have lost 2 inches by 65 years-old,maybe 1?,along with slouchy posture he could look 6ft1 by that age.
My own opinion is Clint was not as tall as Seagal,even at peak he would have been about an inch shorter.The 6ft4 thing with Clint was just an exaggeration of his height over the years which just stuck.I don't think he would have lost 2 inches by 65 years-old,maybe 1?,along with slouchy posture he could look 6ft1 by that age.
Hong said on 23/May/20
Click Here If you check this pic you can see Seagal is wearing a pretty substantial heel.
Click Here If you check this pic you can see Seagal is wearing a pretty substantial heel.
Hong said on 20/May/20
@Canson I've sent them again,I don't know why it didn't work,but I've sent them again this time with more success.
@Canson I've sent them again,I don't know why it didn't work,but I've sent them again this time with more success.
Hong said on 20/May/20
Click Here these pics with Seagal,in one Clint looks 6ft1 in comparison,and in another he looks 6ft2,allowing for Seagals footwear advantage and Clint's bad posture I would guess Clint as 6ft2 by the age of 65.
Click Here these pics with Seagal,in one Clint looks 6ft1 in comparison,and in another he looks 6ft2,allowing for Seagals footwear advantage and Clint's bad posture I would guess Clint as 6ft2 by the age of 65.
Canson said on 20/May/20
@Hong: nothing came through
@Hong: nothing came through
Hong said on 19/May/20
In the 50s to 80s I think Clint was 191cm,in the 90s looked more 189cm.But in the 2000s he lost significant height,looks like he dropped from 188cm right down to 185 from 2000 to 2010,now he is probably,standing his tallest 183cm, but with his old man posture can look 180cm.
In the 50s to 80s I think Clint was 191cm,in the 90s looked more 189cm.But in the 2000s he lost significant height,looks like he dropped from 188cm right down to 185 from 2000 to 2010,now he is probably,standing his tallest 183cm, but with his old man posture can look 180cm.
Lamont Cranston said on 19/May/20
I like Clint, and believe he was over 6'2" during his prime (cowboy boots, hats., hair etc., make much of it difficult to say exactly how much over 6'2" he was...
But looking at some of his current pictures, he has to be one of the worst examples of geriatric height loss I have seen in the public eye....he is likely well under 6' in bare feet..
I like Clint, and believe he was over 6'2" during his prime (cowboy boots, hats., hair etc., make much of it difficult to say exactly how much over 6'2" he was...
But looking at some of his current pictures, he has to be one of the worst examples of geriatric height loss I have seen in the public eye....he is likely well under 6' in bare feet..
Chinybobs said on 18/May/20
Absolutely all of 6-3 peak. Some people do lose more than others. Now 6-0.
Absolutely all of 6-3 peak. Some people do lose more than others. Now 6-0.
Hong said on 18/May/20
@Tall Sam.Whitaker is a sloucher and maybe dropped a bit of height.My own personal belief is Clint was a solid 6ft3 guy.Here's another pic from the same period where the height difference is a bit less Click Here
@Tall Sam.Whitaker is a sloucher and maybe dropped a bit of height.My own personal belief is Clint was a solid 6ft3 guy.Here's another pic from the same period where the height difference is a bit less Click Here
Hong said on 18/May/20
Click Here the pic where you can see Seagal's boots,also Clint is dropping a lot of height in this pic.
Click Here the pic where you can see Seagal's boots,also Clint is dropping a lot of height in this pic.
Hong said on 18/May/20
Click Here this pic with 6ft4 Steven Seagal Clint looks around 6ft2 in comparison,Clint was 65years old.You can see Clint posture is not as good as Seagal's,Clint is slouching as usual.But if you take in to account Seagal is wearing cowboy boots,and Clint just regular shoes,along whit Clints posture,there could only be an inch in the difference.
Click Here this pic with 6ft4 Steven Seagal Clint looks around 6ft2 in comparison,Clint was 65years old.You can see Clint posture is not as good as Seagal's,Clint is slouching as usual.But if you take in to account Seagal is wearing cowboy boots,and Clint just regular shoes,along whit Clints posture,there could only be an inch in the difference.
Hong said on 18/May/20
If you search Clint Eastwood from that link the article will come up.
If you search Clint Eastwood from that link the article will come up.
HeightRealist said on 17/May/20
Ahh the most interesting height for me. A tall man in his prime. I would think of him a 6'3 flat. 189cm-190cm.Lost a lot of height due to some sort of
scoliosis and aging.
He always looked taller because he has a thin narrow frame and the high hair.
189-190cm in the 60's
188-cm in the 70's
186-187cm in the 80's
185-186cm in the 90's
184-185 in 2000-2010
181-182cm 2010-2020
nowadays 180cm
Ahh the most interesting height for me. A tall man in his prime. I would think of him a 6'3 flat. 189cm-190cm.Lost a lot of height due to some sort of
scoliosis and aging.
He always looked taller because he has a thin narrow frame and the high hair.
189-190cm in the 60's
188-cm in the 70's
186-187cm in the 80's
185-186cm in the 90's
184-185 in 2000-2010
181-182cm 2010-2020
nowadays 180cm
Tall Sam said on 16/May/20
Interesting shot with Whitaker, Eastwood looks easily as listed but Forest is probably standing a touch looser.
Interesting shot with Whitaker, Eastwood looks easily as listed but Forest is probably standing a touch looser.
berta said on 9/May/20
191-192 is what he looks. i feel 191 could be better because he did look 189 range when he was 60 years and i dont think he have lost over 1 inch already at that age.
191-192 is what he looks. i feel 191 could be better because he did look 189 range when he was 60 years and i dont think he have lost over 1 inch already at that age.
Hong said on 6/May/20
Here's Clint and Sutherland looking pretty similar in height in 1996,Clint aged 66 Click Here Sutherland 61.But by 2000 Sutherland did look about an inch taller than Clint.I also belive a peak Clint and Freeman would have been very close in height,maybe Clint a fraction taller,Clint 190.5 and Freeman 189.
Here's Clint and Sutherland looking pretty similar in height in 1996,Clint aged 66 Click Here Sutherland 61.But by 2000 Sutherland did look about an inch taller than Clint.I also belive a peak Clint and Freeman would have been very close in height,maybe Clint a fraction taller,Clint 190.5 and Freeman 189.
Rory said on 4/May/20
Yeah Eastwood looked 6ft2 in the late 90s and early 2000s. Would have been interesting I think to see Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman in a film in the 1960s. In the early 90s Clint edged Freeman but from the 2000s onwards Freeman was taller. Peak I'd say Freeman 189cm and Clint 191.5cm. Today he could measure anywhere from 181 up to 184 I think it's impossible to say. 182/3 is most likely.
Yeah Eastwood looked 6ft2 in the late 90s and early 2000s. Would have been interesting I think to see Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman in a film in the 1960s. In the early 90s Clint edged Freeman but from the 2000s onwards Freeman was taller. Peak I'd say Freeman 189cm and Clint 191.5cm. Today he could measure anywhere from 181 up to 184 I think it's impossible to say. 182/3 is most likely.
movieguy12 said on 4/May/20
Clint looked roughly the same height as Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. By the time of Space Cowboys Sutherland looked 2 inches taller in some scenes.
Clint looked roughly the same height as Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. By the time of Space Cowboys Sutherland looked 2 inches taller in some scenes.
Hong said on 4/May/20
In this pic with Freeman Clint has the edge on Freeman,he's looking taller,but Freeman's posture is not great,and Clint, for a change has better posture.Of all the pics from that period,FreemanClick Here looks to have the edge om Clint,except this one.
In this pic with Freeman Clint has the edge on Freeman,he's looking taller,but Freeman's posture is not great,and Clint, for a change has better posture.Of all the pics from that period,FreemanClick Here looks to have the edge om Clint,except this one.
Hong said on 3/May/20
In all the pics with Bradley Cooper,Cooper has the edge on Clint,but there is Click Here pic that makes me curios,it frustrating because you can only see them from the waist up,also the ground level cant be seen,but in the pic Clint is standing very stright and appears to ne taller than Cooper.
In all the pics with Bradley Cooper,Cooper has the edge on Clint,but there is Click Here pic that makes me curios,it frustrating because you can only see them from the waist up,also the ground level cant be seen,but in the pic Clint is standing very stright and appears to ne taller than Cooper.
Hong said on 3/May/20
I've come to the conclusion that Clint's posture has a greater effect on how he appears in pics than most,he seems to be able to drop a couple of inches in height without much effort,looking anything from 5ft10 to 6ft nowadays.In the pic with Dern he actually looks over 6ft?
I've come to the conclusion that Clint's posture has a greater effect on how he appears in pics than most,he seems to be able to drop a couple of inches in height without much effort,looking anything from 5ft10 to 6ft nowadays.In the pic with Dern he actually looks over 6ft?
James B 172cm said on 3/May/20
in that photo clint makes james cromwell look 6'4.5 range if we are to believe clint was no more than 6'2 in 2000.
rob do you agree with me that clint eastwood was probably standing on a box or something next to james?
Editor Rob
in that photo clint makes james cromwell look 6'4.5 range if we are to believe clint was no more than 6'2 in 2000.
rob do you agree with me that clint eastwood was probably standing on a box or something next to james?
Editor RobI would be surprised if Clint stood on anything, in that film he could seem a couple of inches taller than someone like Tommy Lee Jones.
Hong said on 3/May/20
Click Here about this one Rory.Thanks Rob,I think Clint looked in the 6ft2 range aged 70,that would make Cromwell more 6ft5 aged 60,maybe 6ft5.5 at that stage.
Click Here about this one Rory.Thanks Rob,I think Clint looked in the 6ft2 range aged 70,that would make Cromwell more 6ft5 aged 60,maybe 6ft5.5 at that stage.
Hong said on 2/May/20
This is Clint with Bruce Dern,Clint is standing his full height here and looks taller than he normally does at this stage of his life,I still believe when standing to his Click Here potential,Clint could still clear 6ft,although just marginally
This is Clint with Bruce Dern,Clint is standing his full height here and looks taller than he normally does at this stage of his life,I still believe when standing to his Click Here potential,Clint could still clear 6ft,although just marginally
Hong said on 2/May/20
How much taller than Clint do you think Cromwell looks in this pic Rob?Click Here
Editor Rob
How much taller than Clint do you think Cromwell looks in this pic Rob?Click Here
Editor RobAt most 3 inches there
Rory said on 2/May/20
He doesn't actually look any shorter than Jane Lynch if you compare the tops of their heads, his bigger head and lower eye level is what's giving that impression. So he could still look around 6 foot there I'd say.
He doesn't actually look any shorter than Jane Lynch if you compare the tops of their heads, his bigger head and lower eye level is what's giving that impression. So he could still look around 6 foot there I'd say.
Hong said on 30/Apr/20
As I commented Tall In The Saddle,Clint looks tiny.
As I commented Tall In The Saddle,Clint looks tiny.
Hong said on 30/Apr/20
Here's Clint in 2012, aged 82 with 6ftJane Lynch,can't see her footwear, but Clint looks an inch shorter.Click Here
Here's Clint in 2012, aged 82 with 6ftJane Lynch,can't see her footwear, but Clint looks an inch shorter.Click Here
Tall In The Saddle said on 29/Apr/20
@Hong - are you sure Clint's in the photo you linked? Ah, all good, I just found him.:)
Seriously though, he has shrunk A LOT. There are some variables to be accounted for of course, like proximity to camera, slope of the green etc which isn't only skewing the perception of Clint's height but others in the photo also. Faldo is what, about 6'3"? Romano and Murray maybe 6'1.5" a piece? Then there's Duhamel about 6'3.5", their peak heights of course. Here's another pic same event - Click Here
When you move through all the avail. pics of the same event for a more rounded view, there's no way out. Clint really looking below 5'11", even possibly as low as 5'10". Clearly shorter than Murray. I just viewed Murray's walk on on Johnny Carson ('89) vs Clint's ('92). As compared to the host and his sidekick McMahon, by comparison, Clint looked about 1" to 1.5" taller than Murray did. I think Clint is a legit example of extreme height loss. Even if one had Eastwood as low as 6'2.5" peak (I still give him about 6'3") that's a loss of 3.5" to 4.5" in height (in part composed of declining posture also).
@Hong - are you sure Clint's in the photo you linked? Ah, all good, I just found him.:)
Seriously though, he has shrunk A LOT. There are some variables to be accounted for of course, like proximity to camera, slope of the green etc which isn't only skewing the perception of Clint's height but others in the photo also. Faldo is what, about 6'3"? Romano and Murray maybe 6'1.5" a piece? Then there's Duhamel about 6'3.5", their peak heights of course. Here's another pic same event - Click Here
When you move through all the avail. pics of the same event for a more rounded view, there's no way out. Clint really looking below 5'11", even possibly as low as 5'10". Clearly shorter than Murray. I just viewed Murray's walk on on Johnny Carson ('89) vs Clint's ('92). As compared to the host and his sidekick McMahon, by comparison, Clint looked about 1" to 1.5" taller than Murray did. I think Clint is a legit example of extreme height loss. Even if one had Eastwood as low as 6'2.5" peak (I still give him about 6'3") that's a loss of 3.5" to 4.5" in height (in part composed of declining posture also).
Hong said on 27/Apr/20
@James B 172cm it is very hard to belive,Clint looks tiny in this pic.Click Here
@James B 172cm it is very hard to belive,Clint looks tiny in this pic.Click Here
Nearly 180cm guy said on 25/Apr/20
Rob, are you convinced that Clint was taller than Max Von Sydow in their prime (60's and 70's)?
Editor Rob
Rob, are you convinced that Clint was taller than Max Von Sydow in their prime (60's and 70's)?
Editor RobI would give Clint the edge, but then, it may not have been much.
movieguy12 said on 24/Apr/20
Clint might not have been a full 6'4'' and Roger Moore wasn't a full 6'2''. I don't think it just celebrities who exaggerate their height though either. In my experience most guys think they are an inch or so taller than they actually are. I've been measured at the doctors office as about 5'11', I've met guys roughly the same height as me who claim 6 ft or maybe even 6'1''. I think they actually believe they are this tall never having been measured properly. A genuine 6ft person is still pretty tall by UK standards, maybe not the case in some continental European countries.
Rob has of course shown videos where he uses a stadiometer. My guess is that if he ever uses it to measure any of his friends then the majority find out they are slightly shorter than they believed.
Clint might not have been a full 6'4'' and Roger Moore wasn't a full 6'2''. I don't think it just celebrities who exaggerate their height though either. In my experience most guys think they are an inch or so taller than they actually are. I've been measured at the doctors office as about 5'11', I've met guys roughly the same height as me who claim 6 ft or maybe even 6'1''. I think they actually believe they are this tall never having been measured properly. A genuine 6ft person is still pretty tall by UK standards, maybe not the case in some continental European countries.
Rob has of course shown videos where he uses a stadiometer. My guess is that if he ever uses it to measure any of his friends then the majority find out they are slightly shorter than they believed.
James B 172cm said on 23/Apr/20
Look at him here near josh duhamel
Click Here
Hard to believe they were once the same height
Look at him here near josh duhamel
Click Here
Hard to believe they were once the same height
Arch Stanton said on 23/Apr/20
6 ft barefoot is a stretch today surely, no more than 5'11 range if stood his best..
6 ft barefoot is a stretch today surely, no more than 5'11 range if stood his best..
Hong said on 23/Apr/20
Point taken Rory.
Point taken Rory.
Hong said on 21/Apr/20
That's Clint's first wife"Maggie Johnson beside Moore,in this pic she is tiny Click Here to Clint😂
That's Clint's first wife"Maggie Johnson beside Moore,in this pic she is tiny Click Here to Clint😂
Rory said on 21/Apr/20
@Hong,
Respectfully one black and white photo of an ageing Roger Moore, at a disadvantaged camera angle, next to Arnie looking under 6ft1 doesn't cancel out hours and hours and hours of television and film footage from the 1960s and 70s where he looked at least 6ft1.
@James B 172cm,
In reality though Clint wouldn't have been 3 inches taller than Roger. Clint was around 6ft3.5 peak and Roger was 6ft1.25 or 6ft1 flat worst case scenario. So the difference would have been anywhere between 2 inches minimum to 2.5 inches at most.
@Hong,
Respectfully one black and white photo of an ageing Roger Moore, at a disadvantaged camera angle, next to Arnie looking under 6ft1 doesn't cancel out hours and hours and hours of television and film footage from the 1960s and 70s where he looked at least 6ft1.
@James B 172cm,
In reality though Clint wouldn't have been 3 inches taller than Roger. Clint was around 6ft3.5 peak and Roger was 6ft1.25 or 6ft1 flat worst case scenario. So the difference would have been anywhere between 2 inches minimum to 2.5 inches at most.
James B 172cm said on 20/Apr/20
3 inches between Clint and Roger Moore
3 inches between Clint and Roger Moore
movieguy12 said on 19/Apr/20
In that photo of Clint and Roger you'd guess Clint as 6'4'' and Roger as 5'10'' maybe. This is nonsense of course. There probably was only a couple of inches between them in reality. As one commentator has posted Roger's head looks strangely shrunken in the photo although he never otherwise looked like someone with a small head. This shows how misleading a single photograph taken in isolation can be.
OK Roger never looked quite as tall as Sean Connery when they were together so the claim he sometimes made of being 6'2'' was probably an exaggeration. He looked about 6'1'' or so in comparison.
Many years ago on this site there was a somewhat controversial poster called Frank2 who claimed sometimes convincingly to have encountered many Hollywood celebrities. I noticed a few days ago that he once commented on how tall Christopher Walken was in person. He guessed him as 6'1''. The fact that a middle aged Roger was similar in height to Walken does not mean that Roger at least in his youth was only 6ft flat.
In that photo of Clint and Roger you'd guess Clint as 6'4'' and Roger as 5'10'' maybe. This is nonsense of course. There probably was only a couple of inches between them in reality. As one commentator has posted Roger's head looks strangely shrunken in the photo although he never otherwise looked like someone with a small head. This shows how misleading a single photograph taken in isolation can be.
OK Roger never looked quite as tall as Sean Connery when they were together so the claim he sometimes made of being 6'2'' was probably an exaggeration. He looked about 6'1'' or so in comparison.
Many years ago on this site there was a somewhat controversial poster called Frank2 who claimed sometimes convincingly to have encountered many Hollywood celebrities. I noticed a few days ago that he once commented on how tall Christopher Walken was in person. He guessed him as 6'1''. The fact that a middle aged Roger was similar in height to Walken does not mean that Roger at least in his youth was only 6ft flat.
Rory said on 15/Apr/20
@Hong
That's nonsense, Moore was 6ft1 at worst. I've watched most episodes of The Saint and The Persuaders, not once did he look as low as six foot. Not once. Less than an inch shorter than 6ft2 men Julian Glover and Peter Bowles barely more than two inches shorter than 6ft3.5 Donald Sutherland and a good inch or more taller than six footers Terry Thomas, Joss Ackland and Peter Vaughan and the list goes on and on. This clear misreading of Rogers height puts into question anything you claim to know on Eastwoods height as well I'm afraid. The picture though is irrelevant as clearly Moore isn't standing properly anyway.
@Hong
That's nonsense, Moore was 6ft1 at worst. I've watched most episodes of The Saint and The Persuaders, not once did he look as low as six foot. Not once. Less than an inch shorter than 6ft2 men Julian Glover and Peter Bowles barely more than two inches shorter than 6ft3.5 Donald Sutherland and a good inch or more taller than six footers Terry Thomas, Joss Ackland and Peter Vaughan and the list goes on and on. This clear misreading of Rogers height puts into question anything you claim to know on Eastwoods height as well I'm afraid. The picture though is irrelevant as clearly Moore isn't standing properly anyway.
Hong said on 14/Apr/20
@movieguy12.you are right of course the pic dose favour Clint,but I don't believe Moore wss 6ft1,I would guess him at 6ft.5 or a solid 6ft,he looked very similar to Christopher Walken who is listed as 6ft flat.@M man your video of 89 year old Clint clearly demonstrates Clints current posture,I would guess he could drop a least 2 inches off his height with that posture,thats why he can look as low as 5ft10 in some recent pics.
@movieguy12.you are right of course the pic dose favour Clint,but I don't believe Moore wss 6ft1,I would guess him at 6ft.5 or a solid 6ft,he looked very similar to Christopher Walken who is listed as 6ft flat.@M man your video of 89 year old Clint clearly demonstrates Clints current posture,I would guess he could drop a least 2 inches off his height with that posture,thats why he can look as low as 5ft10 in some recent pics.
Tall In The Saddle said on 14/Apr/20
@Hong
Sure. The pic I linked wasn't meant to prove how tall Ali actually stood next to Walker. Rather, it was meant to show how the uneven terrain could advantage either man. Although not full length, the pic I linked likely has Ali himself standing on higher ground. Here's another pic again, this time full length, Walker closer to camera. IMO, the height diff. isn't as pronounced as in the photo you first linked. Also, not sure how much more heel if any Walker gains from military boot vs Ali's dress shoes. Lastly, I still see Walker standing on higher ground, his own left foot appearing on higher ground than his right foot though his stance is somewhat wider than Ali's. Click Here
I agree with movieguy12 re Eastwood and Moore. The depth of field is deceiving because everyone is in equally good focus. IMO, Moore and the lady are standing well back - Moore's head appears impossibly small as compared to Eastwood's and we can't vouch if everyone is on even ground. Definitely some hidden variables in the photo of Arnie and Moore - other pics they're equal or Moore a bit taller - and besides, IMO, Arnie wore some good heel back in the day.
M man - totally agree. Aside from irreversible spinal compression, Eastwood is losing a lot of height in overall posture - hunched, twisted above the waist, and below the waist, knees bent and standing bow legged.
@Hong
Sure. The pic I linked wasn't meant to prove how tall Ali actually stood next to Walker. Rather, it was meant to show how the uneven terrain could advantage either man. Although not full length, the pic I linked likely has Ali himself standing on higher ground. Here's another pic again, this time full length, Walker closer to camera. IMO, the height diff. isn't as pronounced as in the photo you first linked. Also, not sure how much more heel if any Walker gains from military boot vs Ali's dress shoes. Lastly, I still see Walker standing on higher ground, his own left foot appearing on higher ground than his right foot though his stance is somewhat wider than Ali's. Click Here
I agree with movieguy12 re Eastwood and Moore. The depth of field is deceiving because everyone is in equally good focus. IMO, Moore and the lady are standing well back - Moore's head appears impossibly small as compared to Eastwood's and we can't vouch if everyone is on even ground. Definitely some hidden variables in the photo of Arnie and Moore - other pics they're equal or Moore a bit taller - and besides, IMO, Arnie wore some good heel back in the day.
M man - totally agree. Aside from irreversible spinal compression, Eastwood is losing a lot of height in overall posture - hunched, twisted above the waist, and below the waist, knees bent and standing bow legged.
Hong said on 13/Apr/20
@Tall In The Saddle, in the pic
Sent Walker does have a slight terrain advantage,which IMO he doesn't make much of a difference,but the pic you sent is on the same type of ground, but you can't see their feet so you can't tell if in this case Ali my have ground level advantage,although I take your point about Hudson and Walker.At his lowest I would put Walker as a strong 6ft5 guy but most likely he was a weak 6ft6,and Hudson a solid 6ft4 at lowest, but most likely a weak 6ft5.
@Tall In The Saddle, in the pic
Sent Walker does have a slight terrain advantage,which IMO he doesn't make much of a difference,but the pic you sent is on the same type of ground, but you can't see their feet so you can't tell if in this case Ali my have ground level advantage,although I take your point about Hudson and Walker.At his lowest I would put Walker as a strong 6ft5 guy but most likely he was a weak 6ft6,and Hudson a solid 6ft4 at lowest, but most likely a weak 6ft5.
movieguy12 said on 13/Apr/20
I think photos particularly taking in isolation can be misleading with regards to heights. Clint looks much taller than Roger in that photo but I think its misleading. In reality although Eastwood was the taller of the pair it was probably by no more than 2 inches. There are photographs of Sir Roger and Big Arnie on that page I think Hong. In one of them Arnold looks about 3 inches taller than Roger which seems strange. There are others where they look virtually identical which is probably more accurate as both were I guess around 6'1'' or so peak.
I think photos particularly taking in isolation can be misleading with regards to heights. Clint looks much taller than Roger in that photo but I think its misleading. In reality although Eastwood was the taller of the pair it was probably by no more than 2 inches. There are photographs of Sir Roger and Big Arnie on that page I think Hong. In one of them Arnold looks about 3 inches taller than Roger which seems strange. There are others where they look virtually identical which is probably more accurate as both were I guess around 6'1'' or so peak.
M man said on 12/Apr/20
If anyone wants evidence of how bad Clint’s posture is which can easily explain 4-5 inches of height loss, look at this clip...really hunched over, spine also bent to the side Click Here
If anyone wants evidence of how bad Clint’s posture is which can easily explain 4-5 inches of height loss, look at this clip...really hunched over, spine also bent to the side Click Here
Tall In The Saddle said on 12/Apr/20
@Hong
Yes, I agree Hudson and Simpson appear near enough to the same height and Simpson looking like he's dropping about 2" to Clint Walker. In SEND ME NO FLOWERS the heel on Walker's boots is quite decent allowing more than a slight advantage. There's a scene with Walker getting out of car and the heel can be clearly seen. Also, there's a scene in which Walker is standing on higher ground but Hudson then moves in closer and gains some height difference back. I have seen the pics of Ali visit to the DIRTY DOZEN set. In the pic you linked I see Walker standing on higher ground - the terrain uneven. To illustrate same here is Ali benefitting from same - appearing closer to Walker's height than he was in reality. Click Here
I've seen some pics that suggest Walker might've been closer to 6'5" but then I've seen others that support closer to 6'6" (see the DIRTY DOZEN cast photo for one example with Walker in apparently equal footwear). So I would say I've probably seen more pics that point to near 6'6" than not. Walker also appeared in a film with rock solid 6'4" Vincent Price in which he appeared to hold an easy 2" advantage - not sure on footwear though.
@Hong
Yes, I agree Hudson and Simpson appear near enough to the same height and Simpson looking like he's dropping about 2" to Clint Walker. In SEND ME NO FLOWERS the heel on Walker's boots is quite decent allowing more than a slight advantage. There's a scene with Walker getting out of car and the heel can be clearly seen. Also, there's a scene in which Walker is standing on higher ground but Hudson then moves in closer and gains some height difference back. I have seen the pics of Ali visit to the DIRTY DOZEN set. In the pic you linked I see Walker standing on higher ground - the terrain uneven. To illustrate same here is Ali benefitting from same - appearing closer to Walker's height than he was in reality. Click Here
I've seen some pics that suggest Walker might've been closer to 6'5" but then I've seen others that support closer to 6'6" (see the DIRTY DOZEN cast photo for one example with Walker in apparently equal footwear). So I would say I've probably seen more pics that point to near 6'6" than not. Walker also appeared in a film with rock solid 6'4" Vincent Price in which he appeared to hold an easy 2" advantage - not sure on footwear though.
Hong said on 11/Apr/20
Here's Clint with Roger Moore from the 60s,I know Clint is closer to the camera,but he still looks a good bit taller than Moore.Click Here
Here's Clint with Roger Moore from the 60s,I know Clint is closer to the camera,but he still looks a good bit taller than Moore.Click Here
Hong said on 10/Apr/20
I had a pic of ali and Walker but it seems to have disappeared,hopefully this one will not.Click Here
I had a pic of ali and Walker but it seems to have disappeared,hopefully this one will not.Click Here
Hong said on 7/Apr/20
@Tall In The Saddle,I cant see any real difference in height between Hudson and Simpson,both guys look similar,and indeed Walker looks the taller of the two with Simpson,so I think we can rule out 6ft6 for Simpson,also there is the movie "send me no flowers" with both Hudson and Walker sharing a scene together in which Walker is clearly taller tham Hudson,but there is Walkers cowboy boots which give him a slight advantage over Hudson.Here is a pic of Walker with Ali,who Clint Eastwood struggled to look taller than to demonstrate what a big guy Walker was,if Ali was 6ft2.5 I have no problem believing Click Here Walker was 6ft6.
@Tall In The Saddle,I cant see any real difference in height between Hudson and Simpson,both guys look similar,and indeed Walker looks the taller of the two with Simpson,so I think we can rule out 6ft6 for Simpson,also there is the movie "send me no flowers" with both Hudson and Walker sharing a scene together in which Walker is clearly taller tham Hudson,but there is Walkers cowboy boots which give him a slight advantage over Hudson.Here is a pic of Walker with Ali,who Clint Eastwood struggled to look taller than to demonstrate what a big guy Walker was,if Ali was 6ft2.5 I have no problem believing Click Here Walker was 6ft6.
Tall In The Saddle said on 7/Apr/20
@Hong
I would say 6'4.5" to 6'5" for Hudson. However, the following clips are interesting. Here's a clip from the movie GIANT-Hudson with 6'6" listed Mickey Simpson go to .55 mark.Click Here Further from camera Hudson appears a bit shorter than Simpson. However a long shot beginning at 1:08 seems to indicate Hudson to be as tall if not slightly taller than Simpson. Now, here's a clip of that same Simpson with 6'6" listed Clint Walker in CHEYENNE. Go to 6:36. Click Here. Walker appears to have a good 2" on Simpson. If you go to 36:51 Walker again appears to have up to 2" advantage over Simpson. Suffice to say it appears that Mickey Simpson wasn't 6'6" and relative to Walker, you might even guess him to be as low as 6'4" or not much more than that. Simpson might basically represents how Hudson would appear next to Walker. At least as per the above 2 clips, It's difficult to give Hudson any more than 6'4.5". However, there is the possibility that Walker, as the star of his own show, may've had a bit better heel than Simpson in order to maintain a clear height advantage. At the end of the day I would still put Clint at about 6'3" to 6'3.25".
The numbers don't always reconcile from one comparison to another. The clips above might suggest Hudson as low as 6'4"
@Hong
I would say 6'4.5" to 6'5" for Hudson. However, the following clips are interesting. Here's a clip from the movie GIANT-Hudson with 6'6" listed Mickey Simpson go to .55 mark.Click Here Further from camera Hudson appears a bit shorter than Simpson. However a long shot beginning at 1:08 seems to indicate Hudson to be as tall if not slightly taller than Simpson. Now, here's a clip of that same Simpson with 6'6" listed Clint Walker in CHEYENNE. Go to 6:36. Click Here. Walker appears to have a good 2" on Simpson. If you go to 36:51 Walker again appears to have up to 2" advantage over Simpson. Suffice to say it appears that Mickey Simpson wasn't 6'6" and relative to Walker, you might even guess him to be as low as 6'4" or not much more than that. Simpson might basically represents how Hudson would appear next to Walker. At least as per the above 2 clips, It's difficult to give Hudson any more than 6'4.5". However, there is the possibility that Walker, as the star of his own show, may've had a bit better heel than Simpson in order to maintain a clear height advantage. At the end of the day I would still put Clint at about 6'3" to 6'3.25".
The numbers don't always reconcile from one comparison to another. The clips above might suggest Hudson as low as 6'4"
Hong said on 6/Apr/20
Agreed Canson.
Agreed Canson.
Canson said on 5/Apr/20
Hong said on 3/Apr/20
The question is how tall was Hudson?Height ranging from 6ft3.5 to 6ft6,Rob's listing him at 6 ft5 personally I think 6ft6 is to tall he never really looked that tall to me,I would put him in the 6ft4.5 to 6ft4.75 Range.I think Clint may have indeed measured 6ft4 in his youth,but that would have been an out of bed measurement,but 6ft3.25 would have been his evening height.
I would say Hudson was 194-195 range in his prime. As for Clint, probably somewhere around 6’3”. 6’3.25 would be my guess
Hong said on 3/Apr/20
The question is how tall was Hudson?Height ranging from 6ft3.5 to 6ft6,Rob's listing him at 6 ft5 personally I think 6ft6 is to tall he never really looked that tall to me,I would put him in the 6ft4.5 to 6ft4.75 Range.I think Clint may have indeed measured 6ft4 in his youth,but that would have been an out of bed measurement,but 6ft3.25 would have been his evening height.
I would say Hudson was 194-195 range in his prime. As for Clint, probably somewhere around 6’3”. 6’3.25 would be my guess
James B 172cm said on 4/Apr/20
6ft3.25 as well has always been possible for clint
6ft3.25 as well has always been possible for clint
Hong said on 3/Apr/20
The question is how tall was Hudson?Height ranging from 6ft3.5 to 6ft6,Rob's listing him at 6 ft5 personally I think 6ft6 is to tall he never really looked that tall to me,I would put him in the 6ft4.5 to 6ft4.75 Range.I think Clint may have indeed measured 6ft4 in his youth,but that would have been an out of bed measurement,but 6ft3.25 would have been his evening height.
The question is how tall was Hudson?Height ranging from 6ft3.5 to 6ft6,Rob's listing him at 6 ft5 personally I think 6ft6 is to tall he never really looked that tall to me,I would put him in the 6ft4.5 to 6ft4.75 Range.I think Clint may have indeed measured 6ft4 in his youth,but that would have been an out of bed measurement,but 6ft3.25 would have been his evening height.
James B 172cm said on 1/Apr/20
rob what would you guess his weight in the 1960s?
Editor Rob
rob what would you guess his weight in the 1960s?
Editor RobUnder 200 for sure.
movieyguy12 said on 29/Mar/20
There is that famous clip of Hudson and a young Eastwood appearing together where Clint has a bit part. They look very close in height although not a good angle to judge. In reality Hudson was almost certainly taller than Eastwood. I don't think its by a huge amount though. The best guess for Rock is 6'5'' I suppose, some sources say he was 6'6'' others say 6'4''. With the Peter Bosari shots I don't think the difference is huge. If Rock was 6'5'' then Clint was 6'3'' plus.
There is that famous clip of Hudson and a young Eastwood appearing together where Clint has a bit part. They look very close in height although not a good angle to judge. In reality Hudson was almost certainly taller than Eastwood. I don't think its by a huge amount though. The best guess for Rock is 6'5'' I suppose, some sources say he was 6'6'' others say 6'4''. With the Peter Bosari shots I don't think the difference is huge. If Rock was 6'5'' then Clint was 6'3'' plus.
Tall In The Saddle said on 25/Mar/20
@Hong
Nice pics.
Bosari Images is a good resource. The two photos of Clint and Mel crystallize just how much height Eastwood has lost substantively and due to declining posture. The angle of the 2nd later photo
might be a bit deceiving and to Clint's disadvantage but the height loss is still very obvious. Mel might also be giving himself a bit of "extra" lift later in life.
You know, it's all subjective but I think Clint is standing pretty tall next to Hudson, a bit better than I would've thought. Personally I wouldn't say a 2" difference. Maybe 1" to 1.5" max. and I don't know that Hudson was only a flat 6'4" himself anyway.
Comparing different pics of Clint, young, mid age and old, can do your head in. There is such a variance in how tall he can appear.
Let's say, I have Clint about 6'3" to 6'3.25" as per averaged out "evidence". But then a previously unseen (by me) photo might present in which Clint appears a bit taller than my current estimate.
I would have TWO options. I could rigidly stick to my current estimate and try to completely explain away why he "appears" to be taller in the recently provided photo OR I could actually take on board the new photo as another piece of "evidence" to be factored and averaged into my overall estimate. I think the latter approach is more suitable, because that's exactly how I arrived at my current estimate - by factoring multiple images and accounting for variables.
The problem is, some people put a "cap" on their estimate after a certain amount of "sampling". As if they've seen enough and ANY contrary visual evidence thereafter isn't factored at all, it is simply "explained away".
If there seems to be a height contradiction from one photo to another, I don't think you necessarily have to legitimise the photo that fits your height preconception while completely dismissing the other photo that doesn't match your estimate. Sometimes it just is what it is. A contradiction in terms with insufficient information to argue for one or the other. You just factor both with appropriately weighting.
Given the apparent variance in Clint's height from one photo to another and Clint's height loss over the years, his peak height is one of the more difficult to estimate.
Re Eastwood vs Stewart. I agree, most other photos indicate Clint to be taller. Here's a pic of Ali vs Jimmy Stewart that I found. Click Here Not a great shot but still interesting. As it "appears", I would say Stewart might have the edge with his head properly raised but he is closer to camera also. There are also obviously unseen variables and the photo you provided of Clint and Stewart had Clint looking even shorter than Ali does as compared to Stewart so clearly half framed photos can be very deceiving. Full length are best but hard to come by.
@Hong
Nice pics.
Bosari Images is a good resource. The two photos of Clint and Mel crystallize just how much height Eastwood has lost substantively and due to declining posture. The angle of the 2nd later photo
might be a bit deceiving and to Clint's disadvantage but the height loss is still very obvious. Mel might also be giving himself a bit of "extra" lift later in life.
You know, it's all subjective but I think Clint is standing pretty tall next to Hudson, a bit better than I would've thought. Personally I wouldn't say a 2" difference. Maybe 1" to 1.5" max. and I don't know that Hudson was only a flat 6'4" himself anyway.
Comparing different pics of Clint, young, mid age and old, can do your head in. There is such a variance in how tall he can appear.
Let's say, I have Clint about 6'3" to 6'3.25" as per averaged out "evidence". But then a previously unseen (by me) photo might present in which Clint appears a bit taller than my current estimate.
I would have TWO options. I could rigidly stick to my current estimate and try to completely explain away why he "appears" to be taller in the recently provided photo OR I could actually take on board the new photo as another piece of "evidence" to be factored and averaged into my overall estimate. I think the latter approach is more suitable, because that's exactly how I arrived at my current estimate - by factoring multiple images and accounting for variables.
The problem is, some people put a "cap" on their estimate after a certain amount of "sampling". As if they've seen enough and ANY contrary visual evidence thereafter isn't factored at all, it is simply "explained away".
If there seems to be a height contradiction from one photo to another, I don't think you necessarily have to legitimise the photo that fits your height preconception while completely dismissing the other photo that doesn't match your estimate. Sometimes it just is what it is. A contradiction in terms with insufficient information to argue for one or the other. You just factor both with appropriately weighting.
Given the apparent variance in Clint's height from one photo to another and Clint's height loss over the years, his peak height is one of the more difficult to estimate.
Re Eastwood vs Stewart. I agree, most other photos indicate Clint to be taller. Here's a pic of Ali vs Jimmy Stewart that I found. Click Here Not a great shot but still interesting. As it "appears", I would say Stewart might have the edge with his head properly raised but he is closer to camera also. There are also obviously unseen variables and the photo you provided of Clint and Stewart had Clint looking even shorter than Ali does as compared to Stewart so clearly half framed photos can be very deceiving. Full length are best but hard to come by.
Hong said on 22/Mar/20
Thats James Stewart with Clint,in it Stewart seems to have the edge over Clint,but there are more pics from that event where it's the opposite,its probably to do with camra angles or something.
Thats James Stewart with Clint,in it Stewart seems to have the edge over Clint,but there are more pics from that event where it's the opposite,its probably to do with camra angles or something.
Hong said on 22/Mar/20
If you click previous page you can see more pics there are thumbnails that you can zoom in and see clearer more images.
If you click previous page you can see more pics there are thumbnails that you can zoom in and see clearer more images.
Lmituhjaemo said on 21/Mar/20
Rob: What's Eastwood's head size?
Editor Rob
Rob: What's Eastwood's head size?
Editor RobNearer 10 maybe than 9
Hong said on 21/Mar/20
If you click on show front at the bottom of the page you can see the front of all the pics.
If you click on show front at the bottom of the page you can see the front of all the pics.
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.