How tall is Clint Eastwood - Page 5

Hong said on 21/Mar/20
Click Here

Hong said on 21/Mar/20
If you click on the photos you will see the image,there are a couple of good ones with Rock Hudson,and. Mel Gibson,William Holden and a tall blonde.The Hudson one's show Hudson to be the bigger man by near 2 inches,and Clint towers Gibson,there is a very recent pic of Clint and Gibson demonstrating Clints height loss standing next to the same guy at different times

Atley said on 19/Mar/20
Probably still around 6'2 or above

Hong said on 19/Mar/20
Click Here trying to send a pic of Clint with Rock hudson

cmillz said on 16/Mar/20
Kieran S said on 14/Mar/20
I'm just shocked he lost so much height, it must be rare to lose over 3 inches right?

Wouldn’t say it’s super rare for someone who’s nearly 90.

James B 172c, said on 15/Mar/20
Kieran S said on 14/Mar/20
I'm just shocked he lost so much height, it must be rare to lose over 3 inches right?

Look at David prowse who lost 5 inches

Kieran S said on 14/Mar/20
I'm just shocked he lost so much height, it must be rare to lose over 3 inches right?

Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Mar/20
Beckham's "Eastwood" look definitely by deferential design. Probably took a mid 60s pic of Clint to his stylist for guidance. As far as comparing him to Clint otherwise, I would say there is no comparison.

They dubbed in all voices in the Spaghetti Westerns after filming to cover non English speaking actors. Of course English speaking actors like Clint got their own voices dubbed in but often woefully out of sync. I would say that if Becks were in those movies, at least as he spoke some years back, he would've been necessarily dubbed over with an entirely different voice. Suffice to day, in ref. to Clint's later work, could you imagine Becks, in a high pitched voice, delivering lines like "Go ahead, make my day" or "Are you feeling lucky punk?"?

To be fair, Becks delivery has improved a lot in more recent years, lower and better metered.

James B 172c, said on 7/Mar/20
Arch if only Clint Eastwoods son Scott had his height peak height of 6ft3.5 though........

Hong said on 7/Mar/20
It's 6ft3 for me,from movies and pics compering him to others he looked under 6ft4 and over 6ft2 so somewhere in the middle looks right,weather thats 6ft3.25 or 6 ft2.75 that's fine with me.

Arch Stanton said on 7/Mar/20
Yes, early 2010s Beckham did look like a Spaghetti Clint and looked very good. I don't think he looks anywhere near as good as he did today, he's changed particularly since those leaked emails, I don't think of him the same way as I did. Sean Connery LOL, you mean fighting the balding.

James B 172c, said on 6/Mar/20
Arch- Clint looked a lot more rugged in the 1960s during his David Beckham ‘look’ phase

I know we have been over this before but It’s amazing arch when you see photos of Beckham 10 years ago with the scowl and stubble how much he looked like Clint in his 1960s westerns. These days though Beckham seems to be turning into Sean Connery lol

Arch Stanton said on 4/Mar/20
Clint was always a mature looking guy though, he was my current age in The Good the Bad and the Ugly which is even hard to comprehend how that's possible!! But I think that when I look at Tyson Fury, he's 5 years younger than me but somehow looks 10 years older!

Canson said on 4/Mar/20
@Hong: the caption at the top of the page may speak to something in that he was listed both 6’3” and 6’4” at a different time, although 6’4 was his claim. At the same time the caption from 1988 would’ve made him 58 years so It’s very reasonable for someone to experience some degree of height loss at that age. That’s along with the fact that he may never have been a full 6’4” to begin with. He May have just been a strong 6’3 or weak 6’4 peak.

Arch Stanton said on 4/Mar/20
Pitt has had work done though, had something done a few years back and had that hamster look for a bit. He got super crinkly around the eyes and really started to age and had it ironed out and fillers or whatever they do. But with cosmetic treatment and his style he can certainly pass for a guy of about Rob's age from a distance. But whenever I see a guy who is 55-57 and looking an old man, I agree that it's unbelievable to think Pitt and Cruise are that age range. Eddie Murphy for me is one of the best examples. he's late 50s now and still looks like he did in the 90s.

James B 172cm said on 4/Mar/20
he made rock hudson look 6'4 range

RR said on 3/Mar/20
With 5ft 11 Burt Reynolds:

Click Here

With 6ft 1 Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Click Here

And today with 6ft 0 Bradley Cooper:

Click Here

In his youth, it's likely Clint Eastwood could've measured anywhere between 6ft 2.5 to 6ft 3.25.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Mar/20
Anything less than what’s listed here is too low for his peak

Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Mar/20
@Hong

I thought Clint held his age well up to a point sometime in his 40s after which he seemed to age more quickly. Maybe he had a Dorian Gray deal going for a time.
As to Cruise and Pitt, well for one thing, they're doing a lot better than Clint in the hair dept. Also, there's a lot more on the market to preserve a more youthful appearance, not the least being initial cosmetic surgery which can go by undetected except for keeping you looking young or even younger. Pitt was aging well but now it seems he has curiously turned back the clock a bit. However, time and misguided vanity will likely see them keep going back to the cosmetic well until it's really obvious and possibly grotesque.
A give away to cosmetic surgery is comparing celebs to themselves when they were the actual age they "appear" to be now. Say, Pitt at 55 might look like he's only 40 or so but actual pics of Pitt at 40 might indicate an equally looking youthful person but a somewhat different facial structural. The only actor I can think of who defies this test is Paul Rudd. He looks ridiculously young and exactly as he did years ago. Has to be a vampire.
Personally I would give Clint a flat 6'3" but if "most people" is reflected in the average estimate, then by way of majority, 6'3.5" is fine, particularly if you allow at least .25" error margin on our own 6'3" estimates, which would then allow up to a possible 6'3.25" for Clint. If that was in fact Clint's actual height, again, 6'3.5" is fine and acceptably close. Of course, ultimately Rob's call, and if by some crazy voting, Clint's avg. est. peak was only 6'1", then Rob isn't go to defer to that no matter how many think it to be so.
As to weighting estimates, see the Robert Wadlow thread entailing an irrefutable, medically verified locked in height of 8'11.09" and then see the avg. est. which is actually higher at 8'11.79". Go figure but to each his or her own.

Hijoputamos said on 2/Mar/20
@RR, Clint was taller than Ali and with not a great posture.
I don’t recall any movie watching Clint 2 inches shorter than other cast mates. Any links?

Hong said on 2/Mar/20
Maybe he measured 6ft4 out of bed and just went with that,but was actually 6ft3.25 by the evening.

RR said on 1/Mar/20
@Hijoputamos Clint could have been 6ft 3. Possibly, his thin stature made him look short. In some films, he was shorter compared to his other castmates. By one or two inches. Either they were 6ft 4 or 6ft 5. Or in truth, believe it or not, Clint's estimated actual height could have been around the high 6ft 2 mark.

Hong said on 1/Mar/20
Cruise and Pitt are now a similar age to Clint at the time of the Dead Pool,but somehow Clint seemed much older.Also Pacino will be 80 years-old this year and I would see him as more of a contemporary to Clint than of being of a different time,also DeNiro is not far off 80 himself.Besides that both Pacino and DeNiro are kind-of short anyway,so it's no great achievement being taller than them two,as for Cruise he is also under 5ft8 and Pitt can look anything from 5ft11 to 6ft1 depending on weather he is wearing his special shoes or not,also if people think Clint my have shrunk a bit by his late fifties,maybe Pitt and Cruise have too.

Hong said on 1/Mar/20
Rob I get the impression from most of the post's people are leaning towards a flat 6ft3 for Clint's peak,do you think there was a chance of that?

Hijoputamos said on 29/Feb/20
@RR Clint never towered anyone at his peak? He just towered 85% of the world population.
6ft3 for an actor is pretty tall. Even today he’s taller than most major stars like Pitt, Cruise, Pacino, Depp, DeNiro, etc

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/Feb/20
Eastwood I think was still 6ft3 in Deadpool...and Neeson a fraction over 6ft4

Jtm said on 27/Feb/20
looks easily 6'0 with 5'9.5 pitt.

Hong said on 25/Feb/20
Agreed James B 172cm.

James B 172cm said on 24/Feb/20
in the deadpool

clint eastwood 6ft2.75
liam neeson 6ft4 or 6ft4 1/8

FloRent said on 23/Feb/20
A little taller than Brad Pitt, today 6ft is believable.
Click Here

Hong said on 23/Feb/20
If you want to compare a peak height Clint next to genuine 6ft4 guy just watch the deadpool.I know Clint was 58 and people are going to think he was past his peak and therefore lost some height,but Clint looked very fit and was in great shape in that movie,in much better shape than 36 year-old Liam Neeson.My belief is Clint was still at his peak height in that movie,and if he had lost any height it would have been minuet.You can clearly see Neeson is the taller of the two,Clint looks by comparison 6ft2.5 in some scenes and 6ft3 in others,also we have to take into account Neeson's awful posture.

Hong said on 21/Feb/20
Yep Tall In The Saddle,he is dropping a lot of height these days.From 6ft2.5 or 6ft3 peak to 6ft now,with both measurements in perfect posture is about right.

Tall In The Saddle said on 20/Feb/20
Hong said on 3/Feb/20
@mark cleaver.ignore what Ali said and look at the video,make your own mind up.The other guy in the video is Harve Presnel he was a genuine 6ft4 and was clearly the tallest of the three.

@Hong, I agree with your accent on the available vision, which I personally believe is fundamentally sound, no slight against mark cleaver or disagreeing with his quoting of Ali and factoring of same. Of course people can interpret and weight such quotes as they wish and they can certainly be taken under consideration. Problem is, as I see it, the weight of the quote is ultimately measured directly against what you see for yourself so that value isn't in the quote. The quote might simply corroborate what you think you can see. Just as often, such quotes don't match the vision and they are dismissed and naturally not promoted.
Suffice to say, if either Clint or Harve said that they were the same height as the other, we would reject that because it was obvious that Harve was taller. Well, we say obvious anyway.
BTW, I recently saw a clip and photos with Jon Hamm and Clint promoting their recent movie. Without full vision you might guess that Clint has shrunk down to 5'10"to 5'10.5" but complete vision indicates an increasingly bowed neck, relatively wide stance, knees bent and bending forward from the waist.
I had a neighbour about the same age as Clint and he seemed to get around very well BUT he admitted that with increasing age, the aches and pains that naturally come with aging are ever present and very compromising. I would say same with Clint and that his posture today is all he can manage without incurring extreme discomfort and I don't think Clint is standing up too long at any given time anyway.
We should all live so long and retain our faculties.

arran said on 19/Feb/20
I think he was around the 6 foot 3 in area but now I reckon about 6ft.

Hong said on 15/Feb/20
@RR,6ft2.5 is possible,but I think he would still reach 6ft today if he stood his tallest,but he does look more 5ft10.5 range in his old man hunched posture.

RR said on 15/Feb/20
Peak Height: 6ft 2 1/2

Current Height: 5ft 10 1/2

Clint never towered over anybody even in his prime. Doubt he was ever 6ft 3.

Hong said on 8/Feb/20
He was also listed as 6ft3,this is a much more realistic height for Clint.But that's the max for me.

Hong said on 7/Feb/20
1m90cm peak,1m93cm in shoes.

Hong said on 5/Feb/20
Denzel Washington was around 6ft.05 at peak,if you look a pics on line from a movie called courage under fire,he is standing face to face with Michael Moriarty,and looks about 1.5 inches shorter,but if you check out pics from a movie called Ricochet,staring 6ft4 John Lithgow and Washington,Lithgow looks 4 inches taller than Washington.Moriarty was,judging by the comparison with Washington,around 6ft2,the thing is Clint and Moriarty were very similar in height in Pale Rider,but a genuine 6ft4 guy like Lithgow looked to have a good 2 inch advantage over Moriarty when compering both guys with Denzel.The whole 6ft4 peak height thing with Clint,now looks so fake and made up I can't belive I actually belived he was this height.He never even in his youth looked as tall as the likes of Lithgow.He was a 6ft2.75 guy who inflated his height to 6ft4 IMO.

Hong said on 3/Feb/20
@mark cleaver.ignore what Ali said and look at the video,make your own mind up.The other guy in the video is Harve Presnel he was a genuine 6ft4 and was clearly the tallest of the three.

mark cleaver said on 3/Feb/20
When Clint and Muhammad Ali meet Ali said to Clint at the time, you are taller than me. So Clint probably 6'31/2". Ali 6' 2 1/2"

Hong said on 2/Feb/20
@Tall In The Saddle,there are some black and white pics on line of that same event,although there not full body shots,in them Clint has the edge on Ruddy,but the ones from 2005 in which both guys are 75 years old Ruddy is clearly the taller man by a good 2 inches.There is no doubting Clint has shrunk,the doubt is by how much?I personally believe that Clint was no more than 6ft3 at his peak and wouldn't be surprised if he was a bit under it.Now he's looking 5 ft11 range in comparison to people,but his posture is bad and he never stands to his max height, because of old age.He probably could clear 6ft if he did stretch himself for meaasrement IMO he'd probably be 6ft.05 still,about 2 to 2.5 inches off peak.

movieguy12 said on 2/Feb/20
Clint had really tall hair as a youngish man in the clip from the 1973 Oscars. I'm not sure if the fellow Ruddy is taller. All we can say for certain with Clint is that he was between 6'2'' and 6'4'' prime. On this site and others there have been stories from people who claim to have met him saying something along the lines of 'he was really big, taller than their friend who was 6'4''. At least one other guy claiming to have met him posted on here saying he was no more than 6'2'' and this was back in the 1970's. It's not easy to guess heights from the movies as it is well recorded that most actors are a lot smaller in person than people expect them to be from watching on screen. I'm sure there are exceptions but it appears actors generally are not tall people. I think it is true though that some people do lose a lot of height with age so it can't be ruled out that Clint has dropped from the 6'3'' to 6'4'' range in his prime to 6ft or less today.

Nik Ashton said on 1/Feb/20
He is super tall for his age!

Tall In The Saddle said on 31/Jan/20
Clint only slightly edged Ali on the Frost show and on that comparison alone I would say 6'3" at best. The Buddy Ebsen and Fess Parker comparisons on the Danny Kaye show are problematic.

In the opening routines Clint has cowboy boot advantage over both Ebsen and Parker but he really still doesn't look taller than an older Ebsen who was 6'3" peak and appears no taller than 6'3" next to Parker. On those comparisons alone one might guess slightly under 6'3". Averaging all comparisons though I would say maybe 6'3" to 6'3.25".

The apparent height loss is a big contention. As tall (or relatively short) as Cint stands today is as much a case as anything else against how tall people think he stood at peak. However, we have seen for ourselves Clint lose major amount height over the last few decades let alone before that. I checked when this thread started, WOW, Clint's height has been chewed over since Mar 2005! How much height has Clint lost in the last 15 years?

No one can deny Clint's disproportionate arm length and ever shortening torso, indicative of a once much taller man.

Here's an interesting comparison. 1973 Oscars Clint presents the award to producer Albert S Ruddy. Ruddy is clearly a tall man and appears to edge Clint slightly. Click Here

Fast forward 32 years to 2005 with Clint at the Oscars back stage, award in hand for Million Dollar Baby. The same Albert S Ruddy was the producer for that film and he stands behind Clint. Both guys are pretty much the same age. Right at the end of the clip you will see the 3 men stand abreast and Ruddy has a clear height adv. over Clint. Click Here

I admit I had to look up Albert S Ruddy because initially I thought it might've been Frank Langella standing behind Clint, IMO at least there is a strong resemblance, anyway Langella often credited as 6'4" but listed as 6'3" on this site. I found only 1 source for Ruddy's height and he was listed as 188 cm but I'm not sure he wasn't taller as he appeared very tall.

Finally, Clint is basically 90 yo. Many celebrities recede from the public eye well before that, some incapacitated, unable to even stand. They simply vanish after a certain age. When was the last time we had a good look at his contemporaries like Sean Connery and Gene Hackman? Besides all else, Clint's maintained high profile even to this point is extraordinary.

I was sitting casually watching television the other night and lo and behold, another Eastwood movie Richard Jewell was advertised to hit the cinemas in Feb20. Clint might've made the HEREAFTER, but Clint is still well and truly entrenched the here and now.

191 cm Jason said on 29/Jan/20
He shrunk a crazy amount so I think he must have worn lifts in his younger days.

Hong said on 28/Jan/20
Looking at pics of Clint standing next to Kobe Bryant who is listed as 6ft4.75,it's difficult to imagine that there was only 1 inch between them when Clint was at his peak.

Spencer said on 25/Jan/20
6'3.5" peak 192 cm
6'0.25" today 183 cm

Canson said on 23/Jan/20
Under 6’ is hard to believe but 6’3 range peak is definitely realistic

Bob da cob. said on 22/Jan/20
Genuine 6-3 min peak. Probably 6.3.25. Now just under 6-0

Hong said on 12/Jan/20
He still looked 4 inches taller than 5ft10 listed Rob Low,in some pics on line from 2007,which is a bit odd because at that time he was looking 6ft1 next to Morgan Freeman,maybe Low was more 5ft9 that would make sense.

Caldonio said on 11/Jan/20
6-3,-6-3.25. Now under 6-0.

Rory said on 5/Jan/20
6ft2 peak is preposterous,6ft3 peak you're getting warmer and 6ft3.5 peak is the correct answer. Utterly absurd to think oh there's a picture of Clint looking quite short so now I erase from my mind every other picture/video/movie I've seen featuring Clint when he did look 6ft3+ and just focus on the limited, the narrow, the nebulous range of him looking less. I don't actually think these people believe it themselves. I think they know deep down he was at a bare minimum 6ft3 at least but try to downgrade him for spurious reasons.

Canson said on 5/Jan/20
I found old footage of him and he looked at best a strong 6’3” as opposed to 6’4” or even a weak 6’4”. I think the listed height Rob has for him is ok but think his afternoon would be more 6’3.25” at best. His 6’3” claim may even mean 6’3 flat afternoon

Hong said on 4/Jan/20
@Tall In The Saddle I've no doubt that at that stage Freeman would have had a similar height advantage over Hackman as Clint did.Clint was looking 6ft2 flat at that stage of his life,Hackman in comparison looked a weak 6ft1.

Hong said on 3/Jan/20
@wishbone,there was a time when I would have dismissed your 6ft2 opinion of Clint's height as way off the mark but now I can understand how you could see him at this height if you ignore all the Hollywood listings for his costars and fellow celebs,and use your own judgement of their heights it's possibly he was 6ft2 peak.It's the pics with 6ft4.75 listed Tim Robbins where Clint looks 4 inchs shorter,that make me think he could have been 6ft2 peak,because he was only in his early 70s at the time and a 6 ft3.5 guy with 3 inch height loss at that stage seems a bit farfetched,considering Clint was a healthy guy and had no major injuries or back problems that I no of.

Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Jan/20
@Hong, here's a photo of Clint and Gene from 1997 on the set of ABSOLUTE POWER Click Here. Can't say for sure that Clint's footwear is exactly equal but he still appears to be rocking the same height advantage over Gene that he held 4 years prior. There are photos of Hackman and Freeman together in 2000 re film UNDER SUSPICION. I haven't linked any because due to angles there is a lot of variance. I could post a few which show Hackman appearing equal to or only slightly shorter than Morgan but there are others photo that suggest Hackman is dropping just as much to Freeman as Hackman dropped to Clint but repeat, the angles are all over the place.

wishbone said on 2/Jan/20
Having grown up watching Rawhide and even having one Rawhide DVD in my collection I'm surprised books about Clint Eastwood don't have a Rawhide episode list. Although prior to Rawhide I saw 6'2" Eastwood in two Francis movies he has to rank as the greatest actor director EVER! His two Best Director Oscars from his two Best Picture Oscar winners prove that! (He even directed two Rawhide episodes.) And hesitant as what I was to buy any Dirty Harry movies when somebody squealed to me he said "Go ahead make my day" in Sudden Impact I snagged it! Now I think he's 6' but also he's the ONLY Rawhide survivor! Make your day with Clint Eastwood!

Hong said on 2/Jan/20
At the time of Enemy Of The State Hackman was 68,the pics with Clint are from 1993,Hackman was 63,if you compare the height difference between 6FT1.5 Smith and Hackman you can see that Clint has about 1 inch extra on Hackman than Smith did,making Clint about 6ft2.5 at aged 63 about half an inch from peak.Unless Hackman lost a bit more height from 1993 to 1998?

Hong said on 2/Jan/20
@Tall In The Saddle,Hackman looked around 185cm next to Will Smith,if Hackman was 6ft2 then yes Clint looked 6ft4 in comparison,but Clint was at most 6ft3 so Hackman was more 6ft1.

Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Jan/20
@Hong

I know what you mean re Hackman. Even as Clint was losing height he still seemed to always hold the same appreciable height advantage over Gene through the years. On the other hand, compared to almost everyone else, Gene always stacked up relatively better, looking close to 6'2" though I don't think Hackman was ever a full 6'2".

Hong said on 1/Jan/20
Allan S I agree 6ft4 was just an inflated height for Hollywood,he was more 6ft3 and that was a measured height,but with his usual posture more 6ft2.5

Allan S said on 1/Jan/20
I think Clint is just about 6’ or even shorter now. I saw a recent picture of him and David Letterman who is listed as 6’1” and Clint was looking up to David. Recent photos too of him and his son Scott, listed as 5’11” show him shorter than his son. I know he is 89, and hunched but I don’t think he ever was 6’4.”

Hong said on 31/Dec/19
Clint Eastwood in his youth looks like a typical 190cm guy,with his slim build and high hair he looked taller,and in footwear could look 193cm,but I think he was barefoot 190cm maybe 190.5?Now he is more 180cm with his old man posture,but standing his full height for measurement around 183cm or maybe 184cm,he's lost about between 6 and 7cm in height.

Hong said on 29/Dec/19
By the early 90s he was looking in the solid 6ft2 range,but in many pics on line he looks 1.5 maybe even the full 2 inches taller than Gene Hackman,yet similar to 6ft2.25 Morgan Freeman.I think this puts a very big question mark over Hackmans height,I've always taught he was more 6ft1.

Tall In The Saddle said on 20/Dec/19
@Ian C

LOL. I like your style

Yes, Dirty Harry High Pant's relative arm length is approximating to that of his former hirsute co-star Clyde.

Actually, Clint doesn't so much HITCHEM'EM HIGH(ER) these days as much as the illusory effect of his truncated torso implies and at the very least and fortunately for us, Clint THE MULE is mindful enough wear his pants when venturing outside.

Existential? Word of the month. Makes me think of quantum physics and the proposition of Schrodinger's Cat. What exactly is real and what isn't? The thought experiment suggests that UNTIL we actually observe Clint and collapse the wave function to allow for a specific measurement to be made, Clint's height (and Clint himself as a whole) exists as a superposition of all possibilities, tall, medium, short, fat, thin, Movie Star, Mr Nobody etc.

Yes, DISCOMBOBULATED is one of my favourite words that's actually FIT for posting with a good many others not so eligible. If you haven't noticed already, I flew under the radar with my moniker which spells something different again as an acronym.

Ian C. said on 20/Dec/19
If you were once tall and then your spine collapses with age, there are still parts of you, like your arms and legs, that remain the same height as they were in your youth. So now you're conditionally tall, as opposed to existentially tall. (I still don't know what existential means, but once again this seems like one of the accepted contexts for the word.) So Clint is now an average-sized man with disproportionately long arms and legs.

On the theme of conditional height, I am currently three foot nine. In a few minutes I'll be six foot four again. When I put on my shoes, I'll be six foot six. When I put on my pants, I'll be able to go outside without being arrested this time.

Incidentally, Tall, many of my favourite words cannot be posted on Celebrity Heights.

Tall In The Saddle said on 19/Dec/19
@Ian C

I see your point. I have argued same in relation to "height correction" for contorted giants at the extreme end of the spectrum. A giant might stand 8 feet high for argument's sake but then have his fully straightened height projected to 8'7" even though he does not and can never stand as tall as projected.

I guess we're just trying to distinguish substantive height loss from posture height loss. At his age I imagine it would take some effort and possibly be somewhat painful for Clint to stand at his best which it seems he can only do sporadically throughout photo shoots from the same event.

In some full length shots of Clint I've noticed his stance his splayed somewhat and knees bent - as if to imply "I need a chair, I am ready to sit down".

From out of left field and of no relevance: DISCOMBOBULATED is one of my favourite words. Confused? Exactly!

movieguy12 said on 19/Dec/19
I looked at the Camp Pendleton video and he looked taller than expected. Maybe some of the other videos or pictures that suggest Clint has dropped to 5'10'' or less are misleading.

Ian C. said on 18/Dec/19
Okay, Hong, I understand what you're saying and you're right. This would preclude my arguing with you if I were rational but I'm not, because rationality is often less fun than just making stuff up for the sake of starting an argument. Hey, this is the internet.

Anyway. Your height is your height, regardless of why it's your height. If Clint isn't going to stand straight that's up to him, but his height at any point in time is still the distance from the floor to the top of his head. (Minus the thickness of his shoes, which is the convention we uphold on this site.) It's existential. (No, I don't know what "existential" means. This is just one of those times when you say "existential." )

Hong said on 18/Dec/19
@ Tall In The Saddle,if Clint can look 5ft10 to 5ft11 range with his current posture I'm certain he is still in the 6ft range maybe even a tad more,around 2.5 to 3 inches shorter than his peak of 6ft3,at 89 that's not unusual.He does have a very pronounced hump on his back now, if you look at the videos from Camp Pendleton marine base on youtube you can get some very good examples of his current physical shape.

Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Dec/19
@Hong
I agree with you re how much height can be "lost" due to poor posture. We know Clint has lost actual height that cannot be regained even if he stood at his straightest but we also know Clint is standing less and less straight as he ages. I would guess also that Clint is losing at least 2" in height by way of poor posture.

Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Dec/19
@Christian
I checked again and in contradiction to prior beliefs the current view is the skull never stops growing.
It not only results in a progressively larger head overall but, as you stated, it causes the shape to change in so far as the forehead moves forward while the cheekbones moved backward. The changes in shape might create the illusion of a larger head but it seems that the head does actually get bigger in reality anyway. I knew the ears and nose grew bigger with age but not hands. I've read so many people who wish their hands were bigger but the answer apparently is your hands don't grow and cannot be made bigger. I'm not saying that's correct but that is as much as I've read.

Hong said on 17/Dec/19
@ Ian C.if you had Clints current posture,and measured yourself you would be around 2 inches shorter than if you measured yourself standing your tallest.I did this myself and went from 5ft10.5 right down to 5ft8,if Clint stood at his tallest he would still be 6ft.

James B 172c, said on 17/Dec/19
6’3.25-6’3,5 peak

Ian C. said on 16/Dec/19
Well. In my previous post, I adjusted for Olivia Wilde's high heels in the wrong direction. If she had a one inch heel advantage, and Eastwood appeared two inches taller, he is actually three inches taller, making his current height five foot ten. Sometimes I not too smart is.

Ian C. said on 15/Dec/19
There is a photograph of Clint Eastwood directing Olivia Wilde, and in it Eastwood appears to be about two inches taller than Wilde. Assuming that they are standing on level ground, and also assuming that Wilde (who is in character for the movie Richard Jewell) is wearing heels that give her a one inch advantage, Eastwood is an inch taller than Wilde. Wilde is listed on Celebrity Heights at five foot seven. So Clint Eastwood is now five foot eight, which is more than seven inches down from his peak height.

Christian 6'5 3/8" said on 12/Dec/19
@Tall In The Saddle
I'm not sure if the skull keeps growing as we age, once we reach adulthood, but I know that the skull slightly changes in shape. I also know that the cartilages in our ears and hands grow, that's why you see that a lot of elderly people have disproportionately big ears and hands.

Tall In The Saddle said on 10/Dec/19
@Hong Apparently the skull does keep growing as we age. Combine that with height loss and loss of bone density as we age, while the head is literally getting bigger, it will look that much bigger again relative to the shrinking body.

Why is it that as we age, what we would like to grow bigger actually shrinks and what we would like to shrink defiantly grows bigger? Some cruel joke or not so intelligent design? LOL!

Agreed, amazing that Clint still has the drive, energy and intellect to still be making quality movies.

I would say one of my favourite Clint movies is UNFORGIVEN, but then once I start thinking about his other movies such as PERFECT WORLD and GRAND TORINO etc. I find it difficult to choose between his truly elite movie offerings.

Hong said on 10/Dec/19
On youtube there is a video of Clint visiting Camp Pendleton marines base,in it you can see how bad his posture is now,also he is very thin and frail looking.There is no point comparing him to people at this stage,the guy cant stand stright and has a hump on his back.

Ian C. said on 7/Dec/19
Clint's aging provides a few interesting lessons, of which I suppose the most dramatic is that physical decline does not necessarily produce a corresponding decline in mental capacity. It has to take a lot of brains to direct a movie, or at any rate movies as good as Eastwood is still capable of making.

Also, sixty years old is really quite young, relatively speaking. Look at how able-bodied and strong Eastwood looks when he was sixty, compared to how he looks today.

Hong said on 7/Dec/19
Near the end of ThunderBolt and lightfoot,there is a scene with Clint and Bridges entering an old Church,at the beginning of the scene you can see Bridges is wearing a cowboy type of boot,as they enter the doorway you can see Clint is clearly taller and for a while there standing along side each other,in this scene Clint looks a solid 6ft3 guy next to Bridges,6ft3.5 peak looks plausible,the odd thing is though in the other scens together Bridges is wearing much flatter footwear and he looks closer in height to Clint than he dose whit a higher heel,I can only put this down to uneven ground level in the outdoor sceans.

James B said on 28/Nov/19
Rob Clint Eastwood had quite a big head which could have made him look shorter perhaps?

Hong said on 28/Nov/19
He looks 5ft8 range with Scott in that pic,it goes to show how much height Clint can drop just with bad posture,also how camera angles can distort peoples heights in photos.

6'3'' Peterson said on 25/Nov/19
Rob, How tall Clint looks with his son Scott ?? Click Here

Tall In The Saddle said on 21/Nov/19
A 20/21 YO Clint was drafted into the military in 1951 for the Korean War. It would be interesting to see the height recorded on Clint's records.

Tall In The Saddle said on 10/Nov/19
@Andrew - agreed, Chuck isn't fully straight - but neither is Ali and when Ali does begin to straighten his left foot is already descending to the step below - when Ali steps back up to greet Frost he does appear that much taller - but it's worth noting that Ali appears to "gain" height when he moves across from right to left - even though the view appears reasonably square the two perspectives of Ali differ somewhat. Listed as 6'2.5" one would've expected 49 yo Heston to be on par with Ali - and I still have to question Chuck's footwear which are perhaps boots.

Hong said on 10/Nov/19
I've watched the Danny Kaye Show video again, and when Clint and Ebsen are standing together I can't see any difference in height really to be honest. Parker on the other hand looks a solid 3 inches taller than both Clint and Ebsen. I agree with you Tall In The Saddle Kennedy does measure up better with Parker, about 2inches in it, if Parker was 6ft5.5 as listed then that would make Kennedy 6ft3.5,but it would also leave Clint in the 6ft2.5 range, so too me Clint at 6ft3 flat is more than generous.Rob it would be interesting to here your opinion on the Danny Kaye Show video, also the George Kennedy Fess Parker Video.

Andrew Brown said on 10/Nov/19
You can see in that clip Heston is not standing fully straight, if he was he'd easy match if not top Ali's height.

James B said on 9/Nov/19
In play misty for me I think he looked his listed height of 6’3 1/2.

Tall In The Saddle said on 7/Nov/19
A post I made has yet to appear.

In a nutshell, I wrote that the vision from Frost/Kaye shows is more than adequate to reasonably compare Clint to Ebsen, Parker, Presnell and Ali. IMO the REAL problem for some is that Clint simply isn't stacking up to their pre-conceived height for Eastwood so they reach for the same ol' negations which aren't legit - poor posture, poor camera angles etc. The full length vision is very affording - Clint appearing about 6'3" or little more at best. Otherwise if there is so much more out there of equal quality indicating 6'3.5" - let's see it.
@Hong - I see you keep your observations open - which is excellent - treating each example on it's own merits. Likewise, my mind can be changed if the evidence is sufficient - I am an Eastwood fan without bias - and I used to accept 6'4" without any real analysis - any which way (excuse the pun) Clint was a tall dude.
That's a great clip you referenced - link - Click Here.
Personally, I generally see Kennedy as 6'4" - I also see a about 2" height pull in Parker's favour in the clip provided (footwear unknown) - which would make Parker 6'6". Per other references, I see Kennedy as about 1" taller than Clint - and he is standing notably taller than Clint did (note - Clint in cowboy boots) relative to Parker. For further reference, the other actor who Fess ultimately fights is Hal Baylor, a former am/pro boxer - boxed under the name Hal Fieberling on BoxRec listed as 188 cm - 6'2". Other sources list Baylor as 6'4" which doesn't gel and is a clear exaggeration - 6'2" appears closer to the truth - and he does appear about 2" shorter than Kennedy.
Of courses if we FIX Fess Parker at 6'5.5" as LISTED - all other comparative heights change - e.g. putting Kennedy at 6'3.5" etc. As Parker stood relative to 6'5.75" listed Mike Mazurki I would say that Fess was likely 6'6" rather than 6'5.5".
Comparing heights is tricky - particularly if, say, we're out by even just +/- .25" per given subject - over a number of degrees of comparison that can add up to quite an error margin.

Hong said on 6/Nov/19
It was actually at 3mins were both guys stand along side each other.

Hong said on 5/Nov/19
I've just found an interesting video on YouTube titled miracle at whisky gulch, it's from 1962 and stars a young George Kennedy and Fess parker, there is a good height comparison between both guys at 25mins Parker looks about 2 inches taller than Kennedy, if Parker was 6ft5.5 it would make Kennedy 6ft3.5 more than 6ft4,and Kennedy looked to have the edge on Clint making Clint 6ft3 flat, I always taught Kennedy looked slightly taller than Clint but not a full inch.

Hong said on 5/Nov/19
Point's taken Rory, but I still feel more comfortable with 6ft3 flat for the young Clint.

Johan 185 cm said on 5/Nov/19
Noone is going to say to a guy 0.5 inches taller than them: wow you're tall. The difference is negligible.

Nik Ashton said on 3/Nov/19
It’s amazing that he is taller than his son Scott!

Rory said on 3/Nov/19
@Hong, I think a lot of those are quite unconvincing tbh. The video with Ali from what I could see didn't really give any good opportunities to compare their height the camera angles just weren't very good, varying postures etc. I concede though Clint next to Harve Presnell in the same video doesn't look much over 6ft3. The other thing with Ali is he says "both these guys are much taller than I am". I don't think you'd say that about someone who only had you by half an inch or even an inch really.

As for Bridges, I think 186 would be the lowest I'd go for him and I felt in that film there's one particular scene in a doorway where Clint stands tall briefly and in that moment had Bridges by at least 2 inches perhaps more. I do believe Clint would have been around 2 inches taller than Bridges if both measured.

The Ebsen one I grant you did point towards Clint looking a flat 6ft3 but then I still think his posture was poor throughout that clip. Looked very relaxed posturally to me. I think yh I can see where you're coming from in lots of things but I don't think the arguments you make are compelling enough for me to change my mind as whilst I'm positive there would be occasions young Clint would look only 6ft3 I think there's more out there of him looking 6ft3.5.

Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Nov/19
@Rory - LOL. The irony. You replied like an offended fan boy so obsessed with your idols height that any opinion that contradicts your own idealised view is too much to bear. Your reply comprised nothing but rhetoric and ad hominem attack - no meat.

Much less than your nominated .5%, famous actors represent about .04% of the population - and if you somehow haven't yet comprehended - they also represent the most acutely self obsessed and self absorbed individuals among us. By virtue of both ego and professional necessity they are ALL about preferred image. It's no stretch at all to suggest that actors heights are often exaggerated and that great lengths are often taken to maintain the illusion - - don't pretend to be so naïve.

The affording live television full length comparisons with Ebsen, Parker and Ali have already been proffered, considerately broken down and reasonably concluded upon - but you didn't address/refute any of these comparisons - because they contradict your idealised view of Clint's height.

Hong said on 1/Nov/19
@Rory one example is the Frost show with Ali, he looked max 6ft3 there, if Ali was 6ft2.5,but you must remember Ali himself said he was 6ft2 on that show, also I wasn't convinced he looked more than 6ft3 with Jeff Bridges, who was IMO max 6ft1,Clint looked no more than 2 taller and sometimes only 1, also there was the Danny Kaye show in which Clint looked on a par or maybe slightly taller than Buddy Ebsen, but you have to take in to account Ebsen is the older of the two by 22 years and Clint had a higher heel, also Fess Parker 6ft5.5 looked 3 taller than Clint whilst wearing flat footwear,and all these examples are before 1975.

Hong said on 31/Oct/19
To be perfectly honest if Ali hadn't mentioned Clint was taller than him, I would not have even noticed a difference between them both height wise. It's only when you look carefully you can see maybe Clint was slightly taller, but know more than half an inch, if Ali was 6ft2 as he stated in that interview then Clint was looking less than 6ft3,more 6ft2.5.But Ali was also listed as 6ft2.5, if that was the case Clint was max 6ft3, or maybe 6ft2.75.

Rory said on 31/Oct/19
Hong, you were wrong when you said Clint was only 6ft3 peak and now you seem to be straying further from the truth and hedging towards a weak 6ft3 for him. It's complete hogwash. 6ft3 flat is I think the lowest cut off point for plausible argument for Eastwoods peak, even that is unlikely imo but to then say a weak 6ft3 is just silly. You name we one good example where a pre 1975 Clint Eastwood looked anything under 6ft3 and I'll be surprised. Why because he was 6ft3.5, that's why.

Tall in the saddle, were the moon landings a hoax ? Is the moon made of cheese ? You're obviously a conspiracy theorist. The idea a twenty something Clint Eastwood aka a nobody at the time somehow got the director/producer to make him seem taller and thus reducing the height of the bigger star at the time Hudsons height is just garbage mate. Then you go on to compound the lunacy by implying Clints height was rigged throughout his career. What percentage of people do you think are to that extent Obsessed With Height ? Maybe 0.5% ? Are we to suppose Clint is within that group ? You've got to think these things through.

Hong said on 30/Oct/19
He could have been 190cm peak and 193cm in footwear, I would not rule that out.

Tall In The Saddle said on 29/Oct/19
I think if anyone it was mainly always Clint who was given benefit from camera angles, footwear, uneven ground etc. Even very early in his career Clint was somehow framed to appear (impossibly) nearly as tall as Rock Hudson.
I'll also repeat that it was curious that potential opportunities to cleanly compare Clint directly with comparably height listed co-stars seemed curiously avoided throughout whole films - co-stars like Sutherland, Kennedy and Neeson - in the DEAD POOL Clint was filmed walking on higher ground alongside Neeson in the one scene that might've allowed for a good comparison - IMO, no co-incidence. Even in the UNFORGIVEN not one decent shot to properly compare Clint alongside Morgan Freeman.
There is the movie ANY WHICH YOU CAN with 6'2" listed William Smith - it's arguable that Smith wasn't quite 6'2" possibly even 6'1" - in close ups Clint is given camera angle advantage but at distance you can see there isn't much height difference between he and Smith.
Live television does not contrive for such illusions. FROST - Clint barely shaded 6'2.5" Ali if at all and it was Ali slouching NOT Clint. Harve Presnell is listed 6'4" and unlike Clint he looked it - with an easy 1" on Clint. DANNY KAYE SHOW - Clint in cowboy boots barely taller if at all than an older 6'3" listed Buddy Ebsen in normal shoes (Beverly Hill Billy's costume). Then there was Clint still in cowboy boots standing alongside 6'5.5" Fess Parker in moccasins (Daniel Boone costume) - Clint looking nowhere near 6'4" - more like 6'3" at best.
Still can't give Clint much more than 6'3" - overstated height loss could be a clue but the loss claimed for Clint isn't impossible - one only has to look at Clint's arms (which don't shrink) relative to his current stature to understand the man has lost a good measure of height - however much that height loss is exactly.

Hong said on 29/Oct/19
Massive? he looked like a tall slim guy but he never looked massive.

Rory said on 28/Oct/19
I don't think he ever looked "massive" but that look would generally be for guys 6ft4-5 and above. He looked very tall range in 60s,like how you'd expect a 6ft3.5 man to look.

James B said on 28/Oct/19
al001 said on 28/Oct/19
@cmillz
He looks massive in every one of his 60s/70s films. Towers over basically all other cast members. I can easily see 6'4 peak to be honest.


He certainly didn’t look massive in Dirty Harry just seemed like a typical tall guy in that film. He could at times look sought of massive in play misty for me and magnum force.

Hong said on 28/Oct/19
He has very bad posture and always had, he hardly ever stands with perfect posture like you would when being measured. Always slouching in pics, it's hard to get a good idea of his actual height. He could look as low as 6ft1 sometimes and as tall as 6ft4 and it all comes down to posture with Clint.

al001 said on 28/Oct/19
@cmillz
He looks massive in every one of his 60s/70s films. Towers over basically all other cast members. I can easily see 6'4 peak to be honest.

uohewpeioun said on 27/Oct/19
I believe Clint was 6'4". He may be a bit shorter now, but by no more than two inches. He still seems to have very good posture for an octogenarian..

With photos and movies, we need to consider camera angles, shoe sole difference, etc. Also, when Clint stood next to actors who were even a few inches shorter, he often slouched, careful not to make the other look small. There's a well know pic of him doing this with Paul Newman. When he took a pic with Matt Damon on the set of Invictus, he was sitting in a chair, presumably to prevent the star of his film from appearing short.

James B said on 27/Oct/19
If you think that’s an insane amount of height loss just look at David Prowse 6ft6 too 6ft1

Hong said on 27/Oct/19
He hasn't lost 4 inches, he was 6ft3 peak he lost around 2.5 inches so that makes 6ft.05, now added to that his inability to stand his full remaining height because of age he is losing another 1.5 inches, making him look 5ft11 range,making it seem like he has lost 4 inches off peak when in actual fact he has only lost 2.5 which is very normal IMO.

viper said on 27/Oct/19
Nah, that's an insane amount of height loss.

I can see 2 inches of height loss, 3 at worst.

But he's lost like 4.

cmillz said on 26/Oct/19
Can’t see him over 6’3 peak. Nowadays he doesn’t even look 6’0. He’s lost a ton of height, but I guess that’s to be expected at his age.

Rory said on 10/Oct/19
I don't believe though that by his late fifties he'd only have lost a fraction. I think he'd have lost at least half an inch by then knowing his proclivity to height loss over the years especially. 6ft3 flat for Clint is too low Imo considering he could look that even with poor posture so I'd back a 1960s Clint to measure over it. How much over it is debatable I think really someone could argue anywhere from 6ft3 up to 6ft3.75 for a young Eastwood so this 6ft3.5 listing must surely be close.

Hong said on 6/Oct/19
I think because of his slender build especially when he was young, also with his long legs and his hairstyle, he looked like a 6ft4 guy, but when he was along side other guys of comparable height he always looked shorter than them, or not as much taller than he should look for a 6ft4 guy, beside guys listed in the 6ft1,6ft2 range.

Hong said on 5/Oct/19
Agreed Rory, also there are pics online from a similar period of Reagan with Rock Hudson and Hudson towers Reagan by about 4 maybe 5 inches, so Reagan was definitely not over 6ft at that stage. And to be honest Clint did look a little bit over an inch shorter than Neeson in The Dead Pool. He was a bit off peak height at that stage. I'm still convinced he was no more than 6ft3 peak.

Rory said on 5/Oct/19
Yh that video with Reagan is around the same time as Deadpool was being filmed. I think it's fair to say at that point Clint looked 6ft2.75.

Hong said on 4/Oct/19
What about 6ft3.25?

Hong said on 3/Oct/19
Rob, would you ever consider reducing Clints peak height to 6ft3 flat?

Hong said on 3/Oct/19
I can't see a difference between Clint and Gossett jnr myself TALL In The Saddle, about 6ft2. 5 for both in comparison to 76yearold Reagan, who was probably 5ft11.5 at that stage.

Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Oct/19
@Hong - nice find. I've seen stills of that event before but not the live vision. Well at least IMO 6'3" listed Gossett is clearly taller in the stills and live vision - but his posture is better than Clint's - all things being equal - viz Clint standing just as straight - at least .5" diff. if not a full 1". 6'3" peak for Gossett seems fair - most younger pics indicate a slight edge for Lou (say .5") on 6'2.5" listed Poitier - but in later years clear height loss for Gossett.

Hong said on 2/Oct/19
Thanks Rob, it's a good video to compare Clint with the 76 year old Reagan, and 6ft3 ish Gossett jnr, what's your opinion on how they all measure up Rob?

Hong said on 2/Oct/19
There is an interesting video on YouTube, titled "President Reagan's Photo Opportunities on July 21-23"in it Clint and lue Gossett jnr meet Reagan, its from 1987.

Tall In The Saddle said on 25/Sep/19
@Hong - true, Clint's footwear has generally appeared normal so no lifts except perhaps one of his earlier movie appearances in which filmed from waist up he somehow appeared barely shorter than Rock Hudson - however aside from lifts there are other methods of illusion to achieve that.
Harve Presnell's - (a Howard Keel clone) - height is interesting. Most often listed 6'4" but sometimes 6'5" and 6'4.5" including on this site. Agree - 3 inch height loss is not out of the question and I think we've seen Clint notably shrink in real time in his later years thru to 89 yo - he didn't just trap door to his currently much lower height.

Hong said on 25/Sep/19
Harve presnell was a genuine 6ft4 guy, and in the Frost show clip he looked about an inch taller than Clint, confirming Clints height aged 39 was 6ft3ish.Yes Tall In The Saddle there was not much between Clint and Ali.The posture thing can go both ways I suppose, but in general Clints posture is bad and slouchy, but I would give him a max of 6ft3 peak, and in normal relaxed posture more 6ft2.5 range, now in relaxed old man posture 5ft10.75 and if he could straighten up I think he could still hit 6ft.About 3 inch height loss aged 89 is not that unusual. I wouldn't say Clint was a lift werarer, in many of his movies, and in his personal life I've observed he wore very flat footwear, almost slipper like, and only wore cowboy boots in Western themed movies. It's a good point about Wayne he did look more a 6ft2 guy in the b westerns from the 30s.

Tall In The Saddle said on 24/Sep/19
@Hong - I'll also note at least IMO, the posture of Ali post exile wasn't perfect though Ali himself noted Clint to be taller - I am not sure if Ali perceived that in real time on the show or simply took Clint's uniform 6'4" listing on face value - on the Frost show Ali clearly showed himself to be a well versed fan of Clint.
No doubt at peak Clint was tall and 6'3" is no mean height. I used to reject John Wayne wearing lifts - he was also clearly a big tall guy - why would he wear lifts? Then I came to the understanding that as the star and central dominant figure guys like Wayne, no matter how tall, will have co stars from time to time of similar or greater height - so in order to maintain the superior character's edge they will be afforded certain advantages (lifts, camera angle etc.). Interesting to look way back in Wayne's career during the 30s and numerous westerns he made - he didn't come across quite as tall as he did later when he really hit the big time - he starred in both western and non western films with Randolph Scott - in the non western films Wayne didn't hold that much advantage over Scott as he did in the westerns with cowboy boots which I am sure could be modified to be better heeled than generic boots.

Hong said on 24/Sep/19
Have to agree with you Tall In The Saddle, Clint did look quite similar to Ali on the Frost show, also looked slightly taller than Ebsen, with the footwear advantage. To me Clint with his usual slouchy posture looked around 6ft2.5 generally, but I have no doubt that if he was measured he would have straighend himself up to his full height and comfortable measured 6ft3.

Tall In The Saddle said on 23/Sep/19
My estimate is that Clint was never more than 6'3". He barely shaded Ali in height if at all at a time when it was believed Ali was 6'3". Now Ali's peak is listed at a more realistic 6'2.5". The clip of the live Danny Kaye show indicated even with cowboy boot advantage Clint was barely taller than an older 6'3" peak listed Buddy Ebsen and dropping notable height to Fess Parker. Even thought tall anyway my guess is that as per the essence and aura of many of his prime movie characters Clint was given advantage (camera angle etc.) to hold dominant height advantage over most co stars. Interesting that we were never afforded decent comparative camera shots of Clint with comparably height listed co stars like Sutherland Kennedy Neeson etc. - though what there is available indicates each of the above listed were in fact taller than Clint IMO. Now Clint's standing height is greatly diminished by way of natural height loss and bowed posture.

Yang (5 footer 8, 172-173) said on 20/Sep/19
@Hong, Yes. Harrison Ford looks more like 5ft 10ish than 5ft 11... you probably read my comments on Harrison Ford height page with pic of Daniel Craig Casino Royale actor took back in 2011. From 2011 pics, he looks more like 5ft 10 quarter range with Craig as Craig is either 5ft 10 and weak 5ft 10... But it's safe for me to guess Harrison Ford is either 5ft 10 and weak 5ft 10.. Yes, You guessed his future height correctly as long as he is alive as healthy grandpa 10 years later on so and so...yes, rapid height loss is even more common in elderly people aged 80 or so..
PS. So sorry for late response to your comment cause this week has been really busy and my hectic schedules this week from the works....

Hong said on 16/Sep/19
@Yang Ford is 77 and is looking 5ft11ish now, even 5ft10. 5 with Daniel Craig, that's 1.5 to 2 inches height loss, so if he does get to 89 he will probably be 5ft9.@Arch Staunton, I don't know how accurate the measurements are on waxworks models.

Kotetu said on 15/Sep/19
Here's an old one Clint Eastwood with 5'10" boxer Alexis Arguello in 1977.

Click Here (direct link to photo: Click Here )

In 1977 it looks like Clint Eastwood was still 6'4". Footwear unknown, of course.

Here's one with Bradley Cooper, just last year I guess?
Click Here

Just age related spinal curvature, I guess. Heck, here's a paparazzi series of him 12 years ago and you can see how much he hunched even then.

Click Here (direct link to photo: Click Here )

Hong said on 15/Sep/19
Sorry that clip is titled "Outlaw Josie & Will Sampson Clip.

Yang (5 footer 8, 172-173) said on 14/Sep/19
@Hong, Exactly. I would love to see how much Harrison Ford will loose height decades later.. as long as he is alive...
@Rob, I forgot to mention in my earlier post that Bill Clinton was one who has lost tons of heights as well!!!!!

Arch Stanton said on 14/Sep/19
Actually Hong there's a waxwork of him in a Californian museum which measures 6'5.5 in cowboy boots, I think it might have been a real measurement back in the 60s. Would seem spot on if the boots gave 2 inches.

Hong said on 14/Sep/19
There is a interesting short video on YouTube, and at 50 seconds Clint is standing near 6ft5 listed Will Sampson, Clint has boots on and Sampson is maybe barefoot, but Clint still looks a tall guy in it defiantly no less than 6ft3. Its called Josey meets 10 bears.

Hong said on 13/Sep/19
He was 6ft3 peak, now he looks 5ft11ish but that's down to posture IMO. If you could stretch him out he'd still may be a bit over 6ft.3 inch height loss is not unusual for a man approaching 90.In his youth he was obviously very tall, in his cowboy boots he would have been 6ft4.5, and in normal footwear 6ft4.

Mickie said on 12/Sep/19
Present day clint may have been 6'3.5" but it seems like current day clint is not even 6'0" anymore. Hard to imagine a person is capable of shrinking 4 inches, but I guess it can happen.

Hong said on 12/Sep/19
We will see how Harrison Ford looks in 12 years if he lives that long.

Hong said on 12/Sep/19
That is a good clip with Letterman, but Letterman does have the advantage of being closer to the camera, giving the impression of being much taller, it also demonstreats how much Clint has shrunk compared to a man who at one time, on a johnny Carson interview referred to Clint as intimidating, when he met him back in the early 70s, because Clint was such a big guy.

Yang (5 footer 8, 172-173) said on 12/Sep/19
Wow. It's hard for me to believe he has lost more than 3 inches of heights as he aged even more than other elderly actors like Morgan Freeman and Harrison Ford etc... I do know elder women loose more height than elder men at least.. but his case can be rare somehow. I am assuming his current 2019 height is around 5ft 11 quarter and half range than 6 footer.... Like many said, his peak height is around 6ft 3 or so.. During his peak time, he was definitely taller than average males for sure.... His height loss is rapid height loss like sign of osteoporosis aka bone loss and some other serious health problems etc....

Danimal 5'9 3/4" said on 11/Sep/19
Clint being towered over by barely 6'1" David Letterman (from 3 months ago): Click Here

Danimal 5'9 3/4" said on 11/Sep/19
Clint being towered over by barely 6'1" David Letterman (from 3 months ago): Click Here

Hong said on 1/Sep/19
Yes Rob I agree, Clint still looked closer to 6ft3, maybe 6ft2.75,or 190cm.

Hong said on 31/Aug/19
I didn't see a full 2 inch difference Hopping Hopper, in fact sometimes the difference was unnoticeable, but Neeson was definitely taller I give you that, I believe Clint was a solid 6ft3 guy in his Youth, and may have been a fraction less by 58,so he could have been a bit less than 6ft3 at the time, you also must remember Neeson did say he was 6ft4 and a bit when interviewed on by Conan.But of course Clint did maybe? Direct the scenes at the funeral to make himself look taller than Neeson by standing on higher ground, but overall, Clint did look shorter than Neeson but not by 2inches max 1.5. Clint 6ft2. 75, Neeson 6ft4.25. If Neeson was 6ft4 flat Clint was more 6ft2.5 about half an inch of peak.

Hong said on 31/Aug/19
Rob what's your opinion on Clints height compared to Neeson in The Dead Pool?do you see a full 2 inches in Neesons favour?

Rory said on 31/Aug/19
I'd say there was a 1.25-1.5 inch difference between Eastwood and Neeson in Deadpool. So I think a weak 6ft3 range in the late 80s.

Hopping hopper said on 30/Aug/19
@Hong 1 inch?? He’s definitely more. 6-2 in the dead pool no more.

Hong said on 30/Aug/19
He didn't look 2 inches shorter than solid 6ft4 Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool, more like 1.Still 6ft3 peak height at 58 IMO.

Ian C. said on 30/Aug/19
My own belief, Arch, is that genetics plays the dominant role in how long people will live, and the powers of lifestyle are rather limited, provided you don't do something actually poisonous, like smoking or drinking to the point of drunkenness on a regular basis, or eating so much that you become obese.

As for Eastwood's longevity being the result of being a health nut, I'm not so sure. I suspect that health nuttiness is actually toxic if carried to extremes. I'm particularly suspicious of bodybuilding, which involves deliberately working muscles to failure, which, yes, forces them to grow larger. Hypertrophied muscles are like too much fat, which is to say, they are a burden.

Count me too as a believer in the theory that great height is a handicap to longevity. Maybe (and sure, this is whimsical) Eastwood's contracting height is actually a natural survival mechanism, as is his obvious jettisoning of weight.

Hopping hopper said on 29/Aug/19
Was a strong 6-2 in the dead pool film in 1988.

Arch Stanton said on 28/Aug/19
Ian C. said on 26/Aug/19
You can see the 88 year-old Clint in The Mule (in which he plays a man who is 90) and he seems to be collapsing like an accordion. He can't be more than five foot ten in that movie, and he has become thin to the point of emaciation. It is admirable that Eastwood is still making movies at his age, because we can see from them just how aging affects even the strongest people. Rather than hiding from public view in his old age, Eastwood is right out there, letting us look at his physical decay without apologizing for it, or trying to cover it up. Good boy, Clint.

Also, The Mule is a good movie, so Cint's brain and sense of how to make movies is still pretty sharp.

He's been a health nut all his life, sometimes genetics plays a role in ageing. Clint aged quite early on, he's looked very old for years now. Now take Honor Blackman and Tony Bennett who could both pass for early 70s. My mother's aunt is 90 and looks 73 too. 6 ft is a stretch now, looks nearer 5'10, perhaps 5'11 would be more reasonable now at nearly 90. I doubt he'd measure taller than Arnie.

James B 172cm said on 26/Aug/19
i peg clint at 6ft2.75 in line of fire

Ian C. said on 26/Aug/19
You can see the 88 year-old Clint in The Mule (in which he plays a man who is 90) and he seems to be collapsing like an accordion. He can't be more than five foot ten in that movie, and he has become thin to the point of emaciation. It is admirable that Eastwood is still making movies at his age, because we can see from them just how aging affects even the strongest people. Rather than hiding from public view in his old age, Eastwood is right out there, letting us look at his physical decay without apologizing for it, or trying to cover it up. Good boy, Clint.

Also, The Mule is a good movie, so Cint's brain and sense of how to make movies is still pretty sharp.

Hong said on 24/Aug/19
There is a scene in In The Line of Fire, in it Clint is face to face with 6ft4 listed Brian Libby, and Libby looks about an inch taller, but how accurate thus listing is for Libby it's hard to say, also Clint was 61 and is 19 years older than Libby. But if Libby is 6ft4 Clint looks 6ft3 ish in comparison.

Hong said on 16/Aug/19
I'd go for 6ft2 max for Clint at the time, and Cromwell more 6ft5.5,that would explain Clint looking more 3 inches shorter than 4 inches shorter than Cromwell, 3.5 would probably be about right. Also at the time Clint was still similar to 6ft2 Morgan Freeman.

James Brett 172cm said on 16/Aug/19
rob so james cromwell has held onto 6ft5.5 for the last 20 years?

Hong said on 15/Aug/19
I taught so to Rob, but Cromwell was probably 6ft6 at the time and Clint looked more 6ft1.5 range in that movie next to Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland, could Cromwell have been 6ft5 range aged 59 or do you Think Clint could still have been 6ft3 range aged 70?

James Brett 172cm said on 15/Aug/19
rob was clint 6ft2 in space cow boys?

Hong said on 12/Aug/19
Rob, how much taller than Clint do you think James Cromwell looked, in Space Cowboys?

Hong said on 12/Aug/19
Yes indeed Clint does look a solid 6ft3 or maybe even 6ft4 as he claimed, next to Jackson and Tyson,but also at that same event, there is Eddie Murphy, listed as 5ft9 looking about one inch taller than 5ft10? Mike Tyson, and there is the problem I have with heights of famous people, there are too many discrepancies, we don't actually no their true heights, only their listed heights, if Toyson and Jackson were only 5ft 8 suddenly Clint would only look 6ft2,or maybe Murphy is 5ft11, or was wearing lifts or something.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Aug/19
Not quite a true 6ft4 guy but not 6ft3 flat either

Matt Shannon said on 10/Aug/19
Hey Rob how tall did he look in Gran Torino?

Hopping hopper said on 10/Aug/19
Just watched a video from 1989 with Michael Jackson and mike Tyson with him. Looks 4” min on them so peak he’s got to 6-3 plus. Lost lots of height but definitely a tall guy in his youth.

Tall Sam said on 8/Aug/19
At times Clint could've looked anywhere from 6'3"-6'3.75" in comparison to other tall actors usually, I think well under 6'3" claims were and are entirely fiction for his peak.

Hong said on 8/Aug/19
Bridges did look a 6ft even guy next to 6ft4.75 Tim Robbins in Arlington Road 20 years ago.

movieguy12 said on 7/Aug/19
Arch Stanton, I think the comment from Rob about smoking wasn't specifically about Clint more the general effects of smoking. Clint like Arnold is an enigma in that there is a certain amount of doubt as to whether they are as tall as claimed. Its possible both were 6'4'' and 6'2'' respectively but there is some evidence to doubt this. I wish I could have met or at least seen Clint in his prime in the 60s and 70s. He's my favourite actor.

Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/19
James Brett 172cm said on 31/May/19
Rob if he didn’t lift heavy weight when he was younger would he have been a bit taller currently than he is?
Editor Rob
It might have contributed a bit...but so to can smoking, or how the bones form in teenage years.

Clint was never a smoker, he detested it. The Man with no name cigar was just a gimmick.

Hong said on 4/Aug/19
The thing that confusees me is that back in 1971 at the time of Tunderbolt and lightfoot, Clint looked about 2 inches taller than Jeff Bridges, but in more recent pics from 2017 with Clint shrinkage included Clint still looked taller than Bridges even though Bridges is listed as taller by half an inch, there seems to be a similar height difference between them both now as back in 1971,yet Clint is the older of the two by 19 years, it's as if they both shrank by the same amount of height even though Clint is the much older of the two.

texluh said on 2/Aug/19
@Rory
Yes - only one change has happened - around 1950. Those born before this were about an inch shorter. War and nutrition.

Tony G said on 2/Aug/19
@Hong, yes, he does seem 4 inches taller compared to Broderick.

viper said on 1/Aug/19
People in college now are getting shorter imo

Rory said on 31/Jul/19
I'm not sure 6ft3.5 for Clints generation would be the equivalent to 6ft6 now. The average height in America hasn't increased as much in the last century as in other countries. In the USA I'd say 6ft3.5 for Clints age group would be like 6ft4.5 for a young American man today.

Hopping hopper said on 30/Jul/19
Was always around 1.5 inches over Lee van cleef. So 6-3 minimum peak. Realistically 6-3 to 6-3.5 and now just under 6-0. Was a legit tall guy in his peak

Hong said on 28/Jul/19
@Tony G Broderick Crowford is in the scene at about 14 mins with Clint, Crowford is listed as 6ft tall and Clint looks a solid 6ft4 next to him.

Unbewohnt6666 said on 25/Jul/19
Rob, what would be today's equivalent of Eastwoods adult height? 6'6 range?

movieguy12 said on 24/Jul/19
I know this is the Eastwood page but I looked again at Send Me No Flowers and the height difference between Walker and Hudson wasn't as pronounced as I remember. I still think Walker was the taller even allowing for footwear but there probably wasn't a big difference in reality.

Tony G said on 24/Jul/19
Clint Eastwood was in an episode of "Highway Patrol" in 1955. He did look very tall in that episode.
Click Here

Hong said on 16/Jul/19
I've just come across a video on you tube from an old forgotten western from 1956 with a young Clint, it's called, Chochise, Greatest of the Apaches. From 18.55 minutes Clint is in a scene with an actor called Rhodes Reason, I have to be honest I've never heard of him, but I looked him up on line and discovered he was a bit part movie star in the 50s and was in a TV show called white hunter in the sixties, anyway of course I also found his listed height which was 6ft2, now if this was his actual height Clint looks like a genuine 6ft4 guy in comparison. Clints acting in the scean was wooden as usual, but he does look a tall guy in it.

cmillzz said on 15/Jul/19
I certainly wouldn’t rule out Clint dipping down to 6’3 flat at a low in his prime.

cmillzz said on 15/Jul/19
@Mr.heighty
Peter upgrades pretty much everyone on this site, don’t mind him.

Hong said on 12/Jul/19
6ft4 out of bed would put you at a 6ft3.25 low durning a full day. I personally think that Chevy Chase would measure tallest of this group. I think Chase would have measured 6ft4.25 out of bed. I think Sutherland and Clint were both the same height.

movieguy12 said on 11/Jul/19
Yeah I agree, Chase, Sutherland and Eastwood were probably pretty close. I've always thought that Sutherland looked to have the edge on Clint In Kelly's Heroes but some think it goes the other way and there are no great shots for comparison. I'd put all of them in the 6'3'' to 6'4'' range. All are I think are what we call on this site weak 6'4'' guys, or 6'4'' out of bed guys.

Mr.heighty said on 10/Jul/19
Peter175 said on 9/Jul/19
Dude you don't have idea how a legit 6'4 guy looks. Cint was 6'3" nothin more

Peter175 said on 9/Jul/19
He's not much taller than Arnold right now. A legit weak 6ft4 peak and now around 5'11.5

179cm guy said on 9/Jul/19
Rob, how do you think Chevy Chase, Craig T. Nelson, Clint, and Donald Sutherland would have measured up next to each other at their peaks?

Hong said on 4/Jul/19
Walker looked 6ft6 in comparison to 6ft3.5 Donald Sutherland in The Dirty Dozen.

Tall In The Saddle said on 3/Jul/19
@movieguy12 - I hear what you're saying - I think Walker was taller also just not to the advantage his boots gave him most of the time. Currently I have Walker 6'5"-6'5.5" max. and Hudson 6'4" - 6'4.5". Haven't actually read anyone suggest that Hudson was as tall or taller than Walker.

Anyway, I think Walker was a really outstanding guy and I stumbled across a 1966 clip of the UK NME New Musical Express Awards 1966 - Walker is presenting and ultimately the Beatles roll up to accept an award - all dwarfed by Walker - and at one point you can see John Lennon jokingly stand on his tip toes in reaction to Walker's height.

Click Here

viper said on 2/Jul/19
Clint looks at least 6-3 in Alcatraz

cmillzz said on 30/Jun/19
6’3-6’3.25” peak imo.

movieguy12 said on 28/Jun/19
Tall in the Saddle, I'm not saying Walker was a lot taller than Hudson. He was massive in build in comparison to Rock. There was a press release at the time of Send Me No Flowers stating that 6'4'' Hudson didn't want 6'6'' Walker in the film as he was too tall. It used to be available on the net but can no longer find it. It's just I find it strange when people say that Hudson was as tall or taller than Walker. The reason Walker looked taller than Hudson is because he was taller. It might have only been an inch or so difference when taking footwear into account though.

Tall In The Saddle said on 27/Jun/19
@movieguy12

Agree - relative to Jack Benny, Clint W stood taller than Rock.

However, factor in that Clint W was a perennial cowboy boot (big heel) wearer and he wore exactly that on the Jack Benny show - see 3:41 and 9:42 - Click Here. Hudson wore dress shoes during his appearance. That's not to say all things being equal that Clint W wasn't taller - I think he was but not by the margin his boots gave him. As to Clint W being the "bigger" man - hell yeah, while Rock was big, Clint W was massive.


3:41 9:42

Hong said on 26/Jun/19
Just Google Clint Eastwood Borsari images and check images, Stas and you will see the pic I was talking about. Clint hasn't lost 4 inches he's lost about 2.5 actual height off his physical body and looks about 1 inch shorter on top of that due to bad and hunched old man posture, so from 6ft3 peak he is now looking 5ft11ish due to both these things I've mentioned obve. In the Newman pics Clint is deliberately dropping height so as not to make Newman look too short in comparison.

movieguy12 said on 26/Jun/19
Rock Hudson was shorter than Clint Walker. Go to YouTube and search for Jack Benny episodes starring Walker and Hudson. Then say who you think is the bigger man.

Tall Sam said on 25/Jun/19
Good find by Tall in the Saddle, that movie looks amusingly bad no wonder Clint had to go to Spain/Italy to make it. Clint does look on the short side there but with Arness its really impossible to compare heights.

Stas said on 25/Jun/19
Guys, it`s so funny that you simply can`t make any analysis and understand that body can`t lose 4 inches, come on, and concerning Rock Hudson and Clint, I have never seen any photos of the standing together, may be you mean that photo of Rock standing cutting the cake, but the angle is to bad to compare, you of course may say I`m joking, but there is no way you can prove me I`m wrong. He might have been about 6-foot-2, I agree, I may have given 6-foot-1 and a half was wrong, but no way taller than that. Now he is no way taller than 181 cm barefoot, simply compare to Tom Hanks and Bradley Cooper.As far as his youth is concerned, look at the picture of him and Paul Newman who was 177 for sure in the morning barefoot. If you can see there more than 10 cm difference, I would advise to get your eyes checked. All the best to you any way, thank you for your opinions!

John wilson s. said on 24/Jun/19
all those people claiming he's never been taller than 6'1.
wow... , then all the actors that he has towered and are known to be 6'1-6'2 are not those heights also, right?

Hong said on 24/Jun/19
@Tall In The Saddle, those are some boots Walker is wearing, and you can't see the ground level, I'd say Walker is close to 6ft8 in them, Hudson on the other hand in I presume regular shoes would be close to 6ft6,and I'm going to agree with you on the Clip featuring Clint and Rock, I myself was surprised when I saw Clint actually looking as Tall as Rock, because I've previously seen pics of both of them standing face to face at what looked like a party or something, and Rock had about an Inch and a half on Clint, maybe Clint had higher heels in that Clip or something.

James Brett 172cm said on 23/Jun/19
in eiger sanction kennedy did look a bit taller than clint who had hair advantage as well

Tall In The Saddle said on 23/Jun/19
@Hong - here's the clip with Clint and Rock - see about 26 sec mark - Click Here do you think Clint would appear naturally that close in height? I didn't say Clint appeared taller - just that it seems he was made to look taller than he (Clint himself) was - Clint doesn't appear to be dropping 1.75" - 2" to Hudson as you would expect - more like .5"-1" max. Anyway, as you said, Clint was the new guy - movie makers do understand the potential of such guys which gives them some clout and they can be presented favourably for future reference. Overall Rock still carries a slight height advantage anyway.

Re Clint Walker. Against pop. opinion I would say Walker was more like 6'5" - 6'5.5" max not 6'6". James Arness is listed here at 6'6" - and was taller than Walker - and by Walker's own admission - Click Here

Clint Walker vs Rock Hudson - okay, a clip from the movie NEVER SAY GOODBYE - Click Here - can't see the ground but Rock initially steps up from obviously lower ground and at about the 13 sec mark you can reasonably compare the two men - Clint is standing taller but what difference do you see? - it's not a lot imo - AND Clint's character was meant to be both larger and clearly taller than Rock - now consider the next clip from that same movie which clearly shows that Clint Walker was rocking some decent heel on his boots as can be seen when he gets out of car - Click Here - pretty sure Rock wasn't wearing the same heel

Hong said on 22/Jun/19
Yes Tall In The Saddle Clint looks more 6ft2 range next to Channing in the First Traveling Sales lady, this movie which I saw many years ago confirmed to me Clint was not the 6ft4 he was listed to be, but the comparison to 6ft6 or 6ft7 Jim Arness, is not very clear so it is not a very good clip to compare the two. Your point about Hudson and Clint is not very convincing IMO because the point has being made in the past about actors in the ascendingsy such as Hudson at that point in time not wanting to be out done by new guys like Clint, Hudson was Tall but not that tall if you compare him with 6ft6 Clint Walker,I don't think they would have to go, or would go to the trouble of making Clint look the same height as Hudson, on the contrary I think they and Hudson himself would insist that he was the taller of the two in that scean because as the main star and Clint being a bit part player at the time, Hudson would have wanted to assert his authority at the time and insisted he was seen as the taller of the two. There are a couple of good pics of Clint and Hudson on line together on Borsari images in which Hudson is taller than Clint, but Hudson at 6ft4.75 to 6ft5 Clint looks 6ft3 in comparison to him.

movieguy12 said on 22/Jun/19
That's German actor from Eiger Sanction definitely looks taller than either Eastwood or Kennedy in that film. I'm not sure how accurate the figure for his height is online, 6'5'' or just under is mentioned below. I think this was deliberate casting as his character was an arrogant alpha male in the movie and his size was part of this persona, he wasn't intimidated by a tall man like Clint. I do think Kennedy looks taller than Eastwood in this film although there are no great scenes for comparison. However there is a famous publicity shot of them standing together at this time and they look more or less the same height.

Caruso Victor said on 22/Jun/19
@Tall In The Saddle...Yes James Arness does look much taller than Clint in that clip. In fact in that movie, Clint looks around 6’2!
I don’t think he had taken his tall pills around that time!!!

Tall In The Saddle said on 22/Jun/19
Looking a bit harder for comparisons of Clint with other celebs of reasonably known height. I found this clip of a 1956 movie THE FIRST TRAVELING SALESLADY with Clint and Carol Channing - Click Here - and lo and behold toward the end 6'6" James Arness appears in a scene with Clint - can't vouch if they are standing on even ground but Arness looks a lot taller than Clint who himself isn't looking substantially taller than Ms Channing - but then I checked Ms Channing's height which at 5'8.5" was above average but still Clint doesn't appear anything over 6'3" imo. Wow, didn't know that Carol Channing only passed away this year - 97 - what a great innings.

Tall In The Saddle said on 21/Jun/19
@Jame Brett - are you referring to the movie they worked in together? Clint appears virtually equal in height - and Rock was 6'5" max. and not under 6'4.75" min. - so I think Clint was obviously made to look taller than he was - perhaps the director evening up their heights just for the sake of shooting the scene and/or intended physical projection of the character. All things being equal Clint should've appeared to be dropping 1.75" to 2" in height to Rock - that's why extremely tall actors understate themselves and often lament being rejected for roles because of the logistical issues related to their height - thus "work arounds" for shooting scenes.

rism90 said on 21/Jun/19
Stas said on 21/Jun/19
That's a good joke! If you really think Clint was just 6'1.5 ...lol I agree 6'4 was a joke too and he was never over 6'3 barefoot but he was 6'2.5 with out a doubt! 6'1.5 was when he was 67 year old and probably was 6.2.5 a 189-190 cm guy

Hong said on 21/Jun/19
@Stas Clint only wore cowboy boots in westerns or movies based in the west, in every other movie he wore usually a standard 1 inch heel or flat almost slipper like footwear, your 6ft1.5 estimate is way off, l don't know where you got that from. You obviously don't spend much time researching or compering Clint to other actors, the minimum I would give Clint after 35 years watching his movies and looking at images of him with Co stars and other celebs, is 6ft2.5 but 6ft1.5 is a joke IMO.

James Brett 172cm said on 21/Jun/19
stas look at him with rock hudson

Tall In The Saddle said on 21/Jun/19
@James Brett - yeah, I posted 6'5" after doing a quick search on Reiner Schone - not a lot came up but I went with the first listing I saw. I see there is also a listing of 6'4.5" - funny, there's a lot of celebs listed at 6'5" who are also at other times listed as 6'4.5" - worse for Clint if the latter height is correct for Schone.

Stas said on 21/Jun/19
With a lot of respect to Clint Eastwood and I honestly say he is one of my favorite actors of all time, but let's look at this situation honestly, there is no way he was taller than 6-foot-1 and a half(186 cm) in his youth. He used to wear cowboy boots that could give him about 1.5-2 inches. Moreover, his body is built in such a way that he seems rather taller than he really is. Nowadays I can buy 5-foot-11 and a half(181 cm), compared to other actors. He is 89, but he wouldn't lose more than 2 inches, that`s simply impossible, especially that he didn`t have some back surgeries and some other stuff that would help his height shrink.

Hong said on 20/Jun/19
Standing Ramrod straight is something I've never seen Clint do in all my time watching him in movies and on TV, he is always slouching and standing in loose and lazy posture, that's why he sometimes appears 6ft2 range in movies, but standing in more upright posture is a comfortable 6ft3 or maybe a bit more.

Caruso Victor said on 20/Jun/19
My hero Clint will always be 6’4 to me even when he’s 100years old and shrunk to the size of Lee van Cleef! You’ll always be a giant to me. Mr. Eastwood!

James Brett 172cm said on 20/Jun/19
Reiner Schone is actually listed 6’4 1/2.

Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Jun/19
The Eiger Sanction clip - Click Here - pause at about 1:49 - Clint standing with Reiner Schone listed 6'5" and George Kennedy listed 6'4". Schone and Kennedy heights reconcile with one another and seem about right. Relative to those guys still seems fair to estimate and reconcile Clint in at about 6'3" or perhaps a smidge over.

Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Jun/19
@James Brett - I hear you on that. When Clint moves off a bit turns more fully to camera and raises his head to acknowledge the audience he might look a smidge taller - Ed is still standing ramrod straight, standing side on. I am just deferring to when they were standing closest facing each other and I think Ed looked a bit taller - but varying angles and postures can make all the difference.

Hong said on 18/Jun/19
He looked about 6ft2 in comparison with a weak 6ft more like 5ft11 Dylan Mcdermott, in In The Line Of Fire, but in general he looked somewhere between 6ft2 and 6ft3 in the early 90s.

James Brett 172cm said on 17/Jun/19
McMahon at first edged out eastwood but then a few seconds later Clint seems too edge him out,

Maybe it’s the camera angles?

Hong said on 17/Jun/19
Clint was in a few scenes with 6ft4 listed Greg Walcott, in a couple of movies, and Walcott looked marginally taller, but I've seen a episode of Bonanza and Walcott didn't exactly tower over 5ft9 Michael Landon, I wasn't convinced that Walcott looked like a 6ft4 guy. I think in the past they were all inflating their heights so it's hard to get an honest height, so I just knock an inch of their listed height. So 6ft3 for Clint then.

Tall In The Saddle said on 15/Jun/19
@James Brett - it's been a while since I saw In The Line of Fire - 1993, actors Fred Thompson 6'5" and Gregory Alan Williams listed 6'2" co-starred. Wonder if there are any decent scenes with them to compare Clint by - such comparisons seem to be curiously elusive in Clint's films.
I will say Clint appeared on Carson in 1992 - close enough to 1991 - link - Click Here - and appeared to me to be perhaps .5" shy of Ed McMahon who we might guess as 6'3" himself at that point - thereby putting Clint at about 6'2.5" or so. Also not sure if Clint has any footwear adv. - shoes appear a bit chunkier than McMahon's dress shoes though I could be wrong.
James - how do you think Clint compares to McMahon?

James Brett 172cm said on 14/Jun/19
Tall in the Saddle- how tall do you think Clint was by the Line of Fire? I’d guess 6’2.75?

Clint was probably a solid 6’3 in 1988 though

Tall In The Saddle said on 14/Jun/19
@Canson - agreed, general inflation will cause a false and understated perception of exactly how tall a certain height should appear.
Then you have the Hollywood factor....aside from the magnification of the big screen -all manner of devices are employed to make stars appear bigger than what they actually are...….so often you hear of stars appearing much smaller in real life than they do on film.....should check the John Wayne page, moving back in time to the Duke's earlier films before he was a big star there are some indicators that he wasn't quite holding the same height advantage he did in his much bigger later films.....who knows...lol, maybe the co-stars simply got shorter....
Maybe just bad luck but when Eastwood did star alongside comparably tall actors like Kennedy, Sutherland, Neeson etc. it's noteworthy that the opportunities to compare him against them were hardly ideal and few and far between

James Brett 172cm said on 11/Jun/19
Canson you said your 6’4 but 6’4,25 at a low so technically your over 6’4 right?

Canson said on 10/Jun/19
@James Brett: I’m 6’4 myself and it looks and feels massive. Im 6’5 out of bed 6’4.25 at a normal low and I see guys my size before claim 6’5/6’6

viper said on 9/Jun/19
6-3.5 peak I can buy

James Brett 172cm said on 6/Jun/19
Canson said on 5/Jun/19
@Tall in the Saddle: a lot of people on here don’t know what 6’4” looks like. A guy who doesn’t dip below the mark. Like Liam Neeson who was comfortably taller than Conan. Conan thought he was an inch taller. It was minimum 2cm between them


Canson I have friend who claims 6’6 but I suspect he’s more 6’4 and he doesn’t look massive too me

Canson said on 5/Jun/19
@Tall in the Saddle: a lot of people on here don’t know what 6’4” looks like. A guy who doesn’t dip below the mark. Like Liam Neeson who was comfortably taller than Conan. Conan thought he was an inch taller. It was minimum 2cm between them

Tall In The Saddle said on 4/Jun/19
@Canson - agree, I certainly wouldn't reject 6'3.25" max. - but like you, IMHO, Clint never 6'4" and I don't think he quite made 6'3.5" - could be wrong though. Lol sounds like we're talking Conan O'Brien.

Clint Eastwood 89 yo? Wow, that is amazing. Had me fooled for years because he held his age so well - particularly when you consider his actual age during the Rawhide Series (29-35 yo) and Dirty Harry franchise (40 +).

Hong said on 4/Jun/19
I agree with you Tall In The Saddle, Clint dose look more 6ft3 flat peak, but in the Son's of Katie Elder, Wayne was past his peak aged 58,and Kennedy 18 years his junior aged 40 was at peak height.

Hong said on 4/Jun/19
I have to disagree Tall In The Saddle, Kennedy only looked slightly taller than Clint, not 1.5 inches.

Canson said on 3/Jun/19
@Tall in the Saddle: maybe 6’3.25 max but 6’3” is believable. He has never looked close to 6’4” imho

James Brett 172cm said on 3/Jun/19
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 31/May/19
🎁🎂🎈 Happy Birthday Clint! 🎈🎂🎁

It's amazing to think that Clint is 89 today!

Peak height - 6ft3.5.
Now - 6ft1.

🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉


Max 6ft today

Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Jun/19
I am firming on 6'3" max. for Eastwood - if over that, then barely. Curiously not much available to compare Clint to Sutherland but of what there is Sutherland looks taller - one still from Kelly's Heroes Sutherlands stance is much wider than Eastwood's and he still looks the same height. I think it gets too apologetic for Clint when he simply doesn't uphold the advantage that his listing demands over the likes of an older Ebsen (6'3" peak) and Jim Davis (6'2.5" peak) etc. Clint was also clearly shorter than 6'4" listed George Kennedy - by a good 1.5" - but to be fair I believe Kennedy was probably as tall as 6'4.5" - certainly taller than John Wayne in the Sons of Katie Elder

Miss Sandy Cowell said on 31/May/19
🎁🎂🎈 Happy Birthday Clint! 🎈🎂🎁

It's amazing to think that Clint is 89 today!

Peak height - 6ft3.5.
Now - 6ft1.

🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉🕯️🎉

James Brett 172cm said on 31/May/19
Rob if he didn’t lift heavy weight when he was younger would he have been a bit taller currently than he is?

Baltomire5'9.5 said on 28/May/19
Clint was 6'2 range come on. Does anyone here know his own height and how a legit measurement is? Sutherland was taller than Clint. Clint was 6'2.5.

James Brett 172cm said on 28/May/19
Movie guy- goldblum was at least 6’4

movieguy12 said on 27/May/19
That's the problem I have with Clint being a full 6'4''. I find it hard to see him as the same height as a 6'4'' guy like Jeff Goldblum. There is no question about Goldblum's height. Same with Tom Selleck another 6'4'' guy. In his prime would he have measured up to this pair. I think he'd have been shorter not sure by how much though.

Hong said on 26/May/19
You couldn't really compare Clint and Sutherland's heights in Kelly's heroes, both looked similar but you could never get a good comparison between them. Only later on in their career in space cowboys when Sutherland was clearly the taller of the two, although in the publicity shots and pics at the premier of the movie, both Sutherland and Clint seemed a lot closer in height, it's mainly in the medical exam in the movie Sutherland had what looked like a 2 inch advantage on Clint,both actors were barefoot at the time. But Clint being 5 years Sutherland's senior and maybe more 6ft2ish at the time, it's not the best time of their lives to compare heights.

James Brett 172cm said on 24/May/19
Yeah Arch and in Invasion of the body snatchers I thought Sutherland could pull of looking 6’3.75 at times next too Jeff Goldblum

Arch Stanton said on 22/May/19
6'3.5 as his low is believable peak but I thought he edged Donald Sutherland. I don't know why people think he looked 6'3 flat tops, he stood noticably taller than guys like Charlton Heston.

Hong said on 21/May/19
Just finished watching The Mule, his posture is pretty bad, but still looks like he could be in the 6ft range, the movie was very enjoyable, Clint was very good in it, a quite underrated movie IMO, got a lot of bad reviews by the PC brigade.

Millano182 said on 17/May/19
Lee Marvin never looked 6'2. Rob I never thought you would list Lee Marvin a 6'2. 6'1.25 is the highest he ever looked in his peak. This makes Clint at 6'3 flat which is the perfect listing.

Hong said on 17/May/19
Its arguable that Marvin and Coburn were 6ft1 flat, and Clint looked around 2 taller, that would make him 6ft3 flat, but I think 6ft2 is too low, Bridges looked 6ft1 also and Clint looked about 2 taller than him.

movieguy12 said on 15/May/19
Good downgrade I think. Eastwood always seemed to be edged out by genuine 6'4'' guys like George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott so I think 6'3.5'' is a good estimate. Estimates for Eastwood for people who have seen him in person seem to range from 6'2'' to a big 6'4'' and this was before his recent height loss. A 6'2'' prime Eastwood would help explain the supposed height loss but would I think result in downgrading too many other heights. Guys like Lee Marvin, James Coburn and Jeff Bridges would be scarcely 6ft if Eastwood was only 6'2''.

Rising174cm said on 11/May/19
Good downgrade. 6'3.5" is probably the best guess peak and any higher seems doubtful. No more than 5'11.5" today, though at 88 years old.

Bora said on 9/May/19
Probably 6'1"

Vibram said on 9/May/19
180cm morning and 179cm night today in his 89th year. 191cm peak at age 35. I think he has lost a full 11cm or 4 1/4 inches guys. Lets not kid ourselves, thats a huge loss of height! I think taller men lose a lot more. My grandfather reminded me of Eastwood and my grandfather was def. 6ft1 peak (and maintaned that peak up to about his late 50's). But by his death at age 83 he was my height (5ft9.8). So my grandfather lost 3.2 inches. At age 74 we measured him at 5ft11.

James Brett 172cm said on 8/May/19
Looks about 6’2.75 here in 1995 with Steven Seagal
Click Here

Hong said on 8/May/19
Bridges is struggling with 6ft flat these day's, at that same event he's looking 2.5 to 3 inches shorter than 6ft2 Ryan Reynolds. Clint might be able to get 6ft.05 Busting a Gut now, but the chances of him doing that at this stage are slim. He looks like a 5ft11 to 6ft guy now, to be honest. And will be 89 years old at the end of May,so if he manages to reach 90 he will most likely lose a bit more height.

AntMan said on 7/May/19
Still able to edge out Jeff Bridges at the AFI Awards in 2017, so Eastwood could still be 6 foot plus when he stands up straight

Hong said on 4/May/19
Thanks for the response Rob, but given Jim Davis being older and most likely a fraction less than his peak at the time, I think considering the height difference between them both in that episode, I can't see a full 6ft3.5 for Clint. But since both guy's aren't standing back to back barefoot it's never going to be the best clip for height comparisons, but it's a clear proof that in case anyone out there still believes Clint was 6ft4 peak that he wasn't.