How tall is Clint Eastwood - Page 6

Toddy5'11" said on 27/Nov/18
187cm guy with out shoes said on 24/Nov/18
You could not say it better. I full agree Clint Eastwood was a real 6'2". 6'2.5 is the most I see in his ey day. The 6'3.75 listing is just a joke and In my opinion disrespectful for legit 6'3.75 men. Rob you gotta change this isting. Is too high!

Rory said on 27/Nov/18
The full 6ft4 was always highly doubtful for Clint Eastwood, to me he looked a solid 6ft3.5 guy. He was certainly closer to 6ft4 than 6ft2 though lol.

JamesB172cm said on 26/Nov/18
Arch Stanton said on 25/Nov/18
Charlton Heston was a real 6 ft 2 and Clint was a good inch taller in 1973 so guess that makes Heston 6'1.


That would make eastwood 6’3 range in 1973 then? Arch I thought you were of the opinion that Clint was 6’4 peak?

Arch Stanton said on 25/Nov/18
Charlton Heston was a real 6 ft 2 and Clint was a good inch taller in 1973 so guess that makes Heston 6'1.

187cm guy with out shoes said on 24/Nov/18
Clint stood around 6'2" back in the day at peak. He was only 6'4" tall in his cowboy heels and he wore them pretty much all the time even off the movie set.
Today in his 80's 180 cm in shoes. He's lost 7cm in height 3". Which is about right given the man's height. Back in the day Hollywood actors of his era were always listed as the magic 6'. But they were usually 175- 179cm without lifts. At least Clint really stood that tall. and this is why he always looked taller than other actors, because he was a legit six -foot two.

Rising - 174 cm said on 9/Nov/18
@Tall in the Saddle: I think you can sometimes get an idea, but there's more guessing involved and it's difficult to know exactly how much advantage someone is gaining in a photo like that. That's why I say you can sometimes look at eye level, but even then when you're talking about such a small difference(half inch or so), that could be no greater than the variation between one man's eye level and the other. I agree that Clint always had relatively long limbs, but the curvature of his spine and loss of height has made them disproportionate. You can sometimes see this when Clint stands next to someone still the height range Clint likely was at his peak.

@movieguy: You mean pics like this? Click Here I agree the difference looks at least 4" there, but I think the angle is also exaggerating the difference a bit, but I would think from that photo Robbins was either over 6'5" or Clint was under 6'1", but Clint has a good inch or more on 6'0" listed Laurence Fishburne in that shot, though so I think it's more a case of Robbins looking really tall than Clint looking short. Also notice Clint's legs don't look short compared to Robbins. But as you say, the difference varies since Clint has the camera advantage in some other pics: Click Here Click Here I wouldn't have necessarily guessed the difference much bigger even 5 years later in 2008 based on this photo: Click Here and Clint was almost certainly shorter in '08 than '03.

hulver said on 9/Nov/18
Clint was 6'3 no more no less ( of course in his 20's)

JamesB172cm said on 9/Nov/18
Tim Robbins would have had at least 1 inch on a peak Clint I would say

movieguy12 said on 9/Nov/18
Rory, I would expect Tim Robbins to look taller than Clint. The issue is that Robbins looks much taller. If Clint was 6'4'' and Robbins 6'5'' then how come Robbins towers Clint by 4 maybe 5 inches even allowing for Clint being older. There are other shots where the difference looks less I admit. Its so difficult to guess people's height sometimes even people you meet on a day to day basis can look taller or shorter depending on the occasion or viewpoint. Some people look tall from a distance but less so up close. Other people the opposite they don't look that tall until you stand right up close and they tower over you. I think 6'3'' prime is a good guess for Clint although I wouldn't argue with the 'official' height on this site. I do think he fell a little short of the full 6'4'' even in his youth.

Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Nov/18
@Rising - sure, those in the foreground will appear higher in the frame of reference as opposed to those in the background - that's when I think one makes automatic mental allowance for separation and angle. I think Clint is standing reasonably straight in the pic and with "allowance" I see little to choose between them. Of course that type of pic isn't perfect - side by side and photographed square on would do the trick but of course we rarely get such affording pics if ever.

Re older Clint. I corrupted my own point by leaving out a single key word. My opinion is that, without even seeing the stature of the young Clint, the old Clint clearly displays the physical attributes of a man who has lost some reasonable height (several of those characteristics you pointed out already in your reply - and I agree with those). I actually meant to say that I don't think anyone would argue "against" (key word) the obvious signs of height loss that old Clint displays. Phew, I hope I got it right that time. Lol.


Atop the attributes you pointed out I will also add on the length of Clint's arms - not at all out of place on a guy 6'3" or so - but now? Well his arm length looks disproportionately long relative to his current height and associated truncated torso. I will say that I think young Clint had a relatively shorter torso to leg length ratio in the first place but now it's that much more pronounced due to a combination of curvature and apparent shortening of the spine.

Terry said on 8/Nov/18
About 6'3 peak.

Rising - 174 cm said on 7/Nov/18
@Tall In The Saddle: I'll agree that someone seeing Clint in his 70's or 80's probably wouldn't imagine Clint was once 6'3"+ and to my knowledge, he hasn't had the injuries and surgeries others with great height loss such as Hulk Hogan, Dave Prowse, Lou Ferrigno, Dolph Lundgren, Schwarzenegger or his contemporary James Garner had. Though I do think Clint has had a noticeable curvature for the last 15-20 years and you could argue his head size and leg length are more typical of a 6'3"+ man. Back to Freeman, Clint is too close to the camera to compare in that pic, but his eye level is still clearly higher: Click Here I wouldn't say that photo suggests they're the same height, but I'll concede the difference is very small in the photo I posted and would probably be similarly small in your pic if Freeman were as close. By that I mean half an inch or 1 cm, probably not even 2 cm, but if Clint isn't standing as straight then I could see him being 2 cm taller standing as straight, but with Clint standing well in the other pic, I can't say if it'd be a full 2 cm difference equal distance from the camera. At least in the photos off screen, it doesn't even look like a full inch difference by this time. Then again, if Freeman were the 6'2.25" he's listed and Clint were the roughly 6'2.75" I guess him by '92-'93, then a half inch difference is all I should expect.

@James: Yeah, though I'll say the 3 cm difference you guessed is not out of the question either. I mean we're talking about 0.5 cm or 0.2", but the lowest I could see for Clint in 1988 is 190 cm and I don't think he was quite his peak height. Speaking of which, here's Clint in 1989 with 5'10" Mike Tyson and 5'9" Michael Jackson: Click Here Click Here Click Here Not the best pics, but taken together as a series, Clint looks like a towering 6'3", imo. Compare how Clint looks with both to how an apparently 6'2" Donald Trump did around the same time.

@movieguy12: Imo, Sheen was about 5'9", but no more. I've seen him with a good friend of mine and Charlie can look shorter due to horrendous posture the last couple of decades, but straightened out, he is or was about 5'9". He looks the same height as Michael Douglas in Behind the Scenes pics for Wall Street and I don't think Douglas wore lifts in that film.

@Rory: Good post, I agree. Tim Robbins is a good 6'4.5"-6'5" guy and still peak height. I think Clint would have probably measured around 6'1.5" at that time with posture that could already make him look shorter, but he was still more than an inch taller than 6'0" listed Laurence Fishburne.

JamesB172cm said on 6/Nov/18
If there was 1 inch difference between Neeson and Clint that probably rules out 190cm for clints peak

movieguy12 said on 6/Nov/18
I watched The Rookie recently and Clint looked pretty big and athletic in the film. I'd have guessed him 6'3'' still at this point though depends on how tall Charlie Sheen is. He claims 5'10''according to this site but some think he's a few inches shorter. I think Clint was still not too far off peak height at the time this film was made about 1990 or so I guess.

Rising - 174 cm said on 6/Nov/18
@James B: I think an inch difference at that time is fair, but yeah, Neeson could have been something like 1/8" or 1/4" over 6'4".

@movieguy12: I think their first scene together is probably best because they're indoors for a while. Here's a few stills: Click Here It's hard to tell when they're standing inside there, but if you watch the whole scene and see them walking, you can compare their heights pretty well, imo.

Tall In The Saddle said on 6/Nov/18
@Rising - I can flip the concept and also say that if someone had never seen Clint at his peak but only in old age I don't think they would argue that in old age Clint displays the obvious tell tale physical attributes of a man who has lost some reasonable height since his peak days. Conversely if one only saw Ed McMahon in old age I think they would likely guess that he retained a good deal of his peak height - great straight posture and no signs otherwise of shrinkage.

I still can't personally say that I see Clint as necessarily taller than Freeman in the linked pic - however, I like to be even handed and take on board that Eastwood may not be standing as exactly straight as Morgan - still pics can be hard to judge - I found another pic from the same event with Clint's head up and standing straighter - still I'm not seeing Clint as taller - maybe just me.

Link - Click Here

Rory said on 6/Nov/18
No there is quite a good scene to compare them in when they both walk alongside each other through the studio. Neeson looked a good inch taller, but Clint in his late fifties then would have lost some height, how much is debatable. I'd say he'd lost half an inch at least. It's not rocket science to see why he'd look shorter than Tim Robbins, by the time of Mystic river Clint had lost 2 inches in height, worsened posture and was a shorter man than Robbins anyway even if he'd been 30.

movieguy12 said on 5/Nov/18
In Dead pool it's hard to tell. There are no scenes to get a clear cut verdict. In some clint looks close to neeson in height. In another neeson looks significantly taller. For me the hardest to explain are the photos from time of mystic river where tim Robbains towers clint. Yet officially there is only an inch difference.

JamesB172cm said on 5/Nov/18
How much was there between Clint and Liam nesson in deadpool? 3cm maybe?

Certainly compared too Liam (who could have been a tiny bit over 6’4) he looked 6’3 I thought.

Christian 6'5 3/8" said on 5/Nov/18
@berta

Agreed. That's the most I can see for him.

Rising - 174 cm said on 5/Nov/18
Sorry, my Clint/McMahon link didn't work how it was supposed to, though it does work if you copy and paste the Tinyurl, but just in case: Click Here

Rising - 174 cm said on 4/Nov/18
@Canson: Fair enough and yeah he could have been around 191. 6'4" might have been something he could just measure out of bed or he fell somewhere between the two figures and sometimes rounded up. I was mostly commenting on footwear and that you can't assume Clint regularly had a big footwear advantage. I'm not saying he never had an advantage over anyone either. I'm just saying that I didn't notice any pattern of Clint wearing thick footwear compared to others around him. I agree he was about 190 from roughly 1988-1993. Maybe still the full 6'3" in '88 since I believe Neeson was at least 6'4" then or maybe even a hair over. Gran Torino is interesting because he had lost considerable height by that time, but the short supporting actors don't make this quite as noticeable as it otherwise may have been.

@Tall In The Saddle: I think you make some great points, but Clint is a bit taller than Freeman in that pic: Click Here His eye level is higher and so is his head unless Freeman has almost no extra hair, but I believe Freeman is standing straighter as well. I'm not at all sure Clint was shorter than McMahon then: TinyURL.com/y86fb6mn Considering the top of Clint's head looks as high with the worse posture you mention and that Clint winds up further from the camera if anything(which may have a negligible effect, but doesn't seem to help either) then it's more than fair to call them the same height, imo. I will concede McMahon could have lost more than 1 cm, but the excellent posture you mention makes me think he probably hadn't lost too much yet. Clint on the other hand was slouching quite a bit by this time and I could see his spine being more curved. As for cowboy boots. 1.75" is the standard heel, but 2" weren't uncommon. Less would be low for a cowboy heel while more(2.5" give or take) would be a specifically raised heel in style during the 70's and particularly favored by men who wanted to look taller like Burt Reynolds. Clint's boots usually looked pretty standard to me. Even the 2" heel wouldn't give a full 1/4" advantage over the 1.75" without a thicker front then a typical 0.4" or so. The marginal height increase gets smaller the bigger the heel gets without a thicker platform. I have standard 1.75" cowboy boots that give me about 1.6" actual height and then I have 2" heeled Cubans that give me 1.7" range actual height and then I have 2.75" heeled Cubans, but those only give me about 1 cm or so more actual height than the 2" and that's because the front is similar. But I think you make a good point about Clint's height loss bringing his peak into question more. I doubt you'd have too much debate(beyond where he fell in the 6'3"-6'4" range) if Clint weren't still around struggling with 6 feet and I tended to accept his 6'4" claim myself for years.

Canson said on 4/Nov/18
@Rising: to clarify I’ve seen a few of his movies outside of Westerns but most are in later years. I think peak is 6’3ish maybe a hair over is possible but I don’t see close to 6’4. Maybe I’m wrong. I think my estimate for 190cm was likely him maybe in some later years. It’s strange to see him in Grand Torino and even the later movies and he does look shorter. We watched Grand torino last night as a matter of fact

Tall In The Saddle said on 4/Nov/18
In 1969 39 yo Eastwood at best looked no more than .5" taller than 6'2.5" listed Ali who did acknowledge Clint to be taller but I honestly didn't perceive much difference between them.

There is a clip showing a very young Eastwood looking virtually equal in height with Rock Hudson - in reality Eastwood had to be at least 1"-1.5" shorter depending how tall you give Hudson (6'4.5"-6'5")- so we have at least one solid example that Eastwood was not immune to enhancement.

Cowboy boots come in varying heel size let alone custom heel - genres that allow for boots such as westerns and swashbucklers etc. also allow for less apparent potential heel advantage than what one might otherwise detect in dress shoes.

Eastwood was at least .5" shorter than McMahon - McMahon was 7 years Clint's senior - don't know if it's equitable to suggest generally that McMahon (69) was only perhaps 1 cm less than his own peak while affording Clint up to 1" loss and at least 2 cm less than peak citing such as a loss as a "typical" loss for a man of Cint's age (62) as at that time.

In all fairness I will add (I've said it before) that McMahon's posture is excellent while Eastwood's is much less so.

In my eyes Eastwood only appears even with 6'2.25 peak listed Freeman in the photo linked from 1992.

And while perhaps not usual or typical the height loss that Eastwood is assumed to have suffered is certainly not unheard of or impossible. It is essentially that height loss that has brought Eastwood's apparent younger height into a retroactive question. If Eastwood somehow disappeared from public eye after his peak days I don't think there would be much contention as to his being in the realm of 6'3.5" back in the day.

berta said on 3/Nov/18
191-191,5 peak

Canson said on 2/Nov/18
@Arch and Rising: I’ve sedn a few but I will say the meat and potatoes of my basis is Westerns. I can admit 6’2.5-6’3 may be low but a legit to strong 6’3” may be good. Something like 6’3.25 or 6’3-6’3.25. I’ve never seen 192 range for him imho

Rising - 174 cm said on 1/Nov/18
Here's Clint in 1992 looking very close in height to Ed McMahon(listed 191 cm or 6'3.25"): Click Here McMahon could have lost 1 cm by then, but it still backs up what I've said about Clint being 190 cm in '92-'93 around the time of Unforgiven/In the Line of Fire. Keep in mind, Clint was already an age where an inch loss would not be that unusual and at least a 2 cm loss would be pretty typical.

@Arch: That's a good idea and perhaps feasible in cases where the actual difference is pretty well established. Such cases would be ones where those arguing for a 6'2" or so peak Clint have to lower Bridges, Matheson, Santoni etc. to 6'0". In fairness to Canson, I think he's generally accurate, but I'd imagine he must be thinking of mostly Westerns when I don't think Clint typically had an advantage since everyone else had boots. John Wayne made a similar point when questioned about his footwear in westerns vs outside of westerns. Clint's height loss was bound to make some question his peak height, but the man is 88 years old and that's not much younger than Eli Wallach was when I took a photo with him and Eli looked closer to 5'3" range by that time compared to a peak of around 5'7". So if a much shorter Wallach can lose 3"-4" then surely Clint could as well.

Simon6.0 said on 30/Oct/18
I see Dolph Lundgren 6'4 peak clearly taller than Clint Eastwood in his younger days. If Doph Lundgren was 6'4 Clint was not even 6'3 but 6'2.5 to 6'2.75

Arch Stanton said on 26/Oct/18
Agreed with Rising and Rory, the vast majority of Clint's films he was wearing normal shoes. Canson obviously hasn't seen many films outside the westerns. It's a pity Rob doesn't keep a sub page on here with an actor filmography in which we can document how actors looked on screen, it would save having to bring up the old "two inches on Tim Matheson", "2.5 inches on Jeff Bridges" type comments whenever anybody argues low.

Csimpson6ft said on 25/Oct/18
@Greatman yeah it's not impossible, he might be 5'11.75 or 5'11.5 today.

Canson said on 24/Oct/18
@Rising: 6’3” is the most I could buy for him. My estimate was around 190cm at a low which is more or less 6’3”

Rory said on 24/Oct/18
To say he always wore boots is nonsense too. The guys made about 60 movies and out of those maybe eight to ten were westerns where he wore boots like everyone else in the film. Outside of westerns he didn't wear them so to say he always wore them is tripe.

Rising - 174 cm said on 23/Oct/18
@Canson: He usually didn't wear boots outside of westerns when everyone else was also wearing them with the one exception being Coogan's Bluff. This is an example of what he wore in Dirty Harry: Click Here He definitely had a couple of inches on Reni Santoni back then and Santoni still looked at least 6'1" to me over 20 years later on Seinfeld. He still looked 6'3" to me next to 6'4" Liam Neeson in Dead Pool.

Greatman said on 23/Oct/18
Rob, is there a chance of him already being below the 6ft mark? And if not, do you think that by the time he turns 90, he will have lost at least 10 cm at that point?

Canson said on 22/Oct/18
@Connor: highest I can see for him is a full 6’3”. He never looked what Rob has him listed at. He always wore boots as well

Csimpson6ft said on 22/Oct/18
@Canson sorry but he didn't look just 190cm at his peak, he had to be at least 6'3.5, 6'2.75 is just too low, today he might be 6'0 or possibly 5'11.5, and you do realise that some people can shrink more than others right? It depends on your diet and lifestyle etc

Mister lennon said on 20/Oct/18
Van cleef was a true 6'2 guy. Clint a solid 6'3 peak.

kiksonheight said on 16/Oct/18
Peak never over 6'3. 6'3 max.
Cleef was not 6'2 more 6'1 range. Looked a solid 185 man 186. Clint 6'2.75

Arch Stanton said on 16/Oct/18
Nice one Rob having the archive feature to see older comments. Haven't got much time to look but it'll come in handy somewhere, even if it's just to giggle at G's old comments. :-)

Kyuss101 said on 15/Oct/18
He had at least 1.5" on Cleef so imo he was between 6-3 to 6-4. No least than 6-3no more than 6-4. Anything else is ridiculous

Tall Sam said on 15/Oct/18
@CristopherAlex, I've never seen Eastwood quoted as saying he's anything other than 6'4", nor even a quote acknowledging his shrinkage with age.

kiksonheight said on 14/Oct/18
Rob Mr.Clint was 190-191 cm in his peak. I think is fair enough for a downgrade. I vote for 6'3.25 absolute peak. What do you think

Tall Sam said on 12/Oct/18
I think 192 cm or a weak 193 cm barefoot peak is not impossible. I think he probably could've cleared 190 cm, maybe it'd work as an evening height.

CristopherAlex said on 12/Oct/18
Average shrink of a 60 years old is about 1 inch or 1'.25 max. I see Eastwood at 6'2 in the early 90's and 6'1.25 in 2000. I think he was 6'3 in his peak an Arnold 6'1 max. I have to agree people inflated heights and I'm sure Easwood and Arnold inflated 1 inch their heights. 'I'm convinced Arnold inflated his height more than Eastwood. Eastwood maybe add 1 inch I read he once claimed 6'4 but in two ocassions claim I was 6'3 and other one: I'm 6'3 in 1977 after his movie Josey Wales.
Rob own Eastwood words: I'm 6'3. Why list him at 6'3.75. Please downgrade

Rory said on 11/Oct/18
To say you'd be surprised if Clint was a full 6ft3 peak means without even looking at any other of your posts on other pages I'd take any opinion of yours with a pinch of salt.

Canson said on 10/Oct/18
Was never 6’4. I’d be surprised if he measured a full 6’3 peak the more I’ve seen. 190 cm barefoot 6’4 in shoes. For the record, there are plenty of 90 year olds who don’t lose 3-4” in height over their lives

Halloween333 said on 8/Oct/18
How much do you think he weighed in his late teens/early 20's, Rob?

Rising - 174 cm said on 8/Oct/18
I was posting some of this in reply to a silly comment about Clint being 187 range by the 90's on another page so I thought I'd post some here. Clint was still taller than solid 6'2" Morgan Freeman in 1993: Click Here and was still comfortably taller than Gene Hackman that same year: Click Here Click Here Click Here

Clint with 6'1.5" listed Jim Carrey in 1995: Click Here Clint probably lost a bit more height between '93 and '95, though I think he'd have still measured around 6'2.5".

Rising - 174 cm said on 9/Sep/18
Interesting pic with Glover. I've guessed Clint at 190 cm or just under 6'3" by Unforgiven/In the Line of Fire for a while and that's also my guess for Glover's peak. They're basically the same height there. If anything I'd guess Clint a tiny bit taller, but it's possible both were a flat 6'3" at that time. I'm sure Clint had already lost some height by his early 60's.

iosi_6 said on 9/Sep/18
Clint is higher than Danny. Let's not forget, also, their bad body postures

Mr S said on 8/Sep/18
Hi Rob, from looking at his films how old do you think Eastwood was when he lost his first half inch? Considering his height loss is greater than average do you think he may have lost height by his early 40's

Rory said on 4/Sep/18
Someone like Jarvis cocker or David Tennant even are skinny men but Clint wasn't, slim yes but never skinny. Glover was only 46 in 1992 although you could argue he may have been susceptible to early height loss and had gone from 6ft3 to 6ft2.75 by then. Clint in the early 90s looked 6ft2.5 I think, an inch down from his 1960s peak.

Dave279cm said on 4/Sep/18
Glover was 46 in 92,I wouldn't say he lost any height at that age,As for Clint,he was still on the 6ft3 range aged 62 or maybe 6ft2.5. Both guys look very similar in height in that pic.

James B 172cm said on 3/Sep/18
Not impossible Glover was starting too shrink a tiny bit under 6'3 in 1992.

iosi_6 said on 2/Sep/18
Click Here
next to Danny... in 1992

Rising - 174 cm said on 23/Aug/18
@AnonymousMe: Other than Rory suggesting you were trying to downgrade Clint, I don't see anyone else taking the comment too seriously. I replied once to say I wouldn't describe Clint as skinny myself, but that's it. I agree that there's no use arguing on about semantics and skinny is ultimately subjective. My high has been 147-150 and my current weight is more 128 so my perspective is probably different than some here. Interestingly, he was being described 216 by 1988 as Rob mentions above and he didn't look to me like he lost 25 pounds over the next 5 years yet he's still being listed 6'3" and 190 in this 1993 NY Times article on action stars: Click Here More on topic, all of those 6'3" listings in the late 80's/early 90's make me wonder if he claimed that around the time, especially since all the other height listings in that '93 match with what those actors claim with the possible exception of Jason Scott Lee, whose claim I'm unaware of, but the LA Times used those same 5'11" and 155 figures the year before so that was likely his claim or at least his "official" listing. Somewhat germane to the weight topic is Tom Selleck, whom I believe was 6'3.5" back in the 80's and he was always said to be 200 pounds during his heyday. There's a good chance that was also Clint's exact height and weight at one point during his life.

AnonymousMe said on 21/Aug/18
...with all due respect, MovieGuy12, I think some others take comments a bit more seriously than you or I do. If, according to an interview from '91, he was fresh of The Rookie, where he was pretty big...particularly in the arms, as reported, he was still just 190 at 6'3 plus, I call that skinny. Others call it lean, or thin. I really don't care, any which way (...but loose).

berta said on 20/Aug/18
average guess is what he looks/lokked

viper said on 20/Aug/18
6-3.5 peak maybe

movieguy12 said on 20/Aug/18
AnonymousMe, The comments aren't being protective about Clint's heights it's just harmless fun. I admit that myself and probably some of the regulars on this site maybe are slightly obsessive about these matters but at the end of the day whether Clint was a lowly 6'2'' or a manly 6'4'' it doesn't really matter. He was and is a great actor and director.

Rory said on 18/Aug/18
His cowboy boots in Hang em high didn't look 2 inches to me I'd say they were 1.5 inch heels, you get a good look at his boots in the opening credits of that film. In the film it's clear he's substantially taller than 6ft1 Bruce Dern and towers 5ft10 Pat Hingle. I'd say in those boots he'd measure a solid 6ft5 range and a solid 6ft3.5 barefoot.

AnonymousMe said on 18/Aug/18
...it's interesting how people get very protective, I guess you'd call it, of Eastwood's height or weight. About 20 years ago, I got down to about 4 or 5 percent body fat. I was shredded. And anyone who, then or now has seen a photo of me with my shirt off guessed me at anything from 175 lbs to 190lbs. And muscular. Truth is, at just over 6', I got down to 148 lbs and could barely lift 145 lbs to bench. Photos, and film, can be very deceiving. And calling him skinny isn't an attempt at downgrading his height (I"ve always said 6'3 plus), it's just a comment. lol. I've wasted enough time on an 88 year old's former build, I'm not sure why a few others keep arguing over what is and always will be just a bunch of opinions.

movieguy12 said on 18/Aug/18
Clint wasn't skinny more lean looking. He looked pretty strong, skinny would suggest he was weak looking which he wasn't.

James B 172cm said on 17/Aug/18
clint eastwood lookspowerfully built hereClick Here

Rory said on 17/Aug/18
Clint being described as skinny is just a straw downgraders clutch at to justify him being shorter when they fail to provide evidence of a 1960s/70s Clint looking under 6ft3. The other one being his hairdo. The guy was perfectly normal weight wise. I saw Joe Kidd the other day and Clint again had a solid 2 inches on Don Stroud and barely shorter than Greg Walcott.

Rising - 174 cm said on 16/Aug/18
@Parker: Good post. I forgot about that. I suspect Hudson was just under 6'5" or around 195 cm and Clint doesn't look much shorter. And yeah, Clint was never really what I'd call skinny, but he could look kind of thin and lanky in a suit in the 70's and he was always lean. He did lift weights before it was fashionable to do so and added quite a bit of muscle by the late 70's/80's. I'd say he gained at least 25 pounds and he wound up with a broader back and shoulders than you'd have thought seeing him in a suit.

AnonymousMe said on 16/Aug/18
...I stand by the Eastwood being "super skinny" comment. Only in maybe a handful of 80's movies, give or take, did he look a bit bulked up...but even then his overall look remained thin, especially the legs. In 60's and most 70's films, especially in profile, the man was a rail. Being on film always makes you look a bit heavier or bigger, many stars have said that. Some of the side sides of Eastwood in Coogan's Bluff make him look like a rail. It's all opinion, as none of us know the man.

Tony G said on 15/Aug/18
Rich, thanks for posting that photo. I have it, too, but did not get around to posting it here. Clint looks 3-4 inches taller than Leonard in that photo.

Terry said on 15/Aug/18
A tall man indeed but Clint Eastwood's height is difficult to judge because slim guys to look taller than they are. I think in his peak he was about 6'2 and a half bare feet and close to 6'4 with his cowboy boots on in the western films( including his Stetson)

Dave179cm said on 15/Aug/18
There are a couple of black and white pics on line of Clint and Hudson standing. Next to each other and although you can't see the their feet,Hudson is clearly taller than Clint by about an inch or maybe a bit more.

Dave179cm said on 14/Aug/18
I wouldn't say Clint was super skinny,he was lean and slender,super skinny is a bit of an exaggeration.But he did look 6ft5 in the boots ,a solid 6ft3 barefoot peak.

James B 172cm said on 13/Aug/18
clint makes hudson look well under 6'5

AnonymousMe said on 13/Aug/18
...another "for what it's worth" comment; I just watched Coogan's Bluff again, and this time I noticed during one scene they show a chart Eastwood is holding, of Ringerman's (Stroud's) stats. You'd think, only 24 hours later, I'd remember which scene this was because I did pause on it. I "think" it may have been when Eastwood goes to the hospital to try and get Ringerman (Stroud) out, by bluffing his way through. Anyway, it has Stroud's character listed as 6', and, I think, 156 lbs (the weight was harder to read). Accurate info? Who knows. Eastwood sure looked tall, but also super skinny....which is hard to do when photographed on film...unless you really are super skinny. But this was 1968, and guys weren't as tall as now, generally. My own "opinion" is that Eastwood...in this film, with boots, was not 6 feet 6 inches tall. With that hat he'd be like 6'8 or 6'9! 6'3 plus, sure. But a full 6'4? I always have my doubts.

Rich Paul said on 12/Aug/18
I don’t know if this has been linked, but here’s very interesting as well as revealing photo showing Clint standing next to Leonard Nimoy.

Click Here

Parker said on 12/Aug/18
Been posted a lot of times I know - but still worth another look (1.15) of Clint against 6'5 listed Rock Hudson
Click Here

Make your own judgment.

MAD SAM said on 12/Aug/18
Poor guy has lost a lot of height ; peak 192.5cm at 6’3.75”, currently 6’0.5” at 184 cm

Rising - 174 cm said on 10/Aug/18
@Dave179cm: Santoni has had 6'0", 6'1" and 6'3" listings on the internet, but internet listings should be taken with a grain of salt as the source is often fan edited. He did look around 4"-5" taller than 5'8" Sean Penn in Bad Boys(1983), but you never saw a wide shot so they could have minimized the difference to make framing the shots easier. Santoni also appeared on Seinfeld when he was 54-55 and looked pretty much right between roughly 5'11" Jerry Seinfeld and 6'2.5"-6'3" Michael Richards in height. Then there was Cobra where he looked about 2" taller than weak 5'9" Stallone, iirc, but Stallone typically looks 5'10.5"-5'11" when he wears lifts and he certainly wore lifts in that as he was looking similar in some scenes to his 6 foot wife Brigitte Nielsen! Overall, I'd guess Santoni at about 6'1" give or take based on these, but I could certainly be wrong. Clint looked about 2" taller for the most part, but there was one scene where he oddly looked around 4" taller, iirc, though it might have been the camera and Santoni's head down.

@James B: I wouldn't say Clint has looked older than he is, but he doesn't seem to care to hide his age like most actors so some might be surprised to see him age. Some forget movie stars are human beings too. There are some actors who look significantly older than they are to the point they're cast playing the father of someone close to their own age!

James B 172cm said on 9/Aug/18
rob i think since the 1980s clint has gotten flack for looking much older than his years.

Just goes too show even if your a tall man like clint people will still try too find faults with you.

Dave179cm said on 8/Aug/18
It was a TV show made in the early 70s named Counselor at law.The main Guy in it was an actor called. Arthur Hill who was listed as 6ft3,Santoni was also a regular member of the cast,and he looked almost as tall as Hill,he looks a solid 6ft2.You can see it on youtube

Dave179cm said on 6/Aug/18
Reno Santoni Clint's partner in Deity Harry was in a movie with an actor called Arturo Hill who is listed as 6ft3,and also Lee Majors who is listed as 5ft11,there is a black and white pic of all 3 standing together,and Santoni looks in the 6ft2 range next to Majors,and as tall as Hill.It is odd as Santoni is listed as 6ft flat but only looks an inch or 2 shorter than Clint,judging by those pics Santoni was more 6ft2 than 6ft,explaining why he was not so much shorter than Clint.

Dave179cm said on 6/Aug/18
Honbel.190.5 is 6ft3.

fed5'9 said on 6/Aug/18
Guys if you think a person shrinks 10 cms because they are old you are wrong, just check old nba players. By the way, an inch is 2.54 cms, even if you have terrible back problem you won’t shrink more than 3 cms, 4 maximum if some discs are severely damaged. He’s posture is another completely different thing.

From 1,91-1,93 to 1,82-1,83.....seriously?

Honbel said on 5/Aug/18
I do remember he also claim in 1991 to be 6'2 nowdays and he lost some height. He was a fit guy I guess him 6'3 in his 30's

Honbel said on 5/Aug/18
I know he was measured 1'88 m in 1989 so he was 58 years old at tha time. A 58-59 year old man hitting 1'88 could never been over 190 in his prime. He was 1'90 on the nose 6'3

movieguy12 said on 5/Aug/18
In the Line of Fire was made years ago when Eastwood was much younger. If he was sub 6ft then as the poster if genuine seems to believe then it's hard to see 6'4'' prime. Most would guess him as about 6'2'' when this film was made I'd suggest. I wish we could nail this guys prime height down. Unfortunately the claims to have met Clint on this site are few and far between and hard to know if their genuine or accurate with regard to height. Estimates go from 6'2'' to 6'4''. I'd go for the middle probably at about 6'3''.

Tall Sam said on 4/Aug/18
With Tobin Bell and Dylan McDermott in In the Line of Fire he looks at worst 6'2" with the early signs of height loss maybe just appearing.

Rory said on 4/Aug/18
He would have been 6ft2.5 range in the early 90s, an inch down from peak.

Dave179cm said on 4/Aug/18
Clint's posture is very important when judging his height especially at his current old age,standing with slack loose and slouching posture,he looks in the 5ft11 range,but if he straightened up for a measurement he would be taller,maybe a little over 6ft.

Dave179cm said on 4/Aug/18
If he was 5ft11.5 aged early sixties at the time of In The Line of Fire.he would be about 5ft10 now.

Satellitebutterfly said on 3/Aug/18
..I saw the filming & was cast as an extra in the movie "In Line Of Fire," and saw Mr. Eastwood close, also and walked next to him at lunch break, talked to him, so polite, and I don't think he was more than 5 ft 11.5 maybe. I am only 5 ft, but have a brother 6"4"so that's how I judged his height. Remember his age and everone shrinks 3 to 4 inches as they age.

Mister lennon said on 3/Aug/18
Everyone was wearing cowboy boots in the western films, not only clint. That argument is silly.
Clint was solid 191-192 peak. Solid 6'3.
The downgrading attemps are absurd.

Rising - 174 cm said on 2/Aug/18
Clint's height is tricky in films because differences can be minimized in close ups due to posture and framing shots. Take Magnum Force and 6'0" Hal Holbrook for example. I'd say Clint was no more than 3" taller in most scenes, but there's a wide shot where they're walking down the hall and Clint looks perhaps even 4" taller in that scene. Clint also looks at least 2.5" taller than 6'0.5" David Soul on the runway. As for Matheson, well it looks an easy 1.5" if not 2" here: Click Here And good point about boots, Rory. If you're comparing him to co-stars then the boots will almost be negligible because a standard cowboy boot has a 1.75" heel adding 1.6" of actual height while a bigger cowboy boot will have a 2" heel adding maybe 1.75" of actual height. I don't even think Clint wore the 2" heels. A 65 year old Clint might have been "only" 6'2.5", but his posture was already making it difficult to tell exactly how tall he was.

Rory said on 2/Aug/18
@ Stig and @ Honbel..Utter nonsense. To say he was "one inch max" taller than Matheson is the first untruth, when he had at least 3cm on him in that scene and I would argue 1.5 inches. Secondly, what's this about Matheson being "registered" at 6ft1.5 ? His claim is 6ft2 as is his celebheight listing and it's the range he looked too. Thirdly, in that scene Eastwood was wearing thin footwear compared to the rookies(including Matheson) who had 1-1.5 inch boots on so Clint was probably giving away about half inch at least in footwear. Finally, everyone in those westerns was wearing cowboy boots, it's not as if Clint had this seismic shoe advantage in boots whilst others were bare feet. As for Andy Murray the guy always looked 6ft2 for me I'm not sure who this unamed clan of people were who bought nearly 6ft3 for him. A guy like Clint in his 30s would have cleared out Murray by 1.5 inches easily.

Bradley said on 1/Aug/18
Talked to a gas station guy in Trinidad Colorado coming back from California, he was in town the day before filming his new movie....said he was 6' 1", looks great.

Honbel said on 1/Aug/18
stig said on 30/Jul/18 totally agree... I always said he was 6'2.5 barefoot. If he ever was 6'3.75 barefoot can you imagine how tall he would look with boots? well It would be over 6'5 close to 6'6 which is absurd and If he really was 6'3.75 people would guess he was 6'5 because Clint is the guy who make you think he is taller than he really is very thin and slim. Rob I think Clint is a similar case as Andy Murray. Most people's perceptions are screwed up when it comes to height. If it hadn't been for Murray's 6'1 7/8" admission, a lot of people here would still guess him to be 6'2"-6'3". Even the Average Height vote is already 6'2"+ Clint same... All say 6'3-6'4and he was under 6'3. MX 6'2.75

stig said on 30/Jul/18
have a look at Clint next to Tim Matheson in Magnum Force 1973 . when Eastwood was prob at his max height.. he has only one inch max over Matheson. & Matheson is registered at 6ft 1.5 . Can only give Mr Eadstwood a 6ft 2.5 at he's peak.. prod shading 6ft these days.. I think he always looked 6ft 4 in them cowboy films.. because of the boots they wore..

AnonymousMe said on 27/Jul/18
...somewhere online, there is a prop replica of Harry Callahan's I.D. from Dirty Harry, and it has him at 6'2 and 185 lbs. Is the prop replica actually an exact prop replica? Who knows. And if so, are the measurements legit? Who knows. But I traced it back to a site which claims to have or sell "prop replicas".

Dave179cm said on 25/Jul/18
I agree with. Rising-174cm.I also think if Clint could straighten up to his full height he could still clear. 6ft.I believe at peak he was a solid 6ft3 Guy who measured 6ft4 out of bed,and has lost l around 3 to 4 inches shorter now due too a mixture of height loss from old age and poor posture .

James B 172cm said on 23/Jul/18
Arch- but i have become better at guessing height since then.

Rising - 174 cm said on 22/Jul/18
@Benny: That depends on the picture. Cooper isn't taller than 6'0.5", but he's also not 2.5" taller than Clint. He barely looks any taller in this picture from the 2015 Oscars: Click Here And he's at most an inch taller again in these pics from another event: Click Here Click Here Clint is also less likely to stand his full height.

The real question is his height when he was younger and when he's lost height.

Miiiiiiighty_- said on 22/Jul/18
That's crazy how much height he lost...
If you look at him next to others actors, he shrinkage is obvious.
I'm thinking to him next to Morgan Freeman in "Unforgiven" and nowadays..
He was still taller back then and now he is clearly shorter..
But on the other hand he is really old so...

192cm prime, 183ish nowadays ( still think he can clear the 6 ft mark for a few moments if he make the effort to stand straight )

Arch Stanton said on 22/Jul/18
LOL James, you always used to say he looked at least 6 ft 4 in that film!

James B 172cm said on 16/Jul/18
looked at 6'3 in play misty for me

Benny said on 15/Jul/18
Have you seen him next to Bradley Cooper (6'1"). Clint doesn't look a tad over 5'10 1/2"

Dave179cm said on 14/Jul/18
Sometimes he could look more 6ft2 range,but I would put that down to bad and slouching posture.I think 6ft3 peak with good posture is fair.

Pedriscovery said on 13/Jul/18
Click Here this is a good Eixample of clint height,in this photo donald is in the ley si de with opten legos and still more tall than clint,with a good posture sutherland is cleary more tall than eastwood.

AnonymousMe said on 12/Jul/18
Croaker1, that's interesting. I wonder what back injuries he's had. And, if those hadn't happened, I wonder how tall he'd be, today?

Ant said on 11/Jul/18
He looks 5’11-6 foot range these days circa 6’2 perhaps a tad over when younger - confusingly he could look anywhere between just over 6foot to 6’3 in his younger days - perhaps depending on footwear and camera angles - for example in Play Misty for Me he only looks pretty similar in height to 6ft John Larch

Dave179cm said on 11/Jul/18
190.5 evening height is the minimum I would go for in his youth at peak.

Croaker1 said on 10/Jul/18
During a celebrity golf match about five years ago, Eastwood was being interviewed by Fox News, I saw and heard him state categorically that after all of his injuries and back surgeries, he has gone from about 6'3" down to 5'11" today. So you can all stop arguing between 6'3" and 6"4" !!!

roterrman said on 9/Jul/18
this listing is a Joke. A downgrade is neccesary. He was 190'5 max

James B 171.5cm said on 8/Jul/18
even with good posture in heartbreak ridge you could tell he wasnt over 6'3 by that stage.

AnonymousOne said on 7/Jul/18
...from Muscle and Fitness in 1991, an Eastwood interview had him at 6'4, 190 (easily Googled). I only mention this because it counters the 215 lb claim. Did he lose 26 lbs in 3 years? I doubt it. Maybe both are true, I don't know. But, in 1991, he had just done The Rookie, and was pretty muscled up for that. He's always looked very skinny, to me, which can effect height guesstimates.

Mister lennon said on 7/Jul/18
He looked 6'3 at least in a few dollars more. More than 1 inch taller than 6'2 lee van cleef.

James B 171.5cm said on 5/Jul/18
anyone here agree that in a few dollars more clint looked not much over 6ft? they must have had a tall cast for that particular film.

Dave179cm said on 4/Jul/18
I would say he was 193cm out of bed and was more 191.5cm for most of the day,when young.At times could look 189cm because of slack and loose posture.Since he did make a lot of Westerns he did wear cowboy boots,but no higher than than the rest of the cast,who all would have worn them too.

Canson said on 4/Jul/18
6’3.75 is too high even peak. But not under maybe 6’3. 6’2.75/6’3.25. It’s obvious if he’s listed 6’3 216. He was in a lot of movies where he wore boots as well

Jim hoppa said on 3/Jul/18
Id put him 6-3.5 peak for sure. No less. Did shrink quite a lot after 50 years old.

James B 171.5cm said on 2/Jul/18
i think clint was 6ft3 1/8 by 1975

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Jul/18
Kennedy edged out Clint

movieguy12 said on 1/Jul/18
I also think George Kennedy was slightly taller than Clint. There is a German guy in the movie who was taller than either though. I did look up this fellows height once can't remember his name and I think it said 6ft 4.5'' Don't know if this is accurate. I think all the evidence suggests Clint was in the 6'3'' to 6'4'' range. In other words a weak 6'4'' tops. Rob seems to be of this opinion. There are those who claim they met him and say 6'2'' but I'm not sure about this.

Mister lennon said on 30/Jun/18
I think than kennedy was still 6'4 in 1975.clint was still a strong 6'3 at that time. Only a little bit shorter than kennedy.

James B 171.5cm said on 30/Jun/18
kennedy could have been dipping under 6'4 by 1975.

clint had hair advantage in the scenes he shared with kennedy in Eiger Sanction.

Tall Sam said on 28/Jun/18
There is relatively little between Eastwood and Kennedy, maybe a cm at most but 70s movies like Eiger Sanction and Thunderbolt make the 6'2" and change peak claims for Eastwood unlikely IMO. The lowest you could argue, near some strong 6'4" guys like Gregory Walcott or Harve Presnell is a strong 6'3" for Clint, maybe 6'3.25"-6'3.5" was his honest peak noon height. I don't buy anything south of 6'3" for him peak.

James B 171.5cm said on 27/Jun/18
Nobody believes me when i have said before that kennedy was taller in Eiger Sanction.

movieguy12 said on 27/Jun/18
There's a scene in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot where he walks side by side with Jeff Bridges and Eastwood is clearly a couple of inches taller. Jeff Bridges claims 6'2'' but not everyone buys this. Eastwood does have that slightly hunched look at times in the film though I agree James B. Most obviously in the scene where he uses the belt to put his shoulder back in place. I think George Kennedy was a little taller but then again there's a photo of them together filming the Eiger Sanction and they appear the same height

James B 171.5cm said on 26/Jun/18
in thunderbolt and lightfoot his posture was horrendous.


could have been caused by heavy weight lifting or early symptoms of ostreoporosis?

Kyuss101 said on 16/Jun/18
Genuine tall guy in prime. Legit height but lost a ton of height now.

Tall In The Saddle said on 4/Jun/18
Lou Gossett Jr appears to have suffered similar height loss - though some question Gossett's orig. peak height just as they do Clint's. Clint exhibits a lot of the tell tale signs of height reduction - shortening of torso (though short to begin with imo), curvature of spine and neck angling forward. Straightening all that out Clint gains same reasonable height back imo - but not quite the 6'4" claimed back in his hey day.

Canson said on 4/Jun/18
@Rory: I guess anything is possible but it’s hard to believe even 3” let alone 3.5”. I can see maybe a 2” loss by that stage. A lot is due to posture however. Not sure how straight he could stand. In my opinion he was max 6’3” peak and not sure today

James B 171.5cm said on 3/Jun/18
he looked taller in the enforcer than he did in dirty harry or his 1960s westerns.

must be the way those movies were filmed with the camera.

Rory said on 1/Jun/18
@Canson, why is it hard to believe he'd have lost 3 inches when thats an average loss for a man of nearly 90 ? It's like saying it's hard to believe your mobility worsens at 90, it's pretty common...I think he's lost a solid 3.5 inches, from 6ft3.5 to now 5ft11.75-6ft.

Rising - 174 cm said on 1/Jun/18
@Canson: A few typos in my last post. I meant possible he had lost 1 cm by 50. I'd say somewhere in the range of 191 to 192 cm would be likely for Clint in his prime. My father is 66 and as of a few years ago had lost an inch going from a solid 6'0" or 6'0.25" to roughly 5'11" or a bit over, but there are specific factors like injuries that may have contributed to this as a noticeable amount of his height loss was pretty early. In Clint's case, he looked to have shrunk the most in his late 60's/early 70's. I could still see him looking near 6'3" in the early 90's, but look at how much shorter he looks a decade later around the time of Mystic River. If we had a history of Clint's injuries/surgeries like we do with James Garner, it might help explain things.

Dave179cm said on 1/Jun/18
Clint was 88 yesterday,at 70 at the time of Space Cowboys he was around 6ft2 but could look a bit shorter due to bad posture,I agree he was closer to 6ft3 peak than 6ft4.Clint's posture was always relaxed and slouching,he very rarely stood to his full height,and IMO that has contributed to his excess height loss,look at people like Christopher Lee,John Cleese,Steven Seagal all stood and stand with perfect posture,I have never seen Lee,for example,standing with similar posture to Clint,and he looked still in the 6ft4 range right up to his eighties.

Canson said on 31/May/18
@Rising: that’s what I thought in his prime he was 6’3”. It’s hard to believe he’s lost 3” in height even at that age. My father is 69 and is still within half inch of his peak

Dream(5'9.5") said on 30/May/18
If Clint was only 6'2." then, Donald Sutherland would be 6'1.75" and Muhammad Ali would be 6'0.75"

Rising - 174 cm said on 29/May/18
Looked more 6'3" than 6'4", imo with 5'9.5" Geoffrey Lewis in Any Which Way But Loose and Every Which Way You Can. I'm not saying he was closer to 6'3" than 6'4". He was clearly taller than 6'2" William Smith in Any Which Way You Can, but not a lot taller. Of course, he'd be near 50 by that point so it's certainly possible he was 191 cm by then and had lost an inch.

Dave179cm said on 29/May/18
If he had the same posture as McMahon there would be nothing in it.

Dave179cm said on 28/May/18
Google borsari images search Clint Eastwood and you will see hundreds of pics.

movieguy12 said on 27/May/18
McMahon just looks taller. The thing is you really have to make an effort to see Eastwood as the same height. Clint doesn't have good posture and was younger than ramrod straight McMahon at that point. Back issues seem to have taken their toll on Clint even at this stage. His waist level seems high indicating losing height in spine relative to body. I'd say most on this site see Clint as 6'3'' to 6'4'' prime. I don't believe he was only 6'2'' btw.

Paul b said on 27/May/18
I met him about 35 years ago. I was 6ft 4.5 back then, he was almost my height, I'd say about 6 3.5. I'm now 6.3, yes I've lost 1.5 inches ...silks

Tall In The Saddle said on 24/May/18
AnonOne - thanks I appreciate your response.. I've submitted a post which is yet to appear. My initial impression is that Ed perhaps has .5" to 1" on Clint whose posture I agree doesn't allow fully straightened height potential. Clint's neck is angled forward and he appears to be developing a so call kyphotic spine - curvature of upper spine and an assoc. hunch back appearance - McMahon 7 years Clint's senior appears to still have a perfectly straight spine. How tall can we guess McMahon to be at 69 yo? I personally believe McMahon was a full 6'4" at peak.
To give Clint full benefit of the doubt I paused when Clint turns to face the audience and raises his head for a sec to acknowledge their applause - in that moment Clint does appear equal with Ed. Is it my imagination but do Clint's shoes appear a bit chunky and not regular dress shoes like McMahon is wearing?

Tall In The Saddle said on 24/May/18
movieguy12 - perfect, thanks I really appreciate that.
I agree 69 yo McMahon appears taller than 62 yo Clint - I would guess maybe about 1/2 - 1 inch diff but Eastwood's posture not so great though he does straighten for a moment. The question is how tall was McMahon at that stage of his life? McMahon used be to listed as 6'4" peak while this site only gives him a touch above 6'3" at peak.

If McMahon for argument's sake was say 6'3" in 1992 then I would have to put Clint at 6'2" to 6'2.5" as at 1992.


For comparison I've linked Ed greeting Foreman (IMO 6'3.5" himself at peak) in 73 and Chevy Chase (IMO also 6'3.5" at peak) in 77.

IMO both Foreman and Chase edge out an even younger McMahon, Chase more so.

Foreman on Carson '73 go to .40 - Click Here

Chase on Carson '77 go to 16:51 - Click Here

PS - I've thrown in 74 yo Jimmy Stewart vs 59 yo McMahon on 1982 Carson for good measure. IMO Stewart was about 6'3.5" peak so maybe down to 6'2.5" or even 6'2" by this stage of his life. He looks to be dropping about 1/2 inch to McMahon but at times he looks nearly the same.

Dave179cm said on 24/May/18
Good clip movieguy12,McMahon looks slightly taller than Clint,but I wouldn't say a full inch,maybe half?also Clint has his usual slack and slouching posture.At that time in movies he looked around 6ft2.5 so I'd say McMahon was more 6ft3 in that clip.I think Clint was 6ft4 in the morning and used this height to describe his height throughout his career,but his real height was a solid 6ft3.

AnonymousOne said on 22/May/18
Tall in The Saddle.....I saw it on ANT TV, not Youtube, so I can't link it up. I paused it when Eastwood and McMahon were standing, facing eachother, and though Ed's shoulders seemed a hair higher, they appeared eye to eye (in my judgement, and I'm very particular). Eastwood had his usual slouch, and this was '92, so Eastwood's hair wasn't really that puffy. But again, I was looking at eye level, not tops of hair (much)

moveiguy12 said on 22/May/18
Click Here. I'm not great at this so hope it works. Go to about 13.38 and watch from there. Others may disagree but I think McMahon looks taller if you look at shoulder height say. I do think Clint was a genuine 6'3'' or a bit over in his prime. Not a big 6'4'' fellow though as Rob says. Greg Walcott, George Kennedy were a little taller I believe.

Tall In The Saddle said on 22/May/18
Movie Guy or Anonymous One - could you link the clip of Eastwood on the Tonight Show with Carson? - I can't find it on YouTube. Thanks. I would be surprised if Eastwood was eye to eye with McMahon - I would guess him to be at least 1 inch shorter.

James B 171.5cm said on 20/May/18
rob have you ever looked into how tall clint looked in the 1950s?

its arguable that you might stand a few mmm taller in your 20s compared too your 30s

movieguy12 said on 20/May/18
Just looked at the Carson clip mentioned below. Ed McMahon looks a good inch taller than Eastwood to my eyes possibly more. Eastwood as always has high hair.

EthanCouch said on 19/May/18
Do you think he was ever 6’4 Rob?

AnonymousOne said on 17/May/18
...for what it's worth, I just saw Eastwood on a Tonight Show with Johnny Carson rerun, from 1992. He's easily eye to eye with Ed McMahon, and that's with poor posture. So, at 62, he was at least as tall as ol' Ed.....however tall Ed was (and Ed was 6'3 plus, I believe)

Dave 179cm said on 11/May/18
There is a guy called Archie Wilson on the John Wayne page, who said he was 6ft7 peak and now aged 83 struggles too reach 6ft.

Dave 179cm said on 10/May/18
I've being watching clips on YouTube of the making of Clint's latest movie.You get plenty of chances too see Clint's current posture and general from and shape in them.His posture is awful ans is only going too get worse.

James B 170.8cm said on 9/May/18
Could you imagine bill duke only having 0.75 on a peak clint?

Dave179cm said on 9/May/18
A Guy on the Robert Ryan page said he met Clint in 1977,and he looked a bit shy of 6ft2,more 6ft1.75.

Jacob said on 9/May/18
I think Clint Eastwood was a legit 220 lbs 6’3”.75 man for sure if I remember right Lee Van Cleef didn’t have that imposing structure like him Clint I think has longevity because of working out :)

Dave179cm said on 8/May/18
6ft3 peak is a very reasonable guess considering how much height he seems too have lost.3 inches height loss from youth to old age, almost 88 seems just about believable

Heighliker said on 6/May/18
If Easwood is 6'4 I'm 5'11.25 and I'm 5'10. He was 6'3 stop uprating

Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 2/May/18
Guys.. I did say at peak Sutherland and Eastwood is so close in height that we can't even see more than a fraction between them. Eastwood def deserved a 1/4 taller than Sutherland but sometimes when Sutherland stretching up standing straight the 1/4 falling flat like they were just same height. Both weak 6'4.

James B 170.8cm said on 1/May/18
Rob do you think if clint weighed like 182 pounds in the 1960s/70s he would look more towering?

Jordan87 said on 30/Apr/18
Dream,

Stop posting Garbage pictures that the one you did with Sutherland and Eastwood. Either you are trying to actually get over on people here, or you yourself missed the fact that Sutherland is behind him. Either way, this is not good lol

EltonAs said on 25/Apr/18
Dream(5'9.5 said on 23/Apr/18
lol you blind man

You can clearly see Eastwood is closer to the camara and even that he loooks with shorter proportions. Eastwood was 6'3 anyway

Rory said on 25/Apr/18
I think in Kelly's heroes all that film told us is that both Sutherland and Eastwood were a similar range, but it's difficult to be precise in that film as there's no scene where both men are side by side on even ground. I would say though that Clint appeared taller in the final quarter of the film.

Tall Sam said on 25/Apr/18
I think Eastwood might have a terrain advantage there a bit, the difference looks near an inch. He definitely appeared to edge Sutherland a bit in that film though.

James B 170.8cm said on 24/Apr/18
WOW eastwood looks the spitting of image of david beckham in the Donald Sutherland photo.

Dream(5'9.5 said on 23/Apr/18
Taller than Donald Sutherland

Click Here

Hiltilikonheight said on 16/Apr/18
He is an inch on Leo I had de occassion to meet Leo, Rob and he is not even 5'11 more 5'10 range maybe was 5'11 on a good day. Clint standing tall can hit 6', he just has a terrible posture

Dmeyer said on 16/Apr/18
Hé still manages to look a hair over hanks and leo

Dream(5'9.5") said on 10/Apr/18
Rob, maybe 6’3” 5/8ths for peak Clint Eastwood?

In his heyday, he did edge out Donald Sutherland and always stood above everyone.

At the same time, I do remember saying 6’3.5” is the worst you could give a peak Eastwood.

1999 said on 7/Apr/18
Rob how and why has he shrunk so much, is it the same case as Hulk Hogan??

vegetassaiyan said on 6/Apr/18
Rob go with 6'3.5! Too high this height

Mister lennon said on 6/Apr/18
6'3.5 is a perfect height for his peak. Is what he looked.

Jordan87 said on 5/Apr/18
@ Mister Lennon,

Not many people are saying 6'2 peak, calm down.

vegetassaiyan said on 5/Apr/18
Rob any chance to list him at 6'3.5 I'm with these dudes. 6'3.5 is the most he probably was and in my opinion closer to the truth so 6'3.25 is better

Bradly said on 5/Apr/18
Weak 6-4. I asked Dennis Weaver how tall he was back in the day and he said Clint owned him by about two inches.

Mister lennon said on 4/Apr/18
Minimum a solid 6'3 peak. 191-192.
The 6'2 thing at peak is non sense
Now, he is a solid 5'11.

Micky said on 3/Apr/18
Peak height should be listed at 6'3.5".

James B 170.8cm said on 2/Apr/18
How would eastwood look next too a peak jeff goldblum?

Dave 180cm said on 1/Apr/18
He looked 2 inches taller than James Coburn in an episode of rawhide,even allowing for Coburn too be 6ft1 instead of 6ft1.5 ,Clint still looks a solid 6ft3 in comparison.

samuelgoup said on 31/Mar/18
Is easy just imagine a real peak 6'4 man like Dolph Lundgren. He clearly was taller than him. Eastwood was easy 1 inch less than Lundgren struggling with 6'3 peak

Dave 180cm said on 30/Mar/18
Years ago I used too think he was 6ft4 as listed,but over time I've changed my mind too 6ft3.25

samuelgoup said on 29/Mar/18
I gotta be honest at first I thought Clint could be 6'3.25 in his prime but now I have to be honest and fair he was 6'2.5 range. Young Clint was the kind of man who looked taller than he really was

samuelgoup said on 29/Mar/18
James B 170.8cm said on 26/Mar/18
Agree! And certainly we know Clint was not 6'2.5 in the line of fire. One more reason to believe he was 6'2.5 range in his peak. In the line of fire he was in his late 60's and looked 186 cm max 6'1.25

James B 170.8cm said on 26/Mar/18
If he was 6ft3.25 peak he could have been 6ft2.5 in the line of fire

Richardhero said on 26/Mar/18
6'3.25 on his best peak day! Rob half inch out .75 is too much for Eastwood

Baltonmon said on 25/Mar/18
To Rampage(-_-_-)Clover:
Those solid 6'2 men you are talking were more 6'1.25-6'1.5. I see most of you don't know how tall is that or you just have wrong perception on heights. Cint Eastwood was max 6'3 barefoot. A 6'2.75 - 6'3 slim guy

Dave 180cm said on 25/Mar/18
@Andy6footer you are right it was 6ft3,apologies too the pro height guesser for miss quoting him.I tend too agree with 6ft3.25 peak.

Andy6footer said on 24/Mar/18
Rob 6'4 guys would edge a young Clint Eastwood. Unbelieveable someone can imagine he was close to 6'4. I say 6'3.25 in a good day in 1950's more 6'3 closer to the truth. Rob my friend is a legit 6'3 and I'm not sure he was as tall as him. Guys I think the most reasonable to argue Clint'S peak height 6'3 / 6'3.25

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Mar/18
6ft3 flat doesn't do him justice at all, IMO. He had a noticeable amount over solid 6ft2 men. I can see a case for 6ft3½ though. Personally, I think he was close to 6ft4

Pedriscovery said on 24/Mar/18
I agree with the tall guay,clint never was more than 6.2" and beber was more tall than donald sutherland.in space Cowboys the avantage over clint is almost two inches favorable to sutherland.

Rory said on 23/Mar/18
6ft3 would be the absolute minimum you could argue and 6ft4 the absolute maximum..with that in mind I think 6ft3.5 is the best fit, but then I think 6ft3,75 in the 1960s at midday is very possible too.

Andy6footer said on 23/Mar/18
Dave 180cm said on 23/Mar/18
He said 6'3. So just 0.75 out which is more than you think. I cant' argue over 6'3.25 .25 is the absolute highest mark he was maybe an early mesaurement at 25 year old

James B 170.8cm said on 23/Mar/18
Rob is 6ft3.25 probably the low range for his peak?

Dave 180cm said on 23/Mar/18
Rob,a professional height guesser thinks your out by 1.75 inches with Clint's height.

The Tall Guy said on 22/Mar/18
I would say Clint Eastwood was never more than 6'2". You can't walk under doorways whilst wearing two inch Cuban heel boots and a Stetson when 6'4" or sit in the back of a yellow cab wearing a Stetson hat (as he did in Coogan's Bluff).

In Space Cowboys, his costar, Donald Sutherland (who is purportedly 6'4") was clearly a couple of inches taller. In Where Eagles Dare, he didn't look significantly taller when standing alongside his costar Richard Burton (purportedly 5'9"). Burton wasn't a tall man and I would say a height differential of around five inches on him is about right.

As I keep saying on here - look at them walk under a doorway.

The Tall Guy said on 22/Mar/18
I would say Clint Eastwood was never more than 6'2". You can't walk under doorways whilst wearing two inch Cuban heel boots and a Stetson when 6'4" or sit in the back of a yellow cab wearing a Stetson hat (as he did in Coogan's Bluff).

In Space Cowboys, his costar, Donald Sutherland (who is purportedly 6'4") was clearly a couple of inches taller. In Where Eagles Dare, he didn't look significantly taller when standing alongside his costar Richard Burton (purportedly 5'9"). Burton wasn't a tall man and I would say a height differential of around five inches on him is about right.

As I keep saying on here - look at them walk under a doorway.

Stevenman said on 22/Mar/18
We all know Ali had ego. He claimed 6'2 and 6'2.5 listed in his passports. A guy with ego claiming 6'2 is the most he probably was. Never looked over 6'1.75. Clint 6'3

Art said on 31/Mar/15
When I saw him in person, a couple of time in Puerto Rico , from January to February, 1976 , getting ready for his fight against Jean Pierre Copman, his height, it didn't impresve, but yes, his body. He was a big guy, more than I was expected. In concern to his height, I would say, thahe was about 6 feet 1 1/2 , not even 6''2.

Stevenman said on 22/Mar/18
Ali was max 6'1.75 I agree Dave. Mayority of people upgrade their heights. I hate height liers.

Dave 180cm said on 21/Mar/18
Good photos Rory,Ali looks his listed 6ft2.5 there.

Rory said on 21/Mar/18
Okay then Ali was 6ft1.5, so Travolta was 5ft11.5 peak

Click Here

And Elvis was 5ft11

Click Here

At 0.21min

Dave 180cm said on 20/Mar/18
@Dave5ft9 did you see the photo's of Ali with the Beatles? he towers over them much more than a 6ft1.5 Guy would.

Dave5ft9 said on 20/Mar/18
To Rory

I'm sorry but in boxing they tend to upgrade 1'5 inch on the best ones and most populars. Mike Tyson from 5'10 to 5'11.5 and Ali was 6'1.5 and in some was described at 6'3. Ali was a strong 6'1.5 and Eastwood 6'3. Ali never was 6'2.5 please. He never had those proportions. Djokovic and Murray are strong 6'1.5 guys Murray 6'1.75. Funny saying Ali was taller than Andy Murray. Murray looks very very tall and still people can accept his own claim people say he is 6'2.5 same case. Conclusion Ali 6'1.5- 75. Clint 6'3 no more!

Rory said on 19/Mar/18
@Newman, I'm sorry but if you've seen Kelly's heroes which I'm assuming you haven't you just simply wouldn't say Sutherland was taller than Eastwood if you watched all of their scenes together. I've not seen Coogans Bluff for ages but I remember Eastwood looking clearly taller than him and looking at images of footwear in the movie it looks pretty similar to me. In that scene you linked Clint looks 2 inches taller but I'm not sure what the footwear swing is. As for Herve Presnell, who is he ? I've no idea how tall he is so I certainty couldn't use him as a yardstick to measure other people off.

@Dave 5ft9, that's a bit of a blanket statement just to say all boxers have their height increased, and even if that were true Ali was described as 6ft3, an inflation from his 6ft2.25. 6ft1.5-75 is too low for sure. Even at 60 odd with Parkinson's disease he edged out 6ft1.25 Holyfield.

Dave 180cm said on 19/Mar/18
Stroud's boots were higher than an inch,more like1.5 inches,check out Google images Don Stroud Clint Eastwood,there is a black and white pic of them both walking together and a clear view of Stroud's heel its definitely more than an inch.I still haven't. any reason too change my mind,still a comfortable 6ft3 peak height for Clint,anything under is highly unlikely IMO.

Dave5ft9 said on 19/Mar/18
To Rory
Just watched the clip. Ali was 6'1.5-6'1.75. All boxers had their heights upgraded as marketing. Look at Tyson some times he was listed in his fights at 5'11 1/2 and he was 5'10 strong 5'10. Ali was 6'1.75 Eastwood 6'3.

Dave5ft9 said on 18/Mar/18
He was 6'3 in the 50's strong 6'2 70's/80's. No more than 6'3 in his prime

Rory said on 18/Mar/18
You couldn't say Ali and Eastwood looked the same, the only footage of them near each other in that clip is when Eastwood is on the punch ball and he seems comfortably taller there to me, add to that Ali says in the clip that Eastwood is much taller than I am and I think it's fair to say Clint would have had him by 1 inch minimum. I'd say Clint 6ft3.5 and Ali 6ft2.25.

Dave 180cm said on 18/Mar/18
@viper he looked the same height as 6ft4 Larry Hankin in. Escape From Alcatraz .

Canson said on 18/Mar/18
@Viper: never imho. Actually looked weak 6’3 for most of his career. Maybe 6’3 and change early on

James B 170.8cm said on 18/Mar/18
Remember eastwood had much thicker hair than stroud.

Clint wore 2 inch cowboys in coogans bluff whereas stroud could have had 1 inch cowboys.

Newman said on 18/Mar/18
Rory:

There's only one clear scene where you see Eastwood stood next to Don Stroud on Coogans Bluff and the latter isn't wearing boots in that scene. So I have to question everything else you've written in your post, including a single link that doesn't work. Check the scene out:
Click Here [32:40]

The initial hyperlink that the moderator used didn't show the picture of Sutherland that I was initially referring to. Sutherland is stood next to Clint on a slight gradient. If Sutherland stands up straight he'd probably have 1.5 inches on him. Here it is:
Click Here

Video footage of Clint stood next to 6ft 4 Harve Presnell. He looks significantly shorter. Both are wearing flattish shoes:
Click Here

Newman said on 17/Mar/18
Ummm......this footage has me puzzled a bit. Eastwood looks nearly the same height as Rock Hudson below. Hudson's height seems to vary between 6ft 3.5 up to 6ft 5 on here. There's absolutely 110% no chance Eastwood was the latter but may have been nearer the former in the 1950s.
Click Here [1:26]

To balance this out, Eastwood was on a talk show in 1969 with Muhammad Ali and Harve Presnell. Ali and Clint looked the same height give or take a half inch. The 6ft 4 inch Presnell looked noticeably taller than both, I would say by 1.5 inches. Check it out:
Click Here

viper said on 17/Mar/18
Did he look about 6-4 in Escape from Alcatraz?

Dave 180cm said on 17/Mar/18
He looked close too 6ft4 in the fifties,saying he looked 6 ft2 in the fifties is incorrect.

Dave 180cm said on 17/Mar/18
@ Newman just Google images Don Stroud Clint Eastwood and there is a pic of them both walking together, where you can see the heel of Stroud's boots is as high as Clint's.

Dave 180cm said on 17/Mar/18
Stroud was also wearing cowboy boots in Coogans Bluff.As for who was taller the peak Clint or Sutherland? its hard too tell because in Kelley's Heroes there are know clear shots of both men together.but Clint next too Marvin,Kennedy, Coburn,Heston,Hudson etc. he looked a comfortable 6ft3 too me.

James B 170.8cm said on 17/Mar/18
Next too soul i am not sure if clint is standing as well as david is. But he defnintly has hair advantage over him.

Rory said on 17/Mar/18
@Newman

None of what you said holds gravitas. Firstly I agree that David Soul didn't look as much as 3 inches shorter than Eastwood in the film, however, it was no less than 2.5 inches and looking at the loose and languid posture Clint had at the time I can fully believe standing tall he'd have Soul by 3 inches. Then you say Clint had cowboy boots on next to Don Stroud, but news flash, so did Don Stroud ! So any advantage either man had was cancelled out.

In regards to Kelly's heroes I simply couldn't extrapolate from watching that film that Sutherland was taller. If you watch the last fifteen minutes of that film whilst there's no clear example of them standing side by side on level ground there's plenty of footage of them standing near to one another and Clint looks taller for sure,how you could say Donald looks taller I can't quite understand.

Click Here

By the way you say show us a definitive link that proves he was near 6ft4...but seeing as the general consensus is he was over 6ft3(6ft3.4 average guess) and his listing is 6ft3.75....shouldn't you be the one who tries to make the case by providing evidence that he wasn't that tall ?

kalty said on 16/Mar/18
He always had a bad posture. He also looked 6'2 even in the 50's but for a measurement he could hit 6'3 no more.
Click Here:

kalty said on 16/Mar/18
Ey Rob! I got news.
I've read King Juan Carlos from Spain met Clint Eastwood in 1987 in California when he was elected Mayor of Carmel. King Juan Carlos said at that time he was 185 cm but he was 187 when he was younger. Eastwood was an inch on him. Also Clint himself was 57 years old at that time and was described at 6'2 or 188 cm.
Knowing their real heights in 1987 looks fair. A 57 year old Clint Eastwood hitting 188 cm sounds fair he was 190 cm. This is 6'3 max.

Newman said on 16/Mar/18
Arch Stanton:

You totally over-inflated the height different between him and David Soul - it was 2.5 inches maximum in the scene below. There's an argument elsewhere on here that Soul was only 6ft tall any way:

Click Here:

You've shown zero evidence to back up the other comparisons. Don Stroud looked much shorter in Coogan's Bluff because Clint was wearing cowboy boots throughout the whole film - nice try though.

Regarding Sutherland, Clint wasn't and isn't taller than him at all. There were a few fancy close ups where you didn't see their feet in Kelly's Hero's; but look at this when you see them fully together, the 6ft 3.5 Sutherland looks an inch or more taller:
Click Here:

I'm happy to be proven wrong that Clint was over 1m 90 or so in his heyday, but show us a definitive link that proves it.

Berta said on 16/Mar/18
Legit 191 peak

Borats Chicken said on 16/Mar/18
rob, looks like he got his height from his mum side instead and looks from his dad..quiet possible?

James B 170.8cm said on 15/Mar/18
I understand this guy has shrunk a lot which why people cant imagine 6ft4.

I think we should look at clint in the 1950s too judge how tall he looked. I say that because i believe he already lost a fraction by the 1970s.

In the 1950s i believe he would have been at his absolute tallest.

Arch Stanton said on 15/Mar/18
Danimal said on 13/Mar/18
Arch Stanton said on 12/Mar/18
He looked nearer 6'4 in the 70s IMO but by the mid 80s I agree he did look 6'3.5.

You can tell the difference between .5"?

I can yes! No not really but I think I can see a difference between 6'3 and 6'4 and he may have looked 6'4 in the 60s and 70s but by 80s maybe not. Tim Robbins was of course 6 ft 7.

Hkdaniels said on 14/Mar/18
I agree Rob he can look 5'11 but for a measurement he cant hit at least 5'11.25-5'11.5. But I believe he was never over 6'3 for sure.

James B 170.8cm said on 14/Mar/18
Barely 6ft3.5 in Dirty Harry

Dave 180cm said on 14/Mar/18
I was reading some of the earlier post's from page 18 down,and it is very interesting too read how Glenn met Clint in 2005 and taught he looked about 6ft but also saw him 20 years previously and Clint looked 6ft4,and how shocked Glenn was too see how much height Clint has lost.also people were more inclined too believe his 6ft4 cliam back then because he was still in the 6ft1 range at the time,now 13 years later and Clint struggling with 6ft flat .people are more skeptical now and less inclined too believe he was even 6ft3 never mind 6ft4 peak.If he dose live well into his 90s you are going to get more people claiming he was not even 6ft2,because he is most likely to shrink even more.

Rory said on 14/Mar/18
@Jordan87

No I think probably 6ft2.25 by say 1995 and then 6ft3.5 peak in the 1960s. So just over an inch,hence the inch or so quote.

@Danimal,

I still think he'd clear 5ft11 easily, looked the same height as Denzel Washington last year and only recently clearly edged Di Caprio. 5ft11.75 today perhaps.

Hkdaniels said on 13/Mar/18
definetely he was 188 cm and this is over 6'2. Not even 6'3

Danimal said on 13/Mar/18
Rob, I can't believe you still have him at 6'0" for his current height. He's almost 90 years old and guys like Tom Hanks and Bradley Cooper are both taller than him today? How is he not 5'11" Rob?

Danimal said on 13/Mar/18
Arch Stanton said on 12/Mar/18
He looked nearer 6'4 in the 70s IMO but by the mid 80s I agree he did look 6'3.5.

You can tell the difference between .5"?

Canson said on 13/Mar/18
@Arch: I can’t see anything over 191cm. Maybe a strong 6’3 peak but can honestly look 6’3” flat 6’4” in shoes most of the time

Jordan87 said on 13/Mar/18
@ Rory,

"He looked in the solid/strong 6ft2 range in his mid 60s. Probably an inch or so down from peak"

Would make him 6'3" In your Estimation then? This is different then your previous 6'3.5" estimates.

Gonzalo said on 13/Mar/18
He was as tall as Kennedy in Eiger sanction. Hard to tell who was taller. And that pic next to the german guy is tricky. They looked very similar in height in the movie

Arch Stanton said on 12/Mar/18
He looked nearer 6'4 in the 70s IMO but by the mid 80s I agree he did look 6'3.5.

Arch Stanton said on 12/Mar/18
Can't argue over 6'3 LOL? He was between 3 and 4 inches taller than David Soul, near 2 inches on Tim Matheson, much taller than Don Stroud. A 6'3.5 downgrade would affect all the other listings as he had the edge on Sutherland etc.

James B 170.8cm said on 11/Mar/18
Rob in Dirty Harry and Magnum Force he reminded me a lot of Will Ferrell (in terms of height).

On that topic actually you could argue clint did bear a slight resemblence too Will in his younger days.

James B 170.8cm said on 11/Mar/18
Shorter than george kennedy in eiger sanction.

A solid 6ft3.5 in the 1950s i think. I believe though by the 1960s he was in the 6ft3.25-6'3.5 range and probably not over 6ft3.25 for the majority of the 1970s.

Rory said on 11/Mar/18
He looked in the solid/strong 6ft2 range in his mid 60s. Probably an inch or so down from peak.

Click Here

Newman said on 10/Mar/18
Not sure why I keep coming on here to argue the toss over Eastwood's height. Love his films and he has some of the best screen presence of any actor I've seen. Anyway, here's a couple more pictures that show he may have been under 6ft 3 all along:

A still from the Eiger Sanction. The German guy on the far left is 6ft 4.5 inches. He looks huge in comparison to Eastwood [and Kennedy]
Click Here:


Found this too. Eastwood would have been 64/65 here but looks like he's struggling with 6ft 1 in the shot.
Click Here

Nicky179 said on 10/Mar/18
Rob go for 6'3.5 listing please!

Nicky179 said on 9/Mar/18
You guys cant' argue over 6'3 please. 6'3 max peak

Dave 180cm said on 9/Mar/18
He onlyl looks in the 5ft11 range today because of very poor posture, I still think if he could straighten up for a measurement he would be in the 6ft range.

Rory said on 8/Mar/18
I think 6ft3.5 is the best mark too, strikes me as a guy who was never a true 6ft4 like say Hasselhoff but seemed 6ft3+ when standing tall.

Tall Sam said on 8/Mar/18
Hmm, the downgraders are a bit overzealous here IMO, delineating how Eastwood looks only tallish instead of towering with unknown extras. I mean there's plenty of photos and film with him next to well-known actor in the overall 6'4" range where Eastwood looks similar height, even when he looks a smidge shorter like with Presnell and Walcott, he looked no more than an inch under them (which would make him no less than 6'3"): George Kennedy, John Wayne, John Gavin, Rock Hudson, Gregory Walcott, Donald Sutherland, Harve Presnell.

And he looks noticeably taller, not around the same height, as guys near or even over 6'2": Lee Marvin, Lee Van Cleef (IMO), Tim Matheson, Gene Hackman, even Muhammad Ali. Maybe he was as low as 6'3"-6'3.5" peak, but an inch under that is quite improbable I think.

Dave 180cm said on 7/Mar/18
If Broderick Crawford was 6ft ,then in that YouTube video of highway patrol,dating from 1956,when Clint was 26 and an unknown actor,Clint looked a tall 6ft4 in comparison

James B 170.8cm said on 7/Mar/18
6ft3 1/2 i think is fine for a peak clint. He was never a proper 6ft4 though.

James B 170.8cm said on 6/Mar/18
In the 1960s westerns you could tell clint was a genuinly tall man but lee marvin didnt strike me as looking that tall.

Jordan87 said on 6/Mar/18
@ Berta,

I think the average guess is high b/c again, he is " Clint Eastwood". Most of the posters here as of Recent have him lower than 6'3. I have him at about 6'2.5 to 6'2.75 in his heyday. Nowadays he is 5'11 to 5'11.5, thats a fact.