How tall is Clint Eastwood - Page 7

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 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.

Dave 180cm said on 5/Mar/18
Van Cleef was 6ft2 making Clint somewhere between 6ft3 and 4.

Tall Sam said on 5/Mar/18
@Newman, I know lots of those shots are not ideal but you're of course entitled to your opinion but I don't think myself or most other people see only half an inch difference in height between Eastwood and Van Cleef.

Newman said on 4/Mar/18
Tall Sam:

Half of those pictures either show Eastwood and Van Cleef sitting down or are pictured from an awkward angle; showing their head and upper torso only. The latter angles by the way help to create the facade that actors are taller [or shorter] than they are in reality. There's two pics on your link where you see them stood together and there's no more than half an inch between them.

Macsanmichel said on 3/Mar/18
Lee Van Cleef was never 6'2 he always looked 6'1 or 185 cm. Eastwood was probably 4 cm taller or 1'5 inch on him. Eastwood again around 189 cm peak (6'2.5)

Dave 180cm said on 3/Mar/18
Newman the Guy in the hat in that youtobe clip is at least 4 inches shorter than Clint,I don't. Know where your getting 2.5 from.Infact that clip is a good demonstration of how tall the young Clint was.If that Guy was 6ft than Clint looks the full 6ft4 in comparison.

berta said on 3/Mar/18
the average guess seemms very possible. 191,5 is the most i can see him pean and pisbile just legit 191 guy. Today he can look 181-182 but when measured he can be about 182,5

Tall Sam said on 2/Mar/18
@Newman, nice job cherry picking the one where Van Cleef and Eastwood look the same. Googling them together, one gets the impression of a difference probably more than 1 and less than 2 inches. Click Here

James B 170.8cm said on 1/Mar/18
In a few dollars more inparticular in some scenes he looked unremarkably tall.

A guy near 6'4 should look huge on screen esspecially back in the 60s.

I suppouse though if a 6'3.5 guy acts alongside lee marvin he will not look that tall.

Newman said on 1/Mar/18
After becoming a big star in the early 1970s and having more creative control over his scenes, it was rare to see him in films standing side by side with other tall actors. There are always plenty of scenes where he is stood next to people considerably shorter.

I think he was a tall fella but my guess is he was only about 6ft 2.5 as opposed to the 6-3/6-4 facade that the films created. Look back at some of his early roles:

Looks the same height as 6ft 2 Lee Van Cleef below
Click Here

The fella with the hat at 13:50 is 6ft. He looks no shorter than 2-2.5 inches than a young Clint here:
Click Here

James B 170.8cm said on 1/Mar/18
Hes lost 3.5 inches not 4

Ian C. said on 1/Mar/18
Four inches seems like a lot of shrinkage, even for a very tall, very old man. Are there even four vertical inches of cartilage in a tall man's body? And if he's lost cartilage, where did it go? How did it get out of his body? Was it digested as if it were fat? His bones cannot have compressed, surely. Has Eastwood developed severe curvature of the spine? Has he had a vertebra removed?

I'm not disputing that he's lost four inches. I'm just sincerely curious about where they went.

paulzc said on 28/Feb/18
Yep 6'3 max. no more. +0.75 is a lot. People don't know how much can be 0'5 or 1 inch. How ever I also believe he was 6'2.75. Heston could be 6'2. Lee Van Cleef 6'1.25 6'1.5. I think mayority of heights are inflated from reality, usually there is a wrong idea on how tall is a real 6'2 guy.

Dave 180cm said on 27/Feb/18
@jacky you are forgetting one very important thing on the subject of cowboy boots,everyone else in those movies wore them too,so he didn't have any advantage over everyone else because of his footwear.Too me he looked 6ft4.5 in his boots,still about the same height as Christopher Lee barefoot,I think 6ft3 was his true peak height peak.

movieguy1 said on 27/Feb/18
I'm really on the fence about Clint. I'd guess a little under 6'4'' prime or maybe 6'3'' lowest as he just looked tall in comparison with Lee Marvin, James Coburn etc. I think he was also taller than Charlton Heston who was at least 6'2'' maybe 6'3''. It's just that if you look at Clint in photos with say Tim Robbins from time of Mystic River, Robbins looks a lot taller in most if not all of them. How can one guy be 6'5'' and the other 6'4'' when there looks several inches difference although Robbins was a lot younger. Some claim Tim Robbins is really 6'7'' but he looked shorter than James Cromwell and Howard Stern. Ageing, health issues maybe but Clint really seems to have lost a lot of height.

Jacky said on 26/Feb/18
Erik9012 said on 24/Feb/18
You saying he was 6'3 but 6'4 with his cowboy boots... mmm
Dream(5'9.5") said on 26/Feb/18
Just seeing there's a lot of confussion. Those who are saying he was at least 6'3.5 barefoot are trying to say he was 6'5 minimum with his cowboy boots? Come on please. He never looked that tall with his boots. (usually make a bit over 1'5 inch advantage) He could be 6'4 on his cowboy boots the most he ever looked but barefoot a weak 6'3 is more realistic. In the dollars trilogy he looked 6'2.75/6'3.
James B 170.8cm said on 24/Feb/18
A lot of people just dont understand how tall a barefoot 6ft2 guy really is. Add too that thick shoes,slim body and big hairstyle too someone my height a legit 6ft2 will look huge.

I know someone who is 6ft1 1/2 (he claims 6ft4.5 for his height). Hes overweight,bald and slouches quite often but still looks a huge man.

Heights like 6ft just dont stand out as large compared too heights like 6ft1/6ft2.

Dave 180cm said on 26/Feb/18
I've been watching the 87 year old Clint on YouTube,and he looks very frail now,his posture is terrible all bent up and hunched up,it's difficult too judge his current height,he still looks 5 ft11 range with his Old man posture,leading me too believe that if he was able to stand straight up for a measurement he would still be 6ft .Clint never looked freakishly tall too me,just tall 6ft3,Lee was probably about 1.5 inches taller than Clint at peak.

Jordan87 said on 26/Feb/18
@ James B 170.8cm,

Good POint about Clint and his body type , however I am one to belvie Mr. Lee was over 6'4.

So while I agree with you on Clint, as in him not being even 6'3 in his prime, I am inclined still to believe Christopher Lee was 6'4 and some change. Debating this on the Lee page would be more fit and we can do so.

However , Yes, I agree with you on CLint except I think Clint was 6'2.5 to 6'2.75 during his heyday, not as short as 6'2, but not quite 6'3.

James B 170.8cm said on 26/Feb/18
Lee was already 52 in Man with the Golden Gun so could have been no taller than a solid 6ft4 at that stage.

I dont think clint without the help of his cowboys could ever have given that freakish tall impression that Lee did in some scenes.

James B 170.8cm said on 26/Feb/18
Dream-in the dollers trilogy he looked tall and lanky but not massive by any means.

If you see the scenes christopher lee shared with roger moore in golden gun that is an example of what a massive guy looks like.

Suppousedly lee was 1 inch max taller than a prime clint.

Dream(5'9.5") said on 26/Feb/18
In the dollars trilogy, Eastwood stood out a lot. In most scenes, he was easily the tallest.


Not exactly 6’4”. No less than 6’3.5” at worst.

Judi said on 25/Feb/18
I saw Eastwood during filming in SF. He is clearly under 6'.

James B 170.8cm said on 24/Feb/18
A lot of people just dont understand how tall a barefoot 6ft2 guy really is. Add too that thick shoes,slim body and big hairstyle too someone my height a legit 6ft2 will look huge.

I know someone who is 6ft1 1/2 (he claims 6ft4.5 for his height). Hes overweight,bald and slouches quite often but still looks a huge man.

Heights like 6ft just dont stand out as large compared too heights like 6ft1/6ft2.

Erik9012 said on 24/Feb/18
I believe Clint was a genuine 6'3 in his prime. About 6'4 with his cowboy boots in the Spaghetti Westerns. At 6'2 you're tall, but you don't stand out in the way that you tower over basically everyone else.

Dave 180cn said on 23/Feb/18
@ jordan87 ok point taken, but I still think he looked more 6ft3 range next to Coburn,Hackman,Marvin and others.

Jordan87 said on 22/Feb/18
@ Dave 180cn,

He was not as low as 6'2 my Man. 6'2.75ish I had him at, that 3/4" is a lot, especially on this site.

Dave 180cn said on 18/Feb/18
If he was 6ft2, then James Coburn was 6ft and Lee Marvin 5ft11.5,Gene Hackman 6ft.05,George Kennedy 6ft2.75,Charlton Heston 6ft1,Rock Hudson 6ft3.5,Chevy Chase 6ft2.5,Bill Murray 6ft,because that's what height all the actors I mentioned looked in comparison too a 6ft2 Clint.

Conal said on 18/Feb/18
To Jordan:
6'2.75 still a bit generous I say 6'2.5 at night in his absolute prime

Canson said on 16/Feb/18
@Walker: excellent points on your part as well! And thanks!!

Walker said on 16/Feb/18
Just watched Play Misty for me (1971) Clint was still 40 doing the movie and clearly is far of being 6'3.75 Rob not even 6'3. He was very slim but again looks a strong 6'2 guy. 187'5-188 cm at night. How's possible some few guess he was 6'3.75 ? lol

Jordan87 said on 16/Feb/18
@ Rory,

Again, where are your pics? I actually do not not mind if you are not putting in effort to prove your point, again that's fine but for a guy who was crying about me not posting pics, you are doing much worse.

The recent comments, after my pics show people guessing Clint lower than 6'3, so I must have changed something. Wish I was here earlier.

If you look back to your first comment before our Ali vs. Frazier contest started you seemed to get highly insulted initially in my original post on here putting Clint at 6'2.5- 6'2.75, and if that sort of thing bothers you....thanks for letting me know. Wasn't my original intent to insult you, but now that I know I have made you agitated by of course initially guessing Clint at Sub 6'3..I know that your the kind of person who lets that sort of things bother you...which leads me to think you are one of those.....shall we say.....unhappy people lol.

Canson said on 15/Feb/18
@Rory: I would say if anything that the greater population inflate vs downgrade. Most people will even go as far as to make a legit guy that say measured it legitimately at a low taller just to make the person they’re commenting on taller. That comes a dime a dozen here. Like a 6’4 5/8 Charles Barkley must be 6’6” because “6’4” Conan is 2” shorter. Only problem is Conan isn’t 6’4” which is clear with other 6’4” guys and Barkley likely isn’t 2” taller it’s less than that but to make Conan taller people do it. Same with the Rock people make him 6’3” when he’s 6’2

Dave 180cn said on 15/Feb/18
Jordan87,in that still from the Eiger Sanction of Kennedy with Clint,Kennedy does not look 1.5 inches taller.If Kennedy was 6ft4 then l have know problem with Clint being 6ft3 and a bit,he looked this height compared too Kennedy in that movie.Your estimate of 6ft2.5 is IMO a bit on the low side but I do agree with you that he was not 6ft4 or even 6ft3.5 peak.

Rory said on 15/Feb/18
@Jordan87,

I've seen the films mate, the very best resource for guessing height as it shows people in motion standing next to each other etc and I can come up with dozens of names where you simply cannot. I can't be bothered to post pictures but see Clint with Charlton Heston,James Brolin,John Gavin all available on Google images ! See my posts on the 5th February and 22nd December. The fact is too Clint is correctly listed here at 6ft3.75, I support the status quo...so even though I've cited examples which back up that listing it's not my responsibility to provide evidence. Let me remind you you're the one who wants him downgraded by 1.25 inches, which means you, yes you need to come up with proof and examples of why such a downgrade is necessary, not me pal. It's called using your brain, it does help.

Lol with respect I won't pay too much attention to what some of the recent posters have put as they seem a little light on content and rationality. As for your picture why not make it more distorted next time ? Maybe try and find one with Clint standing next to someone through the lens of bonoculars in night vision or something ? That by the way is called being sarcastic. What really counts is the reality here, the master at guessing height Rob lists him at 6ft3.75 and the average guess is 6ft3.4, you can try and belittle that and make out it doesn't count but 159 guesses counts more than your and other eccentric extremist opinion on Clint. You're a fringe movement.

What sums it up though is you say "telling me to watch the film doesn't do jack here"..lol well hang on a minute if you haven't watched young Clint Eastwoods films then how are you qualified to comment on his peak height ? Oops. That's that though I won't be replying to you any longer because A) you have nothing to corroborate your claims..B) you talk in riddle..C) you refuse to acknowledge others point of view D) I won the argument ages ago....I've tried to educate you to the idea a young Clint really was 192cm but you're still determined believe your own fantasy of 189cm so it's just a big waste of time on my behalf. Luckily though whenever someone clicks on this page they'll see Clint is listed at his rightful 6ft3.75 and not his conspiratorial 6ft2.5. That's all that matters.

Dave 180cn said on 14/Feb/18
I think 6ft3 is a very honest and believable height for his peak,based on how he compared too other Celebs in his young years.

Dave 180cn said on 14/Feb/18
Walker,Rob has him at 6ft3.75 too,after very carefully observing his height in comparison to other Celebes over time.I happen to think he was a solid 6ft3 peak.and James Coburn looked a genuine 6ft1.5 Guy too me and next to him on a rawhide episode I mentioned in an earlier commentClint looked an easy 6ft3.

Jordan87 said on 14/Feb/18
@ ROry,

I don't actually have to and spend my time convincing just you. Firstly, you haven't posted any pictures of of recent.

Secondly Other posters are citing their opinions and the latest batch seem in my favor (Read). You Are the oddball out, which isn't really my problem to be honest. I have not seen anything from you ( Pictures to start) that would lead me to believe he is pushing 6'4. Saying we are all Jealous doesn't cut it, and you are aware of that ( I hope). So Be quite, OR take your own advice and start posting Champ.

You asked for pics of a Prime Clint yes? I provided one , and the only one available next to a fellow tall guy in Kennedy. Telling me to watch the film doesn't do jack here, and I do not own a copy of it ( as I am sure you do, along with many other of Clint's works I have a feeling lol).

Get me better pictures. Ok, Show me he is 6'4. If not, then be quite. Others here seem to think he is not as tall as he claims. Average guess? People love CLint, so he cannot be " Not 6'4". The guy is a awesome man and we won't get another Star or even a director like him for awhile, or ever.....BUT that is not going to make me inflate his height.

Rory said on 14/Feb/18
@Walker,
Anyone who says he was very close to 6ft3 and he was just over 6ft2 in the same paragraph I'll probably choose to discount and ignore if that's okay with you. What a surprise another clueless poster claiming Clint was one height but having nothing, absolutely nothing, zilch at all to back up their claim, it must be contagious.

@Canson,

Lol facts and contemporaries, we haven't seen a trace of that on this page recently though have we Jordan87 ? The thing is people can say no one guesses height out of personal feelings or jealousy etc but then explain why someone is totally convinced a guy is 189cm and yet cannot supply any good examples of why, yet they remain staunchly of the view he was 189cm ? I can't explain it. These people have nothing at all, not a dime to support their fantasy assertion but still they role with it. It's nuts.

Tall Sam said on 14/Feb/18
@Dave 180 cm Click Here
This picture I think might be from the early 90s but your point still stands. Despite his height, Chase is famously height conscious to the point where he allegedly refused to work with Sigourney Weaver early in her career because she was too tall!

Jordan87 said on 14/Feb/18
@ Rory,

Click Here

Again, Clint looking 1.5" SHorter than a 6'4 Guy , Kennedy. ( An Older 6'4 guy, 100 percent he wasn't even 6'4 anymore), In Clint's " Heydey" . What do you have?

And I am not sure where you keep citing I said he was just " 6'2", HE was 6'2.75.

Evidence? OK Ace.
1. He is 5'11 Now ( Struggles to look taller than Leo)
2. HE was shorter than 6'2 guys in the late 80's ( SHorter than Freeman and Whitaker)
3. He was Shorter IN HIS PRIME than George Kennedy who was struggling at 6'4 b/c he was Old ( 100 Percent true, look at the pic, I know it hurts........I know)

Clint was a peak shade under 6'3, and Is between 5'11 and 6' now. He shrunk 2-3 inches, not the 4" that you want to be the case my man
( For again Some Unknown Reason we have yet to discover)

Again, what do you have? Show me ! Get me Pics, bring me pics Blah Blah Blah.

Dave 180cn said on 14/Feb/18
Jordan87,the pic with Kennedy 1.5 inches in Kennedy's favour?that is incorrect Kennedy looks about half an inch taller and also Clint's leg is bent at the knee and is in much more relaxed posture. Throughout that movie Kennedy never looked more than an inch taller than Clint, in fact in parts they looked the same height.By the way Kennedy was only 50 in that movie and is only 5 years older than Clint,So still a Solid 6ft3 peak to Clint from me.Also that pic with Freeman from 93 Clint looks taller by
.75 of an inch in that too me.

Walker said on 14/Feb/18
To Canson:
Excelent argument man. Tht's why I meant people lie about height and exaggerate I know also a 6'4 friend who say he was not this height for sure 6'2.75 maybe in the 50's

Rory said on 14/Feb/18
@Jordan87,

the "evidence" you submitted is inadmissible. Why ? Firstly watch the darn film, there's loads of good footage of Eastwood and Kennedy walking side by side and there really isn't much between them at all, Kennedy edges him but it's a close run thing. Secondly, a good picture are you joking ? A picture which is zoomed out,fuzzy,with both men in mid stride ? Yh that's the definition of a shocking picture to judge height...(do I really have to tell you this ? Geez) The final nail in your height credibility coffin is that in that awful picture you claim that's a 1.5 inch difference ? Complete misjudgement in your behalf. I would say please provide me with more evidence but do you know what if everything you come up with is like the Morgan Freeman/Whitaker/Kennedy pictures then just save both of our times and don't bother.

Walker said on 14/Feb/18
Rory please stop with the 6'3.5 3.75 guess which does not make sense. I'm with @Jordan87 @Mr5'11 both brought good arguments and what they say makes sense. I also think he was maybe very close to 6'3 barefoot guy who could pass over 6'3 thank to his slim bodytype and his lenght legs. Id Clint was a weak 6'4 you would say he was 6'5-6'6 and that's absurd. He was 6'2.5 range in the 80's he was about 6'1.75 at best. @ Mr5'11: Rory how are you tall? 5'7? I'm with you Mr5'11 I'm 6'1 and I say clint was clearly just over 6'2 never 6'3 that's only impression look. "Eyes dont lie full agree @Mr5'11·

Canson said on 13/Feb/18
@Rory: I highly doubt people here are motivated by jealousy (at least not height wise). You have a 6’5” guy here along with 2 known 6’4 guys who say he wasn’t 6’4” like he claimed and other guys prob 6’2 or over that say similar. That is exaggerated that people downgrade due to jealousy. It’s because some people just lie about their height honestly and most here don’t. Many honest posters are here that assess based on comparison (contemporaries and facts) not biase

Rory said on 13/Feb/18
@Jordan87

Well how is it then that if I think he was 6ft3.5-3,75 that makes me his fanboy ? In one of your posts you claimed I'd endorsed Clint for president and I idolised him etc which was nonsense so I'm just playing you at your own game really. If I'm a Clint sycophant than you're a bitter enemy of his contrived with jealousy...both ridiculous but you started it lol. My position has more merit anyway as I've provided examples and you haven't so yours is the more questionable.

If you're talking about Clints height most people don't agree with you ; see his retained 6tt3.75 listing and 6ft3.4 average guess after 159 votes.

Jordan87 said on 13/Feb/18
@ Rory,

You asked, I brought. Bad Idea on your part.

Click Here

George Kennedy 6'4 ( Likely Even Shorter here, he is old) Has CLint by easily 1.5".

Your Boy wasn't 6'4"., Not even a Solid 6'3.

I'm glad you Urged me to go back to Clint's Heyday and grab a good pick of him.

alberto14 said on 13/Feb/18
6'3 could be ok but I can't go over. This listing is 3.75 too much for him not even right after bed

Dave 180cn said on 13/Feb/18
Also he was a similar height only a fraction shorter than 6ft3.5 Chevy Chase in the mid 80s,and in that pic he is slouching a bit and Chase is standing with his head up to his full height,almost as if he is measuring himself next to Clint and is aware that Clint may look taller than him.That's just an observation of that pic from myself.

Dave 180cn said on 12/Feb/18
It's hard to guess his current height because of his old man posture,but if he can look 5ft11 it probably means at full stretch he mat still be 6ft

Dave 180cn said on 12/Feb/18
Watch rawhide episode on YouTube called Hostage child,Clint is in a scene with 6ft1.5 James Coburn and looks an easy 6ft3 in comparison. Also in that pic with Morgan Freeman from 93 Clint looks taller than Freeman too me.

Dream(5'9.5 said on 12/Feb/18
If i'm really looking back at 1950s, Clint did look this mark.

Jordan87 said on 12/Feb/18
@ Rory,

If you looked at my past Post, I mention the Man Is A great actor and a Great DIrector. How is it that if we think he is 6'2.5, we are jealous of how handsome he is? At 6'2.5 he is still a good deal taller than Most of us here, likely better looking as well. He would be that if he was 6'2.5" or 6'4" so as usual you are making no sense.

So We don't not agree with your assessment of your Idol's Height so we are all bad looking, jealous people. Would love to see what you look like.

It's nice to know most here seem to agree with me However.

alberto14 said on 12/Feb/18
In Every Wich Way But loose looks you can see he is 187-188 cm he was about 50 years old. Impossible he ever be 191 or 192 cm. More 189 range in his 20's

alberto14 said on 12/Feb/18
I say 6'3 in his 20's but not a strong 6'3. more 6'2,75 189 190 cm at lunch

Rory said on 12/Feb/18
Well the bottom line is if posters are going to keep blurting out the old platitudes of "he was 6ft2.5 Max" or w,e without evidence..I repeat without evidence, then why do they do it, what informs their position ?

Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 11/Feb/18
@Rory

Sorry but the only sad one here is you. Just because some people see Clint as 6’2” or 6’2.5” peak, doesn’t mean they’re jealous of him or wanna make themselves feel better. They’re entitled to their own opinions. Now I don’t agree with them that he was that short at peak, I think 6’3” or 6’3.25”. But there’s nothing more I hate in this site when people associate estimating celebs taller or shorter with “liking” or “disliking” them. A poster estimating Clint as 6’2” doesn’t necessarily make them a hater, neither does a poster estimating him as 6’5” necessarily make them a fan.

Dave180cm said on 10/Feb/18
Clint was a solid 6ft3 peak,190.05cm.

AlexanderVon said on 10/Feb/18
To Rory :
Your argument is absurd. Firt of all Clint Eastwood is the man and I'always loved him. I'm here to debate his height and I'm serious and honest. Jealous? Come on.. Maybe you say this because you feel it.. I'm 6 foot and If I could choose to be taller I wouldn't so I think I have the perfect height over 183 cm is not atractive and I'm lucky I'm a fitness hell athletic genetics. I'm here to talk about his height . I say it again he was 6'2.5 at best

Rory said on 10/Feb/18
I sadly think a lot of the downgraders are motivated by jealousy. They recognise they'll never be as successful,handsome or as tall as a young Clint Eastwood so they have to try and detract from him in some pathetic way like calling him shorter than he was to make themselves feel better. Sad really but why else would someone be adamant a guy was a certain height without a shred of evidence to back it up on their side other than some warped ideology. That's kinder than calling them trolls which is less charitable. Don't worry, you're all beautiful for who you are !

jervis said on 9/Feb/18
The pic with Wittaker,thats the black and white one picked by jordan 87,to prove Clint was, aged 58,less than 6ft2,has a flaw,that is you cant see their feet.In 90% of the rest of the pics Clint is taller by a good inch.

AlexanderVon said on 9/Feb/18
To Rory:
I just read all and you are funny..
Jordan87 is righ. I agree he was about 6'2.5 in the 50's. Saying he was 6'3.5 at least is out from this world. Please be serious he even never was 6'3, I can go with 6'2.5 with luck. In th metric system I also say he was 188 189 range. You should learn before talking what's a correct height view..

Rory said on 9/Feb/18
@Jordan87 ...I think although it's quite hard to tell I saw enough in the scenes at the end of Kelly's heroes to say Clint might have edged Donald Sutherland, if not they're extremely close in which case anyone calling Clint 188-189 is also calling Donald 188-189.

Lol I could never explain him looking 6ft6 ? Yes and you've been so successful at providing evidence he was 6ft2.5 haven't you (not). On a serious note you haven't come up with anything at all, I asked for examples of Clint looking under 6ft3 in the 1950s/60s/70s and you gave me the late 1980s...I'm not interested in your theories on his shrinkage thank you, I'm interested in what he looked in his youth. Then of course when you did reference pictures they were anything but conclusive...in some pictures Whittaker edged him and then in many others Clint looked taller, ambiguous at best. Then you mentioned Morgan Freeman being taller but if you watched Unforgiven you'd know Freeman certainty wasn't taller so as for evidence ? I think not. For the record by the late 1980s I think he was 6ft2.75/6ft3 and had shrunk 0.75 inches from his peak.

James B 170.8cm said on 8/Feb/18
6ft3.5 in the 1950s/1960s and 6ft3.25 by the early 1970s. You can see he really was starting too get get hunched in posture. Maybe spent too much time lifting heavy weights when that film that film was made.

I think he probably looked his most towering and lanky in the 1950s because he was skinnier in those days.

If we spend more time focusing on a 1950s clint instead of how tall he looked in the 70s we might change our opinions on clints peak height.

Jim Hopper said on 8/Feb/18
With Lee Marvin on the left. Clint must be around 6-3 prime. Click Here

Jordan87 said on 8/Feb/18
@ Rory,

I brought you evidence he was under 6'2 in the Late 80's. You think he shrank 2" by that point? Really? His late 50's. I don't.

James B 170.8cm said on 8/Feb/18
Mr-5'11

I have always said he looked 189 range when he wore a cowboy hat in tbe dollers trilogy

movielover said on 8/Feb/18
Yeah I'm not sure where people get the idea that Clint was taller than Donald Sutherland. In Kelly's Heroes there aren't really any good shots to compare them. In Space Cowboys Sutherland looks a couple of inches taller than Clint although as someone has posted press photos around the same time show them much closer in height. I guess they were very close in height in reality. At one point I believed the Clint was 6'2'' posters as his height loss was so great. Tim Robbins towered over him in photos. However this would not explain for why he was 2 inches taller than James Coburn. It's weird because it's easier to believe Clint was the same height as Chevy Chase say but hard to believe Clint was as tall as Tom Selleck. However Chevy Chase and Tom Selleck were on a chat show together and looked very close in height. There is a link for that on this site somewhere. In reality if you look around you will see guys that are 6'4'' to 6'6'' say every day. So the idea that some film stars are very tall isn't absurd.

Jordan87 said on 7/Feb/18
@ Dream,

I always thought Donald Looked close to an inch taller than Clint, I have to check again. Sutherland is 6'3.5" from what I know in his youth.

Jordan87 said on 7/Feb/18
@ Rory,

"t's also a bit silly just to pump out these guesses of 6ft2.5 or w,e without anything to justify them otherwise I might as well just say he was 6ft6 and refuse to explain why, it just wouldn't help"

It wouldn't make sense b/c he never looked 6'6 and you could never explain that, while ON THE OTHER HAND He looks shorter than 6'2 Guys Like Whitaker and Freeman when he was only 58 years old. He also Looks under 6 feet now so there is certainly an argument that he was never 6'4. Great Guy, Great Actor, Even better director.....but not as tall as he claimed....which is very typical.

Rory said on 7/Feb/18
@Jordan, you're making progress by citing examples with names but at least make them plausible. 1. Have you seen Unforgiven ? If you have you'd know that Clint actually edged Morgan Freeman who was 188-189cm back then, so bang goes that theory..2. I've never seen Bird with Clint and Forest Whittaker but actually looking at them together more often than not Clint looks taller ! 3. I said bring me examples of Clint looking under 6ft3 in the 1960s and 1970s...not the early 90s or late 80s.

Mr5'11 said on 7/Feb/18
I have watched hundreds of times the 'Dollars' Trilogy. I love them and Clint was in his 30's I can not buy even 6'4 in boots for him looks 189 range en those movies 6'2.5

Mr5'11 said on 7/Feb/18
As I said people lives with a wrong perception of a real height measurement. Clint was never over 6'2.75 in his life. 6'2.75 hit in his best day prime

Dream(5'9.5 said on 7/Feb/18
Just because he looks a range, doesn't mean he is literally that range.

Clint Eastwood has constantly looked taller than 6'3" at his peak, especially in the 'Dollars' Trilogy. He also edged out peak Donald Sutherland in most scenes in other movies.

6'3.5" is lowest I would argue for a peak Clint Eastwood. This listing works too, even if it's briefly that height.

Jordan87 said on 6/Feb/18
Click Here

6'2 Listed Forest Whitaker taller than 58 year old Eastwood again.

Jordan87 said on 6/Feb/18
Click Here

1988 at age 58 Clint was 3/4" SHorter than 6'2 Listed FOrest Whitaker. But I know we are supposed to think by age 58 Clint lost 2.5" already, right? Dream on.

Jordan87 said on 6/Feb/18
Click Here

Clint in 1993 was 6'1.5ish, easily 1/2" Inch shorter than 6'2 Listed Morgan Freeman also pictured. He was 63 years old then. He didn't lose 2.5" by age 63. HE was likely around an inch taller, maybe a tad more than this in his prime, 6'2.75 ish.

He didn't lose 2" or more by age 63, that's ridiculous.

Rory said on 6/Feb/18
It's his lower back where he's lost most of the height, there's pictures of him out there where you can clearly see the lower half of his spine has bent. It's quite obvious he's lost a lot of height by how long his legs are now in comparison to his torso, a dead give away. Lol well we can review dead people's height luckily because if they were alive and making films in the past we can thanks to technology watch those films. I think it's an odd way to judge someone's height by how much they have lost anyway, might be an idea to look at him in his 30s rather than looking at him today and guessing how much he might have lost from that time. Anecdotal evidence about your dads height is irrelevant. Forget what he looks like today(even though I would strongly dispute he'd measure as low as 5ft11 today), look at him in the 1960s and 1970s. The lowest I think anyone could sensibly argue for Clint is 6ft3.25, I've never seen anything to tell me he'd be below that.

It's also a bit silly just to pump out these guesses of 6ft2.5 or w,e without anything to justify them otherwise I might as well just say he was 6ft6 and refuse to explain why, it just wouldn't help.

Mr5'11 said on 6/Feb/18
Yep. He looks so good at 88 y.o and sure he doesn't seem he lost 4 inches, max 3. He is over 5'11 today. 5'11 is to low. As Rob say he maybe look 5'11 but
if he can still stretch up for a measurement he could hit 5'11.5 or maybe 5'11.75 who knows.. But it's obvious he was never over 6'2.75 early measurement could be .75-6'3 6'2.25 .5 evening peak height

Jordan87 said on 6/Feb/18
@ Rory,

Also keep in mind he is likely not even 5'11.5" Nowadays, more 5'11.

Jordan87 said on 6/Feb/18
@ Rory,

I'm sure this is possible to happen but Mr. Eastwood maintains good posture and doesn't look like your average 80+ year old, he DOES NOT HUNCH. 6'2 is too low for him, 6'2-1/2" to 6'3 I would guess is the range.

Again think of all the BS celebs claim and their height, and then when Rob gets pictures with them, their claims get smashed. In my experience 9/10 men lie about their height, and or are misinformed.

The people he was next to in his prime are most likely dead ( Just a guess) so we cannot confirm their height, and all we can go by is his current height which is certainly Sub 6'0.

The chances of a 5'11 guy at 88 being 6'3-1/2" in his prime are very low my freind. IMpossible? No......but I would be shocked. I have seen my 6'5 uncle who is 67 years old Shrink to 6'4-1/4. I have see my 5'11- 5/8" Father ( Huge Eastwood fan, annoyingly so) shrink to 5'11 by age 64. A 3.5" Height loss is super Rare unless you are Dave prowse or Hulk Hogan, both of whom abused their body ( Hogan) and have had tons of Surgeries ( Prowse).

Big O said on 6/Feb/18
View the Jimmy Kimmel show today 2-5-2017, and I was surprised to see Clint Eastwood standing next to Jimmy and being smaller than Jimmy who is 5’11” tall. For 88 years losing height is the norm due to the vertebrae compressing.

Jordan87 said on 5/Feb/18
@ Mr.5'11",

Shrinking 2.75-3" I could see, and that is even at the very high end. I do think he is around 5'11-5'11.5" nowadays, and lost around 3" so again I am with you on the 6'2-1/2". Maybe he was close to , or " about" 6'3" in the am hrs, but Losing over 3" is doubtful.

Most men lose about 1-1/4" by age 80, what did CLint do to screw himself to Shrink 3"?

Rory said on 5/Feb/18
Peak 192cm, 182cm today. I don't think losing 4 inches by aged 88 nearly is all that rare. More than average ? Yes..Unique ? No. I see lots of elderly men out completely hunched over where it doesn't take a genius to work out they've lost a lot of height. The problem is really no one has ever come up with a reason why they think Clint was 6ft2, it feels like if they just keep saying Clint was 6ft2 over and over and using absurd reasons why then they'll convince themselves and others eventually that it's true. Remember if Clint was 6ft2 then James Brolin was 6ft1.5,Jeff Bridges was 6 foot,Hal Holbrook was 5ft11,Ali was 6ft1 and the list goes on and on...I think eventually you have to reach the point surely where you say okay did all these different actors lie about their height and did everyone who estimated their height get it wrong or maybe just maybe my pitifully low guess for Clint Eastwood a bit out...

Danimal said on 5/Feb/18
I can't believe you still have him listed at 6'0". He's almost 90 now and several 6'0" guys are taller than him today.

Mr5'11 said on 5/Feb/18
My guesses are:
Nowdays 181 to 181'5 cm 5'11'5
Peak in his 20's: 188-189 cm 6'2.25-6'2.5

Jordan87 said on 5/Feb/18
@ Rory,

Your bringing up Average guesses ? Yeah the average guess also places him at Sub 6 feet currently and I'll be honestly yes he could have shrunk all the inches you claim, but I find it unlikely as most men do not, despite how tall they were initially.

Don't worry about what Rob lists him at, the whole point of the site is to debate these kind of things.

It's not blindingly obvious as you have no way to prove the heights of these so called people he stood next to. Men have been inflating their height, and it's on average of over and inch.

Whats is obvious though is that you Seem to think he lost a Minimum of 4" of height, which again would be very rare my friend.

Dream(5'9.5 said on 4/Feb/18
@Mr5'11" I've seen 6'3.5" people taller than Mr5'11"'s supposedly 6'3.5" cousin, like that girl who has a slight crush on me in college class.

Mr5'11 said on 4/Feb/18
Rob look at these pics. I think are very clear photos to guess Clint peak height:
As you can see Bradley Cooper is listed 184 cm or 6'0.25. Watch proportions on both, lenght, hips, Clint hips are higher proof he was taller than him, but 9 cm taller Rob? 3 inches? To be honest looked he could be nearly de 6'3 mark. Do you think nect to him could tower him by 9 cm?
1) Click Here:
2) Click Here:
3) Click Here:

Mr5'11 said on 4/Feb/18
To Rory:
I just say he was a strong 6'2 guy somewhere beteween 6'2.25/ 6'2.5 and 6'3 could be afer bed in his prime? Clint looked this height. Is my opinnion and not only my opinion as a good guesser and fan of him I tell you this. I don't care what you think.
1 inch understimate is pretty usual and more being Clint Eastwood. As you can see he has a slim figure

Rory said on 4/Feb/18
@Mr 5'11, look I respect you and your opinion but it's all bluster, you've got nothing of any substance. I don't care how tall your cousin is I don't care what you think about David Hasselhoffs height the person in question is Clint Eastwood and all you've got is my eyes tell me he isn't 6ft4..the funny thing is you can't even make up your own mind, in the space of two posts you've called him 6ft2 then you said he looked 6ft2.5 then you've said 6ft2.25,before you were holding up his 6ft3 claim(which wasn't a claim but a description but hey)as being proof he was under it, then you later say claims can never be trusted when Clint claimed 6ft4 because it didn't suit you, I just can't really take any of it seriously, incoherent,illogical and emotional. Must do better.

Mr5'11 said on 3/Feb/18
Rob I congratulat you for this site. I find it unique and original and I now takes time and years working on it. I say mayority of the listing are fair and 100% match but I think Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger being both sho popular and visited celebs are a bit upgraded. In my opinion both are one of the most upgraded heights. I suggest a downgrade. Agree?

Mr5'11 said on 3/Feb/18
Rob look at these picc. I think are very clear photos to guess Clint peak height:
As you can see Bradley Cooper is listed 184 cm or 6'0.25. Watch propotions on both, lengh, hips, Clint hips are higher proof he was taller than him, but 9 cm taller Rob? 3 inches? I'ts obvious Clint looks he was about 4 cm taller than him max 5 cm? Clint again looks he was 6'2.25 to .5 in his prime best day.
1) Click Here:
2) Click Here:
3) Click Here:

Mr5'11 said on 3/Feb/18
To Rory:
I don't care he claimed 6'4. Arnold claimed he was 6'2 and we all know he struggles with a 6'1 in his peak. If Clint says he was 6'5 you would believe? You believe everything? How many actors we all know they add 2 inches to their heights? Your are just very naive. Average add 1 inch to their claim at least. With luck Clint was 6'4 with cowboy boots in his prime

Mr5'11 said on 3/Feb/18
To Rory:

It's obvious you don't have idea how tall is a legit 6'3- 6'4 guy. My cousin is a legit 6'3.5 barefoot and he looked much taller than Clint could be. Your excuse all the time is : "give me the names of people who stood next to Clint in his 30s/40s". 1) Eyes never lie. 2) Not necessary to see 6'4 guys next to him but separate I can give you names: Dolph Lundgren. David Hasselhoff. Liam, These guys were legit 6'3.75/6'4 guys and it's obvious they were taller than him. Their proportions are of weak 6'4 guys. and of course they looked taller than Clint was in his youth. They look more than an inch on Clint's peak height. Clint was maybe 6'3 in his best day after bed. 6'2.25/.5 evening peak day. How tall are you 5'7? I'm 5'11 I know how tall is a 6'3 and 6'4 man. My cousin at 42 years old being 6'3.5 looks much taller than Clint was in is prime, and dont say is a joke he never stood next to him. Yes don't lie Clint always looked 6'2 in his movies 6'2.5 in his 30's. He shrunk mas 3 inches. Stop excusing him. Taller guys than him has a less shrunk.

Rory said on 2/Feb/18
@Jordan87,
I'm not trying anything now you're the one who cannot give me the names of people who stood next to Clint in his 30s/40s who made him look sub 6ft3..that alone renders your opinion obsolete I'm afraid as much as I like you. Remember the average shrinkage for men aged 90 is 3 inches, Clint in his prime certainly wasn't just average height so that makes him susceptible to even more height loss. Did he say he was 6ft3 or was he described at 6ft3 aged 58 by a journalist ? That's right, he was described as 6ft3, thst wasn't his claim. His claim was 6ft4 on a racquet ball website. It's blindingly obvious the guy was 6ft3.5-75 range in his youth, but don't take my word for it take Robs who lists him at 6ft3.75 and guesses height for a living, or look at the average guess for him at 6ft3.4..an inch more than you're own. Think long and hard.

Mr5'11 said on 2/Feb/18
Full agree Jordan,

It's obvious and eyes don't lie. The problem is how people live their entire lifes with a wrong perception of a real height. They always tend to upgrade height. As I said I'm an honest 5'11 guy and I say it because my height at 3 pm is 5'11 barefoot and on medical checks I have measured 5'11 since I was 20 years old. People say I'm 6 foot and in one ocassion guess my height close to 6'1 lol lol. Maybe because I'm also a slim guy but athletic.

Jordan87 said on 2/Feb/18
Rory,

Prowse had multiple surgeries that attributed to his height loss, CLint has not had those surgeries my friend. I know you are trying anything now. Prowse is a rare example, I know you want CLint to be that same Example but here is a Fact for you. David Prowse and CLint are two different people.

How is Shrinking 2"-3" Minimal? 4" Height loss is extremely rare. The Man stood out in rooms, he is taller and and better shape than most men even for his age, but this does not mean he was 6'4. 6'2.5 Men would tower above rooms full of people. He also said he was 6'3, you think he downgraded himself? C'mon now.

Rory said on 1/Feb/18
@Jordan87, so you think instead of your guesses being off you've now decided that the reason he looked 6ft2 was because everyone he ever acted with lied about their height or their height has been misjudged by everyone ? Come on...who even decided that he's 5ft11 today ? I think he can still look about 6ft with Cooper,Washington,Hanks,Buble etc. Just remember Rob has met a guy called David Prowse who was once 6ft6 and is now barely 6ft1 so your theory about people only shrinking a miminimal amount even into their elderly years is debunked.

@Mr5'11, he claimed both 6ft3 and 6ft4, which means anywhere in 6ft3-4 range is arguable. Very possible he was 6ft3.5 and in one interview dropped the fraction and just went with 6ft3. You say he looked 188 in the good the bad and the ugly, but next to who ? Name the actor who he stood next to and only looked 6ft2 in comparison ? I think what you do is you look at his body profile and think he sort of looks 6ft2 maybe so Yh ill call him 6ft2 without really looking into it at all.

Mr5'11 said on 1/Feb/18
To Jordan:
Again don't waste your time. I agree you. I also think Clint was bang at 6'2.5 always looked strong 6'2. Of course this reality changes all: Lee Van Cleef was a strong 6'1, Gene Hackman 6'1.25. Ben Affleck 6'1.75. Dicaprio is bang at 5'10.5 nowdays peak maybe 5'10.75.

Mr5'11 said on 1/Feb/18
To Jordan:
Again don't waste your time. I agree you. I also think Clint was bang at 6'2.5 always looked strong 6'2. Of course this reality changes all: Lee Van Cleef was a 6'1 Gene Hackman 6'1.25. Ben Affleck 6'1.75. Dicaprio is bang at 5'10.5 nowdays peak maybe 5'10.75.

Jordan87 said on 1/Feb/18
@ Rory,

So you think he Shrunk 4 to 5"? Ok those 1960's pictures you speak of, you must have proved the heights of the people he was standing next to?

You think a guy who struggles to look around Leo Dicaprio's height now was once taller than 6'3? Good, glad we got that covered.

Mr5'11 said on 1/Feb/18
To Rory:
Do you even read or listen ?
Another proof. Clint himself claimed in 1988 his height at 6'3. Do you think he was going to claim his current height? No! At 58 old every man always claim his prime height. 6'3 bang. So 6'3 is the highest mark I could argue. Eyes don't lie He looked always 188 range in the 60's The good The bad and The ugly

Rory said on 31/Jan/18
I love the way im painted as having this Clint cult and being too blinkered to see he was shorter than he was when I'm the only one whose actually used evidence. Look it up in the dictionary, it's very good. I've made a list going back several posts of instances where Clint in his prime looked 6ft3+ whereas people like Jordan and Mr5'11 haven't once come up with any examples of where a peak 1960s/70s Eastwood looked 6ft2 range Other than saying something along the lines of because I say so...

Tall Sam said on 31/Jan/18
@RR, yeah Scott's mom is reportedly quite short, I think around 5'2", an air stewardess whisked away by Clint a few times lol.

Jordan87 said on 31/Jan/18
@ Rory,

2" ? OK He is 5'11 Now. If he was 6'3" you think he shrunk 4"? I do not think its that high. I think it's around 3" ( And that's very rare), therefore my point he wasn't 6'4 or even 6'3".

If you think CLint was 6'4 that would mean your Hero Shrunk 5" which we all know the chances of that are slimmer than you actually throwing away your CLint Movies.

Mr5'11 said on 31/Jan/18
To Jordan:
Don't waste your time telling all this to Rory. He just doesn't understand and doesn't want to listen. It's waste of time. If he want to believe he was 6'4 good for him. We know he was a strong 6'2 guy who has a taller a appearance because his slim body with hus long legs, He was 6'2.5 max. 80% guess him at 6'3 minimum because he can look, but strong 6'3 guys were a bit taller and 6'4 almost tower him. Pople here understimate a good inch not only with actors even on themselves. I'm 5'11 and everyone says I'm 6 foot at least lol

Rory said on 30/Jan/18
@Jordan 87.. So you think then there's an unwritten law in human biology that a man can only shrink 2 inches and even if he's hit by a train or falls from an aircraft he can't shrink below that ? Interesting, do you think the earth is flat btw just out of interest ? Moon made out of cheese ?

RR said on 29/Jan/18
Why is his son, Scott Eastwood shorter than his dad? Is his mother short? I know a friend whose background is Scots/English, her father stands 6'5 while the mother is 5'0. She has an average height of 5'6 and her brother is only 5'9. Is that strange genetics or what?

Jordan87 said on 29/Jan/18
@ Rory

"No I'm just using rational, evidence based perception you should try it. Straw man arguments at me don't paper over your idiotic guesses."

Rational ? Like a 5'11" Man in his 80's Shrinking from 6'3. Sounds Rational. You my friend are Shot lol.

Unknown said on 26/Jan/18
JonathanRet said on 18/Jan/18
Rob it's known in a 1988 article it mentioned his height at 6ft 3. At that time he was 58 years old and every man at that age or when is getting older always or usually claim his peak height. It would not make sense to claim a current old man height. When I ask my Dad or uncle their heights they claim his peak height and they are 60-70 years old. He once claimed 6'4 in one ocassion I think was exaggerated. So 6'3 at 58 still young I believe was his height he remember on his peak. I really believe 6'3 is the highest I'd try to argue. Remember 6'3 is over 190 cm is beteween 190 and 191 cm and a man being that tall barefoot is really tall. Imagine him now on his cowboy boots. Everyone would guess he was 6'3.5 minimum. See? I think this story makes sense

Rory said on 26/Jan/18
@Jordan87..my boy ? No I'm just using rational, evidence based perception you should try it. Straw man arguments at me don't paper over your idiotic guesses.

Jordan87 said on 25/Jan/18
@ Rory,

This is for you :)

Click Here

Your Boy Looking Sub 5'11. Find a New Hobby, Ace ;)

Jordan87 said on 25/Jan/18
@ Rory,

Wow My Man, Sorry I insulted your Idol. If Clint is going to any conventions or anything I think he should stay clear of you , seeing as you sound a Bit protective. Sorry I haven't seen the actual Movie With Liam and CLint in it ( I'm sure you have seen it many times, b/c you know, Your man Clint is in it ).

OK, Jackman is leaning in on the picture I posted, check it out again Ace. You Straighten Jackman up and he has Clint by 2.5" so go cry about that, Boo Hoo , Boo Hoo.

As Far as Shrinking, why do you seem to think CLint Lost more than 2.5"? I mean beside the fact that, you know.....you have an Obsession and all. Losing more than 3" of Height is not the case, I know you want it to be, b/c again, you know....its Clint by Sorry, CLint wasn't over 6'2.5". I know, I know, I must be anti-American for that Statement.

Sorry ROry, I will make you feel better now by saying " Clint for President". lol.....Go watch some Spaghetti Westerns and stifle you aggression. FYI, CLint doesn't know you exist....I Know, take a few moments to process that.

Unknown said on 25/Jan/18
I'm agree @Jordan87 @even 6'3 after bed in is peak is the highest mark I can give him He always looked 188 range to me 6'2.25

Tall Sam said on 25/Jan/18
@Jordan87, if you watch the actual scene in The Dead Pool, Neeson looks maybe an inch taller Eastwood not nearly 2 inches in my opinion. I'd admit those still don't really capture that.

even said on 25/Jan/18
he could not have shrunk 4 inches guys . be reasonable

Rory said on 25/Jan/18
@Jordan87 what on earth are you talking about ? Firstly he only looks 1.5 inches shorter than Jackman there, seeing as you don't seem to have much knowledge in the field I'll explain..hair doesn't count as height and Jackman has a tall quiff there. Most he could have shrunk is 2.5 inches...really ? Is that a law is it or a scientific fact that humans will never lose more than 2.5 inches ? If it is I've never heard of it ! Finally a 58 year old Clint only looked 1-1.5 inches shorter than Neeson, you can verify that yourself by watching the film. What that means is a 58 year old Clint was say 6ft2.75-6ft3, probably 0.75 inches shorter than in his 30s. Look some guys just aren't good at guessing height, maybe you're good at chess though..

Jordan87 said on 24/Jan/18
Click Here

At 58 Years old he was already around 2.25" SHorter the 6'4 TOPS Neeson. He was 6'1.75 by age 58. He somehow shrunk 2" by age 58? Nope He was maybe around 3/4 " taller in his prime then he was in his late 50's at 6'1.75. ( Average man loses no more than 1/2" by 60)

Clint was maybe around 6'2-1/2 tops.

Jordan87 said on 24/Jan/18
He looks around 5'11 nowadays as he was a bit over 2" shorter than 6'1.5 Jackman.

Click Here

Again, 5'11.25 with Jackman in his mid 80's. MAX he could have shrunk is around 2.5" ( Average guy looses around 4 cm by their 80's) so not sure where the 6'4 comes. You guys think he lost 4 to 5" of height? Really? Id say 2.5 Max. He was around 6'2 in his prime.

Rory said on 22/Jan/18
Yh but he was only wearing cowboy boots in his westerns where every other actor would have been wearing them too. So I don't really think that makes much of an impact. It's not like he was wearing them in play misty for me or anything. As for his hair I don't really think it was that thick he didn't have a big Afro he just generally had medium length hair, nothing out of the ordinary. A solid 6ft4 peak is too much, but it's not ridiculous, it's a near on certainty he would have cleared 6ft4 out of bed anyway and fallen somewhere between 6ft3-4.

James B 170.8cm said on 21/Jan/18
Rob did you originally think he was 6"4 peak because of his bushy hairstyle?

Psychedelic Earth 187 said on 19/Jan/18
He’d have dipped to 5’11” now.

JonathanRet said on 19/Jan/18
whatever but 6'3.25 is far from the 6'3.75 listing. 6'3.75-6'4 was Dolph Lundgren 1 icnh taller than Clint Eastwood. I know I have not seen them together but you can clearly see Doph was taller than him

Rory said on 19/Jan/18
His shrinkage actually isn't anything remarkable. Robs said before that on average for a 90 year old 3 inch loss would be incurred, Clints nearly 88 and considering his height was considerably above average that makes him more likely to lose a greater amount. So we're talking about him losing 1 inch more than expected really which isn't that unique.

JonathanRet said on 18/Jan/18
Rob it's known in a 1988 article it mentioned his height at 6ft 3. At that time he was 58 years old and every man at that age or when is getting older always or usually claim his peak height. It would not make sense to claim a current old man height. When I ask my Dad or uncle their heights they claim his peak height and they are 60-70 years old. He once claimed 6'4 in one ocassion I think was exaggerated. So 6'3 at 58 still young I believe was his height he remember on his peak. I really believe 6'3 is the highest I'd try to argue. Remember 6'3 is over 190 cm is beteween 190 and 191 cm and a man being that tall barefoot is really tall. Imagine him now on his cowboy boots. Everyone would guess he was 6'3.5 minimum. See? I think this story makes sense

5'10 lad said on 18/Jan/18
I think Clint gets downgraded a lot at his peak possibly because people struggle to believe his shrinkage. He was never 6’2 range peak as people say, but I honestly think more 6’3.5 than .75. Why has he shrunk so much Rob? Surely that’s above average for his age?

Rory said on 18/Jan/18
People who guess him at under 6ft3 I just find quite find strange people. They're adamant he's 189 and yet they cannot provide one shred of evidence that he was that low yet still punt out lines repeatedly that he was like 6ft2 or some rubbish. I don't even think a flat 6ft3 is arguable really, I'd start the bidding for Clint at 6ft3.25 with 6ft4 at most.

Samwells said on 17/Jan/18
What do you think Rob I think he is right Clint always looked 189 range in his 20's. His slim figure and boots makes him a bit over 1 inch taller
RichardSpain said on 26/Jun/17
Eastwood wasn't 192cm ! it's a joke! marketing! Eastwood was 192 cm with his boots. I think Eastwood was a solid 189cm max 190 cm younger. In this way we can understand why Eastwood is around 183cm nowadays crearly because he lost only 6 or 7 cm of his pic that's credible.
Morgan had similar height than Clint Eastwood. 189 /190cm in peak.
Morgan has good genetics. Nowadays still has good height and he is an old man.
Eastwood, Freeman and Affleck have very similar heights in his peaks. range 189/190cm

Leonardo said on 17/Jan/18
Ferry said on 16/Jan/18
Nice. I'm watching "For a few dollars more", what a great movie and music. Yes Clint was
190/191 cm , Lee Van Cleef weak 186. Why people add both a couple of cm , 1 inch?

Ferry said on 16/Jan/18
Just watching spaghetti western where Clint was in his 30's he looks a classic 190 cm guy 193'5 on his cowboy boots

Rory said on 16/Jan/18
I disagree with that. I think towards the end of the film where Sutherland,Eastwood and Savalas are walking side by side towards the tank Eastwood seems a bit taller to me. I concede though that because of the uneven cobbled road and with them not being that close together it makes it difficult to be sure.

movieguy said on 15/Jan/18
Eastwood doesn't look taller than Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. I believe if anything Sutherland edges Clint it's really difficult to tell though. Can I ask Rob why the site now asks for an email address when you post?

Rory said on 13/Jan/18
No can do. I think watching Kelly's heroes there's enough in that film to say Eastwood was taller than Sutherland and so if Eastwood was 6ft2-3 range that would make Sutherland 6ft2 peak which is too low. I was beggining to think maybe Eastwood was 6ft3.5 but I've swung back now and think a weak 6ft4 range is the best fit.

Paul said on 11/Jan/18
let's give him 6'3 in his best day. But never over