Add a Comment5611 comments
Average Guess (447 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.84in (182.5cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.84in (182.5cm)
Kiko said on 6/Aug/17
Clint is a classic 188 cm man 6'2.5 max. You dont even have to meet him. Saw all Rawhide series 50 and 60's when he was on his peak and is obvious he was nt even 6'3 maybe very close but I say 6'2.5 max 6'3 right after bed
Clint is a classic 188 cm man 6'2.5 max. You dont even have to meet him. Saw all Rawhide series 50 and 60's when he was on his peak and is obvious he was nt even 6'3 maybe very close but I say 6'2.5 max 6'3 right after bed
Kiko said on 6/Aug/17
Are you guys kidding right? The point is that most of these actors got their heights boosted. Is also funny you all say Ali was 6'2.5 He vlaimed himself he was 6'2 but if he says that I'm convince he was a bit shorter. I give him strong 6'1 no more. He looks a classic 184-185 cm man 6'1 max for him which is 6'2 on his sneakers. Clint was like 4 cm taller just take a look on youtube where they were on TV interview together. He said: I'm big I'm 6'2 ( real life 6'1) his appereance is 6'1. but Clint Easwood is very tall. He is a slim guy who can look some times 190 cm or 6'3, but the most he was is close to 6'3. Real life: He was 6'2.5 barefoot Ali was 6'1 Fake or marketing or movistars height 1 to 2 inhes taller...
Are you guys kidding right? The point is that most of these actors got their heights boosted. Is also funny you all say Ali was 6'2.5 He vlaimed himself he was 6'2 but if he says that I'm convince he was a bit shorter. I give him strong 6'1 no more. He looks a classic 184-185 cm man 6'1 max for him which is 6'2 on his sneakers. Clint was like 4 cm taller just take a look on youtube where they were on TV interview together. He said: I'm big I'm 6'2 ( real life 6'1) his appereance is 6'1. but Clint Easwood is very tall. He is a slim guy who can look some times 190 cm or 6'3, but the most he was is close to 6'3. Real life: He was 6'2.5 barefoot Ali was 6'1 Fake or marketing or movistars height 1 to 2 inhes taller...
Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/17
Also look at Clint and Charlton heston who some argue was 6'3 himself. 6'2 you say?
Also look at Clint and Charlton heston who some argue was 6'3 himself. 6'2 you say?
Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/17
Clint was also taller than Muhammad Ali who was nothing under 6'2.5, there's a video on youtube in which Ali even says Clint is bigger.
Clint was also taller than Muhammad Ali who was nothing under 6'2.5, there's a video on youtube in which Ali even says Clint is bigger.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/17
Because Kiko, Clint looked 2.5 inches taller that Lee Marvin, same on Don Stroud and Jeff Bridges, 2 inches on Tim Matheson and Robert Ulich, similar to 6'4 George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott, perhaps edged out slightly and looked to edge out 6'3.5 Donld Sutherland. All the evidence points to 6'3.5-6'4 peak, though I agree before I even started comparing I thought 6'4 seemed too high and thought more 6'2 myself at one point!
Because Kiko, Clint looked 2.5 inches taller that Lee Marvin, same on Don Stroud and Jeff Bridges, 2 inches on Tim Matheson and Robert Ulich, similar to 6'4 George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott, perhaps edged out slightly and looked to edge out 6'3.5 Donld Sutherland. All the evidence points to 6'3.5-6'4 peak, though I agree before I even started comparing I thought 6'4 seemed too high and thought more 6'2 myself at one point!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Aug/17
Arch, Daniels wasn't quite 6ft3 peak
Arch, Daniels wasn't quite 6ft3 peak
Flint said on 5/Aug/17
6'4" is most likely his height in boots and rounded up. more like just over 6'2" barefoot. That's tall enough, but they had to boost it up because he was so much taller than all those short actors who also had their heights boosted.
6'4" is most likely his height in boots and rounded up. more like just over 6'2" barefoot. That's tall enough, but they had to boost it up because he was so much taller than all those short actors who also had their heights boosted.
Kiko said on 5/Aug/17
same as Dolph Lundgre height?? I can't believe it Rob. Clint was about 1.5- 2 inches shorter than him. Just watch him.
Dolph was 6'4 a legit 6'4 no more no less. He claim himself in his website and interview he was 6'4 since 18 years old 193 cm barefoot. He also was described athletic 6'4 muscular built in his peak. He always look 5 cm on Eastwood. 193 Dolph 188 Clint. Why all these celebrities got their heights rised? Rob Clint deserbe to be 6'3 listed at most. Is too high. Not the truth
same as Dolph Lundgre height?? I can't believe it Rob. Clint was about 1.5- 2 inches shorter than him. Just watch him.
Dolph was 6'4 a legit 6'4 no more no less. He claim himself in his website and interview he was 6'4 since 18 years old 193 cm barefoot. He also was described athletic 6'4 muscular built in his peak. He always look 5 cm on Eastwood. 193 Dolph 188 Clint. Why all these celebrities got their heights rised? Rob Clint deserbe to be 6'3 listed at most. Is too high. Not the truth
Kiko said on 5/Aug/17
with his cowboy boots 6'3.5 peak days. but Is amazing people say he was that height barefoot! he was 6'2.5 tops
with his cowboy boots 6'3.5 peak days. but Is amazing people say he was that height barefoot! he was 6'2.5 tops
Slim 182 cm said on 5/Aug/17
Great, I've got the picture that's gotta convince you Clint was 193: Click Here
20 cm between Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood easily, or I'd give leone the quarter inch downgrade.
Great, I've got the picture that's gotta convince you Clint was 193: Click Here
20 cm between Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood easily, or I'd give leone the quarter inch downgrade.
movieguy said on 5/Aug/17
In fairness Clint does seem to have lost a fair bit of height. His legs have gotten much longer in proportion to his body over time indicating a loss of height in the spine. He did have quite narrow shoulders as a young man so maybe wasn't as robust as some despite looking fit. I don't really see him as under 6'3'' in his youth although I'm skeptical of the full 6'4'' claims.
In fairness Clint does seem to have lost a fair bit of height. His legs have gotten much longer in proportion to his body over time indicating a loss of height in the spine. He did have quite narrow shoulders as a young man so maybe wasn't as robust as some despite looking fit. I don't really see him as under 6'3'' in his youth although I'm skeptical of the full 6'4'' claims.
Kiko said on 4/Aug/17
Clint was 6'2. I can't believe people believes he was 6'4. He never looked that tall. With cowboyboots looked 190 cm never over. (6'2.75) Anyone with a good eye who had ever watched a lot of movies since his youth would never say he was over 188 cm or 6'2.5! He was 188 cm at his absolute peak height barefoot(6'2.25- 6'2.5 maxx )
Clint was 6'2. I can't believe people believes he was 6'4. He never looked that tall. With cowboyboots looked 190 cm never over. (6'2.75) Anyone with a good eye who had ever watched a lot of movies since his youth would never say he was over 188 cm or 6'2.5! He was 188 cm at his absolute peak height barefoot(6'2.25- 6'2.5 maxx )
Spencer said on 3/Aug/17
He looked 6 ft in Gran Torino maybe 184 . Peak looked close to 6'4.
He looked 6 ft in Gran Torino maybe 184 . Peak looked close to 6'4.
jetvis said on 3/Aug/17
Rob do you ever think his height loss seems a bit odd because of his good health?
Editor Rob
Rob do you ever think his height loss seems a bit odd because of his good health?
Editor Rob the taller you are, the greater the overall loss...he's had a long career, many physical roles...he just may have got a bit unlucky with genetics or he ended up with some more bone loss or disc problems which led to further losses.
jetvis said on 3/Aug/17
I mentioned before in an episode of Rawhide there are some very good height comparisons between Clint and 6ft2.5 listed Jim Davis and both men look identical in height.My mind is still open on Clints peak.With Robbins Clint would have been in his early 70s and looked 6ft1 meaning a height loss of almost 3 inches which is a little bit hard to believe .
I mentioned before in an episode of Rawhide there are some very good height comparisons between Clint and 6ft2.5 listed Jim Davis and both men look identical in height.My mind is still open on Clints peak.With Robbins Clint would have been in his early 70s and looked 6ft1 meaning a height loss of almost 3 inches which is a little bit hard to believe .
Arch Stanton said on 2/Aug/17
LOL, so that makes Jeff Daniels 6'1, Jim Carey no more than 6 ft and so on. Clint was taller than 6'3 peak Jeff Daniels at a time when he had lost height!
LOL, so that makes Jeff Daniels 6'1, Jim Carey no more than 6 ft and so on. Clint was taller than 6'3 peak Jeff Daniels at a time when he had lost height!
jetvis said on 2/Aug/17
If he was proven to be 6ft2,it would explain the massive height loss,also a lot of downgrades for other actors,I wouldn't. rule anything out though.
If he was proven to be 6ft2,it would explain the massive height loss,also a lot of downgrades for other actors,I wouldn't. rule anything out though.
movieguy said on 2/Aug/17
On the Robert Ryan and Sam Elliott pages on this site there are stories from two guys who claim to have met Clint and guess his height at 6'2''. Their stories sound believable if anyone wants to check. I've always gone for Clint as a weak 6'4''. If Clint was only 6'2'' then this would explain the very dramatic height loss and why Tim Robbins towered over him at the time of Mystic River. Are these stories true though?
On the Robert Ryan and Sam Elliott pages on this site there are stories from two guys who claim to have met Clint and guess his height at 6'2''. Their stories sound believable if anyone wants to check. I've always gone for Clint as a weak 6'4''. If Clint was only 6'2'' then this would explain the very dramatic height loss and why Tim Robbins towered over him at the time of Mystic River. Are these stories true though?
jetvis said on 1/Aug/17
Does smoking a lot make you lose height Rob?
Editor Rob
Does smoking a lot make you lose height Rob?
Editor Rob I would advise anybody against smoking. Long-term it certainly increases problems, including those which might lead to bone loss.
James said on 1/Aug/17
Marvin smoked 6 packs of cigarettes a day so he was likely to have lost height early.
Marvin smoked 6 packs of cigarettes a day so he was likely to have lost height early.
Jim Hopper said on 31/Jul/17
No doubt he was 6-3 upwards to 6-4. That's not really the question. But he has lost a lot of height.
No doubt he was 6-3 upwards to 6-4. That's not really the question. But he has lost a lot of height.
Rory said on 30/Jul/17
I challenge any downgrader to find me a veritable picture of a pre 1980 Clint Eastwood looking under 6ft3. I dare you.
I challenge any downgrader to find me a veritable picture of a pre 1980 Clint Eastwood looking under 6ft3. I dare you.
jetvis said on 29/Jul/17
Marvin was only 45 at the time of paint your wagon and only 6 years older than Clint,I don't think he would have lost any height by that stage.
Marvin always looked a solid 6ft1 Guy to me,in Gorky park aged late fifties he looked similar to the much younger 6ft2 listed William Hurt.Downgrading someone below 6FT1 just to suit your opinion on Clint's height is a very weak argument. Clint in his peak was a Solis 6ft3 Guy,he was probably close to 6ft4 in the morning in his youth and just went with that through his career because it sounds more impressive than 6ft3
Marvin was only 45 at the time of paint your wagon and only 6 years older than Clint,I don't think he would have lost any height by that stage.
Marvin always looked a solid 6ft1 Guy to me,in Gorky park aged late fifties he looked similar to the much younger 6ft2 listed William Hurt.Downgrading someone below 6FT1 just to suit your opinion on Clint's height is a very weak argument. Clint in his peak was a Solis 6ft3 Guy,he was probably close to 6ft4 in the morning in his youth and just went with that through his career because it sounds more impressive than 6ft3
jervis said on 29/Jul/17
Marvin was only 45 at the time of paint your wagon and 6 years older than Clint, I dont think he would have lost a inch in height by that age.
Marvin was only 45 at the time of paint your wagon and 6 years older than Clint, I dont think he would have lost a inch in height by that age.
berta said on 29/Jul/17
i think about 191-191,5 peak
Around 1985 190,3
Around 1995 188,3
Around 2005 185,3
Today 182-183
i think about 191-191,5 peak
Around 1985 190,3
Around 1995 188,3
Around 2005 185,3
Today 182-183
James said on 28/Jul/17
Lee Marvin was only six foot by middle age, he may have been nearly 6'1" as a young man.
Lee Marvin was only six foot by middle age, he may have been nearly 6'1" as a young man.
RichardSpain said on 28/Jul/17
Bridges was 186cm MAX. He doesn't look a strong 188 cm
Eastwood 190 cm MAX.
Bridges was 186cm MAX. He doesn't look a strong 188 cm
Eastwood 190 cm MAX.
movieguy said on 27/Jul/17
I'm a Clint fan and this is the celeb I'd most like to know how tall he actually was in reality when young. It's funny cause I recall people on this site saying they met him and he was definitely 6'4'' others say they met him and he was definitely no more than 6'2''. If Clint was only 6'2'' then guys like Lee Marvin and James Coburn were only 6ft.
I'm a Clint fan and this is the celeb I'd most like to know how tall he actually was in reality when young. It's funny cause I recall people on this site saying they met him and he was definitely 6'4'' others say they met him and he was definitely no more than 6'2''. If Clint was only 6'2'' then guys like Lee Marvin and James Coburn were only 6ft.
James said on 26/Jul/17
Jeff Bridges was never any taller than 6'1".
Jeff Bridges was never any taller than 6'1".
Mister lennon said on 26/Jul/17
Brigdes was a solid 6'1 peak.
Brigdes was a solid 6'1 peak.
Rising - 174 cm said on 25/Jul/17
Where did you get Bridges being listed at 6'1" from? Bridges claims to be 6'2" and Rob estimates him at 6'1.5" peak, which seems about right, imo. That would make Clint about 6'3.5" peak.
Where did you get Bridges being listed at 6'1" from? Bridges claims to be 6'2" and Rob estimates him at 6'1.5" peak, which seems about right, imo. That would make Clint about 6'3.5" peak.
Dan said on 25/Jul/17
I agree James...on top of that, Bridges is at most 2" shorter than Eastwood in Thunderbolt, and his height is listed as 6'1", which means he's probably a bit less.
I agree James...on top of that, Bridges is at most 2" shorter than Eastwood in Thunderbolt, and his height is listed as 6'1", which means he's probably a bit less.
movieguy said on 25/Jul/17
People can lose inches in height as they age and this is clearly the case with Clint. He's gone from a minimum of 6'3'' I'd say to barely 6ft today. The photos that always puzzle me are from the time of Mystic River where Tim Robbins absolutely towers over Eastwood. One guy is supposed to be 6'5'' and the other 6'4'' or thereabouts but the height difference is very noticeable.
People can lose inches in height as they age and this is clearly the case with Clint. He's gone from a minimum of 6'3'' I'd say to barely 6ft today. The photos that always puzzle me are from the time of Mystic River where Tim Robbins absolutely towers over Eastwood. One guy is supposed to be 6'5'' and the other 6'4'' or thereabouts but the height difference is very noticeable.
Rising - 174 cm said on 24/Jul/17
I would like to be 6'0" minimum and 6'2" max - that's the ideal range for me - but I'd probably choose 6'3"-6'4" range over 5'11" with the right build. Being thin at 6'3"+ wouldn't be too good, imo since you can look lanky and awkward, but if you're broad and powerfully built, then it'd be good. Falling short of the 6 foot mark is just disappointing to me. Of course, at 5'11", you can easily look 6 feet with the right footwear, so if we're considering that, then I may take 5'11", but if lifts or thick footwear are excluded, then with a good build, I'd say 6'3"-6'4". A Dolph Lundgren 6'4" is very impressive, I wouldn't mind being that at all.
With that said, I think Scott might be closer to 5'10" than 5'11", or perhaps right in between at 5'10.5", but 5'11" is pushing it, imo.
I would like to be 6'0" minimum and 6'2" max - that's the ideal range for me - but I'd probably choose 6'3"-6'4" range over 5'11" with the right build. Being thin at 6'3"+ wouldn't be too good, imo since you can look lanky and awkward, but if you're broad and powerfully built, then it'd be good. Falling short of the 6 foot mark is just disappointing to me. Of course, at 5'11", you can easily look 6 feet with the right footwear, so if we're considering that, then I may take 5'11", but if lifts or thick footwear are excluded, then with a good build, I'd say 6'3"-6'4". A Dolph Lundgren 6'4" is very impressive, I wouldn't mind being that at all.
With that said, I think Scott might be closer to 5'10" than 5'11", or perhaps right in between at 5'10.5", but 5'11" is pushing it, imo.
Jim Hopper said on 23/Jul/17
Id say a little over 6-3" now 6-0" or just under.
Id say a little over 6-3" now 6-0" or just under.
James said on 23/Jul/17
Bridges was never 6'2", lol.
Bridges was never 6'2", lol.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jul/17
Clint had 2.5 inches on Jeff Bridges who was between 6'1 and 6'2 peak.
Clint had 2.5 inches on Jeff Bridges who was between 6'1 and 6'2 peak.
RichardSpain said on 22/Jul/17
I still think he wasn't a strong 6ft 3.75. To me he was 6'3 in peak max and a strong 6'2 during a long time.
I still think he wasn't a strong 6ft 3.75. To me he was 6'3 in peak max and a strong 6'2 during a long time.
Dan said on 22/Jul/17
TWO points...the average peak and current guesses here are absurd. No one loses four inches in height unless plagued with health issues, and Eastwood is the picture of health.
Secondly, he is much too much shorter than the 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool to have ever been 6'4". He gives away two inches easily to Neeson...more so from what I can see.
He is also consistently about where Eric Fleming was in height, and Fleming was billed as 6'3", though was probably not quite there.
6'2.5" is the absolute MAXIMUM I would give Eastwood at his peak. He is still taller than Justin Timberlake now, which means his current height is at least over 6'.
TWO points...the average peak and current guesses here are absurd. No one loses four inches in height unless plagued with health issues, and Eastwood is the picture of health.
Secondly, he is much too much shorter than the 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool to have ever been 6'4". He gives away two inches easily to Neeson...more so from what I can see.
He is also consistently about where Eric Fleming was in height, and Fleming was billed as 6'3", though was probably not quite there.
6'2.5" is the absolute MAXIMUM I would give Eastwood at his peak. He is still taller than Justin Timberlake now, which means his current height is at least over 6'.
slimeball said on 22/Jul/17
Clint eastwood was exactly same height and size as me when he was younger. I am 6.3.5 (191.5-192 cm) and around 200-210 pounds. I can see that by full body shots, he looks exactly the same as me in proportion but he looks to have little less bodyfat, so i think he was 190-200 pounds in dirty harry movies.
Clint eastwood was exactly same height and size as me when he was younger. I am 6.3.5 (191.5-192 cm) and around 200-210 pounds. I can see that by full body shots, he looks exactly the same as me in proportion but he looks to have little less bodyfat, so i think he was 190-200 pounds in dirty harry movies.
Jervis said on 22/Jul/17
6ft2 is too low, 6ft4 is to tall, for Clint 6ft3 is perfect.
6ft2 is too low, 6ft4 is to tall, for Clint 6ft3 is perfect.
Aza said on 22/Jul/17
@Matthew Robinson
I tend to agree with you. If I could choose my perfect height ( my absolute low is 182.5 cm) it would be 6'3. I really wouldn't want to be any taller tbh. I think a young Clint Eastwood would wake up close to 6'4 and believe his peak low was 6'3.25. Today , yes he's possibly just over 6 ft.
@Matthew Robinson
I tend to agree with you. If I could choose my perfect height ( my absolute low is 182.5 cm) it would be 6'3. I really wouldn't want to be any taller tbh. I think a young Clint Eastwood would wake up close to 6'4 and believe his peak low was 6'3.25. Today , yes he's possibly just over 6 ft.
Matthew Robinson said on 21/Jul/17
James B said on 21/Jul/17
Much better being 5'11 than 6'4
---
Nah. At roughly 6'3" I can say from personal experience I disagree pretty strongly.
James B said on 21/Jul/17
Much better being 5'11 than 6'4
---
Nah. At roughly 6'3" I can say from personal experience I disagree pretty strongly.
James B said on 21/Jul/17
Much better being 5'11 than 6'4
Much better being 5'11 than 6'4
Ali said on 20/Jul/17
He was only slightly taller than Muhammed Ali, who was a 6'2 max. Clint Eastwood was 6'2.5 peak IMO.
He was only slightly taller than Muhammed Ali, who was a 6'2 max. Clint Eastwood was 6'2.5 peak IMO.
Rory said on 20/Jul/17
It's hard to say really, I think you can make a constructive argument that 5'11 is more desirable than 6'4, however, I think if you offered most men the chance to be 6'4 or 5'11 they'd take 6'4 all day long..I certainly would anyway. I don't want to enter the realms of absurdity that some espouse on the general height page but it's true that in some circumstances 5'11 in the West these days will feel average at best. Legit tall starts at 6ft 1 I think now. Many in the 5'10 to 6ft 1 range might consider themselves as being tall, but anyone within that range could equally be described as average height. I think once you get to 6ft 1 in the evening though that's when you're indisputably tall range.
It's hard to say really, I think you can make a constructive argument that 5'11 is more desirable than 6'4, however, I think if you offered most men the chance to be 6'4 or 5'11 they'd take 6'4 all day long..I certainly would anyway. I don't want to enter the realms of absurdity that some espouse on the general height page but it's true that in some circumstances 5'11 in the West these days will feel average at best. Legit tall starts at 6ft 1 I think now. Many in the 5'10 to 6ft 1 range might consider themselves as being tall, but anyone within that range could equally be described as average height. I think once you get to 6ft 1 in the evening though that's when you're indisputably tall range.
James B said on 20/Jul/17
I think his son Scott is probably a more desirable height than his father was by society's and Hollywood standards at least.
Most would agree that the majority of handsome 5'11 men in Hollywood outnumber the 6'3/6'4 leading men.
I think his son Scott is probably a more desirable height than his father was by society's and Hollywood standards at least.
Most would agree that the majority of handsome 5'11 men in Hollywood outnumber the 6'3/6'4 leading men.
Mister lennon said on 20/Jul/17
Strong 6'3 peak. Maybe weak 6'4 in the morning.
Strong 6'3 peak. Maybe weak 6'4 in the morning.
Rising - 174 cm said on 19/Jul/17
I don't know if Clint was a full 6'4" or not, but there's no way he's a flat 5'11" today. He'd often look 5'9"-5'10" with his posture, but never looks that low and rarely looks as short as a flat 5'11". He could be as low as 5'11.5" today, but nothing less standing straight.
@Arch: I think Rob said 6'3" is the lowest he'd try arguing, which I interpreted is Rob's way of saying there's no way Clint wasn't at least 6'3" peak.
I don't know if Clint was a full 6'4" or not, but there's no way he's a flat 5'11" today. He'd often look 5'9"-5'10" with his posture, but never looks that low and rarely looks as short as a flat 5'11". He could be as low as 5'11.5" today, but nothing less standing straight.
@Arch: I think Rob said 6'3" is the lowest he'd try arguing, which I interpreted is Rob's way of saying there's no way Clint wasn't at least 6'3" peak.
Jervis said on 19/Jul/17
6ft4 morning height,by evening 6ft3.25,walking posture slouching can look more 6ft2.5. Peak height 6ft3.25 or 6ft3.5,now looks in most recent pics 5ft11 and very frail.
6ft4 morning height,by evening 6ft3.25,walking posture slouching can look more 6ft2.5. Peak height 6ft3.25 or 6ft3.5,now looks in most recent pics 5ft11 and very frail.
Richardspain said on 18/Jul/17
First western movies 190
Dirty Harry movies 189
Unforgiven 188
Gran Torino 186
Nowadays 183/184
This and not other is the great recapitulation of the Eastwood's height.
First western movies 190
Dirty Harry movies 189
Unforgiven 188
Gran Torino 186
Nowadays 183/184
This and not other is the great recapitulation of the Eastwood's height.
James said on 18/Jul/17
Eastwood was clearly never the full 6'4". He may have been slightly over 6'3" as a young man, and 5'11" today.
Eastwood was clearly never the full 6'4". He may have been slightly over 6'3" as a young man, and 5'11" today.
Rory said on 18/Jul/17
Only complete height novices are fooled by things such as thick hair and slim builds accounting for an inch. I notice all these people who insist he was 6ft3 never corroborate their claims with any evidence they seem to think if I just say he was 6ft3 over and over again eventually it will stick. Well no, he was either 6ft3.5 or 6ft3.75. 6ft3 is too low, he looked that at 60 odd, not 30.
Only complete height novices are fooled by things such as thick hair and slim builds accounting for an inch. I notice all these people who insist he was 6ft3 never corroborate their claims with any evidence they seem to think if I just say he was 6ft3 over and over again eventually it will stick. Well no, he was either 6ft3.5 or 6ft3.75. 6ft3 is too low, he looked that at 60 odd, not 30.
James B said on 17/Jul/17
Arch Stanton said on 17/Jul/17
I can't recall Rob saying he thought a flat 6'3 for Clint peak would be that arguable, 6'3.5 is though.
Bang on 6'3.25 peak which is more than just a flat 6'3
Arch Stanton said on 17/Jul/17
I can't recall Rob saying he thought a flat 6'3 for Clint peak would be that arguable, 6'3.5 is though.
Bang on 6'3.25 peak which is more than just a flat 6'3
Arch Stanton said on 17/Jul/17
I can't recall Rob saying he thought a flat 6'3 for Clint peak would be that arguable, 6'3.5 is though.
I can't recall Rob saying he thought a flat 6'3 for Clint peak would be that arguable, 6'3.5 is though.
movieguy said on 17/Jul/17
Richard Schickel who has written a few books about Clint and knows him well makes a comment about his imposing 6'3'' frame in a book called simply "Clint". This is an older Eastwood though so maybe by this point he was not quite so tall as in his youth. I still think that the site has it right and he was just under 6'4'' or a weak 6'4''.
Richard Schickel who has written a few books about Clint and knows him well makes a comment about his imposing 6'3'' frame in a book called simply "Clint". This is an older Eastwood though so maybe by this point he was not quite so tall as in his youth. I still think that the site has it right and he was just under 6'4'' or a weak 6'4''.
Ted said on 16/Jul/17
A full 6' 4'' is difficult to believe. 6' 3'' in the morning.
A full 6' 4'' is difficult to believe. 6' 3'' in the morning.
James B said on 15/Jul/17
Arch Stanton said on 13/Jul/17
6'3 James by Deadpool I think. I caught a bit of High Plains Drifter again recently and to me had the frame of a 6'4 guy, 6'3.5-6'4 range is arguable, nothing less than that peak
Well editor rob and the majority of votes seem to point towards clint being more 6'3-6'3.5 peak.
Let's not forget arch his slim build and hairstyle in the 60s/70s could probably make him seem taller. In the 1980s when he was heavier with thinning hair he looked 6'3 or 6'2 but possibly by that point could have lost a fraction
Arch Stanton said on 13/Jul/17
6'3 James by Deadpool I think. I caught a bit of High Plains Drifter again recently and to me had the frame of a 6'4 guy, 6'3.5-6'4 range is arguable, nothing less than that peak
Well editor rob and the majority of votes seem to point towards clint being more 6'3-6'3.5 peak.
Let's not forget arch his slim build and hairstyle in the 60s/70s could probably make him seem taller. In the 1980s when he was heavier with thinning hair he looked 6'3 or 6'2 but possibly by that point could have lost a fraction
Arch Stanton said on 13/Jul/17
6'3 James by Deadpool I think. I caught a bit of High Plains Drifter again recently and to me had the frame of a 6'4 guy, 6'3.5-6'4 range is arguable, nothing less than that peak.
6'3 James by Deadpool I think. I caught a bit of High Plains Drifter again recently and to me had the frame of a 6'4 guy, 6'3.5-6'4 range is arguable, nothing less than that peak.
RichardSpain said on 11/Jul/17
Eastwood was a perfect 6'3 (190 cm) in peak younger and barefoot. With footwear 192 cm in peak.
And between his fifties - sixties years old 6'2 ( 188 cm)
He wasn't more than that guys! believe you in me!
Eastwood was a perfect 6'3 (190 cm) in peak younger and barefoot. With footwear 192 cm in peak.
And between his fifties - sixties years old 6'2 ( 188 cm)
He wasn't more than that guys! believe you in me!
Canson said on 9/Jul/17
@Bobby: for sure not a real 6'4.
@Bobby: for sure not a real 6'4.
Rory said on 9/Jul/17
There's no point even responding to people who say he was 6ft 2 peak as it's just trash talk. The arguments for his peak can only be from 6ft 3 minimum to 6ft 4 maximum. Anything outside that range is an extremist position barely worthy of reading. Im pretty clear in my own mind he would have been about 6ft 4.5 out of bed and 6ft 3.5 at his lowest, being tall he probably shrunk a full inch.
There's no point even responding to people who say he was 6ft 2 peak as it's just trash talk. The arguments for his peak can only be from 6ft 3 minimum to 6ft 4 maximum. Anything outside that range is an extremist position barely worthy of reading. Im pretty clear in my own mind he would have been about 6ft 4.5 out of bed and 6ft 3.5 at his lowest, being tall he probably shrunk a full inch.
James B said on 9/Jul/17
Arch how tall do you think he was in 1988?
Arch how tall do you think he was in 1988?
Arch Stanton said on 8/Jul/17
If Clint was 6'2 Jeff Bridges was not even 6' flat.
If Clint was 6'2 Jeff Bridges was not even 6' flat.
even said on 7/Jul/17
hes 6 feet tall right now
hes 6 feet tall right now
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jul/17
He looks close to 6'3 in that Seagal photo given that I think Seagal was 194 peak and probably in bigger boots. In 1995 peruid he was looking 6'2.5-75 generally though, looked that with Arnie too.
He looks close to 6'3 in that Seagal photo given that I think Seagal was 194 peak and probably in bigger boots. In 1995 peruid he was looking 6'2.5-75 generally though, looked that with Arnie too.
James said on 7/Jul/17
Van Cleef may have been closer to 6'1".
Van Cleef may have been closer to 6'1".
Rory said on 4/Jul/17
Yh looking 6'2.5 there in '95 with Seagal. A good inch under his peak.
Yh looking 6'2.5 there in '95 with Seagal. A good inch under his peak.
even said on 3/Jul/17
when he was young he was a bit taller than lee van cleef . in my opinion he was at least 6 feet 3 inches i mean its not my opinion its the reality man .
when he was young he was a bit taller than lee van cleef . in my opinion he was at least 6 feet 3 inches i mean its not my opinion its the reality man .
movieguy said on 3/Jul/17
Great find Matt but I'm surprised how close to Seagal in height Eastwood looks in that photo. Looks closer to an inch than three to my eyes. Clint was a weak 6'4'' I think, he surely couldn't have been much shorter don't buy 6'2''.
Great find Matt but I'm surprised how close to Seagal in height Eastwood looks in that photo. Looks closer to an inch than three to my eyes. Clint was a weak 6'4'' I think, he surely couldn't have been much shorter don't buy 6'2''.
Matt Rohler Iowa said on 3/Jul/17
Click Here Here he is with Steven Seagal. I would say no taller than 6ft 2 and a half peak height. Seagal easily has 2 to 3 inch height on Eastwood.
Click Here Here he is with Steven Seagal. I would say no taller than 6ft 2 and a half peak height. Seagal easily has 2 to 3 inch height on Eastwood.
jervis said on 28/Jun/17
His son Kyle is around 6ft2,also Scotts mother is only 5ft2.
His son Kyle is around 6ft2,also Scotts mother is only 5ft2.
Slim 181 cm said on 26/Jun/17
@richardspain, it makes sense at to why his son Scott isn't 6 foot or taller.
@richardspain, it makes sense at to why his son Scott isn't 6 foot or taller.
Guest66 said on 26/Jun/17
4 inch height loss is possible. Tall people tend to lose height more aggressively as they get older.
4 inch height loss is possible. Tall people tend to lose height more aggressively as they get older.
Joe said on 24/Jun/17
Rob, do you think he was ever 6'4"? Also, do you think he could be around 5'11.75" now?
Rob, do you think he was ever 6'4"? Also, do you think he could be around 5'11.75" now?
jervis said on 22/Jun/17
In rawhide Bill Travers who is listed at 6ft5 is a guest star,and only looks a bit taller than Clint.
In rawhide Bill Travers who is listed at 6ft5 is a guest star,and only looks a bit taller than Clint.
jervis said on 22/Jun/17
There is a black and white pic of Clint with Arnold and lou Ferringo from the early 1980s.Lou looks about 1 inch taller than Clint.
There is a black and white pic of Clint with Arnold and lou Ferringo from the early 1980s.Lou looks about 1 inch taller than Clint.
Dublin guy said on 21/Jun/17
How does he lose nearly 4 inches in height that doesn't seem possible to be honest. I know people shrink as they age but that's just farcical
How does he lose nearly 4 inches in height that doesn't seem possible to be honest. I know people shrink as they age but that's just farcical
Canson said on 20/Jun/17
Agree with tall in the Saddle Strong 6'3 (191-191.5)
Agree with tall in the Saddle Strong 6'3 (191-191.5)
jetvis said on 20/Jun/17
It wouldn't be a surprise if he was 6ft2.75 or even 6ft2.5 alongside. Neeson He looked more than an inch shorter,aged 58, and now known to be prone to shrinking, a full inch loss off his peak is not as improbable as it once seemed
It wouldn't be a surprise if he was 6ft2.75 or even 6ft2.5 alongside. Neeson He looked more than an inch shorter,aged 58, and now known to be prone to shrinking, a full inch loss off his peak is not as improbable as it once seemed
jetvis said on 20/Jun/17
I think 6ft3.5 is unanimous for his peak.
I think 6ft3.5 is unanimous for his peak.
Peterson188cm said on 17/Jun/17
peak (night): 6ft3.5 / 6ft3.75
today (night): 5ft11.75 / 6ft
peak (night): 6ft3.5 / 6ft3.75
today (night): 5ft11.75 / 6ft
Mark(5'9.25 said on 13/Jun/17
Always that guy closer to 6'4" than 6'3". He appeared slightly taller than John Wayne and was easily over an inch taller than Muhammad Ali.
Always that guy closer to 6'4" than 6'3". He appeared slightly taller than John Wayne and was easily over an inch taller than Muhammad Ali.
James B said on 13/Jun/17
Rob do you think he was 6'2.75 in 1988?
He could look that range with Liam neeson in Deadpool
Rob do you think he was 6'2.75 in 1988?
He could look that range with Liam neeson in Deadpool
Tall In The Saddle said on 5/Jun/17
Yep, I think Clint was between 6'3" and 6'3 & 1/2". I really believe that the main thing that has put Clint's peak height into question is the degree of height loss suffered. Until there was any height loss in evidence, I doubt that Eastwood's height was ever called into question. If you can live with that height loss (which I now can but I did question it previously) then all reference points otherwise point to a tall guy at peak, at least 6'3", prob 6'3 & 1/2" - and Clint's proportions, arms and legs save for short torso lend themselves to this height.
Must admit, as a youngster watching Marcus Welby MD I didn't appreciate James Brolin's height. Robert Young who played Welby was about 6 ft peak but the older Young looked quite short next to Brolin. For reference, Robert Young appeared in a late 40s movie with Errol Flynn and Walter Pidgeon - That Forsyte Woman. Pidgeon was clearly the taller of the three. Flynn was flat level with Young and perhaps even a heart beat shorter - Flynn was never a 6'2" guy IMO - likely 6'1" at best.
Interesting that Kiefer Sutherland and Josh Brolin, to name two, didn't quite inherit the height of their famous Dads.
Yep, I think Clint was between 6'3" and 6'3 & 1/2". I really believe that the main thing that has put Clint's peak height into question is the degree of height loss suffered. Until there was any height loss in evidence, I doubt that Eastwood's height was ever called into question. If you can live with that height loss (which I now can but I did question it previously) then all reference points otherwise point to a tall guy at peak, at least 6'3", prob 6'3 & 1/2" - and Clint's proportions, arms and legs save for short torso lend themselves to this height.
Must admit, as a youngster watching Marcus Welby MD I didn't appreciate James Brolin's height. Robert Young who played Welby was about 6 ft peak but the older Young looked quite short next to Brolin. For reference, Robert Young appeared in a late 40s movie with Errol Flynn and Walter Pidgeon - That Forsyte Woman. Pidgeon was clearly the taller of the three. Flynn was flat level with Young and perhaps even a heart beat shorter - Flynn was never a 6'2" guy IMO - likely 6'1" at best.
Interesting that Kiefer Sutherland and Josh Brolin, to name two, didn't quite inherit the height of their famous Dads.
Csimpson 6ft said on 2/Jun/17
Peak 6ft 3.75 and 5ft 11.75 today id say is probable
Peak 6ft 3.75 and 5ft 11.75 today id say is probable
James said on 2/Jun/17
It's obvious he was never any taller than 6'3".
It's obvious he was never any taller than 6'3".
Canson said on 31/May/17
@Rory: I don't say It based on feelings and I believe he was a 6'3" range guy never as tall as rock Hudson etc. but I also don't believe he was less than 191/192 either
@Rory: I don't say It based on feelings and I believe he was a 6'3" range guy never as tall as rock Hudson etc. but I also don't believe he was less than 191/192 either
Sandy Cowell said on 31/May/17
🎈🎁🎂 Happy Birthday Clint Eastwood! 🎂🎁🎈
Today, as it's his Birthday, Clint can have 6ft3.75 peak and 6ft0.75 for today's height!
🎈🎁🎂 Happy Birthday Clint Eastwood! 🎂🎁🎈
Today, as it's his Birthday, Clint can have 6ft3.75 peak and 6ft0.75 for today's height!
Jason said on 30/May/17
Hey Rob for Clint Eastwoods current height I'll give him 6'1 or 6'2 from where he is standing with 5'11 Brad Pitt give me your thoughts on this photo Click Here
Editor Rob
Hey Rob for Clint Eastwoods current height I'll give him 6'1 or 6'2 from where he is standing with 5'11 Brad Pitt give me your thoughts on this photo Click Here
Editor Rob you linked to a random photo, but in 2012 I'm sure there were several photos showing Clint at least an inch taller, so up till then he was stillin 6ft-6ft 0.5 range I believe.
Rory said on 30/May/17
I've always believed the same thing for a peak Eastwood. 6'4.5 immediately out of bed,6'3.5 last thing at night. At his height he probably shrank a full inch.
I've always believed the same thing for a peak Eastwood. 6'4.5 immediately out of bed,6'3.5 last thing at night. At his height he probably shrank a full inch.
Rory said on 30/May/17
Yh a lot of the people who say he needs to be downgraded to 6ft 3-3.5 range seem to just say it based on their feelings rather than any concrete evidence. The facts are when stood next to solid 6ft 4 men like John Gavin,Greg Walcott and George Kennedy Clint was clearly very near their heights, I do believe those guys edged him but we're talking a half inch at most considering Clints usual languid posture. I do think 6ft 3.25 would be underselling him a bit. 6'3.5-75 that had to be his range. What strikes me about old Clint films is i do feel he often acted alongside other tall men, often I've thought oh well he doesn't seem that tall in this scene with a certain group of people and then I've scratched beneath the surface and it turns out those guys were all over 6ft.
Yh a lot of the people who say he needs to be downgraded to 6ft 3-3.5 range seem to just say it based on their feelings rather than any concrete evidence. The facts are when stood next to solid 6ft 4 men like John Gavin,Greg Walcott and George Kennedy Clint was clearly very near their heights, I do believe those guys edged him but we're talking a half inch at most considering Clints usual languid posture. I do think 6ft 3.25 would be underselling him a bit. 6'3.5-75 that had to be his range. What strikes me about old Clint films is i do feel he often acted alongside other tall men, often I've thought oh well he doesn't seem that tall in this scene with a certain group of people and then I've scratched beneath the surface and it turns out those guys were all over 6ft.
jervis said on 30/May/17
He's 87 tomorrow.
He's 87 tomorrow.
RisingForce said on 30/May/17
What exactly was it that made everyone doubt 6'4" so much? He looked very close to Rock Hudson back in 1956.
What exactly was it that made everyone doubt 6'4" so much? He looked very close to Rock Hudson back in 1956.
James B said on 29/May/17
If he was a little under 6'3.75 peak then 6'2.75 makes sense for him in Deadpool given the difference between him and neeson
If he was a little under 6'3.75 peak then 6'2.75 makes sense for him in Deadpool given the difference between him and neeson
jervis said on 29/May/17
Rob.Donald Sutherland was downgraded to 6ft3.5 but is still 192cm, should this not be 191.5cm?I also agree with a downgrade 6f3.25 would be perfect for Clint peak.
Editor Rob
Rob.Donald Sutherland was downgraded to 6ft3.5 but is still 192cm, should this not be 191.5cm?I also agree with a downgrade 6f3.25 would be perfect for Clint peak.
Editor Rob it's got to round one way if the figure is bang in the middle, so whenever something is .5 it will round up rather than down to 191.
Rory said on 29/May/17
I think the argument for his peak is either 6'3.5 or 6'3.75, one of those figures. Seeing as he's on 6'3.75 now I don't really see the point in downgrading him to 6'3.5. The issue is I think too many people are looking at Clint from within the last 30-40 years when he's been shrinking, not enough are watching his stuff from the 50s,60s and early 70s when he definitely looked over 6ft 3.
I think the argument for his peak is either 6'3.5 or 6'3.75, one of those figures. Seeing as he's on 6'3.75 now I don't really see the point in downgrading him to 6'3.5. The issue is I think too many people are looking at Clint from within the last 30-40 years when he's been shrinking, not enough are watching his stuff from the 50s,60s and early 70s when he definitely looked over 6ft 3.
James B said on 29/May/17
Rob the majority of votes have him at 191cm peak
Could a downgrade to 6ft3 for his peak be possible?
Editor Rob
Rob the majority of votes have him at 191cm peak
Could a downgrade to 6ft3 for his peak be possible?
Editor Rob the nearly 6ft 3.5 is a quite reasonable figure...I could see it as being very possible, it's only a 1/4 inch less than the current peak listing...
Lenad the 5ft9.75in stud said on 26/May/17
I always bought 6'3 for his peak, but never 6'4
I always bought 6'3 for his peak, but never 6'4
RisingForce said on 24/May/17
Clint still looks similar to 182 cm Denzel Washington this year: Click Here Click Here
Clint can look maybe 1/4" shorter in the first pic, but that's his old man posture. He looks taller in the 2nd pic. Clint will probably look shorter if you go by eye level since he has the head of a man who use to be around 6'4". It's not impossible he's 182 cm now, but it's anyone's guess how tall he'll stand for a measurement. I think there's a good chance he may still reach the 6 foot mark standing tall.
Clint still looks similar to 182 cm Denzel Washington this year: Click Here Click Here
Clint can look maybe 1/4" shorter in the first pic, but that's his old man posture. He looks taller in the 2nd pic. Clint will probably look shorter if you go by eye level since he has the head of a man who use to be around 6'4". It's not impossible he's 182 cm now, but it's anyone's guess how tall he'll stand for a measurement. I think there's a good chance he may still reach the 6 foot mark standing tall.
jervis said on 24/May/17
Arch.Humphrey's looks like a short Guy around 5ft7.Rob do you think Humphreys looked the same height as you?
Editor Rob
Arch.Humphrey's looks like a short Guy around 5ft7.Rob do you think Humphreys looked the same height as you?
Editor Rob I think Humphrey could typically look 5ft 8 or over due to big shoes.
James B said on 22/May/17
Arch- doesn't brolins look like Bale?
Arch- doesn't brolins look like Bale?
James B said on 19/May/17
iosu_lasa said on 16/May/17
Click Here:
Eastwood and Brolin
Brolin = deadringer for Christian bale
iosu_lasa said on 16/May/17
Click Here:
Eastwood and Brolin
Brolin = deadringer for Christian bale
Arch Stanton said on 19/May/17
Humphries was 5 ft 8 ish I think. Eastwood did look a big 6'4 in that interview.
Humphries was 5 ft 8 ish I think. Eastwood did look a big 6'4 in that interview.
hope said on 17/May/17
I've actually met some of the people talked about on this thread, and it's interesting to me how celebs can appear to be taller on film than they are in real life. First, casting agents will often cast against the lead's height because a director or the actor himself (if he's a big enough star) wants a certain height difference for them on screen. Even if an actor isn't wearing lifts, camera angles and sole/heel thickness, as you all know, make it very difficult to get a handle on their heights with any accuracy. (Rob's photos with the celebs are a huge help.) It's even more deceiving if you see them on stage. I suspect it's because in most theatres, a large part of the audience is looking up.
Overall, given his age and slight frame, I think 6'0" sounds accurate. A man can easily lose 4" in height by his age. As someone mentioned below, taller men lose more, as a rule. But many people believe that osteoporosis is a woman's disease - it's not. Slender white men, in particular, are at real risk. I have no problem believing he could lose 3.5" or even more by his age.
I've actually met some of the people talked about on this thread, and it's interesting to me how celebs can appear to be taller on film than they are in real life. First, casting agents will often cast against the lead's height because a director or the actor himself (if he's a big enough star) wants a certain height difference for them on screen. Even if an actor isn't wearing lifts, camera angles and sole/heel thickness, as you all know, make it very difficult to get a handle on their heights with any accuracy. (Rob's photos with the celebs are a huge help.) It's even more deceiving if you see them on stage. I suspect it's because in most theatres, a large part of the audience is looking up.
Overall, given his age and slight frame, I think 6'0" sounds accurate. A man can easily lose 4" in height by his age. As someone mentioned below, taller men lose more, as a rule. But many people believe that osteoporosis is a woman's disease - it's not. Slender white men, in particular, are at real risk. I have no problem believing he could lose 3.5" or even more by his age.
jervis said on 17/May/17
I dont know if it makes much of a difference,but Clint is 10 years older than Brolin,so their peak heights would be at slightly different times.But they do look very similar,both 6ft3 or maybe a bit more peak.
I dont know if it makes much of a difference,but Clint is 10 years older than Brolin,so their peak heights would be at slightly different times.But they do look very similar,both 6ft3 or maybe a bit more peak.
jervis said on 17/May/17
Just look at the John Humphries interview on youtube and you will see how tall he looked in his younger years,although I dont know how tall Humphries was.
Just look at the John Humphries interview on youtube and you will see how tall he looked in his younger years,although I dont know how tall Humphries was.
RisingForce said on 16/May/17
Danimal, those are good pics, the last one has a bit of a low angle, but still useful. I see them about the same height in the first, Clint maybe a half inch shorter in the second and then about an inch shorter in the third. So if Rob's listing for Cooper is accurate then I still can't see Clint shorter than 5'11.5" and I don't know how much Clint can lose with posture. I'll agree there's a good chance he's under 6', though as he can look it with Stallone and Hugh Jackman and the Cooper pics are at least a couple of years old, maybe more like 2.5 years in some cases, but I think a flat 5'11" is too low since with old man posture, you'd surely have Clint looking 5'10" or under a fair amount. As for peak, I'd believe Clint at a full 6'4" peak before Tom Selleck.
Danimal, those are good pics, the last one has a bit of a low angle, but still useful. I see them about the same height in the first, Clint maybe a half inch shorter in the second and then about an inch shorter in the third. So if Rob's listing for Cooper is accurate then I still can't see Clint shorter than 5'11.5" and I don't know how much Clint can lose with posture. I'll agree there's a good chance he's under 6', though as he can look it with Stallone and Hugh Jackman and the Cooper pics are at least a couple of years old, maybe more like 2.5 years in some cases, but I think a flat 5'11" is too low since with old man posture, you'd surely have Clint looking 5'10" or under a fair amount. As for peak, I'd believe Clint at a full 6'4" peak before Tom Selleck.
berta said on 16/May/17
191,5 peak
191,5 peak
AlexMahone said on 16/May/17
Here is Clint circa 1970s with James Brolin.
Click Here
We can't see the footwear but Clint cheats a little bit with his hair. Brolin is slouching more but I think he is slightly taller.
And here is the two about 2008.
Click Here
I think about 6'3" for Clint is beliavable but no lower.
Here is Clint circa 1970s with James Brolin.
Click Here
We can't see the footwear but Clint cheats a little bit with his hair. Brolin is slouching more but I think he is slightly taller.
And here is the two about 2008.
Click Here
I think about 6'3" for Clint is beliavable but no lower.
James B said on 15/May/17
iosu_lasa said on 14/May/17
James B said on 14/May/17
Clint In his prime similar in height to a peak Dolph Lundgren? I can't see it personally.
No, Dolph was taller in his prime.. He was an inch more
Well editor rob doesn't rule out 193cm for a peak Dolph. And yes I agree I could imagine there being 1 inch between Clint and Dolph.
6'3 for clint Eastwood and 6'4 for Dolph makes sense to me.
iosu_lasa said on 14/May/17
James B said on 14/May/17
Clint In his prime similar in height to a peak Dolph Lundgren? I can't see it personally.
No, Dolph was taller in his prime.. He was an inch more
Well editor rob doesn't rule out 193cm for a peak Dolph. And yes I agree I could imagine there being 1 inch between Clint and Dolph.
6'3 for clint Eastwood and 6'4 for Dolph makes sense to me.
iosu_lasa said on 14/May/17
James B said on 14/May/17
Clint In his prime similar in height to a peak Dolph Lundgren? I can't see it personally.
No, Dolph was taller in his prime.. He was an inch more
James B said on 14/May/17
Clint In his prime similar in height to a peak Dolph Lundgren? I can't see it personally.
No, Dolph was taller in his prime.. He was an inch more
James B said on 14/May/17
Clint In his prime similar in height to a peak Dolph Lundgren? I can't see it personally.
Clint In his prime similar in height to a peak Dolph Lundgren? I can't see it personally.
jervis said on 13/May/17
I think a downgrade to 6ft3.5 is more like his peak height.
I think a downgrade to 6ft3.5 is more like his peak height.
Danimal said on 13/May/17
RisingForce said on 10/May/17
Danimal, 5'11" flat seems too low if he stood decently. He'd often look only 5'9"-5'10" with his posture. Did you see the full pics I posted with 184 cm Bradley Cooper? Clint can still look almost the same height when he stands well. I can't see him lower than 5'11.5" even today and really I think still a solid 182 cm, possibly the full 6 feet still. I may be in the minority, but I actually don't have trouble believing he hit a full 6'4" peak, though 1/4" under seems equally likely.
I had not seen the pic you posted of him with Bradley Cooper. That said, here are some comparison pics of the 2 of them. Even if Bradley has the slight footwear advantage, I still see Clint as being under 6'0" today:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
RisingForce said on 10/May/17
Danimal, 5'11" flat seems too low if he stood decently. He'd often look only 5'9"-5'10" with his posture. Did you see the full pics I posted with 184 cm Bradley Cooper? Clint can still look almost the same height when he stands well. I can't see him lower than 5'11.5" even today and really I think still a solid 182 cm, possibly the full 6 feet still. I may be in the minority, but I actually don't have trouble believing he hit a full 6'4" peak, though 1/4" under seems equally likely.
I had not seen the pic you posted of him with Bradley Cooper. That said, here are some comparison pics of the 2 of them. Even if Bradley has the slight footwear advantage, I still see Clint as being under 6'0" today:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
AlexMahone said on 11/May/17
This Lois girl/guy is just a troll...or another hardcore downgrader.
Escape From Alcatraz shower scene: Wolf played by Bruce M. Fischer was never 6'4". At best 191cm and Eastwood pretty much the same height. The picture from the movie is not ideal for comparison but look at...
Click Here
This isn't ideal as well because Eastwood is much closer to the camera and in the movie the two actor is never stand eye to eye but Eastwood is not 6'1" or 6'0".
Click Here
The prison director in the movie played by Patrick McGoohan. If I right remember Rob gave him 6'1" but McGoohan was taller, at least 188cm. Eastwood is taller with 4-5cm.
This Lois girl/guy is just a troll...or another hardcore downgrader.
Escape From Alcatraz shower scene: Wolf played by Bruce M. Fischer was never 6'4". At best 191cm and Eastwood pretty much the same height. The picture from the movie is not ideal for comparison but look at...
Click Here
This isn't ideal as well because Eastwood is much closer to the camera and in the movie the two actor is never stand eye to eye but Eastwood is not 6'1" or 6'0".
Click Here
The prison director in the movie played by Patrick McGoohan. If I right remember Rob gave him 6'1" but McGoohan was taller, at least 188cm. Eastwood is taller with 4-5cm.
RisingForce said on 10/May/17
Danimal, 5'11" flat seems too low if he stood decently. He'd often look only 5'9"-5'10" with his posture. Did you see the full pics I posted with 184 cm Bradley Cooper? Clint can still look almost the same height when he stands well. I can't see him lower than 5'11.5" even today and really I think still a solid 182 cm, possibly the full 6 feet still. I may be in the minority, but I actually don't have trouble believing he hit a full 6'4" peak, though 1/4" under seems equally likely.
Danimal, 5'11" flat seems too low if he stood decently. He'd often look only 5'9"-5'10" with his posture. Did you see the full pics I posted with 184 cm Bradley Cooper? Clint can still look almost the same height when he stands well. I can't see him lower than 5'11.5" even today and really I think still a solid 182 cm, possibly the full 6 feet still. I may be in the minority, but I actually don't have trouble believing he hit a full 6'4" peak, though 1/4" under seems equally likely.
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/May/17
iosu_lasa said on 6/May/17
In 1993 clint was still higher than the 190 cms of morgan freeman
Click Here
First, good pic of 56 yo Freeman and 63 yo Eastwood offset from around the time of The Unforgiven. For me, such pics are hard to come by. IMO, Clint does not appear clearly higher. From the pic (sans higher hair)Clint appears only slightly higher if not level. From memory, every scene from the Unforgiven did have Clint standing clearly higher - could be wrong but that's what I remember. For what it's worth, this site gives Freeman a peak height of 6' 2 & 1/4 " (personally I feel Morgan was a bit taller than that at best) but any which way it's reasonable to assume that 56 yo Freeman himself isn't quite carrying his own peak height by the time of that photo.
iosu_lasa said on 6/May/17
In 1993 clint was still higher than the 190 cms of morgan freeman
Click Here
First, good pic of 56 yo Freeman and 63 yo Eastwood offset from around the time of The Unforgiven. For me, such pics are hard to come by. IMO, Clint does not appear clearly higher. From the pic (sans higher hair)Clint appears only slightly higher if not level. From memory, every scene from the Unforgiven did have Clint standing clearly higher - could be wrong but that's what I remember. For what it's worth, this site gives Freeman a peak height of 6' 2 & 1/4 " (personally I feel Morgan was a bit taller than that at best) but any which way it's reasonable to assume that 56 yo Freeman himself isn't quite carrying his own peak height by the time of that photo.
movieguy said on 9/May/17
I don't remember Eastwood being much shorter than the Wolf guy in Escape from Alcatraz. An inch or so if my memory serves me correctly.
I don't remember Eastwood being much shorter than the Wolf guy in Escape from Alcatraz. An inch or so if my memory serves me correctly.
jervis said on 9/May/17
Lois,do you think Clint used lifts to make him look taller?
Lois,do you think Clint used lifts to make him look taller?
Lois said on 9/May/17
Escape From Alcatraz shower scene. Bruce Fischer as "Wolf" is 6'4" and Eastwood is a good 3" shorter.
Escape From Alcatraz shower scene. Bruce Fischer as "Wolf" is 6'4" and Eastwood is a good 3" shorter.
iosu_lasa said on 7/May/17
FRANK said on 6/May/17
Clint never was a 6.4 or around it, at least barefoot.
Now he will be in 5´11" or few more (yes, with +80 years) and watching his movies since his youth i can see him 6´2" or few more in peak barefoot.
6´2"-6´2.5 could be realistic, with boots 6´4"
Totally improbable FRANK ... In the picture he looks clearly higher than Freeman in the time of loss of stature of Clint.
Clint always poses to appear shorter in height
FRANK said on 6/May/17
Clint never was a 6.4 or around it, at least barefoot.
Now he will be in 5´11" or few more (yes, with +80 years) and watching his movies since his youth i can see him 6´2" or few more in peak barefoot.
6´2"-6´2.5 could be realistic, with boots 6´4"
Totally improbable FRANK ... In the picture he looks clearly higher than Freeman in the time of loss of stature of Clint.
Clint always poses to appear shorter in height
jervis said on 7/May/17
Frank,do you think Charlton Heston was more 6ft1 range peak,or do you think Clint had some sort of footwear advantage over him, that made him look 1 to 1.5 inches taller?
Frank,do you think Charlton Heston was more 6ft1 range peak,or do you think Clint had some sort of footwear advantage over him, that made him look 1 to 1.5 inches taller?
FRANK said on 6/May/17
Clint never was a 6.4 or around it, at least barefoot.
Now he will be in 5´11" or few more (yes, with +80 years) and watching his movies since his youth i can see him 6´2" or few more in peak barefoot.
6´2"-6´2.5 could be realistic, with boots 6´4"
Clint never was a 6.4 or around it, at least barefoot.
Now he will be in 5´11" or few more (yes, with +80 years) and watching his movies since his youth i can see him 6´2" or few more in peak barefoot.
6´2"-6´2.5 could be realistic, with boots 6´4"
iosu_lasa said on 6/May/17
In 1993 clint was still higher than the 190 cms of morgan freeman
Click Here
In 1993 clint was still higher than the 190 cms of morgan freeman
Click Here
James B said on 4/May/17
I think clint was always vain about his hair.
Probably still gets hair transplants too this very day
I think clint was always vain about his hair.
Probably still gets hair transplants too this very day
Ian C said on 2/May/17
Eastwood's case raises the question, do you get points on the height scale for tall hair? The Young Clint Eastwood must have had at least an inch of hair above the highest point on his skull. So, he was six foot four after he combed his pompadour in the morning, but would have been six foot three if he'd been caught in a sudden downpour without a hat.
On the subject of hair, Eastwood had exactly the same hairstyle in every one of his movies until he well into his fifties. And the hair was always clean and combed, even if he was playing a character who hadn't shaved in three weeks.
Eastwood's case raises the question, do you get points on the height scale for tall hair? The Young Clint Eastwood must have had at least an inch of hair above the highest point on his skull. So, he was six foot four after he combed his pompadour in the morning, but would have been six foot three if he'd been caught in a sudden downpour without a hat.
On the subject of hair, Eastwood had exactly the same hairstyle in every one of his movies until he well into his fifties. And the hair was always clean and combed, even if he was playing a character who hadn't shaved in three weeks.
James B said on 30/Apr/17
Looked 6'4.5 or 6'5 in Coogans Bluff
Looked 6'4.5 or 6'5 in Coogans Bluff
shiva 181 cms said on 30/Apr/17
His hair too could add the Impression of being taller but a flat head meaning he'd measure lower than our speculation
His hair too could add the Impression of being taller but a flat head meaning he'd measure lower than our speculation
the Slav said on 29/Apr/17
Clint was 6'3 peak AT THE MOST imo. Doesnt seem to have lost more than 3 inches tbh
Clint was 6'3 peak AT THE MOST imo. Doesnt seem to have lost more than 3 inches tbh
James B said on 28/Apr/17
Yeah Arch very rarely in his films from the 60s/70s did he only look 6'2.
Yeah Arch very rarely in his films from the 60s/70s did he only look 6'2.
Danimal said on 28/Apr/17
berta said on 26/Apr/17
i can se clint as 182,5 today and peak maybe 191,5
He's not over 180cm (5'11") today.
berta said on 26/Apr/17
i can se clint as 182,5 today and peak maybe 191,5
He's not over 180cm (5'11") today.
jervis said on 27/Apr/17
In cowboy boots 195cm,barefoot 191cm or maybe 192cm but I am more comfortable with 191cm.193cm was IMO an out of bed early in the morning measurement.
In cowboy boots 195cm,barefoot 191cm or maybe 192cm but I am more comfortable with 191cm.193cm was IMO an out of bed early in the morning measurement.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Apr/17
GP said on 24/Apr/17
@Arch, you little child was I talking to you? ...., 😂
Rob I have noticed that you have all these double standards nowadays. You let this guy Arch get away with so much.
I don't have to post here. Sorry but saying it was a "good 2 inches" just looked like a blatant untruth. A lot of troll types over the years have turned up claiming Clint was no more than 6'2 and altering things to meet their own arguments. I assumed you were one of them.
GP said on 24/Apr/17
@Arch, you little child was I talking to you? ...., 😂
Rob I have noticed that you have all these double standards nowadays. You let this guy Arch get away with so much.
I don't have to post here. Sorry but saying it was a "good 2 inches" just looked like a blatant untruth. A lot of troll types over the years have turned up claiming Clint was no more than 6'2 and altering things to meet their own arguments. I assumed you were one of them.
Richardspain said on 26/Apr/17
The famouse height of 192cm is a fake because is with his cowboy's boots.
Clint never was more than 190cm maybe was 189cm in peak and over long time he was 188cm. Now less 184cm is very old man
The famouse height of 192cm is a fake because is with his cowboy's boots.
Clint never was more than 190cm maybe was 189cm in peak and over long time he was 188cm. Now less 184cm is very old man
Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Apr/17
Arch - Not sure if you accept Vincent Price as a lock 6'4" but I do. In Forbidden Area, Price, face to face with Heston, has a solid 2" advantage. I can tell you that's at least one film in which Heston does not look a minimum 6'2 1/2", let alone any taller. Rather, Chuck looks 6'2" at best. So the math is Heston 6'2" with Clint either 1 " taller (6'3") or 1.5" taller (6'3 1/2"). From Price to Heston to Eastwood, it adds up for me.
As for The Unforgiven, I don't recall one scene in which Eastwood's height could be reliably compared to that of Morgan Freeman. I can tell you that I did notice that in the film Clint did appear to hold an even greater height advantage over Hackman than he actually held over Hackman in real life as at the time the movie was made. That Clint would be artificially framed or enhanced to be the darkest, most menacing and tallest character in that movie is not entirely implausible.
Arch - Not sure if you accept Vincent Price as a lock 6'4" but I do. In Forbidden Area, Price, face to face with Heston, has a solid 2" advantage. I can tell you that's at least one film in which Heston does not look a minimum 6'2 1/2", let alone any taller. Rather, Chuck looks 6'2" at best. So the math is Heston 6'2" with Clint either 1 " taller (6'3") or 1.5" taller (6'3 1/2"). From Price to Heston to Eastwood, it adds up for me.
As for The Unforgiven, I don't recall one scene in which Eastwood's height could be reliably compared to that of Morgan Freeman. I can tell you that I did notice that in the film Clint did appear to hold an even greater height advantage over Hackman than he actually held over Hackman in real life as at the time the movie was made. That Clint would be artificially framed or enhanced to be the darkest, most menacing and tallest character in that movie is not entirely implausible.
berta said on 26/Apr/17
i can se clint as 182,5 today and peak maybe 191,5
i can se clint as 182,5 today and peak maybe 191,5
GP said on 24/Apr/17
@Arch, you little child was I talking to you? ...., 😂
Rob I have noticed that you have all these double standards nowadays. You let this guy Arch get away with so much. I remember when he first started posting here, you would always respond to his comments, it's almost that you know each other. Now, he thinks that somehow he is an expert and goes around insulting people because he doesn't agree with them?
I remember you used to ban people back then if people insulted each other, but it appears that has stopped. It clearly shows that you have certain favorites on here that you allow to get away with bad acts that I doubt it's good for the reputation of this site. If you are the editor of this site, then you should not allow these type of childish and immature people speak in such manner. I'm very disappointed that standard has been lowered in my 10 + years of visiting your site.
Editor Rob
@Arch, you little child was I talking to you? ...., 😂
Rob I have noticed that you have all these double standards nowadays. You let this guy Arch get away with so much. I remember when he first started posting here, you would always respond to his comments, it's almost that you know each other. Now, he thinks that somehow he is an expert and goes around insulting people because he doesn't agree with them?
I remember you used to ban people back then if people insulted each other, but it appears that has stopped. It clearly shows that you have certain favorites on here that you allow to get away with bad acts that I doubt it's good for the reputation of this site. If you are the editor of this site, then you should not allow these type of childish and immature people speak in such manner. I'm very disappointed that standard has been lowered in my 10 + years of visiting your site.
Editor Rob I thought it was an off-hand reply 'need your eyes tested'...but I understand where you are coming from, it can be seen as an insult.
We should all try to show some respect, even if we disagree with other opinions.
We should all try to show some respect, even if we disagree with other opinions.
jervis said on 23/Apr/17
Yes GP,I did see the movie many times on tv and when it was first on in the cinema in 1988.Also remember Neeson did state his height as 6f4 and some change.
Yes GP,I did see the movie many times on tv and when it was first on in the cinema in 1988.Also remember Neeson did state his height as 6f4 and some change.
shiva 181 cms said on 23/Apr/17
@arch, buddy everyone has different guesses on height difference that doesn't mean, he should have his eyes checked, going by your logic almost 99% of population should have their eyes checked ,,big G should be triple checked, by the way I don't mean to offend you I'm just stating a fact
Clint was near enough 6'4 at his peak this listing is perfect
But currently looks 5'11.5 don't know how much he'd measure
@arch, buddy everyone has different guesses on height difference that doesn't mean, he should have his eyes checked, going by your logic almost 99% of population should have their eyes checked ,,big G should be triple checked, by the way I don't mean to offend you I'm just stating a fact
Clint was near enough 6'4 at his peak this listing is perfect
But currently looks 5'11.5 don't know how much he'd measure
GP said on 22/Apr/17
jervis that's your opinion but you clearly either didn't watch the movie or you don't know anything about camera angles. Camera was placed as close as possible to Eastwood every scene they were together to minimize the height difference and he still looked shorter. They even had him stand on higher ground in some scenes. Liam himself never had good posture. If you believe that somehow it's his genes that contributed to his major height loss then I feel sad for his son, he might end up being a little person when he gets to his dad's age.
jervis that's your opinion but you clearly either didn't watch the movie or you don't know anything about camera angles. Camera was placed as close as possible to Eastwood every scene they were together to minimize the height difference and he still looked shorter. They even had him stand on higher ground in some scenes. Liam himself never had good posture. If you believe that somehow it's his genes that contributed to his major height loss then I feel sad for his son, he might end up being a little person when he gets to his dad's age.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Apr/17
GP said on 21/Apr/17
Once more, for some odd reason my comment didn't show here. Watch The Dead Pool movie from 1988. Eastwood looked good 2" shorter than Liam Neeson. So unless there was evidence that Eastwood had already lost about 2" of height by mid to late 50's, then that 6'3" mention was most likely his peak height and by late 80's he was down to 6'2".
LOL, if you thought that was 2 inches you need your eyes tested. One inch at the very most, see the scene where they walk through the supermarket. Eastwood was down to about 6 ft 3 by then, as if you see Unforgiven he was still an inch taller than solid 6'2 Morgan Freeman.
GP said on 21/Apr/17
Once more, for some odd reason my comment didn't show here. Watch The Dead Pool movie from 1988. Eastwood looked good 2" shorter than Liam Neeson. So unless there was evidence that Eastwood had already lost about 2" of height by mid to late 50's, then that 6'3" mention was most likely his peak height and by late 80's he was down to 6'2".
LOL, if you thought that was 2 inches you need your eyes tested. One inch at the very most, see the scene where they walk through the supermarket. Eastwood was down to about 6 ft 3 by then, as if you see Unforgiven he was still an inch taller than solid 6'2 Morgan Freeman.
iosu_lasa said on 22/Apr/17
Definitely, to think that clint was lower than 191 is pure fantasy
Definitely, to think that clint was lower than 191 is pure fantasy
jervis said on 22/Apr/17
GP.I don't agree that Neesoniwas 2inches taller in The Dead pool,it was more like 1 or Max 1.5 in Neeson's favour.IMO Clint was 6ft3.5 peak.Some people are more susceptible to losing more height than others, and Clint is one of those,maybe it's gene
GP.I don't agree that Neesoniwas 2inches taller in The Dead pool,it was more like 1 or Max 1.5 in Neeson's favour.IMO Clint was 6ft3.5 peak.Some people are more susceptible to losing more height than others, and Clint is one of those,maybe it's gene
GP said on 21/Apr/17
Once more, for some odd reason my comment didn't show here. Watch The Dead Pool movie from 1988. Eastwood looked good 2" shorter than Liam Neeson. So unless there was evidence that Eastwood had already lost about 2" of height by mid to late 50's, then that 6'3" mention was most likely his peak height and by late 80's he was down to 6'2".
Once more, for some odd reason my comment didn't show here. Watch The Dead Pool movie from 1988. Eastwood looked good 2" shorter than Liam Neeson. So unless there was evidence that Eastwood had already lost about 2" of height by mid to late 50's, then that 6'3" mention was most likely his peak height and by late 80's he was down to 6'2".
Scott KX said on 19/Apr/17
Ian C: Compare his posture now with when he was younger. His arms go down almost to his knees and his belt is halfway upto his chin. He also a noticeable curvature of the spine he did not have when he ws younger.
Ian C: Compare his posture now with when he was younger. His arms go down almost to his knees and his belt is halfway upto his chin. He also a noticeable curvature of the spine he did not have when he ws younger.
James said on 16/Apr/17
Heston only looked 6'2" in some films.
Heston only looked 6'2" in some films.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Apr/17
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Apr/17
I do agree that Eastwood had Heston by 1" to 1.5 " at best so Clint gets a 6'3" to 6'3.5" from me though I lean more (excuse pun) to 6'3".
Well the math doesn't add up as Heston consistently looked minimum 6'2.5 in every film and some people argue more 190 or even a full 6'3. 1-1.5 inch taller, a flat 6'3 makes no sense at all. The lowest I think you can argue is 6'3.5.
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Apr/17
I do agree that Eastwood had Heston by 1" to 1.5 " at best so Clint gets a 6'3" to 6'3.5" from me though I lean more (excuse pun) to 6'3".
Well the math doesn't add up as Heston consistently looked minimum 6'2.5 in every film and some people argue more 190 or even a full 6'3. 1-1.5 inch taller, a flat 6'3 makes no sense at all. The lowest I think you can argue is 6'3.5.
Jug said on 14/Apr/17
I would say he was the full 6'4 in his youth.
I would say he was the full 6'4 in his youth.
Ian C said on 12/Apr/17
Eastwood has lost almost four inches? How is that possible without the use of a saw?
Eastwood has lost almost four inches? How is that possible without the use of a saw?
Canson said on 10/Apr/17
Rising force and Christian and Tall in the Saddle are correct. He peaked at a strong 6'3 or solid 6'3. He likely was a guy who dipped to 6'3 or 6'3.25 tops never a full 6'4" which is why people assume that that type of height is taller than it is because people claim it. A real 6'4 to me dips no lower than maybe 6'3.75-6'3 7/8 on a given day and a good 6'4" is a John Lithgow or a Dennis Hasybwrt prime or a David Hasselhoff. Eastie is similar to Conan in height believe it or not neither is a legit or even weak 6'4 guy peak.
Rising force and Christian and Tall in the Saddle are correct. He peaked at a strong 6'3 or solid 6'3. He likely was a guy who dipped to 6'3 or 6'3.25 tops never a full 6'4" which is why people assume that that type of height is taller than it is because people claim it. A real 6'4 to me dips no lower than maybe 6'3.75-6'3 7/8 on a given day and a good 6'4" is a John Lithgow or a Dennis Hasybwrt prime or a David Hasselhoff. Eastie is similar to Conan in height believe it or not neither is a legit or even weak 6'4 guy peak.
S.J.H said on 10/Apr/17
I bet clint eastwood didn't lost any height after this 6'0 current height since few years ago. My grandfather was 85 now and he didn't lost any height untill he reach 70 from 5'10 down to 5'9 at 75 and after 10 years now he still measure a solid 5'9 but losing posture instate of height.
I bet clint eastwood didn't lost any height after this 6'0 current height since few years ago. My grandfather was 85 now and he didn't lost any height untill he reach 70 from 5'10 down to 5'9 at 75 and after 10 years now he still measure a solid 5'9 but losing posture instate of height.
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Apr/17
Whenever we judge height it is of course comparative to other celebs whose height we might believe to be a fixed and correct quantity. Suffice to say, one flawed reference can lead to another and ultimately cause estimates to be well off the mark. A leaning tower of Pisa so to speak. I remember back when Heston's height was rubber stamped as 6'4" - listings are generally more realistic now. IMO, Heston was 6'2" tall at best. I also believe that Vincent Price was a lock at 6'4". Heston and Price appeared in a made for television cold war thriller Forbidden Area ('56). At one point they stand perfectly face to face and, IMO, Price has a good 2" on Heston. I do agree that Eastwood had Heston by 1" to 1.5 " at best so Clint gets a 6'3" to 6'3.5" from me though I lean more (excuse pun) to 6'3".
Whenever we judge height it is of course comparative to other celebs whose height we might believe to be a fixed and correct quantity. Suffice to say, one flawed reference can lead to another and ultimately cause estimates to be well off the mark. A leaning tower of Pisa so to speak. I remember back when Heston's height was rubber stamped as 6'4" - listings are generally more realistic now. IMO, Heston was 6'2" tall at best. I also believe that Vincent Price was a lock at 6'4". Heston and Price appeared in a made for television cold war thriller Forbidden Area ('56). At one point they stand perfectly face to face and, IMO, Price has a good 2" on Heston. I do agree that Eastwood had Heston by 1" to 1.5 " at best so Clint gets a 6'3" to 6'3.5" from me though I lean more (excuse pun) to 6'3".
Christian-196.2cm (6ft5.25) said on 9/Apr/17
Canson said on 22/Mar/17
He was never 194cm. A peak Eastwood was 191/192 strong 6'3"
--------
Good guess, I was thinking the same thing. Today he may be a weak 6'0"
Canson said on 22/Mar/17
He was never 194cm. A peak Eastwood was 191/192 strong 6'3"
--------
Good guess, I was thinking the same thing. Today he may be a weak 6'0"
jervs said on 9/Apr/17
Berta,he was taller than Charlton Heston,who could have been 6ft3 but was min 6ft2.5.Clint had him by a least an inch,so 6ft3.5 look about right.
Berta,he was taller than Charlton Heston,who could have been 6ft3 but was min 6ft2.5.Clint had him by a least an inch,so 6ft3.5 look about right.
Thomas Veil said on 9/Apr/17
I always thought Eastwood was 6'2 tops
I always thought Eastwood was 6'2 tops
RisingForce said on 8/Apr/17
Any less than 6'3" peak is nonsense and he's clearly lost more than just 2" though I do think he could still be 6 feet standing properly. He could still look similar to Bradley Cooper(given 6'0.5") when he stood decently 2 years ago: Click Here Click Here though he did look a weaker 6' or possibly 182 cm with 6'1.5" Hugh Jackman in 2014: Click Here And with Sly now a max 5'8.5", likely just 5'8.25" and not wearing his lifts at events for years now, Clint can look close to 5'11": Click Here Of course, I'm sure he still measures taller, but 5'11.5" or 6' are your best bets nowadays depending on how much he gain standing to be measured.
Any less than 6'3" peak is nonsense and he's clearly lost more than just 2" though I do think he could still be 6 feet standing properly. He could still look similar to Bradley Cooper(given 6'0.5") when he stood decently 2 years ago: Click Here Click Here though he did look a weaker 6' or possibly 182 cm with 6'1.5" Hugh Jackman in 2014: Click Here And with Sly now a max 5'8.5", likely just 5'8.25" and not wearing his lifts at events for years now, Clint can look close to 5'11": Click Here Of course, I'm sure he still measures taller, but 5'11.5" or 6' are your best bets nowadays depending on how much he gain standing to be measured.
Jake said on 8/Apr/17
He's 6-1". He never was 6-4,he peaked out barely over 6-2 3/4.
He's 6-1". He never was 6-4,he peaked out barely over 6-2 3/4.
berta said on 8/Apr/17
i think barely 192 peak and 182 today. dont really think he edges out tom hanks
i think barely 192 peak and 182 today. dont really think he edges out tom hanks
RichardSpain said on 7/Apr/17
192cm young with his cowboy's boots is possible. I think Clint always was 190cm without boots. When he was 60 years old, maybe 188cm and now less 185cm is possible because he is 86 years old....
192cm young with his cowboy's boots is possible. I think Clint always was 190cm without boots. When he was 60 years old, maybe 188cm and now less 185cm is possible because he is 86 years old....
Danimal said on 5/Apr/17
SonnyboySlim said on 22/Mar/17
He would guess over 6'3" in his prime but I was shocked at how much height he's lost. I'm not sure he's even 6' now.
The man's almost 87 years old and his spine has been curving for years due to scoliosis and possibly osteoporosis as well.
SonnyboySlim said on 22/Mar/17
He would guess over 6'3" in his prime but I was shocked at how much height he's lost. I'm not sure he's even 6' now.
The man's almost 87 years old and his spine has been curving for years due to scoliosis and possibly osteoporosis as well.
Danimal said on 5/Apr/17
Timur9717 said on 24/Mar/17
Easily 6 feet 4.5 at his peak
You feel like adding .5" over what he claimed for himself? He was never over a flat 6'4" and even that may be a bit high. Closer to 6'3.5" at his peak.
Timur9717 said on 24/Mar/17
Easily 6 feet 4.5 at his peak
You feel like adding .5" over what he claimed for himself? He was never over a flat 6'4" and even that may be a bit high. Closer to 6'3.5" at his peak.
Danimal said on 5/Apr/17
Peter175 said on 30/Mar/17
He'll die before he joins the sub6ft club.
He's already sub 6'0" today.
Peter175 said on 30/Mar/17
He'll die before he joins the sub6ft club.
He's already sub 6'0" today.
Dmeyer said on 5/Apr/17
He was taller than me about 6'1 in person 12 years ago , and Freeman did look noticablty taller
He was taller than me about 6'1 in person 12 years ago , and Freeman did look noticablty taller
Sam said on 31/Mar/17
The peak listing is dead-on imo, he looked too tall in comparison to 6'2" range guys to be a flat 6'3" but he never looks a really strong 6'4" height.
The peak listing is dead-on imo, he looked too tall in comparison to 6'2" range guys to be a flat 6'3" but he never looks a really strong 6'4" height.
Peter175 said on 30/Mar/17
He'll die before he joins the sub6ft club.
A true 6ft4 guy imo
Editor Rob
He'll die before he joins the sub6ft club.
A true 6ft4 guy imo
Editor Rob not so sure about that, he may well be joining myself, Tom, Sly, Arnie at our favourite Cafe
Ian C said on 30/Mar/17
Eastwood was about an inch taller than Eric Fleming on Rawhide, and Fleming gave his height as six foot three. Eastwood was very close in height to Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes, and Sutherland gave his height at that time as six foot four. That's two corroborations of six foot four right there, and there are plenty more for anybody who wants to look for them.
Eastwood was about an inch taller than Eric Fleming on Rawhide, and Fleming gave his height as six foot three. Eastwood was very close in height to Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes, and Sutherland gave his height at that time as six foot four. That's two corroborations of six foot four right there, and there are plenty more for anybody who wants to look for them.
James B said on 25/Mar/17
Timur9717 said on 24/Mar/17
Easily 6 feet 4.5 at his peak
Sure in shoes he was
Timur9717 said on 24/Mar/17
Easily 6 feet 4.5 at his peak
Sure in shoes he was
Johan said on 25/Mar/17
Can't imagine him ever being 6'3 flat. People have already forgotten the clip with Muhammad Ali?
Ali was at least 6'2" and was surprised himself at how tall Eastwood was. 1 inch wouldn't do that, he was at least 6'3.5" in his prime. Early morning measurement gets you 6'4" or very close to it.
Can't imagine him ever being 6'3 flat. People have already forgotten the clip with Muhammad Ali?
Ali was at least 6'2" and was surprised himself at how tall Eastwood was. 1 inch wouldn't do that, he was at least 6'3.5" in his prime. Early morning measurement gets you 6'4" or very close to it.
Timur9717 said on 24/Mar/17
Easily 6 feet 4.5 at his peak
Easily 6 feet 4.5 at his peak
James B said on 23/Mar/17
6'3 is easier to imagine for a peak clint compared to 6'2 or 6'4.
6'3 is easier to imagine for a peak clint compared to 6'2 or 6'4.
Ian C said on 23/Mar/17
Here is an interesting Clint Eastwood fact: If you watch him in the Man With No Name movies, he doesn't change his expression or his tone of voice at any time in any of those movies. No matter what the Man is doing, killing people or being beaten an abused himself, he seems only mildly interested in what is happening. In fact, being tall and having a large, handsome head is pretty much his whole act.
Jack Palance plays an expressionless, monotonic gunfighter in the movie Shane, but got an Academy Award nomination for it. How was that possible? Well, Palance actually seems like a vicious, soulless killer. He doesn't even have to speak and you still know that he is dangerous. He acts like a gunfighter, whereas Eastwood acts more like a mailman whom somebody had handed a pistol.
Here is an interesting Clint Eastwood fact: If you watch him in the Man With No Name movies, he doesn't change his expression or his tone of voice at any time in any of those movies. No matter what the Man is doing, killing people or being beaten an abused himself, he seems only mildly interested in what is happening. In fact, being tall and having a large, handsome head is pretty much his whole act.
Jack Palance plays an expressionless, monotonic gunfighter in the movie Shane, but got an Academy Award nomination for it. How was that possible? Well, Palance actually seems like a vicious, soulless killer. He doesn't even have to speak and you still know that he is dangerous. He acts like a gunfighter, whereas Eastwood acts more like a mailman whom somebody had handed a pistol.
SonnyboySlim said on 22/Mar/17
He would guess over 6'3" in his prime but I was shocked at how much height he's lost. I'm not sure he's even 6' now.
He would guess over 6'3" in his prime but I was shocked at how much height he's lost. I'm not sure he's even 6' now.
Canson said on 22/Mar/17
He was never 194cm. A peak Eastwood was 191/192 strong 6'3"
He was never 194cm. A peak Eastwood was 191/192 strong 6'3"
James B said on 21/Mar/17
Probably bulking up in the 80s contributed to his height loss back then much like Hugh Jackman and Dolph Lundgren.
Probably bulking up in the 80s contributed to his height loss back then much like Hugh Jackman and Dolph Lundgren.
Adijos said on 21/Mar/17
Peak: 6'4.25" (194 cm)
Now: 6' (183 cm)
Peak: 6'4.25" (194 cm)
Now: 6' (183 cm)
RisingForce said on 20/Mar/17
He was definitely shorter than Rock Hudson in that clip, but not by that much. He seemed a similar towering figure and could seem about 6'6" in the Leone westerns with the hat, boots and low angle. I think at least around 6'4" through Escape from Alcatraz then he started losing height around age 50. I believe he was then a flat 6'3" by the Dead Pool through In the Line of Fire from 1988-1993, so not an usual height loss by age 63. He seemed to lose a bit more the second half of the 90's, but still seemed quite tall, much taller than currently. His huge height loss seemed to occur in his 70s.
He was definitely shorter than Rock Hudson in that clip, but not by that much. He seemed a similar towering figure and could seem about 6'6" in the Leone westerns with the hat, boots and low angle. I think at least around 6'4" through Escape from Alcatraz then he started losing height around age 50. I believe he was then a flat 6'3" by the Dead Pool through In the Line of Fire from 1988-1993, so not an usual height loss by age 63. He seemed to lose a bit more the second half of the 90's, but still seemed quite tall, much taller than currently. His huge height loss seemed to occur in his 70s.
James said on 20/Mar/17
Eastwood was 6'3" but he's 5'11" now.
Eastwood was 6'3" but he's 5'11" now.
James B said on 18/Mar/17
Arch probably 6'4.75 out of bed
Arch probably 6'4.75 out of bed
TheBigR said on 18/Mar/17
@Rob how did he lose so many inches? Because of surgery or what?
@Rob how did he lose so many inches? Because of surgery or what?
Arch Stanton said on 18/Mar/17
I'm pretty sure Clint would have been measured at a legit 6'4 earlier in the day.
I'm pretty sure Clint would have been measured at a legit 6'4 earlier in the day.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Mar/17
Clint to me looks between 1 and 1.5 inches taller than Heston, making Rob's listings of 6'2.5 and 6'3.75 spot on, assuming footwear is even. 6'3.5 peak is arguable but he consistently looked too tall with numerous people to have been 6'3 or under.
Clint to me looks between 1 and 1.5 inches taller than Heston, making Rob's listings of 6'2.5 and 6'3.75 spot on, assuming footwear is even. 6'3.5 peak is arguable but he consistently looked too tall with numerous people to have been 6'3 or under.
jervis said on 17/Mar/17
Yes James, maybe Heston had a bigger heel than Clint.
Yes James, maybe Heston had a bigger heel than Clint.
movieguy said on 17/Mar/17
Wow, looked at the Heston Eastwood Oscars clip. Brief but great to see them together. Not much difference in height I think. Eastwood a little taller as other posters have noted, don't think it's much more than an inch in difference though. Clint looks at least 6'3'' and maybe was the 6'4'' he claimed. I know guys who claim 6'4'' but I'd guess as slightly less, who knows maybe they are right and I'm wrong.
Wow, looked at the Heston Eastwood Oscars clip. Brief but great to see them together. Not much difference in height I think. Eastwood a little taller as other posters have noted, don't think it's much more than an inch in difference though. Clint looks at least 6'3'' and maybe was the 6'4'' he claimed. I know guys who claim 6'4'' but I'd guess as slightly less, who knows maybe they are right and I'm wrong.
Sonny Black said on 16/Mar/17
I think his slim build always made him appear taller
I think his slim build always made him appear taller
James said on 16/Mar/17
It depends if they were wearing the same kind of shoes.
It depends if they were wearing the same kind of shoes.
jervis said on 16/Mar/17
Thanks Tall in the saddle,I have to agree that Clint looks to have the edge on Heston,but by how much? its not clear.I would say its about 1 inch in Clints favour.Making Clint between 6ft3 and 4 depending on Hestons height.
Thanks Tall in the saddle,I have to agree that Clint looks to have the edge on Heston,but by how much? its not clear.I would say its about 1 inch in Clints favour.Making Clint between 6ft3 and 4 depending on Hestons height.
James said on 15/Mar/17
Heston was 6'2" at that time.
Heston was 6'2" at that time.
mister_lennon said on 15/Mar/17
Clint was a strong 6'3. Charlton was a strong 6'2.
Clint was a strong 6'3. Charlton was a strong 6'2.
James B said on 14/Mar/17
iosu_lasa said on 12/Mar/17
I think Clint created a complex in his teenage years. That made him adopt bad body postures to seem more "common."
I created a complex in my teen years that made me adopt 'upright posture' to seem more "tall" since I am only 5ft7
iosu_lasa said on 12/Mar/17
I think Clint created a complex in his teenage years. That made him adopt bad body postures to seem more "common."
I created a complex in my teen years that made me adopt 'upright posture' to seem more "tall" since I am only 5ft7
Arch Stanton said on 14/Mar/17
Form what I can see Heston at 6'2.5 and Eastwood 6'3.75 peaks look spot on, agree on Eastwood looking between 1 and 1.5 on Heston.
Form what I can see Heston at 6'2.5 and Eastwood 6'3.75 peaks look spot on, agree on Eastwood looking between 1 and 1.5 on Heston.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Mar/17
Yes, and in it Eastwood was clearly easily an inch taller from what I remember. A lot of people argue the full 6'3 for Heston too.
Yes, and in it Eastwood was clearly easily an inch taller from what I remember. A lot of people argue the full 6'3 for Heston too.
Tall In The Saddle said on 14/Mar/17
Jervis - thanks and I'd like to hear your opinion on the clip you pointed to.
I think first and foremost, all would agree that Clint's clearly taller but by how much? It's a fleeting moment together. I'd guess 1 to 1.5 " diff. in Eastwood's favor.
What say you Jervis?
At any rate, great clip of Eastwood lumbered with the task of reading lines of biblical proportions specifically written for Heston. Eastwood handled it with his typical cool and self deprecating sense of humor. Certainly enough to crack Burt Reynolds right up.
Jervis - thanks and I'd like to hear your opinion on the clip you pointed to.
I think first and foremost, all would agree that Clint's clearly taller but by how much? It's a fleeting moment together. I'd guess 1 to 1.5 " diff. in Eastwood's favor.
What say you Jervis?
At any rate, great clip of Eastwood lumbered with the task of reading lines of biblical proportions specifically written for Heston. Eastwood handled it with his typical cool and self deprecating sense of humor. Certainly enough to crack Burt Reynolds right up.
jervis said on 14/Mar/17
Clint and Heston met and shook hands on stage at the Oscars the year of that pic.I think you can view it on YouTube.
Clint and Heston met and shook hands on stage at the Oscars the year of that pic.I think you can view it on YouTube.
iosu_lasa said on 12/Mar/17
I think Clint created a complex in his teenage years. That made him adopt bad body postures to seem more "common."
I think Clint created a complex in his teenage years. That made him adopt bad body postures to seem more "common."
iosu_lasa said on 12/Mar/17
Click Here: Clint rarely shows his height potential because of his poor posture. In the picture of him with charlton it is possible that he is shown erect.
Click Here: Clint rarely shows his height potential because of his poor posture. In the picture of him with charlton it is possible that he is shown erect.
Tall In The Saddle said on 12/Mar/17
I'm with movieguy.
I'm not sure why photos like the one with Clint and Heston can be considered as reasonable evidence. Not head to toe and the angle from which it is taken invites deception via parallax error.
Earlier in the thread Arch Stanton provided a pic of Clint and Heston standing together at a function. Most recently, iosu_lasa provided a pic of Clint and Heston at the very same function more than likely standing in more or less the same position. The main differences between the two photos are the distance, height and angle from which they were taken. Same place, same time, more or less the same positions from the first to the second photo but somehow, in the second photo, Clint looks to have gained even more height advantage over Heston in the same moment of time - of course that's impossible. If the two photos prove anything concrete, they prove that such photos can be very deceiving depending on the vantage point from which they are taken.
For what it's worth, check the two recessed ceiling lights in the 2nd photo, one is on the left sort of above Clint's head and there is one on the right, roughly above Heston's head. I will of course assume those lights to be fixed at exactly the same height but they clearly do not appear to be at the same height in the photo. The light on the left appears higher than the light on the right. An illusion. Since Clint is at left in the photo it might then be reasonably assumed that Clint is gaining a measure of illusory advantage over Heston.
All in all, I would give Clint 1" to 1 1/2" advantage over Heston.
I'm with movieguy.
I'm not sure why photos like the one with Clint and Heston can be considered as reasonable evidence. Not head to toe and the angle from which it is taken invites deception via parallax error.
Earlier in the thread Arch Stanton provided a pic of Clint and Heston standing together at a function. Most recently, iosu_lasa provided a pic of Clint and Heston at the very same function more than likely standing in more or less the same position. The main differences between the two photos are the distance, height and angle from which they were taken. Same place, same time, more or less the same positions from the first to the second photo but somehow, in the second photo, Clint looks to have gained even more height advantage over Heston in the same moment of time - of course that's impossible. If the two photos prove anything concrete, they prove that such photos can be very deceiving depending on the vantage point from which they are taken.
For what it's worth, check the two recessed ceiling lights in the 2nd photo, one is on the left sort of above Clint's head and there is one on the right, roughly above Heston's head. I will of course assume those lights to be fixed at exactly the same height but they clearly do not appear to be at the same height in the photo. The light on the left appears higher than the light on the right. An illusion. Since Clint is at left in the photo it might then be reasonably assumed that Clint is gaining a measure of illusory advantage over Heston.
All in all, I would give Clint 1" to 1 1/2" advantage over Heston.
movieguy said on 12/Mar/17
That photo with Heston is clearly misleading. Clint was probably about an inch taller than Heston in reality. Not 3 inches like in that photo.
That photo with Heston is clearly misleading. Clint was probably about an inch taller than Heston in reality. Not 3 inches like in that photo.
jervis said on 11/Mar/17
Heston must have been max 6ft2, or Clint was 6ft4 peak after all?
Heston must have been max 6ft2, or Clint was 6ft4 peak after all?
jervis said on 11/Mar/17
In that pic with Heston Clint looks 6ft4.5?
In that pic with Heston Clint looks 6ft4.5?
Ly said on 10/Mar/17
Seeing his early films i noticed him being an ectomorph.
He had loose neck and back posture wich is typical for ectomorphs and made him look just 6ft3 but i believe almost 6ft4 is closer.
Seeing his early films i noticed him being an ectomorph.
He had loose neck and back posture wich is typical for ectomorphs and made him look just 6ft3 but i believe almost 6ft4 is closer.
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Mar/17
Thanks Jervis, I'll have a look see at that site.
Thanks Jervis, I'll have a look see at that site.
jervis said on 9/Mar/17
Tall in the saddle,there is a very good site if you Google BORSARI IMAGES and type Clint Eastwood and search you will see lots of pics for height comparisons,there are a lot of thumb nail pics but if you zoom in you can see images very clearly.
Tall in the saddle,there is a very good site if you Google BORSARI IMAGES and type Clint Eastwood and search you will see lots of pics for height comparisons,there are a lot of thumb nail pics but if you zoom in you can see images very clearly.
Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Mar/17
Just to addend to my last post - I wanted to see more of the film NEVER SAY GOODBYE cited by iosu_lasa and found that one of my favorite actors George Sanders was also in it. Sanders was a good 6'3" and possibly 6'3 1/2" at best in my opinion. There a 12 minute or so trailer of the movie also avail. on YouTube and there is a scene in which Sanders (all be he older) is standing acceptably close to Hudson (though not a full length shot). Hudson is clearly taller but accepting Rock at 6'5", Sanders appears a good comparative 6'3" or so in my book. I don't wish to be too much of a naysayer or cynical but it's curious how well Clint measured up in that scene with Hudson. Anyway...
Just to addend to my last post - I wanted to see more of the film NEVER SAY GOODBYE cited by iosu_lasa and found that one of my favorite actors George Sanders was also in it. Sanders was a good 6'3" and possibly 6'3 1/2" at best in my opinion. There a 12 minute or so trailer of the movie also avail. on YouTube and there is a scene in which Sanders (all be he older) is standing acceptably close to Hudson (though not a full length shot). Hudson is clearly taller but accepting Rock at 6'5", Sanders appears a good comparative 6'3" or so in my book. I don't wish to be too much of a naysayer or cynical but it's curious how well Clint measured up in that scene with Hudson. Anyway...
Canson said on 8/Mar/17
I can't speak to his height in his 80s but if he has really lost 3" wow! Prime is easily say he was a strong 6'3. Either 103/191 or 192.5/190.5
I can't speak to his height in his 80s but if he has really lost 3" wow! Prime is easily say he was a strong 6'3. Either 103/191 or 192.5/190.5
Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Mar/17
iosu_lasa - Just for it's own sake w/out getting into height that was an awesome clip! Thanks man.
For judging Clint's height it isn't too shabby either. Still, full length shots are best but so hard to come by. Problem for me is that rather than support Clint being between 6'3" - 6'4", he actually appears "too tall" if that makes any sense. For mine, Hudson was an easy 6'5" and as per the vision, Clint does appear virtually as "high" as Rock. Interesting. Also, toward the end of the clip Hudson stands still nicely near the brick work for a possible comparative height check against a static object. Unfortunately, when I went back on the clip when Clint enters the scene he is a little bit more in front and passes the same brick work a little too quickly but of course you can go frame by frame and still extrapolate a bit - Clint still seems to measure up to Rock well with reserve for usual possible hidden variables.
iosu_lasa - Just for it's own sake w/out getting into height that was an awesome clip! Thanks man.
For judging Clint's height it isn't too shabby either. Still, full length shots are best but so hard to come by. Problem for me is that rather than support Clint being between 6'3" - 6'4", he actually appears "too tall" if that makes any sense. For mine, Hudson was an easy 6'5" and as per the vision, Clint does appear virtually as "high" as Rock. Interesting. Also, toward the end of the clip Hudson stands still nicely near the brick work for a possible comparative height check against a static object. Unfortunately, when I went back on the clip when Clint enters the scene he is a little bit more in front and passes the same brick work a little too quickly but of course you can go frame by frame and still extrapolate a bit - Clint still seems to measure up to Rock well with reserve for usual possible hidden variables.
jervis said on 8/Mar/17
Yes he does look as tall as Hudson in that clip,and remember Hudson is on this site listed as 6ft5,but IMO he was more 6ft4.5.But there is also a pic of both men together and Hudson looks the taller by maybe 1 to 1.5 inches.
Yes he does look as tall as Hudson in that clip,and remember Hudson is on this site listed as 6ft5,but IMO he was more 6ft4.5.But there is also a pic of both men together and Hudson looks the taller by maybe 1 to 1.5 inches.
Blondie said on 8/Mar/17
Look at that pic: Click Here
I've compared "young Clint" with "old Clint". On the left he was 38 years old (on the set of "Hang'em High"). He was probably 6'4, maybe 6'3.5, but I really doubt he was shorter than 6'3.5. Today he's probably around 6 ft. (I guess 5'11). He's had some back problems and lost a huge amount of height. But he still has very long legs, which make him look disproportionate. By the way, I'm his great fan and hope he'll make much more excellent movies!
Look at that pic: Click Here
I've compared "young Clint" with "old Clint". On the left he was 38 years old (on the set of "Hang'em High"). He was probably 6'4, maybe 6'3.5, but I really doubt he was shorter than 6'3.5. Today he's probably around 6 ft. (I guess 5'11). He's had some back problems and lost a huge amount of height. But he still has very long legs, which make him look disproportionate. By the way, I'm his great fan and hope he'll make much more excellent movies!
iosu_lasa said on 8/Mar/17
Clint and Rock Hudson (6ft4) were very similar in stature in "Never say goodbye" Click Here
Clint and Rock Hudson (6ft4) were very similar in stature in "Never say goodbye" Click Here
mister_lennon said on 8/Mar/17
He was more than 1 inch taller than burt lancaster in the professionals.
heston was a strong 6'2 guy.
He was more than 1 inch taller than burt lancaster in the professionals.
heston was a strong 6'2 guy.
berta said on 8/Mar/17
i think the average guess seems pretty spot on. he look like somene who can be at best 6 foot now and when he was young he looked close to 192
i think the average guess seems pretty spot on. he look like somene who can be at best 6 foot now and when he was young he looked close to 192
mister_lennon said on 7/Mar/17
Marvin was 6'1. And stil 6'1 in lates 60s.
Marvin was 6'1. And stil 6'1 in lates 60s.
jervis said on 7/Mar/17
Marvin was only 6 years older than Clint,I dont think he would have lost any height at the age of 44.I have seen the Heston pic many times before,and yes if he was 6ft3 then Clint looks an easy 6ft4 in that pic.But the pic is only from the chest down,floor level and shoes can not be seen.Also Heston said himself he was 6ft2.
Marvin was only 6 years older than Clint,I dont think he would have lost any height at the age of 44.I have seen the Heston pic many times before,and yes if he was 6ft3 then Clint looks an easy 6ft4 in that pic.But the pic is only from the chest down,floor level and shoes can not be seen.Also Heston said himself he was 6ft2.
James said on 7/Mar/17
Marvin was no more than six foot by 1968.
Marvin was no more than six foot by 1968.
James said on 6/Mar/17
Lee Marvin was only six foot. Charlton Heston was 6'2".
Lee Marvin was only six foot. Charlton Heston was 6'2".
Tall In The Saddle said on 6/Mar/17
Jervis - Just to complicate it a bit I've also seen Presnell listed as high as 6'5". My gut tells me more like 6'4" or somewhere between that and 6'5" but I can't substantiate that.
Heston face up to rock solid 6'4" Price appears 6'2" maybe up to 6'2 1/2 " at absolute best. The pic of Eastwood and Heston is not ideal. Potentially deceptive angle, from chest up only, Eastwood looking up and Heston looking slightly down. Yes, Clint looks a bit taller (sans any illusory advantage from higher standing hair). Shoulder height is comparable. If Heston 6'2 1/2" then Eastwood might reasonably be pegged at 6'3.
Jervis - Just to complicate it a bit I've also seen Presnell listed as high as 6'5". My gut tells me more like 6'4" or somewhere between that and 6'5" but I can't substantiate that.
Heston face up to rock solid 6'4" Price appears 6'2" maybe up to 6'2 1/2 " at absolute best. The pic of Eastwood and Heston is not ideal. Potentially deceptive angle, from chest up only, Eastwood looking up and Heston looking slightly down. Yes, Clint looks a bit taller (sans any illusory advantage from higher standing hair). Shoulder height is comparable. If Heston 6'2 1/2" then Eastwood might reasonably be pegged at 6'3.
James B said on 5/Mar/17
Marvin could have been 6'1.25 though
Marvin could have been 6'1.25 though
Arch Stanton said on 5/Mar/17
He had between 2 and 3 inches on Marvin in Paint Your Wagon!
He had between 2 and 3 inches on Marvin in Paint Your Wagon!
Arch Stanton said on 5/Mar/17
You'll believe what you want to believe. What about Clint with Charlton Heston in 1972. Some people argue Heston was 6'3 himself, do you think Clint looks the same height? Click Here
You'll believe what you want to believe. What about Clint with Charlton Heston in 1972. Some people argue Heston was 6'3 himself, do you think Clint looks the same height? Click Here
jervis said on 4/Mar/17
@Tall In The Saddle,I have to agree with your point about Ali and Clint on the Frost show.I think this is clear proof that Clint was not 6ft4 peak and more 6ft3,in fact I would think there should be a downgrade in his height at peak to 6ft3.5 or even a flat 6ft3 peak.Rob what is your opinion on the Frost Show clip?,do you think Clint looks 6ft3.75 next to Ali?Also Presnell is listed as 6ft4 and is clearly the tallest of the three.
@Tall In The Saddle,I have to agree with your point about Ali and Clint on the Frost show.I think this is clear proof that Clint was not 6ft4 peak and more 6ft3,in fact I would think there should be a downgrade in his height at peak to 6ft3.5 or even a flat 6ft3 peak.Rob what is your opinion on the Frost Show clip?,do you think Clint looks 6ft3.75 next to Ali?Also Presnell is listed as 6ft4 and is clearly the tallest of the three.
jervis said on 3/Mar/17
Ant,the clip of Clint with Marvin is on stage,and I would presume the ground was level.I caught a glimpse of Marvins footwear,he was wearing runners,the sole looked about 2 cm tick,even if Clint was wearing cowboy boots it would not allow for Clint only being 1 inch taller than Marvin at the time.As for Walcott,he looks slightly taller than Clint maybe half an inch.
Ant,the clip of Clint with Marvin is on stage,and I would presume the ground was level.I caught a glimpse of Marvins footwear,he was wearing runners,the sole looked about 2 cm tick,even if Clint was wearing cowboy boots it would not allow for Clint only being 1 inch taller than Marvin at the time.As for Walcott,he looks slightly taller than Clint maybe half an inch.
Jervis said on 3/Mar/17
Well Ant,By the early 90s he had lost a bit of height,he would have been around 6ft2.5,but at peak 6ft3 to 6ft3.75,somewere in between that.
Well Ant,By the early 90s he had lost a bit of height,he would have been around 6ft2.5,but at peak 6ft3 to 6ft3.75,somewere in between that.
Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Mar/17
In my opinion, Ali and Eastwood's appearance on the Frost show provides the best frame of reference to estimate Clint's height. Unlike so many other examples of "comparison" offered, all things are actually very much visible and equal (postures, footwear, head to toe in frame, standing on the same flat surface, in close proximity to one another etc.). There is also the reasonably fixed value of Ali's height against which Clint's questioned height can be compared - Ali's height being a reliably judged 6' 2 1/2" at a minimum. Eastwood looks to be at least a safe 1/2" taller. There is also Ali's own up close and personal testimony that Clint is taller - I doubt Ali would afford that observation if he perceived Clint to be anything less than 1/2" taller. Could Clint wear lifts inside the shoe? Sure, but that is about the only possible hidden variable in this example. Otherwise, I see no better example than this to uphold Eastwood's height. As such I give Clint a safe 6'3".
In my opinion, Ali and Eastwood's appearance on the Frost show provides the best frame of reference to estimate Clint's height. Unlike so many other examples of "comparison" offered, all things are actually very much visible and equal (postures, footwear, head to toe in frame, standing on the same flat surface, in close proximity to one another etc.). There is also the reasonably fixed value of Ali's height against which Clint's questioned height can be compared - Ali's height being a reliably judged 6' 2 1/2" at a minimum. Eastwood looks to be at least a safe 1/2" taller. There is also Ali's own up close and personal testimony that Clint is taller - I doubt Ali would afford that observation if he perceived Clint to be anything less than 1/2" taller. Could Clint wear lifts inside the shoe? Sure, but that is about the only possible hidden variable in this example. Otherwise, I see no better example than this to uphold Eastwood's height. As such I give Clint a safe 6'3".
James said on 2/Mar/17
William Holden was 5'10".
William Holden was 5'10".
Ant said on 1/Mar/17
Well Jervis, looking at assorted photos of the names you mention Eastwood's height seems to be all over the place. Agree that in the Making of Paint Your Wagon footage he appears substantially taller than Marvin. However we don't get to see full body shots showing footwear and ground conditions. re Hackman at photos of a charity lunch in 1990 Eastwood has a comfortable Edge but at the Oscars in 1993 they mostly look the same height. On some photos with Walcott, Walcott is still taller while appearing to slouch. Putting it all together I'd still argue against 6'3 peak - maybe 6'2.5 out of bed peak tops. Tall dude then and still a tall dude now.
Well Jervis, looking at assorted photos of the names you mention Eastwood's height seems to be all over the place. Agree that in the Making of Paint Your Wagon footage he appears substantially taller than Marvin. However we don't get to see full body shots showing footwear and ground conditions. re Hackman at photos of a charity lunch in 1990 Eastwood has a comfortable Edge but at the Oscars in 1993 they mostly look the same height. On some photos with Walcott, Walcott is still taller while appearing to slouch. Putting it all together I'd still argue against 6'3 peak - maybe 6'2.5 out of bed peak tops. Tall dude then and still a tall dude now.
jervis said on 28/Feb/17
Sam,there are other pics of Clint with Holden and he look a easy 6ft3 next to him, even near 6ft4,depending if Holden was 5ft10.5 or 5ft11.The Newman ones are taken as to make Newman not look to short next to Clint.
Sam,there are other pics of Clint with Holden and he look a easy 6ft3 next to him, even near 6ft4,depending if Holden was 5ft10.5 or 5ft11.The Newman ones are taken as to make Newman not look to short next to Clint.
Sam said on 28/Feb/17
@firecracker, in those photos Eastwood was bending his knees and leaning, not really irrefutable proof that he was 6'2"...He could still have been over 6'3" and dropping enough near Holden and Newman.
@firecracker, in those photos Eastwood was bending his knees and leaning, not really irrefutable proof that he was 6'2"...He could still have been over 6'3" and dropping enough near Holden and Newman.
jervis said on 27/Feb/17
Ant,that guy John Smith looks more than 8cm taller than Fuller,if Fuller was 180cm Smith looks a least 4 maybe 5 inches taller.
Ant,that guy John Smith looks more than 8cm taller than Fuller,if Fuller was 180cm Smith looks a least 4 maybe 5 inches taller.
jervis said on 27/Feb/17
So Clint was just half an inch taller than Lee Marvin? Just go on to youtube and look at THE MAKING OF PAINT YOUR WAGON,BEHIND THE SCENES,pause at 4 min and have a look and see,Clint looks an easy 6ft3 more like 6ft4 depending on Marvins height.Also if Hackman was 188cm and Clint was also 188cm? how come in every pic I have looked at with them both on line Clint is the taller of the two?George Kennedy and Greg Walcott both 6ft4,Clint looked similar in height to both.I dont know were your getting that Kennedy looked 1.5 inches taller, and maybe a little bit more than that, next to Clint.Max to me Kennedy edged Clint out by half an inch and know more.Clint Eastwood peak for me is still 6ft3 min,or max 6ft3.75 and I am sticking to that.Rob do you think there is any chance that Clint was as low as 6ft2 peak?
Editor Rob
So Clint was just half an inch taller than Lee Marvin? Just go on to youtube and look at THE MAKING OF PAINT YOUR WAGON,BEHIND THE SCENES,pause at 4 min and have a look and see,Clint looks an easy 6ft3 more like 6ft4 depending on Marvins height.Also if Hackman was 188cm and Clint was also 188cm? how come in every pic I have looked at with them both on line Clint is the taller of the two?George Kennedy and Greg Walcott both 6ft4,Clint looked similar in height to both.I dont know were your getting that Kennedy looked 1.5 inches taller, and maybe a little bit more than that, next to Clint.Max to me Kennedy edged Clint out by half an inch and know more.Clint Eastwood peak for me is still 6ft3 min,or max 6ft3.75 and I am sticking to that.Rob do you think there is any chance that Clint was as low as 6ft2 peak?
Editor Rob I couldn't argue 6ft 2 peak...6ft 3 I think is the lowest I'd attempt to make an argument for.
mister_lennon said on 27/Feb/17
Lee marvin was 6'1. Clint was a strong 6'3.
Lee marvin was 6'1. Clint was a strong 6'3.
Ant said on 26/Feb/17
In some photos 1.88m Whittaker seems to edge out Clint. Also with Marvin in Paint Your Wagon Marvin seems to slouch a lot and on Clint also looks to be standing on higher ground in some shots. On a photo of the two together at the People's Choice Awards Clint looks only slightly taller maybe half an inch or so. Re Fuller if you look at photos of him and his 1.88m listed Laramie costar John Smith - Smith even looks a bit taller than Eastwood by comparison.then when you look at Eastwood with the likes of Gene Hackman 1.88m, 1.83m John Larch and 1.79m listed Carmen Argenziano, 1.88m seems about right. re Kennedy in some scenes in The Eiger Sanction such as when he and Clint are meeting the other climbers he looks to edge out Clint by an inch or more and given his posture doesn't look great Kennedy could be taller still.
In some photos 1.88m Whittaker seems to edge out Clint. Also with Marvin in Paint Your Wagon Marvin seems to slouch a lot and on Clint also looks to be standing on higher ground in some shots. On a photo of the two together at the People's Choice Awards Clint looks only slightly taller maybe half an inch or so. Re Fuller if you look at photos of him and his 1.88m listed Laramie costar John Smith - Smith even looks a bit taller than Eastwood by comparison.then when you look at Eastwood with the likes of Gene Hackman 1.88m, 1.83m John Larch and 1.79m listed Carmen Argenziano, 1.88m seems about right. re Kennedy in some scenes in The Eiger Sanction such as when he and Clint are meeting the other climbers he looks to edge out Clint by an inch or more and given his posture doesn't look great Kennedy could be taller still.
James said on 25/Feb/17
Lee Marvin was six foot.
Lee Marvin was six foot.
jervis said on 25/Feb/17
If Clint was 6ft2 peak,then Lee Marvin was max 6ft flat ,more like 5ft11,and I am not convinced he was that low.Also it would mean George Kennedy was less than 6ft3,more 6ft2.75.It would also put Gene Hackman in the 6ft flat range,and that would put Sean Connery in the same 6ft flat range,which is very unlikely,and I could go on with more examples.2 inches off Clints listed peak is is too much,too me he always looked a strong 6ft3 guy.Also google Clint with 6ft2 Forest Whitaker and you will see that in 1986 Clint was taller,so unless Whitaker was not even 6ft1 Clint was definitely more than 6ft2 peak.
If Clint was 6ft2 peak,then Lee Marvin was max 6ft flat ,more like 5ft11,and I am not convinced he was that low.Also it would mean George Kennedy was less than 6ft3,more 6ft2.75.It would also put Gene Hackman in the 6ft flat range,and that would put Sean Connery in the same 6ft flat range,which is very unlikely,and I could go on with more examples.2 inches off Clints listed peak is is too much,too me he always looked a strong 6ft3 guy.Also google Clint with 6ft2 Forest Whitaker and you will see that in 1986 Clint was taller,so unless Whitaker was not even 6ft1 Clint was definitely more than 6ft2 peak.
jervis said on 24/Feb/17
I saw that pic with Fuller,Clint looks about 4 inches taller,thats 10cm,making Clint 190cm,and if Clint was standing stright and not slouching he would be about 192cm maybe the full 193cm.
I saw that pic with Fuller,Clint looks about 4 inches taller,thats 10cm,making Clint 190cm,and if Clint was standing stright and not slouching he would be about 192cm maybe the full 193cm.
Ant said on 24/Feb/17
When you look at photos of young Eastwood (30s/early 40s) he looks around (188cm) alongside the likes of Richard Burton (177cm) and Robert Fuller (180cm). When you look at him with actor John Larch (183cm) in Play Misty for Me, he's slightly taller. Today I reckon maybe 183cm first thing in the morning and 182cm or 181cm in the evening. He seems to be in great shape for a guy pushing 87 - maybe the result of keeping fit and healthy eating all these years.
When you look at photos of young Eastwood (30s/early 40s) he looks around (188cm) alongside the likes of Richard Burton (177cm) and Robert Fuller (180cm). When you look at him with actor John Larch (183cm) in Play Misty for Me, he's slightly taller. Today I reckon maybe 183cm first thing in the morning and 182cm or 181cm in the evening. He seems to be in great shape for a guy pushing 87 - maybe the result of keeping fit and healthy eating all these years.
Tall In The Saddle said on 23/Feb/17
Intuitively I would've given Jim Garner 6'1" tops but I haven't made any serious comparisons. I just watched Forbidden Area with Vincent Price and Charlton Heston and one scene has them close together and face to face. Based on 6'4" for Price I would give Heston maybe 6'2" perhaps 6'2 1/2 at a stretch. I've seen the shots of Heston with Bush Jr (chest up) and all being equal, Heston appears to be the same height, which I guess maybe 5'11" for Bush (so 3" off peak for Heston from my POV). A full length shot would be better though to see Heston's posture etc.
If you haven't seen it already check out Christopher Lee as the focus subject on This is Your Life. The final guest is Vincent Price. These two guys stand nice and straight, close together and standard foot wear as far as I can see - there is a long shot and then one closer up. Both Lee and Price perfectly fit their respective 6'5" and 6'4" billings. Excellent yard sticks so to speak.
Intuitively I would've given Jim Garner 6'1" tops but I haven't made any serious comparisons. I just watched Forbidden Area with Vincent Price and Charlton Heston and one scene has them close together and face to face. Based on 6'4" for Price I would give Heston maybe 6'2" perhaps 6'2 1/2 at a stretch. I've seen the shots of Heston with Bush Jr (chest up) and all being equal, Heston appears to be the same height, which I guess maybe 5'11" for Bush (so 3" off peak for Heston from my POV). A full length shot would be better though to see Heston's posture etc.
If you haven't seen it already check out Christopher Lee as the focus subject on This is Your Life. The final guest is Vincent Price. These two guys stand nice and straight, close together and standard foot wear as far as I can see - there is a long shot and then one closer up. Both Lee and Price perfectly fit their respective 6'5" and 6'4" billings. Excellent yard sticks so to speak.
Jervis said on 21/Feb/17
Garner was between 6ft1 and 2 peak and was around 5ft10 to 11 when he died. Heston was 6ft2.5 peak and was around the same height as George Bush jr not long befor he died.
Garner was between 6ft1 and 2 peak and was around 5ft10 to 11 when he died. Heston was 6ft2.5 peak and was around the same height as George Bush jr not long befor he died.
James said on 21/Feb/17
James Garner was never any more than 6'1".
James Garner was never any more than 6'1".
jervis said on 20/Feb/17
James Garner lost a lot of height in old age,as did Charlton Heston.
James Garner lost a lot of height in old age,as did Charlton Heston.
Tall In The Saddle said on 19/Feb/17
Correct me if I'm wrong but save for the argument that he wasn't perhaps exactly 6'4" I don't think Eastwood's height was brought into question back in the day. Certainly, it seemed everyone accepted that Clint was in the 6'3" to 6'4" range - a very tall guy of proportionally limbs. No pointing to "lifts" or excessive heels etc because there simply wasn't and still isn't any real indication that Eastwood "cheated" or enhanced his height in any way. Check Eastwood's height at his peak relative to other celebrities, check and compare his foot wear - there is nothing suspiciously advantageous and it all adds up well for Eastwood.
I think Clint Peak height has ONLY NOW been questioned in more recent times due to the apparent height loss that has followed over the years. That has lead to retroactive address and judgment of Eastwood's previously unquestioned peak height. If you can't accept the height loss being due to natural aging/deterioration then you will default to the belief that peak Eastwood imply could not have been as tall as he appeared and as he was advertised - just because you can't believe a man could lose that much height.
The purported average height loss over a life time (1-3 inches) is just that, an average and there are still less common but completely possible extremes either side of that. And, after all, a person who hits a genuine 6'4" at peak has already well transcended the boundaries of the so called average in today's world, let alone Eastwood's adult world some 60 odd years ago (PS - just looked it up and the average male height in 1960 was just over 5'8").
I will admit that Eastwood's marked height loss has made me a bit skeptical but I have remained open minded. Important to note is that the height loss was not sudden but has been gradual (see Jervis' Rob Reiner example - and there are many other similar examples). The man is 87 yo and somehow I think that is not properly accounted for. Certainly, I don't think many of us view Clint Eastwood as we might our own grandfather of similar age. In all respects (including height) we hold them up to a different, less than realistic light.
In a previous post I put a genuine call out for a male celebrity/high profile person who has suffered similar height loss and one who we can reasonably say has lost that height through natural aging/deterioration.
By chance I saw a recent pic of Prince Phillip with Barack and Michelles Obama. Respectfully, I would say 94 yo Phillip now appears to be tiny without too much of pronounced slouch or the like - though there are some tell tale kinks in the posture. Like Clint, Phillip appears to have a truncated torso - at least from the front view and the side view might reveal more obvious spinal curvature. From the Obama pics I might guess Phillip to be barely 5'7" if that. Now this was a man who was listed as 6ft in his prime and that height can be well corroborated against the multitude of high profile people Phillip has met with over many years - including 6ft John F Kennedy (who Phillip appeared to edge) and 6 ft Gerald Ford (who Phillip appeared to equal) to name just two. IMO, this is a genuine height loss of at least 4" and perhaps up to 5".
Point being, I wouldn't deny Clint his peak height SIMPLY because one does not think a height loss of 4 " is possible. I think Prince Phillip is a sterling example that such a height loss (and them some) is very much possible.
Correct me if I'm wrong but save for the argument that he wasn't perhaps exactly 6'4" I don't think Eastwood's height was brought into question back in the day. Certainly, it seemed everyone accepted that Clint was in the 6'3" to 6'4" range - a very tall guy of proportionally limbs. No pointing to "lifts" or excessive heels etc because there simply wasn't and still isn't any real indication that Eastwood "cheated" or enhanced his height in any way. Check Eastwood's height at his peak relative to other celebrities, check and compare his foot wear - there is nothing suspiciously advantageous and it all adds up well for Eastwood.
I think Clint Peak height has ONLY NOW been questioned in more recent times due to the apparent height loss that has followed over the years. That has lead to retroactive address and judgment of Eastwood's previously unquestioned peak height. If you can't accept the height loss being due to natural aging/deterioration then you will default to the belief that peak Eastwood imply could not have been as tall as he appeared and as he was advertised - just because you can't believe a man could lose that much height.
The purported average height loss over a life time (1-3 inches) is just that, an average and there are still less common but completely possible extremes either side of that. And, after all, a person who hits a genuine 6'4" at peak has already well transcended the boundaries of the so called average in today's world, let alone Eastwood's adult world some 60 odd years ago (PS - just looked it up and the average male height in 1960 was just over 5'8").
I will admit that Eastwood's marked height loss has made me a bit skeptical but I have remained open minded. Important to note is that the height loss was not sudden but has been gradual (see Jervis' Rob Reiner example - and there are many other similar examples). The man is 87 yo and somehow I think that is not properly accounted for. Certainly, I don't think many of us view Clint Eastwood as we might our own grandfather of similar age. In all respects (including height) we hold them up to a different, less than realistic light.
In a previous post I put a genuine call out for a male celebrity/high profile person who has suffered similar height loss and one who we can reasonably say has lost that height through natural aging/deterioration.
By chance I saw a recent pic of Prince Phillip with Barack and Michelles Obama. Respectfully, I would say 94 yo Phillip now appears to be tiny without too much of pronounced slouch or the like - though there are some tell tale kinks in the posture. Like Clint, Phillip appears to have a truncated torso - at least from the front view and the side view might reveal more obvious spinal curvature. From the Obama pics I might guess Phillip to be barely 5'7" if that. Now this was a man who was listed as 6ft in his prime and that height can be well corroborated against the multitude of high profile people Phillip has met with over many years - including 6ft John F Kennedy (who Phillip appeared to edge) and 6 ft Gerald Ford (who Phillip appeared to equal) to name just two. IMO, this is a genuine height loss of at least 4" and perhaps up to 5".
Point being, I wouldn't deny Clint his peak height SIMPLY because one does not think a height loss of 4 " is possible. I think Prince Phillip is a sterling example that such a height loss (and them some) is very much possible.
Jervis said on 18/Feb/17
Google Clint Eastwood and Rob Reiner,there you will see Clint standing next to Reiner from a few years ago,in it Reiner is taller,but there is another pic of Reiner and Clint,Neil Jordan is also in it,I dont know when it was taken,it looks like early 90s,but in this one Clint is the taller of the two.lf Reiner was between 6ft1 and 2 that would make Clint 6ft3 in that photo and around 6ft.5 in the later pic.So in the 20 or so years between the two pics Clint lost about 2.5 inches.
Google Clint Eastwood and Rob Reiner,there you will see Clint standing next to Reiner from a few years ago,in it Reiner is taller,but there is another pic of Reiner and Clint,Neil Jordan is also in it,I dont know when it was taken,it looks like early 90s,but in this one Clint is the taller of the two.lf Reiner was between 6ft1 and 2 that would make Clint 6ft3 in that photo and around 6ft.5 in the later pic.So in the 20 or so years between the two pics Clint lost about 2.5 inches.
jervis said on 18/Feb/17
Yes 6ft4 in the morning.Coburn looked 6ft1 range.
Yes 6ft4 in the morning.Coburn looked 6ft1 range.
mister_lennon said on 18/Feb/17
Clint was a very strong 6'3 peak. Very close to 6'4. Maybe 6'4 out of bed.
Clint was a very strong 6'3 peak. Very close to 6'4. Maybe 6'4 out of bed.
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.