How tall is Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood's Height

6ft 0 (182.9 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 3 ½ (191.8 cm)
American actor and Director best known for films such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Dirty Harry films, Unforgiven, Every Which Way But Loose, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Million Dollar Baby, Escape from Alcatraz, Space Cowboys and Gran Torino. In a racquetball website he stated he was "6ft 4" and in a 1988 article it mentioned his weight: "At 6- 3 and 216 pounds".

How tall is Clint Eastwood
60's Publicity Photo, via Wikimedia Commons
When you're a new kid in town, you always have to punch it out with the other kids the first day or so. Kids always seem to pick on tall kids too, and I was six feet tall at the age of 13.
At school, I was never the one in my class to make things go. In the first place, I was about a foot taller than the rest of the kids. There were even occasions when I'd have lopped myself off at the knees if that had been possible.
[on basketball team] There was one guy taller than me at six-five.

You May Be Interested

Height of Scott Eastwood
Scott Eastwood
5ft 10 ¾ (180 cm)
Height of Gene Hackman
Gene Hackman
6ft 2 (188 cm)
Height of John Wayne
John Wayne
6ft 3 ¾ (192 cm)
Height of Lee Van Cleef
Lee Van Cleef
6ft 2 (188 cm)

Add a Comment5081 comments

Average Guess (316 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.37in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.95in (182.8cm)
ChaosControl 6'2 1/2 said on 17/Jan/21
@Tall In The Saddle true they do alter stuff. Didn’t they edit people’s muscles in 300?
slim 6'1 said on 17/Jan/21
I’d take the quarter inch for current
Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Jan/21
Hong said on 13/Jan/21
Click Here The two guys either side of Clint are listed as 6ft2.

I've seen the full scene referenced above with Tim Matheson, Clint and Robert Urich. The GIF in question depicts Clint looking his shortest in that scene, perhaps not standing his best and the angle is somewhat deceiving. Elsewhere in the scene I would give Clint up to 1.5" advantage over Matheson. However, I'm not sure Matheson himself was a full 6'2", possibly more like 6'1.75" based on other comparisons. Also, as per the full scene, Urich appeared that bit shorter than Matheson, putting him at 6'1.5" tops IMO.

I'll stay with 6'3.25" for Clint but he often presents as one of the more tricky height estimates.
Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Jan/21
Well, just IMO, subject to sexual orientation, one might not judge male and female looks in exactly the same way.

Put it this way, as I am predisposed, hetero, good looks in women I know, feel, can often be attracted to and compelled toward in varying degrees. Good looks in men I understand in abstract terms, sans the elements of true attraction and associated appreciation as per orientation.

Al Pacino, Man of the Moment. LOL. Not to pile on but I agree that Pacino was not plain or ordinary. A reasonably unique look, at least to me. As I understand, he possessed sufficient features to be considered good looking. Perhaps lead actors require the majority to perceive them to be good looking but, more importantly, they stand out more when they possess unique features which still add up to good looking.

Even given some of the most beautiful actresses seen on screen, I could walk past at least one woman in a day who was arguably more beautiful and feature perfect than any of them. They're not uncommon and that, in itself, is part of the reason their beauty won't necessarily be a stand out on screen. Ogling stars on the big screen can be an entirely different animal to one's real life tastes. As far as the stars go, there's also plastic surgery, make up, flattering lighting, angles etc. to be getting on with, so they're not necessarily all what they seem to be.
Ian C.. said on 14/Jan/21
Well of course, Rory, Pacino is not an ordinary man. He was a movie star, which means that he had personal qualities that caused people to buy tickets to his movies. I just don't think that great good looks had much to do with his appeal. If you look at the faces of most of the classic male movie stars, without having seen them in any movies, you notice right away that they were unusually handsome. And that was a large part of their talent. Think guys like Cary Grant or Gary Cooper or Clark Gable. Those boys had faces, although they also had compelling personalities.

Why did Elvis Presley become a movie star, but Bob Dylan and Roy Orbison and even the Beatles, who were also phenomenally successful as musicians, did not? Well, Elvis was handsome, and you could reasonably argue that fifty percent of his (extraordinary) talent was due to his unusual good looks. (Although Elvis might have been one of the very few people who were successful in show business who had a less-than-average I.Q.)

Clint Eastwood really had movie star good looks, although he never even tried being a romantic lead. In a few of the Dirty Harry movies he kisses a girl, but those scenes have a dropped-in quality, and have nothing to do with his characters or the plots of his movies. His specialty was righteous violence.
Hong said on 14/Jan/21
@Rory.I saw Magnum Force many times,and I imagined Holbrook to be a solid 6ft1 guy,in comparison to Clint's 6ft4,this was at the time I believed Clint was 6ft4,but was surprised to discover Holbrook was just 6ft,this made me reconsider my opinion of Clint's height.The logical thing for me was to reduce Clint to 6ft3,there is a scene in the movie,Clint and Holbrook are walking side by side in a corridor and they seem even closer in height.But considering Clint's rather relaxed posture in general,I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.To me Clint had the look of a typical 6ft3,an inch shy of 6ft4 and an inch above 6ft2.
Rory said on 14/Jan/21
@Ian C. No idea how you've come to the conclusion that Pacino looks ordinary. Very distinctive looking imo Pale skin, black hair and large black eyes. It's partly his face, and the character in his face which made him the great actor he is. I'd say Steve Mcqueen or Ryan O'neal are maybe two male leads who look fairly ordinary, whereas I can't recall seeing many people who look like Pacino does.
@Hong,I think you'd have to watch Magnum force really. In the film Clint could look 3 inches taller than Holbrook at times but his posture in it was pretty relaxed. Also in that scene with the pictures of the two alleged 6ft2 guys, those guys are in 1-1.5 inch range boots and Clint was in fairly thin looking sneakers and yet still looked 1+ inches taller. Clint also had roughly 3 inches on David Soul in that film. I'd say maybe 6ft3.25 in Magnum force, didn't really look under 6ft3 if you watch it.
Ian C. said on 13/Jan/21
Maybe "plain" is the wrong word for Pacino. I mean, he looks ordinary. There is nothing about his face or figure that would make you notice him he weren't a movie star. He's not Paul Newman or Clint Eastwood, for example. There are in fact quite a few movie stars who have played leading roles in movies who are physically ordinary. Dustin Hoffman, Donald and Kiefer Sutherland come to mind. Kevin Costner and Jim Carrey are kind of borderline ordinary-looking. Fred Astaire is the perfect example of an ordinary-looking man who was usually paired romantically with women far outside his range in the looks department.
Hong said on 13/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Holbrook with 5ft11.5 listed Alac Baldwin,Holbrook was 61 years old and my be a bit under peak height?I don't disagree with Holbrook at 6ft but Clint was definitely not 3.5 inches taller than him.
Hong said on 13/Jan/21
Click Here Rob you have Hal Holbrook listed as 6ft peak,if that was the case Clint looked in some scenes with him like 6ft2 max,in the pic I posted he looks no more than 6ft3 in comparison to Holbrook.
Hong said on 13/Jan/21
Click Here The two guys either side of Clint are listed as 6ft2.
Editor Rob
he could seem at most 6ft 3 with holbrook back then, though with those 2 looks a good 6ft 3.
Hong said on 13/Jan/21
Click Here "Hi Rob",here's some scenes of Clint and Carol Channing together in the movie,it's from 1956,although Channing is a tall woman at5ft8.5 and with a reasonable heel should could be as as tall as 5ft11,Clint still looks max 6 ft3 in comparison, maybe even a bit less?
Editor Rob
I'd have said about 6ft 3 range, but sometimes in film height differences can look less than what you'd see in person.
Hong said on 12/Jan/21
Click Here Thanks Rob,I've posted a pic of the footwear Carol wore on the movie,It could have been the same as in the pic of Carol and Clint I posted.If it was how tall do you think Clint looks in comparison?
Editor Rob
it's not really over 2 inch range
Rory said on 12/Jan/21
Young Al pacino was clearly a good looking guy, not plain. At least as good looking if not better looking than any others in your list.
James B 172cm said on 12/Jan/21
Actually Al Pacino when he was younger was considered very good looking (no homo(
Ian C. said on 10/Jan/21
When I gauge anyone's looks it's just a binary choice: Either people are good looking or they're not. Male good looks come in many varieties. John Goodman is a good-looking guy, even though he's obese. Al Pacino is a plain man. It doesn't have much to do with isolated details.

Who are the all time champions of male beauty (which is distinct from good looks)? Here's my short list: Sean Connery, Yul Brynner, Craig Stevens (who played TV's Peter Gunn) and Robert Conrad. Two on the list are tall and two are short, but all are strikingly beautiful, such that it's the first thing you notice about them. Some beautiful men, like Roger Moore and Errol Flynn, seem smug in their beauty, and I just don't like them.

My favourite movie stars are people with compelling faces. Here is that list: Boris Karloff, Jack Palance, Charles Bronson and Lee Marvin. Interestingly, all those men had good careers playing villains.
Rising174cm said on 10/Jan/21
slim 6'1 said on 8/Jan/21
191 peak is good, probably 182 current 👍

@Slim: You could be spot on regarding both peak and current. In addition to the 1988 article describing Clint as 6'3" above, he was listed at 6'3" in this 1993 NY Times article: Click Here Note that the article lists Charlie Sheen and Sly Stallone at 5'10" and 5'10.5", respectively, which both claimed to the NY Times. They also have Arnold at his claimed height of 6'2". This suggests to me that Clint may have claimed 6'3" around the late 80s/early 90s or his listing may have been revised down to 6'3" in the late 80s/early 90s.
James B 172cm said on 10/Jan/21
rory my legs are short and stubby but there muscular at the same time.
ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 10/Jan/21
@Ian this is why rugby is better than football. Any body type, height and build is useful in rugby!
Tall In The Saddle said on 10/Jan/21
@Chaos

Nah, you typed it out fine. Just me, just clarifying myself.
Hong said on 9/Jan/21
Click Here Rob,this is a young peak height Clint next to,5ft8.5 listed, "by you" Carol Channing,how tall do you think Clint looks in comparison,taking into account footwear and Carol's posture,do you think Clint looks 6ft3.5 in comparison?If not how tall do you think Clint looks?Also I think you should seriously consider a slight downgrade to 6ft3.25 at least for Clint's peak,6ft3 flat would IMO be more accurate.
Editor Rob
It's one of those unknown's with her footwear.
Ian C. said on 9/Jan/21
I'm a true believer in the validity of genetic endowments in ectomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy because I'm an extreme ectomorph. Ecotmorphs have very little capacity to change their overall body shapes. We can't grow fat by stuffing ourselves, and we can't grow muscle by lifting weights.

When I was 20 I was six foot four and 165 pounds. Now, at nearly seventy, I'm still six foot four, and maybe 180 pounds. A weight gain of 15 pounds on a man my height is barely noticeable. I'm still the skinny guy, except with a small paunch.

Everybody who plays professional football, with the possible exceptions of the kickers, is a polar mesomorph. You have to be born with that kind of talent. You can't develop it, no matter how hard you train. Clint Eastwood, who is superior in strength to the average man, could never have played professional football. He's just too small. Even Charlton Heston, who was enormously strong, would have been too small to play football beyond the college level.

Natural born endomorphs actually have a biologic advantage. They have superior digestive systems and capacities for storing excess calories. The Pima Indians in the United States, who are a desert people, are now plagued with obesity and the diseases that attend it. Unfortunately, modern societies that produce ample food have condemned the modern Pima, with their desert-ready digestive systems, to population-wide obesity. Once again, this is genetic. It isn't cultural, except in the sense that the Pima can now buy food in supermarkets.
ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 9/Jan/21
@Tall In The Saddle my comment about the volleyball was a joke, admittedly not as funny typed out as it was in my head. I will tell the truth and say I usually judge overweight people for their habits. I don’t really believe in comfort foods, I prefer to exercise to blow off steam and honestly I think intuitive eating should be treated as an addiction (If I shot heroin every time I was upset they’d put me away)
Rory said on 9/Jan/21
I think average to long legs for your height is perfect for a man. Very long looks disproportionate and a bit effeminate, short looks look a bit stubby. 35 inseam is probably perfect for a 6ft3-4 guy.
James B 172cm said on 9/Jan/21
ian C- speaking of physiques do you think long legs on men are considered more attractive?

I know Clint eastwood has very long legs
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Jan/21
@Chaos
I'm pretty sure you understood my moral policeman comments re women's volley ball were tongue in cheek (damn, there I go again), but just in case you didn't..I'll now insert a contextual LOL. :)

Personally, I think the so called body type classifications (Ecto, Meso and Endo) and prescribed potentials and or limitations attached to same are prejudicial straight out of the gates. As to overweight people, I don't judge aside from holding genuine concern for long term health issues. Also, over-eating isn't necessarily always a case of sheer gluttony. Over eating can actually be several degrees removed from more deeply sourced mental issues. In broad terms, over eating may be compensatory for depression, anxiety, childhood trauma, etc. Aka comfort eating. Another person might just as easily turn to drugs or alcohol to deal with same. Superficially, over eating or addiction might appear as a pervading genetic disposition in some families when the true issues may reside in pervading mental health problems which, if accurately identified, may be corrected.

However one rates Clint Eastwood's natural physiology, no one can argue that he hasn't met his "natural" body more than half way with single minded attention and concrete discipline toward max. health and strength. That's so much more a positive mental game than it is reliance upon one's fundamental physical genetics.
ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 9/Jan/21
@Ian if you’re so sceptical of BMI, surely you’d realise that the endo/ecto/mesomorph isn’t real either, and it’s just nonsensical bro-science used to gatekeep physique. Body shape and fat mass are much easier to control than you’re making out. Difficult yes, but not THAT hard. I eat well below my recommended daily calories (an active 6’2.5 208lb guy should be eating 2500+ according to calculator.net and I get 2000-2200) yet I’m technically overweight for my height. In terms of physical capacity I’m certainly strong, and I look mesomorphic, yet my 50” chest measurement would imply I’m an endomorph, even though I’m 11%bf and didn’t struggle too much losing weight.
Ian C. said on 9/Jan/21
Congratulations on your weight loss Chaos. I do think, though, that most of us must accept natural, genetically defined limits on how are bodies can look or perform. Most fat people eventually give up trying to make themselves thinner and accept that they look as they do, and I believe it unfair that they are insulted and scorned for something that is mostly beyond their control.

I'm an ectomorph, tall and thin, and when I was in my teens I fell for the bogus claim that bodybuilding could turn me into a mesomorph. This just wasn't so. I lifted weights, ate at least 4000 calories a day, and succeeded only in making myself tired all the time. By the time I turned twenty, I had just said, forget it, this is my body. Of course, it's a lot easier to accept your body if you're thin than if you're fat, and I would never compare my own struggles with body transformation to your own.

And of course, many people are just physically gifted. Eastwood was in that category and, even if he hadn't pursued bodybuilding, would still have had an impressive physique. In fact, most people who are successful in the movies are physically gifted, because audiences want to watch strong, beautiful people. How many people do you see in movies, even in supporting roles who are fat, or even were glasses?
ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 8/Jan/21
@Tall In The Saddle yeah... you’ll watch it to call them out on it... riiiight...
slim 6'1 said on 8/Jan/21
191 peak is good, probably 182 current 👍
Hong said on 7/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Clint with Arnold,he's looking a bit taller than Arnold who's around 5 ft11 now,so 90 year old Clint still close to 6ft.
Tall In The Saddle said on 6/Jan/21
Comparing height to weight isn't a great analogy because one can alter their weight but not their height. That's not to suggest that anyone has to alter their weight for anyone else but themselves. We can at least "own" our bodies and do with them as we wish.

As far as a publication like Men's Health goes, well it's understood at least by me that these guys are into high end fitness, not really being passed off as average and simply representing a benchmark only to be "approached" by the masses. If one believed them to be average I would suggest they purchase a new and improved critical thinking cap. Your whole day would be spent honing and sculpting such physiques with sufficient time set aside for the indispensable, self adoring "mirror" work out, very real and practiced in every gym I've been to, involving infinity reps. So then that leaves little time to actually go out and earn a living or enjoy life as it should be enjoyed. LOL. Those magazines also employ illusory photo shopping and muscle defining shading (shout out to the movies 300 and, more so, Meet The Spartans, ahah). With all that, that's not to say such physiques are necessarily ideal in aesthetic terms, at least IMO. For both men and women, a physique or figure that reflects natural exercise, laboring or specific physical application is naturally appealing, particularly since it is underscored by its potency. As far as women go, I find all types of fit and practically applied bodies attractive, be it the swimmer, the gymnast, the runner, the beach volleyballer, etc. Okay, that last one might be a bit gratuitous but I completely own it. Due to secret signalling, the cameramen always has an excuse to zoom right in on their derrieres, purely to gain insight into their next "strategic play". Appalling. And I'll watch it each and every time just to call them out on it. As to the exact rules of the game, I'll have to get back to you on that.
ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 6/Jan/21
@Ian being fat is a sign as laziness and gluttony, as well as an unhealthy mindset. I’ve lost damn near 50 pounds in the last year. Do you wanna know what I’ve noticed? I’ve become a much better overall person, more social, and made better efforts to present myself well. I’d most likely get banned if I told you what I wanted to do to my fat angry past self
Rory said on 6/Jan/21
Yh I'd say Clint with Arnie there looks an inch taller, but he's standing slightly behind arnie so could well have been more like 1.5 inches. Looks I'd guess around 1985-87 time. When Clint looked near 6ft3 then.
Ian C. said on 6/Jan/21
Well, Chaos, I wouldn't call myself a fat acceptor (if that's a term), but I'm certainly a fat tolerater. I know lots of people who are fat, and I don't think it's their fault, Although some people, like Marlon Brando or Gerard Depardieu or Elvis Presley, are/were obviously guilty of uncontrolled gluttony, most fat people cannot be fairly condemned for a moral failing.

Everybody on this Earth gains weight as he ages, unless he is actually sick. Even extremely thin people, like James Stewart or Frank Sinatra, develop paunches in middle age. People who are high in endomorphy can gain forty pounds from early youth to middle age, and there really isn't much they can do about it, short of starving themselves. Gaining weight as you age is no more an indicator of moral failure than going bald.

I am suspicious of the term "overweight," because implicit in it is an unfair moral opprobrium. Are tall people "overheight?" I don't think so.

And the obesity epidemic was a false moral panic. Go to a schoolyard in the middle of the day, and look at the children on it Very few are fat, and they mostly run around screaming and yelling, just as we did when we were children. Or go to a shopping mall on a Sunday afternoon, and look at the people. It is just not true that 60 percent of the hundreds of people you will see are fat, as any reasonable person would define that term.

Much of what people consider normal nowadays is a media invention. One of the more odious publications you can buy is Men's Health. (Which would be more accurately called, "Men's Beauty," which is its real subject.) On the cover of a typical issue of Men's Health will be a shirtless model who is about 26, and who is physically blessed, and who works out every day of his life in a gym. We are asked to believe that this an average man, and we can all look like him if we really, really try. And that ain't so. I'm annoyed by that kind of dishonesty.
stiggles said on 5/Jan/21
I think Clint's peak height was a half inch under 6ft 2..
RR said on 5/Jan/21
Here's an interesting photo of Arnie, Clint Eastwood and Sven-Ole Thorsen I found online. My guess is it must've been taken from the late 80s. Who knows the kind of footwear they each had.

Click Here

Anyone have any insights?
Tall In The Saddle said on 5/Jan/21
There are a number of non obese physical mass attributes that BMI doesn’t allow for.

However, it seems to me people are generally carrying more excess weight than in previous years due to techno advances lending to easier living including virtual entertainment and leisure activities.

Committed just to body building one might be more prone to steroids but Clint applied himself to overall health and well being and roids def. don’t fit into the equation for same. I’ve read high weight low reps is good for impressive muscle size but lower weight high reps is better for legit strength. Apparently Clint could curl 40 lbs, 40 reps per set. Not bad, best of both worlds.

Told you were about to meet a random 90 year old person I think Clint’s current appearance is what you’d expect. However, we are well privy to prime Clint so it’s difficult to entirely divorce the image of young Clint from the man we see now, thereby illustrating how much advancing age takes away from us, even for those exceptionally dedicated to fitness for the whole life.
Hong said on 5/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Clint in a recent pic with 6ft5.5 listed Ralph Miller.
ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 5/Jan/21
@Ian if you weren’t a 6’4 180-pound male (I remember you said it somewhere) you’d fit right in with the fat acceptance movement
Ian C. said on 4/Jan/21
Don 't get me started on BMI, James. Oops. Too late. I'm started. BMI is a flawed tool for declaring overweight, and is essentially superfluous for personal diagnosis anyway, as any doctor can tell an overweight patient at a glance, without recourse to a scale and a calculator. BMI is moderately useful as a population indicator of the general incidence of overweight and obesity. Unfortunately it has been politicized to create a phony obesity epidemic, so that government busybodies can go around telling citizens what they may and may not eat.

Grr, grr. A few years ago, when we still had the luxury to invent public health crises, we had an "obesity epidemic" that was ostensibly ubiquitous and would lead to mass illness and death. And it was nonsense. I'm 68 and I don't think that people are any fatter now in the general case in Canada than when I was 20. If I hadn't read in the papers that we were in the throes of an obesity epidemic, I wouldn't have noticed.

Back to Clint Eastwood. (Keeping to the general topic of Celebrity Heights, which for me is a welcome change.) Eastwood was very conscientious about maintaining his physical fitness, so in his case you've got a man with superior general health and strength, who also had the discipline and personal resources to stay fit. Even so, Eastwood did grow thicker in the waist as he passed into late middle age. He is now jettisoning body weight which, in the aged is a harbinger of approaching death. It will be interesting to see if he lives to be a hundred, which is all but unheard of in a man so tall.

Who might make it to a hundred? Woody Allen, who is small and strong and rich and physically well-disciplined.
James B 172cm said on 4/Jan/21
Ian C- I take it you dont believe in BMI- body mass index since it does not take into account muscle mass?
Hong said on 4/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Clint with Lee Marvin on the set of Paint your wagon,if you pause at4min15 there is a good bit,Clint and Lee are right beside each other,on level ground,Lee who is now listed at 6ft1 looks max 3 inches shorter than Clint.Marvin's footwear can bee seen during clip. Clint was wearing,boots during the movie but they looked like a regular heel,not the cowboy type heel,but givin all that, Clint does look close to 6ft4, definitely a solid 6ft3 peak.
Ian C. said on 4/Jan/21
I don't think Clint took steroids because his natural muscularity was much better than average already, and steroid use would have made him seem much more muscular than he ever seemed to be, even in the Philo Beddoe movies.

William Sheldon was an American physiologist who coined the terms endomorph, mesomorph and ectomorph. and designed and applied a numerical scale to rate each man's display of each of those traits. The lowest rating for each category is 1 and the highest is 7. This yields a three digit describer number. For example, Charles Bronson would have been a 171. The first number indicates endomorphy, which is the tendency to accumulation of fat, and Bronson had very little of that. The second is mesomorphy, which is the tendency to grow muscle and bone, and Bronson was a polar example of a brawny, big-boned man. The third digit is the ectomorphy rating, which yields long, light bones. Bronson was in no way ectomorphic.

Eastwood is a 254. He's slightly prone to fat, giving him a 2 in endomorphy, muscular and strong, but not enough to become a professional athlete giving him a 5 in mesomorphy and he's long limbed, giving him a 4 in ectomorphy. Interestingly, the 254s are among the longest lived people, and Eastwood, who is now 90, is still extraordinarily productive.
Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Jan/21
@Hong, yeah I understood the boots were from the movie but I've never seen the movie. I now understand that Clint played a rural Sheriff so his footwear was in the context of the role. Otherwise, true that Clint's heel was generally normal aside from certain footwear specific to the given role.
Hong said on 31/Dec/20
Clint can look shorter than 6ft now sometimes as low as 5ft10,but that is down to extreme bad posture Click Here
Lins 5'11.25 said on 31/Dec/20
So, by the time Clint Eastwood will have celebrated his 100th birthday, he should be at 4'11''. Maybe? Lol
Hong said on 31/Dec/20
@Tall In The Saddle,The boots he's wearing are from the movie,but these are more typical of Clint's footwear, he did wear more normal too flat shoes in general.Click Here
Soda machine said on 30/Dec/20
Watching him to a legit 6-2 Cleef Clint wasn’t under 6-3.5. Possible weak 6-4 peak.
Hong said on 29/Dec/20
Looked about 2 inches taller than now revised 6ft1 inch Lee Marvin,making him 6ft3 peak Click Here
Tall In The Saddle said on 29/Dec/20
@Hong
The image of Clint's heel in Coogan's Bluff is quite the revelation. Aside from Westerns, I assumed Clint generally wore a moderate, average heel. Great find.
Slim 6'1" said on 29/Dec/20
Could dip to 182cm today
Rising174cm said on 26/Dec/20
I can buy the 6'3.5" peak although he was more like 6'3" flat by the Dead Pool with Liam Neeson and probably more like 190 cm by In The Line of Fire. However, he's now 90 and no more than 5'11.5". It wouldn't surprise me if he was only 5'11" now.
Height_Guesser said on 25/Dec/20
6’ 3” (190.5 cm) flat peak and now is 5’ 11.5” (181.5 cm). A picture with president Reagan (who was a little under 6’ 0”) in 1987. He looks 3 inches taller than Reagan in that photo when you take in account Reagan is closer to the camera.
Hong said on 24/Dec/20
Click Here Rob,Here's Clint's heels in Coogan's Bluff,what height, in your opinion are the heels?in the movie someone comments he has 2 inch heels,do you think they are as high as that?
Editor Rob
I am sure if measuring the very back they would be close to 2 inches...actual height slightly less than that.
James B 172cm said on 23/Dec/20
Rob do you think he was 6'3 flat by 1980?
Editor Rob
that is the question, by that point did he lose half inch or so...at 50 I think maybe not quite that much, but maybe a smaller fraction
James B 172cm said on 19/Dec/20
Yeah rampage he looked taller in the 1950s for sure
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Dec/20
James, he looked more 6ft3 flat in the 70’s-80’s. Peak though was no less than what Rob has. I think for some of the day he was 6ft4
cmillz said on 17/Dec/20
Thought he looked taller in Alcatraz than Dirty Harry tbh
Genau said on 16/Dec/20
6ft3.75 peak 5ft11.5 now
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 14/Dec/20
In Dirty Harry i find that Clint can pull off 6'4.
James B 172cm said on 13/Dec/20
Was he a flat 6’3 in escape from alacatraz?
Hong said on 12/Dec/20
Click Here In this one Clint looks a bit taller,it's down to posture and Clints ability to drop a lot of height in more relaxed posture.but he was IMO still a 6 ft3 guy to Selleck's 6 ft4 even at peak.
James B 172c, said on 11/Dec/20
Rob in an interview with Parkinson Clint said the reason he squints is because he has very sensitive eyes especially in the sunlight.....
Editor Rob
I squint my eyes too when we get sun here in Glasgow...so about 8 days of the year.

I'll put a link on Louis page, but worth watching again Clint, Reagan, Louis Gossett meeting up...
James B 172c, said on 10/Dec/20
Arch- So hankin could have been 6’3.25 then if Eastwood was 6’3 flat in 1979?
Hong said on 10/Dec/20
Click Here @Arch Stanton,Hankin and Selleck did look similar next to Schwimmer,and that would make you think Clint and Selleck, a genuine 6ft4 IMO would be in return similar too,but when you see pics like this one it makes you doubt if Clint was even 6 ft2 flat.Selleck looks a good bit taller than Diana in comparison to Clint.It could be something to do with posture,Clint in his mid fifties may have lost a fraction in height.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Dec/20
Hong, Halkin there looks the same height next to Schwimmer as Tom Selleck did. Now Schwimmer could be 6'0.5-75 but Halkin and Eastwood were very similar, maybe Halkin slight edge.
Soda machine said on 7/Dec/20
6-3 legit no doubts. 5-11.75 maybe now.
James B 172c, said on 6/Dec/20
Rob is a flat 5’11 possible for Clint now or do you think he could still measure 6ft if stood straight?
Editor Rob
he's been looking near that at times in last 2 years. What he would manage trying to stand tall for a measurement is another matter, I think he could still clear 5ft 11.
Hong said on 4/Dec/20
Click Here Clint looked very similar in height to Hankin in that movie,here is the older Halkin with 6 ft1 is Ross in friends.
Funder_69 said on 4/Dec/20
Tad over 6’ 3” at peak and a tad under 6’ now. By the time somebody is 80 they likely lose 1.5-2 inches. Eastwood is 90 currently so losing 3 inches or even a little more is no surprise.
James B 172c, said on 2/Dec/20
Here is Clint near 6’4 listed Larry Hankin in escape from Alcatraz

Click Here


Click Here




Click Here
Slim 6'1" said on 30/Nov/20
190.5-191cm peak
Slim 6'1" said on 30/Nov/20
I not mentioned Clint’s steroid use as to explain why he went through such a great height loss 👍
Hong said on 29/Nov/20
Click Here @cmillz,Here's 79 year old Clint with Baron Cohen,by this age Clint was looking in the 6 ft1 range,I think his looking still tall next to Baron Cohen,as a young man and in comparison to his contempries Clint looked a solid 6 ft3 guy too me,and IMO he would have been similar to Baron Cohen,I disagree with 6 ft3.5 for his peak and would guess 6ft3 flat is more like his peak height.
cmillz said on 28/Nov/20
Peak Eastwood edging out Sacha Baron Cohen by a half inch? No chance of that IMO.

Weak 6’3 suits him better for his peak height.
Vincent Caleb said on 20/Nov/20
Clint was likely a person who lost a small fraction in his 50s
Roby Italy said on 11/Nov/20
Rob, i think he is on the 190 lbs in the past, how do you think?
Editor Rob
Yeah in his thinner days he could even be under that range
Slim 6'1" said on 7/Nov/20
Canson, Uve got a good point
Tall In The Saddle said on 7/Nov/20
Great question as to when Clint began losing height. At least on averages, the onset of some height loss could be guessed as early as 1980 when Clint turned 50.

As per this Carson clip, by 1992, 62 yo Clint, IMO, was close but still clearly shorter than Ed McMahon though if you freeze the intro at some points, Clint can appear that much closer in height. Clint also appeared on Carson in 1973, with excerpts of his appearance available on YouTube. Unfortunately the ALL important intro hasn't been uploaded.

It would be very interesting to see how Clint measured up next to McMahon in 1973 vs 1992.

@Hong, you're good at finding the more rare clips, perhaps you could dig for the 1973 appearance, intro included? :)

Clint's appearance on Carson 1992 Click Here
Hong said on 7/Nov/20
That's Don Rickles, not Rickets,funny guy🤣
Hong said on 7/Nov/20
Click Here Here's a short clip of Clint with Don Rickets.Clint is looking very tall in comparison,but I think Don was a bit on the short side anyway.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Nov/20
That Dolph article is interesting, particularly "Now there's a distance between my public persona and the real me and "I get depressed if I don't work out". From what I've seen of Dolph I think in real life he's likely quiet and a bit reserved, a bit depressive as he says. In interviews seems to laugh more than he might usually. I know he once said he was pretty miserable most of the time throughout his career which is surprising. Dolph only looked on roids in 1985-87 era I'd say, obviously was for Rocky IV and He-Man. Clint I've never seen him look even close to looking like a roid muncher.
Vincent Caleb said on 6/Nov/20
@Chris Junior: A-B imo.
Rory said on 6/Nov/20
I think he he first started to lose height in the late 1970s,if not certainly by the 80s. I'd wager somewhere between 1978-1982 the first few mm gone and then by late 80s a solid half inch gone.
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 6/Nov/20
Anyone roughly know which is the year Clint started to lost height?

A. 1985-1988

B. 1989-1992

C. 1993-1995
James B 172c, said on 5/Nov/20
Clint was far to intelligent and health conscious to have taken steroids
Hong said on 5/Nov/20
Click Here Here's a rare clip of Clint and Eric from 1962,both guys looking very tall.
Canson said on 5/Nov/20
Slim 6'1@ said on 4/Nov/20
He did take steroids when young.
191cm prime
182cm today
Editor Rob
Unless Clint himself said it, I wouldn't be saying it...

Now if he said something like Dolph Lundgren it would be fair comment: Click Here - "It's tempting to use steroids. I tried it when I was much younger, but you're cheating your body, and coming off them is just awful."

Yea but Lundgren in the field he was would’ve been 5 times more likely to use them. Clint Eastwood despite his roles in movies had no reason
Canson said on 5/Nov/20
@Tall in the Saddle: agreed! And you made a good point about proof that he used roids. I’ve never heard that about him. It’s very hard to believe as he was a very good build but not the same as someone of similar size like Lou Ferrigno lol
Tall In The Saddle said on 5/Nov/20
@James B

As I said, my bad. I mistakenly read your comments as an extension of Slim's. Apologies.

Having said that, Vincent Caleb stated that nothing "stood out" in Clint's physicality to suggest steroid use (a sentiment I agree with). That was the context. You replied that Clint's height stood out so I figured you were speaking in the same context. If you were simply stating Clint's height stood out for it's own sake, sure, I agree but that fact wasn't under contention. So I guess you're saying you don't believe Clint used steroids?

@Canson

I agree that 6'3.25" peak maybe a better fit with 6'3.5" as max. I think Clint's height loss has been overstated due to an overstated peak though Clint has still lost some reasonable height but still within normal range IMO, particularly since he has reached an uncommon age and otherwise less observed degree of height loss that goes with same.

@Slim

Can you better qualify your claim that Clint used steroids when young? Simply stating he took steroids (stated twice now) doesn't really amount to much.
Canson said on 4/Nov/20
It still amazes me that he’s lost this much height. I could see 2” but 3+? He wasn’t a wrestler like Hogan. But if he was claiming 6’3 in 1988, chances are he wasn’t a full 6’4 peak nor was he 6’3.5. Maybe 6’3.25 is the better fit for him
Slim 6'1@ said on 4/Nov/20
He did take steroids when young.
191cm prime
182cm today
Editor Rob
Unless Clint himself said it, I wouldn't be saying it...

Now if he said something like Dolph Lundgren it would be fair comment: Click Here - "It's tempting to use steroids. I tried it when I was much younger, but you're cheating your body, and coming off them is just awful."
Vincent Caleb said on 3/Nov/20
Steroids are something that actors and wrestlers now have gotten used to, but in the 60s and 70s were a lot less common. My little bro got experimenting once with gear, and I quickly convinced him out of it. A lot of things that can go wrong with gear. Steroids do effect height though and accelerate shrinkage. The Rock, Arnie, and Dolph Lungruden all have experience with that.
Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Nov/20
@Vincent Caleb

My bad. You’re correct. Apologies for that. In my mind I fused Slim and James together. The beauty of forums. They make for instant transcripts to look back on. :)
Vincent Caleb said on 2/Nov/20
@Tall In The Saddle:
I thought slim suggested it also, but I may be wrong.
Hong said on 1/Nov/20
@Pierre.At that time Arnold could easily pull off looking 6ft2 in a good tick pair of shoes,Clint is leaning slightly dropping a bit of height.To put Clint at 6ft.05 to 6ft1 at 65 is a bit low,he looks around 6ft3.25 in shoes compared to Arnold's 6 ft2 in shoes.Clint by aged 65 was still around 6 ft2.5 about half an inch off peak.Clint was a good 6 ft3 peak IMO and Arnold around 6 ft.75,but that's just my opinion,I could be wrong I haven't got proof.
James Brett 172cm said on 1/Nov/20
WHAT? i didnt say clint used steroids that was slim.
Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Nov/20
@Vincent Caleb

Just for clarity it’s only James B 172 who has suggested steroid use, no one else.
Vincent Caleb said on 1/Nov/20
@James B 172: I was referring to his muscularity in comparison to steroid users, which some commenters are accusing him of taking. Yes his height may have been considered very very tall at the time though.
Pierre said on 31/Oct/20
peak 6"3' first time in the morning so strong 6"2' range peak
in his 65 around 6"0.5'/6"1' (here next to around 5"11.5' Arnold) = Click Here Click Here
Now around 5"11' range = Click Here
Tall In The Saddle said on 31/Oct/20
@Vincent Caleb

I agree. I don't believe Clint took steroids. I just playfully mused on the proposition which I had never heard before. Nothing in Clint's physical makeup to suggest same. I noted he put on some degree of muscle just to highlight that it wasn't at all out of the ordinary. I further agree that Clint's height loss is normal at his age and the bows and kinks contributing to his height loss can be clearly seen.

@James B 172c

Just to clarify, as Hong queried, are you simply assuming steroid use just because of Clint's height loss? Sure, Clint was about 6'3.5", perhaps a bit less, but nothing about physical appearance to suggest juicing. I think you're saying, at least for you, that what "stands out" is Clint's height loss, not his actual peak height in the first instance.

I think height loss by age 90 is being underestimated while at the same time Clint's height loss might still actually be a bit more than average but still well within normal range. Atop that, Clint's actual height loss might be overstated since he wasn't even 6'4" peak in the first place and it's arguable he may not have been quite 6'3.5" also.
James B 172c, said on 31/Oct/20
Vincent Caleb- Certainly his height of 6’3 1/2 ‘stood out’
Vincent Caleb said on 29/Oct/20
@Tall in the saddle:
While it is not impossible, it is unlikely that he did. Nothing about his physicality ever stood out. He lost a lot of height cause he is 90 and has a bad spine.
Hong said on 27/Oct/20
@Slim6'1"" You seem very confident in your opinion Clint took roids,and are you of the opinion because of his abuse of this drug he has lost more height than average?
Tall In The Saddle said on 27/Oct/20
Clint on roids? Pale Roider? Say it ain't so, Joe!

Never heard that one before. Never saw any physical evidence of same. Just saw a Clint who appeared a bit more built up, as much as one would reasonably expect from some degree of dedicated weight training.
James B 172c, said on 26/Oct/20
Slim 6'1" said on 25/Oct/20
Took roids when younger
191 young
182 old


How do you know he took pride?
Slim 6'1" said on 25/Oct/20
Took roids when younger
191 young
182 old
Bobadob said on 18/Oct/20
Legit tall in youth. 5-11.5 now imo
Hyper said on 17/Oct/20
I don’t think he’s under 6’3”. He looked visibly taller than 6’2.5” Muhammad Ali.

Muhammad Ali even alluded to Clint being taller.

In comparison, Ali stated George Foreman is the same height as him (Ali).
Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Oct/20
@Hong
Re pic of Newman and Malden. Karl is perhaps standing on slightly higher ground (step?)and appearing that much taller than Newman than one might've guessed. However, while I haven't technically addressed Newman's height before, I didn't get the general impression that he was 5'9.5". More in the realm of 5'8.5" max. and quite possibly a bit less.

Newman's Naval Enlistment photo might've lent itself to an exaggerated impression of his height. He joined in 1943 so he was 18 yo.

If backed right up against the height chart it is possible to imagine Newman hitting the 5'8" to 5'8.5" mark. Also note that Newman's eye level is aligned with about 5'3" but the top of his head, hair included, appears to reach the 5'10" mark due to angle deception. Otherwise, we'd be talking a 6" to 7" forehead, LOL, which was clearly not the case.

Click Here

Here's another pic of Newman in Naval Uniform in front of height chart involving a deceptive angle, to say the least. Possibly he grew a bit more since enlistment but technically, the value of the second photo as a ref. to height isn't very good, the first photo being somewhat better IMO.

Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 15/Oct/20
I've seen the earliest films from even the late 1880s and 1890s! When you've watched a wide range of cinema, when you think about it chronologically in context, 1979 is relatively more recent. I tend to think in terms of silent period, Golden Hollywood and aftermath, the Golden period for me ended in around 1963-4. Cleopatra I think was one of the last pictures from the Golden Period.
Hong said on 14/Oct/20
Click Here @Tall In The Saddle,Here's a pic of Malden with 5 ft9.5 listed Paul Newman.Newman is dropping a bit of height but if he was at his tallest Malden would still have a good 4 inches on him.Newman and Michael Douglas are both listed 5ft9.5 peak.
Hong said on 13/Oct/20
@Arch Stanton,To a young person 41 years ago is a very long time ago,similar to a young person in 1979 would think 1938 was a long time ago and a movie from 1938 would seem like ancient history.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Oct/20
Slim 6'1" said on 2/Oct/20
I hate old movies but really enjoyed escape from Alcatraz

Guessing you're a teenager. Black and white is boring LOL. I don't think of Escape from Alcatraz as an old movie, 1979. "Old" for me is pre 1965 but then I'm old enough to remember when the late 60s was only 20 years ago.
Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Oct/20
@Hong
Karl Malden is an excellent example of legitimate and substantial height loss. He is also among the small percentage of people to reach nonagenarian status, a percentage that is increasing as time goes by but still a category of peoples very much in the minority.

In other words, the majority of the population will never realize the potential degree of height loss we actually see come to pass in many 90+ yo people.

I will say that Malden had a more severely bowed neck than Clint but his overall height loss was still apparent. For comparison, here is a shot of Madlen and Douglas from their time in THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO. Click Here
I think peak Malden was a legit 6'1". Here's a pic of Malden standing with Gregory Peck. Click Here
Hong said on 6/Oct/20
Click Here Here's a good example of how much a person can shrink over their life.Karl Malden was 6ft1 peak,Kirk Douglas was 5ft9,Michael Douglas listed here as 5ft9.5 and aged 60 at the time of this photo and probably still at peak maybe a fraction shorter? Malden is 92 there,Kirk is 88,both old guys look 4 inches of there peak.Clint can look 4 inches shorter now aged 90 it's not so unusual.
TheDon1528 said on 6/Oct/20
6'3.5" peak
Slim 6'1" said on 2/Oct/20
I hate old movies but really enjoyed escape from Alcatraz
Slim 6'1" said on 2/Oct/20
Shrunk to 182cm today, took roids when younger
Tommy174 said on 1/Oct/20
@Rob another reason I can't believe he was 216 pounds is that he was about 6'3 so I can guess 200-205 pounds. But on the other hand why he would inflate his weight? He has always been a slim guy not a big guy with not so much muscle mass and fat. I know all his movies and the heaviest he probably was in 1980 in "Any Which Way You Can" but he looks barely over 205 pounds there.
Editor Rob
I do think at his most muscular phase, he was 205-10...216 though, I don't know...
Hong said on 30/Sep/20
Click Here Here's a pic of Clint with Burt,Burt wore pretty tick heels in that movie and looked a solid 6footer,Clint looks a solid 6ft4 in his normal heeled shoes in comparison.Clint in his early 50s looked no less than 6 ft3.
Hong said on 27/Sep/20
Click Here Clint looks very tall here.
Bobadob said on 24/Sep/20
6-3.5 peak no less. Genuine tall in his youth.
cmillz said on 22/Sep/20
6’3 flat is really the most I can buy for him at peak, and I don’t rule out 6’2.5-6’2.75. Never felt like he gave off a near 6’4 impression to me.
James B 172cm said on 19/Sep/20
Rob I am still of the opinion that Clint looked no taller than 6’3 flat in Dirty Harry.

Who knows though was getting worse at that point but a case could be made for 6ft3 3/8 in his early 40s and a solid 6ft3.5 in the 1950s.
Hong said on 18/Sep/20
That would make sense Rob as by his mid sixties Clint was looking in the 6ft2 range.
Bora said on 18/Sep/20
In the movie called Play Misty For Me, he looks like a strong 6'2"
James Brett 172cm said on 17/Sep/20
looked at least 6'3 in play misty
Hong said on 17/Sep/20
Click Here Rob ,What is your opinion on this pic of Clint and Neeson? It's from 95,Clint would have been 65 years old,do you think the angel is in Clint or Neeson's favour,how much height do you think Neeson has on Clint?
Editor Rob
Could be 2 inches different, the angle does look like it's boosting Liam's side higher, making it seem at least 3 inches.
Sinclair said on 6/Sep/20
Rob, how tall do you think Eric Fleming was in Rawhide?

Eastwood and Fleming looked very similar in height, but one usually looked taller than the other. I'd estimate 6'3.5" for Fleming and 6'3.75" for Eastwood.
Editor Rob
The 3.5 figure was around in newspapers at the time of the show, they made a point of that specific figure and how he was half inch shy of eastwood.
Hong said on 18/Aug/20
Click Here Clint and Lee Marvin probably some time in the mid egities,remember Marvin was only 6 years older than Clint,and he died aged just 63,although he looked much older.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Aug/20
Rob, is 6ft3¾ still arguable?
Editor Rob
From the years of watching him I think overall he is a fraction under 6ft 4, 6ft 3.5 was what I ended up deciding on, but of course you could still say above or below that could still be argued...
Hong said on 9/Aug/20
Here's Clint with 5ft10 listed Alan Young,it's a full length shot,Young's posture is not great but he is wearing cowboy boots,and Clint just normal dress shoes.
Click Here
Slim 6'1" said on 9/Aug/20
191 prime is good
183 today
Hong said on 8/Aug/20
Wow Rob in that pic with Ross,Wogan and Moyles he looks taller than I would expect,he could have been 5ft10 in 1967 afterall.And that would make Clint a definite 6 ft3.5 or dare I say it the full 6 ft4 in comparison.
Editor Rob
To be fair the ground with Clint might not be perfect, but he still looked very tall back in the clip. If John was 5ft 10, that's a very tall example of Clint in the late 60's.
Hotpots said on 8/Aug/20
Minimum of 1.5 inches on lee van cleef. Had to be 6-3 absolute min. Close to 6-4 imo peak young.
Hong said on 7/Aug/20
Click Here In the pic you sent with 6ft.05 listed Cameron,Humphrys looks about 4 inches shorter putting him in the 5ft8 range,allowing for ageing it's possible the 24 year old Humphrys was 5ft9 at the time of the Clint interview,Clint looks to have around 6 or 7 inches of height on Humphrys,so that would make Clint in the 6ft3 to 6 ft4 range in comparison, so some were in the middle 6ft3.5 my be correct.I posted a pic of Humphrys with 5 ft11.75 listed Tony Blair,and Humphrys looks in the 5 ft10 range in comparison to Blair,maybe it's just posture of footwear advantage.
Rory said on 6/Aug/20
Humphrys looks 5ft9 with 6ft0.5 Cameron but I think Camerons at a disadvantage standing further back so he'd probably have more like 4 inches on him I'd say in reality. So I'd say Humphrys looks 5ft8-8.5 by then in his seventies and say 5ft9 peak in 1967, Clint looks I'd say 6/7 inches taller.

So my guess from the video in 1967 would be John Humphrys 5ft9 and Clint Eastwood 6ft3.5 we can't see the ground or footwear though. Seeing as those figures kind of correspond with how both men look elsewhere though you'd imagine ground and footwear was similar.
Editor Rob
See John with Jonathan Ross, near 5ft 8 Moyles and Wogan, granted him and Jonathan ain't standing great, it's not hard to imagine Humphrys was minimum 5ft 9 range in the late 60's.
Sinclair said on 4/Aug/20
Maybe Eastwood could have scraped the full 6'4" first thing in the morning in his 20s and 30s, but he did not look as tall as some other 6'4" listed actors, like George Kennedy or Gregory Walcott in the Eiger Sanction. In some of the photos with Eric Fleming barefoot, Eastwood does seem to have the edge, but I feel Fleming gave a taller presence in Rawhide. Thus, this 6'3.5" listing seems a great shout, 6'3.75" could have been accurate too. Today, I don't think Clint would be any taller than a flat 6'0".
Hong said on 3/Aug/20
Click Here Clint looks very much a 6 ft3.05 guy here with John Humphrys,now if only we knew how tall Humphrys Was?Do you have any idea how tall Humphrys was Rob,because I've searched high and low for his height and have come up empty handed?
Editor Rob
Look at John with David Cameron, 52 years on from when he stood beside Eastwood.
Tall In The Saddle said on 30/Jul/20
@Hong

Perfect description. The Holy Grail of photos.
Celebrities are the most visually recorded people on the planet so it's funny that the Holy Grail photo can still prove more than elusive. A 100% legit barefoot 6'3.25" low is still tall enough. Rest assured there have been plenty of actors before, during and after Clint's time who have over claimed, creating a false perception of what a true 6'2", 6'3", 6'4" etc. really looks like. Clint fulfilled Hollywood's version of 6'4" and it's still a fact that he stood above the majority of the acting population. IMHO, if peak Clint appeared on say Conan O'Brien I would expect to see him equal in height. Possibly even shading Conan's own Hollywood version of 6'4" in all possibility. LOL.
Arch Stanton said on 29/Jul/20
Hard to think seeing him with Momoa he was once close in height!! Seems impossible, the incredible shrinking man! I think he could scrape 5'11 range if stood his best but 6ft is optimistic now Rob, he's 90 now.
Hong said on 28/Jul/20
@Tall In The Saddle,thanks I'm always looking for the holy grail of Clint photos,I really wanted him to be 6ft4 Peak but I've accepted he was not,it took a long time,but 6 ft3.25 is more honest, it's a pity he looks so short now in pics,it's hard to believe he was almost as tall as Momoa at peak.
Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Jul/20
@Hong

I really appreciate the photos you bring to the table. Good stuff to chew over.

Clint looking very shrunken in that shot. I mean, there are young kids there of roughly assumed age and height. Clint would've towered them at peak. Not so now. I'd be surprised that Clint is only losing 2" of his current potential. The line of his body is compromised at so many diff. points. You might've tried to replicate this too but I think Clint often stands with bent and bowed legs now which can't be seen in the photo. I get the impression that Clint only stands momentarily, semi erect for such shots before sitting down again. And why not? Dude is 90 years old. I think the pics he does pose for now must be quite the effort with some discomfort involved. Even if one had Clint as low as 6'2.5" peak (I don't of course), that's still quite a drop down to his current standing height.
Hong said on 24/Jul/20
Hi Rob,your point about how Clint measures is a very important and sometimes overlooked point.I have a stadiometer and measured myself this morning just up from 8 hours sleep,standing my tallest on stadiometer I measured 1m81cm,but then I measured myself standing with very bad posture slouching,standing with similar posture as Clint I dropped down to 1m75.5 that's 5.5 cm or 2 inches less.If Clint could stand his full height for measurment he could be still 6ft
Editor Rob
I can stand beside my own Father and look 2 inches taller than him at age 85, but he's got bad posture...
Hong said on 22/Jul/20
@ Tall In The Saddle,I've also watched the Ali clip many times and can see Clint as 6ft3.25 max in comparison.
Hong said on 22/Jul/20
Thanks Rob, judging form how he looks with Momoa,even if he stood his tallest I can't see Clint at 6 ft,5ft11 more like it.
Canson said on 22/Jul/20
@Tall in the Saddle: agreed. I could see that strong 6’3 range 6’3.25 maybe .5” max

@Arch: I could see him measuring 6’4 out of bed maybe throughout the first hour at best
Hong said on 20/Jul/20
Click Here Clint looks 5ft10 here with Momoa,what do you think ,Rob under 6ft now?max 5ft11 IMO.
Editor Rob
Could look barely 5ft 11 at times now, but what he measures is another matter. I don't think as short as 5ft 10 mind you, but somewhere in 5ft 11 range is looking likelier.
Tall In The Saddle said on 20/Jul/20
I know it's been mentioned a lot previously but we can still return to the vision of Ali and Eastwood on Frost.
When I first saw that vision I might've given Clint up to 1" adv. over 6'2.5" Ali. Readdressing the vision several more times, all things considered, I see a definite edge but only perhaps a slight edge to Clint, which I guess would have to be at least .5" to even be discernible. So at least as I see it, Clint definitely no less than 6'3" and possible up to 6'3.5", but as Canson stated, I think 6'3.25" could be closest as he didn't appear to have a full 1" on Ali.
Unless he was standing his best, 6'2.5" Ali could look even with 6'2" Jim Brown. Otherwise, at best, Ali only appeared to hold the slightest advantage over Brown. Clint's own advantage over Ali was that little bit better than Ali's over Brown I think.
Hong said on 19/Jul/20
He has been described as 6ft3 in a few articles I've read,but he himself has claimed 6ft4,on numerous occasions.I don't know if he was asked his height by the interviewer and said 6 ft3 or they just guessed it.He would have only been 6ft4 morning height and more 6ft3.25 from afternoon.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Jul/20
And with Jeff Bridges...
Arch Stanton said on 19/Jul/20
Canson, did you not see him with Donald Sutherland, Hal Holbrook, David Soul and Tim Matheson in the 70s? He was very close to 6'4, it consistently adds up even if I agree at times he didn't look it. I have no doubt he'd have genuinely measured it earlier in the day. I've seen virtually every film of his and I don't think he looked as low as 6'3.-6'3.25 until the late 80s. Sudden Impact, around 1983 was when he started to look shorter I think, he was around 53 then.
Rory said on 18/Jul/20
Did he claim 6ft3 though or was he described as being 6ft3? I understand he was described as being 6ft3 which is different.
Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Jul/20
@Rory

Agree, not 6'4". Just me personally, I wouldn't go as high as 6'3.75" either but I think it's a fair and reasonable upper limit to suggest and certainly not impossible. Suffice to say, even if unlikely to me, I wouldn't be willing to bet my house that he wasn't 6'3.75".
Alir?za said on 16/Jul/20
Still quite tall guy :) I agree his peak height is over 6'3 but not solid 6'4. If he is still 6 ft, that is good height for nowadays
Canson said on 16/Jul/20
He claimed 6’3 in the 80s, so that says a lot right there. He was never that close to 6’4”. Not as low as 6’2.5 peak but 6’3-6’3.5 range more specifically 6’3.25” is probably likely. Most guys still claim a peak height even when they can no longer measure it
Hong said on 14/Jul/20
I meant by evening 6ft3.25.
Hong said on 14/Jul/20
Peak at tallest 6ft4 early morning by evening 6 ft4.25
Rory said on 13/Jul/20
I'd rule out 6ft2.5 and 6ft4. Prime fistful of dollars era Clint under the stadiometer would surely measure somewhere between 6ft3 and 6ft3.75. Nothing within that range would surprise me, anything else would.
Keith Bacchus said on 10/Jul/20
6 foot 4
Hong said on 7/Jul/20
@Ethan99.I respect your opinion,but 6ft3 for Clints peak looking at all the evidence is fair,in fact he could appear close to his 6ft4 claim on occasion.6ft2 or 6ft2.5 is a bit low,but I can understand due to his bad posture and more than average height loss in old age,he can look 6ft2 range in peak years sometimes,and under 6ft now.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Jul/20
Kennedy would have a clear edge on Eastwood back to back...now that guy could have been a strong 6ft4
Ethan99 said on 3/Jul/20
Can't see him 6'3 peak most of the time. 6'2, definitely. So my guess would be 6'2.5" max.
Hong said on 2/Jul/20
Click Here Hi Rob I would be interested in your opinion on this pic,if Kennedy stood with similar posture to Clint and wasn't leaning,how much height would he gain,and would he be taller than Clint,and if so by roughly how much?
Editor Rob
George could have 3cm or so in reserve there, but ground like they are standing on, is always tricky for comparisons.
James B 172cm said on 30/Jun/20
Rampage 6ft3 in the 80s but I think more 6ft2.5 in the 90s
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Jun/20
He looked very tall in Escape From Alcatraz
Hong said on 29/Jun/20
The average guess here seems ok too me,max 6ft3.5 but more likely 6ft3.25 in my opinion.@movieguy12 I also considered that he may have been 6ft2, but that would put so many other actors 2 inches under their listed heights,like 6ft flat Lee Marvin,George Kennedy 6ft2.5,Charlton Heston at 6ft1,and so on.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/Jun/20
Still looked 6ft3 in the 80’s-90’s
movieguy12 said on 29/Jun/20
The problem with knocking down Clint too much is that he looked 2 inches taller than a guy like James Coburn. I sometimes think that Eastwood was really only 6'2'' but then this makes Coburn a flat 6ft which seems unrealistic. I do however have trouble seeing Clint as being as tall as guys like Jeff Goldblum or Tom Selleck say who seem genuine 6'4'' guys.
Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Jun/20
@Hong

Very true, the uneven terrain in westerns is problematic. I try to only compare when the surface can be reasonably assumed to be even, such as indoors, bar scenes or the like. That's how I compared Clint with Buddy in the RAWHIDE episode. In all honesty, I think Clint is one of the more difficult estimates given some rather contrary samplings. Across the board and on average, I would still guess 6'3" to 6'3.25" but in some instances, compared with other actors of reasonably known height, he could appear a bit more than that. Rob's listing and the average guess for peak almost converge but for .1", a miniscule difference which is impossible to discern with the naked eye.
Hong said on 24/Jun/20
@Tall In The Saddle,It's also difficult to compare height in westerns, because a lot is filmed outdoors on uneven terrain.If my memory serves me well,Clint said he wore the same cowboy boots he wore on rawhide in the spaghetti westerns.In Coogans Bluff the heel looked a bit higher than his usual cowboy boot.I did notice in A Perfect World a modern day western made in the early 90s,he was wearing cowboy boots and although in his eary 60s and probably around 6ft2.5 by that age,he did look 6ft4ish compared to 5ft9 Laura Dern.Your point about his posture is exactly what I've observed,Clint can drop a significant amount of height when standing with loose posture which he tended to do a peak, and still to this day.
Tall In The Saddle said on 21/Jun/20
@Hong

When in dress shoes, it's also fair to say no evidence of "lifting" for CE. Do we tend to judge Clint more in Westerns (viz cowboy boots) at his absolute peak or his later, more frequently filmed non western roles in more reg. heel? Or is it a fair balance of both?
A lot of evidence we've considered also includes Clint off screen, at events in formal wear, when we can see or safely assume dress shoes or the like and Clint stands up pretty well for a max. 6'3.5" IMO. I suppose Clint's western co-stars were just as liable to advantage themselves with a bit extra cowboy heel if inclined, so westerns can be problematic all around.
I will say in RAWHIDE at least, CE's posture was often less than ideal. Not only hunching but also leaning back from the waist beyond vertical, losing some true height. In the bare foot shots of CE and Eric Fleming supplied by Hong, it seems CE is holding more advantage on Fleming than seen on screen.
Bart said on 19/Jun/20
@Hong yes that was the pic I was referring to. It’s not obvious Scott is standing on something but that would explain a lot. Hard to say how tall Clint is for sure but I’d bet 100% on
Hong said on 16/Jun/20
Click Here This is typical Clint footwear,normal dress shoe's,this is what he wore in Dirty Harry.
Hong said on 15/Jun/20
@Willies,Clint only wore cowboy boots in westerns his normal footwear was usually very flat,or just a normal 2cm heel.
Willes190 said on 12/Jun/20
191.5cm peak and nothing less, 6’4 was obviously a little too much. One also has into account his hair and usually thicker boots, but even after that and looking at many pictures of him at a young age anything below 6’3 impossible.
Tall In The Saddle said on 11/Jun/20
@Jano

By Clint's age, I don't know if height loss matters so much to him if at all. Sadly a lot of people don't reach the grand milestone that Clint has, some passing at a much younger age. Without dismissing his considerable hand in his own success, Clint has been more than fortunate in many ways. IMO, CE is down to earth and truly appreciates all that has come to him. CE had good height to begin with and despite appreciable height loss he still cannot be considered short.
jano said on 10/Jun/20
Its quit sad that his height now dissapears rapidly, in 2015 he was still taller than Tom Hanks, 183-184 there probably, but now i think he is already under 180.
Nik Ashton said on 8/Jun/20
He’s about half a foot above average for his age!
GTB172cm said on 7/Jun/20
Just scraping 6’0 imo.
movieguy12 said on 7/Jun/20
Good to see those Rawhide episodes on YouTube again. They are great for getting a look at a young Clint and comparing him height wise with other tall actors. Years ago they were available to watch but then seemed to disappear I assumed for copyright reason.

I don't think that Clint looks any taller than Eric Fleming though.
Jam Cherry said on 6/Jun/20
Old age does make u lose 3-4 inches height too Clint peak was roughly 192 cm now he’s 182 cm on good day
Hong said on 6/Jun/20
Click Here @Bart if this is the pic your referring too,then just look at Scott's left knee and see how kigh it is,he's obviously standing on something.
Tall In The Saddle said on 6/Jun/20
@Hong

Yeah, around the 6'3" mark, no issue with 6'3.25". For mine, 6'3.5" really pushing it but not impossible I guess. Interesting that Buddy himself was often listed as 6'3.5" peak.

I'm not necessarily a fan of the western genre but when they make on that stands out above the rest, then for me it ranks right up there with any great film of any genre. THE SEARCHERS, THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE, THE COWBOYS, THE UNFORGIVEN etc. All GREAT films IMO. Re Clint specifically, what about his other endeavours such as THE BEGUILED, A PERFECT WORLD and GRAN TORINO? Awesome. Great actor but even better director IF one had to choose but why bother when Clint has given us a killer combination of the best of both worlds.
Bart said on 5/Jun/20
Saw a recent picture of Clint with his son Scott who is listed as 5’10 3/4. Clint May have bad posture but looked a legit 2-3 inches shorter than his son. I’d be surprised if he was still even 5’10 now at 90 years old. My grandpa as a young man he said was 6’2, his sons height. Today I’m taller than him at 5’10, so it’s not uncommon.
Hong said on 4/Jun/20
Click Here Here's a pic from that Danny Kaye episode,although the angel is not great for judging heights you can see their footwear very clearly.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 4/Jun/20
@ Arch Stanton - It's Clint Eastwood who actually got me into watching Western films. They were just so incredible, and I especially enjoyed his film 'Pale Rider'. Then there was 'Play Misty For Me' (how marvellous was that?), and anything that Clint has been in, I will gladly see.

What a good idea! I'm going to see 'Play Misty For Me' right now!

Cheers Arch! XXX 😁👍
Hong said on 3/Jun/20
@Tall In The Saddle,once again Clint, even with Buddy,max 6ft3 peak for Clint,it makes sense.
Tall In The Saddle said on 3/Jun/20
As luck would have it, the RAWHIDE Ep with CE and older Buddy was recently uploaded. TBH, I got the same vibe as I did from their television appearance. Yes, so close in height that given angle, posture etc., the slightest advantage in height could swing from one to the other throughout the episode or otherwise, they appeared simply equal. BUT again, Clint still had footwear advantage, cowboy boots vs Buddy's dress shoes, which can be seen toward the end of the episode when both men walk on to a stage.

Click Here

Rawhide S4E21 Season 4 Episode 21 The Pitchwagon * Buddy Ebsen




Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jun/20
If Clint is still making movies at 95 that would be absolutely incredible. He's earned it, he's been meticulous with health and fitness all his life, the consistency of it pays off. Veyr few men at 90 would have the energy and willpower to make something as stressful and tedious as making a film. It's beyond most even in their prime. I know some great musicians only did one film score and quit due to the pressures of it, working 18 hour days etc. Hope he makes it to 100!
Hong said on 2/Jun/20
@Tall In The Saddle" that's right Clint,Hackman and Connery all hit the big 90 this year,all tall men for their generation,but now alas all probably hovering around the 6ft flat range,with Clint of course being the biggest loser"so to speak.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 2/Jun/20
🎂🎁9️⃣0️⃣ Happy Birthday Clint! 9️⃣0️⃣🎁🎂

A belated Happy Birthday to the great Clint Eastwood, who celebrated his 9️⃣0️⃣th Birthday on Sunday, 31st May.

6ft3.5 peak
6ft1 now
movieguy12 said on 1/Jun/20
Hard to tell who is taller out of Clint and Eric Fleming. Clint had really high hair as a young guy which complicates things. He definitely looks more than a 6'2'' guy though.
Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Jun/20
@Hong

Sure. When two celebs are actually equal in height or even with just .25" to .5" difference, small inconsistencies (angle, posture, footwear etc.) can swing the adv. either way. You're right about angles, that last photo you linked makes it seem that even in shoes Fleming would still be dropping height to Clint. However, as per most other photos indicate, Fleming in shoes should at least appear on par.

Clint's finally hit 90, really? I was about to type that Gene Hackman wouldn't be far behind, well, upon checking, Gene's actually ahead having turned 90 on 30 January. Sean Connery will hit the same milestone later this year.
Tall In The Saddle said on 31/May/20
@Rory

I understand your reservations re postures at times but I still think the Clint/Buddy/Fess examples present as very good evidence and the only person advantaged by footwear is Clint. If equal footwear in the opening skit I might easily say 6’3” or a smidge above but the boots place a ?. The Frost show is a good print and Ali and Clint are acceptably close when they greet one another, not a lot to choose between them. Ali stating Clint to be taller should certainly be considered but at the end of the day what you can see for yourself is the hard evidence. If Ali said Frost was taller than himself then of course we would dismiss that in deference to the conflicting vision.

Since Ali and Clint a lot closer in height we could afford Ali’s opinion more validity due to what we can see and Ali’s proximity and his better view point than our own. Now I know this enters the realm of speculation but back in the day the height of 6’4” was synonymous with the name CE, included in almost every article on the man. Ali was clearly a very big fan and I am sure he read same. Possibly that factored into Ali’s comment. I personally saw only about .5” diff if that, not so noticeable even facing someone up close.

As to Fess he might’ve been a bit taller than given credit for. I’ve also wondered previously if Buddy himself stood a bit more than 6’3” at least at peak. I’ve seen a pic of an older Buddy and John Wayne and Buddy appeared very close in height.

Anyway, we’re not really disagreeing on much here - you could accept 6’3.25” at a min. and I wouldn’t argue against that height but could also accept a touch lower. In the realm of a mere .25” I think we’re definitely in acceptable error margin - meaning at least IMO one couldn’t argue vehemently with realistic conviction against .25” either side of their own estimate.
Andy5'9 1/2 said on 31/May/20
I think the Average guess beiNg just shy of 6 feet is too harsh i think. A strong 6FT now about 183cm maybe 184 and peak is harder
Hong said on 31/May/20
Click Here Maybe if Clint wants to regain a bit of his lost height he could invest in a pair of boots like Burt's😂
Hong said on 31/May/20
@TALL IN THE Saddle,I know in the second pic with Fleming he is barefoot,and Clint isn't,but allowing for this I still think with similar footwear Fleming and Clint would be the same height.In the case in which two guys are the same height you are going to get times"depending on camara angles and terrain"one is going to look sightly taller than te other and vice-versa." Generally height inflated Hollywood"you hit the nail on the head there.Still 6ft3 peak for me.
Hong said on 31/May/20
Click Here I take your point @Rory,but 90% of the pics of Clint and Hackman from the 1990s that you can see on line,Clint still looks around 1.5 inches taller,and at thay time Clint looked lnow more than 6ft2.5 and sometimes 6ft2 flat.Here's a rare pic of Clint and Hackman from 1978.
Hong said on 31/May/20
Happy 90th Mr Eastwood and many more years to come🎉
Rory said on 30/May/20
@Tall in the saddle

That video of Ebsen,Clint and Fess which you always refer to is unreliable. Why ? Differing postures,different footwear and hats mean height comparison is impossible, especially when debating the tiny difference that there would be between Ebsen and Clint. You can tell both would be quite a similar range but then we would have known that anyway. It's useless for being more precise. Ebsen was also in a Rawhide episode where I felt Clint looked slightly taller than him. He did look more 6ft3 flat though next to Fess I'll concede.

The Ali one is probably the last thing anyone who wants to downgrade Clints height should reference. When a 6ft2.5 guy actually says this guys taller than me that's pretty conclusive that he is clearly taller I think. Forget a grainy video where they hardly stand next to each other at all.

@Hong

Clint next to Hackman varies massively. They can look the same or Clint can look 2 inches taller and anywhere inbetween. Hackman by 1992/93 would probably have been 6ft1.5. Peak 6ft1.75-2.

I probably could accept 6ft3.25 peak now for Clint but that would be the lowest I'd go considering he usually pulled off about 6ft3 even with loose posture.
Hong said on 30/May/20
Click Here Here is another one of both guys.
Hong said on 30/May/20
Click Here @Tall In The Saddle,here's one both Clint and Fleming are barefoot,Clint is a bit disadvantaged because he is on he lower part of the grass,but Fleming is also not standing to his full potential.
Nik Ashton said on 29/May/20
I wonder what he claims nowadays!
Tall In The Saddle said on 29/May/20
I always felt RAWHIDE co star Eric Fleming generally held a slight edge on CE. Fleming himself was listed as 6’4” at times but was more realistically in the zone of 6’3”.

In his younger days Clint did appear that much taller but consistently so without any curious anomalies outside of the movie in which he was made to appear virtually equal to Rock Hudson. Perhaps Clint was able to float 6’4” amongst a generally height inflated Hollywood community. The Ali and Ebsen comparisons are better quality than most and I think they show Clint as 6’3” tops. The Ebsen comparison has one obvious variable to account for though - Clint has clear cowboy boot advantage but still appears to barely edge Ebsen if at all. Again, with boot advantage looks to be struggling with 6’3” max next to Fess Parker in moccasins.
Hong said on 29/May/20
Click Here
Hong said on 29/May/20
Click Here an example of Clints height in 2002 around the same time as the pics with Robbins.You can see givin Jeff Daniels posture if he strightend himself up he would edge Clint,but with his posture Clint has the edge looking the taller of the two.Giving it is generally belived that Daniels was around 6ft2 to 6ft3 range Clint would be in the 6ft1.5 range at that stage of life.
Hong said on 28/May/20
Click Here and Hackman in 93 aged 63,pics like this confuse me because by age 63 Clint was looking 6ft2.5 but still looked about 2 inches taller than Hackman who was listed as 6ft2? unless Hackman was around 6f.5 by 63 and lost 1.5 inces by aged 63.
Hong said on 28/May/20
@movieguy12.When Mystic River was made Clint was in his early 70s and had already lost a fair bit of height,true he looked know more than 6ft1 with Robbins.Clint was never 6ft4 he was IMO 6ft3,even at peak Robbins would have been 2 inches taller.Heston was around 6ft2.5 Clint was slightly taller,Coburn was around 6ft1 Clint was about 2 inches taller ,and Bridges was around 6ft1 peak too Clint looked around 2 inchs taller.
Hong said on 28/May/20
If the youtube link doesn't come through,the rawhide episode was called Hostage Child,if you just serch James Coburn Rawhide it will come up,the scene in which Clint and Coburn are together is there.
Hong said on 28/May/20
Click Here is the rawhide clip I hope.
Hong said on 28/May/20
Click Here try again Coburn and Clint in 1993.
Editor Rob
With url's make sure there is a space after the end of the url. If there's a full-stop or no space it won't convert properly.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 28/May/20
@ Hong - Indeed, that is a rare picture, and quite a wonderful one at that!
X😃X

Clint gets 6ft3.75 peak
and he can have 6ft1 for today.
movieguy12 said on 28/May/20
Clint looked much shorter than Tim Robbins in photos from the time of Mystic River. No way did Clint look 6'4'' if Robbins was 6'5''. There are some who say Robbins is 6'7'' but he is usually given as 6'5''. Then again there is the fact that Clint looked legitimately tall as a younger man, taller than guys like Charlton Heston, Jeff Bridges and James Coburn all over 6ft.

Two separate posters on this site claim to have met a still relatively young 40s Clint and both guessed him as about 6'2''. One of them is under the Robert Ryan page, the other guy mentions encountering him on a skiing holiday saying he was the same height as his 6'2'' friend. The stories sound convincing but don't explain how Clint looked taller than 6'2'' guys when on screen. Unless the supposed 6'2'' guys were only 6ft.
Hong said on 26/May/20
Click Here Clint and Coburn,30 years later,aged 63 and 65 respectfully.
Hong said on 26/May/20
Click Here 12 here's a clip of that episode of rawhide with Coburn,Clint looks a comfortable 6ft3 in comparison,I also agree his costar Eric Fleming and himself looked very similar in height,and Fleming is listed as 6ft3.@Tall In The Saddle,good points.I don't believe Clint is bothered much about his height loss,otherwise he would be wearing cowboy boots or lifts inside his shoes or both,and standing his tallest,take Burt Reynolds for example,he was wearing cowboy boots right till the end.
Tall In The Saddle said on 25/May/20
At the end of the day 6’3” is no mean height and under the right circumstances, with slight variances in heels, angles and postures, a legit 6’3” can stand very well against a legit 6’4” and also get a “boost” from fellow 6’3” guys falsely claiming 6’4” themselves - of which there were many. So much so that true 6’4” guys could get away with claiming 6’5” or at least having that height thrust upon them. I wonder if Clint finds the height loss disconcerting or maybe by his age it’s something you don’t give two figs about.
movieguy12 said on 25/May/20
Someone posted a link years ago of an episode of Rawhide when Clint starred alongside James Coburn. Clint looked about 2 inches taller although his hair was very high. Coburn is usually given as 6'1'' to 6'2''. I think Eastwood looked similar in height to the series lead Eric Fleming. Clint was genuinely tall in his youth I guess and you can't go under 6'3'' prime I don't think.
Hong said on 25/May/20
Click Here a rare pic of Clint with 5ft3 Joe Pesci.
Hong said on 23/May/20
My own opinion is Clint was not as tall as Seagal,even at peak he would have been about an inch shorter.The 6ft4 thing with Clint was just an exaggeration of his height over the years which just stuck.I don't think he would have lost 2 inches by 65 years-old,maybe 1?,along with slouchy posture he could look 6ft1 by that age.
Hong said on 23/May/20
Click Here Here Clint is described as 6FT3.
Hong said on 23/May/20
Click Here If you check this pic you can see Seagal is wearing a pretty substantial heel.
Hong said on 22/May/20
Click Here
Hong said on 22/May/20
Click Here
Hong said on 21/May/20
Click Here looks 6ft4 next to 5ft4 Sandra Locke here.
Hong said on 20/May/20
@Canson I've sent them again,I don't know why it didn't work,but I've sent them again this time with more success.
Hong said on 20/May/20
Click Here these pics with Seagal,in one Clint looks 6ft1 in comparison,and in another he looks 6ft2,allowing for Seagals footwear advantage and Clint's bad posture I would guess Clint as 6ft2 by the age of 65.
Canson said on 20/May/20
@Hong: nothing came through
Hong said on 19/May/20
In the 50s to 80s I think Clint was 191cm,in the 90s looked more 189cm.But in the 2000s he lost significant height,looks like he dropped from 188cm right down to 185 from 2000 to 2010,now he is probably,standing his tallest 183cm, but with his old man posture can look 180cm.
Hong said on 19/May/20
Click Here boots
Hong said on 19/May/20
Click Here with seagal
Lamont Cranston said on 19/May/20
I like Clint, and believe he was over 6'2" during his prime (cowboy boots, hats., hair etc., make much of it difficult to say exactly how much over 6'2" he was...

But looking at some of his current pictures, he has to be one of the worst examples of geriatric height loss I have seen in the public eye....he is likely well under 6' in bare feet..
Chinybobs said on 18/May/20
Absolutely all of 6-3 peak. Some people do lose more than others. Now 6-0.
Hong said on 18/May/20
@Tall Sam.Whitaker is a sloucher and maybe dropped a bit of height.My own personal belief is Clint was a solid 6ft3 guy.Here's another pic from the same period where the height difference is a bit less Click Here
Hong said on 18/May/20
Click Here the pic where you can see Seagal's boots,also Clint is dropping a lot of height in this pic.
Hong said on 18/May/20
Click Here this pic with 6ft4 Steven Seagal Clint looks around 6ft2 in comparison,Clint was 65years old.You can see Clint posture is not as good as Seagal's,Clint is slouching as usual.But if you take in to account Seagal is wearing cowboy boots,and Clint just regular shoes,along whit Clints posture,there could only be an inch in the difference.
Hong said on 18/May/20
If you search Clint Eastwood from that link the article will come up.
HeightRealist said on 17/May/20
Ahh the most interesting height for me. A tall man in his prime. I would think of him a 6'3 flat. 189cm-190cm.Lost a lot of height due to some sort of
scoliosis and aging.

He always looked taller because he has a thin narrow frame and the high hair.

189-190cm in the 60's
188-cm in the 70's
186-187cm in the 80's
185-186cm in the 90's
184-185 in 2000-2010

181-182cm 2010-2020
nowadays 180cm
Tall Sam said on 16/May/20
Interesting shot with Whitaker, Eastwood looks easily as listed but Forest is probably standing a touch looser.
Hong said on 16/May/20
Click Here this article Clint is described"at over 6ft2".
Hong said on 14/May/20
Click Here Clint and 6ft2 Forest in 1988.
Hong said on 9/May/20
Click Here
Hong said on 9/May/20
Click Here
berta said on 9/May/20
191-192 is what he looks. i feel 191 could be better because he did look 189 range when he was 60 years and i dont think he have lost over 1 inch already at that age.
Hong said on 6/May/20
Here's Clint and Sutherland looking pretty similar in height in 1996,Clint aged 66 Click Here Sutherland 61.But by 2000 Sutherland did look about an inch taller than Clint.I also belive a peak Clint and Freeman would have been very close in height,maybe Clint a fraction taller,Clint 190.5 and Freeman 189.
Hong said on 4/May/20
Click Here
Rory said on 4/May/20
Yeah Eastwood looked 6ft2 in the late 90s and early 2000s. Would have been interesting I think to see Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman in a film in the 1960s. In the early 90s Clint edged Freeman but from the 2000s onwards Freeman was taller. Peak I'd say Freeman 189cm and Clint 191.5cm. Today he could measure anywhere from 181 up to 184 I think it's impossible to say. 182/3 is most likely.
movieguy12 said on 4/May/20
Clint looked roughly the same height as Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. By the time of Space Cowboys Sutherland looked 2 inches taller in some scenes.

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.