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

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 Comment4967 comments

Average Guess (303 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.38in (191.5cm)
Current: 5ft 11.95in (182.8cm)
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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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.


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!

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.
Hong said on 4/May/20
In this pic with Freeman Clint has the edge on Freeman,he's looking taller,but Freeman's posture is not great,and Clint, for a change has better posture.Of all the pics from that period,FreemanClick Here looks to have the edge om Clint,except this one.
Hong said on 3/May/20
In all the pics with Bradley Cooper,Cooper has the edge on Clint,but there is Click Here pic that makes me curios,it frustrating because you can only see them from the waist up,also the ground level cant be seen,but in the pic Clint is standing very stright and appears to ne taller than Cooper.
Hong said on 3/May/20
I've come to the conclusion that Clint's posture has a greater effect on how he appears in pics than most,he seems to be able to drop a couple of inches in height without much effort,looking anything from 5ft10 to 6ft nowadays.In the pic with Dern he actually looks over 6ft?
James B 172cm said on 3/May/20
in that photo clint makes james cromwell look 6'4.5 range if we are to believe clint was no more than 6'2 in 2000.

rob do you agree with me that clint eastwood was probably standing on a box or something next to james?
Editor Rob
I would be surprised if Clint stood on anything, in that film he could seem a couple of inches taller than someone like Tommy Lee Jones.
Hong said on 3/May/20
Click Here about this one Rory.Thanks Rob,I think Clint looked in the 6ft2 range aged 70,that would make Cromwell more 6ft5 aged 60,maybe 6ft5.5 at that stage.
Hong said on 2/May/20
This is Clint with Bruce Dern,Clint is standing his full height here and looks taller than he normally does at this stage of his life,I still believe when standing to his Click Here potential,Clint could still clear 6ft,although just marginally
Hong said on 2/May/20
How much taller than Clint do you think Cromwell looks in this pic Rob?Click Here
Editor Rob
At most 3 inches there
Rory said on 2/May/20
He doesn't actually look any shorter than Jane Lynch if you compare the tops of their heads, his bigger head and lower eye level is what's giving that impression. So he could still look around 6 foot there I'd say.
Hong said on 30/Apr/20
As I commented Tall In The Saddle,Clint looks tiny.
Hong said on 30/Apr/20
Here's Clint in 2012, aged 82 with 6ftJane Lynch,can't see her footwear, but Clint looks an inch shorter.Click Here
Tall In The Saddle said on 29/Apr/20
@Hong - are you sure Clint's in the photo you linked? Ah, all good, I just found him.:)

Seriously though, he has shrunk A LOT. There are some variables to be accounted for of course, like proximity to camera, slope of the green etc which isn't only skewing the perception of Clint's height but others in the photo also. Faldo is what, about 6'3"? Romano and Murray maybe 6'1.5" a piece? Then there's Duhamel about 6'3.5", their peak heights of course. Here's another pic same event - Click Here

When you move through all the avail. pics of the same event for a more rounded view, there's no way out. Clint really looking below 5'11", even possibly as low as 5'10". Clearly shorter than Murray. I just viewed Murray's walk on on Johnny Carson ('89) vs Clint's ('92). As compared to the host and his sidekick McMahon, by comparison, Clint looked about 1" to 1.5" taller than Murray did. I think Clint is a legit example of extreme height loss. Even if one had Eastwood as low as 6'2.5" peak (I still give him about 6'3") that's a loss of 3.5" to 4.5" in height (in part composed of declining posture also).
Hong said on 27/Apr/20
@James B 172cm it is very hard to belive,Clint looks tiny in this pic.Click Here
Nearly 180cm guy said on 25/Apr/20
Rob, are you convinced that Clint was taller than Max Von Sydow in their prime (60's and 70's)?
Editor Rob
I would give Clint the edge, but then, it may not have been much.
movieguy12 said on 24/Apr/20
Clint might not have been a full 6'4'' and Roger Moore wasn't a full 6'2''. I don't think it just celebrities who exaggerate their height though either. In my experience most guys think they are an inch or so taller than they actually are. I've been measured at the doctors office as about 5'11', I've met guys roughly the same height as me who claim 6 ft or maybe even 6'1''. I think they actually believe they are this tall never having been measured properly. A genuine 6ft person is still pretty tall by UK standards, maybe not the case in some continental European countries.

Rob has of course shown videos where he uses a stadiometer. My guess is that if he ever uses it to measure any of his friends then the majority find out they are slightly shorter than they believed.
James B 172cm said on 23/Apr/20
Look at him here near josh duhamel

Click Here

Hard to believe they were once the same height
Arch Stanton said on 23/Apr/20
6 ft barefoot is a stretch today surely, no more than 5'11 range if stood his best..
Hong said on 23/Apr/20
Point taken Rory.
Hong said on 21/Apr/20
That's Clint's first wife"Maggie Johnson beside Moore,in this pic she is tiny Click Here to Clint😂
Rory said on 21/Apr/20

Respectfully one black and white photo of an ageing Roger Moore, at a disadvantaged camera angle, next to Arnie looking under 6ft1 doesn't cancel out hours and hours and hours of television and film footage from the 1960s and 70s where he looked at least 6ft1.

@James B 172cm,

In reality though Clint wouldn't have been 3 inches taller than Roger. Clint was around 6ft3.5 peak and Roger was 6ft1.25 or 6ft1 flat worst case scenario. So the difference would have been anywhere between 2 inches minimum to 2.5 inches at most.
James B 172cm said on 20/Apr/20
3 inches between Clint and Roger Moore
movieguy12 said on 19/Apr/20
In that photo of Clint and Roger you'd guess Clint as 6'4'' and Roger as 5'10'' maybe. This is nonsense of course. There probably was only a couple of inches between them in reality. As one commentator has posted Roger's head looks strangely shrunken in the photo although he never otherwise looked like someone with a small head. This shows how misleading a single photograph taken in isolation can be.
OK Roger never looked quite as tall as Sean Connery when they were together so the claim he sometimes made of being 6'2'' was probably an exaggeration. He looked about 6'1'' or so in comparison.

Many years ago on this site there was a somewhat controversial poster called Frank2 who claimed sometimes convincingly to have encountered many Hollywood celebrities. I noticed a few days ago that he once commented on how tall Christopher Walken was in person. He guessed him as 6'1''. The fact that a middle aged Roger was similar in height to Walken does not mean that Roger at least in his youth was only 6ft flat.
Hong said on 16/Apr/20
Roger Moore and 6ft1 Click Here.
Rory said on 15/Apr/20

That's nonsense, Moore was 6ft1 at worst. I've watched most episodes of The Saint and The Persuaders, not once did he look as low as six foot. Not once. Less than an inch shorter than 6ft2 men Julian Glover and Peter Bowles barely more than two inches shorter than 6ft3.5 Donald Sutherland and a good inch or more taller than six footers Terry Thomas, Joss Ackland and Peter Vaughan and the list goes on and on. This clear misreading of Rogers height puts into question anything you claim to know on Eastwoods height as well I'm afraid. The picture though is irrelevant as clearly Moore isn't standing properly anyway.
Hong said on 14/Apr/20 are right of course the pic dose favour Clint,but I don't believe Moore wss 6ft1,I would guess him at 6ft.5 or a solid 6ft,he looked very similar to Christopher Walken who is listed as 6ft flat.@M man your video of 89 year old Clint clearly demonstrates Clints current posture,I would guess he could drop a least 2 inches off his height with that posture,thats why he can look as low as 5ft10 in some recent pics.
Tall In The Saddle said on 14/Apr/20

Sure. The pic I linked wasn't meant to prove how tall Ali actually stood next to Walker. Rather, it was meant to show how the uneven terrain could advantage either man. Although not full length, the pic I linked likely has Ali himself standing on higher ground. Here's another pic again, this time full length, Walker closer to camera. IMO, the height diff. isn't as pronounced as in the photo you first linked. Also, not sure how much more heel if any Walker gains from military boot vs Ali's dress shoes. Lastly, I still see Walker standing on higher ground, his own left foot appearing on higher ground than his right foot though his stance is somewhat wider than Ali's. Click Here

I agree with movieguy12 re Eastwood and Moore. The depth of field is deceiving because everyone is in equally good focus. IMO, Moore and the lady are standing well back - Moore's head appears impossibly small as compared to Eastwood's and we can't vouch if everyone is on even ground. Definitely some hidden variables in the photo of Arnie and Moore - other pics they're equal or Moore a bit taller - and besides, IMO, Arnie wore some good heel back in the day.

M man - totally agree. Aside from irreversible spinal compression, Eastwood is losing a lot of height in overall posture - hunched, twisted above the waist, and below the waist, knees bent and standing bow legged.
Hong said on 13/Apr/20
@Tall In The Saddle, in the pic
Sent Walker does have a slight terrain advantage,which IMO he doesn't make much of a difference,but the pic you sent is on the same type of ground, but you can't see their feet so you can't tell if in this case Ali my have ground level advantage,although I take your point about Hudson and Walker.At his lowest I would put Walker as a strong 6ft5 guy but most likely he was a weak 6ft6,and Hudson a solid 6ft4 at lowest, but most likely a weak 6ft5.
movieguy12 said on 13/Apr/20
I think photos particularly taking in isolation can be misleading with regards to heights. Clint looks much taller than Roger in that photo but I think its misleading. In reality although Eastwood was the taller of the pair it was probably by no more than 2 inches. There are photographs of Sir Roger and Big Arnie on that page I think Hong. In one of them Arnold looks about 3 inches taller than Roger which seems strange. There are others where they look virtually identical which is probably more accurate as both were I guess around 6'1'' or so peak.
M man said on 12/Apr/20
If anyone wants evidence of how bad Clint’s posture is which can easily explain 4-5 inches of height loss, look at this clip...really hunched over, spine also bent to the side Click Here
Tall In The Saddle said on 12/Apr/20

Yes, I agree Hudson and Simpson appear near enough to the same height and Simpson looking like he's dropping about 2" to Clint Walker. In SEND ME NO FLOWERS the heel on Walker's boots is quite decent allowing more than a slight advantage. There's a scene with Walker getting out of car and the heel can be clearly seen. Also, there's a scene in which Walker is standing on higher ground but Hudson then moves in closer and gains some height difference back. I have seen the pics of Ali visit to the DIRTY DOZEN set. In the pic you linked I see Walker standing on higher ground - the terrain uneven. To illustrate same here is Ali benefitting from same - appearing closer to Walker's height than he was in reality. Click Here
I've seen some pics that suggest Walker might've been closer to 6'5" but then I've seen others that support closer to 6'6" (see the DIRTY DOZEN cast photo for one example with Walker in apparently equal footwear). So I would say I've probably seen more pics that point to near 6'6" than not. Walker also appeared in a film with rock solid 6'4" Vincent Price in which he appeared to hold an easy 2" advantage - not sure on footwear though.
Hong said on 11/Apr/20
Here's Clint with Roger Moore from the 60s,I know Clint is closer to the camera,but he still looks a good bit taller than Moore.Click Here
Hong said on 10/Apr/20
I had a pic of ali and Walker but it seems to have disappeared,hopefully this one will not.Click Here
Hong said on 9/Apr/20
Click Here
Hong said on 7/Apr/20
@Tall In The Saddle,I cant see any real difference in height between Hudson and Simpson,both guys look similar,and indeed Walker looks the taller of the two with Simpson,so I think we can rule out 6ft6 for Simpson,also there is the movie "send me no flowers" with both Hudson and Walker sharing a scene together in which Walker is clearly taller tham Hudson,but there is Walkers cowboy boots which give him a slight advantage over Hudson.Here is a pic of Walker with Ali,who Clint Eastwood struggled to look taller than to demonstrate what a big guy Walker was,if Ali was 6ft2.5 I have no problem believing Click Here Walker was 6ft6.
Tall In The Saddle said on 7/Apr/20

I would say 6'4.5" to 6'5" for Hudson. However, the following clips are interesting. Here's a clip from the movie GIANT-Hudson with 6'6" listed Mickey Simpson go to .55 mark.Click Here Further from camera Hudson appears a bit shorter than Simpson. However a long shot beginning at 1:08 seems to indicate Hudson to be as tall if not slightly taller than Simpson. Now, here's a clip of that same Simpson with 6'6" listed Clint Walker in CHEYENNE. Go to 6:36. Click Here. Walker appears to have a good 2" on Simpson. If you go to 36:51 Walker again appears to have up to 2" advantage over Simpson. Suffice to say it appears that Mickey Simpson wasn't 6'6" and relative to Walker, you might even guess him to be as low as 6'4" or not much more than that. Simpson might basically represents how Hudson would appear next to Walker. At least as per the above 2 clips, It's difficult to give Hudson any more than 6'4.5". However, there is the possibility that Walker, as the star of his own show, may've had a bit better heel than Simpson in order to maintain a clear height advantage. At the end of the day I would still put Clint at about 6'3" to 6'3.25".

The numbers don't always reconcile from one comparison to another. The clips above might suggest Hudson as low as 6'4"
Hong said on 6/Apr/20
Agreed Canson.
Canson said on 5/Apr/20
Hong said on 3/Apr/20
The question is how tall was Hudson?Height ranging from 6ft3.5 to 6ft6,Rob's listing him at 6 ft5 personally I think 6ft6 is to tall he never really looked that tall to me,I would put him in the 6ft4.5 to 6ft4.75 Range.I think Clint may have indeed measured 6ft4 in his youth,but that would have been an out of bed measurement,but 6ft3.25 would have been his evening height.

I would say Hudson was 194-195 range in his prime. As for Clint, probably somewhere around 6’3”. 6’3.25 would be my guess
bobbyh3342 said on 4/Apr/20
6 2.5 peak never near 6'4 peak now 6 feet even
James B 172cm said on 4/Apr/20
6ft3.25 as well has always been possible for clint
bobbyh3342 said on 4/Apr/20
6 2.5 peak never near 6'4 peak now 6 feet even
Hong said on 3/Apr/20
The question is how tall was Hudson?Height ranging from 6ft3.5 to 6ft6,Rob's listing him at 6 ft5 personally I think 6ft6 is to tall he never really looked that tall to me,I would put him in the 6ft4.5 to 6ft4.75 Range.I think Clint may have indeed measured 6ft4 in his youth,but that would have been an out of bed measurement,but 6ft3.25 would have been his evening height.
James B 172cm said on 1/Apr/20
rob what would you guess his weight in the 1960s?
Editor Rob
Under 200 for sure.
movieyguy12 said on 29/Mar/20
There is that famous clip of Hudson and a young Eastwood appearing together where Clint has a bit part. They look very close in height although not a good angle to judge. In reality Hudson was almost certainly taller than Eastwood. I don't think its by a huge amount though. The best guess for Rock is 6'5'' I suppose, some sources say he was 6'6'' others say 6'4''. With the Peter Bosari shots I don't think the difference is huge. If Rock was 6'5'' then Clint was 6'3'' plus.
Tall In The Saddle said on 25/Mar/20

Nice pics.

Bosari Images is a good resource. The two photos of Clint and Mel crystallize just how much height Eastwood has lost substantively and due to declining posture. The angle of the 2nd later photo
might be a bit deceiving and to Clint's disadvantage but the height loss is still very obvious. Mel might also be giving himself a bit of "extra" lift later in life.

You know, it's all subjective but I think Clint is standing pretty tall next to Hudson, a bit better than I would've thought. Personally I wouldn't say a 2" difference. Maybe 1" to 1.5" max. and I don't know that Hudson was only a flat 6'4" himself anyway.

Comparing different pics of Clint, young, mid age and old, can do your head in. There is such a variance in how tall he can appear.

Let's say, I have Clint about 6'3" to 6'3.25" as per averaged out "evidence". But then a previously unseen (by me) photo might present in which Clint appears a bit taller than my current estimate.

I would have TWO options. I could rigidly stick to my current estimate and try to completely explain away why he "appears" to be taller in the recently provided photo OR I could actually take on board the new photo as another piece of "evidence" to be factored and averaged into my overall estimate. I think the latter approach is more suitable, because that's exactly how I arrived at my current estimate - by factoring multiple images and accounting for variables.

The problem is, some people put a "cap" on their estimate after a certain amount of "sampling". As if they've seen enough and ANY contrary visual evidence thereafter isn't factored at all, it is simply "explained away".

If there seems to be a height contradiction from one photo to another, I don't think you necessarily have to legitimise the photo that fits your height preconception while completely dismissing the other photo that doesn't match your estimate. Sometimes it just is what it is. A contradiction in terms with insufficient information to argue for one or the other. You just factor both with appropriately weighting.

Given the apparent variance in Clint's height from one photo to another and Clint's height loss over the years, his peak height is one of the more difficult to estimate.

Re Eastwood vs Stewart. I agree, most other photos indicate Clint to be taller. Here's a pic of Ali vs Jimmy Stewart that I found. Click Here Not a great shot but still interesting. As it "appears", I would say Stewart might have the edge with his head properly raised but he is closer to camera also. There are also obviously unseen variables and the photo you provided of Clint and Stewart had Clint looking even shorter than Ali does as compared to Stewart so clearly half framed photos can be very deceiving. Full length are best but hard to come by.
Hong said on 22/Mar/20
Click Here Clint and Mel Gibson now.
Hong said on 22/Mar/20
Thats James Stewart with Clint,in it Stewart seems to have the edge over Clint,but there are more pics from that event where it's the opposite,its probably to do with camra angles or something.
Hong said on 22/Mar/20
If you click previous page you can see more pics there are thumbnails that you can zoom in and see clearer more images.
Lmituhjaemo said on 21/Mar/20
Rob: What's Eastwood's head size?
Editor Rob
Nearer 10 maybe than 9
Hong said on 21/Mar/20
If you click on show front at the bottom of the page you can see the front of all the pics.
Hong said on 21/Mar/20
Click Here
Hong said on 21/Mar/20
Click Here
Hong said on 21/Mar/20
If you click on the photos you will see the image,there are a couple of good ones with Rock Hudson,and. Mel Gibson,William Holden and a tall blonde.The Hudson one's show Hudson to be the bigger man by near 2 inches,and Clint towers Gibson,there is a very recent pic of Clint and Gibson demonstrating Clints height loss standing next to the same guy at different times
Atley said on 19/Mar/20
Probably still around 6'2 or above
Hong said on 19/Mar/20
Click Here trying to send a pic of Clint with Rock hudson
cmillz said on 16/Mar/20
Kieran S said on 14/Mar/20
I'm just shocked he lost so much height, it must be rare to lose over 3 inches right?

Wouldn’t say it’s super rare for someone who’s nearly 90.
James B 172c, said on 15/Mar/20
Kieran S said on 14/Mar/20
I'm just shocked he lost so much height, it must be rare to lose over 3 inches right?

Look at David prowse who lost 5 inches
Kieran S said on 14/Mar/20
I'm just shocked he lost so much height, it must be rare to lose over 3 inches right?
Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Mar/20
Beckham's "Eastwood" look definitely by deferential design. Probably took a mid 60s pic of Clint to his stylist for guidance. As far as comparing him to Clint otherwise, I would say there is no comparison.

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

To be fair, Becks delivery has improved a lot in more recent years, lower and better metered.
James B 172c, said on 7/Mar/20
Arch if only Clint Eastwoods son Scott had his height peak height of 6ft3.5 though........
Hong said on 7/Mar/20
It's 6ft3 for me,from movies and pics compering him to others he looked under 6ft4 and over 6ft2 so somewhere in the middle looks right,weather thats 6ft3.25 or 6 ft2.75 that's fine with me.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Mar/20
Yes, early 2010s Beckham did look like a Spaghetti Clint and looked very good. I don't think he looks anywhere near as good as he did today, he's changed particularly since those leaked emails, I don't think of him the same way as I did. Sean Connery LOL, you mean fighting the balding.
James B 172c, said on 6/Mar/20
Arch- Clint looked a lot more rugged in the 1960s during his David Beckham ‘look’ phase

I know we have been over this before but It’s amazing arch when you see photos of Beckham 10 years ago with the scowl and stubble how much he looked like Clint in his 1960s westerns. These days though Beckham seems to be turning into Sean Connery lol
Arch Stanton said on 4/Mar/20
Clint was always a mature looking guy though, he was my current age in The Good the Bad and the Ugly which is even hard to comprehend how that's possible!! But I think that when I look at Tyson Fury, he's 5 years younger than me but somehow looks 10 years older!
Canson said on 4/Mar/20
@Hong: the caption at the top of the page may speak to something in that he was listed both 6’3” and 6’4” at a different time, although 6’4 was his claim. At the same time the caption from 1988 would’ve made him 58 years so It’s very reasonable for someone to experience some degree of height loss at that age. That’s along with the fact that he may never have been a full 6’4” to begin with. He May have just been a strong 6’3 or weak 6’4 peak.
Arch Stanton said on 4/Mar/20
Pitt has had work done though, had something done a few years back and had that hamster look for a bit. He got super crinkly around the eyes and really started to age and had it ironed out and fillers or whatever they do. But with cosmetic treatment and his style he can certainly pass for a guy of about Rob's age from a distance. But whenever I see a guy who is 55-57 and looking an old man, I agree that it's unbelievable to think Pitt and Cruise are that age range. Eddie Murphy for me is one of the best examples. he's late 50s now and still looks like he did in the 90s.
James B 172cm said on 4/Mar/20
he made rock hudson look 6'4 range
RR said on 3/Mar/20
With 5ft 11 Burt Reynolds:

Click Here

With 6ft 1 Arnold Schwarzenegger:

Click Here

And today with 6ft 0 Bradley Cooper:

Click Here

In his youth, it's likely Clint Eastwood could've measured anywhere between 6ft 2.5 to 6ft 3.25.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Mar/20
Anything less than what’s listed here is too low for his peak
Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Mar/20

I thought Clint held his age well up to a point sometime in his 40s after which he seemed to age more quickly. Maybe he had a Dorian Gray deal going for a time.
As to Cruise and Pitt, well for one thing, they're doing a lot better than Clint in the hair dept. Also, there's a lot more on the market to preserve a more youthful appearance, not the least being initial cosmetic surgery which can go by undetected except for keeping you looking young or even younger. Pitt was aging well but now it seems he has curiously turned back the clock a bit. However, time and misguided vanity will likely see them keep going back to the cosmetic well until it's really obvious and possibly grotesque.
A give away to cosmetic surgery is comparing celebs to themselves when they were the actual age they "appear" to be now. Say, Pitt at 55 might look like he's only 40 or so but actual pics of Pitt at 40 might indicate an equally looking youthful person but a somewhat different facial structural. The only actor I can think of who defies this test is Paul Rudd. He looks ridiculously young and exactly as he did years ago. Has to be a vampire.
Personally I would give Clint a flat 6'3" but if "most people" is reflected in the average estimate, then by way of majority, 6'3.5" is fine, particularly if you allow at least .25" error margin on our own 6'3" estimates, which would then allow up to a possible 6'3.25" for Clint. If that was in fact Clint's actual height, again, 6'3.5" is fine and acceptably close. Of course, ultimately Rob's call, and if by some crazy voting, Clint's avg. est. peak was only 6'1", then Rob isn't go to defer to that no matter how many think it to be so.
As to weighting estimates, see the Robert Wadlow thread entailing an irrefutable, medically verified locked in height of 8'11.09" and then see the avg. est. which is actually higher at 8'11.79". Go figure but to each his or her own.
Hijoputamos said on 2/Mar/20
@RR, Clint was taller than Ali and with not a great posture.
I don’t recall any movie watching Clint 2 inches shorter than other cast mates. Any links?
Hong said on 2/Mar/20
Maybe he measured 6ft4 out of bed and just went with that,but was actually 6ft3.25 by the evening.
RR said on 1/Mar/20
@Hijoputamos Clint could have been 6ft 3. Possibly, his thin stature made him look short. In some films, he was shorter compared to his other castmates. By one or two inches. Either they were 6ft 4 or 6ft 5. Or in truth, believe it or not, Clint's estimated actual height could have been around the high 6ft 2 mark.
Hong said on 1/Mar/20
Cruise and Pitt are now a similar age to Clint at the time of the Dead Pool,but somehow Clint seemed much older.Also Pacino will be 80 years-old this year and I would see him as more of a contemporary to Clint than of being of a different time,also DeNiro is not far off 80 himself.Besides that both Pacino and DeNiro are kind-of short anyway,so it's no great achievement being taller than them two,as for Cruise he is also under 5ft8 and Pitt can look anything from 5ft11 to 6ft1 depending on weather he is wearing his special shoes or not,also if people think Clint my have shrunk a bit by his late fifties,maybe Pitt and Cruise have too.
Hong said on 1/Mar/20
Rob I get the impression from most of the post's people are leaning towards a flat 6ft3 for Clint's peak,do you think there was a chance of that?
Editor Rob
It would be the lowest I think possible, but I feel somewhere above 6ft 3 in his prime he measured. 6ft 4 does seem too tall for him.
Hijoputamos said on 29/Feb/20
@RR Clint never towered anyone at his peak? He just towered 85% of the world population.
6ft3 for an actor is pretty tall. Even today he’s taller than most major stars like Pitt, Cruise, Pacino, Depp, DeNiro, etc
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/Feb/20
Eastwood I think was still 6ft3 in Deadpool...and Neeson a fraction over 6ft4
Jtm said on 27/Feb/20
looks easily 6'0 with 5'9.5 pitt.
Hong said on 25/Feb/20
Agreed James B 172cm.
James B 172cm said on 24/Feb/20
in the deadpool

clint eastwood 6ft2.75
liam neeson 6ft4 or 6ft4 1/8
FloRent said on 23/Feb/20
A little taller than Brad Pitt, today 6ft is believable.
Click Here
Hong said on 23/Feb/20
If you want to compare a peak height Clint next to genuine 6ft4 guy just watch the deadpool.I know Clint was 58 and people are going to think he was past his peak and therefore lost some height,but Clint looked very fit and was in great shape in that movie,in much better shape than 36 year-old Liam Neeson.My belief is Clint was still at his peak height in that movie,and if he had lost any height it would have been minuet.You can clearly see Neeson is the taller of the two,Clint looks by comparison 6ft2.5 in some scenes and 6ft3 in others,also we have to take into account Neeson's awful posture.
Hong said on 21/Feb/20
Yep Tall In The Saddle,he is dropping a lot of height these days.From 6ft2.5 or 6ft3 peak to 6ft now,with both measurements in perfect posture is about right.
Tall In The Saddle said on 20/Feb/20
Hong said on 3/Feb/20
@mark cleaver.ignore what Ali said and look at the video,make your own mind up.The other guy in the video is Harve Presnel he was a genuine 6ft4 and was clearly the tallest of the three.

@Hong, I agree with your accent on the available vision, which I personally believe is fundamentally sound, no slight against mark cleaver or disagreeing with his quoting of Ali and factoring of same. Of course people can interpret and weight such quotes as they wish and they can certainly be taken under consideration. Problem is, as I see it, the weight of the quote is ultimately measured directly against what you see for yourself so that value isn't in the quote. The quote might simply corroborate what you think you can see. Just as often, such quotes don't match the vision and they are dismissed and naturally not promoted.
Suffice to say, if either Clint or Harve said that they were the same height as the other, we would reject that because it was obvious that Harve was taller. Well, we say obvious anyway.
BTW, I recently saw a clip and photos with Jon Hamm and Clint promoting their recent movie. Without full vision you might guess that Clint has shrunk down to 5'10"to 5'10.5" but complete vision indicates an increasingly bowed neck, relatively wide stance, knees bent and bending forward from the waist.
I had a neighbour about the same age as Clint and he seemed to get around very well BUT he admitted that with increasing age, the aches and pains that naturally come with aging are ever present and very compromising. I would say same with Clint and that his posture today is all he can manage without incurring extreme discomfort and I don't think Clint is standing up too long at any given time anyway.
We should all live so long and retain our faculties.
arran said on 19/Feb/20
I think he was around the 6 foot 3 in area but now I reckon about 6ft.
Hong said on 15/Feb/20
@RR,6ft2.5 is possible,but I think he would still reach 6ft today if he stood his tallest,but he does look more 5ft10.5 range in his old man hunched posture.
RR said on 15/Feb/20
Peak Height: 6ft 2 1/2

Current Height: 5ft 10 1/2

Clint never towered over anybody even in his prime. Doubt he was ever 6ft 3.
Hong said on 8/Feb/20
He was also listed as 6ft3,this is a much more realistic height for Clint.But that's the max for me.
Hong said on 7/Feb/20
1m90cm peak,1m93cm in shoes.
Hong said on 5/Feb/20
Denzel Washington was around 6ft.05 at peak,if you look a pics on line from a movie called courage under fire,he is standing face to face with Michael Moriarty,and looks about 1.5 inches shorter,but if you check out pics from a movie called Ricochet,staring 6ft4 John Lithgow and Washington,Lithgow looks 4 inches taller than Washington.Moriarty was,judging by the comparison with Washington,around 6ft2,the thing is Clint and Moriarty were very similar in height in Pale Rider,but a genuine 6ft4 guy like Lithgow looked to have a good 2 inch advantage over Moriarty when compering both guys with Denzel.The whole 6ft4 peak height thing with Clint,now looks so fake and made up I can't belive I actually belived he was this height.He never even in his youth looked as tall as the likes of Lithgow.He was a 6ft2.75 guy who inflated his height to 6ft4 IMO.
Tall In The Saddle said on 3/Feb/20
@Hong @movieguy12, I saw the BW pics and yes, Clint appears taller in those. Also, in the vision Clint appears taller for the most part but Ruddy doesn't stand properly straight until just before Clint finally recedes from frame at about 2:47 of the clip and in that moment they look more or less equal but maybe Ruddy has the edge.

I saw another pic, undated, of Clint, Sondra Locke and Ruddy. Click Here. Clint's in the background but Ruddy is still clearly taller. Clint separated from Locke in 1989 so I guess the photo is no later than that year and possibly earlier putting both Clint and Ruddy at 59 yo or less.

I agree it's not easy to guess height from the movies, not the least because angles and positions are very contrived for artistic purposes. I caught some of Pale Rider 1985 just the other night and in the just one scene, with both men standing stationary, they kept alternating the camera view from behind Clint's back and then from behind Michael Moriarty's back (listed 6'3" here). Depending on which view, the actor with their back to camera look to have an easy 1" over the actor they were facing so very deceiving. Averaging all scenes, including long shots, I would estimate Moriarty to have been the taller man at that time.

@mark cleaver, Yes, we can't forget that Ali did say Clint was taller and we might assume at least a 1" difference for Ali to perceive that.

Personally, at this time, I lean toward Clint having lost a lot of height, perhaps a lot more than average but still a legit loss, and his overlong arms and shortening torso bear that out IMO.
Hong said on 3/Feb/20
@mark cleaver.ignore what Ali said and look at the video,make your own mind up.The other guy in the video is Harve Presnel he was a genuine 6ft4 and was clearly the tallest of the three.
mark cleaver said on 3/Feb/20
When Clint and Muhammad Ali meet Ali said to Clint at the time, you are taller than me. So Clint probably 6'31/2". Ali 6' 2 1/2"
Hong said on 2/Feb/20
@Tall In The Saddle,there are some black and white pics on line of that same event,although there not full body shots,in them Clint has the edge on Ruddy,but the ones from 2005 in which both guys are 75 years old Ruddy is clearly the taller man by a good 2 inches.There is no doubting Clint has shrunk,the doubt is by how much?I personally believe that Clint was no more than 6ft3 at his peak and wouldn't be surprised if he was a bit under it.Now he's looking 5 ft11 range in comparison to people,but his posture is bad and he never stands to his max height, because of old age.He probably could clear 6ft if he did stretch himself for meaasrement IMO he'd probably be 6ft.05 still,about 2 to 2.5 inches off peak.
movieguy12 said on 2/Feb/20
Clint had really tall hair as a youngish man in the clip from the 1973 Oscars. I'm not sure if the fellow Ruddy is taller. All we can say for certain with Clint is that he was between 6'2'' and 6'4'' prime. On this site and others there have been stories from people who claim to have met him saying something along the lines of 'he was really big, taller than their friend who was 6'4''. At least one other guy claiming to have met him posted on here saying he was no more than 6'2'' and this was back in the 1970's. It's not easy to guess heights from the movies as it is well recorded that most actors are a lot smaller in person than people expect them to be from watching on screen. I'm sure there are exceptions but it appears actors generally are not tall people. I think it is true though that some people do lose a lot of height with age so it can't be ruled out that Clint has dropped from the 6'3'' to 6'4'' range in his prime to 6ft or less today.
Nik Ashton said on 1/Feb/20
He is super tall for his age!
Tall In The Saddle said on 31/Jan/20
Clint only slightly edged Ali on the Frost show and on that comparison alone I would say 6'3" at best. The Buddy Ebsen and Fess Parker comparisons on the Danny Kaye show are problematic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was sitting casually watching television the other night and lo and behold, another Eastwood movie Richard Jewell was advertised to hit the cinemas in Feb20. Clint might've made the HEREAFTER, but Clint is still well and truly entrenched the here and now.
191 cm Jason said on 29/Jan/20
He shrunk a crazy amount so I think he must have worn lifts in his younger days.
Hong said on 28/Jan/20
Looking at pics of Clint standing next to Kobe Bryant who is listed as 6ft4.75,it's difficult to imagine that there was only 1 inch between them when Clint was at his peak.
Spencer said on 25/Jan/20
6'3.5" peak 192 cm
6'0.25" today 183 cm
Canson said on 23/Jan/20
Under 6’ is hard to believe but 6’3 range peak is definitely realistic
Bob da cob. said on 22/Jan/20
Genuine 6-3 min peak. Probably 6.3.25. Now just under 6-0
Hong said on 12/Jan/20
He still looked 4 inches taller than 5ft10 listed Rob Low,in some pics on line from 2007,which is a bit odd because at that time he was looking 6ft1 next to Morgan Freeman,maybe Low was more 5ft9 that would make sense.
Caldonio said on 11/Jan/20
6-3,-6-3.25. Now under 6-0.
Rory said on 5/Jan/20
6ft2 peak is preposterous,6ft3 peak you're getting warmer and 6ft3.5 peak is the correct answer. Utterly absurd to think oh there's a picture of Clint looking quite short so now I erase from my mind every other picture/video/movie I've seen featuring Clint when he did look 6ft3+ and just focus on the limited, the narrow, the nebulous range of him looking less. I don't actually think these people believe it themselves. I think they know deep down he was at a bare minimum 6ft3 at least but try to downgrade him for spurious reasons.
Canson said on 5/Jan/20
I found old footage of him and he looked at best a strong 6’3” as opposed to 6’4” or even a weak 6’4”. I think the listed height Rob has for him is ok but think his afternoon would be more 6’3.25” at best. His 6’3” claim may even mean 6’3 flat afternoon
Hong said on 4/Jan/20
@Tall In The Saddle I've no doubt that at that stage Freeman would have had a similar height advantage over Hackman as Clint did.Clint was looking 6ft2 flat at that stage of his life,Hackman in comparison looked a weak 6ft1.
Hong said on 3/Jan/20
@wishbone,there was a time when I would have dismissed your 6ft2 opinion of Clint's height as way off the mark but now I can understand how you could see him at this height if you ignore all the Hollywood listings for his costars and fellow celebs,and use your own judgement of their heights it's possibly he was 6ft2 peak.It's the pics with 6ft4.75 listed Tim Robbins where Clint looks 4 inchs shorter,that make me think he could have been 6ft2 peak,because he was only in his early 70s at the time and a 6 ft3.5 guy with 3 inch height loss at that stage seems a bit farfetched,considering Clint was a healthy guy and had no major injuries or back problems that I no of.
Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Jan/20
@Hong, here's a photo of Clint and Gene from 1997 on the set of ABSOLUTE POWER Click Here. Can't say for sure that Clint's footwear is exactly equal but he still appears to be rocking the same height advantage over Gene that he held 4 years prior. There are photos of Hackman and Freeman together in 2000 re film UNDER SUSPICION. I haven't linked any because due to angles there is a lot of variance. I could post a few which show Hackman appearing equal to or only slightly shorter than Morgan but there are others photo that suggest Hackman is dropping just as much to Freeman as Hackman dropped to Clint but repeat, the angles are all over the place.
wishbone said on 2/Jan/20
Having grown up watching Rawhide and even having one Rawhide DVD in my collection I'm surprised books about Clint Eastwood don't have a Rawhide episode list. Although prior to Rawhide I saw 6'2" Eastwood in two Francis movies he has to rank as the greatest actor director EVER! His two Best Director Oscars from his two Best Picture Oscar winners prove that! (He even directed two Rawhide episodes.) And hesitant as what I was to buy any Dirty Harry movies when somebody squealed to me he said "Go ahead make my day" in Sudden Impact I snagged it! Now I think he's 6' but also he's the ONLY Rawhide survivor! Make your day with Clint Eastwood!
Hong said on 2/Jan/20
At the time of Enemy Of The State Hackman was 68,the pics with Clint are from 1993,Hackman was 63,if you compare the height difference between 6FT1.5 Smith and Hackman you can see that Clint has about 1 inch extra on Hackman than Smith did,making Clint about 6ft2.5 at aged 63 about half an inch from peak.Unless Hackman lost a bit more height from 1993 to 1998?
Hong said on 2/Jan/20
@Tall In The Saddle,Hackman looked around 185cm next to Will Smith,if Hackman was 6ft2 then yes Clint looked 6ft4 in comparison,but Clint was at most 6ft3 so Hackman was more 6ft1.
Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Jan/20

I know what you mean re Hackman. Even as Clint was losing height he still seemed to always hold the same appreciable height advantage over Gene through the years. On the other hand, compared to almost everyone else, Gene always stacked up relatively better, looking close to 6'2" though I don't think Hackman was ever a full 6'2".
Hong said on 1/Jan/20
Allan S I agree 6ft4 was just an inflated height for Hollywood,he was more 6ft3 and that was a measured height,but with his usual posture more 6ft2.5
Allan S said on 1/Jan/20
I think Clint is just about 6’ or even shorter now. I saw a recent picture of him and David Letterman who is listed as 6’1” and Clint was looking up to David. Recent photos too of him and his son Scott, listed as 5’11” show him shorter than his son. I know he is 89, and hunched but I don’t think he ever was 6’4.”
Hong said on 31/Dec/19
Clint Eastwood in his youth looks like a typical 190cm guy,with his slim build and high hair he looked taller,and in footwear could look 193cm,but I think he was barefoot 190cm maybe 190.5?Now he is more 180cm with his old man posture,but standing his full height for measurement around 183cm or maybe 184cm,he's lost about between 6 and 7cm in height.
Hong said on 29/Dec/19
By the early 90s he was looking in the solid 6ft2 range,but in many pics on line he looks 1.5 maybe even the full 2 inches taller than Gene Hackman,yet similar to 6ft2.25 Morgan Freeman.I think this puts a very big question mark over Hackmans height,I've always taught he was more 6ft1.
Tall In The Saddle said on 20/Dec/19
@Ian C

LOL. I like your style

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

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

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

Yes, DISCOMBOBULATED is one of my favourite words that's actually FIT for posting with a good many others not so eligible. If you haven't noticed already, I flew under the radar with my moniker which spells something different again as an acronym.
Ian C. said on 20/Dec/19
If you were once tall and then your spine collapses with age, there are still parts of you, like your arms and legs, that remain the same height as they were in your youth. So now you're conditionally tall, as opposed to existentially tall. (I still don't know what existential means, but once again this seems like one of the accepted contexts for the word.) So Clint is now an average-sized man with disproportionately long arms and legs.

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

Incidentally, Tall, many of my favourite words cannot be posted on Celebrity Heights.
Tall In The Saddle said on 19/Dec/19
@Ian C

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

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

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

From out of left field and of no relevance: DISCOMBOBULATED is one of my favourite words. Confused? Exactly!
movieguy12 said on 19/Dec/19
I looked at the Camp Pendleton video and he looked taller than expected. Maybe some of the other videos or pictures that suggest Clint has dropped to 5'10'' or less are misleading.
Ian C. said on 18/Dec/19
Okay, Hong, I understand what you're saying and you're right. This would preclude my arguing with you if I were rational but I'm not, because rationality is often less fun than just making stuff up for the sake of starting an argument. Hey, this is the internet.

Anyway. Your height is your height, regardless of why it's your height. If Clint isn't going to stand straight that's up to him, but his height at any point in time is still the distance from the floor to the top of his head. (Minus the thickness of his shoes, which is the convention we uphold on this site.) It's existential. (No, I don't know what "existential" means. This is just one of those times when you say "existential." )
Hong said on 18/Dec/19
@ Tall In The Saddle,if Clint can look 5ft10 to 5ft11 range with his current posture I'm certain he is still in the 6ft range maybe even a tad more,around 2.5 to 3 inches shorter than his peak of 6ft3,at 89 that's not unusual.He does have a very pronounced hump on his back now, if you look at the videos from Camp Pendleton marine base on youtube you can get some very good examples of his current physical shape.
Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Dec/19
I agree with you re how much height can be "lost" due to poor posture. We know Clint has lost actual height that cannot be regained even if he stood at his straightest but we also know Clint is standing less and less straight as he ages. I would guess also that Clint is losing at least 2" in height by way of poor posture.
Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Dec/19
I checked again and in contradiction to prior beliefs the current view is the skull never stops growing.
It not only results in a progressively larger head overall but, as you stated, it causes the shape to change in so far as the forehead moves forward while the cheekbones moved backward. The changes in shape might create the illusion of a larger head but it seems that the head does actually get bigger in reality anyway. I knew the ears and nose grew bigger with age but not hands. I've read so many people who wish their hands were bigger but the answer apparently is your hands don't grow and cannot be made bigger. I'm not saying that's correct but that is as much as I've read.

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, shoe or bra 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.