How tall is Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood's Height

6ft 0 (182.9 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 3 ¾ (192.4 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 Comment 250 comments

Average Guess (153 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.41in (191.5cm)
Current: 5ft 11.94in (182.7cm)
Rory said on 22/Jan/18
Yh but he was only wearing cowboy boots in his westerns where every other actor would have been wearing them too. So I don't really think that makes much of an impact. It's not like he was wearing them in play misty for me or anything. As for his hair I don't really think it was that thick he didn't have a big Afro he just generally had medium length hair, nothing out of the ordinary. A solid 6ft4 peak is too much, but it's not ridiculous, it's a near on certainty he would have cleared 6ft4 out of bed anyway and fallen somewhere between 6ft3-4.
James B 170.8cm said on 21/Jan/18
Rob did you originally think he was 6"4 peak because of his bushy hairstyle?
Editor Rob
Cowboy boots and hair may well have made him look taller at times.
Psychedelic Earth 187 said on 19/Jan/18
He’d have dipped to 5’11” now.
JonathanRet said on 19/Jan/18
whatever but 6'3.25 is far from the 6'3.75 listing. 6'3.75-6'4 was Dolph Lundgren 1 icnh taller than Clint Eastwood. I know I have not seen them together but you can clearly see Doph was taller than him
Rory said on 19/Jan/18
His shrinkage actually isn't anything remarkable. Robs said before that on average for a 90 year old 3 inch loss would be incurred, Clints nearly 88 and considering his height was considerably above average that makes him more likely to lose a greater amount. So we're talking about him losing 1 inch more than expected really which isn't that unique.
JonathanRet said on 18/Jan/18
Rob it's known in a 1988 article it mentioned his height at 6ft 3. At that time he was 58 years old and every man at that age or when is getting older always or usually claim his peak height. It would not make sense to claim a current old man height. When I ask my Dad or uncle their heights they claim his peak height and they are 60-70 years old. He once claimed 6'4 in one ocassion I think was exaggerated. So 6'3 at 58 still young I believe was his height he remember on his peak. I really believe 6'3 is the highest I'd try to argue. Remember 6'3 is over 190 cm is beteween 190 and 191 cm and a man being that tall barefoot is really tall. Imagine him now on his cowboy boots. Everyone would guess he was 6'3.5 minimum. See? I think this story makes sense
5'10 lad said on 18/Jan/18
I think Clint gets downgraded a lot at his peak possibly because people struggle to believe his shrinkage. He was never 6’2 range peak as people say, but I honestly think more 6’3.5 than .75. Why has he shrunk so much Rob? Surely that’s above average for his age?
Rory said on 18/Jan/18
People who guess him at under 6ft3 I just find quite find strange people. They're adamant he's 189 and yet they cannot provide one shred of evidence that he was that low yet still punt out lines repeatedly that he was like 6ft2 or some rubbish. I don't even think a flat 6ft3 is arguable really, I'd start the bidding for Clint at 6ft3.25 with 6ft4 at most.
Samwells said on 17/Jan/18
What do you think Rob I think he is right Clint always looked 189 range in his 20's. His slim figure and boots makes him a bit over 1 inch taller
RichardSpain said on 26/Jun/17
Eastwood wasn't 192cm ! it's a joke! marketing! Eastwood was 192 cm with his boots. I think Eastwood was a solid 189cm max 190 cm younger. In this way we can understand why Eastwood is around 183cm nowadays crearly because he lost only 6 or 7 cm of his pic that's credible.
Morgan had similar height than Clint Eastwood. 189 /190cm in peak.
Morgan has good genetics. Nowadays still has good height and he is an old man.
Eastwood, Freeman and Affleck have very similar heights in his peaks. range 189/190cm
Editor Rob
The lowest I'd probably try to argue is 6ft 3...I can see how people would give him that, although most seem to estimate him somewhere between the 6ft 3 and 4.
Leonardo said on 17/Jan/18
Ferry said on 16/Jan/18
Nice. I'm watching "For a few dollars more", what a great movie and music. Yes Clint was
190/191 cm , Lee Van Cleef weak 186. Why people add both a couple of cm , 1 inch?
Ferry said on 16/Jan/18
Just watching spaghetti western where Clint was in his 30's he looks a classic 190 cm guy 193'5 on his cowboy boots
Rory said on 16/Jan/18
I disagree with that. I think towards the end of the film where Sutherland,Eastwood and Savalas are walking side by side towards the tank Eastwood seems a bit taller to me. I concede though that because of the uneven cobbled road and with them not being that close together it makes it difficult to be sure.
movieguy said on 15/Jan/18
Eastwood doesn't look taller than Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. I believe if anything Sutherland edges Clint it's really difficult to tell though. Can I ask Rob why the site now asks for an email address when you post?
Rory said on 13/Jan/18
No can do. I think watching Kelly's heroes there's enough in that film to say Eastwood was taller than Sutherland and so if Eastwood was 6ft2-3 range that would make Sutherland 6ft2 peak which is too low. I was beggining to think maybe Eastwood was 6ft3.5 but I've swung back now and think a weak 6ft4 range is the best fit.
Paul said on 11/Jan/18
let's give him 6'3 in his best day. But never over
Mister lennon said on 10/Jan/18
Van cleef was a true 6'2 guy at peak.
Less than a strong 6'3 for clint is comical.
Paul said on 10/Jan/18
Lee Van Cleef never looked 6'2 to me but 6'1 max, puts Clint at nearly 6'3
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Jan/18
6ft2 range for Eastwood puts Van Cleef at 6ft which is plain ridiculous...
Rory said on 9/Jan/18
@Dawson..in the 1960s or 1970s tell us besides who did Clint look under 6ft3 ? Just give me 2 names, just 2...I know you can do it if you really try.
Username said on 9/Jan/18
I agree Dawson Clint was never more than 6'2.5.
To Rory you don't have to see them together to compare heights. Lundgren was at least 1'5 inch on Clint peak
3.5 guess is a joke makes a 4.5 on shoes. He always looked 6'4 on his boots. 2.5 is the best guess
Anonymous said on 9/Jan/18
Rob how did he lose so much of height
Editor Rob: reaching 87 is a factor in a considerable loss. For a man of his height, you'd expect near 3 inches on average by late 80's...

Clint, though, is not your average man - he's worked in films and directed many right up to his 80's. Maybe he put his body through more efforts than the average worker would?
jervis said on 9/Jan/18
In the 1960s and 70s Ali looked a solid 6ft2 too me,and if Murray measured. 2 of an inch less than that,I don't find that so hard too believe myself.Fair play too Murray being so honest,but that dose not automatically mean that everybody else is inflating their heights.Also on the subject of Lundgren,recent pics of him with Hasslehoff and Conan where he is looking barely 6ft3 prove that if you believe he was 6ft4 peak,you are accepting he has lost what looks like 1 full inch in height in his 50s,just like Clint had by that age alongside. Neeson in the dead pool.
Dawson said on 8/Jan/18
Any mark over 6'2.75 for his peak does not make sense. In Europe he always was described at 188 cm and 190 cm american actor. Articles, newspaper, news, documents. 190 cm is 6'2.75. You're saying 192 cm that's crazy. The most he could hit in his best day is 190 cm in the 1950's
Dawson said on 8/Jan/18
Rob I can tell you are wrong thinking his lowest 3.5. He never hit 6'3 maybe at morning
mister_lennon said on 8/Jan/18
6'1 fpor peak ali is comical. he was a clear and strong 6'2 guy at peak.and if Clint was onlly 6'2 at peak explain to me how on hell a cllint in his 60s was about 1 inch than peak jim carrey, who was a strong 6'1/almost 6'2 guy at peak???

let me guess, carrey was only 6 at peak, you know.
jervis said on 8/Jan/18
Ali was a bit taller than Murray if Murray is 6ft1.5,because Ali was 6ft2 and I have never seen a pic of the young Lundgren next to the young Clint so I can 't say how much height there would be between them.
Rory said on 8/Jan/18
Dolph lundgren had two inches on a young Clint did he...hmm remind me when they appeared in a film together ? Is that the best you've all got for downgrading Clint because Andy Murray is 6ft2 and you imagine that Dolphins Lundgren would be taller than him and some weird height science theory about people with an ego always inflating their height by an inch ? No that's not cutting it I'm afraid, try harder, look for something called hard evidence. Robs right it's unlikely he was under 6ft3.5, I saw The enforcer the other day and he looked very tall to me in that..Tyne Daly in heels came up to his chin.
Dawson said on 7/Jan/18
Ali has been listed 6'2 many times and himself has also claimed 6'2 but knowing his temperament I believe he could increased his claim. Yes I agree he had an inflated ego so maybe he was a strong 6'1. What we know is he was somewhere 6'1 to 6'2 but in my opinion he was 6'1'25. A guy with a big ego would increase his height and being honest he always looked 6'1-25- 6'1.5 range. Clint was 1 inch taller not 2 so 6'3 is the very maximum height Clint could hit. I say he was 6'2.5 in his prime
Heightlover said on 7/Jan/18
jervis said on 6/Jan/18
Ali has the same height and bodytype Tsonga tennis player listed 187 cm or (weak 6'2). I gotta tell you tennis players usually are listed 1 inch over their real heights. Andy Murray has claimed he is 6'1.8 and he is listed 6'3. Are you saying Ali was taller than Murray? You would never thought Murray is 6'1.8.
Everyone thinks Muray is at least 6'2 and 6'3. Same happens with Clint Eastwood. He was a strong 6'2 guy no more
Heightlover said on 7/Jan/18
Dolph Lundgren has nearly 2 inches on a young Clint. Clint was never even 190 cm he was 188cm
Heightlover said on 7/Jan/18
Rob Clint just 1 cm shorter than Dolph Lundgren? Dolph Lundgren has claimed 193 cm at 20 and in the 90's. He claimed 193 and 194 cm.
This listing is not fair for legit 6'3'75 guys. Please Rob downgrade him.
Rory said on 7/Jan/18
Rob, in light of his 6ft4 claim and 6ft3 description with an average user guess of 6ft3.4, do you think 6ft3.5 peak might be the closest ?
Editor Rob: 6ft 3.5 peak might be the lowest I'd give him.
Mister lennon said on 7/Jan/18
Ali as a 6'1 is a joke. Please, this is absurd.

Ali was a strong 6'2 peak and clint a strong 6'3 peak.
Rory said on 6/Jan/18
Ali 186cm ? Right now maybe explain why Ali in his fifties and suffering from Parkinson's still looked taller than 186 Holyfield who Rob has met ? Good luck with that...Ali was 6ft2 bare minimum but anywhere in 6ft2-3 range is arguable for him, and it's undeniable that Clint was taller than him because Clnt was 6ft3.5 peak.
Rory said on 6/Jan/18
In the real world if Clint was only 188cm peak then by The dead pool in 1988 when Clint was 58 he would have been 187 tops...now Liam Neeson looked about 3cm maybe 4cms taller than Clint in that film which means Neeson was what like 190 or 191 peak ? Lol...
jervis said on 6/Jan/18
Reducing a solid 6ft2 Guy like Ali by an inch just too suit you argument,that Clint was 6ft2 peak,is IMO a very weak argument.Clint was a very solid 6ft3 peak and there is plenty of proof of that,and Ali was 6ft2 not 6ft1.
movieguy said on 6/Jan/18
jervis, just looked at Space Cowboys pics and they are close in height. To my eyes surprising thing is how small James Garner looks in comparison. Like about 4 inches shorter than either Eastwood or Sutherland. Garner is usually given as about 6'2'' and apparently claimed he was at one time 6'3'', the quote is on his page. I know he had health issues and injuries but if anything lost more height than Clint.
Rory said on 6/Jan/18
6ft2 peak is a comically bad guess. Just give up I'd say as you're useless ! 6ft3 bare minimum. Once again not one downgrader has any proof...
Waxer said on 5/Jan/18
He was never over 188 cm. People are giving 3 cm more because they usually do it to their own height. I'm 179 cm and they always believe I'm 182 cm. People should learn please what is a correct height measurement. Looking at Clint I could maybe think he was 6'3 or over but the truth is he was never more than 188 cm 6'2.25 was his real measurement. Just add 1 inch as people ususally do and you will think he was minimum 6'3. Also his slim appearance helps. Ali was 186 cm max. Everyone are adding 1 inch to their heights. So sad...
Anonymous said on 5/Jan/18
Eastwood edged Sutherland back in Kelly's Heroes, sometimes by what could seem like an inch, but usually held better posture.
Ejel Khan said on 4/Jan/18
He never appeared above 6’2” in his peak. When he appeared on Parkinson in his seventies, he still appeared 6’.
jervis said on 4/Jan/18
Yes Sutherland did look taller than Clint in that medical exam scene,but in pics at the time of that movie Sutherland and Clint look the same height,I always found that a bit odd.
Waxer said on 4/Jan/18
Rob I think you are a good guesser but I'm really impressed about this listing. How is this possible? Clint was never over 6'3 and you list him at 6'3.75. I believe Clint is the celeb. with the highest peak height far from reality. A downgrade this year woul be be fair
movieguy said on 4/Jan/18
In Space Cowboys Clint is not noticeably taller than Donald Sutherland. In fact it's the other way round, the medical exam scene I believe has Sutherland looking a few inches taller than Eastwood. I don't know who was taller prime it was very close but Eastwood has suffered more height loss than Sutherland.
Psychedelic Earth 187 said on 4/Jan/18
Rob mate, perhaps he’s 181cm now?
Editor Rob: might be looking it at times, but still think he's going to measure over it if under the stadiometer.
Anonymous said on 3/Jan/18
Click Here:

clint and carrey
jervis said on 3/Jan/18
The young Clint and James Coburn stand facing each other in an episode of Rawhide called Hostage Child.If Clint was ,as some people think,6ft2 that would make Coburn barely 6ft flat.Coburn always looked a solid 6ft1 too me Clint has a good 2 inches on him,once again it's a Solid 6ft3 peak for Clint.Also I could be wrong on Coburn's height he has been listed at 6ft2 and also 6ft1.5 here on celebheights,so 6ft1 is minimum for him.
jervis said on 3/Jan/18
6FT2 for Ali and 6ft3 for Clint.
Dreampuffe(5'9.5") said on 3/Jan/18
Muhammad Ali said it himself. Clint is taller than him.

Also, Clint also was ‘noticeably’ taller than Donald Sutherland in ‘Space Cowboys.’
movieguy said on 2/Jan/18
Clint looks a bit taller than Ali but it's not a huge difference. Harve Presnell is the tallest of the three having about an inch on Eastwood. Harve is usually given as 6'4''. It's comical that Paint Your Wagon a film that I really like was a musical in which your 3 main stars Marvin, Eastwood and Seberg couldn't sing a note. Presnell had a great voice, his rendition of They Call the Wind Maria is incredible.
Rory said on 2/Jan/18
Sorry I mean 186 cm guy Ali (strong 6'1). He always had too much ego. I'm convince he exaggerate his height a bit. Clint was 1 inch on him but looks a bit more so he was skinny. Ali 186 cm range Clint 189 cm
Rory said on 2/Jan/18
When a legit 189cm guy like Ali turns around and says I'm surprised at how tall Clint Eastwood is he's much taller than I am surely even some if the hard if thinking on this page stop and reconsider ?
Patrick73 said on 1/Jan/18
Click Here Interesting chat show clip with Clint Eastwood and Muhammad Ali. When they stand to use a punch bag you can see that Clint is quite a bit taller than The Greatest. At 6m.30 onwards you actually hear Ali say his height is 6 feet 2 inches. 👍🏻
movieguy said on 1/Jan/18
Two inches on James Coburn. I can't see Coburn as a flat 6ft. Therefore I can't see Clint as being only 6'2'' prime. I think the consensus on this site is that Clint was between 6'3'' to 6'4'' maybe bang in the middle at 6'3.5''.
Sam said on 31/Dec/17
There's a lot of footage with George Kennedy and Eastwood in that film and there's only a fraction of an inch difference on screen.
Rory said on 31/Dec/17
Sorry you are a right 6'2.5 out of bed is possible because is 190 cm and he always looked 188 at evening peak, 189 max. He is the kind of guy who can pass as a strong 6'3, but he really was a strong 6'2
jervis said on 31/Dec/17
He was 6ft3 bang on at peak evening.
Andrews said on 30/Dec/17
Rory said on 29/Dec/17
Real 6'3-6'4 guys edged him. He is on the 6'2 range for sure. Closer to 6'3 if you want
Andrews said on 30/Dec/17
Rory said on 29/Dec/17
I think people have a bigger expectation on heights and live with a wrong idea about a real measurement.
Maybe you should check how tall is 6'2.5 barefoot. Or maybe you should measure yourself because you do not really know what's a medical height measurement over 6'3 Clint is a joke. He always looked a strong 6'2 guy 6'2.5 max
movieguy said on 30/Dec/17
Difficult to be sure but in that photo George Kennedy does look a bit taller than Clint. The German actor on the far left is taller than either though.
Rory said on 29/Dec/17
So many outrageously ignorant posters on this page..I mean 6'2.5 out of bed ? Give me strength
Anonymous said on 29/Dec/17
With George Kennedy(1974)
Click Here
James B said on 28/Dec/17
Maybe you guys should watch more of his on screen appearances from the 1950s before you come too the conclusion he wasn't over 6'3 peak
5'10 lad said on 28/Dec/17
Rob how much is it possible for a person to shrink? With injuries or age?
Editor Rob: if you live to 90's, sometimes 4 inches is quite common, especially for a female. Obviously the taller you are, the greater the chances of shrinking larger amounts.
Johny said on 28/Dec/17
He was 6'2 to 6'2.25 barefoot. I agree normal tall guy hollywood is about market and people usually lie and are worng about their own height their whole lifes. 6'2.5 right after bed
jervis said on 28/Dec/17
Normal tall guy,you are very funny.
Rory said on 27/Dec/17
I think in that scene at the gun range I suspect Clint had about half inch less footwear. The rookies had boots on probably 1.25 inch style whilst Clint had about 0.75 inch sneakers from what I could see. Seeing as he looked an inch taller I think Clint at 6ft3.5 and Matheson/Urich at 6ft2 is fair.
Normal tall guy said on 27/Dec/17
Unlikely that he was ever taller than 6 foot or at very most 6'1 but i doubt it, hollywood is all about bs n they all lie about their heights to market themselves better
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Dec/17
Rob, do you think he'd already lost a bit in his early 40's?
Editor Rob: if he had damaged any discs, then it is always an increased risk. Herniation, compression fractures could be a cause.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Dec/17
He ldoes look more 6ft3 range w/h Tim Matheson
Mister lennon said on 27/Dec/17
Sorry, but he has been always listed as a strong 6'3 or a 6'4 guy.
To post that he has beeb listed as a 6'2 or just 6'3 guy isnt true
jervis said on 26/Dec/17
Alebrt,he was edged out by George Kennedy and Greg Wolcott who were both liget 6ft4 guys,but they only just edged him by max 1 inch maybe only .05 of an inch,also most of the time Clints height is listed as 6ft4.
jervis said on 26/Dec/17
Alebrt,he was edged out by George Kennedy and Greg Wolcott who were both liget 6ft4 guys,but they only just edged him by max 1 inch maybe only .05 of an inch,also most of the time Clints height is listed as 6ft4.
jervis said on 26/Dec/17
Yes Parker he looks a comfortable 6ft3 in that clip,also he is wearing quite flat shoes too.
Albert said on 25/Dec/17
He always been listed 188 to 190 range. This is 6'2.25 to 6'3.
Overheightlisted always. Over the 6'3 is fake. He appareared taller than hi really is. 6'4 men edged him and real 6'2 guys look similar
Click Here
Albert said on 25/Dec/17
6'3.25 morning ins his 20's 3.75 is too much
Parker said on 25/Dec/17
With 6'2 Tim Matheson and 6'2 Robert Urich in Magnum Force
Click Here
jervis said on 24/Dec/17
Easy 6ft3 evening height in his 20s to 40s.Rob's 6ft3.75 listing was, IMO Clint's morning height.
jeffrey5'11 said on 23/Dec/17
If he ever hit 6'3 should be at morning in the 50's. How ever, 2.75 fits more on him
jervis said on 23/Dec/17
He still looked a strong 6ft3 next to Chevy Chase,in the mid 80s,when he was in his mid 50s.6ft3 is the perfect height for Clint at peak and there is plenty of video and photographic proof out there,to prove it.
Jonnny said on 22/Dec/17
James B said on 17/Dec/17
Rob what's the biggest piece of evidence Clint was over 6ft3? How he stacked up against David soul perhaps or lee van?
I don't think he ever hit 6'3 but so close
Rory said on 22/Dec/17
Well Clint looked over 6ft3 with Don Stroud,Tim Matheson,Donald Sutherland,Leonard Nimoy,Charlton Heston,Muhammed Ali,Jeff Bridges,George Kennedy,Hal Holbrook,Gregory Walcott,Bruce Dern etc etc so you know a fair few times ;)..the question for the downgraders is can you produce a list of names equally as long of a 1960s/70s Clint Eastwood looking 6ft3 or under with them ??
movieguy said on 22/Dec/17
The problem with saying he was only 6'2'' is that he had a couple of inches on guys like James Coburn and Lee Marvin both of whom are usually listed about 6'2''. I agree it is hard to see Clint as being as tall as Jeff Goldblum or Tom Selleck say both of whom are almost certainly genuine 6'4'' guys.
Anonymous said on 19/Dec/17
How come he lost so much of height
James B said on 17/Dec/17
Rob what's the biggest piece of evidence Clint was over 6ft3? How he stacked up against David soul perhaps or lee van?
Editor Rob: I will have to rewatch some early films again and get back to you!
Mister lennon said on 17/Dec/17
6'3 by nigth. Strong 6'3 the rest of the day. Probably weak 6'4 out of bed
jervis said on 17/Dec/17
6ft3 evening height.
Canson said on 16/Dec/17
Closer to 6’3” at his peak never above
Mystol said on 15/Dec/17
I think he was 6'3 at morning.
James said on 14/Dec/17
He never looked more than 6'3".
James B said on 13/Dec/17
Mister Lenon@

Not denying your right but remember people can have a warped perception of what a true 6ft2 looks like in real life because guys who are 5ft11-6ft1 claim too be that tall.

My brother is 5ft11 barefoot and a lot of people view him too be tall. Some folk might think of 5ft11 as small or average because 5ft9 guys say there that tall.
James B said on 13/Dec/17
@Christian

Unless you actually met a peak Clint in the flesh you can't say for certain that he was just 6ft3. Judging someone's height by photos or tv is not as accurate as seeing them in person I think.
jervis said on 13/Dec/17
That's John Humphreys I mean.
Mister lennon said on 13/Dec/17
6'2 for clint makes non sense. He looked every bit of a strong 6'3 guy. In movies and real life. Taller than many 6'2-6'3 guys.
6'2 is a joke for peak clint.
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 13/Dec/17
@James B

You're right when you said a 6'2.5" guy actually taller than what it seems on paper. A true 6'2.5" is undermined in this world of inflation. I have a friend who's that height and is honest about it but gets often described as 6'4".
As for Clint, I'm not sure if he was that low at peak, I'm thinking 6'3" or at most 6'3.25" for him.
jervis said on 12/Dec/17
He didn't wear boots in the dirty Harry movies,in fact he mostly wore regular heeled shoes or even quite flat shoes when he wasn't staring in western's.Check out the interview with John Jumpers on YouTube,Clint towers him,it's one of the times where Clint looks the full 6ft4.Humphryes was in the 5ft8 or 5ft9 range.
James B said on 12/Dec/17
Rob 6'2.5 guys who are very slim like Clint was with a high hairstyle could pass for 6'4 surely?
Editor Rob: yeah they could look over 6ft 3
Heightlover said on 12/Dec/17
So true but as you said.. if Clint peak height would had hit 6'4, I'm sure everyone, and I say everyone, would say he was minimum 6'5 at least. A guy like Eastwood and knowing how he look could pass as a 6'4 guy but the reality and real height he hit at best 6'2.5. but in my opinion he was a strong 6'2, which is very very tall and more at that time when most of people were a bit shorter . He was 6'2.25and 6'2.75 at morning. Put his boots and look at him with his bodytype. You all would say a strong 6'3 man walking with a magnum. Medical height: 6'2.25
James B said on 11/Dec/17
Heightlover- I know a guy who is 6'2.5 and people guess him too be 6'4/6'5. Like you said a genuine 6'2.5 is a lot taller than people would imagine.

All that said However if you met a peak Clint Eastwood in the flesh you might be shocked how tall he would look.
Heightlover said on 10/Dec/17
To James B said on 8/Dec/17
Yes because he was not even 6'3. He was 6'2.5 and you can not imagine how tall is a legit 6'2.5 barefoot of course. Being Eastwood more.. And being slim even more... Just add his boots and you will make a " weak looking 6'4 Eastwood"
Heightlover said on 10/Dec/17
yes because he was not even 6'3. He was 6'2.5 and you can not imagine how tall is a legit 6'2.5 barefoot of course. Being Eastwood more and being slim even more. Just add his boots and you will make a " weak looking 6'4 Eastwood"
James said on 10/Dec/17
Van Cleef was not a supporting actor after the Dollars trilogy, although his films were more popular in Europe than in North America.
berta said on 9/Dec/17
191,5 peak and 182 today. maybe he still can measure 183 but i dont really think he looks that tall
James B said on 8/Dec/17
Some people can't imagine him ever being 6'3-6'4 because of his current height.
Heightlover said on 8/Dec/17
Rory said on 7/Dec/17
If you say he was 6'3.5 in his peak you just need glasses. He was 6'2.5 max never over 189 cm. You dont have idea what's real height
Rory said on 7/Dec/17
Heightlover, you measure height from the top of someone's head mate, not based on how slim they are. I think you misspoke too because you said he never looked over 188-189 what you meant to say was he never looked as low as 188-189, which of course was the case because as anyone with any height perception at all knows Clint was over 6ft3. I suspect though your estimations of height are about as good as your ability to construct a sentence - seriously lacking.
Anonymous said on 7/Dec/17
Van Cleef actually starred in many great westerns including "Sabata", "Death Rides a Horse", "Day of Anger", "Vengeance" and "God's Gun" (although technically Leif Garrett was the main character in the last two).

As for Eastwood he was probably 6'3" as a young man, but not over that.
Richard said on 6/Dec/17
Van Cleef's best western roles were in "God's Gun" and "Kid Vengeance". Eastwood was clearly no more than 6'3" at his peak without cowboy boots.
James B said on 6/Dec/17
2 inch cowboys in coogans bluff brad
Heightlover said on 6/Dec/17
Brad said on 5/Dec/17
You are just blind
He never looked over 188-189 cm (6'2.5) You forgot his frame body bone and slim body type adding his boots? and cowboyboots. His real height was 189 cm tops. In a medical measurement he could not hit 6'3. 6'4 was Dolp Lundgren and you can not compare his height he was and always looked nearly 2 inches on Eastwood
jervis said on 6/Dec/17
Peak 190.5cm or 6ft3,the same height as 6ft3 Eric Fleming in rawhide.
Brad said on 5/Dec/17
6-4 easy peak. Watch Coogan's Bluff.
Anonymous said on 5/Dec/17
I don't think of him a particularly good man in his personal life (he seems an utter cad towards women/his politics are suspect) but even if he only did a handful of westerns, he is way more iconic and charismatic in a minimalist way than Nero, no offense to him, but Nero's strong silent characters too often come off as just dull. Van Cleef is great in westerns but is more of a character actor, his 2 best roles were co-starring with Eastwood! Also 6'2"-6'2.5" range is certainly undercutting him by at least a solid inch.
Heightlover said on 5/Dec/17
I also believe Clint was never over 6'3 in nis prime. Being lucky he hit 6'3.25 righ after bed at morning but in Rawhide looked 188-189 range which I think is 6'2.5. Over 6'2.5 barefoot I think just a few know how much is it. 6'2.5 is ver close 190 cm and a legit 190 cm man is really tall. Clint was the kind of man who pass as a 6'3.5 but I guess he was 6ft'2.5-75 if that
Mister lennon said on 5/Dec/17
Peak eastwood: strong 6'3.
Peak hackman: weak 6'2.
Peak connery: solid 6'2.
Stop the absurd downgrades
Melyst said on 5/Dec/17
Man you are my idol: Full agree! People dont know what's a medical height measurement. Real heighs! 100% of actors lie about their heights.
Mr6footer said on 27/Nov/17
Hanks was 5'11 prime I'm tired why people always believe the classic actor claim" I'm 6. haha Yes right
Leo Dicaprio: I'm 6 Reality 5'10
Arnold: I was 6'2 Reality: 6'
Clint Eastwood I was 6'4 Reality: 6'2.5
Brad Pitt: I'm 5'11 Reality: 5'10
Why u all believe their claims?
Melyst said on 5/Dec/17
Heightlover said on 3/Dec/17
Full agree!
Nice! some also believe he was 6'2.5 in his youth! Totally agree I also say he always looked taller because his slim figure. People don't really know how tall is 6'2.5 barefoot. Andy Murray has claimed his real height at 6'1.8 (187,5 cm) and you just can see how tall he looks. Clint looked maybe a fraction over him in his peak but 2 inches?? lol. Being Clint 6'2.5 changes all. Hackman 6'1.5 in his peak. Sean Connery was 6'1.5 . Everybody lies in his height and rounded up. You guys dont know what's a medical height measurement.
Rory said on 5/Dec/17
6'2.5 peak is just a bit of a silly guess really, other than with that Reni Santoni fella whose true height no one really knows Clint always looked 6ft3 bare minimum in the 60s-70s. 6'2.5 is not a legitimate guess frankly, it's nonsensical.
Richard said on 4/Dec/17
Eastwood was never more than 6'3". I didn't understand why he was meant to be synonymous with westerns when he only starred in about eight. There were far better western stars in his time like Van Cleef and Franco Nero.
jervis said on 4/Dec/17
6ft2.5 or 6ft3 peak not much in it,half an inch,im sticking to 6ft3 peak,lost a lot of height even if he was 6ft2.5 peak,more than average,now looks 5ft11.
Heightlover said on 3/Dec/17
He was 6'2.5. you all are just blind and do not really know what's is barefeet measurement. I think everybody here underestimae 1 inch. I just said this guy was very slim and if he reeally was a legit 6'3.5 you all would guess his height at 6'4 range because Clint look taller he was 6'2.5 again
Rory said on 2/Dec/17
Peak Clint was 6ft3.5, in the late 1980s he was 6ft2.75 and today he could still scrape a 5'11.75 measurement.
Rory said on 2/Dec/17
Clint looked 6ft3 range peak with relaxed posture for sure, but when measured he almost certainly cleared 6ft3. You only have to see him with guys like Hal Holbrook and David Soul to know this, 6ft-6ft1 range guys who were looking up at Clint. There was around 3 inches between those guys.
Mister lennon said on 2/Dec/17
Less than strong 6'3 for peak clint is a joke.
Heightlover said on 1/Dec/17
Richard said on 1/Dec/17
Well said! It's good to see a guy with the same thought. 100 % Agree. 6'3 could be a early measurement in his 20's He was more 6'2.5-75 and 5'11 nowdays
Canson said on 1/Dec/17
@Mr6footer: because people lie about their own heights and want everyone including themselves to be taller. Somewhere along the lines people began claiming their shoes and pass that to everyone else they meet by assessing them in shoes regardless of whether they measure in them or not. It’s very annoying and sad honestly but Kudos to Rob for not only starting this site but also being honest about his height and claiming 5’8” (5’8 1/8 at his lowest)
Richard said on 1/Dec/17
Eastwood was 6'3" at his peak, but 6'2" by the late 1980s. He's below 5'11" now.
Mister lennon said on 1/Dec/17
Peak clint: strong 6'3.
Peak neeson: solid 6'4.
Peak chase: strong 6'3
Danimal said on 1/Dec/17
jervis said on 28/Nov/17
Hanks 6ft

Wrong. Here he is 25 years ago with LEGIT 6'0" Geena Davis:

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Danimal said on 1/Dec/17
Mr6footer said on 27/Nov/17
Hanks was 5'11 prime I'm tired why people always believe the classic actor claim" I'm 6. haha Yes right

Totally agree. Here he is 25 years ago with LEGIT 6'0" Geena Davis:

Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Canson said on 30/Nov/17
Mr6footer: i have to disagree there. neeson was definitely a legit 6’4” peak. He always looked it. He wasn’t under it in fact a better chance he was a hair over like even 193.5 maybe. He was taller than Conan who i don’t believe was ever a legit 6’4 peak prob was 191cm strong 6’3. Remember Conan assessed him 6’5” of course Conan inflates everyone but Liam responded back 6’4 and a wee bit. So likely he could’ve been measured nearer 194 earlier in the day and have been 195-195.5 out of bed
Rory said on 30/Nov/17
No there was more than 2 inches between Clint and Reni. In the corridor there looked a 2 inch difference because Clints posture was extremely loose but then later by the typing pool he looked a good 2-3 inches taller. Not sure how tall Reni is because he's just something of an unknown but judging by how he looked with 6'3.5 Clint Eastwood I'd say 6'1.
James said on 30/Nov/17
Reni was 5'11.5".
jervis said on 29/Nov/17
Chase looked 6ft4 next to 6ft1 Bill Murray,6ft3.5 if a very honest height for Chase to give and I have know problem believing him.
James said on 29/Nov/17
Eastwood never looked any taller than 6'3". His peak height should be downgraded.
Mr6footer said on 29/Nov/17
To StephenB said on 28/Nov/17
He was 6'3.25 at morning in his prime if you want to say he was over 6'3. So funny saying he was 6'4 you dont know how a legit 6'4 guy looks right?
I give you names:
Dolph Lundgren
David Hasselhoff
Liam Neeson
They were legit 6'4 tops: Liam Neeeson was 192 cm and Dolph claimed twice he was 193 cm
Saying Clint was astall them is really absurd. He looked 1 inch below them at least.
Please again and again watch better and learn how all is 6'4 barefoot. Because is much more than you think
If Clint was 6'4 you would say he was 6'5. Clint looks taller so he is pretty slim long legs
James B said on 28/Nov/17
If Clint dropped down too 6'2.5 in the mid 90s then he was probably 6'2.75 in Line of Fire and maybe looked 6'1.5-6'2.5 cause of his slouch.
James B said on 28/Nov/17
Guys what's your opinion on Reni Santonies height in Dirty Harry?

Watching them together on screen at the police station if Reni is really the 6ft he is listed as them Clint does look 6ft2 alongside him and remember clints big hairstyle too.

If Clint was 6'3.5 though then Reni looks a legit 6'2.
StephenB said on 28/Nov/17
PLEASE stop with this 6'2" and change nonsense. Clint was 6'4" (or very very close to it) in his earlier days. He was closer to 6'4" than he was to 6'3". He looked like a giant in many of his films and stacked up very well to legitimate 6'4" (or taller) actors like the below mentioned George Kennedy, etc.. I just watched "Play Misty for Me" and I have to laugh when people post that who he was only 6'2".
jervis said on 28/Nov/17
Exactly Rory ,anything under 6ft3 peak for Clint is highly unlikely.
Mr6footer said on 28/Nov/17
Yep possible Jervis.. At least closer to the truth. Over those marks cleary not, so max
James said on 28/Nov/17
Chase never looked over 6'3".
jervis said on 28/Nov/17
Hanks 6ft,Diacprio 5ft11,Pitt 5ft10.75,Clint 6ft3,Arnold 6ft.75 those are my opinions on their heights.
Mr6footer said on 27/Nov/17
Hanks was 5'11 prime I'm tired why people always believe the classic actor claim" I'm 6. haha Yes right
Leo Dicaprio: I'm 6 Reality 5'10
Arnold: I was 6'2 Reality: 6'
Clint Eastwood I was 6'4 Reality: 6'2.5
Brad Pitt: I'm 5'11 Reality: 5'10
Why u all believe their claims?
jervis said on 27/Nov/17
Chase said he was 6ft3.5 but could pass for 6ft4.
Rory said on 27/Nov/17
The reality is Clint was only fractionally shorter than solid 6ft4 guys like George Kennedy,John Gavin and Gregory Walcott so anyone who thinks he was under 6ft3 peak will be disappointed.
James said on 27/Nov/17
Chase was 6'3" at his peak.
jervis said on 27/Nov/17
There are more pics of Clint with Hanks where they look very similar in height,also IMO Hanks is 6ft not 5ft11ish.
James B said on 26/Nov/17
Rory said on 22/Nov/17
How could you make a case for him looking 6ft2 in the 80s though ? He looked about an inch taller than Everett McGill in 1986 and 1-1.5 inches shorter than Neeson in 1988. Had to have been around 6ft3 then in his 50s.


Ok maybe just 6ft2 flat is too low but he could look 6'2.5 I feel in the 80s. He was probably still 6ft3 but perhaps his posture and the way he carried himself made him look shorter.

Heartbreak ridge was a film where he could look 6'3 and have lows of looking looking 6'2.5 even when stood with military posture
jervis said on 26/Nov/17
I believe he was still 6ft3 in the 80s and only began to lose height in his 60s.There is a pic of him with 6ft3.5 Chevy Chase from the 80s,and Clint is similar to Chase,although Clint's posture is more relaxed than Chase.Clint was definitely taller than 6ft2 in the 80s,or Chevy Chase was not even 6ft3.
Melyst said on 26/Nov/17
A guy like Clint could pass for a weak 6'4 in his prime but I believe his real height was 6'3 no more, no less. If Eastwood was 6'3.75 barefoot everyone and I'm sure about it would have always said he was 6'4.5 - 6'5. It's abvious he was 6'3 max I say 6'2.75 6-3 in his youth
Danimal said on 26/Nov/17
Clint looking under 5'11" today next to 5'11ish Tom Hanks:
Click Here
Click Here
Mr6footer said on 26/Nov/17
jervis said on 23/Nov/17
Sill looked 6ft3 range in the 80s,...
You are wrong so Eastwood was 6'3 at best. There's no chance in his 50's was even taller. He was 6'2 range in the 80's tops
James B said on 25/Nov/17
Rob will you eventually gìve him 6ft3.5 peak?
Editor Rob: you can't rule that mark out , it's an arguable figure for him.
James said on 24/Nov/17
Moore always wore lifts. As for Eastwood, he already looked 6'2" range by the 1980s.
jervis said on 23/Nov/17
Sill looked 6ft3 range in the 80s,but in the 90s he looked more 6ft2 range,today if he could stand stright he would be around the 6ft mark still.
Mister lennon said on 23/Nov/17
Moore only 182 peak? Thats is joke. He was in the 185-186 peak.
Mister lennon said on 23/Nov/17
The he was wearing cowboy boots and should look 6'5 stuff is just dumb. Everyone were wearing cowboy or military boots in those films, they are westerns, and clint was always the tallest or onr of the tallest man in those movies.
movieguy said on 22/Nov/17
Ali himself said he was 6'2.5''. His trainer Angelo Dundee said Al wasn't that tall at 6'2''. Although oddly Dundee has give Ali's height as 6'4'' on other occasions. I've read comments about Ali not looking that big in person but also comments about him being huge in person. Michael Parkinson said his size was deceptive in that his build made him look not that big from a distance but when you stood next to him he was imposing, something along those lines anyway. Clint I believe was a weak 6'4'' that is scraping the mark or slightly under. Rob seems to agree as do many on here. I did think he was 6'2'' at one point but have changed my mind as this would lead to so many other actors being downgraded.
Rory said on 22/Nov/17
How could you make a case for him looking 6ft2 in the 80s though ? He looked about an inch taller than Everett McGill in 1986 and 1-1.5 inches shorter than Neeson in 1988. Had to have been around 6ft3 then in his 50s.
Andresito said on 22/Nov/17
jervis said on 22/Nov/17
6ft4.5 in cowboy boots,6ft3 barefoot peak.
I can buy it but at best!
In my opnion 6'2.75 barefoot peak and 6ft4.25 cowboy boots
King of the hill 91 said on 22/Nov/17
Rob what is the lowest and most you would have clint peak
Editor Rob: from everything I have seen now, I believe the current mark is about the most I'd give him as peak, with 6ft 3.25 the lowest I'd argue, I feel you could make a case amongst that 6ft 3.25 to .75 range
Dreampuffe(5'9.5") said on 22/Nov/17
And Muhammad Ali at 6’1.5”? I’m sorry, but I’m having a hard time beliveing that.

Some people with different builds can give a smaller impression.

6’3.5” or a solid 6’3” is arguable, but under 6’3” is weird.
jervis said on 22/Nov/17
6ft4.5 in cowboy boots,6ft3 barefoot peak.
Melyst said on 21/Nov/17
If Clint Eastwood was 6'3.75 in the "Dollars Triloty means he was 6'5.5 with boots and he didn't look that tall please. That's absurd. He looked 6'4.25 with boots at most! Now again barefoot 6'2.75 topss never over 189 cm
James B said on 21/Nov/17
In the 1980s you could defnintly make a case for him looking 6ft2 range but most of the time 1970s looked over 6ft2 too me.
James B said on 21/Nov/17
For some reason whenever he wore a cowboy hat in the dollars trilogy he gave a 6'2 range impression. Even when he wore cowboy boots in the dollars trilogy didn't look over 6ft3 range. I think those particular films are shot in a certain way that make the actors appear shorter.

If you watch coogans bluff when he wore 2 inch Cowboys he looked 6ft4.5.
James said on 21/Nov/17
Roger Moore admitted wearing lifts and a hairpiece to play James Bond, as well as having plastic surgery. As for Eastwood his rake thin build, hairstyle, hat and boots with big heels made him look 6'4" on screen. I never liked Leone's overlong operatic westerns.
jervis said on 21/Nov/17
His boot heels were know bigger than than the ones everyone else wore in those movies.
jervis said on 21/Nov/17
Everyone else was wearing cowboy boots to James.Clints boots were know higher than anybody else in the those movies.
Melyst said on 21/Nov/17
Dreampuffe(5'9.5") said on 19/Nov/17
If you are just saying he looked 6'3.75 in the "Dollars Triloty" means he looked 6'5.5 with boots which is absurd and absolute false. He looked 6'4 tops with his boots making a 6'2 to 6'3 Eastwood real height 6'3 morning height 188 cm man who looks always taller thanks to his Slim figure
Melyst said on 21/Nov/17
Dreampuffe(5'9.5") said on 19/Nov/17
If you are just saying he looked 6'3.75 in the "Dollars Triloty" means he looked 6'5.5 with boots which is absurd and abosute false. He looked 6'4 tops with his boots making a 6'2 to 6'3 Eastwood real height 6'3 morning height 188 cm man who looks always taller thanks to his Slim figure
Rory said on 21/Nov/17
James you think Roger Moore was 182cm which pretty much renders any opinion you have on height obsolete.
James said on 20/Nov/17
He looked over 6'3" in the Dollars trilogy because of the boots he wore with big heels.
Dreampuffe(5'9.5") said on 19/Nov/17
I just watched the ‘Dollars Trilogy.’

He looked 6’3.75” there.
Dany5 said on 19/Nov/17
Rob in your page I think Clint has a really wrong peak height. 6'3.75 too tall. 2.75 is fair for Clint. Downgrade Classic 6'3 guy in his young days. He was never over.
Melik said on 18/Nov/17
I think it's peak 6ft3 when you check out Morgan Freeman And Clint, Clint is even taller. You gotta big mistake over here Rob!
Rory said on 16/Nov/17
Yh it's strange to look at pictures of Clint today. He's now got the torso of a 5ft7-8 guy and the legs of a 6ft4 guy.
jervis said on 16/Nov/17
If you Google images Clint Eastwood 2017,there are two pics of him were he looks like he will need a walking stick. Soon,looks like he can hardly stand,terrible posture.
Mister lennon said on 15/Nov/17
Strong 6'3 peak.
jervis said on 14/Nov/17
He looked similar to 6ft2 Sean Connery in the early. 90s,both men are the same age.
James said on 14/Nov/17
Eastwood was never any more than 6'3" at his peak. Today he has lost four inches.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Nov/17
Out of bed: 194.3cm
Before bed: 192.4cm
Mister lennon said on 13/Nov/17
I think 6'3.75 out of bed and 6'3.50 the rest of the day peak. Maybe a weak 6'4 out of bed.
James B said on 12/Nov/17
Well I don't think he really looked over 6ft2 compared too McDermott in 1993.

But was that down too clints posture?
Canson said on 12/Nov/17
Agree with jervis peak height
jervis said on 12/Nov/17
Disagree 6ft3 evening measurement,morning 6ft3.75 IMO.
Mr6footer said on 11/Nov/17
6'3 in his 20's could be a morning measurement. Time for a downgrade Rob. What made you think .75???
movieguy said on 10/Nov/17
I wouldn't have an issue with Clint being downgraded to 6'3'' or 6'3.5''. He always looked a bit shorter than genuine 6'4'' guys and the hair helped a little. I appreciate that others on here would be unhappy with that though.
James said on 10/Nov/17
Eastwood was nowhere near 200 lbs in the 1960s. He was very thin compared to John Wayne when he was that age.
James B said on 10/Nov/17
Clint Eastwood was not really thin. He must have been minimum 200 pounds in his 30s. If you want too see thin look at James Stewart.

I think because he was tall it made him look skinny. His son Scott Eastwood I think is just over 168 pounds at 5ft10 1/2 but doesn't look thin actually just stocky. Because he is a average height he can pull of looking muscular at 168-172 pounds.

I think though in the 1980s Clint pulled of looking muscular when he reached 216 pounds.
James said on 9/Nov/17
His peak height was 6'3". His hairstyle, cowboy boots and thin build made him appear taller. Now at 87 he is 5'11".
James B said on 7/Nov/17
Rob I am studying his height in line of fire and i am quite suprised in some scenes Clint can look not even a full 6ft2 compared too McDermott.

That said Dylan did clearly have hair advantage but his posture wasn't as good as Clints at times.
Editor Rob: you could argue he did look 6ft 2 yeah.
James B said on 5/Nov/17
Hmmmm he didn't actually look a lot shorter than fred Thompson in line of fire. But maybe fred shrunk down too 6'4.5 by age 50?
jervis said on 5/Nov/17
At his peak he always looked, not as tall a 6ft4 and taller than 6ft2.He looked a solid 6ft3 when you compare him to 6ft2 Van Cleef and 6ft4 George Kennedy ans 6ft1 Jeff Bridges.
jervis said on 4/Nov/17
Watch the candidate with 6ft3 Will Farrell, and you will see what a 6ft3 Guy looks next to McDermott.
James B said on 4/Nov/17
Rob do you think he still looks 6'3 with tobin bell in 1993?

Click Here
Editor Rob: he could seem 6ft 2-3 range in the mid 90's, certainly lost some height by then, as low as 6ft 2 though?
James B said on 4/Nov/17
Rory he didn't look 6'3 with Dylan McDermott did he?
jervis said on 3/Nov/17
I agree James B,he looked around 6ft2 Max 6ft2.5 in his early 60s.
Rory said on 2/Nov/17
The thing is I wouldn't be against Clint being downgraded to 6'3.5(although certainly no less than that) my problem is I'd hate anyone to be swayed in their judgement by the ludicrous comments on this page. Just because you say he is only 6ft3 isn't good enough I'm afraid, you need something called evidence to back it up unfortunately.
James B said on 2/Nov/17
Interesting i see Dylan McDermott has been downgraded too 5'11.75 so I have my doubts that Clint was still 6'3 in 1993 cause he seemed 6'2 range alongside him. Dylan did have thicker hairstyle though.
James B said on 2/Nov/17
Rob i thought in the 1950s he could look slightly taller than he did in the 1970s.

Maybe he was 192cm in his 20s and closer too 6ft3 flat in his 40s?
Editor Rob: I suppose late 40's isn't impossible that he started to lose a wee fraction.
James B said on 2/Nov/17
in old pictures from the early 1970s at acadamy award events he looked a textbook 6ft3 in my opinion. Saw the 1980 film any which way you can last night and he still looked 6ft3.


Anything below 6ft3 peak is complete BS
James B said on 31/Oct/17
Rob maybe Clint was just 6ft3 peak and add his hairstyle and lean anatonomy could pull of looking taller than he really was?
Editor Rob: he's certainly been called 6ft 3 by newspapers over 40 years ago...6ft 3.5 is very arguable for Clint, 6ft 3 flat I'm not so sure on...
Kurtz said on 30/Oct/17
Click Here:

bye bye anything over 6 3
Junior said on 30/Oct/17
Clint height loss had to be stable now at 6'0 for years

Click Here: Scott look almost 1.5" shorter than his dad Clint.
Mister lennon said on 30/Oct/17
Looked the same in the good, the bad and the ugly??? In wich scene??? For what i remember, clint still looked almost 2 inches taller.

And he wore lifts for that movie and not in the other one with clint??? Why??? It makes non sense at all.

What i dont understand is this obsession
With makes all the actors shorter than they really are. Everyone wear lifts and everyone is shorter than their public heights. All this stuff is really absurd and is coming very annoying.
James said on 29/Oct/17
Van Cleef was two inches shorter than Eastwood in "For a Few Dollars More", yet looked the same height as him in "The Good the Bad and the Ugly". I believe Van Cleef was 6'1", but wore lifts to look 6'3".
King of the hill 91 said on 28/Oct/17
How can aman be 183cm when he at peak at lowest 191cm or really 192cm to 193cm man could be 184cm to 185cm
jervis said on 28/Oct/17
Except for Clint ,Tim, he's an exception he is 1.5 inches less than his billed height,in your opinion.
Anonymous said on 28/Oct/17
Click Here

curious photo where the beatles describe the height of Ali
Rory said on 27/Oct/17
Really any guesses straying away from say 6'3-6'4 peak are to be taken with a pinch of salt. 99.9% chance he measured within that range.
Tim said on 27/Oct/17
Jervis:
Man do not try to convince me. One thing in life is what people say or what the tell you and other thing is the truth. You have to be smart to think by yourself and believe what you think is true. If he was listed 6'5 would you believe it? The problem with people is they believe what the are told. And in this life Truth is not welcome and not easy to find.
It's easy Clint never never looked like a 6'4 man barefoot. I know what I'm talking about. A legit 6'4 barefoot is really really tall. You can't even imagine. Dolph Lundgren is an example of a 6'4 man but he claimed some time 6'5 then 6'4 and 193 cm. I guarantee 80% of people would say 1 inch over his real height or 0.5 more( with shoes) . Also Liam was an example of a 6'4 even 6'3.75 and looked more than an inch on Clint! david hasselhoff was another example of a 6'4 man today looks 6'3.5. Clint with luck hit 6'3 ( 190 cm) I can not give more than 6'2.5 to Clint. And do not compare others actors like Gene hackman is 6'2 bla bla. maybe he was 186 cm. Remember 80% of people and more being famous are overlisted at least for 0.5 inch! Medical measurement is not usually given. Trust me and a medical height is so different from an actor claim!
jervis said on 27/Oct/17
Tim,Clint was originally listed as 193 cm on this site but Rob downgraded him to 192cm,in every article I've read on Clint he was always described as 6ft4,I don't know were your getting the 188cm one from but I've never seen it.Having said that I have seen him described as 6ft3 in a couple of articles,for example the one at the top of this page.
Mister lennon said on 27/Oct/17
Van cleef was 6'2. And afleck is 6'2 too.
Not les than a strong 6'3 peak for clint. 6'2 is absurd.
James said on 26/Oct/17
Lee Van Cleef was 6'1".
Celebheights 6'1.5 said on 26/Oct/17
You think that Ben was 186 CM tall? Then let me guess, you think that Hugh Jackman is 184-185 CM tall, with Ryan Reynolds being 186-187 CM tall in your perspective?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Oct/17
189cm peak is ridiculous. Lee Van Cleef could have been that and Clint always looked over 1in taller...
James B said on 25/Oct/17
Saw Ben Afflick in London and he looked every bit of 6ft2.25
Tim said on 25/Oct/17
Clint medical measurement or a real height was minimum 187.75 and max. 189 cm guys wake up. A slim guy looking taller with his cowbowboots. This is the reality can look near 6'4. But he was a strong 6'2 footer a real very very stron 6'2 footer 6'3 right after bed. End of this story. Big fan and watch his movies, watch a lot of pics and read aticles he always was described here as a 188 cm tall man. Then he was boosted to 192 cm. This is marketing. A 192 cm being slim and being Clint Eastwood would make you all think he was 6'5. If Clint was a real 192 cm man or 6'3.75 you all would think or say he was 6'5. Wake up!
Minium peak height 6'2 max 6'2.75
Tim said on 25/Oct/17
Ben Affleck maybe was 186 cm being 188 range with his shoes. Clint an inch over max 188 range 190-191 with shoes. Wake up dude and watch reality and no marketing. Learn whats a medical measurement or a real height
Celebheights 6'1.5 said on 25/Oct/17
@Tim 189 CM for Clint's peak height is completely ridiculous. Ben Affleck is within that range (Ben's definitely not 184-185 CM before you even try to suggest that he is!) and a peak Clint would likely have him by a bit more than an inch.
Tim said on 20/Oct/17
Rob you should downgrade .75 is very high Will you list him at least .25?
James B said on 18/Oct/17
Rob interesting he did seem too hold onto 6'3 flat for a long time didn't he (late 1970s-early 1990s) and then shrank more rapidly after that.

That said 1977 is just my guess as too when he lost a cm.
Tim said on 17/Oct/17
LOL he looks much older he is mad
In the video Ali looks 6'1.75 Clint weak 6'3 Presnell 6'4
Mister lennon said on 17/Oct/17
Only 6'2 for peak clint makes non sense. How he was more than 1 inch taller than solid 6'2 lee van cleef???
Or only a little bit shorter than solid 6'4 george kennedy??

Or the same than solid 6'3 donald shuterland??

And the list of examples goes and goes.

6'2 for peak clint is just absurd. He was a strong 6'3 minimun at peak.
James B said on 16/Oct/17
The Enforcer was the last film in my opinion where Clint was around his peak height of 6'3 1/2 does anyone else agree?

From 1977 onwards he looked a little shorter in my opinion.
James B said on 16/Oct/17
Rob if Ali had a massive ego there would be no chance he would claim 6'2.5 if he was that height barefoot.
Editor Rob: I think in some respects, he was honest about a few facts like height. He kept his ego in his back pocket!
jervis said on 16/Oct/17
Tim Presnell is 3 years younger than Clint.Presnell was only 37 there.
Tim said on 16/Oct/17
Jervis there more than 1 in beteween Clint and the tallest guy. Acept Clint was 6'3 maybe morning hours. Harve Presnell doesn look he had at that time his height prime. He looks near a legit 6'4 about 6'3.75, this makes a Clint 6'2.5 in 1970 with luck. This is the truth reality
jervis said on 16/Oct/17
Presnell is listed as both 6ft5 and 6ft4.
Rory said on 15/Oct/17
Tim is either a fool or a troll. Take your pick. Hopefully for his sake he's a troll because stupid slogans like "189 max" aren't exactly educated guesses.
jervis said on 15/Oct/17
Ali 6ft2,Clint 6ft3 and Harve Presnell that's the other Guy Tim,6ft4.
Parker said on 15/Oct/17
Tim said on 15/Oct/17
In the video from 1970 with Ali on TV show you can see Ali, Clint Eastwood and another guy who is the tallest. He is a good example of a legit 6'4 man

His name is Harve Presnell - listed at 6'5 on the movie database, for what its worth.
Tim said on 15/Oct/17
In the video from 1970 with Ali on TV show you can see Ali, Clint Eastwood and another guy who is the tallest. He is a good example of a legit 6'4 man. You can clearly see he is about 1'5 inch oh Eastwood
Tim said on 15/Oct/17
dolph lundren one day started saying he was no 6'5 and over, but 6'4. When he was 20 he was described as a martial artist 6'4 and on his website he was listed 193 cm also in twitter he was asked how tall he was and he said 193-194 cm but today 6'3. This is pretty interesting because having this info you can see this guy was taller than Eastwood in his prime for more than 1 inch. I can not give more than 6'2.5 for Mr. Eatwood! 6'2.75 at morning hours. 6'4 is taller just as Dolph in his prime or David Hasselhoff.
Tim said on 15/Oct/17
All this heights are booted I dont understand the point.. Funny to see also Scott Eastwood at 5'11 lol. Please have anyone met him? I did in LA when he was interviewd by Mario Lopez I'm 5'11 and Scottis 5'9. I tower him. Compare him with Mario Lopez they both have same height. Maybe Scott 1 inch on Mario Lopez who is 5'8 he usuakky uses high shoes. I know 100% Scott is 5'9
Tim said on 15/Oct/17
Idont care what you say about Ali what I know Clint was never over 189 cm in his prime and this is 6'2.5 barefoot
jervis said on 14/Oct/17
Tim,Ali was minimum 6ft2 not maximum,he wasn't 6ft1 he was a solid 6ft2 Guy,usually listed 6ft2.5 and was originally listed 6ft3.Downgrading Ali's height to suit your argument is very weak.
Editor Rob: nobody should ever mentioned Ali as 6ft 3 after it's established he has said a few times that 6ft 2.5 figure.

Ali had an ego the size of Mount Everest, there is literally no chance he was 6ft 3 barefoot and then rounded down to say 6ft 2.5.
Parker said on 14/Oct/17
Strange thread this with posters trying to decrease his height.

Eastwood said he was 6'4 at 15. Why would he lie? He may have been 'about' 6'4 and just under, but in Magnum Force he;s clearly taller than a number of 6'2 guys listed on this site.

Ali is listed 6'2.5 on this site, I've also seen 6'3 listings. In that Clip with Clint he has more footwear and still looks shorter.

Minimum 6'3 for Eastwood, closer to 6'4 IMO
Tim said on 13/Oct/17
Agree Anonumous:
Ali maybe was 6'2 tops he also had officaly 6'1 sometime.. Let's say he is 6'1.75 in the video at that time next to Clint. Clint looks 6'2.5 max . Also he is wearing boots and Clint had the opposite bodytype Slim skinny so next to Ali looks even taller. Impression to Alli himself is as he said in the tv show: Clint is very tall. Taller than me. Just 1 inch can make you feel short next to a slim young Clint Eastwood!..
jervis said on 13/Oct/17
Clint had about an inch on the 6ft2 or 6ft2.5 Ali depending on which measurement suits you.Because Ali was listed as 6ft2.5, he mentions his height as 6ft2 in that interview because he was not bothered about the extra bit I think.To me Clint was a solid 6ft3 Guy and was measured close to 6ft4 in his youth at morning time
James B said on 13/Oct/17
Dirty Harry I think is one example where Clint didn't look 6'4.
Tim said on 13/Oct/17
I think beteween 6'2.5 and 6'3 in his prime is the most fair height for Eastwood
James B said on 13/Oct/17
In coogans bluff I think thats what a 6'5 1/2 would appear walking around BAREFOOT.
Anonymous said on 11/Oct/17
I find it hilarious people are still saying Clint was like 6'3.5-6'4. There is a very clear
video on youtube of Muhammed Ali and Clint standing straight together. Clint is only
marginally taller than 6'2 Ali. Why don't you guys first address that? This was 1970
I think, so no shrinking excuses.
James B said on 11/Oct/17
Rob if he wore 2 inch cowboys in coogans bluff he would have walked around at 6'5.5 in that movie?
Editor Rob: yeah he would have measured over 6ft 5 for sure.
James B said on 11/Oct/17
If Clint was very slim and looked taller than he was he would have looked 6'5 in his old movies which he clearly didn't.
Tim said on 10/Oct/17
Poeple underestimate bodytype and is pretty important when we talk about height, proportions, head lenght, legs lengh can make you a wrong height guess trust me guys. Clint is the kind of guy who looks even taller. He was maybe 6'3 but I'd say at morning lunch time in his absolute prime, more 6'2.5 man lookn over 6'3 with his slim figure.. 6'2.5 is almost 190 cm ! Do you een know how tall is that? A real 6'2.5 man is very tall! In his time people also were shorter and he also look taller about that he tower most of them..
Tim said on 10/Oct/17
Remember Clint is a very slim guy who look even taller than he is

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.