How tall is Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood's Height

6ft 0in (182.9 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 3.75in (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 10.75in (180 cm)
Height of Gene Hackman
Gene Hackman
6ft 2in (188 cm)
Height of John Wayne
John Wayne
6ft 3.75in (192 cm)
Height of Lee Van Cleef
Lee Van Cleef
6ft 2in (188 cm)

Add a Comment 250 comments

Average Guess (135 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.42in (191.6cm)
Current: 5ft 11.95in (182.8cm)
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
Tim said on 10/Oct/17
I can not give more than an inch on Murray. If Murray is 6'1.75 Clint was 6'2.75. over this mark is just fake
jervis said on 10/Oct/17
There is a pic of Clint from this year standing next to Mel Gibson,Clint looks taller than Mel,close to6ft I would say,although Clints posture is rather slack and Mel is standing ramrod straight with his head in the air.The interesting thing is if you check out earlier pics of both men from the eighties you can see just how much Clint,then in his fifties towered. Gibson,a clear example of how much height Clint has lost since peak,clear 6ft3 at that time IMO.
Rory said on 9/Oct/17
It's kind of insulting to Rob too. Do you really think someone who guesses height for a living and runs a website on it would be like 1.5 inches out on one of the worlds biggest movie stars ? Get real. Small fractions maybe like up to half an inch but not more.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Oct/17
No a prime Eastwood would have close to 2in on Murray
Tim said on 9/Oct/17
I knew because he was never over 6'3. It happens samething with Andy Murray a real 6'1.75. People insist he is at least 6'2 when himself has claimed his exact height at 6'1.75 or 187.5 cm, but people always guess his height at 6'2/ 6'3. With Clint Eastwood happens also... People insist he was 6'3-6'4, but the reality is he was 6'2.5 with luck I say 6'2.3. (a medical measurement) People overstimated a real medical measurement...
jervis said on 8/Oct/17
He looked similar to 6ft3.5 Chevy Chase in the mid eighties.
jervis said on 8/Oct/17
Tim I did not see the measurement,I was just saying what if.
movieguy said on 8/Oct/17
Back tracking on my previous comments where I believed a poster who claimed he had met Clint and said he was 6'2'' or a bit under. I just think that there needs to be more evidence of this given he tends to look taller than 6'2'' guys like Lee Marvin and Lee Van Cleef in the films he made. Also had about 2 inches on James Coburn in an episode of Rawhide. If these guys weren't a full 6'2'' they were very close. I'd have guessed Coburn and Clint as similar in height but standing together Eastwood is noticeably taller, someone mentioned this ages ago in a post, video was on YouTube but may have gone by now. I do think he was edged by other 6'4'' actors like Tom Selleck and David Hasselhoff so probably would put him at a morning 6'4'' and losing a cm or two as the day wears on. The height loss does seem a bit more pronounced than usual as many have commentated but could be ageing and the accompanying health issues I guess.
movieguy said on 8/Oct/17
Back tracking on my previous comments where I believed a poster who claimed he had met Clint and said he was 6'2'' or a bit under. I just think that there needs to be more evidence of this given he tends to look taller than 6'2'' guys like Lee Marvin and Lee Van Cleef in the films he made. Also had about 2 inches on James Coburn in an episode of Rawhide. If these guys weren't a full 6'2'' they were very close. I'd have guessed Coburn and Clint as similar in height but standing together Eastwood is noticeably taller, someone mentioned this ages ago in a post, video was on YouTube but may have gone by now. I do think he was edged by other 6'4'' actors like Tom Selleck and David Hasselhoff so probably would put him at a morning 6'4'' and losing a cm or two as the day wears on. The height loss does seem a bit more pronounced than usual as many have commentated but could be ageing and the accompanying health issues I guess.
kurtz said on 8/Oct/17
weak 6 3 at his peak not a hear more.
Tim said on 7/Oct/17
Another reason I'm sure he never was over 6'2.5 is that Andy Murray a tennis player has claimed he is 6'1.75 and in the ATP he is listed 6'3. He was very honest to say his real height is 187'5 cm or 6'1.75. Clint 2 inches taller than him?? haha lol. Andy Murray is very tall and to be honest Clint maybe looked 0'75 inch taller than him in his peak . Being Murray 187'5 cm (6'1.8) theres no chance Clint was 2 inches on him please! The look pretty similar when he was young
Tim said on 7/Oct/17
I hardly believe he measure 6'3.75 in the army. Heights usually are boosted. To me he never looked over 6'2.75. jUst need a proof and maybe I could believe that so I know he never looked like all those 6'4 legit flat actors
Tim said on 7/Oct/17
where did you see that mesaurement? Looks pretty interesting so that's a real height. I'd like to see his medical army measurement and I will believe he hit .75,that's the only chance I 'd believe it
jervis said on 7/Oct/17
Where I think the 6FT4 claim came from is from when Clint was measured in the army medical, he was measured at 6ft3.75 ,the measurement was done in the morning,Clint instead of saying 6ft3.75 when asked his height just said 6ft4 when asked his height, and this height just stuck with him through out his career.But the thing is that this was a morning measurement and by evening Clint was down to 6ft3.So later on in his life staring along a strong and 22 years younger 6ft4 Liam Neeaon,Clint now 58 and a bit under 6ft3,could not match up to the genuine 6ft4 inch Neeson,because Clint was never 6ft4 he was. 6ft3.Now struggling with 6ft flat at least he never resorted to using lifts like John Wayne allegedly. did in later years.
Tim said on 6/Oct/17
To jervis
I buy 6'3.25 after bed .75 still think a bit high
jervis said on 6/Oct/17
I would say 6ft3.75 is a morning measurement in his army days so he just went with 6ft4.By. right he was more 6ft3.
jervis said on 5/Oct/17
Tim I disagree ,6ft3 evening height at peak.
Tim said on 5/Oct/17
To Rory

lol...
Tim said on 5/Oct/17
To Jervies max 6'3 ok. How ever I give him 6'3 at the morning hours
jervis said on 5/Oct/17
Marvin was a solid 6ft1 Guy and Clint had a clear 2 inches on him,I'm not saying Clint was 6ft4,I would give him a solid 6ft3 peak though.
Rory said on 4/Oct/17
@Tim..."Clint was a real 6'2.25 tops 6'2.5".... "80% of people have the wrong perception about height"- yes evidently. Mind you I suppose we should be grateful that you're saying he cleared 6ft2 because if your name was James or Richard or w,e you'd probably say he was "six foot" and wore 3-4 inch lifts as well as having a political indiscretion...so thank you !
Tim said on 4/Oct/17
Sorry Lee Marvin was just over 6 foot close to 6'1 I was wrong . Clint 6'2.5 More than an inch nearly 2 Even 2 who knows.. Howver Lee Marvin looks 6'0.5 Clint 6'2.5 tops
jervis said on 4/Oct/17
Tim watch the making of paint your wagon on YouTube and tell me there is only 1 inch between Clint and Marvin.
Tim said on 4/Oct/17
To Jervis:
I can not say it louder but I can say it again: 80% of Peple have a wrong perception about heigh. You all would be surprised if you go to the doctor and got a medical mesaurement. The truth is different. Clint was a real 6'2.25 tops 6'2.5 Lee Marvin close to 6'1.5 Hachman same. Charlon Heston a bit over 6'1.5 Sean Connery 6'1.5 tops... Do you see these are real heights. Everybody usually add 1 inch. You would be surprised what is real and medical measurement wich is bareffot with a tap on your head and height with mm like 187'5 cm and not 189. You all would be near 1 inch less than you thought and Clint was at best 189 cm which is 6'2.25 so tall being a real 6'2.25 which is over 6'3 with sneakers..
Poeple think I'm 6 foot and my real height is 180 cm see? People think I'm 2,8 cm which is over 1 inch! Truth is so different from Hollywood or Marketing. If I was an actor I would be a legit 6 footer because with hsoes I look like a 6 footer and also I'm thin beu the truth is that I am 180 cm at night 5'10.8
jervis said on 3/Oct/17
Tim if he was 6ft2 how tall do you think the 77 year old James Stewart looks next to Clint,remember Stewart was a ligit 6ft3 at peak?IMO Stewart looks about 2 inches shorter than Clint making him 6FT even,that's 3 inches height loss aged 77,it looks as though Clints height loss may be not so remarkable after all.
Tim said on 3/Oct/17
no. He was 6'2. I think people has a wrong perception of height. You would be surprised what's your height and a medical measurement barefoot at evening and with a tap on your head. Clint maybe was 6'2.5 at most
Danimal said on 3/Oct/17
Danimal said on 30/Sep/17
He was between 6'4" and 6'4" at his peak and is struggling with a flat 5'11" today at 87 years old.

I meant to type between 6'3" and 6'4" peak.
Rising - 174 cm said on 2/Oct/17
Danimal said on 30/Sep/17
Rising - 174 cm said on 27/Sep/17
Dolph was actually claiming to be as tall as 6'6" in 1985 when Rocky 4 came out!

He claimed 6'5.5" on the Tonight Show with Joan Rivers hosting in the mid-late 80's.

Yeah, I've seen that as well. He claimed both and both claims were actually in 1985, iirc. Here's a screenshot of the 6'6" claim: Click Here

Also, if you look at old articles from the mid to late 90's, he's always described either 6'5.5" or 6'6". In this 1985 interview/feature on him, Dolph is described as 240 pounds and 6'6" around 1:30: Click Here That's also typical. He was said to be anywhere from 240 to 250 pounds. I believe he peaked at 248 for that film(eventually 250 for Masters of the Universe), but was more typically at 240 having been just 215 before he got the part in Rocky 4. The weight sounds correct, but you and I both know 6'5.5" was more likely a shoe height that he rounded up to 6'6" at times.

Danimal said on 30/Sep/17
He was between 6'4" and 6'4" at his peak and is struggling with a flat 5'11" today at 87 years old.

Assuming that's a typo and you meant between 6'3" and 6'4" then I agree he had to be somewhere in that range, but he's still easily over 5'11" as he usually looks over 5'11" despite his old man posture. Looks to be about the same height as 182 cm range Denzel Washington this year. It's possible Clint has finally dropped below 6'0", but there's a much better chance he's 6'0" than a flat 5'11". I'm guessing Rob hasn't put him at 182 cm yet precisely because it's difficult to guess how much old men will straighten up for a measurement.
Rory said on 2/Oct/17
When did David Hasselhoff ever appear next to Clint Eastwood ? Seriously some of these downgrader arguments are so flimsy and tenuous its silly. With Liam Neeson I'd say he looked 1.25 inches shorter than him, but he was 58 by then and had probably lost 0.5-0.75 from his youth anyway. Peak Neeson would probably have a half to three quarters of an inch on Clint, but then Neeson might have been a strong 6ft4. 6ft3.5-3.75 peak for Clint. I still think most Clint downgraders are watching him in the 1980s films assuming that was his peak where he did look 6ft3ish but that wasn't his peak he was in his fifties then. You have to watch him in the 1950s,1960s and early 1970s to get him at his peak. I'd be willing to compromise and agree on 6ft3.5 fior Clint but 6ft3 or under is a compromise too far.
Editor Rob: in the mid 80's clint still Looked taller than someone like James Stewart, who actually had begun to claim he was 6ft 4 and shrinking towards his latter days.

I wouldn't rule out 3.5 for Clint, I can understand how some 6ft 4 guys can seem taller than a Clint in the 1970's for instance.
Tim said on 1/Oct/17
Danimal said on 30/Sep/17
I just said he was never 6'4. Is imposibble. He was struggling with a flat 6'3 in his peak. Legits 6'4 guys were 1 inch on him
Guys like Liam neeson or David Hasselhoff always looked taller than him. These guys were legits 6'4 and you can see they have an easy inch on Clint Eastwood. I would say 1'5 inch. This makes Clint peak at 6'2.5 6'2.75 range. Do you even see Clint in the 60's was as tall as them? For sure he looked at least 1 inch less please.. Another reason being 5'11 today makes Clint impossible to be 6'4 . No way. He was interested in fitness and practising he maybe shrun a couple of inches but 4?? lol please....maybe at morning was 6'3
Tim said on 1/Oct/17
Danimal said on 30/Sep/17
I just said he was never 6'4. Is imposibble. He was struggling with a flat 6'3 in his peak. Legots 6'4 were 1 inc on him
Guys liks Liam neeson or David Hasselhoff always looke taller than him. These guys were legits 6'4 and you can see they have an easy inch on Clint Eastwood. I would say 1'5 inch. This makes Clint peak at 6'2.5 6'2.75 range. Do you even see Clint in the 60's were as tall as them? For sure he looked at least 1 inch less please..
Danimal said on 30/Sep/17
He was between 6'4" and 6'4" at his peak and is struggling with a flat 5'11" today at 87 years old.
Danimal said on 30/Sep/17
Rising - 174 cm said on 27/Sep/17
Dolph was actually claiming to be as tall as 6'6" in 1985 when Rocky 4 came out!

He claimed 6'5.5" on the Tonight Show with Joan Rivers hosting in the mid-late 80's.
Rising - 174 cm said on 30/Sep/17
@Tim: I don't agree he's 190 cm max, I believe Dolph can still look the full 6'3" at times when he stands straight with other six footers, including Rob's 6'2" friend Big Dale. Dolph is 6'2.5" minimum these days and 6'3" max these days, imo. 195 cm is about 6'4.75", which is the most Dolph could have been, imo and 6'4" flat or 193 cm is the minimum he could have been peak. The 6'6" claim probably was marketing the Drago image as Dolph claimed it when Rocky 4 came out and he also claimed Stallone was 5'10" in the same interview, which is at least an inch too high for Sly. Maybe Dolph measured 6'5.5" in shoes and claimed that and then rounded that up to 6'6" for other claims. Difficult to say since he's claimed 6'4", 195 cm(6'4.75"), 6'5", 6'5.5" and 6'6". That's A LOT of variation for height claims!
Tim said on 30/Sep/17
Rising - 174 cm said on 29/Sep/17
Dolph is listed at Rob page. He is 190 cm today max So this makes his claim was legit 6'4. He was described at 20 years old to be 6'4 (193cm) Maybe he said 6'5 or 6'6 for marketing which is 195 range. He was 192-193 cm today 190 just vivist Rob page with Dolph to see it
Rising - 174 cm said on 29/Sep/17
We never saw Clint and Dolph together so it's all conjecture. Dolph said 193 cm recently so it's difficult to say if he meant that as his peak height or his current height at the moment he claimed it. I give him 193 cm minimum and 195 cm max in his prime.
Melyst said on 28/Sep/17
Yes but Dolph looked almost 2 inches taller than Clint in their peak. Lets say 1.5. So if Dolph was 6'4.5 Clint was 6'3 max Dolp himself said he was 193 cm why he was going to say a shorter height? He also said 6'5 and 6'6 but I believe reason for movies marketing or whatever he claimed twice 6'4 which looks a real and legit. If Dolph wa 6'4 and I'm pretty sure that was his real height Clint was 6'2.5 6'3 maximum
Rising - 174 cm said on 27/Sep/17
Dolph was actually claiming to be as tall as 6'6" in 1985 when Rocky 4 came out! He also claimed 6'5.5" back then and you can see him constantly described as both in the 80s, though at the same time, he said 195 cm. He was always under 6'5" -- 193 cm minimum and 195 max, imo -- and I'd say about 6'3" standing straight for a measurement nowadays with that massive head of his or possibly 190 cm. Clint didn't look as towering as Lundgren in his prime -- who made Louis Gossett Jr. look short and could look over Brandon Lee's head -- but I've figured Clint was most likely 6'3.5" to 6'4" in his prime. He lost A LOT of height in his late 60's/early 70's, but still looked about the 6'3" he was getting listed when he did The Dead Pool, Unforgiven, In the Line of Fire etc.
Melyst said on 26/Sep/17
And about Dolph Lundgren I think that his 193 cm claim (6'4) lately was probably legit but from his younger years he definetly isn't over 190 today. This makes sense he was 6'4 and not 6'5 and over,
Melyst said on 26/Sep/17
Dolph Lundgren sweden actor has claimed twice how tall he was in the 80's and 90's : I'm 193 cm. This is 6'4. This actor always looked very very tall. You can wtch him in Rocky 4. Amazing looking. If Dolph has claimed he is 193 cm is imposible Eastwood's height at 192cm becase looks shorter. I can not give more than 189-190 cm for him in his younger days 6'2.5 6'3.. If Clint was 192-193 cm I believe most of people would guess his height at 195 cm range or 6'5". Clint was a legit 6'2"5 guy 6'2.0'75 max
Melyst said on 26/Sep/17
Dolph Lundgren sweden actor has claimed twice how tall he was in the 80's and 90's : I'm 193 cm. This is 6'4. This actor always looked very very tall. You can wtch him in Rocky 4. Amazing looking. If Dolph has claimed he is 193 cm is imposible Eastwood's height at 192cm becase looks shorter. I can not give more tan 189-190 cm for him in his younger days.. If Clint was 192-193 cm I believe most of people would guess his height at 195 cm range or 6'5". Clint was a legit 6'2"5 guy 6'2.0'75 max
Rory said on 25/Sep/17
It's always telling when most people say Clint was 6'3 or under 99% of the time they provide no evidence to back up their claims, because they can't. All it is is what their gut or agenda is telling them. Clint was 6ft3 bare minimum and quite probably over that, Deal with it.
Canson said on 25/Sep/17
192 peak maximum
Melyst said on 25/Sep/17
David Hasselhoff wa sa legit 6'4 for sure! Guys like him or Dolph were legit 6'4 guys. Clint doesn't look that tall but close 1 inch less is fair but not over please
Melyst said on 25/Sep/17
6'2 is the lowest he was for sure but 6'4 is too high. In my opiniĆ³n he was 6'3 at most
Morris said on 24/Sep/17
He appears to be tall as Brad Pitt at least since 10 years ago. See some pics at IMDb Dina Eastwood profile.
James B said on 24/Sep/17
Oh dear 5ft10? The lowest I would guess Clint is 6ft2 personally.
Editor Rob: 'My boyfriend thinks Chuck Norris is 5ft 4'...I read that one the other day too!
Editor Rob said on 23/Sep/17
Click Here

There are some folk out there who thought Eastwood was an average height guy!
jervis said on 18/Sep/17
He looked an easy 2inches taller than Lee Marvin,even if Marvin was 6ft.05 he still looked 6ft3 next to him,
iosu_lasa said on 17/Sep/17
Click Here

with David Soul... look at his feet. clint is not erect
newman said on 15/Sep/17
not a full 6'3 6'2.5 max
James B said on 14/Sep/17
I suppouse he did look the full 6'4 with David Soul
Rory said on 14/Sep/17
"I still think 6ft2 is a bit too low"...lol there's an understatement. Anyone who says he was under 6ft3 peak is quite literally nuts. Call in the doctors.
Rory said on 13/Sep/17
You could argue the full 6ft4 for a 60s Clint.
Melyst said on 13/Sep/17
jervis maybe a bit low 6'2 but much closer to 6'2 than 6'4. I believe he was 6'2.5" his max at most
Rising - 174 cm said on 13/Sep/17
Lol Clint wearing elevator shoes these days? I think I've heard it all. The statement he'd look 6'6" had he been 6'4" is nonsensical, but it brings to mind some common sense to show 5'11" is clearly too low today. If he were only 5'11" then he'd certainly look no more than 5'10" often with his old man posture or even less at times. As it is, he can still look very close to Bradley Cooper's height and about the same as Denzel Washington so 6 feet is about right today or very close to it. The lowest he could be is 5'11.5". As for his prime, I don't know if he was 6'4", but I'd bet a lot of money he was at least 6'3". Outside of something like Coogan's Bluff, Clint really only wore cowboy boots in Westerns, iirc meaning almost all the rest of the cast also wore them so it wouldn't give him any height advantage over his co-stars.
Blake6 said on 12/Sep/17
6'3 right after bed at his absolute peak max. 188 cm average peak
jervis said on 12/Sep/17
Ali I still think 6ft2 is a bit too low,I do agree that he was between 6ft2 and 6ft4,so I guess 6ft3 is about Right.
Blake6 said on 12/Sep/17
Ali Full agree. You could not say it better . That's what I' been saying here but a lot of guys dont believe it. Clint was 187.5-189 range over 6'2. Rob should downgrade him he has list him at almost 6'4.
Ali said on 11/Sep/17
Guys I think we should settle Clint's height. Many people believe that 6'4 is too much
for Clint. With the body type Clint had, he would have looked 6'6 if he were indeed
6'4 in his prime. Now obviously Clint was clearly taller than 6 ft in his prime. He has lost
I believe about 3 inches in height. I don't agree he stands 6ft these days. More like 5'11.
Even Clint is wearing elevator shoes these days occasionally to appear taller.

Clint was shorter than 6'4 and taller than 6'2. I see clint being closer to 6'2 than 6'4.
Therefore I think Clint might have been 6'2.5. That's about 189cm? Great height
for a male leading actor.

If you look at a youtube video in which you can see Clint and Muhammed Ali, Clint
looks slightly taller. Ali was 6'2. Now this was like 1970, so no loss of height at that
stage.

Now add some cowboy boots, Clint's thin build and he does actually look 6'4.

What do you guys think?
Dawersin5'10 said on 9/Sep/17
Rob please answer. Just want to know the reason you dont downgrade him. Over 6'3 is very high- This height listed is just unreal for Eastwood
Rory said on 8/Sep/17
You can't possibly base listings on one black and white photo..he looked shorter than Wayne in that one photo yes, does that he mean he was though ? No.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Sep/17
Height loss of that magnitude...injuries no question. I know guys 10 years older than Dolph who have held on to their height.
Melyst said on 6/Sep/17
Yes Rob. Jervis is right. Will you downgrade Clint? I think this height is like 1 inch higher tan he really was. 6'3 tops
jervis said on 6/Sep/17
Rob.do you still think Wayne and Clint were both 6ft3.75 peak?
.
James B said on 5/Sep/17
Rob maybe guys like and dolph and clint didn't get enough medical checkups which is why they have lost so much height?
Editor Rob: it could be just injuries and genetics.
Mark(5'9.5 said on 3/Sep/17
I think Wayne had an edge on Clint Eastwood, the more I see them.
jervis said on 3/Sep/17
To be edged out by a man in his late sixties,who is listed as the same height means Clint needs a downgrade from peak,do you not agree Rob?
Editor Rob: he might be 5ft 11.5, but some men can look an inch smaller than they measure.

You have to watch with some elderly gentlemen, many will look shorter than they can measure.
ranton said on 2/Sep/17
I think 190 cm with flip flops or 188'5 cm barefoot in his peak days.
jervis said on 1/Sep/17
Rob.have you seen the pic of Clint and John Wayne on the Wayne page,if so what is your opinion? I personally think Clint is in flat footwear and Wayne cowboy boots,also Wayne is closer to the camera.But then again I maybe wrong about the footwear.
Editor Rob: looks like Wayne has an edge on Clint there.
jervis said on 1/Sep/17
Wilson Ali was listed as 6ft3 in his early career,that was reduced to 6ft2.5 later,Ali himself said on that Frost show interview that he was 6FT2,he was obviously not bothered about the extra half inch.Have you seen the pics of him with the Beatles,and where he is on set with 6FT6 Clint Walker and 6ft1 Lee Marvin during the making of The dirty dozen, he looks a strong 6ft2 too me.
movieguy said on 1/Sep/17
As for Eastwood edging out Wayne go to the Wayne page where someone has posted a link to a photo of Eastwood looking up at Wayne, 2 inches difference. Maybe it is lifts or something though.
Slim said on 1/Sep/17
Rob, do you reckon he'll shrink to 5'10.75" in the next 3-4 years?
Editor Rob: he might be heading to 5ft 11 range in next few years...remember, sometimes with more elderly gentlemen, they may have lost height, but it can seem more due to a lack of great posture.
Wilson said on 31/Aug/17
jervis. Have you ever heard Macgregor is 5'8? He is oficially 5'9.. Do you believe it? I guarantee he is shorter. He is 173 cm. In sports they smash heights I dont know the reason but is true, maybe marketing .. Ali was maybe a bit over 6'1 no more. He looked 185-186 in his peak so Clint max 190
jervis said on 31/Aug/17
Wilson,I have never seen or read that Ali was only 6ft1,its normaly 6ft2,6ft2.5 or max 6ft3,where did you get the 6ft1 from?
Melyst said on 30/Aug/17
yes right...193 cm? with his boots on sounds good. Barefeet 6'4 for the Hollywood industry. He always looked 6'2.5 to me in the 70's maybe a chance 6'2.75 in the 50's
James B said on 30/Aug/17
Rob do you think clints height loss could have been made worse due too years of lifting heavy weights and possibly not enough visits to the doctor for osteoporosis?

Obviously since he was very tall in the first place that made him more prone to greater loss but on average you expect a 6'3.75 man to be 6'1.5 range at 87.
Editor Rob: I think genetics and maybe some proportion of heavy lifting over years did contribute to his loss. Of course, being a rather tall man to begin with, on average you'd expect a greater overall loss in height, especially being active through till his 80's.
jervis said on 30/Aug/17
I think he was 6ft4 in shoes in his youth,6ft3 barefoot.I am 5ft11 barefoot and 6ft in shoes and people think im 6ft,but if they ask me how tall I am I say 5ft11.He could have been 6ft2.75 or 190cm,but im more in the 6ft3, 191cm when it comes to Clint.
Wilson said on 30/Aug/17
Ali was 6'1 Clint 1 inch over him possible 1'5. Remember Clint is slim and looks also taller than Ali who was the opposite bodytype.
James said on 28/Aug/17
Eastwood edged out John Wayne because the older star wasn't at his peak height.
Kiko said on 27/Aug/17
Clint was 188 cm which is just over 6'2 that 6'4 claim is a joke. 6'4 guys edged him Dolh was 6'4 and look way taller.
Ali said on 27/Aug/17
Simple answer to the guys here thinking that Clint was 6'4 ish peak height. Look at the video
of Clint and Muhammed Ali. Clint is at best a tiny bit taller than Ali. And Ali was 6'2.
movieguy said on 26/Aug/17
There'd be no point of this site if everyone just came on and said Clint was definitely 6'4'', Arnie was definitely 6'2'' etc, all actors are exactly as tall as they claim to be etc. The whole point is to get a good natured debate going although you will find the occasional troll. I believe actors or celebrities in general are usually a bit smaller than advertised so to speak. Of course you will find exceptions with the actor that is bigger in real life than they appear on screen. As for Clint he's obviously a tall guy who has lost height over time. I think that suggesting he wasn't 6'4'' in his prime is perfectly legitimate. In reality how many of us on this site have met the guy or at least his younger self. Maybe he was 6'4'' maybe he was a bit less who knows. Just take a guess, that's the fun.
Barry Fl said on 25/Aug/17
Rory said on 24/Aug/17
Step outside your front door, there's a lot of big tall guys out there..and a chunk of them will end up movie stars like Clint Eastwood. I don't understand the way for some saying some film stars are tall is as outrageous as saying they have supernatural powers.

Love it. This really does seem to be the case! Well said, Rory. Some people just love to pull others down - whether for their height, talent, wealth, whatever. Just seen some pictures of Clint on set directing his new movie and even at his age and with relaxed posture he's taller than a lot of people milling around.
Rory said on 24/Aug/17
The other thing is Clint claims 6ft4...if Clint really was 6'2-2.5 range I just cannot see him being the type to fabricate his height, he just doesn't strike me as someone whose height conscious at all or petty enough to lie about something fairly insignificant. If he claimed 6'4 the lowest I could believe would be 6'3 minimum. I think anywhere in 6'3-4 range is arguable for Clint but beneath that and I think your conspiratorial side is running away with you.

Kiko, I don't know why you've been gripped by the idea Clint cannot possibly be 6'3-4. Step outside your front door, there's a lot of big tall guys out there..and a chunk of them will end up movie stars like Clint Eastwood. I don't understand the way for some saying some film stars are tall is as outrageous as saying they have supernatural powers.
Kiko said on 24/Aug/17
Rory you should go to sleep and keep living this fake life where everything is marketing. Good night 6'2.5 max
jervis said on 24/Aug/17
Rory,Kilo is downgrading all the actors Clint was in movies with and pictured with by at least 1 inch or sometimes more,so in his eyes the likes of Lee Marvin ,was instead of 6ft1.5 as listed here he was 6ft.05 ,or depending if it suits 6ft flat.I personally think Clint was a strong 6ft3 peak.I don't completely disagree with Kiko though,I just think his downgrades are a little bit extreme.
5
Rory said on 23/Aug/17
Really don't get the constant downgrading assault on Clint. There's no way he was just 6'2, a young Clint in certain films/scenes towered everyone, 6'2 guys can't do that you'd have to be minimum 6ft3. What's most bizarre is how some keep pumping out these claims about him being only 6'2-3 and yet never once cite any credible examples of him looking that low in the 60s/70s. Kiko sounds a bit nuts. I have to laugh when I read people saying you cannot lose 4 inches and yet at least once a week I see elderly men hunched right over as they walk the idea they've only lost a couple of inches is well just a bit thick really.
movieguy said on 23/Aug/17
I'm not convinced Dolph is as low today as Rob has him on this site. I still think he is a good 6'3'' today. A bigger man than Clint all round I'd say.
jervis said on 23/Aug/17
Clint aged 60 6ft2.5,height loss .05 of an inch from peak.Lundgren aged 60,6ft2.5,height loss 1.5 inches from peak.
Kiko said on 23/Aug/17
what is safe to say is Dolph Lundgren was at least 1 inch taller than Clint Eastwood 1.5 I say. and Dolph him self claim to be 6'4 or 193 cm twice. This makes Clint at 190 maxxx. How ever I say Clint was a very strong 6'2 maybe close to 6'3 but not 6'3 188-189 maxxx
Mark(5'9.5 said on 23/Aug/17
6'3.75" is fine. He edged out John Wayne
jervis said on 22/Aug/17
6ft3 peak now 6ft even with good posture 3 years short of his 90th birthday,that's a good height,most people don't live that long never mind still working at the top of their profession.
Kiko said on 22/Aug/17
bobbyh3342 said on 20/Aug/17
6'2 .25 peak 6 0.5 today

Full agree. 6'2.25 no more no less
movieguy said on 22/Aug/17
Of course you lose height as you age it's just that Clint's height loss seems very great if he has gone from 6'4'' to 6ft as appears to be the case. OK he was quite a lean guy so maybe more at risk but Christopher Lee was on the thin side and mostly kept his stature into old age. Clint always had a lot of hair which I think added an inch to his apparent height anyway. Having said that I've never met the guy so maybe he was 6'4'' in his prime, I can't be certain. My gut feeling is he was probably a bit shorter than this in reality. Clint grew up in a time when the average guy was probably about 5'8'' to 5'9'' in the US and UK. A 6'2'' to 6'3'' guy would appear pretty tall to most people and on the screen even bigger. This has been brought up before but there is a video of the David Frost show where Clint looks taller than 6'2'' Muhammad Ali and shorter than 6'4'' Harve Presnell. I think this provides a fair guide in that Eastwood was more than 6'2'' but not quite 6'4''.
jervis said on 21/Aug/17
By the way I ment kiko not kilo.
jervis said on 21/Aug/17
At Lundgren's age Clint was around 6ft2.5.Kilo you don't seem to have a problem believing Lundgren lost 3 to 4 cm from his.peak by the age of 60 why?If you say Clint was 6ft2 peak then what I can see is that he remained this height up until 70 years old.
bobbyh3342 said on 20/Aug/17
6'2 .25 peak 6 0.5 today
jervis said on 20/Aug/17
Andre it's a medical fact that you lose height as you age it's not just made up,look it up and Learn.
Editor Rob: and it can be numerous factors as to how fast or how much we might shrink...including the bone-building years of our youth, how much exercise we do as we get older, the nutrients in our diet as we age, the type of work we do...
Kiko said on 20/Aug/17
Clint loss 4-5 cm max. Do not forget you guys always judge his bad posture same as Arnold. But standing tall for a measurement Clint can hit 6 foot today. He was 188 cm 4-5 cm loss max. Being taller you can also loss more cm. Dolph Lundgren was a legit 192-193 cm man today he is about 189 cm and this guy was taller than Clint of course like 1 inch. Clint was over 6'2 and today 6 foot
Kiko said on 19/Aug/17
to movieguy:

I just say that more people like us should exist! Totally agree man. I'm happy there's still people like you. People ususally add 2 cm at least to a real height. It's just amazing. I'm conviced If Clint was 6'4 in another life people would guess he was 6'5 even 6'6. The truth ins this world is different. As I said I'm 178 cm an honest 5'10 guy and usually they think I'm 5'11 or 5'11.5 because I'm a real 178 cm barefoot and slim also like Clint. Witrh my sneakers on and at morning I'm over 5'11. Real height is different than people think...
andre said on 19/Aug/17
hey rob how is it possible for him to lose 9 cms? my grandfathar was measured in the army at 1.73m and right now at 80 years of age he is 1.72 cm and probably this 1 cm loss due to bad posture. He is smoking, drinking and he was lifting until he was 70( he had a construction job). What I'm asking, is losing height even real? Or is just based on that some people have bad posture when they become old. I know many people that are around 70 and haven't lost any height. Also my mother and my father are 60 and 61 of age and both of them have the same height as in their 20's.
iosu_lasa said on 18/Aug/17
Click Here:

Click Here:

Definitely 191 cms
movieguy said on 18/Aug/17
Kiko, like you I'm sceptical of the Incredible Shrinking Celeb. Used to be 6'4'' but now 6ft or less we are supposed to believe. Much more likely that the official height was a bit of an exaggeration to start with. Of course Clint was tall but I can't see him being the same height as genuine 6'4'' guys like Jeff Goldblum, David Hasselhoff or Tom Selleck even in his prime. His slim build makes him appear taller. 6'3'' I could accept but no way the full 6'4''. Again Kiko as you you state most guys claim they are taller than they actually are. We all know the 5'10'' guy who swears he's 6ft. In Hollywood such claims are likely to be more exaggerated than for 'normal' folk.
movieguy said on 18/Aug/17
Kiko, like you I'm sceptical of the Incredible Shrinking Celeb. Used to be 6'4'' but now 6ft or less we are supposed to believe. Much more likely that the official height was a bit of an exaggeration to start with. Of course Clint was tall but I can't see him being the same height as genuine 6'4'' guys like Jeff Goldblum, David Hasselhoff or Tom Selleck even in his prime. His slim build makes him appear taller. 6'3'' I could accept but no way the full 6'4''. Again Kiko as you you state most guys claim they are taller than they actually are. We all know the 5'10'' guy who swears he's 6ft. In Hollywood such claims are likely to be more exaggerated than for 'normal' folk.
jervis said on 18/Aug/17
Kilo it is not end of story,it's your opinion and your entitled to it as everybody else is.
Kiko said on 17/Aug/17
movieguy Again full agree! I also say he was from 6'2 to 6 end of the story. Makes him maybe over 6'4 in his good days with his cowboy boots. He was a bit over 6'2 barefoot with his slim appereance and shoes on he looks taller. but he was 6'2.25 a real heigh measuremnt. Most of all this actors are 1 inch shorter than they claim at least. Open your eyes again. Always people say excuse of 3 inches loss or even 4. thats a funny joke. They alsdo say about Arnold from 6'2 to 5'11 lol lol. Arnols same thin from 6'05 maxx to 5'11 maxx
jervis said on 16/Aug/17
If he was 6ft2 Then Hakman,Connery,Caine we're not even 6ft1 never mind 6ft2.By the time of the deadpool he was 58 and was probably aruund 6ft2.75,Neeson being IMO 6ft4.25 peak had about 1.5 on Clint.I.agree. Clint was not 6ft4 peak but 6ft2 is too low,6ft3 is bang on right between the two and that feels about right to me.Also the average man loses up to 2 inches by 80,but remember Clint is 87 and he could have lost a bit more.

5
Movieguy said on 16/Aug/17
In dead pool he looked at least an inch shorter than Liam neeson and in some scenes much shorter. Tim Robbins towered him. Tom selleck looked much taller than clint dancing with princess Diana. The issue is has he genuinely lost 4 inches or was he never a full 6'4''. Men dont usually lose as much height as clint is supposed to have lost. Usually 2 inches at most. Dropping from 6'2'' to 6ft seems more plausible.
iosu_lasa said on 15/Aug/17
I rememeber to clint next to Marvin and the difference of height was very similar
Click Here
iosu_lasa said on 15/Aug/17
Click Here
I do not know how he does it, but Clint is able to look taller or lower on the photos, depending on his body posture and his age.
iosu_lasa said on 15/Aug/17
Click Here

Frankly it is unfair to say that clint was less than 191 cms
jervis said on 15/Aug/17
That one with Chase is a good one,Chase was 6ft3.5,and is stretching up as tall as he can,Clint has more relaxed posture and is almost his height,if Chase was standing the same as Clint there would be nothing between them.
iosu_lasa said on 15/Aug/17
Here, near Juan Carlos I KING OF SPAIN (1,88)
Click Here:
jervis said on 14/Aug/17
I wouldn't put to much faith in those comments on the Sam Elliote Robert Ryan pages,they could have just made that up.James Coburn,Lee Marvin,were 6ft1 minimum and Clint had a Clear 2inches on both.6ft2 for Clint would make both Coburn and Marvin 6ft and they weren't.Kiko can say what he wants but I have been looking at height comparison pics of Clint with other stars, and Clint movies for 30 years and I have never had any reason to believe he was 6ft2.He was IMO 6ft3.
Willes188 said on 14/Aug/17
Anybody who thinks Clint was 6'2 range to 6'3 flat peak better check in to a mental asylum, He stod 6'5 in his cowboy boots and without them easily 192.5
jervis said on 14/Aug/17
George Kennedy always looked a honest 6ft4 Guy to me,but with Clint at 6ft2 it would make Kennedy in the 6ft2.5 or Max 6ft2.75 range.Also all of thy Beatles apart from Ringo were average height 5ft9 to 5ft10,there ate pics of them with Ali and Ali looks am easy 6ft2 next to them,infraction they look short next to him.I agree Clint was not 6ft4 peak as he stated himself on many occasions, but he was not 6ft2 either,he was 6ft3.Also there if a pic from the mid eighties of Clint standing next to 6ft3.5 Chevy Chase and he looks very similar in height so 6ft3 looks about right to me.
movieguy said on 13/Aug/17
I agree Kiko. What has swung it for me is the comments on the Sam Elliott and Robert Ryan pages where he is guessed as 6'2'' by two guys who claim to have met him. Perhaps these comments are fake but they sound convincing. I doubt if Rob will downgrade Clint further though as there is no hard evidence I admit.
Kiko said on 12/Aug/17
movieguy this is just simply. Clint was a strong 6'2. 6'2.25 in his peak. Today about 6 foot standing tall, walking looks 5'11 and standing tall 6 foot. 2 inches loss for him is what he shrunk. Being 87 years old and a lot of movies behind is the result and a decent loss for Eastwood. Is amazing how most of people say he loss 10 cm! Just unreal and impossible for him. Beacvuase he nevere was 6'3.75 maybe in this fake markting industry. I know what I'm talking about. He was a bit over 6'2 (From 188 cm to 182.5 cm sounds more realistic and I0m sure closer to the truth)
Kiko said on 12/Aug/17
movieguy this is just simply. Clint was a strong 6'2. 6'2.25 in his peak. Today a bit about 6 foot standing tall, walking looks 5'11 stading tall 6 fott. i inches loss for him is what he shrunk. Being 87 and alot of movies back is the result and a decent loss. Is amazing how most of people say he loss 10 cm! Just unreal and impossible for him. I know what I0m talking about. From 188 cm to 182.5 cm sounds more realistic and I0m sure closer to the truth
movieguy said on 11/Aug/17
There are photos of Princess Diana dancing with Tom Selleck and Clint Eastwood at the White House in the 80s. 6'4'' Selleck looks noticeably taller than Eastwood in comparison with Diana. Either Clint was never 6'4'' or was already losing height back in the 80s. Clint is my favorite actor and I kind of want him to be larger than life, however I do have serious doubts whether he was really 6'4'' at any point. The only alternative is that there was some health issue with the back I guess which has resulted in a dramatic height loss.
Kiko said on 10/Aug/17
Dolph Lundgren claimed he was 193 cm officially also on his website. That guy is really tall of course looked taller than Eastwood. You guys saying Eastwood was same height? lol big lol. He close to 2 inches shorter. If Dolph was 193 cm (6'4) I can not but even 6'3 for Eastwood. I give 6'2.75 in his best day on his peak with a lot of luck. But I believe he was 6'2.25- 6'2.5
Kiko said on 10/Aug/17
movieguy said on 9/Aug/17
Hollywood is the dream factory. Just because somemone has a bio that claims 6'4'' doesn't mean it

Full agree. At least still people who can think by themselves and watch by them selves not believe evrything....
Kiko said on 10/Aug/17
he was 6'3 topss movieguy is right you have to be a bit skeptical about an actors official bio and more if most of people exaggerate their height. Of course he never looked 6'4. Maybe a bit over 6'3 after bed but again I say he was 6'2.5 max
jetvis said on 9/Aug/17
I have seen a few articles about Clint where he was described as 6ft3,there is the one at the top of this page where he is described as 6ft3 and 216 pounds.
jetvis said on 9/Aug/17
I think 6ft3 is a very arguably height for Clints peak,close to 6ft4 morning.
movieguy said on 9/Aug/17
Hollywood is the dream factory. Just because somemone has a bio that claims 6'4'' doesn't mean it is really true. I'm not saying that Clint wasn't 6'4'' just that we should be a bit skeptical about an actors official bio.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Aug/17
Click Here Eastwood with strong 6'3 peak Donald Sutherland. Click Here Sutherland with 6'2 peak Sean Connery. Yes, Clint was 6'2 tops...
Arch Stanton said on 9/Aug/17
@Kiko, watch Magnum Force, Tim Matheson and Robert Ulrich were around 6'2. There's a firing scene in the film where he clearly looks near 2 inches taller. Also watch the air hangar scene with David Soul who Rob has at 6'0.5 peak. Eastwood looks between 3 and 4 inches taller.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Aug/17
LOL, if you watch the 1958 film Touch of Evil if Heston was 187 Orson Welles was nearer 180.
Canson said on 8/Aug/17
Clint was never 193cm at his lowest even in his peak. Maybe a 190-191 guy or we could push for 191-192 possibly and he could be a 6'4" out of bed but that's a big "if". I could buy anywhere around 6'3 mark maybe slightly over or under. I used to think 6'3.5ish but doubt it now based on the pics I've seen.
Kiko said on 7/Aug/17
Ok you are right 6'2 maybe is a bit short for Eastwood in his peak but not a full 6'3 I say 6'2.5 believe how tall is that barefoot.. and more being slim with long legs as him. He can pass like a 6'4 man. If yu see him with his cowboy boots even more!
Mark(5'9.5") said on 7/Aug/17
Not to mentioned Peak Clint Eastwood edged out John Wayne.

Also, I'm suspecting @kiko is @James again.
Kiko said on 7/Aug/17
you don't even see shoe advantage or flat floor, etcc They were about the same size. 188-189 cm at most wiich is is 6'2.5 maxxx for Eastwood 6'2 Heston. Andy Murray tennis player look very tall and he claimed 187'5 cm 6'1.75 and I believe Heston was as tall as him so 187 cm Heston 188-189 max Eastwood
Mark(5'9.5") said on 7/Aug/17
Not to mentioned Peak Clint Eastwood edged out John Wayne.
James B said on 7/Aug/17
get real 188cm is too short for a peak clint

If you want to see what 6'2 looks like watch some of gene hackmans old films
Arch Stanton said on 7/Aug/17
Kiko, you go from saying "He was 188 cm at his absolute peak height barefoot" to "the most he was is close to 6'3." and "he was nt even 6'3 maybe very close". So he grew on inch LOL? Either he was 6'2 MAX or not. Here's 6'2 Eastwood with 6 ft range Charlton Heston Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 7/Aug/17
Kiko, the classic troll....
Mister lennon said on 7/Aug/17
6'2 is a joke for peak clint. Tell me how he looked almost the same than 6'4 george kennedy. And that is only one example.

No less than a strong 6'3 peak.
Kiko said on 6/Aug/17
Clint is a classic 188 cm man 6'2.5 max. You dont even have to meet him. Saw all Rawhide series 50 and 60's when he was on his peak and is obvious he was nt even 6'3 maybe very close but I say 6'2.5 max 6'3 right after bed
Kiko said on 6/Aug/17
Are you guys kidding right? The point is that most of these actors got their heights boosted. Is also funny you all say Ali was 6'2.5 He vlaimed himself he was 6'2 but if he says that I'm convince he was a bit shorter. I give him strong 6'1 no more. He looks a classic 184-185 cm man 6'1 max for him which is 6'2 on his sneakers. Clint was like 4 cm taller just take a look on youtube where they were on TV interview together. He said: I'm big I'm 6'2 ( real life 6'1) his appereance is 6'1. but Clint Easwood is very tall. He is a slim guy who can look some times 190 cm or 6'3, but the most he was is close to 6'3. Real life: He was 6'2.5 barefoot Ali was 6'1 Fake or marketing or movistars height 1 to 2 inhes taller...
Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/17
Also look at Clint and Charlton heston who some argue was 6'3 himself. 6'2 you say?
Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/17
Clint was also taller than Muhammad Ali who was nothing under 6'2.5, there's a video on youtube in which Ali even says Clint is bigger.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Aug/17
Because Kiko, Clint looked 2.5 inches taller that Lee Marvin, same on Don Stroud and Jeff Bridges, 2 inches on Tim Matheson and Robert Ulich, similar to 6'4 George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott, perhaps edged out slightly and looked to edge out 6'3.5 Donld Sutherland. All the evidence points to 6'3.5-6'4 peak, though I agree before I even started comparing I thought 6'4 seemed too high and thought more 6'2 myself at one point!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Aug/17
Arch, Daniels wasn't quite 6ft3 peak
Flint said on 5/Aug/17
6'4" is most likely his height in boots and rounded up. more like just over 6'2" barefoot. That's tall enough, but they had to boost it up because he was so much taller than all those short actors who also had their heights boosted.
Kiko said on 5/Aug/17
same as Dolph Lundgre height?? I can't believe it Rob. Clint was about 1.5- 2 inches shorter than him. Just watch him.
Dolph was 6'4 a legit 6'4 no more no less. He claim himself in his website and interview he was 6'4 since 18 years old 193 cm barefoot. He also was described athletic 6'4 muscular built in his peak. He always look 5 cm on Eastwood. 193 Dolph 188 Clint. Why all these celebrities got their heights rised? Rob Clint deserbe to be 6'3 listed at most. Is too high. Not the truth
Kiko said on 5/Aug/17
with his cowboy boots 6'3.5 peak days. but Is amazing people say he was that height barefoot! he was 6'2.5 tops
Slim 182 cm said on 5/Aug/17
Great, I've got the picture that's gotta convince you Clint was 193: Click Here
20 cm between Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood easily, or I'd give leone the quarter inch downgrade.
movieguy said on 5/Aug/17
In fairness Clint does seem to have lost a fair bit of height. His legs have gotten much longer in proportion to his body over time indicating a loss of height in the spine. He did have quite narrow shoulders as a young man so maybe wasn't as robust as some despite looking fit. I don't really see him as under 6'3'' in his youth although I'm skeptical of the full 6'4'' claims.
Kiko said on 4/Aug/17
Clint was 6'2. I can't believe people believes he was 6'4. He never looked that tall. With cowboyboots looked 190 cm never over. (6'2.75) Anyone with a good eye who had ever watched a lot of movies since his youth would never say he was over 188 cm or 6'2.5! He was 188 cm at his absolute peak height barefoot(6'2.25- 6'2.5 maxx )
Spencer said on 3/Aug/17
He looked 6 ft in Gran Torino maybe 184 . Peak looked close to 6'4.
jetvis said on 3/Aug/17
Rob do you ever think his height loss seems a bit odd because of his good health?
Editor Rob: the taller you are, the greater the overall loss...he's had a long career, many physical roles...he just may have got a bit unlucky with genetics or he ended up with some more bone loss or disc problems which led to further losses.
jetvis said on 3/Aug/17
I mentioned before in an episode of Rawhide there are some very good height comparisons between Clint and 6ft2.5 listed Jim Davis and both men look identical in height.My mind is still open on Clints peak.With Robbins Clint would have been in his early 70s and looked 6ft1 meaning a height loss of almost 3 inches which is a little bit hard to believe .
Arch Stanton said on 2/Aug/17
LOL, so that makes Jeff Daniels 6'1, Jim Carey no more than 6 ft and so on. Clint was taller than 6'3 peak Jeff Daniels at a time when he had lost height!
jetvis said on 2/Aug/17
If he was proven to be 6ft2,it would explain the massive height loss,also a lot of downgrades for other actors,I wouldn't. rule anything out though.
movieguy said on 2/Aug/17
On the Robert Ryan and Sam Elliott pages on this site there are stories from two guys who claim to have met Clint and guess his height at 6'2''. Their stories sound believable if anyone wants to check. I've always gone for Clint as a weak 6'4''. If Clint was only 6'2'' then this would explain the very dramatic height loss and why Tim Robbins towered over him at the time of Mystic River. Are these stories true though?
jetvis said on 1/Aug/17
Does smoking a lot make you lose height Rob?
Editor Rob: I would advise anybody against smoking. Long-term it certainly increases problems, including those which might lead to bone loss.
James said on 1/Aug/17
Marvin smoked 6 packs of cigarettes a day so he was likely to have lost height early.
Jim Hopper said on 31/Jul/17
No doubt he was 6-3 upwards to 6-4. That's not really the question. But he has lost a lot of height.
Rory said on 30/Jul/17
I challenge any downgrader to find me a veritable picture of a pre 1980 Clint Eastwood looking under 6ft3. I dare you.
jetvis said on 29/Jul/17
Marvin was only 45 at the time of paint your wagon and only 6 years older than Clint,I don't think he would have lost any height by that stage.
Marvin always looked a solid 6ft1 Guy to me,in Gorky park aged late fifties he looked similar to the much younger 6ft2 listed William Hurt.Downgrading someone below 6FT1 just to suit your opinion on Clint's height is a very weak argument. Clint in his peak was a Solis 6ft3 Guy,he was probably close to 6ft4 in the morning in his youth and just went with that through his career because it sounds more impressive than 6ft3
jervis said on 29/Jul/17
Marvin was only 45 at the time of paint your wagon and 6 years older than Clint, I dont think he would have lost a inch in height by that age.
berta said on 29/Jul/17
i think about 191-191,5 peak
Around 1985 190,3
Around 1995 188,3
Around 2005 185,3
Today 182-183
Peterson188cm said on 28/Jul/17
Ronald Reagan and Clint Eastwood:

Photo- Click Here
James said on 28/Jul/17
Lee Marvin was only six foot by middle age, he may have been nearly 6'1" as a young man.
RichardSpain said on 28/Jul/17
Bridges was 186cm MAX. He doesn't look a strong 188 cm

Eastwood 190 cm MAX.
movieguy said on 27/Jul/17
I'm a Clint fan and this is the celeb I'd most like to know how tall he actually was in reality when young. It's funny cause I recall people on this site saying they met him and he was definitely 6'4'' others say they met him and he was definitely no more than 6'2''. If Clint was only 6'2'' then guys like Lee Marvin and James Coburn were only 6ft.
iosu_lasa said on 26/Jul/17
Click Here:

Clint and Freeman
James said on 26/Jul/17
Jeff Bridges was never any taller than 6'1".
Mister lennon said on 26/Jul/17
Brigdes was a solid 6'1 peak.
Rising - 174 cm said on 25/Jul/17
Where did you get Bridges being listed at 6'1" from? Bridges claims to be 6'2" and Rob estimates him at 6'1.5" peak, which seems about right, imo. That would make Clint about 6'3.5" peak.
Dan said on 25/Jul/17
I agree James...on top of that, Bridges is at most 2" shorter than Eastwood in Thunderbolt, and his height is listed as 6'1", which means he's probably a bit less.
movieguy said on 25/Jul/17
People can lose inches in height as they age and this is clearly the case with Clint. He's gone from a minimum of 6'3'' I'd say to barely 6ft today. The photos that always puzzle me are from the time of Mystic River where Tim Robbins absolutely towers over Eastwood. One guy is supposed to be 6'5'' and the other 6'4'' or thereabouts but the height difference is very noticeable.
Rising - 174 cm said on 24/Jul/17
I would like to be 6'0" minimum and 6'2" max - that's the ideal range for me - but I'd probably choose 6'3"-6'4" range over 5'11" with the right build. Being thin at 6'3"+ wouldn't be too good, imo since you can look lanky and awkward, but if you're broad and powerfully built, then it'd be good. Falling short of the 6 foot mark is just disappointing to me. Of course, at 5'11", you can easily look 6 feet with the right footwear, so if we're considering that, then I may take 5'11", but if lifts or thick footwear are excluded, then with a good build, I'd say 6'3"-6'4". A Dolph Lundgren 6'4" is very impressive, I wouldn't mind being that at all.

With that said, I think Scott might be closer to 5'10" than 5'11", or perhaps right in between at 5'10.5", but 5'11" is pushing it, imo.
Jim Hopper said on 23/Jul/17
Id say a little over 6-3" now 6-0" or just under.
James said on 23/Jul/17
Bridges was never 6'2", lol.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jul/17
Clint had 2.5 inches on Jeff Bridges who was between 6'1 and 6'2 peak.
RichardSpain said on 22/Jul/17
I still think he wasn't a strong 6ft 3.75. To me he was 6'3 in peak max and a strong 6'2 during a long time.
Dan said on 22/Jul/17
TWO points...the average peak and current guesses here are absurd. No one loses four inches in height unless plagued with health issues, and Eastwood is the picture of health.

Secondly, he is much too much shorter than the 6'4" Liam Neeson in The Dead Pool to have ever been 6'4". He gives away two inches easily to Neeson...more so from what I can see.

He is also consistently about where Eric Fleming was in height, and Fleming was billed as 6'3", though was probably not quite there.

6'2.5" is the absolute MAXIMUM I would give Eastwood at his peak. He is still taller than Justin Timberlake now, which means his current height is at least over 6'.
slimeball said on 22/Jul/17
Clint eastwood was exactly same height and size as me when he was younger. I am 6.3.5 (191.5-192 cm) and around 200-210 pounds. I can see that by full body shots, he looks exactly the same as me in proportion but he looks to have little less bodyfat, so i think he was 190-200 pounds in dirty harry movies.
Jervis said on 22/Jul/17
6ft2 is too low, 6ft4 is to tall, for Clint 6ft3 is perfect.
Aza said on 22/Jul/17
@Matthew Robinson
I tend to agree with you. If I could choose my perfect height ( my absolute low is 182.5 cm) it would be 6'3. I really wouldn't want to be any taller tbh. I think a young Clint Eastwood would wake up close to 6'4 and believe his peak low was 6'3.25. Today , yes he's possibly just over 6 ft.
Matthew Robinson said on 21/Jul/17
James B said on 21/Jul/17
Much better being 5'11 than 6'4

---

Nah. At roughly 6'3" I can say from personal experience I disagree pretty strongly.
James B said on 21/Jul/17
Much better being 5'11 than 6'4
Ali said on 20/Jul/17
He was only slightly taller than Muhammed Ali, who was a 6'2 max. Clint Eastwood was 6'2.5 peak IMO.
Rory said on 20/Jul/17
It's hard to say really, I think you can make a constructive argument that 5'11 is more desirable than 6'4, however, I think if you offered most men the chance to be 6'4 or 5'11 they'd take 6'4 all day long..I certainly would anyway. I don't want to enter the realms of absurdity that some espouse on the general height page but it's true that in some circumstances 5'11 in the West these days will feel average at best. Legit tall starts at 6ft 1 I think now. Many in the 5'10 to 6ft 1 range might consider themselves as being tall, but anyone within that range could equally be described as average height. I think once you get to 6ft 1 in the evening though that's when you're indisputably tall range.
James B said on 20/Jul/17
I think his son Scott is probably a more desirable height than his father was by society's and Hollywood standards at least.

Most would agree that the majority of handsome 5'11 men in Hollywood outnumber the 6'3/6'4 leading men.
Mister lennon said on 20/Jul/17
Strong 6'3 peak. Maybe weak 6'4 in the morning.
Rising - 174 cm said on 19/Jul/17
I don't know if Clint was a full 6'4" or not, but there's no way he's a flat 5'11" today. He'd often look 5'9"-5'10" with his posture, but never looks that low and rarely looks as short as a flat 5'11". He could be as low as 5'11.5" today, but nothing less standing straight.

@Arch: I think Rob said 6'3" is the lowest he'd try arguing, which I interpreted is Rob's way of saying there's no way Clint wasn't at least 6'3" peak.
Jervis said on 19/Jul/17
6ft4 morning height,by evening 6ft3.25,walking posture slouching can look more 6ft2.5. Peak height 6ft3.25 or 6ft3.5,now looks in most recent pics 5ft11 and very frail.
iosu_lasa said on 19/Jul/17
Click Here

Clint and Arnold in 1990.
Richardspain said on 18/Jul/17
First western movies 190

Dirty Harry movies 189

Unforgiven 188

Gran Torino 186

Nowadays 183/184

This and not other is the great recapitulation of the Eastwood's height.
James said on 18/Jul/17
Eastwood was clearly never the full 6'4". He may have been slightly over 6'3" as a young man, and 5'11" today.
Rory said on 18/Jul/17
Only complete height novices are fooled by things such as thick hair and slim builds accounting for an inch. I notice all these people who insist he was 6ft3 never corroborate their claims with any evidence they seem to think if I just say he was 6ft3 over and over again eventually it will stick. Well no, he was either 6ft3.5 or 6ft3.75. 6ft3 is too low, he looked that at 60 odd, not 30.
James B said on 17/Jul/17
Arch Stanton said on 17/Jul/17
I can't recall Rob saying he thought a flat 6'3 for Clint peak would be that arguable, 6'3.5 is though.


Bang on 6'3.25 peak which is more than just a flat 6'3
Arch Stanton said on 17/Jul/17
I can't recall Rob saying he thought a flat 6'3 for Clint peak would be that arguable, 6'3.5 is though.
movieguy said on 17/Jul/17
Richard Schickel who has written a few books about Clint and knows him well makes a comment about his imposing 6'3'' frame in a book called simply "Clint". This is an older Eastwood though so maybe by this point he was not quite so tall as in his youth. I still think that the site has it right and he was just under 6'4'' or a weak 6'4''.
Ted said on 16/Jul/17
A full 6' 4'' is difficult to believe. 6' 3'' in the morning.
James B said on 15/Jul/17
Arch Stanton said on 13/Jul/17
6'3 James by Deadpool I think. I caught a bit of High Plains Drifter again recently and to me had the frame of a 6'4 guy, 6'3.5-6'4 range is arguable, nothing less than that peak


Well editor rob and the majority of votes seem to point towards clint being more 6'3-6'3.5 peak.

Let's not forget arch his slim build and hairstyle in the 60s/70s could probably make him seem taller. In the 1980s when he was heavier with thinning hair he looked 6'3 or 6'2 but possibly by that point could have lost a fraction
Arch Stanton said on 13/Jul/17
6'3 James by Deadpool I think. I caught a bit of High Plains Drifter again recently and to me had the frame of a 6'4 guy, 6'3.5-6'4 range is arguable, nothing less than that peak.
RichardSpain said on 11/Jul/17
Eastwood was a perfect 6'3 (190 cm) in peak younger and barefoot. With footwear 192 cm in peak.
And between his fifties - sixties years old 6'2 ( 188 cm)
He wasn't more than that guys! believe you in me!
Canson said on 9/Jul/17
@Bobby: for sure not a real 6'4.
Rory said on 9/Jul/17
There's no point even responding to people who say he was 6ft 2 peak as it's just trash talk. The arguments for his peak can only be from 6ft 3 minimum to 6ft 4 maximum. Anything outside that range is an extremist position barely worthy of reading. Im pretty clear in my own mind he would have been about 6ft 4.5 out of bed and 6ft 3.5 at his lowest, being tall he probably shrunk a full inch.
James B said on 9/Jul/17
Arch how tall do you think he was in 1988?
Arch Stanton said on 8/Jul/17
If Clint was 6'2 Jeff Bridges was not even 6' flat.
bobbyh3342 said on 7/Jul/17
6 2 peak barefoot never even close to 6 4
even said on 7/Jul/17
hes 6 feet tall right now
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jul/17
He looks close to 6'3 in that Seagal photo given that I think Seagal was 194 peak and probably in bigger boots. In 1995 peruid he was looking 6'2.5-75 generally though, looked that with Arnie too.
James said on 7/Jul/17
Van Cleef may have been closer to 6'1".
Rory said on 4/Jul/17
Yh looking 6'2.5 there in '95 with Seagal. A good inch under his peak.
even said on 3/Jul/17
when he was young he was a bit taller than lee van cleef . in my opinion he was at least 6 feet 3 inches i mean its not my opinion its the reality man .
movieguy said on 3/Jul/17
Great find Matt but I'm surprised how close to Seagal in height Eastwood looks in that photo. Looks closer to an inch than three to my eyes. Clint was a weak 6'4'' I think, he surely couldn't have been much shorter don't buy 6'2''.
Matt Rohler Iowa said on 3/Jul/17
Click Here Here he is with Steven Seagal. I would say no taller than 6ft 2 and a half peak height. Seagal easily has 2 to 3 inch height on Eastwood.
jervis said on 28/Jun/17
His son Kyle is around 6ft2,also Scotts mother is only 5ft2.
Slim 181 cm said on 26/Jun/17
@richardspain, it makes sense at to why his son Scott isn't 6 foot or taller.
Guest66 said on 26/Jun/17
4 inch height loss is possible. Tall people tend to lose height more aggressively as they get older.
Joe said on 24/Jun/17
Rob, do you think he was ever 6'4"? Also, do you think he could be around 5'11.75" now?
jervis said on 22/Jun/17
In rawhide Bill Travers who is listed at 6ft5 is a guest star,and only looks a bit taller than Clint.
jervis said on 22/Jun/17
There is a black and white pic of Clint with Arnold and lou Ferringo from the early 1980s.Lou looks about 1 inch taller than Clint.
Dublin guy said on 21/Jun/17
How does he lose nearly 4 inches in height that doesn't seem possible to be honest. I know people shrink as they age but that's just farcical
Canson said on 20/Jun/17
Agree with tall in the Saddle Strong 6'3 (191-191.5)
jetvis said on 20/Jun/17
It wouldn't be a surprise if he was 6ft2.75 or even 6ft2.5 alongside. Neeson He looked more than an inch shorter,aged 58, and now known to be prone to shrinking, a full inch loss off his peak is not as improbable as it once seemed
jetvis said on 20/Jun/17
I think 6ft3.5 is unanimous for his peak.

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.