How tall is Clint Eastwood

Hong said on 14/Jun/25
@A.Lawrence,"What are you basing your opinion Van Cleef was taller than Clint on"?Have you got some some unseen rare images or clips of them together that demonstrate this point?

Warren said on 13/Jun/25
Is that possible to people get shrink by such nearly 5 inches Rob??

A.Lawrence said on 13/Jun/25
He was never taller than Lee Van Cleef. Easily under 6'2.

Hong said on 12/Jun/25
@avi,you seem to be forgetting,when Clint was Hogan's age he was still looking around 6ft1.5 range so he would be about 2 inches of his listed height here,wait and see if Hogan reaches 95, what height he is.

avi said on 5/Jun/25
@Duhon said on 3/Jun/25
Yes agrees more likely to lose more if bigger
But to me 4+ seems excessive unless there's a big issue going on

E.g Hulk Hogan lost 2.5 inches over 6'5 now I think 6'3 if lucky

Id expect a 6'4 man to end at 6'2 maybe 6'1.5

My dad in 70s is 5'8.3 or so now May even be 5'8 flat if doesn't squeeze out a straight measurement
used to be solid 5'9 maybe 5'9.25 when younger

Crazy how age affects so much

@Hong
Lee sloich a bit but looks not much taller than Burton
May be 6'1.5-6'1.75 if squeezed up for measuring

He was 6'4.5 when young
So yeah "lost" about 3 inches
Still not 4 or so like Eastwood

Mike190 said on 4/Jun/25
@Avi

My father was a legit 196cm and hes down to solid 192cm in his 60s. He has poor posture from sleeping on couches for a good part of his life. I am doing everything in my power to slow height loss and maintain good posture though unfortunately my profession requires a great deal of bending and hunching.

Duhon said on 3/Jun/25
@Avi the taller you are the more height you have to lose later in life. A man 6'3"+ will certainly drop more inches than a man who started off 5'8".

Hong said on 2/Jun/25
@avi, Here's Christopher Lee,listed height 6ft4.5 some even say 6ft5! he's with 5ft11 Tim Burton, aged 90 Lee is looking around 6ft1 range with Burton that's 3.5 or 4 inches down on peak. Click Here

Zuber said on 2/Jun/25
@avi ,mine was a legit 6'4'' until his 60s and 6'2'' when he passed away at 87.

avi said on 1/Jun/25
I agree he's 5'11 range nowadays
Probably strong 6'3 going
So confused how he shrunk down 4 inches or so
That's not normal even at 90+
My grandfather is high 80s and 5'6.5 possibly weak 5'7 standing straight peak weak 5'8

Must be some spinal /disc issue

Gerald S said on 1/Jun/25
Rob, is Roberts Blossom eligible for a page on Celebheights? 6’0” peak?

He looked tall in HOME ALONE but did not surpass six feet with Clint around 37:30: Click Here

Arch Stanton said on 1/Jun/25
Let's hope he makes it to 96 unlike Gene Hackman!

Com said on 31/May/25
I’m thinking he’s struggling to look over 5ft 11 today, maybe 5ft 10 at lowest, but 5ft 10.5 today is fine

Com said on 31/May/25
Happy 95th birthday to the Hollywood legend!😃🎂

reachjtm said on 31/May/25
he is apparently planning on doing another movie soon.

Gerald S said on 31/May/25
Rob, is John Larch eligible for a page here?


Around 35:30, see with Clint: Click Here

Around 1:05:30, see with Clint: Click Here


Clint’s DIRTY HARRY & PLAY MISTY FOR ME co-star would have been a good 6’0.5” peak I feel, and would be another fine, vintage addition to Celebheights.

Hong said on 31/May/25
Happy 95th birthday Mr Eastwood🥳6ft3.25 peak 5ft10.5 now.

Hong said on 28/May/25
I think he's finally retired now, haven't seen anything of him since his last movie "juror number 2",he seemed in pretty bad physical condition in the most recent pics,also he'll be 95 on Sunday.He lost his long time partner to a Heart attack,she was only 60 years old, apparently he's not dealing with it very well, according to an interview I read on line with his son Scott.

James B 172cm said on 27/May/25
Rob if he loses another inch will clint need a wheelchair?

Grayloth said on 26/May/25
He can be 192 cm if he stretch out to the fullest. He had terrible posture already in his 20s. I agree that he looks at most 191 cm but if you account for his bad posture maybe 192 cm is possible.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/May/25
Full 6ft4 and flat 6ft3 are off the table other than first thing and extreme low……

000614080093 said on 26/May/25
Clint's peak was 193 cm, current 181 cm

Hong said on 25/May/25
@ Rory, good video still think Bridges was more 6ft1 flat.I think I could go with 6ft3.25 peak for Clint,I think that's fair.

Rory said on 25/May/25
Hong, if you want to see the real difference between Bridges and Garcia check out from 1hr 19 mins onwards...

Click Here

Clearly Bridges has him by at the very least 4 inches,and likely more. I'd never go anything below 186 for a prime Bridges. Of course all heights are debatable until you actually measure someone, but I think if you find yourself adjusting and changing multiple other listings just to suit one narrative about Clint really being 6ft3 max then that's not prudent. I'm willing to meet you at 6ft3.25 for peak Clint though. Strong 6ft3 peak and then weak 6ft3 by late 80s with Clive Mantle/Neason looks reasonable.

Arch Stanton said on 25/May/25
Agreed Rory. Though I think full 6 ft 4 Walcott did edge out Clint walking across the yard in Joe Kidd. He just looked too lanky to me to be under 6'3.5". Of course you're going to get occasions when he seemed a bit shorter, but you can also find occasions of him looking taller than 6'3.5".

Hong said on 25/May/25
Click Here 6 ft1.5 listed Jeff Bridges with 5ft9 Andy Garcia,I don't really see a 4.5 inch difference there? Bridges always looked a weak 6ft1 guy too me.

Grayloth said on 24/May/25
I have not seen thousands of pics but in his younger years he looks imposing and you do not look imposing generally below 6’3, but 6’2.75 kinda does too. From what I have seen and judging from his proportions, he looks 6’3-something. 6’3.5 might be too tall but 6’3.25 seems possible.

I have to agree with Hong though that he already in his 40s seems to have lost a little since he barely looks 6’3. That could be from bad posture. His back is killing him and somebody should have told Clint to do some RDLs.

Hong said on 24/May/25
@Rory,It was just a worse case scenario with Clint at 6ft2.75 that I was suggesting.My honest opinion is he was probably close to 6ft4 morning height but by evening closer to 6ft3.I would personally just say 6ft3 flat at peak but would agree 6ft3.25 is possible too.By the way I found a military record of Lee Marvin's height and posted it on Marvin's page which has him as 74 inches tall so maybe he was 6ft2 after all.

Hong said on 24/May/25
Click Here All heights are debatable here including Kennedys, here he is with 6ft5.5 Fess Parker,I think he's looking similar to how tall Clint looked next to Parker.

Rory said on 24/May/25
I can't take someone seriously who thinks a 30 Yr old Clint was just 6ft2.75. Theres no credibility in that argument at all. That would leave people like Bruce Dern,Lee Marvin and Jeff Bridges at about 6ft0.5..it would leave Don Stroud at just 6ft1,Matheson/Ulrich/Van Cleef 6ft1...Ali 6ft1.75,George Kennedy/Greg Walcott/John Gavin 6ft3.25-3.5...presumably would make Liam Neason 6ft3.5 peak. Certainly puts Sutherland under 6ft3.5 too,Its a silly argument. 6ft3-3.5 prime is where the argument lies for Clint. 6ft3 bare minimum,6ft3.5 at most.

Parker said on 24/May/25
Hong said on 23/May/25
Click Here Clint with another 6ft5.5 actor,this time Clive Mantle,as you can see he's looking a good 3 inches shorter.

Fair enough Hong. lets agree to disagree. Eyes to mouth is approximatey 3 inches. In that particular pick with Clive Mantle that looks more a 2 inch difference to me, not 3.

Hong said on 23/May/25
Click Here Parker, here's Clint and Freeman from the same photoshoot,there are plenty of pics of Clint and Freeman online to chose from.Freeman in most edged Clint.My argument is in the video I posted, full length shots of Clint with a 6ft5.5 guy, "at peak" and in cowboy boots! was struggling to look 6ft4 even in his boots! next to Parker.So that's what I think after seeing thousands of pics of Clint and all his movies I have come to the conclusion that he was not a genuine 6ft4 guy as he said he was on many occasions, in fact he was more 6ft3 flat, "or dare I say it 6ft2.75".

Hong said on 23/May/25
Rob,I would be interested to know how tall you think Clint is looking in comparison to 5ft10 Alan Young,do you think he's looking 5.5 inches taller?

Hong said on 23/May/25
Click Here Clint with another 6ft5.5 actor,this time Clive Mantle,as you can see he's looking a good 3 inches shorter,given he's now sixty we will allow a bit of shrinkage so 6ft2.5 by 60 for Clint.Rory the reason I reposted that video is because it is a very good reference for Clint's peak height in comparison to 6ft5.5 Parker 6ft3 Ebsen and 5ft11 Danny Kaye, given Clint has cowboy boots on with heels of between 1.25 and 1.5 inches would make Clint around 6ft5 inches tall when he's nearly looking 6ft4 in comparison to Kaye,he also looks similar to Ebsen even with footwear advantage.

Beau Dare said on 23/May/25
Clint Eastwood is truly one of a kind. He marches to the beat of his own drum. At 6'3" or slightly under six feet, he still stands taller than most men. I work in the film industry as an actor/ screenwriter, and believe me, Hollywood could take a lesson. We need him more than ever.

Gerald S said on 22/May/25
Yeah Rob, that video means we should downgrade Clint’s peak and consider upgrading Buddy’s.

Buddy could look taller than Clint in cowboy boots!

Parker said on 22/May/25
Clint with Morgan Freeman 2010

Click Here

James B 172cm said on 22/May/25
6'3.25 would be a fair compromise

Parker said on 22/May/25
Hong said on 21/May/25
I think a downgrade to 6ft3 flat is more suitable,and just leave the original 6ft4 listing as a bit of Hollywood height inflation.

Hong-You only see an inch between 6'2 listed Tim Matheson/Robert Urich and Clint?

Click Here

Rory said on 21/May/25
Parker, a guy though who was say 6ft3.25 isn't really lying in all probability if they claim 6ft4. If they measure once say 6ft3 5/8ths at 10am and claim 6ft4 thereafter, that's not really an unreasonable or dishonest claim. They may not know at all that they fall another half inch by nighttime.

Hong,that video you've posted several times now..its not new. As I always point out don't underestimate the footwear Fess has on in that clip either...they're rather chunky looking boots, I'd be surprised if they didn't give at least 1.25inch but yes Clint likely had half inch footwear advantage over Fess there. I see a 2-2.5 inch difference between the men so yh that does leave Clint looking 6ft2.75 there imo...but it's not a slamdunk is it because there's other cases out there of Clint looking 6ft3.5..in the video you posted with Alan Young I thought he looked 5-5.5 inches taller. I wouldn't be against a 6ft3.25 peak Clint though,its perfectly reasonable

Hong said on 21/May/25
I think a downgrade to 6ft3 flat is more suitable,and just leave the original 6ft4 listing as a bit of Hollywood height inflation.

Hong said on 21/May/25
Rob,as you saw in the video Clint has cowboy boots on too.He was only young there,still peak, I think 6ft3 flat is more than generous in that video.

Hong said on 20/May/25
Click Here

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/May/25
Rory, those eighth listings are exhausting to navigate. I did think they were a cool concept but I get why Rob has pulled them back. The only time they are warranted is if there is an actual measurement documented like in NFL where they are more common (For example Marcus Allen 6ft1⅞ and Brett Favre 6ft2⅛) or a direct quote.

I think 6ft3½ is reasonable for Eastwood at peak. The flat 6ft3 is a disservice to him when you see him beside proper 6ft2 guys like Lee Van Cleef and Ben Johnson.

Parker said on 19/May/25
He has always claimed 6’4. He said he was self conscious of his height at school. He also said he’d missed parts because of it. Why would he claim a taller height than he is?

Hong said on 18/May/25
Click Here A young Clint with 5ft10 Alan Young.

Rory said on 16/May/25
For me it comes down to either 6ft3.25 or 6ft3.5 for a prime Clint, that's where I see the argument. The average guess actually of 191.4 feels very plausible,could definitely see a thirty something Clint measuring that at lunchtime. 6ft3 3/8ths would probably suit him to a tee,although I understand 1/8ths are little used and a bit pedantic, but work nicely if you're undecided between 3.25 and 3.5. Same with a guy like prime Roger Moore, I'm undecided on 6ft1 or 1.25 so 1 1/8th could be perfect.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/May/25
James, absolute lowest I buy him at. I’m with Rory. He had to clear 6ft3, the question is by how much exactly?

6ft4 first thing I think is a more than reasonable.

Canson said on 14/May/25
Rob may have him pegged at his peak. Maybe he was a guy who held around 192 at lunch and dipped to 6’3 3/8” or 1/4” at a low

James B 172cm said on 14/May/25
I guess 191cm in Escape from Alcatraz

Rory said on 13/May/25
Can't see why he would have lost anything by Dirty Harry,he was only 41...so unless he'd had some unknown spinal injury unlikely he'd lost anything at all. I've always thought maybe every which way but loose or Escape from Alcatraz...maybe a few mm gone by then in late 70s. Considering his slouch he had to clear 6ft3...if his measured height was 6ft3 he would have mostly looked a 6ft2.25 or 2.5 guy in the 60s and 70s which he didn't, he looked 6ft2.75-3 even with the slouch.

As I say young clint actually I think was very similar to Paul Bettany in height,posture and build...Clint probably had slightly better posture than Bettany but not hugely.

Jamss B said on 12/May/25
Well Clint could have dropped a tiny fraction of height by the time of Dirty Harry

Rory said on 12/May/25
The problem with Clint was he always tended to have pretty weak posture i think,most of the time he looked like a guy not quite maximising his potential height. Often he could look 190cm as a result,but I think somewhere in that 191-192 zone is likely if you told him to stand up straight for a measurement. Thunderbolt and lightfoot is a prime example, looked 1.5 inches taller than Bridges mostly, but I remember in one scene Clint stood tall for a few seconds and suddenly looked at least 2 inches taller than Bridges..I think under a stadiometer in the 60s/early 70s 6ft3.25-3.5 would have been his result. In a way not too dissimilar to a guy like Paul Bettany, can look sub 6ft3 at times but you just know he's clearing it for an upright measurement.

Hong said on 12/May/25
I personally think 6ft3 flat is a more accurate height for Clint's peak,but 6ft3.25 would be close enough.

Gerald S said on 12/May/25
Exactly Rob, which is why many of us believe Clint should be downgraded to 6’3.25” peak.

It is likely Clint cleared 6’3”, but he could not have been much over that mark. A 6’3.25” peak listing might also better explain why Eric Fleming was able to edge Clint out from time to time on Rawhide.

Hong said on 11/May/25
Click Here Here's Clint last year,see how old and frail he looks.

Gerald S said on 11/May/25
Yes Rob, 6’1” is the figure we can all best agree on for Santoni.

All of us see him around that 6’1” range.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/May/25
6ft1 is the bare minimum I can accept for Santoni. He looks noticeably taller beside Eastwood in Dirty Harry than Hal Holbrook (at least strong 6ft) does in Magnum Force…..

Hong said on 10/May/25
Click Here Here's that video with Rock Hudson again.

Gerald S said on 9/May/25
Rob, maybe just give Reni 6’1” for now?

That would be a nice compromise between Hong’s, Rory’s, Rampage’s and my estimations. I say, Reni’s name has started quite a conversation here.

Gerald S said on 8/May/25
Yes, I too am now seeing the logic of 6’1” for Santoni, but I would not go under 6’1”. 6’1.25” still stands as another possibility.

Hong said on 8/May/25
@Rory good pic,I could agree 6ft1 for Santoni but I still think Clint was more a flat 6ft3 at peak.

Rory said on 8/May/25
Click Here

Santoni with 5ft10 listed Jose Ferrer. Reni looks 6ft1 there,but has a camera angle advantage so I'd put him at 6ft0.75, which is the kind of height I'd settle on for Santoni I think.

Rory said on 8/May/25
No you've not listened Hong. Its obvious to me in the Dirty Harry film Clint isn't standing at his best in that corridor scene with Santoni..so forget just a 1.5 inch or even 2 inch difference..Clint had way more height in the can than you saw in that scene so in a sense that scene is irrelevant. Clint looked 1.75 inches taller than Santoni in that scene with hands in pockets,practically looking at the ground and stood in a very casual way...what does that tell me ? Tells me if he stood upright and properly the real difference,is likely 2.5 inches...somewhere around that. Certainly above 2 inches...so why would he be only "6ft2 max" if Santoni was somewhere in 6ft0.5-0.75 zone ? Sometimes in life and with height you have to read between the lines, look at nuances.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/May/25
Reni Santoni I would be another great add to the site. Vintage character actor who showed up in a lot of things over the years.

No less than 6ft1 for him (sorry Rory) with 6ft1½ on the table as well. I see roughly 2in between him and Eastwood in Dirty Harry.

Rob, maybe 186cm is fair shout?

Hong said on 7/May/25
My guess is Clint Eastwood height at the time of Dirty Harry 6ft3 inches tall,Reni Santoni 6ft1.5 inches tall,height difference 1.5 inches in Clint Eastwood's favour.If Santoni is proven to be 6ft.5 or 6ft.75 then I have to put Clint at 6ft2.5 or 6ft2.75 in that movie because posture or not too me there was know more than an inch and a half between them.And if Clint was under 6ft3 peak big deal Hollywood has been known to inflate the heights of their action heros over the years,Arnold and the Rock for example.

Hong said on 7/May/25
The angle with Penn is misleading and not accurate enough for a comparison,Kennedy is on higher ground and Santoni is slightly further from the camera.Clint was in a couple of movies with Kennedy and the height difference was little or nothing.In Dirty Harry Santoni in some scenes was very close in height to Clint Santoni at 6ft.05 would leave Clint at max 6ft2 in comparison.Also Stallone is not a good guy to compare anybody to as he is a well known lift wearer and was very fond of cuban heels back in the day.AIn the pics I posted below with Lee Majors 5ft11, Arthur Hill 6ft3 and Betty Thomas 6ft1 ,I would confidently out Santoni in the 6ft1.5 range similar to James Coburn in comparison to Clint.

Gerald S said on 7/May/25
Rob, might we give Reni 186cm? That could be a fair figure.

Rory said on 7/May/25
Click Here

Rory said on 7/May/25
Click Here

Look at Santoni there third in from the right next to legit 6ft4 George Kennedy, now I know he's on slightly lower ground there and at a disadvantage,but still is that a guy who really strikes you as being near 6ft2 proportionally ?

Or here with 5ft8 Sean Penn who is slouching...really 6ft1.5 range ? I'm not convinced

Click Here

Rory said on 7/May/25
I've not seen Reni Santoni in many things..guns of the magnificent seven,Cobra and Dirty Harry but I'd be astonished if he was 6ft2, didn't look anywhere near that imo. I remember him only having about 2 inches on Stallone,who even assuming Sly was wearing lifts, still leaves Santoni at 6ft1 maximum. There's pics of Santoni with Sean Penn too from a film and he looks barely more than 4 inches taller. I actually think there's a good chance of 6ft0.5 Santoni or 6ft0.75 if we're being optimistic and a slouching 6ft3.25 Clint in Dirty Harry.

Gerald S said on 7/May/25
Rob, in watching below can we agree Reni was at worst a strong 6’1”?

Click Here

It is unusual to find a scene where Clint’s posture is more upright than his co-star’s! Reni would have cleared 6’1”, but again 6’2” is pushing it.

Hong said on 7/May/25
Click Here Clint and 6ft1.5 listed James Coburn.

Gerald S said on 6/May/25
Rob, is Reni Santoni eligible for a page on Celebheights? He is becoming a popular topic of conversation on here.

Over 6’1” for sure but I’m not buying 6’2”. 6’1.5” seems the right listing.

James B 172cm said on 6/May/25
Rob he did look 6'3.5 tops I thought in Dirty Harry

Hong said on 6/May/25
Click Here Clint and Kyle now,as you can see Clint is no a lot shorter than Kyle.

Hong said on 6/May/25
Click Here Clint and his son Kyle in 1993, Clint aged 63,Kyle 25.At that stage Clint was still close to peak,Kyle is listed on IMDb as 6ft1.5 which looks reasonably accurate,as you can see Clint was taller at that stage of his life.

Hong said on 5/May/25
Click Here The woman in the pics with Reni Santoni is actress Betty Thomas,she is listed as 6ft1 everywhere on line,if that is her actual height I think we can say that Santoni was indeed over 6ft1 in height.

Canson said on 5/May/25
@Editor Rob: I have relatives in their 80s who have lost 1/2-1”. 1” max. 4 seems extreme and I’m talking people prob 6’2-6’3 range. My dad is in his 70s and he has lost less than an inch himself and he was a strong 6’4 peak

Hong said on 3/May/25
Click Here Clint and 6ft3.5 Chevy Chase in 1987,Clint still looks around 6ft3 there.

Tkazi said on 2/May/25
Rob is 4-5” height loss normal?

Rory said on 2/May/25
I think Clint probably had 2.5 inches on Santoni. The difference looked less than that in Dirty Harry,more like 2 inches tops, but Clints posture in their scenes was very loose,I think purposefully showing that Harry wasn't a buttoned up establishment type. I've got Clint at 6ft3.25 or 3.5 peak so my best guess would be a weaker style 6ft1 for Santoni..don't see 6ft1.5 from the few films I've seen him in,didn't look that tall.

Hong said on 2/May/25
Click Here Here's Santoni with 5ft11 listed Lee Majors.

Hong said on 2/May/25
Click Here On the Subject of Santoni's height,here's a pic of Santoni with 6ft3 listed Arthur Hill,as you can see Hill has edge's him a bit,too me Santoni is looking in the 6ft2 range I comparison.If anybody has any doubts about Hill's height just Google him with 6ft2 Peter Fonda and you will see he's a genuine 6ft3 guy.So judging by how Tall Santoni looks next to a 6ft3 guy I'd say there's a similar difference between him and Clint and him and Arthur Hill.But it kinda gives people more of an example how tall Santoni actually was.

Hong said on 1/May/25
Click Here pics of peak Clint with Reni Santoni, I've searched for Santoni's height on line, mostly he's listed as 6ft tall but IMBD has him at 6ft1.5.In dirty Harry Clint was looking slightly taller than Santoni,if Santoni was 6ft1.5 that would put by comparison Clint at around 6ft2.5 to 6ft3 max.I am of the belief that Clint's height was slightly exaggerated in his youth and was more 6ft2.75 that's 190cm in his youth and in boot's could pull off 6ft4 easily.If not 6ft2.75 max 6ft3 which for his generation was a pretty impressive height.

Gerald S said on 30/Apr/25
Rob, can you add his DIRTY HARRY co-star, Reni Santoni?

6’1.5” adds up; Clint has 2 inches max on Reni below who is noticeably slouching.

Click Here

Zuber said on 29/Apr/25
Guys on the comments shocked by his height loss don't realize how old 95 is...Like Duhon said '' most 94 year olds measure 6' below ground''.

Cold Water said on 8/Dec/24
Now:180.3 cm
Peak:191.3 cm

Bobbyh3342 said on 7/Dec/24
6'2 prime barefoot , people seem to forget how tall a real 6'2 barefoot guy is,,, Rock Hudson was measured at 6'3.5 in the navy yet everyone wants him to be 6'5 , maybe its the Hollywood effect?

Rory said on 7/Dec/24
In the pictures of Clint with Momoa there is a clue that these two guys would once have been pretty close in height being Clints legs..their leg/waist lengths look pretty similar. Clint now has the legs of a 6ft4 guy and the spine of someone of about 5ft5. For me with Clint I think it comes down to either 6ft3.25 or 3.5 peak. 5ft10 today wouldn't surprise me,but the poster was right in that anything more than 6ft underground at 94 is a bonus.

Canson said on 7/Dec/24
@Hong: that’s interesting. A lot of people don’t lose that much. But he’s alive like Duhon said. He’s def lost at least 4” in height. He was not far (within an inch of Momoa). I’d say peak height was at minimum 6’3 flat. He was 190.5 up to 192 at most

reachjtm said on 5/Dec/24
crazy how short he looks with Momoa even if we assume Momoa is really 6'4

Scotto said on 4/Dec/24
No less than 6-3 peak. In the Dirty Harry film he’s legit minimum of 6-3. Lost loads of height but that’s to be expected.

Duhon said on 3/Dec/24
@Hogn well, most most 94 year olds measure 6' below ground, so he's not doing too shabby.

Hong said on 2/Dec/24
Click Here Look how small Clint looks here, it's hard to believe he was even close in height to Mamoa at any stage.

Gerald S said on 29/Nov/24
6’3.25” peak; same as Eric Fleming.

reachjtm said on 26/Nov/24
Heston 6'2 and Eastwood 6'3.5 peak seems about right to me.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Nov/24
Less than 6ft3 is unlikely for Clint but for some reason I sense that a guy like Sterling Hayden would eviscerate his claim to 6ft4 if they were to appear together (No scenes of them in The Wild West which they were both in).....unless of course Sterling really was 6ft5 and rounded down which as we know was a common thing for very tall actors to do.

181cmguy said on 25/Nov/24
@Arch Stanton,

yeah I find I am a lot more patient towards elderly people now than I was a few years back. Living with and caring for my grandmother (who is in her 90s and has dementia) has helped me to become more considerate of others, though there is still room for improvement!

Arch Stanton said on 24/Nov/24
It is sad 181cm, but I think it's amazing that Clint and Van Dyke are still with us and Clint still active. He is still said to be very sharp, though has lost more weight and height in recent years. Clint has been finding it increasingly difficult in Hollywood recently due to his conservative views, I'm sure he's disgusted with the way things have gone. You can't cancel a guy like Clint Eastwood though!

Arch Stanton said on 24/Nov/24
Clint said there was only one guy taller than him in school at 6 ft 5, not that he was that himself..

Arch Stanton said on 24/Nov/24
There is a video from around 1972 at an awards ceremony where Clint looks a good inch taller than Heston. Some people see him at 6 ft 3 but 6'2.5" to me seems spot on.

Hong said on 22/Nov/24
Click Here Here's an example of a prime Clint looking tall with Heston and Wayne,two talk men,Clint slightly edging 6ft2.5 listed Heston.

Henrik said on 22/Nov/24
So Clint made a six-five claim at one point, huh? He was always tall in his movies, but I don't think that I ever would have taken him to be that tall. I'd have assumed six-two even before six-five.

181cmguy said on 22/Nov/24
I can't help but feel a bit saddened, having grown up seeing these guys when they were young (even though some were already getting on when I was watching their earlier films), to now seeing them all frail and hunched over.

I saw a recent clip of Dick Van Dyke (who is almost 99) and hearing him say he's just praying that he makes it when asked what his birthday plans were was quite sad ;-;

Hong said on 20/Nov/24
Click Here Here's Clint with Fleming,in this pic Clint is looking taller all be it he's in flat footwear and Fleming is barefoot,but still agreed they both looked very similar in rawhide, I'd give a strong 6ft3 range for both guys at peak.

Hong said on 20/Nov/24
Click Here Clint with Toni Collette, he's looking a couple of inches taller max,I know he's not standing upright but he's definitely looking 5ft10 range these days.

Hong said on 20/Nov/24
Click Here Another pic of Clint and Hoult,Clint looking frail and around 5ft10 range.

Hong said on 20/Nov/24
Click Here Clint with Hoult, Clint's peak is actually taller than Hoult.

Gerald S said on 18/Nov/24
Rob, can you add his RAWHIDE co-star, Eric Fleming?

6ft 3 minimum- good chance of a fraction over 6’3” actually. In Rawhide (Click Here, Fleming seemingly edged out Eastwood more times than not, but Fleming’s posture was often superior. I’d therefore suggest putting both men at 6’3.25” peak; inseparable in height.

Mark Simmons said on 1/Oct/24
Looking at Clint Eastwoods recent photos I see on Facebook in particular pics I see of him stood next to his son Kyle and other guys over 6ft tall I would say Clint Eastwood currently stands at approximately 5ft 9 inches tall. I have read years ago Clint Eastwood states his height loss over the years is due to back problems. I would say in his prime he's around 6ft 2 to 6ft 3

Epik said on 24/Sep/24
Wow 5ft 11 now! Rob, is 4.5 inches of height loss a greater amount than the average in his age group? Conparing someone like Donald Sutherland, his height loss was 2.5 inches, both around the same age.

Gaevin said on 23/Sep/24
Rob, do you think he still has a chance of solid 5ft 11, or do you think he may have dipped under today?

Arch Stanton said on 27/Apr/24
Yeah he's looking nearer 5 ft 10 with his posture now, but maybe can still scrape 5'11 for a measurement. When you see him with 6 ft 4 guys now it's hard to imagine he was ever even near that height.

James B 172cm said on 22/Apr/24
5ft11 now rob?

Hong said on 2/Dec/23
Click Here Then you see Clint Eastwood with George Kennedy and you think "is Leo 6ft4?"It's probably very confusing for your average person with no particular interest in the heights of celebrities.

Hong said on 2/Dec/23
Click Here Imagine if you just presumed Clint was 6ft4 and Leo was 6ft because you saw their heights on a standard article that doesn't take into account height loss in old age etc,this pic would be a bit confusing because both guys look the same height.

Leone_Fan said on 30/Nov/23
Thanks for the clip of the Eiger Sanction. Although its usually considered one of Eastwood's lesser movies I absolutely love it. The social attitudes on display would be considered outdated by many I guess but its a movie and shouldn't be take too seriously. Eastwood's character is a Professor of Art History who also happens to be a world class mountaineer and government agency hitman which is completely nuts of itself. So really it's not meant to be anything other than a piece of entertainment.

With that clip/trailer below we see Gregory Walcott and George Kennedy alongside Clint Eastwood. I think both of this pair are a little taller than Clint more genuine 6'4'' type guys. Although there is a fairly well known photo of Clint and George standing next to each other in climbing gear and they look the exact same height. This photo appears in the background of the movie. There is also a German actor seen who looks taller than both Clint and George Kennedy in that scene together. So it was a movie with a lot of tall guys.

Hong said on 29/Nov/23
Click Here Clint and solid 6ft2 Morgan Freeman, looking pretty similar in 92.

James B 172cm said on 27/Nov/23
I’d say in the early 90s he was no less than 6’2 1/2

Hong said on 27/Nov/23
Leone_fan I think it's mainly down to Aspel being more 5ft8 range and Clint is closer to the camera.I would not say Clint wore lifts,he IMO he was around 6ft3 range peak not 6ft4 and by the 90s dropped a bit of height and was more 6ft2.5 range early 90s, and down to a flat 6ft2 by the end of the 90s, sometimes times looking 6ft1.5 due to slouchy posture.

Hong said on 27/Nov/23
Click Here This is the actor in that pic Parker.

Henrik said on 27/Nov/23
Clint and 6ft 4 George Kennedy:

Click Here

Clint and 6ft 1.5 Jeff Bridges:

Click Here

Leone_Fan said on 27/Nov/23
Looking again at the video of Clint on the Aspel show I am still surprised how tall he looks. He does look 6'4'' here and as someone said he never usually looks this tall. When he stands next to genuine 6'4'' or thereabout guys like Harve Presnell or Ed Mcmahon from the Johnny Carson Show Clint usually looks shorter. It seems unlikley but I wonder if there was any possibility Clint was wearing lifts in his footwear. I don't think so but I'm shocked how tall he looks here. Although he was standing nearer the camera than Aspel. From the 1990s onwards he looked 6'2''at best I think.

Parker said on 27/Sep/23
@Hong
'I googled the actress he's with in the pic I posted and she's listed as 5ft6 inches'

You have posted far better evidence than this showing Clint is over 6'3. I wouldn't trust any site other than this one on height listings

I mean here's that same actress with 6'3 listed Michael Rennie
Click Here

Not a great pic I admit, but I wouldn't have guessed her at 5'6 if they are on level ground

Hong said on 27/Sep/23
I agree Leone_Fan morning height of 6ft4 for Clint's peak is possible,but he was closer to 6ft3 most of the day.Also on the subject of Presnell if you watch the David Frost show interview with Clint, Ali and Presnell you can clearly see Presnell is the taller of the two.

Leone_Fan said on 26/Sep/23
In Paint Your Wagon Clint was noticeably taller than Lee Marvin but looked slightly shorter than Harve Presnell. Although with the latter there perhaps weren't any really good scenes to compare. The strange thing was that Marvin seemed to stack up better against Presnell than against Eastwood. I think Clint was probably no shorter than 6'3'' but maybe a weak 6'4'' morning height at best.

Hong said on 24/Sep/23
Click Here It's an interesting if not bizarre role for Clint,his dancing in particular was very bad and amateurish,but away from that and back to the subject of height,I googled the actress he's with in the pic I posted and she's listed as 5ft6 inches,if you add an extra 3 for heels,Clint is not looking much over 6ft in comparison,which is a bit strange,and as you said he's certainly not looking anywhere near 6ft4, that's why I think 6ft3 peak is more than generous for his height.

Arch Stanton said on 21/Sep/23
Eastwood fans may not have seen him in Le Streghe in such an offbeat role. I think it was shot in Italy in 65 in between filming or after filming the Dollars films. It's in Italian, I watched it yesterday and understood a fair bit of it. Click Here Clint comes in at 1hr 23 and certainly in an offbeat role. He certainly looks different with his hair slicked like that (like it was in Pink Cadillac). Doesn't look like a 6 ft 4 guy in it.

Hong said on 9/Sep/23
Click Here Rory here's a pic from that same show you can get a good look at all the footwear on show,btw 6ft3.25 for Clint's peak could be more like it but 6ft3.5 seems a little bit of a stretch.

Rory said on 8/Sep/23
Hong, I'm not sure on Parkers shoes though. You've assumed they're only 1 inch, but I'm doubtful about that because to me they look like quite bulky shoes. Ignoring footwear I'd say there looked 2.5 inches between Parker and Eastwood. I've got Eastwood at 6ft3.25 prime btw.

Arch Stanton said on 8/Sep/23
I mean Clint was even in a film with Richard Kiel and stood next to him on a slope LOL!

Hong said on 8/Sep/23
Ok Rory let's look at it this way,so Clint was 6ft3.5 + 1.25 to 1.5 inch boot heels puts Clint pretty close to 6ft5,now in comparison we have Parker 6ft5.5 and for arguments sake 1 inch heel?that would leave him at 6f6.5 that's around 1.5 inches difference.Also both guys have poor posture,Clint tends to slouch and Parker tends to stoop,so taken that into account I still see more than 1.5 inches height difference more like 2.5 leaving Clint looking no more than 6ft3 flat.

Rory said on 7/Sep/23
Hong,you've posted that many times before lol,I'm saying he looks taller than ebsen there for me when he stands well but 6ft3 flat compared to Fess Parker I'd say,not quite 3 inches. Does he have footwear advantage on Fess ? I wouldn't swear by that,those shoes Fess have on look pretty unconventional and chunky. I'd agree though on that particular show,he looked 6ft3 flat.

Hong said on 7/Sep/23
Click Here In this he looks about 3 inches shorter than Fess Parker at times,he also has footwear advantage,and looks similar to the older Buddy Ebsen.

Leone_Fan said on 5/Sep/23
Yes it's possible that it wasn't Clint who wanted Neeson to look shorter but someone else concerned about his image such as the director or studio executives. Everything will be done to make the star look good and not be overshadowed by a supporting actor.

Rory said on 4/Sep/23
Not necessarily,it may have even have been asked for by the director for the purposes of the camera shot. I'd personally be surprised if Clint,at that point 190cm tall,kicked up a fuss about Neesons height. It's not like Neeson towered him on flat ground,the difference was like 3 or 4cm max. Let's not forget Clint was a powerful film star, if he'd had a problem acting with tall people then they wouldn't have been in the movie with him, so I think that's nonsense.

Hong said on 4/Sep/23
Your correct Leone_Fan as you can read in the post I sent on 6th of June,this says too me that Clint was indeed very aware of his height next to his co stars and was fully aware that he was beginning to lose height at that stage of his life.

Leone_Fan said on 3/Sep/23
In Dead Pool Liam Neeson was made to stand on lower ground than Clint so he didn't look taller. Which was stupid I think. Liam did look taller in some scenes though.

Rory said on 3/Sep/23
I think young Clint would have easily hit 6ft4 out of bed,probably on a good day 6ft4.25 straight out and then at night down to maybe 6ft3.25. Solid 193 range is out seeing as he was edged by Walcott,Kennedy and Gavin, likewise 189/190 range is out seeing as he was taller than ulrick and Matheson whilst in flat shoes. 191.5 is a good bet for Dollars era Clint.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Sep/23
Yeah the full 6ft4 always seemed to be a slight stretch. Early morning would have hit it surely. Flat 6ft3 I think should be off the menu as well for Clint's peak though.


In Dead Pool still looked around the 6ft3 mark

Arch Stanton said on 1/Sep/23
It's one of those quite rare instances where Clint actually looks a genuine solid 6 ft 4. In some scenes in Blood Work I thought Clint actually looked a bit taller than Jeff Daniels, and did look about 6 ft 3. Which is odd as it was 2003 and he started looking more 6 ft 2 range by around 1993! I can believe 6'4" in the morning peak Parker, and that he dropped to mid 6'3" range. I think he looked too lanky to be the 6'2.5-6'3 some people say.

Parker said on 1/Sep/23
Arch Stanton said on 30/Aug/23
Even if Aspel is under 5'9, Clint physically proportionally looks easily 6 ft 4 in that video to me!

100% agree mate. Minimum solid 6'3 as he looked in Magnum Force. I've upgraded my peak guess to 6'4. He's claimed it, why would you lie at that height.

Leone_Fan said on 31/Aug/23
Really surprised how tall Eastwood looks in the video with Michael Aspel. Looks like a 6'4'' or 6'3'' guy on that show. Clint was in his mid 50s then so I guess still close to his peak height and looked great overall, still the picture of the handsome movie star.

Looking at an older Eastwood from the 2000's onwards its hard to see a 6'4'' guy. At times you question whether he was ever really 6'4'' to begin with, such as when you see him towered by Tim Robbins who some claim is 6'7'' but is probably 6'5''. Clint looks like he was a legitimately tall guy who has lost several inches due to the effects of ageing.

On a side note I was a bit concerned that the site was going under due to it not accepting comments for a while. I appreciate it said was due to technical issues but was concerned maybe Rob the site owner had blown his bank balance on running the site or something. No offence Rob. Glad to see it's up and running and going strong.

Arch Stanton said on 30/Aug/23
Even if Aspel is under 5'9, Clint physically proportionally looks easily 6 ft 4 in that video to me!

Rory said on 30/Aug/23
In fairness I think Parkinson is underlisted at 5ft10, he could pull off 10.5 quite a bit I feel and I wouldn't go under 10.25 for him. Aspel 8.25/8.5 and Parkinson 10.25/10.5 is likely and I think Clint by 1985 was 6ft3 how much he'd lost in height by then is unknowable,but probably less than half inch.

Hong said on 30/Aug/23
Agreed Rory,I think Aspel was closer to 5ft8 than 9 putting Clint in the strong 6ft3 range.

Rory said on 29/Aug/23
Click Here

You can see Aspel with 6ft1.75 Caine in the first 30 seconds here looking a good 5 inches shorter. Also in the episode with Clint he seemed a bit shorter than 5ft9ish Dennis Waterman so I'd say Aspel was at best 5ft8.5 and possibly as low as 5ft8.25. Clint looked 7-8 inches taller but was slightly nearer to the camera so he probably wasn't much more than 7 inches taller than Aspel in reality.

James B 172cm said on 29/Aug/23
Arch-Maybe Clint was 6’3.25 in the mid 80s?

Hong said on 29/Aug/23
Click Here Here's Aspel with 5ft10 listed Michael Parkinson, he's looking a couple of inches shorter,so maybe closer to 5ft 8 would be more like Aspels height at the time?

Arch Stanton said on 29/Aug/23
Clint oddly looks proportionally like a legit 6 ft 4 in that clip from 1985! and the legs of a guy nearer 6 ft 6. I thought Clint edged out 6'3" Michael Moriarty in Pale Rider James!

James B 172cm said on 29/Aug/23
Rob assuming Clint was not over 6ft3 in 1985 do you agree that Aspel looks 5ft8 in comparison?

James B 172cm said on 29/Aug/23
Maybe Michael Aspel is more 5ft8?

Hong said on 28/Aug/23
Click Here Here's Clint and Eric,as you can see Eric is barefoot and Clint has shoes on but Clint looks to have the edge even taken that in to account.In general in Rawhide I do think both guys look quite similar in height,but with the often uneven ground level in the outside scenes it's pretty hard to get a good comparison.

Hong said on 28/Aug/23
Click Here look at this video from the Michael Aspel show in 1985, Aspel is listed as 5ft9 and is completely towerd by Clint, it's one of those occasions in which Clint actually looks 6ft4.

Gerald S said on 28/Aug/23
Rob, I know it's a toss up, but who do you think might have been a stronger 6'3.5" out of Eric Fleming and Eastwood on Rawhide?

James B 172cm said on 27/Aug/23
6'3-6'3.5 peak

Slamm said on 27/Aug/23
6-3.5 peak now 5-11.75

Hong said on 7/Jun/23
Click Here Here's Paul Newman's military physical results,as you can see his height is listed as 69.25 inches which is 5ft9 and a quarter.

Hong said on 7/Jun/23
But still Arch 6 inches?I don't think so.

Hong said on 6/Jun/23
Click Here In this article Liam Neeson mentions how he was deliberately made look shorter than Clint in the dead pool.

Hong said on 6/Jun/23
Just got Newman's military service documents and posted them to Newman's page, it has Newman's height as 5ft9.25.

Arch Stanton said on 3/Jun/23
Newman is stood on one leg which can often make you look taller and Clint is clearly dropping height with his legs apart though Hong. His legs are more than slightly far apart.

Hong said on 3/Jun/23
Click Here I've managed to get a closer still of Clint and Newman in which Newman's legs are straight and Clint in in a pisition where his legs are more together.

Hong said on 3/Jun/23
Click Here A 60 year old Clint with 6ft5.5 listed Clive Mantel,Clint is looking about 6ft2 in comparison.

Hong said on 2/Jun/23
Click Here Here's a still of all the pics of Clint and Newman from that photo shoot.

Hong said on 2/Jun/23
Click Here Both Eastwood at Newman in their 40s still at peak,I don't see a 6inch height difference.I know Clint's legs are slightly spread but Newman isn't exactly standing great either, also Clint's hair is very high.In this pic I see about max 5 inches,I would be interested to know your opinion Rob,do you think Clint looks 6 inches taller?

Hong said on 1/Jun/23
Click Here== Clint and 5ft9.5 Paul Newman.

Hong said on 31/May/23
The guy beside Clint is actually listed as 5ft8,Clint doesn't look much taller.

Gerald S said on 31/May/23
Happy 93rd birthday, Clint.

Clint surprisingly had several inches on once six feet Dwight Yoakam in Cry Macho. Clint was wearing cowboy boots at the time though. I doubt Clint is over 5’11” now, Tom Hanks is noticeably taller these days.

Arch Stanton said on 31/May/23
My Granddad was 5'9 and a half in his early 90s barefoot, I remember measuring him as a kid. In his prime he was "a hair over 6 ft", tall for a man born in 1900. So he lost almost 3 inches. I'm pretty sure Clint has lost more than 3 inches!!!

Arch Stanton said on 31/May/23
Happy 93rd Birthday Clint! He's now the age my Grandad was when he died. Hopefully he has many years left in the tank still!

Hong said on 31/May/23
Happy birthday Mr Eastwood,93 years old today,6ft 3.25 peak 5ft11.25 at 93,4 inch loss in total.

Hong said on 29/May/23
Click Here== This pic looks like it was taken recently,never seen it before.

James B 5ft8 said on 21/May/23
He looks like he’s lost a lot of weight and is very hunched Click Here

Cold Water said on 20/May/23
1979: 191 cm
1988: 190 cm
1995: 187 cm
2003: 185 cm
2023: 180 cm

Arch Stanton said on 15/May/23
Turns out it is complete BS and clickbait that he's been ill, one of his representatives said he's fine but has been preparing for a new film which is due to begin shooting shortly.

Jtm said on 13/May/23
i hope he's at least able to do his next film

James B 5ft8 said on 11/May/23
Arch I wonder if Clint will make it to 100?

Arch Stanton said on 11/May/23
He was looking very thin, even thinner than normal the last I saw, hope he doesn't have cancer or something. He would be the sort of guy who would keep quiet about something like that.

Hong said on 10/May/23
Click Here Here's an interesting article on Clint's absence from the limelight,it also mentions Clint may be suffering from osteoporosis which would make sense.

James B 5ft8 said on 9/May/23
I fear for Clint Eastwood health since he has not been seen in public for over a year now

Hong said on 8/May/23
Click Here @Siamo this is the video of that episode of the David Frost Show,people can make up their own mind's weather Clint looks a full inch taller than Ali,"but in my opinion no matter what Ali said", Clint does not look that much taller than Ali,in fact there is not any clear shots of the two guys standing next to each other to compare their height's properly.

Slamo said on 8/May/23
On Parkinson with Ali Clint looked 6-3.5 absolutely. Ali even commented on him being smaller than Clint.

Hong said on 2/May/23
Click Here In this pic taken at the same event Clint looks more 6ft1 range than a flat 6ft as he did in the in the earlier pic I posted,it just goes to show how angles and posture can effect the way you can judge people's height's in photos.

Hong said on 2/May/23
Click Here this is the Japanese actor I was talking about,as you can see in the pic I posted he Clint is very similar looking in height to a 6ft guy aged in his mid seventies.

Hong said on 2/May/23
The guy I said was listed every where I checked as 6ft1 was actually 6ft my mistake, I typed 6ft1 by mistake.

James B 5ft8 said on 1/May/23
Leone_Fan said on 30/Apr/23
Clint Eastwood is usually given as 6'4'' in his prime. The older Clint is much smaller sub 6ft. Looking at him standing next to guys like Tim Robbins it is difficult to see how Clint could have once been more or less the same height. Clint looks a good 4 or 5 inches smaller and this was like 20 years ago. On the Robert Ryan page a guy claims to have met Eastwood in the 70s and puts him just under 6'2''. If this is is genuine then this would explain why Eastwood looks so much smaller today. On the other hand a young Clint can look very tall at times.


Clint was probably a solid 1.5 inches shorter than Robbins even at his peak

Hong said on 1/May/23
Click Here The guy beside Clint is listed everywhere I checked as 6ft1,Clint in his mid 70s is looking similar of maybe a bit taller? Judging from all the pics I've seen Clint from age 70 was looking no more than 6ft1 in general, with a few exceptions he was looking maybe 6ft1.5 at most.He looks to have shrunk 2 inches by age 70 and now about 4.5 to 5 inches aged almost 93,so it's perfectly understandable to see why some people would be sceptical of his peak listing of 6ft3.5, because now he's just looking like an averaged height guy.He did look 6ft3 range in his younger days compared to his contemporaries but that could have been down to over inflated height claims on their behalf?it has been known to happen,and there have been already some examples of this on this website,Lee Marvin for example originally listed as 6ft2 now down to 6ft1 and his military records say 6ft.5 so he could have been even that low.I no Clint was originally listed here as 6ft4 and was reduced to 6ft3.5 but I still think there is a good argument for an other reduction? definitely now because he's still active his current height should be reduced to 5ft11.

Hong said on 1/May/23
Click Here This one is making Clint at the age of 78 look no more than 6ft with Robbins, basically Clint was looking like he was a couple of inches short of 6ft3.5 at 70 years of age and by his late 70s under 6ft1.

Hong said on 1/May/23
Click Here Here's Clint from the same photo shoot looking 6ft2? next to at the time a prime 6ft guy Larry Fishbourne.

Hong said on 1/May/23
Click Here Clint and Robbins,both guys with similar posture,Clint looking max 6ft1 in comparison aged early 70s,that's over 2 inches less than peak height.

Hong said on 1/May/23
Click Here @Parker yes he does look sub 6ft in that pic I agree,here's Clint next to Tim Robbins listed 6ft4.75,as you can see the height difference looks less because of Robbins posture,Clint is looking 6ft3 range.

Parker said on 30/Apr/23
There seems to be good agreement on celebheights of Ben Stiller being a 5'6 guy
Here he is with Clint who had just turned 87. I would guess Clint at 5'10/11 here, would you agree Hong?
Click Here

In Magnum Force I thought Clint looked a solid 6'3 against listed 6'2 guys Tim Mathieson and Robert Urich

Leone_Fan said on 30/Apr/23
Clint Eastwood is usually given as 6'4'' in his prime. The older Clint is much smaller sub 6ft. Looking at him standing next to guys like Tim Robbins it is difficult to see how Clint could have once been more or less the same height. Clint looks a good 4 or 5 inches smaller and this was like 20 years ago. On the Robert Ryan page a guy claims to have met Eastwood in the 70s and puts him just under 6'2''. If this is is genuine then this would explain why Eastwood looks so much smaller today. On the other hand a young Clint can look very tall at times.

Parker said on 28/Apr/23
Hong said on 28/Apr/23
Click Here At this stage in his 80s Clint is significantly shorter than Neeson.

Think that might be the angle of the photograph Hong - Here is another Click Here

Hong said on 28/Apr/23
Click Here At this stage in his 80s Clint is significantly shorter than Neeson.

Hong said on 28/Apr/23
Click Here Here's Clint with 6ft4.25 listed Steven Seagal,Clint is looking almost 2 inches shorter at aged 65.

Hong said on 28/Apr/23
In the pic with Neeson it has a date of 2004 that would make Clint 74,I don't know if that's the year the pic was taken.

Hong said on 28/Apr/23
Click Here Clint probably in his early 60s?with Liam Neeson.

Slamo said on 25/Apr/23
Watched Any which way you can with William smith fighting Clint at the end. Smith is a genuine 6-2 guy. Clint has an inch minimum on him. Both have flat sneakers on. Peak I’d say 6-3.5. Now 5-11.75.

Hong said on 24/Apr/23
Click Here Here's Clint looking similar to Morgan Freeman back in 92,Clint aged 62 and Freeman 55.

Rory said on 18/Apr/23
Yh a guy like Clint can have no complaints about anything. He's lucked out his while life with his career,looks,height,longevity,health etc I wouldn't be letting some height loss get to me if I was him.

Arch Stanton said on 16/Apr/23
Astounding how he still has the energy and mental clarity to make films at 93 Holt. Of course his super efficient directing style helps but it's still a massive undertaking making a film!

5'7 and a fraction said on 15/Apr/23
Sandy Cowell said on 30/Mar/23
It’s rather sad that Clint has lost 3 1/2 inches.

There's nothing to be sad about loosing 3 1/2 inches by 90+. It's all perfectly natural and part of aging. My Great Gran went from 5'10 to looking no more than 5'4 and she got along just fine. Height isn't everything at the end of the day.

Hong said on 15/Apr/23
I've heard he's going to be directing a movie with Nicholas Holt in it,if so it will be interesting to compare Clint's current height next to a 6ft2.5 listed guy like Holt.In my Opinion Clint would have been slightly taller at peak than Holt so it would be a good indicator of how the young Clint would have looked standing alongside the elderly shrunken Clint.

Hong said on 5/Apr/23
10 years ago he was looking 6ft range next to Bradley Cooper and Leonardo DiCaprio,but now he's definitely under that measurement.

James B 5ft8 said on 31/Mar/23
I find It very hard to believe he’s still 6ft.

6ft is actually a tall height for a man and Clint no longer looks tall

Sandy Cowell said on 30/Mar/23
It’s rather sad that Clint has lost 3 1/2 inches.

Arch Stanton said on 29/Mar/23
Glad we're in agreement Hong. There's always some baffling height anomalies!

Hong said on 29/Mar/23
Click Here @Rory I would say Clint looked somewhere between 6ft1 and 6ft2 in that meeting movie, Woods was in my opinion a weak 5ft11 and Leary around 6ft1 range.

Rory said on 27/Mar/23
Clint was definitely looking over 6ft1 in '99. I seem to remember him looking about 3 inches taller than James Woods in the film so I'd say at least 6ft1.75 at that time. I think he lost around 2cms during the 90s, started off 189.5 and finished 187.5.

Hong said on 27/Mar/23
Also I forgot to mention, in true crime Clint only looked a few inches taller than 5ft9.25 listed Bernard Hill also.

Hong said on 25/Mar/23
I'm not saying Clint was below 6ft3 at peak I'm just saying in the pic with Douglas Clint looks far short of 6ft3 and has the tendency to look shorter than 6ft3 in some pics, in fact in his early sixties looked no more than 6ft2 and sub 6ft2 in his late sixties, for example compared to James Woods and Dennis Leary in true crime,he was marginally taller than Leary and had a couple of inches on Woods. Throughout that movie he was looking around 6ft1 range and that was at the time of the pic I posted with Douglas.

Arch Stanton said on 22/Mar/23
Hong, Douglas looks like 5 ft 11 in that photo. In reality he was 5 ft 9 range. You can't use one photo to justify the height of the person and than find a photo of the other person looking shorter than normal elsewhere and use that as justification for somebody being shorte in another photo!! Anybody who has seen all of Clint's films can't seriously think he was under 6 ft 3, otherwise everybody else is overlisted.

Hong said on 20/Mar/23
Click Here Michael Douglas is not a tall man here he is looking similar to Sean Penn, he's not even looking 5ft9 there.

Hong said on 13/Mar/23
Click Here In this pic taken in 1998 Clint at 68 is looking max 6ft1 next to 5ft10ish Michael Douglas and that's taking in to account his more relaxed posture.

Hong said on 10/Mar/23
Click Here Here's a copy of one of the id cards used in one of the dirty harry movies, it's interesting his height is listed as 6ft2,also Harry was 10 years younger than Clint.

Arch Stanton said on 6/Mar/23
LOL. Beckham wishes he looked like Clint and Steve McQueen more like! In the early 2010s Beckham's hair and beard and squint was reminiscent of Clint in the Dollars films but they're nothing alike really. Beck's face looks puffy these days and those awful tattoos.... He'd have gone bald at least five times if it wasn't for the hair plants!

James.B 172cm said on 1/Mar/23
Nah Arch I think Clint bears more resemblance to David Beckham

Rory said on 28/Feb/23
It really isn't that rare to lose several inches when you get to 90+,losing only 1 inch by that age group would be rare. Look at prince Phillip, he was no less than 6ft peak and possibly a strong one but by the end he was 5ft9 at most and there's a guy who has had the best of everything in life in terms of food/health care. People need to get over the fact elderly people lose height and often a fair bit of it. It's not uncommon. Clint has probably lost nearly 4 inches by now.

Arch Stanton said on 28/Feb/23
More like was almost 6 ft 4 and now barely over 5 ft 10! Nah I think he could measure around 5 ft 11 now, 6 ft seems a bit generous currently, even with his posture. Marez people typically lose an inch a decade on average after the age of 60. You could expect a 6'3.5 peak guy to be barely over 6 ft now by the age of 93. Clint obviously has problems with his back which could account for more than average loss.

Jackman has a slight resemblance to Clint when he has a beard, mainly the hair, beard and around the eyes I think, but not really. Jackman certainly has a better physique than Clint but looks a bit washed out in the face and at times doesn't look well, I don't know if that's skin cancer he had at those times or something.

MareZ said on 28/Feb/23
Folks, but how is it possible to lose so much height? He was a solid 6'3 or even more and now 6'0. It's about 3 inches. I understand losing two cm but so much..

Hong said on 26/Feb/23
I meant Hackman.

Rory said on 26/Feb/23
Yh but that's just an anomalous picture Hong. Most other photos of Hackman and Freeman from around that time tell us they were within an inch of each other. I think in 2000 Freeman may well not have lost anything by then,he held his height well and probably still was 6ft2.25, whilst I think Hackman had gone from 6ft1.75/6ft2 peak to 6ft1.25 by then at 70.

Hong said on 25/Feb/23
Click Here Jackman with 6ft2.25 listed Morgan Freeman.

Jtm said on 25/Feb/23
Rory said on 23/Feb/23
Marvin definitely wasn't under 6ft1, he only looks slightly shorter than Gene Hackman who was at worst 6ft1.75..look from 1.20 onwards
Click Here

6ft1.25 is more likely than 6ft0.5 for Marvin. Please don't say Hackman was 6ft1. Please.

he actually tried to argue 6'0 for hackman. i would accept that if he has the guts to claim warren beatty wasn't over 5'11 peak.

Hong said on 24/Feb/23
@Rory,Marvin at 6ft1 is believable,as I said Clint was in my opinion 2 inches taller than Marvin,but Clint at 6ft3.25 is not out of the question either. It's kind of difficult to judge .25 of an inch difference between people.

Rory said on 23/Feb/23
Marvin definitely wasn't under 6ft1, he only looks slightly shorter than Gene Hackman who was at worst 6ft1.75..look from 1.20 onwards
Click Here

6ft1.25 is more likely than 6ft0.5 for Marvin. Please don't say Hackman was 6ft1. Please.

James.B 172cm said on 22/Feb/23
When you see Clint in Hang ‘Em High at times anywhere near 6ft4 just seems impossible

Hong said on 22/Feb/23
@Rory The fact at Clint's legs appear the same length as Robbins legs is probably down to Close Clint's trousers bring higher waisted,his trousers seem to be pulled up very high where as Robbins trousers are more around his hip area.Marvin was originally listed as 6ft2 and it was reduced to 6ft1 because an old army measurement had him at 6ft.5 aged 18 so he was given an extra half an inch to allow for a bit of growth from 18 to full adult height,Marvin may not have even grown and may actually have been 6ft.5 all his career.Clint always looked a couple if inches taller than Marvin In my opinion.As for Van Cleef Clint looked a bit taller sometimes it was difficult to notice any significant difference between them,and for Kennedy I posted a video of him with 6ft5.5 Fess Parker and he was struggling with 6ft4 with Parker,it's just below I posted it 23 of January.I do take in to account Clint's posture with Robbins but Robbins it's exactly stand straight either.

Rory said on 22/Feb/23
Hong, yh I'd say with Robbins he looked 6ft1-1.5 generally in most of their pictures. The thing is though is in your seventies your posture isn't as good, and so its quite feasible for a measurement he could have stretched to 6ft1.5-2 and then suddenly that's only 1.5 inches lost from peak which isn't unheard of at all for a tall guy in his seventies, interestingly too their legs look the same length which indicates at peak they wouldn't have been dissimilar. I don't really think you can make the assumption everyone inflated their height therefore we'll knock an inch off everyone which leaves Clint at nearer 6ft2. That doesn't seem sensible. As for the Newman pictures their postures all over the place so it's unusable imo. When I think of Clint with guys like Lee Marvin,Van Cleef,Bridges,Kennedy,Heston,Nimoy etc etc I just think it's impossible to say under 6ft3. 6ft3.25 peak for me.

Parker said on 22/Feb/23
@Hong - Are you playing Devil's Advocate?
I agree with Rory, you have provided some of the best evidence of Clint over 6'3 prime, and I know you have seen the youtube clip with Mohammed Ali. You also posted a clip showing him looking clearly taller than Charlton Heston

Here's another old pic with 6-6'1 David Janssen (Janssen's wife claims 6'2 for him in his biography,he wasn't that but certainly a strong 6 footer)
Click Here

In terms of height loss - I watched 'The Mule' last night. Not sure when it was filmed, but I guess Clint was close to 90 in it. I would have guessed him ~5'10 in the film, altho his posture was poor - not surprising for a 90 year old man - still looking good tho!!!

Hong said on 21/Feb/23
Click Here I know Clint is standing with more loose posture tan Newman,but taking in to account Newman was in the 5ft9 to 10 range Clint is not looking anywhere near 6ft3.5 in comparison, it's pics like this that leave me doubting Clint was as tall as his listed height and because of that also it makes me doubt the billed heights of other guys of their generation too.

Hong said on 21/Feb/23
@Rory,my issue is not strictly with Clint's height I'm just not convinced that the actors he stared along with were the height's they claimed, or were billed.I just find it a bit difficult to believe that Clint lost so much height from peak,I mean he's looking nearly 5 inches off 6ft3.5 in some pics these days.I just think in the past people could get away with exaggerating their hights more, whereas today it's more difficult to lie and for example like the Rock has to admit he was only 6ft3 not his billed height of 6ft5.I guarantee you if The Rock was famous back in the fifties his fake height claim would still be his listed height and any shrinking would be put down to old age and injuries or something else.
Here's an interesting pic with 6ft4.75 or more a strong 6ft5 in my opinion,Tim Robbins,Clint aged 73 is looking 6ft1 range in comparison that's aged 73 around 2.5 inches height loss from peak?I find that a bit difficult to believe.He should be still around 6ft2.5 or maybe 6ft2 at that stage.It is a lot of height to lose for an aperantly fit and healthy man with no obvious health issues.
Click Here

Rory said on 21/Feb/23
Hong always seems to produce evidence Clint was 6ft3+ himself but then bizarrely suggests clint was between 6ft2 and 3 based on looking at....Hugh Jackman. Strange. Anything less than 6ft3 for a 30 year old Clint isn't really a serious guess imo. I think on the whole the average guess here of 191.4 for his peak looks pretty good to me. I'd completely rule out say 6ft2.5 and 6ft4 as options, I think the argument is 6ft3-3.5 region.

Hong said on 21/Feb/23
@Parker,yes Clint still looks around 6ft with Jackman,but to think he was around 1.5 inches taller than Jackman at his peak, and is at 84 2 inches shorter? is a bit of a stretch.Clint did edge out the likes of Matheson and Urich but I'm not convinced either of those guys were strong a Strong 6ft2,and at times he
barely looked 2 inches taller than 6ft Hal Holbrook.Im just not convinced enough about Clint's height being over 6ft3 at peak, I'd guess him 6ft3 max and nudging 6ft4 in shoes.

Parker said on 21/Feb/23
@Hong

Still looked a strong six footer at 84 with Jackman Click Here

In terms of his height, taller than Ali, noticeably taller than 6'2 guys Tim Matheson and Robert Urich in Magnum Force. Min 6'3 IMO, maybe not the full 6'4 but has always claimed it.

Hong said on 20/Feb/23
Click Here Here's Old Clint well into his 80s looking a couple of inches shorter than Jackman.

Hong said on 19/Feb/23
I'm just looking at Hugh Jackman on the Graham Norton Show,Jackman always reminds me of Eastwood,he seems very similar in proportion to Eastwood size Wise,Jackman was a solid 6ft2 guy at peak and sometimes I think that Eastwood could have been at peak more close to Jackman in height rather than someone like say Conan O'Brien, definitely not 6ft4 for Eastwood peak I think somewhere between 6ft2 and 3 personally but I could be wrong.

Hong said on 19/Feb/23
Click Here In this clip with 6ft5 listed Bill Travers he's looking similar although he of course has heel advantage, weather Travers was 6ft5 that's another question,also because there both moving around a lot it's kind of difficult to compare their heights.

James.B 172cm said on 26/Jan/23
6’3.25 is possible for Clint’s peak as well

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Jan/23
Grant struggled with 6ft in Charade. Definitely looked more than an inch below Coburn as well…

Hong said on 25/Jan/23
Click Here ,Yes Arch here's a pic from that scene with Grant,and yes Kennedy looks enormous,6ft5 range? if Grant was 6ft1?But that just leaves one question was Kennedy wearing lifts to make his character even more intimidating? it's a possibility In my opinion. In the video with Parker, too me it looks clear cut that Kennedy was not 6ft5 so how he managed to pull it off next to Grant is a mystery,because with 6ft5.5 Parker he's struggling with a flat 6ft4.Also there was an excellent video from the Danny Kaye show which I posted a while back with Parker Buddy Ebson and Clint,in the video Parker with less heel than Clint made Clint look max 6ft4 in his boots and Clint was looking similar to the much older Ebson, unfortunately that video seems to have disappeared so I can't repost it.

Malcolm Oliver said on 25/Jan/23
Yeah, he’d edge out guys like Cooper, Stewart, and Peck

At peak, definitely 6’4 in the morning

Arch Stanton said on 24/Jan/23
You always get comparisons like that which don't seem to add up Hong! Check out the lift scene in Charade with Cary Grant Hong, Kennedy actually looked 6'4.5 in comparison!! He does look 4 inches taller than Cary in that film.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Jan/23
I doubt Clint was a genuine afternoon 6ft4 but I wouldn’t go under 6ft3½ either. You could make a case for 6ft3¾. As Arch expertly pointed out, he was always noticeably taller than men ranging from 6ft to 6ft2. Flat 6ft3 is a bit low, I’d put him above Cooper, Stewart and Palance and on par with Wayne, Robert Ryan and Jeff Chandler (not convinced he was a true 6ft4 either)

Now George Kennedy was a textbook solid 6ft4, possibly even a littler over that. Edged Clint in Thunderbolt & Lightfoot and had a good 3in over Jeff Bridges (solid 6ft1½ then).

Hong said on 23/Jan/23
At 13.8 minutes on the video Kennedy is face to face with Parker and looks more than 1.5 inches shorter In my opinion

Hong said on 23/Jan/23
Click Here Agreed Arch,Clint and Kennedy looked pretty similar in Height,and if Kennedy was 6ft4 as listed that would leave Clint over 6ft3,but if you look at the video I posted featuring 6ft5.5 Fess Parker, Kennedy is not looking the full 6ft 4 in comparison In my opinion.

Bradley said on 22/Jan/23
Yes, 6 flat today.