James Garner's Height
6ft 1 ½ (186.7 cm)
American actor, best remembered for starring in TV series The Rockford Files. In film he is well known for roles in The Great Escape, Maverick, The Notebook, Sunset, Murphy's Romance, Victor Victoria, Move Over Darling, Sayonara, and The Children's Hour. I read a tvguide article in which he commented on his height, saying: "I used to be 6-feet-3. Now, with my knees and my back, I'm 6-feet-2, maybe less."
Photos by PR Photos
You May Be Interested
Add a Comment287 comments
Average Guess (45 Votes)
6ft 1.43in (186.5cm)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Sep/20
Interesting Arch, do you actually see him as a strong 6ft2?
It’s been years since I’ve seen Great Escape. Can’t remember if he edged Coburn or vice versus. 6ft2 isn’t impossible and 6ft3 in shoes
Arch Stanton said on 19/Sep/20
I wouldn't go higher than 6'2.25. I think he really looked the full 6'2 though in the 50s and early 60s.
Ian C. said on 27/Aug/20
Almost certainly six foot three when he was on Maverick in 1959. An actor named Gary Vinson appears in an episode of Bronco with Ty Hardin, who was six foot one and half. Vinson was about an inch taller than Hardin, standing face-to-face on a level floor. Vinson later appeared with Garner, also standing face-to-face on a level floor, and Garner was about an inch taller than Vinson.
said on 10/Jun/20
@Rob Check out 29:43 Click Here
don't worry mymail is a safe mainstream site, not one of the putlocker type ones. You can't have Dean Jagger at 6'2 and Garner at 6'1.5! I really think Garner was 6 ft 2 flat but seemed to lose a lot of height later. Jagger might have lost a bit by 1960 in that film, he was about an inch shorter than Peck, 6'1.5 for Jagger might be more accurate.
If he lost an inch by that film then 6ft 1.5 does look more believable for a peak.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Jun/20
6ft2 is still debatable I think. While 6ft3 barefoot is hard to believe I don’t think he just 6ft1 either. I’d lean more toward 187-188cm zone peak than 186-187cm
He could still pull off 6ft2 on Rockford Files especially if Tom Selleck was the full 6ft4 (not unreasonable but more likely a little shy of it)
said on 7/Jun/20
That is peak height Rob right? In space cowboys he was significantly shorter then tomy lee jones, who was also not at his prime, maybe 181 cm max there for James.
Yes, when somebody passes on, they return to their peak height. By the time of Space Cowboys he could seem under 6ft.
Ian C. said on 2/Jun/20
Cheyenne, starring Clint Walker, was the first successful hourlong Tv Western. Most of the Warner Brothers TV westerns that followed seemed to be cast with men who looked as much like Clint Walker as possible. You look at them (Peter Brown, Ty Hardin, Will Hutchins, Garner, Jack Kelly, Wayde Preston) and they all have the same handsome guy face. Since Walker was six foot six, all the Walker lookalikes had to be tall too, which may have resulted in a bit of height inflation.
Arch Stanton said on 21/May/20
6'3 in shoes I mean :-).
Arch Stanton said on 21/May/20
@Sandy Garner was also a bit taller than Dean Jagger who Rob has at 6'2! Watch Cash McCall (1960). Garner could look a solid 6'2. I think he might have genuinely measured 6'3 in his prime.
Sandy A Cowell said on 7/Apr/20
James Garner was born 92 years ago today. It’s such a shame he died at 86. He had so much more to offer us. 😢
RIP James 🕯
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 24/Mar/20
Hey, didn't I see James in 'Wild Things' last night? I sure did, and he was playing a character called Tom Baxter.
talker said on 7/Dec/19
i just saw Boys night out,Garner was young then,in 1962,he looks about 3 inches taller than Jim Backus and a little taller than Howard Duff,i always saw Garner as a full 6'1",he never looked as a6'3" guy i dont know why he claimed that.The listing is OK ,he could have easily been 1.86m or very slightly over that.
Beau Dare said on 14/Nov/19
I never met James Garner, but I did do some business with him on one of my scripts when I worked in Hollywood, as an actor/screenwriter. Garner was one of the most honest men I know(rare in Hollywood). And if he said he was once 6'3" and lost a few inches to 6'1", you'd better believe it's the truth.
StephenB said on 2/Sep/19
John Lithgow looked to be around three inches taller than James Garner in the move "The Glitter Dome".
Mon said on 17/Jul/19
In Grand Prix (1966), James Garner did a stunt with a raised roll bar AND no seat on the race car he drove because he was too tall for the standard race car set up. He had thick backcombed hair that could steal an inch if blow dried, but in Move over Darling, his slicked down 50's prime looks 6'3'' next to the gargantuan Chuck Connors. And why would they cast Conners if their leading man was going to need lift's. Garner's head would be disproportionately large to the point of looking odd if he was under 6'2''.
Mon said on 17/Jul/19
Back in the era when tv guides said Rock Hudson was 6'6'' Garner was pegged at 6'4''. He was replacement for Rock Hudson on those Doris Day comedies. They would want someone over 6'2' for that. And he had extremely serious problems with his knees and back, suffering a fractured tailbone in a road rage incident,. This was was in the Rockford Files era when he was only in his fifties. I think Garner lost more than most when he was still middle aged. Peak, he was as tall as anyone who ever said they were 6'3''. Maybe he or his PR added an inch, but so did everyone else so relatively speaking he is no shorter than was said to be.
Ian C. said on 12/Jul/19
Garner was certainly six foot three in 1959, when he was on Maverick. He appears in an episode of Maverick with Gregory Walcott, who is listed here on Celebrity Heights as six foot four. Garner is within an inch of Walcott, standing face to face on a level floor.
movieguy12 said on 25/Mar/19
Watched the Great Escape 75th anniversary show in cinema last night. It's still a great film. Garner looks tall in this film in his prime. Also McQueen is not the short stocky guy I remember him to be. He's lean and average in height. I think this has been commented on elsewhere but Steve McQueen is the exception about all movie stars being shorter than supposed.
Sandy Cowell said on 25/Feb/19
I'm seeing now that James is noticeably taller than Robert Patrick, so maybe at that time, 1993, he was still over 6ft and I'm beginning to think that at his peak, he could have exceeded 6ft2.
Sandy Cowell said on 25/Feb/19
James Garner is playing some kind of authority figure in 'Fire in the Sky', and while he still looks a sizeable height, he looks nowhere near to the height he looked in 'The Great Escape'. I'd say just under 6ft in this, and 6ft1.75 for his peak.
movieguy12 said on 2/Feb/19
To contradict myself, watched one of the 90's reunion movies recently. As stated by a previous commentator James Luisi who play Lt Chapman on the show looks taller than Garner. Luisi was given as 6'2'' when I searched , don't know if this is accurate. I think he was taller on the original 70s show but by the time of the remakes the difference looks greater. Garner had lost more height relative to Luisi. I think James Garner was down to around 6ft at this point in the 90's.
movieguy12 said on 31/Jan/19
Garner always struck me as self deprecating, I'm not sure he'd 'lie' about he height. Maybe he was 6'2'' plus in his youth and lost a little height over time. To me he has the classic look of the 6'2'' guy. The guy you'd consider big but not in the giant range like 6'4'' plus guys.
said on 28/Dec/18
Rob was this guy really not even a full 187 guy? He really lost alot of height. I Believe he was 187-188 in his younger years. 187,5 range.
Over 6ft 1 but a full 6ft 2 I think I am not as convinced about.
Jug said on 17/Dec/18
He could not have been anything less than 6'2 at peak. Looked very tall in The Great Escape and seemed to have almost two inches on 6'1 Roger Moore on Maverick.
berta said on 9/Dec/18
he really lost alot of height. i dont think he was far of 188 peak.
Ian C. said on 13/Nov/18
There is an episode of Maverick (The Cats of Paradise, Seaason 3) in which Garner appears with Buddy Ebsen, who was credibly said to be six foot three, and Garner looks to be less than an inch shorter than Ebsen. Garner was at that time about thirty, and showed no sign of the mobility problems (mostly bad knees) that would plague him in middle age. He does some vigorous fighting on Maverick, and it's clearly Garner and not a stunt double doing the fighting. You certainly never see him walk with a limp.
Watch Garner in Duel at Diablo, and he does some impressive stuntwork on horses, and all of his own running. He seems perfectly able-bodied and athletic at that time.
By the time he was in The Rockford Files, Garner limped. This was sometimes written into the show, because Garner couldn't fake normal walking. By that time he was probably an inch shorter than he was in his youth.
AnonymousMe said on 11/Nov/18
-James Luisi (Lt Chapman on Rockford); 6'2 (always edges out Garner in height)
-Isaac Hayes; (Gandy on Rockford); 5'11 (shorter than Garner, but no way by 3 or 4 inches)
-Chuck Connors; (Co star with Garner in Move Over Darling); 6'5 or 6'6, depending on source (towers over Garner, particularly in the courtroom scenes where they are side by side in front of the judge. No way just 2 or 3 inches taller)
-Tom Selleck (Lance White on Rockford); 6'3 or 6'4, depending on sources (despite a common photo of the two men from filming which gets around, most scenes from "both" eps they are in together show Selleck with a good 2 inch lead over Garner. Sometimes more like 3 inches.
-Johnny Carson (Garner appears with him on Laugh-In); 5'10 to 5'11, depending on source (Unlike on The Tonight Show, where garner would always come out and walk in front of Johnny's desk...distorting any height comparison, on Laugh-In Garner is right next to Carson, and looks no more than 2 inches taller)
-Milt Kogan (Guest star on Rockford/No Cut Contract, etc) Listed as 6'4, but personally told me he was/is 6'5 via email, several years ago. He's in more than one ep, and is EASILY 3 to 4 inches taller than Garner.
.....I'm sorry, mine is not to run the discussion on this page. In fact, I'm done after this, because even I am getting tired of reading my own posts. And I'm fully aware that not all listings for heights are correct, by any stretch. But there are just too many actors Garner worked with in the 60's or 70's, who's heights are either known or those actors worked with other actors who's heights are known, for Garner to have been a towering 6 foot 3, barefoot. I could be 100% wrong, and Garner himself will correct me someday in the hereafter. But 6'3 is just too much of a stretch, no pun intended.
Fish-N-Fool said on 3/Nov/18
I met James Garner back in the mid 70's and he was at least 6'3" tall and 200+ pounds, as I was 6 foot 2 at the time (and I had boots on) and about 180 pounds and he was taller by a bit and about 25 pound heavier. In other words he was a big guy and you guys are full of chit.
berta said on 26/Oct/18
the average guess of him being only 186 seems low. I think he was 187-188 at peak
Mark Harrison said on 7/Oct/18
He was never 6'3". 6'1" is more accurate.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Oct/18
Weak 6ft2 peak
Sandy Cowell said on 13/Sep/18
@ Nik - I can't see myself seeing a film like that unless it shows on TV. If it's a feel-good movie, and I rather think it is, I'd first check out the cast and then the plot, if indeed it has a plot!
Mimi is another such name and so is Fifi! 😁😊😆
movieguy12 said on 13/Sep/18
I love it when you get comments from people like Gigi claiming to be relatives of famous people. Or comments along the lines of I met 'Clint Eastwood and he was 6'4'' or someone else posting I met Clint Eastwood and he was 5'11''. The great thing is these comments could be true. It could well be the real daughter of James Garner posting. Who knows?
Nik said on 8/Sep/18
@ Sandy Cowell - Don't they just? I think Gigi is a quaint and charming name, this name is made up of four letters, the last two are a reoccurrence of the first two and in the same order! There are a few such names!
The film "Gigi" is another one you can add to your must see collection!
It would be interesting to know how tall Gigi is!
Sandy Cowell said on 5/Sep/18
@ Nik - The Stars do seem to favour exotic names for their kids, too true. I think Gigi is a great name and it's also the title of an old and very well-known film....
... which I haven't seen so much as once!
Cheers Nik! 😊👍
AnonymousMe said on 4/Sep/18
...Garner at just one inch under a height like 6'4 is laughable, I'm sorry. And for most of his life? Even more laughable. You can post under any name you want to here. I could post as James Garner's Ghost, and claim I was really 6'6. Even if, by any stretch of the imagination, it really was James Garner's daughter who found herself on a celebrity heights page...and just couldn't resist posting, "lol" and all (gives it that extra bit of credibility), how many people out there actually measure their dads' height, regularly...or even ever? Most people I know simply take the person's word for how tall they are. I never measured my father once in his life. He said he was 5'9, so that's what we went by. Was he? Wasn't he? Was that with shoes? I have no idea. No one's ever measured me, not even my wife. I've done it, and a nurse at any doc appointments does it. And even with the latter I always have shoes on, and their measurement fluctuates with my shoes and time of day. We'll never know exactly how tall Garner was, but I go with over 6'1, and under 6'3.
Nik said on 3/Sep/18
@ Sandy Cowell - Isn't Gigi such a wonderful name?
I have a feeling that it was THE Gigi who wrote in on the 10/Aug/18! For that James Garner gets 6'3" for his peak height!
Sandy Cowell said on 2/Sep/18
Gigi is the name of one of his daughters; I just checked it out! Maybe it was indeed THE Gigi! I'd like to think so, wouldn't you?
For Gigi, I shall go for a massive 6ft3!
Sandy Cowell said on 2/Sep/18
@ Arch Stanton - I'll check out the names of his children!
Arch Stanton said on 31/Aug/18
Was that really Garner's daughter commenting? I thought 6'2 could often look reasonable but no chance of a real 6'3.
AnonymousMe said on 17/Aug/18
...except, "Gigi", that's not the height you gave when I emailed you, about 7 or 8 years ago, when you told me your dad was "around 6'2, when he was younger" (and, of course, I know many people who say they are "around" one height or another, and the actual height varies, greatly, and we don't know if that's with or without shoes, or what time of day. Both of my uncles consider their height with shoes to be their legit height). But, just for kicks, let's assume "dad" was 6'3 for most of his life. Chuck Connors was clearly a good 4 inches taller in the 60's Move Over Darling...particularly in the court room scene, which would make him no less than 6'7, 6'8 or more with shoes. Bruce Dern, another costar, roughly the same height as allegedly 6 foot actors, must have really been 6'2, as he was just slightly shorter than Garner. Stuart Margolin must have been about 6 foot, though he appears far less, and Johnny Carson must have been about 6 feet (Based on their mutual appearance on Laugh-In in the 60's, and from Tonight Show appearances and at David Jansson's funeral). Maybe out of bed and with shoes on, Garner touched 6'3. But barefoot? Most of his life? There are just too many actors and actresses who's heights are pretty known (Not all listed here) for that to work. But, assuming I'm wrong and your are Gigi Garner and you simply "fibbed" to me several years ago, with the average 2 inch heeled cowboy boots that would make James Garner roughlyyyyyyyy......six foot FIVE on Maverick??? I just can't buy it. He looked tall, but not nearly that tall.
Gigi Garner said on 10/Aug/18
LOLOLOL! My Father James Garner was 6'3" for most of his life. He got about 2 inches shorter as he aged. Thanks for the belly laugh!
Ian C. said on 21/Jul/18
Roughly two inches taller than Tab Hunter in the 1956 movie The Girl He Left Behind, making him six foot one-and-a-half, as indicated here.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Apr/18
Rob, maybe a weak 6ft2 could be better for him?
AnonymousMe said on 3/Apr/18
...isn't there also an ep of Rockford where an I.D. or something lists Rockford/Garner as 6'1 and 190lbs? I know there's a TV Guide ad out there (do a Google Image search)for one of the Rockford reunions called, I think, If The Frame Fits, and garner is against one of those jail height markers. Sure, we don't know how accurately the markers were when set up, but it makes an older Garner look no more than 6 foot...maybe even with shoes. Also, and as I once cited but couldn't post here, there is a season 6 ep of Rockford where he's in a police line-up (maybe season 5, but I think 6). It's shot from a slightly low angle, but it sure makes Garner look like a 6'1 guy.
Big Guy said on 19/Mar/18
There's an episode of The Rockford Files called "Pastoria Prime Pick" where an A.P.B. is put out on Rockford and if you listen carefully you can here him described over the radio as being 6'2" and 200 pounds.
said on 8/Jan/18
Rob, did he start out here at 6ft3?
Editor Rob: I do have one copy of the database from December 2004 and seen he was listed just 5ft 11.25, obviously at that moment I wasn't putting peak/current listings....
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Jan/18
Still think 6ft2 range isn't totally impossible.
Anonymous said on 2/Dec/17
Garner was six foot in "The Rockford Files".
Ian C. said on 1/Dec/17
No more than an inch taller than Ty Hardin (Bronco) in that photo of the Warner Brothers' TV western heroes standing in line. I have seen a lot of the Bronco episodes, and Hardin seems to be right around six foot.
movieguy said on 23/Nov/17
No way can I buy 6'3'' for Garner. Tom Selleck looked much taller when they were together in Rockford Files and Garner was fairly young in his 40s and fit looking at that time. He was a big man but 6'2'' max and probably a little under. I've heard the Native American ancestry story but don't know if it's true. I though he was like German/English in the main anyway.
James said on 15/Nov/17
His autobiography was full of lies. He did not have any native American ancestry. He never looked any more than 6'1" without lifts.
Ian C. said on 13/Nov/17
I have read Garner's autobiography, and he broke a knee in the Korean War. This was several years before he became an actor, so when he claimed that he was six foot three when young, that might have been his height before he was hurt in Korea.
borntrip said on 18/Oct/17
in a movie-1984 with john lithgow, he looks almost 4 inches shorter than his co-star...
James said on 12/Oct/17
He was 6'1" at his peak, and 6'0.5" by the time of "The Rockford Files".
anonymous said on 9/Oct/17
People talk about his height and frame it to recent times. Do you know how long ago it would have been for his peak height age of about 25 yr old? That's about 1953! before he was even known really. I think he was 6'3 back then. Of course he shrunk up by the 80's and 90's when he was a million years old.
James said on 19/Sep/17
Garner was slightly under 6'1".
movieguy said on 5/Aug/17
I think this has been mentioned before but in the Rockford Files his driving license gives his characters height as 6'1''. Next to Tom Selleck this looks accurate tbh. Most actors heights are a little exaggerated it seems although there are exceptions.
Dan said on 22/Jul/17
As a fan of Garner, I hate to say it, but he was lying BIG time when he said he used to be 6'3". He never looked close to it, even when he was young. He's at least 1.5" shorter than the 6'3" Randolph Scott (who was 30 years his senior) in "Shoot-Out at Medicine Bend". He also always looks dead even with Jack Kelly, who was listed as 6'1" but I doubt was actually there.
RisingForce said on 12/Jul/17
I agree, the episode was funny, especially Rockford's frustration at how well everything goes for Selleck. I personally can't give Selleck the full 6'4", though since he said himself that he was 6'3.5" at least twice in the 80s. I'd bet Selleck was 6'3.5", maybe 6'3.75", but Garner was definitely 6'1" max by that time in 1978 at age 50 with his back and knee injuries.
James said on 4/Jul/17
James Garner was six foot.
movieguy said on 25/Jun/17
Watched the Tom Selleck episode in the Rockford Files and it is hilarious. Tom Selleck plays a Mr Perfect type who everybody likes due to his charm and good looks even the usually bad tempered cops. Garner was happy to send himself up as his character comes off second best in every aspect in this episode. As several people have mentioned Selleck looks really tall next to Garner. In some scenes Selleck looks near to four inches taller. In others the difference is more like two inches. I think Selleck was at least 6'4'' going by this. Garner not sure anymore, thought he was 6'2'' but didn't look it next to the big man.
Anonymous1 said on 11/Jun/17
...I see a good 3 inch difference between Garner and Selleck in most scenes where you can compare...from both Selleck's eps. That's my opinion, not a stated fact. Still photos make it look like 2 inches. But, in the majority of scenes where the 2 are together, it looks like 3 inches, to me. The same phenomenon happens with Move Over Darling. In a couple photos I've seen, Garner looks only 2 to 3 inches shorter than Chuck Connors. But, in the actual movie...particularly the court room scene, Connors towers over Garner by 4 or 5 inches.
said on 4/Jun/17
I don't remember 3 inches between Selleck and Garner, but I have the Rockford boxset so I can watch those episodes again and pay closer attention.
As for Garner and Brando, see for yourself: Click Here
Go to around 2:26:40 and you'll see a face to face scene indoors without hats and both standing straight. I do see about 5 inches. In case YouTube deletes the film, I took a screenshot: Click Here
You also see them a lot around the 1 hour mark, as well as a few minutes before and after, but the hats and ground make it tough to tell. They're standing together again at 2:28:50 and 2:34:37 for a while. At times, they minimize the difference with Garner further from the ground, slouching or on lower ground and at times, it looks like the difference could be even greater, but it could also be the ground or angle at times, so I think it's likely the face to face scene indoors is the best for judging, though given that it's common practice to minimize height differences in films, especially with Brando a much bigger star, you never know when he'd have some assistance with his height.
As for Brando's height, well, I'd have guessed him 5'8.5" personally. He had about an inch on Sinatra and was about an inch shorter than James Caan. He could look as short as 5'8", but the 5'8.75" is so specific, I imagine his biographer must have reviewed his medical records and it sounds like he measured it multiple times. He could look about 3.5" taller than Pacino, so I think 5'8.75" is fair, but the highest I'd go. Anywhere in the 5'8" range is possible for Brando, imo because he did wear elevator shoes and lifts in multiple films over the years.
jtm said on 30/May/17
If selleck was 6'3.5 then garner was 6'0.5 max in 1978. Garner was also shorter than rob reiner and I'm not sure if reiner was 6'2. I don't remember how tall he looked with Brando but if he was really 5+inches taller than brando then maybe Brando wasn't over 5'8 or it was the camera angles. I think garner was a solid 6'1 until he was in his late 40s or early 50s.
anonymous said on 29/May/17
There is a very popular photo out there of Garner standing next to John Matuszak on the sidelines of an Oakland Raider game in 1982. Someone with better computer savvy should post it. Matuszak is in street clothes because he is on the DL, the top of Garners hair comes up to Maybe the tip of the nose on the 6'8 Matuszak. So thinking Matuszak would have been a good 7 inches taller just saying. Also Garner did a bunch of truck commercials with Raider Marcus Allen around 1985. He did stand about exactly the same height as 6'2 Marcus Allen in those spots,.. perhaps even a fraction taller. And garner would have been in his mid 50's by then, really think he was about 6'2 back in his prime which would have been like the early 60's, doing the Westerns. The big hair pompadour that he wore probably took him up to the 6'3.
RisingForce said on 28/May/17
There's your problem. Steve McQueen at 5'6"-5'7" is a bad joke. McQueen was 5'9.5" barefoot and then 5'10.5" in normal shoes and 5'11" in thicker shoes. This is known from his medical records, passport and wife. As for Garner, he did seem like quite a big guy on the Rockford files, but since I do believe Tom Selleck was the 6'3.5" he claimed to be, Garner was probably a flat 6'1" by the time Selleck guested on the show in 1978. It's not only possible, but probable that Garner had lost height by that time, though. Didn't he truly tower over Marlon Brando? I believe Brando was a 5'8.75" guy who could look no more than 174 cm, but with that in mind, Garner could still seem 6'2" in comparison. I'm not saying he was, but it's possible and 187 cm range peak perhaps probable.
James said on 20/Apr/17
Garner was 6'1" at his peak.
Charlie said on 14/Apr/17
James Garner was much shorter than this. I have the movie The Great Escape on Bluray. I paused every scene with him and Steve McQueen and there is only 2.5 inches between them.Te scene where they are celebrating the Revolution. Steve McQueen was said to be 5'6 in earlier publications before the Internet but many say he was at most 5'7. James Garner was under 5'10. Most male actors in the 1960's were 5'7 in height.This is why James Garner stood out as being so tall because back then he would of edged the average 5'7 male by 3 inches.He was never over 5'10.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Apr/17
Easily hit 6ft3 in shoes
Sandy Cowell said on 4/Apr/17
@ beja74 - Don't worry about it! Personally, I wouldn't know how to forward a picture myself, but I am learning the internet bit by bit! I need a handbook on the subject - 'The Internet for Dummies' springs to mind! 👲💃 👈 📷🎠⛺🗽⚽
💻📚📖📝 👈 👱
Sandy Cowell said on 4/Apr/17
@ Richard - I'm afraid that three years flies by alas far too quickly, and I do see it as recent! Wait a few years and you'll see what I mean!
baja74 said on 4/Apr/17
I would gladly post the photo of his statue (with my son) if I could. email maybe? Seeing it's James' page anyway. It's a great statue and photo anyway. The folks here are proud of him. So am I, even though this isn't my home town.
The only recent movie I know of was "The Notebook". It was several years ago and showed his age pretty good. That and "Space Cowboys" are both fairly recent for his long career. And his height seems a little stooped over in them. So, I am willing to bet he lost more height. It's hard to say because the other veteran actors in Space Cowboys have all lost height.
Great hearing from you Sandy!
Richard said on 4/Apr/17
Garner died 3 years ago, hardly recently. He never looked above 6'1" in "Maverick", and six foot by the time of "The Rockford Files".
Sandy Cowell said on 3/Apr/17
@ Beja74 - Hello mate! It was great to hear from you again! I did send you a proper extended reply, though, along with a reply to a funny comment about A. Gassman, (to Nik), it hasn't appeared yet! I have written to Rob about it!
It's good to see you're back!👍
Thanks for the info on James Garner. So he died only recently...
I did enjoy your comment on taking a picture of your little son with the statue of James, which is in your town and erected in Garner's honour, being as it was also his home town! 🏥🏩🏦🏠🏡🌇🌃⛲🗽👨👏📷
baja74 said on 2/Apr/17
He was born 1928 in Norman, OK. He died in 2014 at the age of 86 in Los Angeles.
Sandy Cowell said on 1/Apr/17
I never saw James looking like an old man! I wonder, how old was he when he died? Does anyone know? Do you know Beja?
Sandy Cowell said on 1/Apr/17
@ beja74 - It's great to hear from you! Of course, I remember our discussions on horror actors; since then I have bought a 'signed' photograph of Christopher Lee and I've seen a good many new horrors!
I take it that for James Garner to have a statue erected in your home town of Norman, being as it's his home town as well, that there are all sorts of other pointers and souvenirs in his honour in the town of their most famous 'son'!
I bet when you photographed your son by his statue he was a bit bemused! He must be of an obediently young age, bless him! Later on, it might not be quite so easy!
It is great to hear from you! I'd noticed you've been away for a while. It's great that you've come back. Cheers! 🍻
baja74 said on 30/Mar/17
I just happen to live in his home town of Norman, OK. There's a big statue of him in downtown which is well over 7 feet tall. I just took a photo of my son sitting at James' feet. We've discussed plenty of horror film actors in the past. But this man is a legend in all sorts. Kind of like cars and houses, they don't make them like they use to.
As for his height, I am torn between 6'1" and 6'3". He can look tall in some roles. He always seemed to have good posture. I don't see him being the untruthful sort. So, if he says he was 6'3" and then under 6'2", then I am willing to bet he is just what he says he is.
Sandy Cowell said on 30/Mar/17
I've just arrived at James' page to find out that he is no longer with us - what a shame!
I'm now casting my mind back to the film 'The Great Escape', which my Mum allowed us kids to stay up late one Easter to watch! Yes, films like that were saved until late in the Seventies!
Anyway, I remember James being particularly tall amongst the other cast members, so now that I find he was 6ft1.5, I find that totally believable, so that is what I shall put for him.
Greg said on 26/Mar/17
Just watched an old Johnny Carson on YouTube from 1972 when Garner was a guest (a few years before the Rockford Files). I would be astonished if her weren't 6'2" or more, sure looks it in comparison to Carson and Ed McMahon. Looked like a genuinely very tall fellow.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Mar/17
I think 188cm was a safer bet. He could look both 187cm and 189cm at times.
SonnyboySlim said on 22/Mar/17
Garner always looked taller than 6'1" but he lost a lot of height as he aged. I'm guessing in the his 80s, he would have been about 5'11".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Jan/17
Could look from 6ft1 up to 6ft3
berta said on 12/Jan/17
last time i hecked this guy he was listed as 189? well i agree that this height seems better somewhere in the 187-188 range
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jan/17
If anything he looks slightly taller next to Adolfo Celi than Sean Connery did. Still think 6'1.5 is a tad too low.
Anonymous1 said on 29/Dec/16
There is a recently posted video clip on a James Garner fan page on Facebook, of Garner with Andy Williams, on the latter's show (1969. Williams is listed "on another site" as 5'6.5. If that is anywhere near being legit, with Garner's eye level being just over William's head, a bit over 6'1 is correct for Garner, max. Definitely not 6'3, peak. Then again, maybe Williams was 5'10 and Garner was 6'4. What do I know.
Anonymous1 said on 12/Dec/16
...I've been seeing a lot of him on reruns of Carson's The Tonight Show, spanning from the early 70's to the 90's. In a 1972 ep, Bruce Dern was also on. I have no idea of heel thickness or anything else, but based on a side to side greet and handshake, Garner and Dern were "roughly" the same height (Dern is listed as 6'). And, despite one Tonight Show appearance where Garner remarks that he used to be taller (after greeting Ed McMahon and sitting down), this was 1972. He was only 44, and...before Rockford Files, where he sustained most of his injuries. He was still clearly shorter than McMahon. I think this current listing probably nails it.
said on 22/Nov/16
Rob, which of these would best suit Garner?
Editor Rob: At times D, but E range for me just now.
josh jeffords said on 12/Oct/16
Good actor support or leading man tall and great build for hero type.
I dont buy 6 2 after the 70s he looked 6 1 prime to me about 6ft rest of time.
James said on 11/Oct/16
Garner was 6'1". He always wore built up shoes.
berta said on 8/Oct/16
wasnt he listed as 189 here couple years ago?. i think 187-188 is good listing
mrbobh5344 said on 25/Sep/16
Just watched Murphy's Romance. Sally Fields was never prettier!! Or sexier!! But, Garner has several scenes with Brian Kerwin (6'1") and is never taller and usually a tad shorter. Garner was about 57 when that film was made. Doing some sloppy math.... I'd give Garner 6'1"+ at his max height.
TNTinFL said on 11/Sep/16
I've been watching The Rockford Files on Netflix recently. Great show by the way.
My guess based on what I see in the show and how he appears next to costars, I guessed Garner was 6'2" or thereabout. He was in his mid to late 40s during that show, so I don't think he would have shrunk much at that time. But I don't see him being 6'3".
said on 7/Sep/16
"James Garner's Height: 6ft 1§in (187.325cm)"
Rob, could that be more reasonable?
Editor Rob: at the moment I believe he was under 6ft 2, how much is the question, a 1/4, a 1/2
Tyler said on 24/Aug/16
Garner was 6'1" at his peak.
movieguy said on 23/Aug/16
Garner looked pretty small in Space Cowboys compared to his co-stars, even a rapidly shrinking Eastwood. Seemed most beat up of the bunch, think there are stories of injuries from filming Rockford Files where he did many of his own stunts. I don't buy his 6'3'' claim even when young although never having met the guy who knows. He was a big fellow though over 6ft. Loved his easy going style in the Rockford Files one of the best detective series ever.
James said on 5/Aug/16
No they can't.
Tom said on 25/May/16
Nonsense. Lifts can always be spotted.
James said on 25/May/16
Special shoes are designed to look like ordinary shoes from the outside.
Tom said on 24/May/16
Garner never wore lifts. I've studied lots of photos as well as watched his movies and TV series. I never saw anything resembling built up shoes.
James said on 23/May/16
Garner was 6'1". He wore built up shoes as Jim Rockford.
said on 19/May/16
Hudson looks to be five inches taller! I think Hudson was close to being 6-6. He made Reagan look tiny. Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 19/May/16
@Sam, in that photo I agree, but now watch 12 O Clock High with Dean Jagger and Gregory Peck and now see Cash McCall with Jagger and Garner. Garner looked taller than Jagger. Jagger might have lost an inch in older age though I guess..
said on 19/May/16
Hudson may have a camera advantage here but I think anything like 6'2" or more is blown out of the water with Garner compared to Rock Hudson.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/May/16
@Arch: That looks spot on and I think Coburn might have been a strong 6ft2
Tom said on 17/May/16
I think Garner was 6-2 in his prime. But back injuries and resulting spinal compression dropped him down to where right before he died he was no more than 5-11.
Arch Stanton said on 17/May/16
Rob maybe a 6'1.75 187 might fit better? I can't see him the same height as Roger Moore.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/16
Arch Stanton said on 22/Aug/15
Most films I get more a strong 6'1" impression for him than 6 ft 2 or higher.
[Editor Rob: you may well argue 6ft 1.5 is possible for him. ]
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/16
@Rob, I have long said 187 for Garner might have been more accurate, but in fairness he could look a decent 6 ft 2 in a few films. He looked taller than 6'1.5 with Dean Jagger, but Jagger might have lost an inch by that film.
Tom said on 12/May/16
Garner never wore lifts.
Anonymous1 said on 11/May/16
...this updated height is what I always figured Garner was, based on decades of watching him with other actors who's approximate height was known.
said on 7/May/16
...if you factor that both shots feature a camera angle from that of looking up a bit, take away an inch and a half of puffed up hair, take away an inch of shoes...you've got a 1970's 6'1 Garner. No more.
Editor Rob: it's certainly arguable that mark.
Tom said on 20/Mar/16
Moore was six foot and Garner looks barely taller there.
James said on 19/Mar/16
Garner was 6'1" but wore lifts to look 6'3".
said on 18/Mar/16
Interesting photo with Roger Moore Click Here
James said on 18/Mar/16
Garner was six foot. He was notorious for wearing lifts.
Arch Stanton said on 16/Mar/16
In a lot of scenes in Cash McCall in fact Garner could look an inch taller than Jagger!
Arch Stanton said on 16/Mar/16
Does look very similar to Dean Jagger in Cash McCall. Difficult to tell, either could edge each other depending on the scene. Now Jagger was definitely a legit 6'2 guy peak, see him with Peck in 12 o clock high. Jagger was about 60 in Cash McCall not impossible he'd lost a bit though. Slightly under 6'2 is possible for Garner but really with Jagger in Cash McCall this looks accurate.
Tom said on 31/Jan/16
James Garner was 6'1" at his peak. He probably wore built up shoes in films.
GUY said on 13/Jan/16
In the Rockford files 1978 ep South by Southeast someone asks to confirm if he's 6'2", and he answers a more honest 6'1". Always seemed like a big guy on that show, like what a 6'1" or 6'2" guy would look in the 70's. Today in his youth he might not seem so big.
Jug said on 5/Jan/16
6'2.5 or 6'2.75 at peak. 6'2 is a little low. Looked about 6'3 next to Roger Moore.
Sam said on 12/Nov/15
IMO Garner doesn't really look taller than James Coburn, I think taking into consideration variances of posture and proximity, they look similar height. Both could have been in the 6'1.5"-6'2", on the weaker side of 6'2".
Shadow2 said on 2/Nov/15
I'm almost certain the movie was 1972's "The Carey Treatment" (with 5' 8" Jennifer O'Neill) where James Coburn's doctor character gives his height as 6' 1.5". Maybe this was Coburn's true height, but regardless, Garner's continuous apparent variation in height between 6' 1" and 6' 2" has only one explanation - footwear.
said on 13/Sep/15Click Here
Rob, he looks taller than Coburn
[Editor Rob: hard to tell...I think somebody said Coburn's character once gave 6ft 1.5 in a movie, but I've not watched to confirm it yet!]
Shadow2 said on 3/Sep/15
In one of his movies in the 1970's ("The Carey Treatment" ?) Coburn describes himself as "six foot one and a half". I've watched Garner throughout his career, starting with "Maverick", his 1960's and 70's movies, "Rockford Files", etc, etc. He was 6' 1" but occasionally measured up well (i.e. level) to 6' 2" actors and at other times not so well. The reasons for this are fairly obvious, and can be applied to many other Hollywood leading men. It can suit the role, the plot, or just the actor's attitude to himself at that precise time. Just like makeup, hairpieces, and the "cut" of clothes.
Anonymous1 said on 31/Aug/15
...I did meet Coburn, back in '83, and we stood, facing eachother, about 2 feet apart (I was a starstruck kid). I was 5.11 and 3/4ths. He edged me out a hair, but barely. He was maybe..."maybe" an inch taller....and that's being generous.
said on 22/Aug/15
Most films I get more a strong 6'1" impression for him than 6 ft 2 or higher.
[Editor Rob: you may well argue 6ft 1.5 is possible for him. ]
Arch Stanton said on 22/Aug/15
@Rob, do you think maybe high 6 ft 1 range might be more accurate for Garner? Coburn did edge him. I've been taking a good look at him of late in some of his 60s films and I think near 6'2" but maybe not quite. Perhaps 6'1.75 would be
Anonymous1 said on 4/Aug/15
...he does look about 6'2 next to Selleck in "some" Rockford scenes or photos. In others...and I would argue the majority of them, he looks at least 3 inches shorter.
jervis said on 3/Aug/15
Lost a lot of height in later life,but looked 6ft2ish with Tom Selleck.About 5ft11 in space cpwboys with 6ft2ish Clint eastwood.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Aug/15
@Arch: During The Rockford Files he could look more in that range for sure.
Near 3in shorter than a young Tom Selleck. He began to lose height quickly.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Jun/15
Increasingly I see him more as a strong 6'1".
movieguy said on 6/May/15
Watching Rockford Files at moment, Garner is definitely a pretty big guy. Quite stocky which perhaps could lead to underestimating his height. At least 6'2'' but don't think he reached full 6'3'' at any point.
SonnyboySlim said on 3/Mar/15
Definitely 6'1.5" in his prime, likely 6'2" but by the time he was in 8 Simple Rules and The Notebook, closer to 5'11". Great actor though - a real screen presence.
said on 17/Jan/15
Rob, I JUST saw the movie ''Maverick'' with Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster and Garner. In the very last scene of the movie, Foster's character suggests that they (Gibson and Garner) have the same height. How come?
[Editor Rob: maybe they could look within the same range, but I think garner was taller than Gibson.]
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Jan/15
He still looked tall in his later mvies
Arch Stanton said on 6/Nov/14
I dunno at 1 hr 6:22 Garner doesn't look shorter, if anything a fraction taller excluding hair.
said on 6/Nov/14
Rob check out 30:21 Click Here
James Coburn looks a bit taller. Somebody needs upgrading or downgrading a cm. Personally I think Coburn could have been a little over the 6'2" mark.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Oct/14
Nah, he never looked near 6'4" in footwear. A solid 6'2" peak, nothing more.
Arch Stanton said on 10/Oct/14
Honestly looked nothing over 6' flat in The Notebook!
said on 7/Oct/14
Rob, could he have been a little over 6ft2 in his prime?
I thought he looked near 6ft3 in The Great Escape
[Editor Rob: he did lose a good few inches, around 6ft 2 I think is still a decent shout for him.]
Dave618 said on 4/Oct/14
Garner's 6'3" measurement was probably early in the day with shoes. In an ep of Rockford, he lists his height as 6'1". There would be no logical reason for him to not list his own height with a character that was created specifically for him. Roger Moore was 6'1" based on tailors that worked for Eon (the company that made the Bond films) barefoot. Moore said when he took over for Garner on Maverick, the tailors shortened his costumes because they were Garner's. He said they shortened them 1 inch. Garner was peak 6'2" barefoot in the AM. Barefoot. During the day he probably lost about a half-inch or so, as EVERYONE on Earth does, more or less. So call Garner 6'2". But anywhere between six one and six two on a given day during up to maybe the late 80's is probable. That's fair. And that's what Rob has. These are peak heights. Everyone knows Garner lost height later on. RIP one of my favorite actors. James Garner. A class act.
Fern said on 23/Sep/14
Garner was 6'1" at his peak height.
Anonymous1 said on 1/Sep/14
I go back and forth with Garner's height. I just saw a photo of him with baseball's Ted Williams from the 60's, I gather (on a Facebook James Garner fan page), and Williams "easily" has 2 inches on him. Williams, for all I could find, is listed at 6'3.
Anonymous1 said on 20/Aug/14
Just saw the Rockford ep, Requiem For a Funny Box. Chuck McCann is in it, and, for whatever it's worth, he's listed as 6'2 and a 1/2. He's clearly taller than Garner in the episode, and I'd say by an inch or 2. Who knows.
jtm said on 13/Aug/14
definitely more 6'1 than 6'3.
Arch Stanton said on 12/Aug/14
Eddie he never looked 6 ft 3 let alone 6 ft 4! He could look 189 at times but generally he looked 6'1.5-6'2".
eddie said on 12/Aug/14
during his prime, James Garner looked like he was about 6ft4in tall
Anonymous1 said on 11/Aug/14
There is a photo of garner with Roger Moore, I see quite often. In it, Garner looks a hair taller than Moore, who admittedl stated he was 6'2 early, but more like 6'1 (in his 40's). Another photo I just saw of garner, Moore and Joan Collins in the middle, gives Moore the edge. Granted, the angle has Moore slightly closer to the camera, but not so much that one would have to take into account camera distortions. I'll let others argue their points, now, but Garner looked even with Alex Karrass (sp)in Victor/Victoria. Whatever football stats that can be sited, Karrass was slightly shorter than a slouched, 6'2 Alan Alda in a 1975 MASH. My guess for Karrass is a stout 6'1...making Garner about the same (maybe taller out of bed). And Garner was more than a couple inches shorter than Howard McGillin (listed as 6'4.5), in a 1977 Rockford. Injuries aside, I do not believe Garner shrank any by the time he was 50. After 70, it appears everything caught up with him, almost overnight.
Anonymous1 said on 10/Aug/14
...also, if others' heights are listed correctly, Garner looks 6'1 next to 6'0 Simon Oakland, and 5'11 Isaac Hayes. Certainly, neither men (Oakland and Hayes) were taller than those heights.
Anonymous1 said on 10/Aug/14
...that photo of Garner and Selleck is misleading. Watch them on The Rockford Files, and more often than not, Garner looks 3 inches shorter. He's a chunk shorter than Chuck Connors (6'5 or 6'6) in Move Over Darling. He's a hair shorter than John Dehner (6'2) in Support Your Local Gunfighter. Anyone he's acted with who's listed as 6'2, he never quuuuite looks the exact same height. I still go with 6'2 out of bed, 6'1 ish, otherwise. Never 6'3. Other factors had to have been in play for that pic with Walker. Watch Garner with Connors. Not even close.
Lebensdorf said on 7/Aug/14
Solidly 6'2, maybe 6'2.5 at peak. There is a photo of him standing next to Clint Walker. Garner looks about 3 inches shorter. If Garner was only 6'1, he would never have held up so well next to a 6'6 guy, no way. Look it up.
Sam said on 31/Jul/14
I agree that he looked closer to 6'1" (never 6'3") at times but could pass for 6'2" range enough at peak. From your comments, it sounded like a posthumous Doris Day documentary but she's still alive!
Greg said on 31/Jul/14
Just finished reading his biography (a good read). There are some interesting personal, off set pics in it. A younger garner was around 6'3". There's about an inch difference between garner and 6'4" tom selleck in a personal picture taken in 1978. As someone else commented, in the episode of maverick with eastwood there's not a whole lot of difference between their heights.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Jul/14
Sam I saw a Doris Day documentary a few weeks back and yeah he came across as a great guy in it. He found it quite difficult talking about Doris's personal life and the way she suffered from abuse from the men in her life. He never really looked 6 ft 3 but I certainly think he generally looked near 6'2, although at times he could look more 6'1 range.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Jul/14
RIP yeah. One of the most handsome actors I think Sam in his day, didn't age very well though.
said on 22/Jul/14
Funny to see him beat the tar out of a young Clint Eastwood here in a Maverick episode, Clint was pretty skinny then and it looks feasible that Garner could have really whooped him...later in the clips, they stand near each other, although Garner is leaning on the counter, there's obviously not much height difference, so Garner does look solid 6'2" range, other times he can strike me closer to 6'1".
Sam said on 21/Jul/14
RIP...I would say he could rival Rock Hudson in charm but just had a relatively less successful big-screen career, neither could really touch Cary Grant but that's not a really a knock, Garner was a cool dude and quite a man and a good guy off-screen from what I've heard. A tough year for losing some of the older greats so far.
Mark said on 20/Jul/14
RIP Mr. Garner.
Arch Stanton said on 27/May/14
I think he was still looking around 6'2" in early 80s in Victor Victoria. He looks it next to Julie Andrews and looks almost 2 inches taller than John Rhys Davies in it.
Arch Stanton said on 26/May/14
LOL. Fateful, if he was only 5 ft 11 Brando was no more than 5 ft 6!
Arch Stanton said on 26/May/14
Rob can you add In films he is best known for roles such as The Great Escape, Maverick, The Notebook, Sunset, Murphy's Romance, Victor Victoria, Move Over Darling, Sayonara, and The Children's Hour.
Robbie said on 5/Apr/14
Garner was 6'1" at his peak. Less than 5'11" now, although I heard he's in a wheelchair.
richie said on 30/Mar/14
Peak height was 6'2", 5'11" now. Was marginally shorter than 6' Tommy Lee Jones in Space Cowboys.
Arch Stanton said on 13/Mar/14
He does look 6'2 in The Children's Hour.
James said on 28/Dec/13
Garner was certainly never 6 foot 3! He was always described as six foot one in old film magazines.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Dec/13
In Rockford Files, more of a 6ft1 range guy, maybe 6ft1.5.
David said on 4/Dec/13
Garner was 6'1" at his peak, and 5'11" in old age.
pedriscovery said on 17/Nov/13
in space cowboys in the medical revision scene sutherland was taller tha all partnes and gardner the more short
Arch Stanton said on 16/Nov/13
Looks more 6'1" in The Great Escape. One of the most handsome movie stars of his day IMO. He looked almost cartoon handsome in The Great Escape. Didn't really have the charm of either Cary Grant or Rock Hudson though.
Mark said on 30/Oct/13
I know he was much taller than Peter Breck on McMillan and Wife, and Breck personally told me he was 6'2. Knowitall, did you ever meet Breck, Lee Majors or Chuck Connors? Connors was reportedly 6'5.5, as tall as or a bit taller than Hudson. I have a couple of photos of Garner (with Connors and against a height chart on Rockford), but can't figure a way to post, even with Rob's direction.
Knowitall said on 29/Oct/13
I used to see Hudson on the Universal lot back when I worked there. He appeared to be six five. He was taller than judt about anyone. Most of the time, a full head taller.
Mark said on 17/Oct/13
Wow, Knowitall, that picture says alot. When you're 5 inches taller than someone, you can just see over the top of their head (my mom was 5'7, and I'm 6 even, so I know). Hudson could easily see over Garner's head, especially if he straightened out. That makes him 5 inches taller, easy. You're right, unless he was 6'6 plus, no way Garner was ever 6'3, even in his prime. I still go with 6'1, maybe 6'2 out of bed, but that's debatable.
said on 9/Oct/13
Garner was never close to being six three. If he was, Rock Hudson was six six plus!
Arch Stanton said on 7/Oct/13
He looks 5-6 inches taller than Brando, doesn't look under 6'2" in Sayonara.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Oct/13
Looks around 189cm in Sayonara next to 174cm Brando.
Mark said on 6/Aug/13
This site has Charles Napier at 5'11. I just watched him on a season 2 episode of Rockford, last night. Garner barely looked taller. If the 5'11 claim is true, Garner was never, ever 6'3, unless he counted being measured in cowboy boots, right out of bed.
Mark said on 24/Jul/13
..I'm fairly computer illiterate and couldn't post pictures via that site, Rob. For anyone who is so inclined, in Lions, Tigers, Monkeys and Dogs / Rockford Files DVD season 6, disc one/part one, Garner as Rockford is in a police line-up. Granted, we have no way of knowing how accurate the height chart was. But, if it was accurate, and taking into account the upward angle of the camera and Garner's slight slouch, I'd put him at 6'1 in 1980. Take away the high hair and an inch for shoes, he looks 6'1 based on the height chart behind him. Also, for anyone who is so inclined, in a court room scene in Move Over Darling, Garner stands next to Chuck Connors (6'5.5). I'd put Garner at 4 inches shorter, or 6'1.
Mikey P said on 13/Jul/13
Garner is WAY shorter than Clint Eastwood (6'4") and Donald Sutherland (6'3") in 2000's "Space Cowboys". I think your 5'11" current estimate of his height is dead-on, since Tommy Lee Jones (6'0.5") is only slightly taller.
talltalez said on 16/May/13
james garner with 6' 1.5" roger moore. garner clearly looks the taller guy, by how much? who really knows from this photo?
said on 29/Apr/13
Rob, I have 2 interesting screen caps of Garner. How do I post?
[Editor Rob: try using imgur.com to upload them]
Tex said on 8/Apr/13
Met Garner at the Cowboy Hall of Fame in Oklahoma City about the time "Lonesome Dove" came out. He was easily 6'2".
Julian St. Pierre said on 9/Mar/13
Probably never 6'3" peak. 6' 1.75" more like it. Good actor and likable guy. Definately broad shoulder and having an athletic build
Mark said on 10/Dec/12
...I agree with Dave618. 6'1 for Garner, in his 40's, even pre knee surgery. How "Jimmy", "Jimbo" and "Rockfish" got to be in his 80's, I'll never know. Time is startling.
Dave618 said on 8/Dec/12
OK. I caught an episode of Rockford the other day on ME TV. It's the episode where the FBI mistakes Jim for another dude. The FBI agent describes Rockford's similiarity to the guy they want. The FBI agent says the guy Rockford is supposed to be is approximately 6'2" and Garner replies that he is 6'1".
So if Garner was actually 6'2" he probably would have switched the dialogue makinging the dude the FBI wanted 6'3", and having Rockford replie: No, I'm 6'2".
I'm now officially convinced Garner was at the very most 6'2", in the AM, out of bed, when he was young. With dress shoes this makes him 6'3" like he claimed. Many people, especially Hollywood actors, consider their legit height their height with shoes on. Why a tall guy like Garner would need to do that is mystifing. I mean, 6'2" is hardly very noticeably shorter than 6'3". It's just an inch. I'm 6'2" and my neighbor is 6'3". Only when we're standing eye to eye and equally straight is it apparent that he's slightly taller. Very slightly.
After surgeries on his knees Garner lost some height. So by the mid-70's when he filmed Rockford, he was 6'1", which he verifies in the show itself. By the time he appeared in Space Cowboys he was 6'0" tops in the AM. Now, in his early 80's, it's very probable he's what Rob claims. Although 5'11" is still fairly tall (taller than average by 2 inches), it must be odd to not be as tall as you once was. But I guess by the time you get to Garner's age you don't really give a spit about your height unless you're insane.
Lebensdorf said on 17/Nov/12
He was a robust man when he was young. He seemed about 6'2 in The Great Escape. I would say that was his peak. He was in great shape, with a well structured physique. Maybe he shrunk early, like Harrison Ford.
Copnovelist195 said on 9/Nov/12
James Garner was 6ft1 at his peak. Actors tend to be vain and throughout the Rockford files Jim maintains he's 6ft1. The star of the show could certainly be forgiven for exaggerating by an inch or two. There were certainly a few guys bigger than him. In Space Cowboys (2000), Garner didn't look too well indeed and appeared shrunken, which I though was a little sad. He's always been a good actor.
Mark said on 20/Oct/12
..I was always amazed at one Tonight Show interview where Garner said he used to be 6'3 or 6'4. Based on decades of enjoying his shows and movies, I'd never, ever put him that tall. I saw him on that Laugh-In clip, also, and he's barely taller than Carson. He's definitely a good 3 inches shorter than Selleck on Rockford, and in most scenes of Move Over Darling, a good 4 inches or more shorter than 6'6 Chuck Connors. All things considered, I put him at 6'1 peak (maybe 6'2 out of bed)...and that's pre knee and back injuries.
Dave618 said on 2/Oct/12
You maye be right, Shadow2, because I remember seeing Mitchell Ryan, who played the "General" in Leathal Weapon, guest star on Rockford the other day. Also on that episode was Charles Napier, the guy who played the Guard Lector disembowels in Silence of the Lambs. Both actors looked the same height as Garner, sometimes even slightly taller. I dashed to my computer, and Ryan and Napier are both listed as 6'0". I was astonished.
What I don't get is how the heck did Garner ever measure 6'3", even with shoes? But if Garner was max 6'1" barefoot during his prime, it makes it easier to understand how he only looks about 6' or 5'11" now.
Also, on one episode of Rockford, a guy tells Jim he looks about 6'3", and Garner replies: Nah. 6'1".
Shadow2 said on 2/Oct/12
Dave, Rob Reiner was never quite 6'2", there are plenty of pictures on the internet to prove this, ones with Morgan Freeman, his father Carl Reiner, and with Carrol O'Connor. Dick Butkus was 6'3". Garner was a maximum 6'1" on Rockford. Series regular James Luisi, who was a legit 6'2", was always taller than him on the show.
Dave618 said on 1/Oct/12
Just saw a Rockford with Rob Reiner and Dick Butkus. Reiner, when standing level with Garner, is about spot on same height. Reiner is 6'2". When Garner stands next to Butkus, who is about 6'4', he is a couple inches shorter.
When two actors are the same height, it can be hard to judge. In some scenes Garner looked slightly taller than Reiner because of how the camera is placed and where they're standing. In other scenes, Reiner has the edge. But the couple of times the camera has them equally in frame, and they are both standing close enough and erect, they look just about the same height. My conclusion stands: 6'2" in the am, 6'1" and 1/2 in the afternoon.
Mike said on 1/Sep/12
Dave618...That sounds pretty reasonable. I go with 6'1, on average, in The Rockford Files (including before all the injuries). He was barely taller than Carson in some Laugh-in skit(?) in the late 60's.
Dave618 said on 1/Aug/12
I think Garner is my height. 6'2" in the am, 6'1" and 1/2 in the pm. He was probably measured at 6'3" in the am with dress shoes or boots with thick heels. Now, I'd say he's about 6'0" or 5'11". People with knee/back injuries usually lose a lot of height in older age.
gregory lehmann said on 16/May/11
Sure love Garner from my childhood. But I wasn't aware until after Tony Randall guessed him as "What's My Line?" "mystery guest" in 1964 he and Tony are from Oklahoma. (Garner attended the University of Oklahoma,Tony's from Tulsa University,who it looks like will return to the WAC next month with Houston,Arkansas State,North Texas State,and probably Northern Colorado.) Also got tipped "Brink Of Hell" (TV/video title for "Toward The Unknown," Garner's "baby teeth" movie) just went DVD. If so,I'm going to snatch it!
Shadow2 said on 18/Jan/11
As I mentioned on Coburn's page, the actor once gave his height in a 1972 movie as 6'1.5". This might explain why 6'1" Garner didn't have to wear lifts when they worked together. But Garner often did not boost his height when he worked with very tall actors in movies, such as 6'5.5" Chuck Connors ("Move Over Darling") and 6'6" Alan Napier ("36 Hours"). But he seemed to prefer to be 6'2" with actors of that actual height, such as Dean Jagger ("Cash McCall") and Edward Andrews ("The Thrill of it all").
Mark said on 8/Jan/11
...look at Garner with Chuck Connors in 1965's Move Over Darling. Garner looks a good deal shorter than 6'5 Connors. I met Coburn, face to face, in '83 on a trip to Hollywood. I have no idea if he'd shrunk by then, but he was just over my, then, 5'11.5. Definitely not 6'2. I just always put Garner at 6'1, tops.
Shadow2 said on 2/Jan/11
Having seen a bit more "Maverick" since my earlier post, I have to agree with you now, Mark. In a 1959 episode with 6'1" (yes 6'1") Adam West, 6'2" Troy Donahue, and 6'3" Michael Forest, Garner is wearing very big heeled boots to appear about 6'2.5". Despite reports of him losing height due to knee and back problems between "Maverick" and "Rockford", I think he must have always been 6'1". But in 1960's movies with (close to) 6'2" James Coburn and 6'2" Edward Andrews, he is suddenly their height. Those "Maverick" boots can come in handy!
Mark said on 30/Dec/10
..I agree, Shadow2, but Garner was only 46 in '74. How much height could he have lost by then? Whatever he was in Rockford's first season, has to be about his peak, in my opinion.
Shadow2 said on 10/Nov/10
I think everyone agrees that Garner was 6'1" flat during his Rockford days, but the question remains as to how tall he was in the many movies he made between TV's Maverick (1957) and Rockford (1974). Seeing him with Eastwood in an early Maverick, he was never 6'3". My guess 6'2" in standard shoes, 6'1.5" barefoot.
Mike said on 6/May/09
Again, I met James Coburn, 2 feet away, in 1983. I was 5'11 and 3/4s. We were very roughly even. He may have been an inch taller, at the very most. He couldn't have shrunk by then. If Coburn was taller than Garner, then Garner was more 6'1 than anything.
Hugh 190cm said on 1/May/09
He was way taller than Steve McQueen in the Great Escape and roughly the same height as James Coburn. I buy 6ft2.25 for James Garner peak and now a shade over 6ft. James Coburn was maybe 0.5 inch taller than Garner so I'd give him 6ft2.75 or 190cm peak and 6ft2 flat or a shade less by the time of his death in 2001. But 5ft11 is ridiculous. 6ft3 peak might be too high though.
glenn said on 27/Apr/09
ikbtops-ill ask around if anyone met him.
Andy said on 23/Apr/09
On "the great escape" you can watch that is a tall guy..in my opinion 6'1' ..if not then at least a 6'0
ikbtops said on 22/Apr/09
Glenn, Could we get a height check on Robert Preston?
Hugh 190cm said on 10/Apr/09
hmmmmm. Possibly 6ft3. He was taller than James Coburn in the great escape. I have a hard time picturing Garner as low as 5ft11!
Patrick said on 8/Apr/09
Are you sure JasonW that Mel Gibson was not wearing lifts? In westerns you just cannot look "short" and Mel is not tall but very bulky, no slender.
James is really tall until his 40ies and that's getting worse with time. In 94 he probably was around 6'1.5 or so and much less after; everybody can see it. He changed a lot also about his face. Try to make any connexion between him in the Great Escape and in Space cowboys! I wouldn't have recognized him. A marvelous actor and man anyway.
Jason W. said on 3/Apr/09
well to me in the movie "maverick" he only seemed a couple inches taller than Mel Gibson. which should put him close to the 6 ft range.
Mike said on 5/Mar/09
Welp, I don't know what to believe, now. Based on his appearance with Carson, on Laugh In, I'd have bet anything on 6'1 for Garner. But, I just saw a photo of him w/Clint Walker on Ebay, from back in the late 50's or early 60's. Garner is no more than 2 inches shorter. Now, could be shoes, or that the photographer didn't want Garner looking too short.
Mike said on 26/Feb/09
I just have a hard time buying 6'2. 6'1 seems about right. Tom Selleck (6'4)and Chuck Connors (6'5) seemed to dwarf Garner, as though they were 3 and 4 inches taller, respectively. And Garner and Carson on Laugh In seemed about 1 inch apart. I always read Carson was 5'11. That was pre Rockford, before Garner could have shrunk any.
Ray said on 23/Feb/09
Sorry, Rick Springfield is 6 FT 1 and James Garner's was 6 ft 2 in the 1970's FACT.
clark said on 25/Jan/09
I saw Rick Springfield on the Rockford Files, and knowing Rick Sprinfield is a solid six foot-two. James was about an inch taller. So, six foot three is right for James at his peak height.
Scott said on 18/Jan/09
Just watched the biography of Clint Eastwood. Garner was the shortest actor on the screen-If he ever was much taller-he sure isn't now.
Jimbo said on 10/Jan/09
James Garner looked easily 185-186 cms tall on the Rockford Files.
jay89 said on 15/Dec/08
i can hardly believe that he has losen more than 2 inches due to a bad back and knee injuries.
maybe i'm wrong but 2 inches seem a little extrem.
mike c said on 11/Dec/08
On a Mike Douglas show he was asked by the host if he felt insecure walking alone at night in large cities such as New York. Garner replied that most people will not bother a 6'3" guy. I believe the interview was in the late 60's, early 70's. mike c
Mike said on 24/Oct/08
...I recall a Jack Kelly interview where he said he felt, at 6'0, like he was standing in a hole next to the 6'3 Garner. Personally, I never bought Garner as ever having been over 6'2.
texasbill said on 20/Oct/08
Garner seemed much taller than Jack Kelly on the old Maverick. Any data on Kelly's height. In an episode of Cheyenne, he looked 3-4 inches shorter than Clint Walker
Hugh said on 11/Oct/08
I think James is a little over 6ft now and was 6ft3 at his peak.
Hugh said on 25/Sep/08
This is RIDICUOUS. It should be
James Garner's height is 6ft 0.5in (184cm)
Peak height was 6ft 3in (191cm)
George H. said on 23/Sep/08
He's another one who lost significant height, almost like Eastwood. Back in the sixties he had the same type of square built that Rock Hudson had, although he was obviously shorter. But still gave a "big" impression. I caught him recently on some comedy show with Katie Segal from Married with Children and they were about the same height! But then, he was obviously much heavier, had a curved spine and walked with a limp, but I don't know if that was for the part. I was kinda shocked to see how much shorter he seemed.
sweet pea said on 13/Sep/08
Check your math guys. If Chuck Connors was 6 fr 6 inches and Garner was 3 inches shorter - that made him 6 ft 3 inches.
Frank2 said on 22/Aug/08
I'm watching MOVE OVER DARLING and noticing that Chuck Conners is at least six inches taller than Garner. Seeing that Conners was at minimum 6'6", possibly even 6'7" that makes Garner about 6'1". In comparison, in the movie THE BIG COUNTRY, Conners was about three inches taller than 6'3" Greg Peck.
Frank2 said on 16/Aug/08
More like 5'10" today. I saw him at some benefit and he seemed slightly shorter than me which surprised me since back when I saw him at Universal when he was appearing in THE ROCKFORD FILES he was a solid 6'1". Garner has a very bad back which might explain him losing three inches in height. That and he's now 80 years old.
Bob H. said on 8/Aug/08
In "Cash McCall" big Jim is a tad shorter than 6'2" Dean Jagger. I peg Jim at 6'1" when he was young. Maybe 5'11" today looking at "Space Cowboys".
Hugh said on 10/Jun/08
Heh eh very funny rob. Maybe you should put him back to his real height.
Anonymous said on 23/Feb/08
Garner looks 4"shorter than 6'5"Connors in "Move over Darling"in the court scenes.
said on 10/Nov/07
An interesting article:Click Here
James Garner (6 ft. 3 in., 206 lbs., 44-33-40) is the anti-hero of a counter-Western called Maverick, the "lace-shirted, self-centered, irresponsible" opposite of everything the Good Guy ought to be. He and his brother (Jack Kelly), who takes the lead in the hour-long show every other week, are slow on the draw, cautious, seething with dishonorable intentions toward girls in gingham. They are self-tooting tinhorns who play poker in such a way that it is not a game of chance. "Work," proclaims Maverick, "is a shaky way to make a living," and he firmly believes that "there are times when a man must rise above principles." Maverick Garner, born James Baumgarner in Norman. Okla., fought in Korea, had a bit part in Sayonara. Now 30, Jim looks like a sort of Fred MacMurray with muscles. Click Here
I've always thought the man was very tall. I don't think Time will print info before checking it very carefully. Glenn is right on the button. 6'3" in prime and now down quite a bit....still love his movies..a truly great actor. Mike C
MarkO said on 31/Oct/07
As I stated once before, if you're going to compare Coburn's height to Garners, Coburn was about 6 feet and 1/2 inches at best, when I met him in 1983. We stood right next to eachother on pavement. I have no clue what kind of shoes he had on, but if he was taller than me, it was just by a hair.
AS said on 21/Oct/07
Rob is correct about height loss. While I've never heard of 16 inches, 5+ is common if there is a spinal condition (which can be fairly prevalent in older people). My uncle was 6'4.5" or so and now the top of his head is probably 5'10. His spine has fused and caused a "hunch".
Some older people keep their height. Its really a matter of posture and genetics.
said on 20/Oct/07
Hes lost 4 inches? Seems insane
[Editor Rob: if you think four is insane, I know a man who is around fifty and has lost sixteen inches in height since early twenties.
his legs are an inch or so longer than mine but I'm fifteen or so inches taller than him.
imagine living with a spine that has literally collapsed such that your chin is near your waist....people can't not stare at him, but he doesn't shy away and hide from public.]
glenn said on 19/Oct/07
james was 6-3.
said on 18/Oct/07
Heres a photo of James Garner posing with the listed 6'6" Clint Walker. He doesn't look much shorter:Click Here
talker said on 30/May/07
I just saw Americanization of Emily,like Mike c says,Garner is clearly taller than Coburn in this flick.I always thought Coburn was 6'2"in his youth,but i dont buy more than 6'1" for Garner from his other movies.No way,6'3just look him up next to Doris,he doesnt look any more than 6'1".So,maybe mr.Coburn was shorter than i thought.
Trev said on 5/Apr/07
Saw Garner in an episode of "The Rockford files" which guested a vey young Tom Selleck, he towered over Mr Garner, looked about 6'1" to me!
Anonymous said on 30/Nov/06
Garner didn't look much taller than 5'10" Steve McQueen in "The Great Escape."
CC-Tron said on 16/Oct/06
Garner said several times on the Rockford Files series that he was 6'1. So I wouldn't give him anymore than that.
owlby said on 7/Oct/06
There's an old episode of
Rockford Files that shows an I. D. It states his height as six foot even. Being six foot tall, my self this seems very accurate.
MarkO said on 28/Sep/06
Very interesting CaribbeanBlues...and I don't doubt you. But, at 6'0 myself, people often guess I'm 6'1 or a hair more. Nevertheless, interesting story. If, at 5'10, you noticed a significant height difference, Garner certainly was well over 6 feet. Seems like it was a friendly encounter.
Cynna said on 27/Sep/06
Speaking of James Coburn (well, SOMEBODY was, a while back), he had a severe form of arthritis that gnarled his joints badly. This must certainly have cost him height as he got older.
CaribbeanBlues said on 21/Sep/06
I'm a huge Garner fan, so imagine my surprise when I walked right by him on a back street in Westwood. I wanted so badly to say something and he must have realized it. After passing him by about 20 or 30', I stopped and turned around. There he was, turned around himself, staring at me. We both laughed hard. I WAS 5' 10" on the button. He was significantly taller than me. Even if I was wearing athletic shoes and he had on dress shoes, I noticed the difference and told everyone he had to be 6' 2" to 6' 4". That was about 1975 or so. We can all guess, but having passed within inches of him, I have to go with the taller estimates.
MarkO said on 11/Aug/06
...Larry Linville (MASH) was always listed in articles as 6 feet. As a guest on Rockford, I waited for those coveted side by side scenes (assuming Linville was 6'0). Rockford's puffy hair made it hard to really compare, but I'd put Garner at least 1 inch taller, possibly a tiny bit more. This would go along with him being 6'1 or so, at the time.
Martin said on 7/Aug/06
Most of you have got it right. Remember that the average guy loses about an inch of height for each decade over 50, some less, some more.
MHouillon said on 6/Aug/06
I guess, he is a shade over 180cm, mabe 5'11.25.-5'11.5.
Frank2. said on 3/Aug/06
Garner was 6'1". I know since I saw him many times. Now he's about 5'10".
Bleemo said on 3/Aug/06
Hmm ok I watched a double episode of "The Rockford files" entitled "this case is closed." There is two things to note about these two episodes, firstly the guest star is Joseph Cotton who is billed as and indeed looks 6'2. Now there are several pretty good scenes with Joseph and James stood opposite one another on flat ground and Cotton is an inch taller always.
The other thing to note is a scene where Rockford is called in to an office by a detective and he is reading Rockford's detective license or maybe driver's license I dunno, but he is listed as 6' on it. I am sure that's a generalisation because I do think he is atleast 6'1, but it just shows you.
Brad said on 3/Aug/06
About 6'2". Universal screwed him for about 35 million on Rockford Files shared profits with his production company. Their in-house lawyers just ate him alive. He filmed with most of his body aching on tough location shoots and they still burned him with the cooked books. Jack Warner paid those Warner TV stars peanuts. Good guys like Garner got no respect in every decade.
Bleemo said on 2/Aug/06
I've been picking up a lot of the old tv shows on DVD of late and my dad pointed me in the direction of The Rockford Files. To be fair Being only 24 I have no recollection of Garner in his prime i.e. Maverick, but he was only in his 40's when he shot the Rockford files.
In said Rockford Files I do agree with Frank2 in that he does really look 6'1. For example there is one episode where he and a journalist are looking for a woman and they are being tailed by some guy. Jim gets on the phone and describes the guy as a 6' man, then when he goes up to speak to said 6' guy he really is only an inch taller then him. Now I know these are characters but I cannot imagine that James Garner would undersize a guy's height, character or no, so at the most this guy is gonna be 6' and Garner in turn is 6'1.
Plus there are plenty of episodes where there are actors who have say 2-3 inches on Garner, he's usually one of the tallest but it's not uncommon for him to be shorter then someone in the show. So unless they cast a number of guys who were 6'5 plus in the 70's no less, then I doubt he was 6'3.
That's kind of one trick I have picked up since visiting this height and becoming a height sceptic. If you watch a TV show it's a good way of catching out a lie height wise. It's a lot harder too keep up the pretense of someone beng tall over 20+ episodes. A good example of this is CSI, both George Eads and William peterson were listed as 6'1 in their movie careers. Yet they are usually billed - and to be fair look - in the 5'10-5'11 range on that show. That's because there have been plenty of 6' plus guys on that show and they are clearly much taller.
Roy's Nephew said on 25/Jul/06
James Garner used to appear on the Johnny Carson show a lot. His height was often a topic of conversation, since he was 6' 4", the same as Ed McMahon at that time. While doing "Rockford Files" Garner suffered a number of knee injuries, resulting in several surgeries on both legs. A few years later, discussing why he was leaving "Rockford", Garner said that as a result of the operations he was now down to 6' 3" or less, and the show was destroying him. It was pretty funny the way he was bitching .. uh ... complaining about it, but he did leave the show shortly after.
MarkO said on 19/Jul/06
Look at Garner next to 6'4 Tom Selleck in the Rockford Files. He's clearly at least 3 inches shorter. I'd put him at 6'1 back then, myself.