Add a Comment455 comments
Average Guess (74 Votes)
5ft 9.99in (177.8cm)
said on 12/Nov/10
There's a picture of the Traveling Wilburys standing next to each other all wearing sneekers: Jeff Lynne 5'10.5", Tom Petty 5'9.5", Roy Orbison 5'11... George holds his own in height so I'd say around 5'10, maybe 5'10.5".
lester said on 11/Nov/10
There's a picture of Mike Love (6'1") walking with John and George... there's not a massive difference in height between them.
lester said on 11/Nov/10
Chuck Berry was 6'1" and there's picyures of them performing together... John looks very much shorter.
JG said on 8/Nov/10
I have found that John Lennon's Rickenbacker 325 overall length is 34 1/2 inches. When you compare the guitar length to him standing straight it tends to show John being about 5'9" at the most generous. I know pictures are perceptive and sometimes it has to do with angle and other things, but if you can find a picture of John try it out. I think it is pretty revealing.
ejsa said on 7/Jul/09
Take a look into "In My Life"'s video clip on youtube
and watch that George is taller than others
mcfan said on 29/Jun/09
Cyberyank, am I looking at the same video? John's heels are just loafers, not the cuban heels or stilettos. He probably has a half-inch more heel than Chuck if that. Also, I don't see anywhere near 4.5 inches difference...more like 3 inches max. If John is 5'9 then Chuck is 6ft in this video. More likely Chuck was 6'1 and John about 5'10. Also, we know Julian was 5'8 and he's standing next to Chuck just like John did and he looks significantly shorter than John by comparison. John was slightly taller than David Bowie and I think Bowie was 5'9.5.
said on 29/Jun/09
John Lennon is about 5'9". Chuck Berry is around 6'1.5". John had heels and Chuck had flat soles...Chuck still had a couple inches on John.Click Here
mcfan said on 26/Jun/09
Yeah, I think George should be downgraded to 5'9.5. These heights on the site are not accurate. George listed here as 5'10 was always shorter than Clapton listed at 5'9.5. As you say, John and Paul are even with the same footwear and are both standing side by side with good posture for once, but to say Macca was 5'11 is a joke. Even in the 90s this guy was said to be 5'9.5 by reputable magazines. Tom Jones listed as 5'10.5 was also taller than Paul in the 60s and the 90s. Jimmy Page and Robert Plant are overblown also by an inch. I don't think Plant was any taller than Townshend listed correctly here at 6'0. He would always wear cowboy boots with huge heels.
tl said on 25/Jun/09
The Your mother should know video is very revealing (they are all wearing the same shoes). John and Paul look exactly the same height, John slightly taller when he stands up straight, George looks 1/2 or 3/4 inch smaller.
said on 5/Jun/09
Here is a Magical Mystery Tour photo from late '67...probably "Hello Goodbye":Click Here
mcfan said on 5/Jun/09
Anonymous, no they're recording in the studio for Abbey Road -- the album. Paul is barefoot and George with sandals.
Anonymous said on 30/May/09
Abbey road cover?
mcfan said on 29/May/09
That's interesting, but I seem to recall John & Paul on the Tonight Show after Lady Madonna was released and they sure looked the same height to me. John walked out first then Paul followed if I remember right and another guy was hosting the show. (I don't remember who it was) I've got a book called which clearly proves that John was taller than George by a 1/4 to a half-inch in a late 1967 photo. They're both standing side by side with similar heeled shoes. Again during the Magical Mystery Tour John and Paul are the same height or very close, but George is less. There's another photo from Abbey Road in Anthology where Paul is barefoot and George is in sandals probably 3/4 in heels and he is 1/8 to 1/4 taller than Paul. It's just one of those things where all three are within a half-inch of each other. One guy -- Paul has great posture with high shoulders. George has slightly bad posture with average leveled shoulders. John has horrible posture with a long neck and low shoulders. I still say:
Paul 5'10 at peak (5'9.5 now)
John 5'9.75 - 5'10 at peak
George 5'9.25 - 5'9.5 peak
Ringo 5'6 - 5'6.25 peak
Col said on 28/May/09
This guy has it right:
Mick says on 11/Nov/08
John and Paul were on some Brit TV show in the mid-60s, both wearing suits and dress shoes. Paul clearly was 1" taller than John and at that time John was much broader, and his hair was starting to get shaggy. George was closer to Paul's height and Ringo is probably under 5'6" now.
Sara said on 24/May/09
I have a paper where each one of the Beatles filled out questions about themselves and they say that they are all 5'11 and Ringo is 5'8..but that is just what THEY think =)
Brad said on 13/May/09
5' 10". How much stuff did Fred Seaman steal from Studio One? I hear he looted the place.
Ben said on 13/May/09
John Lennon was about 5ft 10 as I remember when I saw him two weeks prior to his death in New York. I was his personal assistant at that time and saw him nearly every day.
Doug said on 11/Apr/09
Could have sworn Lennon was a 5'11"er. Hendrix too. They both looked quite lanky if you know what I mean.
mcfan said on 14/Mar/09
That's right. Probably the greatest voice to come out of rock 'n' roll. I still prefer Macca musically, but John had that great voice...although his rehearsals were poor until he went onto a recorded take. Not the tallest musician...average in stature -- that certainly can't be argued.
Christian said on 3/Mar/09
Agreed Billy Brown.
Billy Brown said on 23/Feb/09
John Lennon it may not be the tallest musician in the history but he's definitely the greatest. he is the Giant of all giants.
Al N. said on 19/Feb/09
Mcfan, its hard to tell in any picture it seems. John and George almost never stood straight.Paul almost always has good posture and has high shoulders. I still say the Hey Jude album shows it best. Good pictures by the way.
said on 11/Feb/09
Al N., tough to tell in a lot of these photos from the photo sessions. There's even a 1966 interview in Tokyo where Paul is interviewed. John stands directly behind him looking the same height, but he quickly then slouches behind him and looks over an inch shorter. The most noticeable thing is how long John's neck is compared with Paul who has high shoulders. Here's some photos:Click Here
(John looks the tallest barely)Click Here
(Paul looks like much taller than George and John)Click Here
(J and P look the same)Click Here Click Here
Al N. said on 28/Jan/09
If you guys check the old Hey Jude album (american release), all 4 beatles are standing in a row. Lennon, Mac, Harrison look so close in height, Lennon is wearing a hat though. Harrison and McCartney equal footwear. Harrison's hair is flat, he may be the tallest. Lennons drug taking maybe a factor ?
Gonzalo said on 15/Jan/09
Frank2 story in this page is great...but so hard to believe...
mike said on 1/Dec/08
I do recall seeing a beatles trading card a few years ago that said his height was about 5'10".
Chris said on 21/Nov/08
Yes I agree, they look the same height, but John was what I belive shorter by a half inch than Paul.
mcfan said on 20/Nov/08
In the photos I just posted on 11/14 wouldn't you two agree that Lennon and McCartney are virtually the same height with the same footwear? It's hard to find photos where the two are standing up straight together. These pictures and the Magical Mystery Tour video are the only valid photos I could find of the two together.
Mister Lennon said on 17/Nov/08
John was always taller than George and shorter than Paul. In the last years of the group, George looked a little taller because John's posture, but normally, John was always taller than George.
Chris said on 17/Nov/08
Nice pic mcfan. To me John was a half inch taller than Harrison. I belive Harrison was 5'9
said on 14/Nov/08
Here they are the same height with the same footwear:Click Here
(Lennon has his head slightly down; McCartney's held back slightly)Click HereClick HereClick Here
Harrison's closer to the camera than Lennon/McCartney. It's tough to find them both standing up straight next to each other. What I see is Lennon slouching in a ton of photographs usually with his arms folded with his long neck bending forward and his legs far apart.
Mick said on 11/Nov/08
John and Paul were on some Brit TV show in the mid-60s, both wearing suits and dress shoes. Paul clearly was 1" taller than John and at that time John was much broader, and his hair was starting to get shaggy. George was closer to Paul's height and Ringo is probably under 5'6" now.
Chris said on 6/Nov/08
I remember a while back ago someone said that May Pang had said John
said on 6/Nov/08
Yeah, James. From that video, they're either the same height or Macca's is maybe a quarter inch taller than John. Paul's got much higher shoulders than John and not much of a neck. John is all neck:Click Here
Even in Hello Goodbye John looks slightly taller than George and the same height as Paul. I would bet you George was only 5'9.5, John 5'9.75-10, and Paul 5'10 during their heyday. Even as recent as 1990, I read where a rock magazine listed Paul as only 5'9.
James W. said on 2/Nov/08
5'9 claims are a little off. He was 5'10 give or take a quarter inch...don't forget posture..the "Your Mother Should Know" video is a great indicator...John looks no more than a half inch shorter than Macca..
mcfan said on 28/Oct/08
NP, I have footage of Paul and George together in 1995 from the documentary and I think Paul is a half-inch taller than him as he always was. George was 5'9.5...5'10.5 in sneakers.
NP said on 18/Oct/08
John Paul and George were all 5' 11" (Paul still is) With their cuban heels on they were 6'1". Any concert footage shows this, they all wore identical boots onstage (until 1966) and often shared a microphone. I used to think Paul was a little taller but saw a photo of the 'Threetles' in 1995 and George and Paul were the same height.
Jimmy said on 10/Oct/08
I just watched a couple movies about Lennon,I noticed that when he was in a crowd talking to reporters he was about 3 inches taller than most people in the crowd.Also in another scene John was in a march and again he was about 3 inches taller than everyone else in the scene.If he was only 5'9"that would mean the majority of the men were about 5'6"which I think was highly unlikely.Now if he was 5'11"that would put the average height of the other men at about 5'8"which seems more realistic.I've also experienced meeting a few famous people and at first they seem smaller because they are so familiar then after awhile you can look at them like anyone else and gage their real height.
guyfrommars said on 28/Sep/08
I've read somewhere that Lennon was 6'1" which is an obvious exaggeration. The Beatles were usually listed in the '60s with their Cuban heels on. Lennon was 6' in those heels which make him 5'10" barefoot (which he probably was).
Frank2 said on 14/Sep/08
Never heard the expression 'scouse kids' so that's a new one for me. Thanks.
anonymous said on 13/Sep/08
Thanks again Frank2. Great story! By the way, as they were from liverpool you would call them 'scouse kids' as opposed to 'cockney kids' who would be from the east end of london.
Your posts on this site are always really interesting to read.
Frank2 said on 12/Sep/08
Well, I was dating this girl back then who was "simply in love with the Beatles." Her words. So one night she railroaded me into driving her to where she believed they were staying. It turned out her first info was dead wrong so we ended up on this crazy wild goose chase driving all over parts of Bell Air and West LA. At one point we ended up in the driveway of comedian Harold Lloyds's mansion which was situated on about twenty plus prime hilly acres off Benedict Canyon Drive. His home known as "Green Acres" was on top of a knoll. A long twisty driveway went up to it. Funny thing is my father knew Lloyd quite well since both men were members of the same Masonic temple and both were Shriners. Anyway, when we got to the gate and honked, a guard came out of the small wooden guardhouse and walk up to the car. Leaning over me as she spoke to the guard, my girlfriend started in with some ridiculous story on why we needed to go up to the main house. That's when the 38 was drawn and shoved into my face with the hammer clicked! I quickly apologized and we left. At that point I told her I was driving her home and to forget it. She then pleaded with me to stop at a pay-phone so she could make a call. I did and that's when she found out where there were actually staying and that it was at the home of someone she knew. So we drove up there and as we pulled up, the Beatles were all getting out of two limos. I parked, we got out and spent about ten minutes talking with them. All were unassuming cockney kids who didn't seem to be cognizant that they were at the time the biggest music stars on the planet. They were all nice except John who was sort of cold. Ringo was a crack up! The final to this story is, I did all this so to get myself laid and as it turned out, I didn't! She was too much into the boys from Liverpool to show me any consideration. We stopped dating shortly after that evening.
anonymous said on 12/Sep/08
Frank2: Cool! thanks for the response.
Please can you tell us the story? I would love to hear it. many thanks.
Frank2 said on 11/Sep/08
I was wearing shoes with normal 1 inch heels. Probably slip-on loafers. I don't remember what they were wearing. They had just pulled up in a couple of limos and were going into the home they were staying who a girlfriend of mine at the time knew the owner. That's how I got to meet them. They were dressed more casual and not as if they were appearing anywhere. So they might have been wearing those then fashionable boots with higher heels. All I know is not one of them was as tall as me and Ringo was much shorter. It's actually a long and somewhat funny story that maybe one day I'll relate. To peak your interest, at one point when we ended up at the wrong home (then owned by silent comedian Harold Lloyd) I had a security guard shove a 38 pistol into my face! That's something one never forgets.
anonymous said on 11/Sep/08
Frank2: what kind of footwear did you have compared to them? were you wearing healed beatle boots as well?
Frank2 said on 10/Sep/08
I'm 5'11" and I met the entire gang back in 1964 when they came to LA. Paul was about 5'10". Ringo was short. Maybe 5'7". John and George looked to be about 5'9". They were all nice fellows and joked around, especially Ringo who was sort of a cutup. I was no big Beatles fan, but enjoyed meeting them.
Tim Wargo said on 9/Sep/08
I actually met Ringo in 2003.I am 5'11" and Ringo came up to my eyes exactly.Therefore I must agree with this concensus.
Tim Wargo said on 9/Sep/08
I actually met Ringo.He came up to my eyes height wise exactly.I am 5'11" tall so he must be about 5'8" tall.My guess would be that John was 5'10,same with George and that Paul is 5"11" tall.
Philip said on 10/Aug/08
I saw Paul McCartney up-close in 1989..and he was surpringly elfin..looked about 5 feet 7 inches tall...he has long legs...is thin...nice head of hair....I guess that's why they called them the boys...they have boyish bodies.
mister said on 9/Aug/08
the comment posted by 'anonymous' is right i guess. it's quite a relief, to know their real heights, thank you and i trust you.
anonymous said on 4/Aug/08
watch the film 'a hard days night' as that will help you estimate their height and footwear. ringo is NOWHERE near 5'8. he is about the same height as most of the children in the film that mob him. paul is about 5'9, lennon and harrison were 5'8 and ringo 5'5ish. when they put on their beatle boots with the high cuban heel then they were as tall as the heights claimed here. jagger, richards and clapton are all 5'8 - 5'9 tops as well. they all grew up in the period after ww2 where food was limited and average heights were not as tall as they are now. i am telling you the guaranteed truth here. trust me!
mcfan said on 4/Aug/08
Chels, at first glance, yeah, Paul was the tallest. However, you do have the absolute truth with "Your Mother Should Know" video with the same footwear side by side where Lennon/McCartney are the same height. Lennon stands up straight in the video, which he never does in the photographs I've seen. Harrison is the shortest of the three. I would give Lennon/Mccartney 178cm and Harrison 177.5cm.
Alex rievman said on 3/Aug/08
Lennon ,Harrison and Mccartney are about 1 IN SHORTER THAN 6 FT and ringo at 5 ft 8 .even starr was the oldest of all . i will make another one
chels said on 30/Jul/08
Paul was obviously the tallest, although George allways seemed to be. But between John and George its hard to tell.
Nathan Ward said on 12/Jul/08
Judging a persons height from a photo is mere guess-work. The chelsea style boots that the Beatles wore were custom - so it is possible that the cuban heels for all members boots were not exactly two inches. While I have never read in any Beatle book that the Beatles had lifts inside their shoes, it is very possible. Paul's hoffner bass was small, as was Johns rickenbacker, which makes them both look a bit taller than they are. A persons posture at any given moment can easily add or subtract an inch or two. My personal drivers license & passport both show my height a little more than it is. The Beatles bs'd so much in interviews that you can't take their word on their own height ;) Their early fan clubs took info where ever they could lift it so you can't trust any of that either. Lastly, lets not forget that people are taller after they have been laying down for a while. My point is, unless you measure somebody standing very erect while after being out of bed for a few hours, you can't determine their true height 100%, you can only guess.
Yummy Lemon said on 17/Jun/08
For J was that public place Central Park? or was it a building? or on the street? Poor John Lennon to think only a year after that he was killed. You said he seemed shy or uncomfortable? Also poor John Lennon for being that slim it can't of been healthy. I would of loved to of met John Lennon. Bring back John celebs these days are boring.
j said on 14/Jun/08
I saw him in the late 70's in New York..he was there..with some people around him..a public place,don't remember exactly..he was wearing boots..i don't saw him very close,but it was ok to me..and in my opinion..he was on barefoot..about 177 cm.a little bit taller than 5''9'..and with his boots he looked 5''11',or 5''11 and a half.About his hair color..it was strange i don't know,it was blonde,and red,and brown..mixed.
He was extremely..i mean extremely slim!
Excuse my english,i'm from Argentina..i travelled to New York in the year 78' with my family..a unique experienceiemember him..he was like nervous to be in that public place..i think he really felt shy,or uncomfortable of being there.
i was only twelve years old,so i can't remember exactly the place..but i iemember him..he was like nervous to be in that public place..i think he really felt shy,or uncomfortable of being there.
Anonymous said on 11/Jun/08
The Beatles (minus Ringo)were all medium height, with Paul being one inch taller. Let's agree on 5'9" 1/2 and McCartney almost 5'11". Ringo must have been 1.68-1.69m or 5'6" (1/2).
alex rievman said on 10/Jun/08
i think John as 5 ft 11 1/4 181 cm and George as 5 ft 10 1/2,179 cm Paul as 5 ft 11 in 180 cm and Ringo as 5 FT 8 173 CM
anonymous said on 7/Jun/08
Chris: take an inch off for each height you listed (paul an inch and a half less) and you will have it right.
Chris said on 6/Jun/08
I agree with Kent that all three of The Beatles except Ringo seemed in the 5'9'' range. Paul was maybe 5'10'' but I dont think John or George was over 5'10'' or under 5'9''. One thing that is interesting is that Eric Clapton who
Kent said on 3/Jun/08
OK, this is confusing. Tom Jones is adamant about being 5'10 1/2. In the photo on this website he is standing next to someone who is 5'10 and Jones appears to be 1/2 inch taller. So Jones' height seems well established. But then in McFan's photo of McCartney standing next to Jones, McCartney appears to be about 2 inches shorter than Jones. Even if Jones was wearing boots he shouldn't be that much taller. The photo even appears to be from the era where the Beatles all wore boots. All this said, I think Macca was AT BEST 5'10, and probably a little shorter than that.
anonymous said on 22/May/08
agreed mcfan. glenn has recently pegged ringo at around 5'5 to 5'6 max after some recent sightings. so from there you can work out that the rest of the band are in the 5'9 region. they all wore the cuban heels that were popular at the time and people normally give an estimate of their height in heels. thats why they look 5'10 -5'11 in pics.
said on 21/May/08
Nik, he never was 6ft or even 5'11. I can't believe people are looking at the same photos I'm looking at and getting 5'11 for Lennon and McCartney. If you want to make a comparison, watch "Your Mother Should Know" where they all stand side-by-side with the same footwear. My favorite Beatle McCartney was two inches shorter than 6ft Townshend in "Lucille" by Rockpile. Then you have Ono saying Lennon was 5'10 and Pang saying he was about 5'9.5...both are consistent for morning/day heights. There are many other examples, but the strangest one was Tom Jones which I'm surprised no one else has brought up that he was an inch taller than Paul in the 60s and about 5 years ago. There are other photos of Paul and Tom Jones from the awards show where Tom is significantly taller than him. Does anyone have the other photos from the awards show in 1966 with Tom, Dusty, and Paul? I only see two on the web but there were better ones.
Here's a photo for comparisons of the Beatles themselves:
Paul is closest to the camera: Click Here
with Tom Jones:Click Here
Nik said on 20/May/08
Look at pictures of him in the early to mid 60's. He looks around 6-0 there. Then in the late 60's and all the 70's he looks about 5-10. How is that?
Chris said on 10/May/08
-James W, good point, but John was 5'10'' during his life and because of posture could look 5'9''. What is interesting is that Eliot Mintz, one of John
James W. said on 4/May/08
John Lennon's peak height in Beatlemania(when he was still mostly healthy) was close to 5'11. He definitely lost an inch during the late sixties. I'm not sure if that's official but intense stress and drugs will do that. Even to someone in their late 20's.
george said on 4/May/08
its obviously the original height of lennon is only 5'10 that you can watch the video from readt steady go! you can determined the height of the said person
Anonymousgirl said on 29/Apr/08
John Lennon is proportionately tall, so that is why it can be deceiving. I a gree with someone else's comment on his hair color too. This guy is hard to pinpoint isn't he? His personality included!
Daniel said on 24/Apr/08
I wonder how most of those British guys (rock musicians of the invasion era) managed to look tall if they weren't at all
Anonymous said on 23/Apr/08
john lennon was only ever 5'10 in heeled boots. all the beatles are over estimated on this site.
Daniel said on 22/Apr/08
If Lennon was 5'10'', then Ono was 5' peak
Chris said on 16/Apr/08
Nik- you are wrong. John himself said 5'11'', but he was closer too 5'10''. Paul was closer to 5'11'', George 5'10'' at most, and Ringo 5'6''.
Nik said on 13/Apr/08
Here's how it really is: John Lennon is 5-11.5, Paul McCartney is 6-0, george Harrison is 5-9, and Ringo Starr is 5-7.5
Nik said on 12/Apr/08
Here's how it really is: John Lennon is 5-11.5, Paul McCartney is 6-0, George Harrison is 5-9 and Ringo Starr is 5-7.5
Wirral Boy said on 27/Mar/08
Paul always looks 1/2 inch taller that John in pix and film. In an early feature asking such deep questions as favourite food, favourite car, weight and height, to the latter John replied "5'11...well lets just call it 6'". Like most 5' 10" types (yes...I'm one) they (in the current vernacular) 'bigged it up', no doubt along with the rest of showbiz. Certainly today, is there anyone who believes that Tom Cruise is over 5'5"? At least none of them had to stand in a trench next to the leading lady!
guy said on 26/Mar/08
Lennon's height seems to vary from era to era. He seemed big and robust during the beatles heyday. There's an early photo of him lifting both MacCartney and Harrison? on his shoulders looking the part of big man. Sgt Pepper he seemed much smaller. He was taking acid almost every day at this point and lost a lot of weight. He really never looked big or tall in this era. The White album he grew his hair out and looked more lanky so therefore seemed bigger than before. Frequent photos with the diminuitive Yoko Ono made him seem even taller. Abbey Road and the final group photos he seemed to have gained a little weight. None of the Beatles were 30 by the time the group ended. The idea that any member lost any height in this time and even much later is rediculous. A person doesn't lose 2 inches in their twenties. Lennon likely never shrunk as he was killed at age 40. If he did through abuse of drugs, lifestyle etc it would be imperceptable. 1/4 inch maybe.
said on 23/Mar/08
Here is the clip of John and Yoko meeting Trudeau, Click Here
UT said on 14/Mar/08
It might help to compare the group photos of Lennon, Ono and Pierre Trudeau. Then Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau was ca. 5'9". One with Trudeau's arm around Ono is the more familiar, but there's also a revealing one in profile of Trudeau and Lennon shaking hands.
Yummy Lemon said on 27/Feb/08
I agree with "Beatlesfan" that John Lennon had brown eyes (a light brown color). Sometimes John's hair looked brown back in The Beatles early days it did look brown. But later on John's hair went from brown, to red, to blonde. Sometimes John hair looked a little bit curly too. I think John Lennon was 5'10".
Beatlesfan said on 27/Feb/08
John was 5'11", George 5'11" 1/2", Paul was 5'11, Ringo 5'8" and they all ahd brown hair and eyes expect for ringo who ahd blue
Yummy Lemon said on 25/Feb/08
This is what "J" said :"i met him..john lennon was 5'10''..he was extremely slim..so he looked taller..and so he looked smaller other times,beacause of bad posture
He was no shorter than 177 cm..
I remember his hair colour..it was blonde to me..or almost blonde,a strange colour
Remember he wear boots..but he was no way shorter than 5'9 1/2''"
FOR J where did you meet John Lennon?? was that in the 1970s?? His hair looks RED, BROWN AND BLONDE to me you think John's hair was an odd colour?? John's eyes look hazel (light brown).
said on 1/Feb/08
Here's a clip of Muhammed Ali (6-3) walking between John and George, full body shots at 2:00:Click Here
You can see Ali towers over them substantially, maybe 4-5". I say 5-10.5 peak height is maybe most accurate for both Lennon and McCartney. The clip also shows George being a tad bit shorter than John.
Chris' analysis is pretty good, shows your good understanding of the Beatles' history...
You can lose a lot of height by just poor diet (I lost 1.5" as a poor college student eating only instant noodles for a year). And John went from a pretty plump dude ("Help") to a pretty skinny hippie-guru ("White Album") in a span of less than 5 years...
mcfan said on 29/Jan/08
I disagree with the 1967 period. John looked Macca's height then. I think he always was roughly the same height. However, John bends and leans much more than the other two. Very seldom do you find them where you can see their feet next to each other. Paul has great posture, that's obvious and John doesn't. I would agree George is just a tad shorter than John and Paul, but that's about as far as you can go with it. They're all very close in height...maybe a half-inch difference. My disagreement is the 5'11 claim which they all claimed. This was probably in sneakers when they were young.
Chris said on 28/Jan/08
This is what I think: John and Paul was roughly the same height from ex 1963 when The Beatles got its breakthrough.
John and Paul about 5'11''
1967 John 5'9
said on 28/Jan/08
mcfan, you exactly echo my sentiments on the Macca page, that Lennon was the same or a tad taller than McCartney with his peak height (Beatlemania 1964-ish and before), but John shrunk substantially and got shorter than Paul and even George during the later years (Magical Mystery Tour and later). Also, as every big Beatle fan knows, John had a very "hunched" stance playing guitar, hunched neck with very bowed legs, making him appear shorter than Paul and George on stage. Classic Lennon guitar-playing stance can be seen in "I Should Have Known Better" (although he plays harmonica, but same stance when playing guitar):Click Here
j said on 4/Jan/08
i met him..john lennon was 5'10''..he was extremely slim..so he looked taller..and so he looked smaller other times,beacause of bad posture
He was no shorter than 177 cm..
I remember his hair colour..it was blonde to me..or almost blonde,a strange colour
Remember he wear boots..but he was no way shorter than 5'9 1/2''
mcfan said on 25/Dec/07
No, John was wearing sneakers it appears. Hard to tell, but no heel.
Chris said on 22/Dec/07
So if John was wearing the same heels that means he was shorter than 5'10''
mcfan said on 21/Dec/07
Geraldo always wore cowboy boots and Cuban heels back then. Just watched the video of Geraldo and Lennon walking and he's wearing those same heels.
Chris said on 20/Dec/07
Chapman had shoes on, his offical height is 5'10''.
jim said on 19/Dec/07
I looked up Chapman's mugshot he is between 6'0"and 6'1"and in the photos of him and John they look about the same height wich means Lennon could have been5'11".Has anyone adressed the phenomenon of famous people looking shorter than they are due to the famous person being built up in the mind.I experienced this penomenon with Harry Nilsson and Brian wilson when I met them.At first I thought they were both about my height6'0"then I realized they were both a few inches taller than me.
Chris said on 19/Dec/07
That means John was only about 5'8''. I find that hard to believe. Here he looks average height and still have his boots on. A very hight heel I must say, look through it and you
glenn said on 15/Dec/07
geraldo is 5-10.
Yummy Lemon said on 14/Dec/07
I met Sean Lennon kind of he didn't seem at all short to me he seemed about 5 foot 10. Sean seems really sweet and very well brought up like any regular posh, privileged kid that went to bording school if that makes sense? Sean is a great guy his Father would of been VERY proud of him!! What I don't know is if Sean is the same height as his Father or maybe Sean is taller than his Father? I wish Sean and Julian all the best it must be hard being sons of a legend.
jim said on 12/Dec/07
there is a video of geraldo rivera and john lennon walking together on youtube and geraldo looks at least 2 inches taller than lennon.Geraldo's height is given as5'9"&1/2 on this site
glenn said on 21/Nov/07
thanks chris.i kinda figured that
Chris said on 21/Nov/07
Julian Lennon has stated his height as 5'8''.
glenn said on 20/Nov/07
yes,i met him a few times.5-9 to 5-10 for him.more on the 5-9.julian was of similar height.maybe even 5-8ish i think.could be wrong.now him i never met.
some guy said on 20/Nov/07
Hey glenn by any chance have you ever met John Lennon's son Sean Lennon because I wonder how tall is he? I think he might be 5'9? Not sure? Maybe you can look into that!
mcfan said on 10/Nov/07
John was never 5'11 nor were the other Beatles. Bottom line, if Tom Jones was 5'10.5 and was taller than the other three then the Beatles were less than 5'10.5. Pretty simple.
Yummy Lemon said on 14/Oct/07
Don't MEN always want to seem taller/bigger than they really are???? I heard Yoko was very small just under 5 foot a child could be that small and her hands and feet look small!! I always thought John Lennon was about 5 foot 10 inches or 5 foor 11 inches. John himself said he was 5 foot 11 inches but that maybe his male ego talking!! John doesn't look short in photos to me.
Ringo looks short though and was said to have beautiful hands like a childs!! I would love to meet McCartney because he looks about the same height as Lennon to me. Ringo and Yoko look short but Yoko seems to have a big head and hair for all her brains she is very intelligent!! John Lennon to me looks like he was a husky, chunky guy who really should NOT of lost all that weight he lost in the late 1960s/1970s for his "hippy look" it was NOT healthy (with his diets, fasts and drugs) he looks better with a bit of meat on him!!!!
said on 9/Oct/07
In this pic of John and Yoko the difference is about 8 inches. Click Here
Yoko who is about 5'2'' plus heels is about 5'4-5'5'' in that pic and John usually with his boots about 6 feet. I think it is pretty close to the truth to say that John was about 5'10'' give or take, although he always wrote 5'11'' and his close friend Elliot Mintz described him in a book: "John was almost 6 feet tall, but seemed shorter". So almost 6 feet would bee the 5'11'' claime and never did John stated anything else than 5'11''. However with his boots, (I have a lot of dvd:s with this man) he looked tall and slim. I saw a program about John two years ago when it was 25 years since he was killed and the owner to John´s favorite restaurant said that everytime he see a tall slim figure that enters the door, he think of John. John has been described as tall, never short. 5'10'' on the other hand is average height and I think the ones who has described him as tall were confused because of his slim figure.
Anon said on 23/Sep/07
Barb, ur basically saying if John is 5-6, so are George and Paul, and ringo must be like 5-3... NOT!
Most Beat fans know that John had a "Fat Elvis" period during Help and then the skinny hippie-guru look... i.e. he lost a lot of weight, and I'm sure lost some height along with it as well...
The best bio on him "Lennon" described him as a "lean 5-11 figure leaning at the doorway" I remember.
TJ said on 21/Sep/07
Barbara, that's ridiculous. No way was John shorter than 5'9 and he was most likely 5'10. I'm guessing you were wearing massive heels or it was a case of mistaken identity.
barbara mann said on 20/Sep/07
I met John and Yoko in Bloomingdales in the late 70's. I'm only 5'6'' and was taller than both of them. If John was 5'10'' it must have been on stilts.
Anonymous said on 12/Sep/07
john, paul and george...all about 5'8 and in their cuban heels 5'10/5'11. Ringo 5'5 and5'7/5'8 in the cuban heels. yoko is 5'1
mcfan said on 11/Sep/07
John's got a longer neck than Paul. It gives the appearance of someone shorter due to Paul's shoulders being higher, but John's eyes appear above Paul's. They look the same height to me in this video. George appears a half-inch shorter. John looks to be standing very straight for once in this video. Based on this video, what does the editor think? I don't think you'll find better evidence for John and Paul being the same height.
Chris said on 10/Sep/07
-mcfan. That is true. However 1967 was a period of heavy drugabuse, especially for John. I would say that photo of sgt peppar is just John´s bad posture. The video of your mother should know is the best evidance that reveal their true heights. Johan and Paul was very close, with half inch diffirence. Paul about 5'11'', John 5'10½''??,George didn´t look more than 5'10'' and Ringo no more than 5'7''.
mcfan said on 10/Sep/07
SGT Pepper was a very bad illustration of heights. There's too much variation in heights with the other Beatles on the cover of this album. Did he somehow shrink an 1 1/2 inches on the cover? or were they all standing on different platforms. Why is John at least Paul's height in "Your Mother Should Know" video a few months later?
Anonymous said on 8/Sep/07
John could have been 5'9½''. Look at sgt peppar
Rut said on 18/Aug/07
It maye interest you to know that Yoko Ono was described in a 1968 Life Magazine as not much bigger as 5 ft. 2 in. and 95 Ibs. as her weight.
Linda Eastman was described as quite tall in some publications.
MikeyMario said on 16/Aug/07
This is a little off. I got this John Lennon life magazine, and it has pictures of what John said for his height. He said he was 5'11, that's his real height
beatmaniac said on 16/Jul/07
I'm convinced that lennon was 5'10 barefoot as I do. Bec. when I measure my self in the morning when I wake up, I'm 5'10 1/2 and when I get home after work "stressed" I measure sometimes 5'10" or sometimes below 5'10" or 177 only.
And the fact that they are a band not only a mere band..their schedules are always tight..less sleep..plenty of stress.
Mark said on 11/Jul/07
i'm pretty sure i saw somewhere that john was about 5'9.5 (177cm) which is what i am.
beatles fan said on 29/Jun/07
I am a huge fan of the Beatles and of John especially. I have seen hundreds of pictures of John and he could look anywhere between 5'9" and 6'0". I know that height can vary quite a bit depending on footwear and posture. As a Beatle he would have been extremely tired sometimes and would have appeared shorter. Other times you see him wearing cuban heels and walking tall looking very relaxed. He does strike me as someone who was a deep thinker and wasn't really that bothered about his height generally.
glenn said on 12/Jun/07
garfunkel is around 6ft.maybe 5-11.
mcfan said on 11/Jun/07
Does anyone know Garfunkel's height? He looked slightly taller than Lennon.
Michael said on 6/Jun/07
You guys make me feel less freakish about myself for knowing so much stuff about Beatle things.
Chris said on 29/May/07
I´m sorry, it was not translated correct in the swedish version. Elliot wrote that "John was almost 6 feet tall, but seemed shorter".
Chris said on 17/May/07
Elliot Mintz describes John as almost 2 meters in the book "Memories of John Lennon"
mcfan said on 16/May/07
Check out the Beatles Unseen Archives. Check out pgs 32, 157, 218, 236-38. Based on these photos, John is no doubt taller than George and is roughly the same height as McCartney. I still say John is no taller than 5'10 barefoot since this is what Yoko measured him at. May Pang even said he was 5'9.5. So with that information and these photos, you could conclude that Lennon/McCartney were 5'10 barefoot in their prime and George at roughly 5'9.5. Not only does Lennon crouch in many photos, but he leans a significant amount as well. Only when he stands straight do you see he was Paul's height.
Brad said on 12/May/07
Sean is polite, real polite. Jagger was skin & bones in '81, I wouldn't doubt 125. I saw Cavett on Fifth Avenue once, 5' 6" is generous.
said on 10/May/07
I bought the dvd when Lennon and Yoko was on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. Dick Cavett is listed as 5'6''but looked even shorter. When 5'6½'' Shirley MacLaine was on at the same time as Joha and Yoko, Shirley towered over Cavett. She wore 2-3 inch heels, looking about 5'8'' John towered even more over Cavett looking 6 feet. When Sherley and Johan shooke hands it was about 3 inches diffirence between them. John had some black boots on and in barefeet he could have been 5'10''. Even 5'11''. This is pic with 5'10½ Michael Crawford and John from How I won the war. Click Here
Beazer Holmes said on 7/May/07
many of the key Brits from the invasion period seemed to be in the 5-9 to 5-10 range (Jagger, Lennon, McC, Harrison, Clapton, et al). Slightly built though, so maybe appeared taller (saw jagger up close at concert 10 years or so ago and surprised at how slight/small he appeared. Remember reading the famous article before the 81 tour where he said "I'm only 125 lbs..." which would fit with a 5-9 and change height and small frame...
Chris said on 5/May/07
He sounds very nice, I bet he has the same sence of humor as his father.
Brad said on 4/May/07
About 5' 9" for Sean. Didn't sign autographs, he said "his mother was waiting" with a smile.
Chris said on 3/May/07
Brad-How tall would you say Sean is?
Brad said on 2/May/07
5' 10" right next to me in Jan. '77. Yoko was 5' 3" then and I met her last week at a Sean show: still 5' 3".
Anthony said on 23/Mar/07
AS, no way was John a 5'9 max. I think he was at least 5'10. Again look at the "Two Virgins" cover when they're barefoot and naked.. There's no way John is only 6-7 inches taller than Yoko. She barely bakes chin level and John is even standing with proper posture. Unless, Yoko is shorter than the 5'2-5'3 range, I cann't see John as any shorter than 5'10-5'11.
mcfan said on 22/Mar/07
Yeah, I agree with AS that the Beatles were shorter than people think. However, John was barefoot 5'10 according to that museum note. I do remember May Pang saying he was 5'9.5 though and there's no doubt John, Paul, and George were probably within a half-inch of each other. George looked the shortest of the three and Paul the tallest by a very small margin. Well, we all know McCartney is shorter than Tom Jones by at least a half-inch and Tom's only 5'10 today. I don't dispute Lennon/McCartney at 5'11 in sneakers back then.
glenn said on 22/Mar/07
i always said and heard from people who knew him that he was 5-.its only recently ive been seeing 5-10 in pics.
AS said on 20/Mar/07
John Lennon was more like 5'9", tops. Muhammad Ali is was 6'3" and the famous pics of the beatles with Ali, Ali is clearly 2/3 of a head taller than John, Paul and George, about 6 inches or more, and they all have flat beach loafers on and Ali has flat boxing shoes on. Joe Frazier was listed at 5'11.5" and was only about 1/3 of a head shorter than Ali. I just stood next to Frazier for a picture last night. He's shrunk quite a bit over the years. I'm 5'11" and I'm now taller than him. I would trust boxing's height measurements. That being the case, I'd say John was 5'9", and 5'11" with boots on.
Chris said on 13/Feb/07
I´ve met Yoko and she had high heels on looking 5'6'', I think somewhere around 5'3'' is possible and John was 5'10''-5'11''.
BEAT MANIAC said on 12/Feb/07
So if Yoko is 5'2-5'3..John is 5'10...because I have a photo of me and my girl and she's above my chin..she's 5'2 same as yoko..and I'm only 5'10..both of us where barefoot on a flat level ground..but not nude! ha ha ha.
Glenn said on 10/Feb/07
Yeah,he does look 5-11 on that cover.thats about right on Yokos height.as for the museum,you hear all kinds of stories.inflated heights,accurate,publicist heights.
Anthony said on 10/Feb/07
BEAT MANIAC said on 9/Feb/07
Hi Glenn, another question...does the wax museum of madame tussaud's are accurate in making the height of the beatles? thanks!
BEAT MANIAC said on 8/Feb/07
what is the height of Yoko Ono?
Anonymous said on 8/Feb/07
i once went to the dakota and saw him , we had a little chat and if i remember well he was taller than me but wearing boots.im 5´11´´
Anthony said on 7/Feb/07
I think John was at least 5'10.5, maybe 5'11. Look at the cover of the "Two Virgins" album. John and Yoko are standng barefoot and naked. Yoko comes up just under his chin.
mcfan said on 29/Jan/07
Julian Lennon was only 5'8. He was actually closer to Ringo than to John, Paul, or George. Also, Lennon was 159lbs not Paul or George during the early days. I think they had Paul and George at 140lbs. I think Ringo was 5'7.
BEAT MANIAC said on 29/Jan/07
I agree to that, they're all at same stature, i have a collection of there rare photos..but I noticed one photo, I had a photo of George Harisson wearing a flat leather shoes with her was Patti Boyd and Ringo Starr, I've notice that Ringo was wearing the cuban boots and beside with him is George Harrison, they have almost the same height on that photo, I think Glenn was right..He was 5'10" in his youth, because 5'8" + 2 inches cuban boots = 5'10". I think you have seen that photo too...they are with Peter Asher of Peter and Gordon.
Geoff said on 28/Jan/07
According to their bios from 1964, Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison were all 5-11 and Ringo was 5-8. While performing and standing together, Paul, John, and George looked nearly identical in stature. Their weights were 159 John, 158 Paul, and 142 George.
Glenn said on 25/Jan/07
I saw Paul look 6ft in dress shoes in 2000.so he is 5-11,maybe 5-11.5 in his youth.I heard Lennon was 5-9.but appears closer to 5-10 to me.his sons are around 5-9.Ringo was 5-6 in his youth.5-5 now.George was 5-9 when I met him.5-10 in youth.sounds like they claim their heights in shoes.
BEAT MANIAC said on 24/Jan/07
Hi Glen, I know you've met many actors and actresses..for sure you can tell there heights thru photos, my question is..does the beatles measure their height "BARE FOOT" or with heels on? because I remember John Lennon saying in an interview that he is below 6 ft... Because I'm 5'10" bare foot and with shoes like sneakers..I'm 5'11" but with boots on...I'm 6ft.
Anonymous said on 16/Jan/07
George wasn't fully grown in many of the photos, he's the youngest Beatle and was still a teenager when the Fab4 started getting popular.. John might have experienced a little shrinkage due to drugs and macrobiotic vegan diets. He certainly lost a lotta weight between 64-80.
said on 27/Dec/06
Paul and john looked similar in the height...but some pictures in Hamburg showed a slight difference between George & the rest (looked slightly short)
Data info about Beatles heights and clothes size I found in archive section of:
Glenn said on 3/Dec/06
So did I Cherry.but most say 5-10.and he does look it alot.
Cherry said on 2/Dec/06
I always heard, from reliable sorces, that he was 5'8.
mcfan said on 16/Nov/06
Good picture with Jones and Lennon! Jones like McCartney has good posture. Does anybody have footage of Ready Steady Go? I agree that Jones was 5'11 in his prime but 5'10 now. Rich Little was taller than him (jones) on his show who I think was 6ft. Fred Willard was certainly taller than him but he was probably 6'2.
Glenn said on 7/Nov/06
Tom they saw mightve been 6ft strectched out in his prime.he appeared 5-11 to me.
mcfan said on 3/Nov/06
I agree with Dries that Clapton and Richards were just a tad taller than Lennon on Rock N Roll Circus. However, with Richards he was wearing shoes with heels if my memory is right. Clapton was wearing sneakers like Lennon. Harrison and Lennon look shorter than they really were due to their bad posture...especially Lennon who hardly ever stood up straight. If you want a pretty clear picture of their heights check out Magical Mystery Tour "Your Mother Should Know" video where they wear the same shoes and are standing next to each other. You'll get a different impression of Lennon's height for sure. Photos like Abbey Road are simply not clear enough as the street is uneven. In all of the photos I've seen that are clear where you can see their feet, Lennon is extremely close to McCartney and Harrison maybe 1/2 -3/4 inch behind McCartney. My knowledge tells me that years ago Jagger was just taller than McCartney when they were doing "All You Need Is Love." Also, Tom Jones was taller than McCartney and Lennon on Ready Steady Go. McCartney even appeared with Jones later on where he again is taller than McCartney.
Dries said on 27/Oct/06
McCartney 5'10"1/2 Harrison 5'10" Lennon 5'9" Ringo 5'7":
seeing Lennon on 'Rock n roll circus' next to Keith Richard and Eric Clapton makes him shorter than them
THE *TRUE* ANONYMOUS said on 3/Oct/06
I think The Beatles were taller in their younger days, maybe like 5'10.5" barefoot around Beatlemania. The drugs and macrobiotic diet did them in. See how bone-thin Lennon was 1972+. I'm sure that took a toll on his height too, he must have been around 5'9.5" when he died.
Richard Powell said on 30/Sep/06
QUITE POSSIBLY LENNON WAS 5'11 BUT MY OWN MEMORY TELLS ME THAT NEITHER HIM OR PAUL WERE THIS TALL.AFTER ALL I STOOD NEXT TO THEM BOTH CHATTING WITH THEM AS WE SMOKED.GIVEN THAT WE WERE OF SIMILAR HEIGHT I SIZED MYSELF UP TO THEM BOTH AND DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE A LITTLE SHORTER THAN MYSELF.THIS I AM CERTAIN.JOHN WAS MOST PROBABLY 13 STONE.REAL CHUNKY AT THE TIME.PAUL AND GEORGE POSSIBLY 10 STONE.
Matt said on 29/Sep/06
HE HAD SANDLES ON HIS FEET.PAUL WASNT TALL THEN JOHN.SAME HT.GEORGE HALF INCH LESS MAYBE.RINGO THREE INCHES.MAYBE PAUL TALLER THEN JOHN BUT IDONT SEE IT.SGT PEPER COVER THATS IT.JOHNH TALLER MAGIGAL MYST TOUR.SMAE HT.
Glenn said on 29/Sep/06
Then Paul was 6ft.
Matt said on 26/Sep/06
5'11 MET YOKO + HIM 1976 DISNEYWORLD. MY HEIGHT.
Glenn said on 26/Sep/06
My friend has it.not a good height indicator.Im standing behind them on my tip toes cause there were 5 cops and 3 other dealers in the photos.I avoid group shots like the plague.but in some cases you have no choice.the Stevie Nicks was a group shot.cropped,these photos look great.
Chris said on 25/Sep/06
Glenn-Would be great to see that photo with you, Paul and Linda.
Glenn said on 25/Sep/06
I see Zach had the exact story on the Mel page.
Chris said on 25/Sep/06
I think Mel is just saying that. He is sensetive aboute his own height and he is not more than 5'9''.
Glenn said on 25/Sep/06
Mel Gibson of all people, ran into them at Abbey Road by surprise,and told them to shut the f**k up,not realising.noise of them laughing, annoying his voiceovers.he walks into a room and realise oh s***,I just cursed out The Beatles! what intrigued me about this is he mentions how short they were!
Richard Powell said on 24/Sep/06
GREAT PERSONALITY LENNON WAS.MET THE BEATLES '63 OUTSIDE PHOTO SHOOT IN LONDON.JOHN AND PAUL WERE JUST SHORT OF 5'11.SAME HEIGHT.GIVE THEM 5'10.5.I AM MYSELF 5'11.THEY WERE NOT AS TALL AS I.THEY WERE IN MY PRESENCE FOR WHAT SEEMED LIKE A LONG TIME BUT WAS PROBABLY ONLY TEN MINUTES.ONLY A HANDFUL OF FANS WERE STATIONED OUTSIDE, BUT THIS WAS ONLY AFTER PLEASE PLEASE ME WAS A HIT.LENNON WAS, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, QUITE HEAVY AT THE TIME.THERE MUST BE PHOTOS TAKEN DURING THIS PERIOD OF HIM SOMEWHERE.GEORGE MAYBE 5'10.RINGO 5'6 5'7.ONE IMAGE I HAVE OF THAT DAY IS GEORGE TELLING A FAN HE WAS TOO TIRED TO SIGN AN AUTOGRAPH.PAUL AND JOHN WERE QUITE CHARMING AS WAS RINGO.THIS WAS BACK IN THE DAY WHEN APPROACHING A BEATLE WASN'T IMPOSSIBLE.
Glenn said on 24/Sep/06
Yes,Chris.met everyone except John.all I have is a photo of me with Paul and Linda.I dont understand peoples perceptions on their heights.since I was a kid I could figure it out by looking at photos.at the very worst,its not the greatest,just look at the Abbey Road cover.
Chris said on 24/Sep/06
Didn´t know that you´ve met them Glenn. I always thought John and Paul was about the same height and George a half inch shorter.
Glenn said on 24/Sep/06
Look.this is more closer to the truth.Paul in his youth was 5-11,5-11.5,Lennon was 5-9 to 5-10.George was 5-9 to 5-10, Ringo 5-5 to 5-6.thats as close as your going to get from someone who met 3 out of 4.
Chris said on 23/Sep/06
Hi Roger. Did you ever think of the cuban-heels they used to wear a lot? Are you for sure since you´ve seen John a lot of times that he maybe just looked 5'11'' because of the heels? And by the way, who do you think was the tallest of the beatles?
A Teenaged Beatlemaniac said on 23/Sep/06
he was at least 5'10" if not 5'11", he was almost the exact same height as paul! look for some pics of the rooftop sessions...john had flat tennis shoes on. Another good example is the iconic abbey road shot...again my darling John has tennis shoes on and appears about the smae height as the rest
roger field said on 22/Sep/06
I lived at 9 Emperor's Gate in London in 1964,nearly opposite 14 Emperor's Gate where John and Cynthia Lennon lived. I remember Cynthia swept the steps outside the front door a lot. My memory of John was that he was about 5'11" tall, about two inches taller than I was. I haven't been there since 1964 but I hear that Yoko bought number 14 and made it a museum. At the time I wanted to show John a new Gibson guitar which Arnold Schwarzenegger later played in Munich in 1968. Roger Field.
mcfan said on 6/Sep/06
MHouillon -- do you have the photo with Tom Jones? My memory tells me Jones was taller than both Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison. They were all wearing cuban heels but Jones was taller than Lennon/McCartney by a half-inch. I kind of doubt Lennon was that tall. He only looked 5'10 and McCartney maybe 5'10.25. I'm talking barefoot. Their claim of 5'11 was most likely with normal shoes.
MHouillon said on 6/Sep/06
I'd say John Lennon was 179cm (5'10.5"), because in a pic with him and Tom Jones he was slightly taller than the tiger.
Brad said on 26/Aug/06
5' 10" in Jan. '77 when I met him. He said he dug Paul Simon's song on S&G's last LP about the only boy in New York City (whatever it was called) he just heard on the radio. "Park walking song". Shania: whatever.
said on 13/Jun/06
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that John was 5'11" during his peak, edging 5'10.5" McCartney during the Beatles' heydays, but slipped to 5'10" during the Beatles' breakup and into his solo years:Click HereClick HereClick Here
And someone also made the good point about Lennon's "bow-legged hunched guitar stance", which often makes him appear shorter than the others on stage:Click Here
said on 12/Jun/06
I think Lennon started off as tall, if not taller than McCartney in the Beatlemania heydays. For example:Click HereClick Here
But towards the end, the combination of trimming down on Yoko's diet (he was always very self-conscious of his weight, expressed his disdain for his "Fat Elvis" period in songs like "Help"), increased drug use towards the Beatles' breakup (it wasn't until the end of his solo career where it totally cleaned up, he even wrote songs about it like "Cold Turkey", etc...) and just getting plain older (Lennon was 30 in 1970 - peak height for a person, he was 40 when he died) , probably all lead to a little "shrinkage" towards the end of his life:Click HereClick Here
p.s. Hey Rob, think we need a "Ringo" entry (a.k.a "Richard Starkey")?! :)
Rut said on 9/Jun/06
Rob: Still unsure on Ringo?
mcfan said on 18/Apr/06
If McCartney's peak was at 5'11, does that mean that Lennon and Harrison were too almost 5'11 in your view?
Frank2 said on 16/Apr/06
I met them all and ForensicNYC is almost spot-on correct. I'd say that Harrison and Lennon were closer to being 5'9.5" since Paul seemed to be the tallest of the group. Ringo looked about 5'8", but could have been 5'7". He was quite short next to me. And they all wore boots with higher than normal heels so I had to compensate for me wearing flat shoes. I just remember thinking they were all shorter than they looked on TV. The girl who I was with me that evening thought so too. After we left she told me she never thought of me as being that tall! Go figure! I'll never understand women as long as I live.
beatle fan said on 15/Apr/06
The height on a passport is no evidence of true height. No one measures you for your passport, you fill in the height yourself. Obviously you might cause problems if you exaggerate your height too much, but if you wear heels and stand upright you could easily pass for 3- 4 inches taller.
mcfan said on 4/Apr/06
I think Lennon looks the tallest here. His head is pointing down slightly and the sidewalk is downhill compared to McCartney's. I would say McCartney is .5 inches shorter than Harrison and maybe .75 less than Lennon. It's better to have them all side by side, but I would agree if McCartney had shoes he would just squeak by the other two.
said on 3/Apr/06
Ringo Starr: 5'8"
George Harrison: 5'10"
Paul McCartney: 5'10"
John Lennon: 5'10"
Photo reference: ABBEY ROAD ALBUM COVER
The fab four crossing the road, from left: Harrison in Espadrilles, McCartney is Barefoot!!!, Starr in Cuban Heels, Lennon in Converse Chuck Taylor low cut...Click Here
beatle fan said on 31/Mar/06
I once saw a documentary about the killing of John Lennon and saw a glimpse of his autopsy report and was shocked to see 5'6" listed.However since then I have noticed that he is obviously short. especially in the "anthology" dvd where he is being interviewed (standing) about the death of Brian epstein and he looks tiny. This is the time when they have moved away from cuban heeled boot image.
mcfan said on 5/Mar/06
Why isn't Harrison's height on this site? I would give him 5'9.75. Rob, do you agree that the "Your Mother Should Know" video proves that Lennon and McCartney were just about eye level and Harrison was shorter? They're all wearing the same shoes in the video and they're standing next to each other unlike the Sgt. Pepper album cover.
[Editor Rob: he is on the site. I could never agree with myself on Harrison so he was left 178cm...]
Boogie said on 5/Mar/06
178cm would seem correct when compared to 180cm Mccartney. They rarely shared a mic as John would have his own on the right, but when they do Lennon looks a little shorter. there wasn't much in it if your were to judge from the beatles for sale album cover. imdb i think got it right with JL at 178, GH 179 and PM 180. As for ringo he's definatley under 5'8" as he looks at least 3 inches shorter than the others. 5'6/7" would seem about right.
Chris said on 4/Mar/06
A pic of John
Chris said on 5/Feb/06
In this pic John sings togehter with (6'1
mcfan said on 28/Jan/06
I vividly remember May Pang was interviewed via a taped recording on the Arsenio Hall show because at the time Imagine the movie came out. She said John was about 5'9.5 and that's what she said. You are taller in the morning than at night. I'm only a half-inch difference but I've read other people can be an inch apart.
I don't think John was short at all. Well, if he's short then I guess McCartney, Harrison, Jagger, Richards, and Clapton are short as well. Just yesterday I watched "Don't Let Me Down" on the rooftop. John was wearing white sneakers and Paul was wearing shoes with heels. Paul only looked a half-inch taller, but his heels were bigger. When John started singing he again crouched down looking two inches shorter than Paul.
Chris said on 28/Jan/06
When John didn´t wear any cuban-heels he looked short.
Mcfan- Where did you get that information about what May Pang said? I know Yoko said 5'10''.
mcfan said on 27/Jan/06
The Sgt Pepper photos are very deceptive because he was hunched over and they were angled considerably. I don't think Lennon looked short at all in any photos I've seen unless you're seeing him next to Jack Palance who was 6'4.5.
I know in an interview May Pang (1988) had said John Lennon was 5'9.5. Yoko said 5'10. Maybe he woke up 5'10 and went to bed 5'9.5. I think this was his true height. The three Beatles said they were 5'11, but this is probably in sneakers.
Chris said on 27/Jan/06
Yes that´s right. John looked quite short from the pictures I´ve seen from sgt peppar period, but during his last years when he was on his diet and wore cowboy-heeld shoes, he looked more than 5'11''. I think he is hard to pin down. Do you have any thoughts on Lennon Rob?
james said on 23/Jan/06
sometimes he can look quit tall like 5'11 atleast, but sometimes he can look as short a 5'9"
Rut said on 14/Jan/06
Lennon was 5 10 if not more..for sure!!
Chris said on 14/Jan/06
In this picture you
Chris said on 10/Jan/06
In a documentary about the murder of John Lennon, an owner to an italian restaurant that John used to visit two-three times a week said: Everytime it walks in a tall, slim figure I think it is John.
Many people has described John as tall, but in the end of the seventies he was more skinny than ever. He was on a special diet, maybe he looked even taller then. I´ve seen a lot of documentarys about John and he sometimes wore brown shoes with a big heel. That must have added at lest three inches to his height. Sometimes he looked very tall, sometimes just average.
Chris said on 25/Nov/05
John was measured by his wife Yoko as 5'10''(178 cm). That is according to the Lennon-museum in Tokyo.
McFan said on 27/Aug/05
McCartney was not .5-2 inches taller than Lennon. If you look very closely at the old archive footage or photos, Lennon typically had his legs far apart and would never stand up straight which gave them impression. When they are standing next to each other, I hardly see a difference in their height, but I would say McCartney was .25 inches taller or was the same height.
CelebHeights Editor said on 25/Aug/05
In a 1964 edition of SixTeen magazine he said, "[I'm] just under 6 feet tall. I weigh 159 pounds"
McFan said on 10/Jul/05
Him, Mick Jagger, and Paul McCartney and even Keith Richards back then were all about the same height at roughly 5'10.
RLG said on 3/Jul/05
BTW, I found another passport as well but it's not really readable:
[Editor Rob: yep, it says 5ft 11...]
Anonymous said on 3/Jul/05
I wondered if I could find his passport, and here it is:
That says 5'11" but I'd guess it'd be with shoes if it's accurate.
RLG said on 3/Jul/05
I read a transcript of an early US press conference where The Beatles were asked how did they "stand in the draft" meaning what was their opinion of the US military draft.
The Beatles deflected the question by pretending "draft" meant a light breeze and John Lennon then quipped that he stood 5'11" in any kind of breeze. :D
trueheight said on 3/Jul/05
Editor are you sure? Most sources list him at 6 or 6'1. He was really skinny though. If this is true then that would put ringo at 5'6?
[Editor Rob: I don't know which sources say 6ft...but Ringo for sure looked 5ft 7 and he seemed in many photos to be favoring to wear the biggest heels out of them...]