Add a Comment2425 comments
Average Guess (123 Votes)
6ft 3.3in (191.3cm)
Mike C said on 11/Jul/07
Patrick, I'm not Anonymous, but he and I are on the same page. We, as you, read, watch, study, research, use common sense, and never rely on what someone said more than 7 decades ago ( must have the memory of an African elephant).....I'm my own man and make up my own mind. I'm the principal of an almost 500 student body school and, if I didn't use the mind that God gave me and just repeated mindlessly what everyone said, I would be working for the State Dept.( a bunch of ***holes)...keep it coming Patrick!!! Anonymous? I suspected Tiger, Frank 2, Glen, and even my buddy Gonzalo..a true Spanish gentleman at that!! Who cares, he and you have common sense...
Viper said on 11/Jul/07
And 75 years later, I agree with your grandfather King.
Patrick said on 11/Jul/07
Mike, are you well Anonymous as I suppose? Aniway, I consider you as a friend and a very reasonable person. I have just watched on that fabulous channel (at least for movie lovers as I am proud to belong to), TMC, two "pilot movies" including "high and the mighty". I can assure all those who claim such stupidity as the Duke being 6'2 that they should better see it prior to approximately gauging him!
Once more, even "solo", he looks like a tower! Bob Stack, a superb and unforgettable actor, looks like a child sitten beside him! I know that M. Stack was not a very tall man but he never gave the impression to be short or weak!
Frankly, the more I watch Duke's movies, the more I love him and find him physically as tall as he humanly was: a real Giant!
Anonymous said on 10/Jul/07
Well said, Patrick. Thank you! I guess King doesn't care to scroll down and view pictures/math formula that prove how tall the Duke was...it's easier to write mindlessly and say the first thing that pops into the head.with all respect to his grandfather, 6'2" is nonsense...a "mass" he indeed was!!!!Mike C
Patrick said on 10/Jul/07
King I am sorry but that kind of testimony, we do not really care of in this site; 75 years ago...with all due your grand father respect...
So, John Wayne was the "most numerous leading parts actor" ever; Hence, it proves to be very easy to watch him in very different situations and get some idea of how tall and bulky he was.
I do not know how old are on average, the readers but what I do know is when I was young, most people thought he was between 6'4 and...6'8: sure that is ridiculous but shows how "old time viwers" saw him;
Those who see him at 6'2 should put "new actors" as the so-called star Colin Farrell or even Clooney, Pitt etc. as between 5'6 and 7 tops!
The Duke had always been caricatured (refer to Al Capp strips) as a "mass" towering over everybody; I think people here and not only regarding the Duke, seem having a bone to pick with celebrities;
What is strange is I did not notice as much acrimonious attitude towards precisely, more recent actors.
That is an interesting way of reading this site, psychologically speaking I mean.
King said on 9/Jul/07
About 75 years ago my grand-dad saw him in a street and my grand-dad was 6`1". He was as close to Wayne as you can ever imagine and my grand-dad was shorter than him, he said... but DEFINITELY NOT MORE THAN ONE INCH! Period.
John Wayne was a big 220 pounder man, who was no more, than my grandy says he was - 6ft 2
Croat said on 9/Jul/07
By looking at more pictures, I think he was at his peak somewhere around 6'4''.
Croat said on 9/Jul/07
I am analyzing some of his pictures. On some he looks 6'2'' and a half to me. But I found a better picture where he does look close to 6'4''. Look at how he towers the soldiers. Too bad I can't copy links to websites here.
I'm gonna look at more pictures, and see what I think.
Patrick said on 9/Jul/07
I agree with mike posted 7/July: whether the Duke lost a little height or not is not this site issue: everybody, more or less loose height in getting on in age and the more tall tall you are, the more height you will loose;
We already said right here that he had some ribs off because of serious surgery in 64; That doesn't help to keep your youth height!
So, even though admittedly he did, John Wayne remained a damn tall and imposing man, even old as in "the shootist"; By the way, he was taller than Jimmy in that movie. Do not gauge him outdoors where the ground is uneven but within "interior sets": no doubt about that!
dmeyer said on 8/Jul/07
jacky pm lost 1 in in 5 years with no back problem wath do you think of that you said that by 50s if some loose 0.5 to 0.75 in is more than average
Jacky P.M said on 8/Jul/07
It's seems strange But Ivan 6'2.25 is a bit right.Many people billed their height. My father who died 12 years ago was a solid 6'2 and billed his height to 6'3.He died at 72 yo.
I remember couples of weeks he was shorter than I. He was at least 5'11/6' tall.
mike said on 7/Jul/07
Ivan 6'2.25" & Jacky P.M.....no one is debating that he lost some height...the dabate, at least since I've been reading this site, is that John Wayne's peak height was never 6'4"...mathematically and pictorally, I've proven that indeed he was at minimum 6'4"...he didn't bill his height of 6'4" while in college..the college did. Watch The Quiet Man carefully and read some of his bios. nowhere is he ever described as being less than 6'4"...take it to the bank. Mike C ps..my grandfather, a farmer, died at 102 years of age..was 6' tall when he was a young man. The last time I saw him was when he was 96..he was about an inch taller than I..and I'm 5'6" even...age, curvature of the spine, etc.
Jacky P.M said on 7/Jul/07
I am 56 yo and I remember 5 years ago I was 6'1 now I am 6 ft and i don'thave any back or what else problem so that's mean we can lost inches in the early 50s and i measure myself twice a year.
Ivan 6'2.25 said on 7/Jul/07
I remember that he was 8 inches taller than 5'7 richard attenborough in Brannigan
the year before the shootist.He was 68 yo and richard was 52 yo.
by the way most stars billed their height.
mike c said on 6/Jul/07
Ivan 6'2.25" that would mean that he was 6'1" in 1976...yes? In the picture that you can plainly see, if you scroll down to Gonzalo's May 21 post, he's at least 1 inch taller than JS if he were not leaning..... you're telling us that he lost 3 inches in 7 yrs!.....watch The Shootist carefully and try to spot the scene where he's barefooted next to 5'9" Ron Howard..Wayne towers over him..a hell of a lot taller than 73 inches! Mike C
Ivan 6'2.25 said on 6/Jul/07
in the 1976 shootist movie was 2 inches shorter than nearly 6'3 legendary James Stewart.Like Stewart,The duke was old.
mike c said on 5/Jul/07
He didn't give a **** what other thought of his height..in one of his books he's asked about the lifts..he states that he's heard the rumor..now, he tells the person: "do I look short to you?" to which the person states emphatically,NO! Was at a minimum 6'4"/maybe 6'4.5"..see below Gonzalo May 21...no argument about his height!!!case closed about his height...Mike C..ps, Gonzalo, if you're still out there, the book is on it's way! Gracias amigo.
Patrick said on 1/Jul/07
Thanks Talker for restoring the truth while keeping loving this wonderful actor who was Jimmy Stewart. Personnaly, I love them all because they, each of them, were a part of what America has best: humanity, courage and personality.
I nevertheles think that the One who always definitely delights me still remains John Wayne.
He has something different, a magic, a truth and a dimension which make any of his appearances a great moment. That is the peculiarity, the idiosyncrasy of the true stars.
talker said on 30/Jun/07
Bobo,Jimmy Stewart was anything but a libertarian.In fact his extreme conservatism was a major cause of conflict with his good lifelong friend Henry Fonda who was libertarian.By the way,Stewart is one-if not the-of my favorite actors.
patrick said on 21/Jun/07
Wow, what hatred! I am myself rather "leftist" in some ways and "republican" in some others. It depends on the situation and...the man involved. All of that said to tell you I am not a "die hard"! I am indeed very tired for the moment and perhaps, not able to clearly explain such a delicate point but this is what I meant: I met too many people, "good conscience keepers
bobo said on 20/Jun/07
Patrick. I can't fathom what you are trying to say? Much of it is quite muddled. Wayne favoured the mass killing of civillians to further the interests of capitalism, nothing unique or complex about that, he was a product of his time. He was a simpleton at best, at worst he was a fascist to the core. Green Berets could have been made by Goebbels had he lived. As for his height: I don't disagree with you in anyway...he was 6'4' , no doubt. Jimmy Stewart was a libertarian and as far as I am aware did not support the illegal bombing of Cambodian civillians and civillian infrastructure (technically this is called terrorism) WAyne did and promoted its cause whenever he got the chance. Wayne represnted that mean streak in American politics which advocates killing a few people for the betterment of the many but only on foreign soil; it survives to this day and the profit motive remains the same. 6'4' of nastyness
anonymous said on 20/Jun/07
what really is annoying about judging wayne's height is most of his movies were westerns, and it is very rarely even ground, so for one moment, he looks 6`4, next he looks 6`8, next, he can look as short as 6`0. his westerns are not the way to go to determine his height.
patrick said on 18/Jun/07
The shooting lesson, JW Height, is given ON AN UNEVEN SOIL ! He appars in turn taller and eventually a bit shorter than Jimmy in that excellent movie. Bur the Duke stand salways, in all of his films, on ONE leg, the otther being always a little bit bent. tYPICAL CASUAL j. Wayne posture.
Mike T, I do not say anything else many times in my numerous intervention on this site! YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ...and not only regarding his height!
What you, Mike T, say about "him" and his believes is aboslutely relebant too!
He was what he was and claimed to be; He did not lie and first and foremost, defended values being for him worth fighting for.
That can be NOT yours bobo but it is not because you do not share them that you have to diminish him as do many so called humanist and "tolerant" people do! As for wearing heels, he wore them as did all the westerns actors playing with him! About lifts, that point has already been discussed many times here and Mike T gave the best answer ever on 16 june.
I invite you to re read it!
As for the actors you mentioned...Clooney and Penn for example: it is so easy to be on the "pacifist" side! I am not againts them, I do love Ghandi who is for me a hero, but HE PAID of hi person for his fight! The wealthy people full of "good feelings" about humanity and, as result, full of self contentment and good conscience, I am really fed up with them! Henry Fonda was a real good pacifist, a brave man and was close friend, the best in truth, with Jimmy Stewart who was MUCH MORE "rightist" than John Wayne ever was!
John Wayne was able to support DEMOCRAT ideas, what he did about Panama (with President Carter) just because he found them "just" and right!
Reducing people in summing up their positions and ideas or in extracting a position or a phrase from its context comes down to act as all the Staline" or Hitler of this planet used to do and keep on doing!
bobo said on 17/Jun/07
I reckon a 6'4' in his hey day. As for being fallible, How fallible do you have to be to support the mass killing of civillians? I don't. Your quote is wrong I believe. You say: "he belived in American right from wrong" Don't you mean, "he believed in America right OR wrong'?, which is why the US is in such a mess, too many people with blind obedience to some mythical destiny which always meets with a reality at some point, whether it be Vietnam or Iraq. Reality has a funny way of catching up with you. There are plenty of actors with more integrity and sophistcation these days, thank the lord, Sean Penn, Clooney, De Niro etc. Wayne had the politics of an average 8 year old, all teary patriotism without the compassion. ANyway, he was certainly tall, his grandad was a civil war veteran which may explain why he had the political sophistcation of a 19th century prairie farmer.
Mike T said on 16/Jun/07
bobo, you don't need to clown around with us. I'm unfamiliar with John Wanye, but John Wayne was tall. How tall exactly, I don't know. How tall do you suppose he was? He did wear heels, that's obvious from photos, along with anyone else that acted in westerns. Whether he wore lifts, I honestly don't know. Does anyone else on here know for sure? I'd like to know. His footwear in Hellfighters didn't appear to be anything special, and I'd say he was about an inch shorter than 6'5" Jim Hutton. Regardless of his political beliefs, I believe, that he believed in America, right from wrong, and doing the best he could with the time and talents he posessed. He was human, just like any of the rest of us, and not infallible. Everyone's interpretation of a great human being is different, but I would dare say that more people would agree that he had as much or more charactor and integrity in the Hollywood scene as anything out there these days.
bobo said on 16/Jun/07
John Wanye wasa Right Wing Nutjob with some pretty odd views about the US and other countries. He supported the mass killings in Cambodia and believed whole heartedly in the American Empire. Hardly a 'great human being'. And yes for the purposes of this site it does matter if he wore heels or not....
Mike T said on 16/Jun/07
Well guys, I got The Duke A Life In Pictures book. I have to tell you there a lot of good pictures of John Wayne throughout his career. In his younger years when he is slim and very fit, it is obvious he is tall. I would say right at 6'4". I really don't think he started to lose height until about 1964, when he had his cancer surgery. I can't imagine the pain from losing a lung and a couple of ribs would be like. This guy was tough as nails! Anyway, his stocky build later on may give the illusion of not being that tall, until you see him next to people that are in the 6'4-6'5" range, and he is right there. I really don't think he was less than about 6'3' later on. I recommend getting the book, and seeing for yourselves. I think most Hollywood actors fudge their heights a little, so if he did, then the others did too. Who really knows if he wore lifts or not? The style of boots he wore, I think it would be almost impossible to walk with lifts in them. They had a pretty healthy heel on them anyway, as all cowboy boots do. Does it even matter in the end anyway, because he was a great actor and human being. He provided good entertainment for millions of people, and is still greatly admired by millions to this day. He really was BIG!
JW HEIGHT said on 15/Jun/07
in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Jimmy Stewart appears to be about half an inch taller than Duke, specifically in the scene when Duke is giving him the shooting lesson.
patrick said on 15/Jun/07
I just don't buy it! Robert Ryan was a "lord"; I just cannot accept him to be reduced to a tramp! A man saying that about another actor, above all such as John Wayne, would just be worthy of disdain!
Unless bearing a proof, a real one, of that word, I prefer not to say what I think of his author.
And by coincidence, that one, of course, dwarfs the Duke until 6
Brian said on 15/Jun/07
I've seen the Duke listed on sites between 6'0" (which is really hard to believe!) to his widely-believed height. He had to have been at least 6'2" barefoot. I agree with Gonzalo, regardless if he was 6'2" or really 6'4", at least his screen dominance made him look huge anyway.
Gonzalo said on 15/Jun/07
Well, with or without lifts Wayne would still be a great actor. Robert Ryan was also a great actor but that commentary sucks
King said on 15/Jun/07
Interesting... Once Robert Ryan shouted that "You`d be nothing without your lifts." And lots of people, including Ryan himself, has stated that Wayne wasn`t that tall... I think 6`2" was correct.
Mike T said on 4/Jun/07
Hey mike c, I got the book ordered, and look forward to reading it. Thanks for the info! Patrick, from the information I got on the Duke, his boot size was indeed 11E. This information I got right from Paul Bond Boots website, by clicking on an interview movie he did. Just do a search for Paul Bond Boots. Once you look at his style of cowboy boots, I think you will immediately recognize them as what the Duke wore in his movies, and from some of the pictures I've seen posted on this site. It seems a lot of guys from that era had smaller feet, for whatever reason. My dad only wore an 8 or 9 and he was 5'8. I wear a 12D and I'm 6'3.5. I know some guys that are shorter than me that have bigger feet than me, so I think it's kind of a crap shoot. Anyhow, thanks for the comments guys. I tried to post a link, but it didn't work.
patrick said on 4/Jun/07
FIRST THANKSA LOT Mike C & T and Gnzalo and other "Duke admirers" whose I am proud to be!
Mike T, are you absolutely sure the Duke wore only "11E" shoes? I know that Rock Hudson was amazed in seeing how "small" were his feet but, all the same, "11" is just one over me and i am only 5'7/5'8!
I re watched "the war wagon" and it is so visible they had to put Kirk Douglas (one of my favorites!) on "stilts" that i found that funny! Besides, the Duke towers over ANYBOY ELSE int that movie, including Bruce Cabot (so 6' MINIMUM) and above all, Howard Keel who was notably known for being 6'3.
Admittedely, "he wore lifts"!!! I wish i could buy such ones (lifts) because wearing them and walking "normally" with already high heels cow boy boots (as everyone else in westerns - thanks Gonzalo) , riding horses and climbing, jumping and even running as John did (I don't mention when he is obviously replaced with a stuntman), I say: "bravo!" because I just couldn't do it!
mike c said on 2/Jun/07
Thanks, again, Mike T for your comments..he was a great, albeit with some flaws,man. He stuck by his beliefs and his love for this great nation of ours.
You can purchase The Duke A Life in Pictures at Barnes and Noble...they usually have it on sale for less than $8.00. Get on the internet and order it...you'll never regret it..The pics. are fantastic....a truly TALL man in spirit and in physical height. Glad to read your comments and welcome to the club of JW's admirers. Mike C. ps Check out Gonzalo's posting on May 21 and the four pics of the Duke..they came from the book....
Mike T said on 2/Jun/07
I think the Duke held his height pretty well compared to a lot of guys as they age. When you take into consideration the health problems he had, this guy had fortitude. Even in his later films, he was still very agile, and insisted on doing a lot of his own stunts. He was very broad, and stocky, and I think this would give the illusion that he may not be as tall as 6'4". Yet when he was around other guys this tall, he was right there with them. He looks all of 6'4" in The Quiet Man, but was much thinner then. I still think even toward the end he was close to 6'3" maybe just a bit less. The Duke was truly a big man in more ways than one. He's always had my admiration and respect, as with so many others. Happy 100! p.s. mike c, where could a guy purchase The Duke A Life in Pictures? Barnes and Noble or somewhere like that? Thanks.
mike c said on 31/May/07
Thank you Mike T...I knew there had to be a logical explanation..tired of all the stuff about being short and having small feet. Mike ps Hi Gonzalo, when I get another The Duke A Life in Pictures I'll send it to you...Gracias por todo!
Gonzalo said on 31/May/07
Wayne did a lot of westerns in which he wore boots, as his partners in those movies did. But, I have said this before, Wayne also looked very tall in other non westerns movies. Check Donovan
Mike T said on 30/May/07
Just a bit of information on John Wayne's boot size. According to Paul Bond, the fellow who custom made boots for the Duke, he wore an 11E. The footprints at Hollywood would look small, do to the fact that these boots have quite a steep rake forward on the heel to a more central position under the pivot point of the foot. This is common on cowboy boots. I doubt very much he would need lifts in these, as the heels on a lot of these custom boots are in the 2 to 2-1/2 inch range. Just a little info.
mike c said on 30/May/07
Bill, with all due respect, your point is? Click on Gonzalo, May 21 below and the stunt man was 100% right....a very big man in more ways than one...Mike C
Bill said on 30/May/07
There is a cast picture in the Alamo in San Antonio showing Wayne wearing built up moccasins. In the movie "Trouble Along the Way" wearing street shoes he looks significantly shorter than Chuck Connors. I recently met an old fellow who worked as a stunt man on "The Alamo." He is over 6 ft and described Wayne as a big man.
Bill Friday said on 25/May/07
My daughter saw JW on the I Love Lucy ep today. She said he stood about a head taller than Desi Arnaz.
mike c said on 21/May/07
Gonzalo, thank you, pal. Mil Gracias!!! You did a wonderful job...I could never had figured it out....But, John Wayne was 6' tall...invisible lifts!!! Take a good look guys at the Flying Tigers photo...yes, all of 6'4"+ and the 1929 doesn't show his shoes...definitely no lifts...I must have cut off the bottom portion when I scanned it. The best one is the 1969 photo with JS and Clint, et al., still a huge man in spite of all he had gone through..use your imagination and straighten him out...note that JS is standing straight while JW is bending forward to cut...Clint is in the foreground thus appears taller. And, Lee Marvin, 6'2" definitely next to 6'4" Clint..Gonzalo, you made my day. After a tough day at school this was definitely the highlight of my day..
Mike C ps, Gonzalo I don't see the JW Ford pic.
patrick said on 21/May/07
Guys, how tall was Dean Martin? 5'10 not less OK? So, in Rio Bravo, that wonderful actor singer was like a child beside to the Duke;
the other thing i wanted to say is that in the scene John Wayne confronts 6'3 John Russel, he by turns, appears taller, then shorter a bit and thereafter definitely taller! The magic of that art we never can trust in about heigts of similar people!
said on 21/May/07
Well, I hope this thing works. Here are some pics that MikeC sent to me and one that I already had of Wayne towering over 6ft john ford. I hope you all can see it. wayne looks very tall in this pics but we know how it works: Wayne is wearing lifts or Ford was 5`9. The same old storyClick Here
mike c said on 19/May/07
Height Watcher, how did you arrive at that very concise measurement? .75" no less. Mike C ps. you're right, he was down quite a bit from 6'4.5" circa 1950.
Height Watcher said on 18/May/07
Next to 6 ft 4 Rock Hudson, in The Undefeated Wayne was 6 ft 2.75 in. I am sure he had shrunk a bit by then though.
Tony G said on 17/May/07
Actually, Bob Hope was 100 and a few months. So was George Burns.
patrick said on 16/May/07
Thanks for the tip, Gonzalo! I had forgotten! 100 years, so soon...I can't get over it! Bob Hope died at 101, Eddie Albert at 99 and K Hepburn at almost as much as thme! But they finally leave us as we will do when it is our turn;
Fortunately, they still are alive for ever more than we will be thanks to the magic of "cinema"!
Nice to read you soon, fellows!
Gonzalo said on 16/May/07
Hi, MikeC. I
geeoo said on 14/May/07
one explanation about j.w.'s height was the walk or 'gait' he used purportedly to change his image on screen. my take is how uncomfortable @ about 6' wearing 3-4 inch lifts to appear taller just as allan ladd was similier. anyway they were both great in there're era when most movies made some sense.
patrick said on 14/May/07
That's really refreshing to read you mike c; I wishi'd meet more people like you; the same about Gonzalo!
I don't know why people want all cost "shrink" some big stars; It seems that reducing big men to be an old human habit; the did the same with Moses, Jesus? So, why not doing it with movie stars like Robert Mitchum or John Wayne?
"They all wear lifts BUT I" seem saying "those" people; "I am tall but not them"!
Being taller than "others" remains the best way to make oneself bigger than any other!
Hope to read you soon fellows!
mike c said on 11/May/07
Great, Patrick, as usual...and also Gonzalo. I have 4 pictures on my desktop that will open the eyes of all the people that still insist the Duke was 6'2" or less..I can't figure out how to get them from the desktop to this page...Ed. Rob has told me that it's easy..if Gonzalo or anyone can help, you certainly will admit that the Duke was a giant...especially in the 20's, 30's and right into the early 50s..one pic. Salute ~1929 definitely shows a giant of a man...with regular shoes..but, then, it's not enough.....For all of you out there with doubts, rent/buy the Quiet Man and pay close attention to the shots with the giant Victor...look at the shoes...Oh, I forgot, they're both wearing lifts...anyway, thanks, Patrick. Como estas? Gonzalo. Mike C
Patrick said on 10/May/07
By the way, Kevin T, JHON WAYNE AND JAMES STEWART MADE JUST ONLY TWO FILMS TOGETHER: L. Valnece and the Duke's last one: the shootist. So, as for it is to compare them, not that easy, isnt'it?
Patrick said on 10/May/07
Mr Kevin T, you seem to forget that if the Duke indeed wore big heels, as is with any cow boy boots (i wear themJimmy Stewart wore them as any other westerner; As for Liberty Valence, if it is true that in some scenes he appears a bit shorter it is ever just because of different angles or "whatever" details which, between two almost alike people makes sometimes one taller then shorter than the other; That happens all the time, even in the real life;
I have a friend who before a mirror appears sometimes taller then shorter than I IN THE SAME DAY, with both the same shoes on !
I know that movie by heart and have it on DVD and and i can assure any honest person that JWayne looks taller in MANY scenes;
But if you can lead a horse to water...
I furthermore agree with Gonzalo and many many other people : the Duke ALWAYS looked very tall and not "just tall" as a 6'2 range guy could be;
Imagine him beside Matthew Fox for example! He always towered over anyone but James Arness who was at the time 6'7 and besides, did not look a lot shorter in comparison anyway;
Let's be serious: who ever claimed that J Wayne was not very tall ?
Gonzalo said on 10/May/07
Kevin T, you forget Wayne looked very tall in all his films, wether he wore boots or not. Have you seen Donovan
Kevin T said on 9/May/07
Tony G: 6' 2" is quite tall. He was a big man. But he wasn't 6' 4.5", as is often asserted, at least if we're talking stocking feet. The whole issue could come down to costuming. I'll bet in his platform cowboy boots, with his ten-gallon Stetson on, JW looked quite large, especially surrounded by pint-sized Hollywood actors.
Anonymous said on 9/May/07
Athletic records from his days playing American football state that he was '6 feet 4 inches tall and 195 pounds'.
Tony G said on 9/May/07
I was reading the "Q&A" section of Barry William's (Greg Brady) website. He was asked if he ever met John Wayne. 5'10" Barry said, "Yes, I meet him once at the Paramount studios. He was tall."
I don't know if that helps any. ;-)
Kevin T said on 8/May/07
"talker says on 27/Mar/07
From Valance.JW looks shorter than JS,and seems to look UP to Stewart in the other one."
Because JW WAS shorter than Stewart, by about an inch, assuming they wore similar bootwear (which is unlikely). All photographic still evidence suggests Wayne's height in bare feet was about 6.2 at most. I won't speculate on lifts. But I know from looking at photos that Wayne wore 3" Cuban heels in his cowboy roles throughout his career. And even allowing for those, Stewart looks taller in the films where they appear together onscreen. People who claim Wayne looks taller than Stewart in Liberty Valance and The Shootist must be measuring him from the top of his hat.
patrick said on 26/Apr/07
Yes, he did anonymous, and that is the characteristic of great, really great people; I buy 6'4.5 at the quiet man period and for long; My firnd met him several times as he did with tall men as G.PECK, Jimmy Stewart and others but he told me he never met someone like the Dude; He was taller than anybody and bigger too, much bigger.
And let alone his fabulous charism and personality; he was glowing as is it with real stars in the sky; rare among "small humans". We need that kind of real man, whatever what one can think about such or such opinion, position; Who cares? I prefer having deal with an opponent even an adversary i respect than people of my side i could not name "men".
anonymous said on 25/Apr/07
he does look around that mark. probably just 6`4 though. he really did have a presence of a 6`6 tall man
JOSH said on 23/Apr/07
wayne stated his height as 6ft 4 and a half in the film the quiet man.
patrick said on 20/Apr/07
"et bien voil
flora mendez said on 19/Apr/07
Yes, I met him once and he is every bit of 6 feet 4. I would say a little taller. He was very polite.
mike c said on 18/Apr/07
thanks, anonymous....i bought the classic version of the quiet man..uncut version...it's great..I can see it over and over...those were great actors..funny, yet the message was there..and the duke was great and very tall. mike..ps...how do i get 4 pics from my desktop to this page...shows the duke at his best height..6'4.5" no doubt...
anonymous said on 18/Apr/07
mike c, i just saw the quiet man again. i have to admit, i liked it more the second time. great performances. wayne really does shine out as being the tall, cool guy.
anonymous said on 17/Apr/07
i admit he does look rather large in his later movies. i am not sure about him being a true 6`4, but still, no less that 6`2 1/2.
patrick said on 10/Apr/07
Brian, Bruce Dern was probably 6'1 at the time; that wis what he appears to me beside Clint in hang'em high and others; he looks taller thant 6'David Janssen in an episode of the fugitive he costared. Besides, Dern was slender but not thin at all; a good broad shouldered american student type guy! The Duke is just ... an oak!
Chris, i haven't seen that movie for long and i wish i'd do soon but i remember one thing: depending how they are shot, either this is J.Wayne who looks taller or Rock Hudson; Alway the same problem;
In the Red river, great great movie with a fabulous Monty Clift deservedly oscared at his first role, that one doesn't look 5'10 as he really was; He looks much taller and no trick seem justify it; It is just directors KNOW how to make someone, anyone, look taller than he is (or shorter) when necessary. Monty would have been dwarfed by the Duke otherwise.
The same with Alan Ladd in Shane where despite his only 5'6 MAX, never looks so even in front of 6'3 Ben Johnson (at the time Ben was 6'3).
Brian said on 9/Apr/07
Agreeing with what Patrick mentioned on May 30th, John could've really crushed Dern in The Cowboys, hehe. Yet I always thought Dern was around 6'1" (6'0" it is!)and kind of on the slender side. Big John was much burlier than him though regardless of height!
chris said on 8/Apr/07
I was watching the movie The Undefeated today which starred John Wayne and Rock Hudson.
I can honestly say out of most people saying Hudson was taller, I couldnt see him being as tall, maybe half an inch to quarter of an inch shorter than Wayne.
mike c said on 6/Apr/07
great, Patrick, thanks. mike c...ps..now, if I could only figure how to send four pictures that I have on my desktop....Wayne at the peak of his height!
patrick said on 5/Apr/07
PLEASE MIKE C AND ANONYMOUS, please...read this even it is too long; In advance, thanks:
BOTH are GREAT! "the taming of the Shrew" inspired "the quiet man" which could have been a "light" tragedy and sometimes turns out to be; great moments whose Maureen throwing "the" dowry money into the fire is one of the best (what an actress !)
"the searchers" IS a real tragedy: the N.Wood's one, her family's one and the worst because internal inferno: the J.Wayne's one;
Fabulous movie and, true, even greater role for J.Wayne: immense, tragic, noble and AMBIGUOUS in the same time! His LAST image, turning back to the dardk, shaded closing door...ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL MOMENT IN CINEAM EVER!
J.Ford as J.Wayne were touched with something greater than human conditio as it is in every masterpiece;
Easy to love the masterpiece "the quiet man" : genius, fabulous script, fabulous acting and directing within a fantastic people and and beautiful and vivid country AND, and...so funny and exciting!
The second one is more hard, rude and shows another face of our human heart; Wayne is over what anyone could expect from him; I think that this role and later, the liberty valence one, made him FOR EVER, ever, even for those who "disliked" him at least a GREAT actor; That definitely settled his ability to act in the way we mean "Brando" or Hoffmann" acting; I personnaly do not care of that kind of sterile comparison BUT since i consider important that the Dude is NEVER forgotten or relegated to just "a conservative cow boy actor", i take into consideration how he can be seen and appreciated by the "method" actors addicted ("ah, Robert De Niro!" "ah, Al Pacino!");
the end: don't mistake : i like very much these actors but who among them could have replaced the Dude? Not even Brando, a tough guy in his way!
Bye fellows !
Mike C said on 4/Apr/07
anonymous...take a look at the list of legends that made The Quiet Man..then look at the cast of The Searchers..no comparison...both great films, but no comparison with the earlier Wayne film..a classic, a film in its in own class..but still respect your opinion..glad your on the team.mike c.
anonymous said on 3/Apr/07
searchers= Brilliant masterpiece
Quiet Man= Interesting Flick
John Wayne's performance in the Searchers was incredible.
patrick said on 2/Apr/07
anonymous: you cannot say that "the searchers"i s better than "the quiet man" because theses film features are too different; their aims are opposite even though there is ONE connection: John Ford's humanity with a big "H" and a terrific talent to put it a value higher than humanbeings deserve it (ususally).
It is like comparing a Cadillac to a Ferrari; non sense; What you do is saying "I PREFER THIS ONE" but not claiming one of them is "better"; The fabulous quality of the script, the screenplay and the way scenes are edited makes both absolutely perfect; one is something comparable to a "rhapsody" since tragedylike but being based upon a culture and a legend of Ireland, more fun than tragic; not a drama but could have been; that is the quiet man;
the other, a masterpiece, offered a greater play to the Duke in a way, because, as he did in Liberty Valence, he is anambiguous character and finds himself alone when "his job is over"; Why alone (and NOT lonely for he accepts - that's visible thanks to enormous Wayne talent - his fate) so, "why alone" ? because if he succeeded in finding out the girl, he owes it just thanks to a last moment harrowing awareness of what he was about to do; it's a tragedy, the one of the heroe who cannot taste the fruit of his victory as Moses was.
He always, lifts or not, who cares ! was more than 6'2; even when old he was tall; look at his waist and you will see how long remained his bust, though a good belly; At the Paramount studio i visited several times, there a famous photo showing Hudson next to Wayne, Montand, Marvin and Clint. The Duke looks a little bit shorter than Hudson but this one is standing very straight while Wayn is a bit slouching (cow boy cool pose) and he in any way, is more than two inches than 6'2 Montand; (i knew him and he was really tal above all for a french!) It was in 1969 and the Duke was 18 years older than Rock.
Too kind of you Mike C. I wish i'd be able to do better but i have no time; I love this page which allows us to talk about the star of the stars!
brando, do you know that Brando didn't like the Duke while the Duke found Brando one of the greatest american artists? Thanks for backing us up!
brando said on 1/Apr/07
the duke was always over 6ft 4 inches tall.
He also said his height as 6ft 4 and a half in the quet man.
said on 1/Apr/07
Ed. Rob. I haven't been able to send you two photos of the Duke...when I try the various addresses I get the message that message was not delivered..I tried Click Here
can I attach two photos to this post? Mike C
[Editor Rob: you've got to use www.tinyurl.com to post links to images, just plop the url http://www.blah.com/blah.jpg into tinyurl.com to get a link to post]
Mike C said on 30/Mar/07
Patrick, belated thank you for your common sense and for the compliment...the math I use is usually taught in grades 5-6 in my school district....very old mathematical approach used by museums, carpenters, and historians to duplicate objects in a picture....will shortly try to scan the book I have (mentioned it quite a bit durng the yr. on this page) and the pics that show JW as a giant of a man..especially in the late 20's, 30's, and 40's..the book is a must buy for anyone on this post who admires the Duke as I do....thank you also for being a gentleman..when I first found this site, I read a lot of thrashy responses..most likely from guys who celebrated a tad too much while they were surfing the web....while a smart response is always fun, stupidity and name calling quickly elitcites from this principal mental images of the individual's IQ...usually less the 100..keep your responses coming...love this page!!!! mike c
anonymous said on 30/Mar/07
The Searchers was better than the Quiet Man, but was Wayne truly 6`4. Certainly didn't look it in his later years. Looked more 6`2, but in his prime, supposedly, he was pretty massive. But those Rock Hudson shots. Hmmmm...
patrick said on 30/Mar/07
Size shoes is not a good landmark to evaluate a height; I went MANY TIMES before the Mann's Chinese Theatre where prints make us dream of old time where stars walked along with Grecian gods!
I was surprised too when seeing the Duke's prints and ...I thought about it longly and i found other prints not being very related to their authors; THAT DEPENDS ON HOW WET IS THE CEMENT. That is why many guys known for having huge or long hands seem having been there where just children! Sly has deeply pushed his thick hands in the cement so did Clint but very often, i happen to have bigger hands than people i thought being mcuh more strapping than I am.
J.Wayne was known for not having especially big feet in relation to his huge hands; that happens and means nothing; Tom Welling is 14 what is huge and could theorically be for that up to 6'7 or even 8 which is not;
In "the cow boys", nobody can doubt that J Wayne could crush the yet well built 6' Bruce Dern like a flea! at a moment he surrounds Dern with his arms and i always feel sorry for him (Dern
Mike C said on 29/Mar/07
threadtrekker says on 21/Mar/07
I always assumed JW was shorter than he appeared just because my fist print and foot print covered (entirely) his on the famous Hollywood sidewalk I visited in high school. Just for reference I am 5'8".5. Sadly my shoe size is typically 11 and I can pick up a basketball with one hand so my proportions are sort of "off", but if JW was 6'4" is were "off" too I would think.
threadtrekker , I'm 5'6" and wear 5.5/or 6EEE size shoes. My first cousin, who's my age, wears 7.5 D shoe size....I weigh 150 lbs. He's 15 lbs. lighter...one just can't claim that a huge man would automatically have large feet...it's the old wives tales of a large nose usually means a big pecker..and you tall guys would agree that a large nose doesn't necessarily mean your pecker is large...just ask your wives!! only kidding. mike c
patrick said on 29/Mar/07
OK, common sense sounds coming back for some people!
the Duke is OF COURSE sitting on a table which besides, needs to very tall to reach such a height ! I know that movie as "movie maniac" only is able to! The other picture is of that kind which IN ANY WAY allows to evaluate a height just because it is shot on an especially uneven ground;
This man has always been a tower and even with tal guys like Ward Bond or Vic Mc Laglen, he always taller, significantly taller!
I DO ADMIRE THE MIKE C TALENT IN CALCULATING HEIGHTS ! WOW ! That's some thing! Keep it up !
Ther are two kind of people: those who see the glass half empty and those, as I am, who see it half FULL ! Meditate upon that please!
Mike C said on 28/Mar/07
thank you, anonymous. I'll accept 6'3.5" by late 50's and after his removal of ribs, etc. operation..6'4"-6'4.5" in The Quiet Man..the best picture of the era..watch it and compare him to 6'3" Victor, the brute of a boxer.....hell of an actor! Look at the shoes and at the scene where JW is standing in bare feet in the doorway of the cottage....we can have so much fun with this page if we remember that unless we resurrect JW, measure him in his prime, we'll never truly know if he was indeed 6'4" or 6'4.5"..just teasing. thank you, mike c
anonymous said on 28/Mar/07
I agree with you mike c. This is a fun page.
As for wayne, he may have been 6`3 1/2
said on 28/Mar/07
That`s what I remember, Talker, that Wayne was sitting on a table.
Here is Wayne looking very tall. Howard Hugues is in the picture. Hughes is listed here 1`92Click Here
talker said on 28/Mar/07
before anybody jumps on me.ok,sorry,forget the pic with the match from Valance i posted,i just saw that scene and Wayne was leaning on a table.mr.editor can you remove that photo please?
Mike C said on 27/Mar/07
Patrick/Talker...my additional mathematical proof on November 24 '06..Patrick, I'm referring to the famous shot of JW in England while filming Brannigan....:mike c says on 24/Nov/06
Frank 2..what wonderful pics!..especially love the shot of John Wayne in London while shooting Brannigan. Tiger, can't resist a little mathematics here! JW measures (on my computer screen) 5.25" and the belt he has on measures 3/32"..again, using proportions of elements in a pic. to their true measurements I've come up with 77" for Wayne....3/32" (.09375)divided by 1.375" (actual measurement of the belt in real life [measured some of my own for this])is equal to 5.25" divided by X (Wayne's real height)..see below for the steps involving cross multiplication and solving for X..Wayne, Frank, with what are apparently normal shoes measures a full 77"..6'5"..add the inch for the heel..he's lost 1/2inch since the log cabin shot....love a challenge! Frank, why don't you write a book (unless you've already done that)..your pics. and info. are priceless.! Remember guys, let's have some fun..enough crap out there..we don't need anymore, especially on a site that should be fun!Rob, this is my favorite page!.....Mike C
said on 27/Mar/07
From Valance.JW looks shorter than JS,and seems to look UP to Stewart in the other one. Click HereClick Here
anonymous said on 27/Mar/07
Nice picture talker. Also, check out the way Wayne is standing. It is like he is trying to stretch himself out as much as possible. And Fonda is laid back.
patrick said on 27/Mar/07
Thanks Mike C! Lee Van Cleef was not utterly spared and died at 64 only of an heart attack but not allegedly caused by "something else"!
MISTER TALKER !!! If I were your physician, for your own sake i certainly would prescribe you an deep eye exam or a good pair of glasses!
If only in watching that photo from Fort Apache, anybody, i mean ANY ONE HAVING A COMMON SIGHT AND ABILITY OT MEASURE APPROXIMATELY THINGS HE SEES, anybody so, could tell you there is EXACTLY 6,4 cm, more so two inches and half between them; The great Henry Fonda was standing straight up what is not the case of the Duke, as usual; Fonda was 6'1 and half minimum at the time; If you don't believe me, do like me: enlarge ten times the picture and print it; take a ruler, a straight one, not the "viper brand" one (joke Viper !)and calculate! Fonda never looked nothing than tall because his height was so and he was slender too; he never appears like "that" in his career; Watch the movie all along and you'll see how tall the Duke does not "look" tall but appears to be so, ALL THE TIME!
please open your eyes for once as it is sooo obvious; you give the stick to be beaten with! No offense of course.
Gonzalo said on 27/Mar/07
Well, Talker. I see more than a one inch difference. I don`t see a three inch difference, that`s for sure; I see 1`5-2 inches
Mike C said on 26/Mar/07
Talker, you sound like a very intelligent man...l" is the width of my thumb..I'm 5'6" tall and weight 150 lbs. Give me the actual measurement of an object in the photo and you'll agree with me...we need a full body shot for both JW and HF plus the actual measurement of an object, e.g. belt, fence, etc. ..refer to my post on Feb. 7...truly love this debate...Mike C ps. You're my man Patrick!. the nuke bomb testings and the cancer that was contrcted are well documented...I sure wish people would read....I think only Lee Van Cleef was spared....FYI read John Wayne, the Man Behind the Myth......thanks
said on 26/Mar/07
mIkeC,yes,JW looks 1"taller than Fonda.You seem to think 1" is very little,it isnt.
another shot from Fort Apache,JW doesnt look 6'4"next to Fonda.Click Here
patrick said on 26/Mar/07
Perhaps Viper and that sounds logical that he killed himsel yet...it is known, always from physicians, he deid from cancer caused by his Gengis Khan role in the conqueror; shot near the us army made their nuke bomb testings, he got as almost all the crew, starting with co-star Susan Hayward, the director DICK POWEL,P. Armandariz (co stared in three godfathers) and Agnes Moorehead too, a nuclear cancer; It's likeable that otherwise, th Duke would have live until late 70 or even 80ty. John Huston (81) or Bob Mitchum(80)USED TO DRINK AND SMOKE all in all as much as Wayne (don't forget guys like Dean Martin or Ray Milland !). These guys werenot built in the same stuff than we are; Lokk Raoul Walsh and read his biography...you will thank me after!
anonymous: what photo are you talking about? He wore lifts, huges ones in the late 60ies; this man was as hurt as his character were supposed to be as he mentions himself in "cow boys" facing Bruce Dern! Fellows, giv'm a break ; He was very tall and not only because of his height!
anonymous said on 25/Mar/07
Not that i don't think he is 6`4, but how do we know he wasn't wearing lifts in that photo?
Mike C said on 24/Mar/07
Talker says on 10/Mar/07
in the pic with H.Fonda posted by Gonzalo 28/2,JW looks one inch taller which would make him 6'2.5". Talker, somehow missed your post...by no stretch of the imagination is the Duke only one inch taller in that pic...you've got to be kidding! With all due respect, plese tell me you don't work with measurements or any job that requires accuracy of measurement!
Viper said on 24/Mar/07
So he drank gallons of tequila and litterally killed his cancer but ended up killing himself?
patrick said on 23/Mar/07
BECAUSE IT IS NOT "RUMORS" BUT FACTS, just only AFTER a certain period, after having been operated in 1964, certainly not before; He got ribs removed and and pain in breathing let alone what causes as destructive factors such an illness: cancer! It's already a miracle that a man could act after that and, furthermore, very few months after since he made "the sons of Katie Elder" where he rode his horse and offered a physique which in any way, could let guess he had been so close to death! This man was NOT, definitly not, an "ordinary" man; In 1968, the cancer came back; his doctors warned him and he told them he wasn't reday to capitulate so easily; so, he got to Mexico and during four days, drank all the "one year mexican tequila production"!
When he went back home, cancer seemed having preferd to stay in Mexico instead of in his body; The story has only been known after his death by the physicians themselves; he "burned out" his cancer cells in short!
Try to fancy what a human body of this size underwent when getting a entire (left) lung off!
Mike C said on 22/Mar/07
Glenn, please reread Patrick's Feb. 7 entry...good one. Mike C
glenn said on 22/Mar/07
but why the lifts rumors with wayne?
patrick said on 22/Mar/07
Good posted Gonzalo! You're right about the searchers! It is obvious that he is much taller and bigger than yet well built and 6' tall J.Hunter; no doubt!
Thanks in turn Mike C! I find this debate all the more since interesting than that allows all of us to pay tribute to a wonderful star i, and i am sure, "you", miss so much! That the general point of interest of that entire site: thanks editor Rob!
The Duke was, besides, one of the very rare actors (with Robert Mitchum one of my favourites) capable to act from behind: he is imposing and you can easily find what he thinks or means to do, his face being off shot;
Viper, i wish i'd be you just one second to figure out upon what evidenc, for you, you base your judgment to assume J.Wayne (and so many others) is shorter than claimed everywhere; I mean, i don't see more arguments to argue Clin or Price would have been taller than him. For everybody i met, J.Wayne has ALWAYS looked as a "giant" and i don't mean that figuratively.
I REPEAT ABOUT LIFTS HE WORE THEM MUCH LATER THAN DURING THE QUIET MAN.
Look at his early movies: he super towers EVERYBODY and at the time, people weren't dwarfs as yet!
Talker, i know very weel what you think and didn't mean the contrary; I just wanted to say that being a super star exposes you to such a judgment.
You know, like in superman stories where "he" is exposed to critics whil he does anything else that "good"; I don't say that is your case but a general way of practicing. Remember, you asked why "people" doubted about him and not about Hudson and so forth.
Gonzalo said on 22/Mar/07
Well, Talker I understand what you say. I admit I didn
Viper said on 21/Mar/07
Hell, Id even say theres a better chance Clint Eastwood was a legit 6-4 and taller than Wayne.
Viper said on 21/Mar/07
Talker is kinda right. Guys like David Hasselhoff, Tom Selleck, Jeff Goldblum, Vincent Price have always looked like legit 6-4 men to me, but not John Wayne.
Anonymous said on 21/Mar/07
Patrick, don't have time to get into details, but you're right..The Quiet Man is one of the best movies to judge JW's height...three scenes should be watched carefully: when he approaches Victor's house with flowers in hand (raining) next to Barry Fitzgerald (5'3"); the first encounter in the bar with the Victor (6'3"); and the scene at the cottage (standing barefoot in the doorway where he's clearly many inches taller than the entrance)...watch these Talker, then we'll talk!....no pun intended. Still love the debate. Thanks, Patrick...Mike C
threadtrekker said on 21/Mar/07
I always assumed JW was shorter than he appeared just because my fist print and foot print covered (entirely) his on the famous Hollywood sidewalk I visited in highschool. Just for reference I am 5'8".5. Sadly my shoe size is typically 11 and I can pick up a basketball with one hand so my proportions are sort of "off", but if JW was 6'4" is were "off" too I would think.
talker said on 21/Mar/07
Patrick,im in noway anxious to claim anything.I like JW,i said so before.I dont care what height he really was,i think he was a fine actor and star.
He just looks to me a certain height.I mentioned these other actors,not to compare them with JW as stars,but because they are around 6'4" and they look to me taller than Wayne.
patrick said on 21/Mar/07
sorry talker, but you're wrong even if what you say is pretty fine: John Wayne is STILL an icon, which is not the case of Rock Hudson for long if ever (i like him but nothing to do with the Duke) and even less of course Robbins or Selleck.
a star, a real STAR, not Clooney or Depp but A ... STAR, like Gable, Cooper and a very few others (Borgey, Stewar) PLUS an icon, something which means ABOVE being just an actor, fine or not, but symbolizing a dream, an ideal or even a nation, a people, when you are that... you are confronted many trivial discussions, as a boss is in his company or gods are in mythology.
Clint Eastwood, the real LAST movie icon, even a bit under the Duke as an icon, knows the same controversy though he was most time really as tall as it is claimed: 6'4.
I always saw J.Wayne as being that size long before knowing it; I even thought as many people did, he was taller! I never made a mistake about the tall actors because it is easy to simply see how tall they really are! If "you" do not see that the Duke was VERY tall, so more than 6'3, OK, i won't try to convince you but ask yourself why you are so anxious to claim that.
i watched the quiet man the other day and i laugh in thinking of what was mentioned here, notably about his "so called" lifts! It is so obvious he din't wear any lift at the time and even after (until his so serious lung surgery in 64) that i sincerely complain people always looking for getting great guys shorter; That is not fair because they are dead for the most of them and cannot say anything but i am sure that you never wouldn't listen to them anyway!
talker said on 20/Mar/07
its funny this discussion will never end.If JW was 6'4" i dont believe ANYONE would argue he was shorter,like they dont for people like Rock Hudson,Tim Robbins,Tom Selleck and others.
Gonzalo said on 20/Mar/07
Ok, Gramps. What about the scene of the headquarters? Who looked taller? Most of the shots of that movie are taking in uneven ground. In the shots of regular ground Wayne looked taller
Gramps said on 19/Mar/07
Wayne and Ryan were up close - - face to face - - in a confrontation in a field tent, and Ryan was definitely the taller of the two.
Gonzalo said on 19/Mar/07
I saw Flying leathernecks and Wayne looked taller than Ryan. Remember by the end of the movie when they met in the headquarters, right before their last mission. Wayne looked two inches taller in that scene
Icecold said on 17/Mar/07
Some thing to think ,1979 I stood next to Forest Tucker I am 6'2" with my shoes on we were the same hieght.Forest Tucker stared in the movie Sands of Iwo Jima with John Wayne in the movie it seems as if they are as tall as each other.Good movie one of the best ever made.
Tallboychick said on 17/Mar/07
Gampie, I saw "Flying Leathernecks," last night also, and John Wayne definitely looked shorter than Robert Ryan. Plus, I understand Wayne usually wore lifts, too ... so, I would estimate his real height at around 6'2"!
AAAA said on 16/Mar/07
ahhh.... Victor Mclaghan was a freaking boxer when he was young, so i am gonna have to back patrick that he could knock out one of our Tough guys today. Much the same as Jack Palance( RIP) was a boxer, and could have won a bar fight till the day he died. BTW John wayne was undeniably a giant man, 6'4 with a hefty frame. Give the duke that. He didn't only seem iconic, HE LOOKED IT
mike c said on 16/Mar/07
Gramps, CC-Tron says on 10/May/06:
He was shorter than John Wayne. Wayne seemed to have two inches Ryan in "Flying Leathernecks" (they were wearing boots in that movie). I'd put him no taller than 6'3. I think he was 6'2 though. His slim build made him appear taller than he was and Ryan was definitely on the slim side. I'm 6'2" and people make that mistake with me all the time. Also most of the actors he starred with were 6 feet or shorter (mostly shorter).
SAME MOVIE, TWO DIFFERENT VIEWERS!!
Gramps said on 16/Mar/07
Saw John Wayne in "Flying Leathernecks" (1951) last night on AMC with Robert Ryan. Wayne looked 1/2" shorter than Ryan, who has been credited with being 6'4", but sometimes 6'3".
patrick said on 16/Mar/07
Me neither! I am amazed! Why syaing that? Victor Mc Laglen at 66 would have easily punched anyone of our so-called current "tough" guys! This man was an Hercules, naturally and when young had a grecian sculpturelike body; Huge arms, bones and hands; That kind of man has no age; they die as fall big trees; all of sudden, without warning;
He was more than 6 (anybody can check that out) even at 66! How can you see John Wayne wore lifts? Have you "superman's X ray vision"? I have not;
It is easy to claim anything just "like that" becasue that "helps" one's opinion; It's a different hing to bring proofs !
OK, as from now i'll say taht Tom Cruise is wearing artificial legs and is actually 4' and that Rock Hudson was in fact 7,5 but underwent surgery!
THAT IS STUPID but not that less than what is claimed here sometimes!
It is not enough to read somewhere that "this one" wears that or that one was in fact a girl or i don't know: IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN MARBLE !
Jhon Wayne, very ill in 64 underwent surgery and suffered a lot; he had to wear corset after 60 and wore lifts just to stay how he was to be for his own audience, people who loved him and who HE loved even more.
NOT TO DISAPPOINT THESE PEOPLE WHOSE I AM PROUD TO BE A PART, here was his motto and why he wore a wig he hated and lifts he didn't care.
In "cow boys" he compels a horse to knee by biting his ear: the horse is a tall one (i KNOW horses!) and look how tall John is standing next to him and he was perhaps wearing lifts and was 63 at the time, HE STILL is tall then;
And you can wear lifts; if you don't want to look RIDICULOUS by having a silly short torso and long long legs, you need to be tall anyway; I saw that kind of lifts and pretending thay can raise you up to 10 inches more is denying reality. In a word, that would be VISIBLE. If you know a minimum about proprtions, you'll see that John Wayne has fantastic ones which allowed him to NEVER look fat even when he had 30 lbs too much.
THANKS MIKE C for backing up this great man!
mike c said on 15/Mar/07
John, "you'll regret that comment to your dying day, if you live that long!" Did you, pray tell, start celebrating early? Must be the green beer. I can't believe you wrote that.
John said on 15/Mar/07
Victor McLaglen was old and ill in The Quiet Man and no more than six foot. Wayne looked taller because he was wearing lifts.
patrick said on 15/Mar/07
YAHOO! Mike C ! I am sure Viper, you and so many others recognize in him a very speacial man prior to bein,g a great actor: he is a symbol and has what is impossible to find now among celebrities because values have changed;
REMEMBER about "the Quiet Man (what a wonderful image for the Duke!) that my name is...Patrick, precisely!
I have the DVD for very long and trust me, i'll watch it on 17th of march!
I have been there, i mean where the film was shot; EVERYWHERE, even today, you can see signs saying "the quiet man" was shot here; "the quiet man inn" etc. That is good to see it 55 years after ! Victor Mc Laglen was one these personalities that ONLY directors and producers of that time were able to put up as a star! Now? LOL as say so many here!
Who would choose and direct in important roles guys of that ilk? People like him or Wallace Berry for instance.
Even the Duke would be in difficulty and probably would do something else or would act as secondary actor.
I think (sure) that our friend Viper will say that Victor MC Laglen was only 6'1 or 2 but i can be surprised!
Actually, John Wayne is clearly tallr than him who yet is taller than Ward Bond, another "giant" in every meaning this word can get!
Kudos march 17th!
mike c said on 14/Mar/07
Patrick, my apologies to Viper..he Did state that the Duke was 6'3"..he can't be that bad of a guy...I'll handle 6'3" (even though it's wrong), but the nonsense others are spouting..6'1-2" is unacceptable....will watch The Quite Man tonight for the 10th time..it's St. Patty's Day soon....6'4.5" next to the 6'3" giant Victor!
Viper said on 14/Mar/07
Mike, most college football heights are inflated by 1-2 inches. You do know that right? Since they are always measured shorter usually at the NFL combine.
patrick said on 14/Mar/07
Very psychologically clever "smart" Mike c ! I appreciate your way of deducing the logic of others: i am impressed!
i agree with you even though Viper never claimed he was so short, just an ich taller, at 6'2, what remains for me, even in his old days, even with his lifts on, much too few;
mike c said on 13/Mar/07
Patrick, the answer is simple..using Viper's logic, the Duke knew, as a senior in high school, that he would would be a super star some day, he immediately hired an agent, and billed himself as 6'4"...now, that makes a lot of sense...! and the high school just took his word for it...yeah, he's 6'1" but because he's destined to be a super star, let's make him he's 6'4" even!!!! Case closed..the Duke 6'1", but on the books 6'4"!!!
patrick said on 13/Mar/07
Viper, you mean that in your opinion, John was not measured but nevertheless listed as being 6'4 "just like that"?
OK, it's what you think but let know...why?
Over what are you basing you, what does found this argument?
Because everybody can say what he wants from the moment that would "prove" his words. Thanks for answering.
Viper said on 12/Mar/07
Im sure the Duke was billed at 6-4 in his football days, not measured.
Gonzalo said on 12/Mar/07
I see more than a one inch difference, Talker. I see a couple of inches. Well, I prefer centimeters: I see Fonda at 1`87 and Wayne at 1
patrick said on 12/Mar/07
I follow Mike c opinion at 100%! He was giantlike and as broad as tall! He is mcuh taller than the great H.Fonda ind fort apache! That doesn't need any special sense but just common one to see it! Why downgrading such a man? IT IS A SHAME AND NOT REALLY NOBLE.
mike c said on 11/Mar/07
Dan,from Duke, We're,Glad We Knew You by Herb Fagenfor: his football years: Pages 9/10...By the time Duke Morrison entered Glendale Union High in 1921, he was six feet with piercing blue eyes....In his senior year, Duke shot up to 6'4" and 175 pounds. Glendale won the state championship in 1924 and Duke Morrison was suddenly attractive to college recruiters." Dan, some people just don't read or research, they just repeat the same ol' s***...Wayne was 6'4.5"..glad you're on board. Mike C
dan said on 10/Mar/07
when wayne was measured as a football player at usc,he measured 6'4",as he got older gravity,and poor health probably took its toll,many other actors that worked with the duke also wore lifts,it was a common practice in hollywood
talker said on 10/Mar/07
in the pic with H.Fonda posted by Gonzalo 28/2,JW looks one inch taller which would make him 6'2.5".
patrick said on 6/Mar/07
Tony G, it depends (noticing an inch difference); sometimes that clearly appears but most often, it's an illusion related to the positions of people, the angle, above all "non visible" ones, and many many other factors but teh medical chart!
How is standing a man can favour him or on the contrary, being a disavantage to him. Look at your own family photos: you can appear very different in relation to other members; Everybody van notice that without understanding why in "this one" "he" looks taller or smaller or "less tall" than in "that one"!
John Wayne ALWAYS looked very tall and not only tall; when young, i thought he was 6'7 by the time i did not see "the others" that tall; Just him and Clint Walker, Rock Hudson etc. There is a reason for that, no?
As for this inch difference, frankly, most often, the way of standing (like an "I" like R. Mitchum or a bit slouching or leaning head as VERY VERY OFTEN John Wayne did (because he was not boasting but simply human and friendly) is enough to lead you in mistaking you. I would dare to say it is the same with "women's figures": how many of them are very, VERY different let's say, in "size" (ok?) with clothes on or ...with no ones!
It is deceptive and so is the actor's heights; It is very rare to notice a real BIG difference between actors and actresses in spite of that goes from 5'5 to 6'4! Directors manage to equalize more or less the heights (Vince Vaughn and J. Aniston) unless they deliberately want to make this difference be visible; in that case they often have recourse to tricks to enhance the difference; So, a notably veryt tall guy will be able to wear lifts to tower even more others like in Superman II, 6'6 Jack O'Halloran.
Tony G said on 2/Mar/07
Can you really notice a one-inch difference?
Viper said on 1/Mar/07
Ive never seen John Wayne as short either. But not 6-4. At most 6-3, at most.
patrick said on 28/Feb/07
Once again THANKS a lot mike c and...make sure i am well and definitely Patrick! That is my real firstname; what's simpler to use it?
I am VERY impressed with your ability to calculate measures as you actually do; It is worthy of Detectives of Law & order! I utterly trust you!
What is amazing me is how many people seem to see John Wayne so "short"!
Frankly, i never heard that before! I remember being a child and after, hearing talking about him as big big dude and very tall; simply because he appeared so without need of comparing him or i don't know what else!
I thought Bob Mitchum taller when i was young until i saw him next to others like precisely, John Wayne. But NEVER NEVER, i saw him 6'2 andeven less 6'1 !!! Next time there will be somebody to say it was not him who played, why not? I am stunned in hearing 6'1!
Hey, "6'1 Wayne guys", you should have been very familiar with the Duke to know so well how high were his "lifts" ! I'd like to know what brand of toothpath he used; if you could inform me about it...
said on 28/Feb/07
DerekB, I guess you are talking about that great pic taken in such a reliable place to compare heights which is a submarine. That pic is so inconclusive; why you are all using that pic that proves nothing? Choose another one. John Wayne was never ever 6`1. It makes no sense. Check more photos instead of using the only and inconclusive one that back up your claims.
Do you have other photos in which Wayne looks 6`1? No? I thought so.
In this on for instance?Click Here
Or in this one next 6`1.5 Henry Fonda?Click Here
Oh, yes, DerekB, I have found it. You must be talking about this picClick Here
I would like to hear the opinion of Editor Rob about this John Wayne controversy. There has been a lot of talk about it, a lot of pics, what
Anonymous said on 28/Feb/07
Wayne was 6'1" maximum in ordinary shoes, which is why he looked 2-3 inches shorter than the 6'3" Gary Cooper. Cooper's body was also larger in that photograph. Wayne looked taller in his westerns by wearing 4 inch lifts.
mike c said on 27/Feb/07
Patrick, my apologies..I thought Ed. Rob had deleted my contribution...just didn't scroll downn enough..here's what I wrote about a yr. ago...
mike c says on 20/Feb/06 :
Interesting what one can do with mathematics! Looking at a picture and knowing or intelligently guessing the measurements of some of the items in the picture can help one determine certain facts. For example, the approximate height of a figure in a photo... Take the picture of John Wayne against the background of a log cabin, dressed in skins, with flat deer skin (could be another animal, but let's say deer) shoes on...Using mathematical ratios (the ones used by many a carpenter or furniture historian to duplicate furniture from pictures) one can say that in the picture of John Wayne, page 16, of.. The Duke, A Life in Pictures... it is possible to mathematically approximate his height. It's not that difficult if you understand that there is a ratio ( a mathematical relationship) between what an object measures in a picture and its measurement in reality. Let's say that in that picture (you'll have to buy the book to appreciate this or get the picture from the internet), when you measure the belt he has on, the belt measures 3/16" wide. I guess that in reality the belt measured 1 and
mike c said on 27/Feb/07
Patrick, you're not alone..I've been posting for quite a while now...posted a mathematical proof demonstrating that Wayne was a minimum 6'4" and most likely 6'4.5"..perhaps our distinguished Ed. will show it again..I should have saved it..but that was before I realized how this site works..they delete as comments are added and I understand that..I used a picture of John at age approx. 21 yrs or so standing against a background of a log cabin....wearing dearskin mocasins..first chance I get, I will resubmit the equation...it's not new...museums and carpenters have been using the equation for yrs..proportionals based on the measurements of objects in a photo to real life.....quite easy, in fact, just needs the ability to multiply and we know Viper can at least do that...Mr. Ed. please show my response..I think it was about a yr. ago.....love this site...John Wayne was definitely 6'4.5"...take it to the bank....patrick, you're growing on me...like your common sense...seriously hope you're not Tiger or Frank in disguise..While I miss them, it's good to know there are more of us out there....Mike C
DerekB said on 27/Feb/07
Hey, Viper may go overboard in downgrading people, but he still is the most trustable person here (aside from glenn and rob). Besides, i do happen to agree. He looked like a shrimpy 6`1 next to Gary "6`3" Cooper.
patrick said on 27/Feb/07
TOO FUNNY! John Wayne 6'2!
Anybody here to react?
Will i be the "only one"? So, i'll do;
I like you Viper because you are so "one track mind" and never change your way of dwarfing people notably known for being tall! Somewhere, that compels admiration in a way and i am serious;
Frankly, have you ever seen any Duke's movie to say that?
Actually, if so, John Wayne was not living in America when young but in Lilliput (Gulliver's travels super dawrfs island);
OK for 6'3 even though he is obviously taller but, i can admit...but6'2 !
I wish i'd be not alone in that debate and call people who think Viper or me is right, to tell it here. In advance, thanks!
Viper said on 26/Feb/07
I think The Duke was 6-2 or 6-3 barefoot. 6-4 in his cowboy boots
patrick said on 26/Feb/07
I think that for M. Viper, Goliath himself should be between 5'10 and 6' MAXIMUM !
It's very easy to see how us actors are tall in relation to other countries: when an American actor, above all an "old time" one, was involved in an Italian or French movie, he almost always towers over everybody!
For instance, Burt Lancaster who was not that tall in US, was almost a giant in the famous "Il gattopardo" by L. Visconti; the same in "the train" which takes place in France; Only few european actors are sometimes taller like Jean Reno or Yves Montand (who are (were: Montand is dead alas)"giants" though being "only" 6'1/5)or British ones.
So, contrary to what is often said here, Americans and actors too, are by and large much taller than the others as result, the very big and tall ones appear less easily so, while if they were in Europe, WOW!
Have you ever seen Charles de Gaulle in a documentary? He was exactly 6'4 and made appear EVERYBODY in France as toys ! Rare were those who reached his shoulders! That is a fact. In Europe, except in current Holland, in Swede or even in Germany, John Wayne and so many others alike, would have appear like a sequoia among poplars! Look at him at 65 or so in "Brannigan" which takes place in London: he towers on everybody, once more and frankly i don't care whether he wore lifts or not! he was ill and had undergone one hundred times what would have kille anybody else!
mike c said on 25/Feb/07
Viper, with all due respect, I guess reading and mathematics are out of the question...
Viper said on 25/Feb/07
I still havnt see any good evidence that has the Duke at 6-4 or 6-4 1/2.
josh emery said on 24/Feb/07
the dukes height was 6ft 4 .5 inches as he said that in the film the quiet man
patrick said on 22/Feb/07
So do I Kevin; Even so, he did not wear a wig all along his career (not before the 50ties) and if he wore heels it's essentially because he made a lot of westerns! So, his costars did the same; I wear myself cow boy boots because I love that and that pushes me up! In "civilian films" he did not wear them and the costars either!
Do you know that he hated his wig and never wore it in daily life?
We all miss men like John Wayne or Robert Mitchum and so many others...
kevin t said on 20/Feb/07
This whole thing with Wayne's height has become mythology. Makes no sense to me; I admire the REAL John Wayne--the actor who wore 3" heels and a toupee.
patrick said on 7/Feb/07
Thanks in turn Mike c !
I think that people are not for the most, really aware of how we miss such a man like John Wayne in our "mean" today's world.
The same with all the big men quoted below: These men were simply at the height of the mythology the embodied and made live.
Today, event though there are good actors and movies, it is difficult to be run away with actors just for themselves.
This buys gretaer than nature remained fantastic even in a bad movie; i enjoy watching any movie with John Wayne just because he's in even though i am perfectly able to distinguish "Mc Q" from "Rio Bravo" !
But John remains John. Question of internal size; that lies in his soul and no matter you disagree or not his political points of view: he was A MAN and assumed what he was; whteher it was was dangerous for his popularity or not;
He was a honest man prior to anything else.
Who could play Ben Hur after Charlton Heston? The only one man i found having something very "special" and really different than the others, something from "out there", it's Tom Welling. You maybe will disagree but please, observe him and look how simple and always natural and cool, gentle and yet strong he appears. But that is very rare; The actors of today "play being
cool" for the most part; they are not; Clooney or Pitt and even less Cruise "play" what they are supposed to present to their audience; Nothing to do with Cary Grant both so handsome and so funny (very rare), Spencer Tracy: "the" humanity before you in a man! I could enumerate them for long;
These men could be right or not their life (from Errol Flynn to Gregory Peck) they wer in the screen "magic"; The system at the time,, allowed that and producers, tycoons "knew" who was a "star"; It is different since the late 60ties event though today's stars are still loved as divinities;
For me, that "smells fake" now except for some movies and actors of course.
"Other time, other customs"; I am not passeist at all but who replaces if only guys like Robert Redford (who was never J. Wayne!)or the excellent Gene Hackman? Owen Wilson ??? Ewan Mc Gregor ??? LOL ! You know what said Robert Mitchum when he was asked what he thought about new (in the 70ties) stars (De Niro, Pacino, Hoffmann etc.)? "THE ARE ALL SMALL" !
mike c said on 5/Feb/07
Thank you, Patrick...I appreciate and respect your comments. Another BIG FAN of the DUKE..mike c.
patrick said on 5/Feb/07
Sirs, i am a HUGE fan of the Duke; he embodies both strength and gentleness, both seriouness (capable of inspiring fear) and permanent sens of humo; Look at his invisible but so present eternal smile.
I have MANY DVDs of his 30ties early carrier; he very young and VERY VERY TALL; Broad shouldered as nobody else except the "giant" Victor Mc Laglen, his friend.
John was nothing else than an actor; born to be one i mean;
WXhen i was a little boy (between 8 to 16), i did not consider him as an actor: he was "John Wayne" and nothing else; There were all the others i loved like Gary Cooper, C. Gable, Fonda, Stewart, Douglas etc. BUT ONLY ONE JOHN WAYNE.
I wouldn't have been able to talk about his qualities or if he was or not handsome what was so obvious with Cary Grant for exemple; No, i was watching John Wayne and that was all!
That being said, i would add something which in any case, "reduces" the Man: John Wayne wore lifts from the late 50ties and abve all from the 60ties not to look taller than he really was but just to stay as tall as he would be;
After his operation in 64, he couldn't keep his height but who would have played the 4 sons of Katie Elder just after that BUT HIM ?
Another great guy and wonderful actor, Rovert Mitchum, was a close friend of him and laughted at this habit because Mr Wayne was already so tall;
I think he did not want to be diminished to his audience he loved, really loved and respected.
He wanted to offer them a constant image of what he knew to represent unto people and the even concept of America.
Something "bigger" than a simple question of self pride.
Everybody can notice how very tall men like Clint Eastwood or Donald Sutherland have been hit by the age and John Wayne less tall than..."John Wayne was supposed to be", that simply would have been impossible.
mike c said on 3/Feb/07
I guess doing your homework and finding out for yourself is out of the question. Read some books and carefully watch his movies, especially the early one, e.g. The Quiet Man, etc. and then decide for yourself.
Jesse said on 2/Feb/07
I have always heard that John Wayne always wore lifts.
mike c said on 30/Jan/07
Just finished reading Duke, We're,Glad We Knew You by Herb Fagen...many pages of quotes from people who knew him, worked with him, and truly respected him...I recommend this book....no, I'm not an agent of Barnes and Noble...see in particular: Christopher Mitchum/page 205.."He walks into a room and suddenly everybody knows he's there. His voice carried. His stance, an attitude, a position. It's a presence. It leaps at you. Plus the fact that Duke was close to 6'5" with large hands. He was a big guy." And guys, from John Mitchum: "I introduced him to my son-in-law. My son-in-law is only 5'5". I'll never forget taht when Wayne met him, Duke, who is 6'4", reached over and said, 'I'm John Wayne!' Well, who else could it have been!" and for his football years: Pages 9/10...By the time Duke Morrison enered Glendale Union High in 1921, he was six feet with piercing blue eyes....In his senior year, Duke shot up to 6'4" and 175 pounds. Glendale won the state championship in 1924 and Duke Morrison was suddenly attractive to college recruiters." There are many other references to his height..I hope you enjoy the book as much as I did..What a legacy! The respect and awe so many famous people had for him...the Duke..6'4"+ in my book.
mike c said on 20/Jan/07
Talker, you seem to be a gentleman...I don't think you're being disrespectful....You're right, we don't agree on Wayne..so what. I think the truth is somewhere in between our arguments. Who really cares if JW was 6'4" (and he was!!!..just kidding!) or 6'2.5"...still, one of my heroes and I'm 60...compared to the crap out there today, his movies are a refreshing respite from all the bulls*** life throws at us...Still think Jimmy Stewart was great, abeit, a tad shorter than the Duke..Hudson? what a waste of talent and manlyness!..Just bought Duke, We're,Glad We Knew You by Herb Fagen. Just happen to see it in a book store..pages 23-24 are interesting..in quoting John Ford, the author write the following: John Ford to Duke-"I used to be a fullback. You think you can take me out?" Morrison (JW) looked at the director. "Yeah, I know I could." Ford and Duke then crouched down, knuckles on the stage floor and started slamming into each other. But age 32, Ford hadn't broken a tackle since 1914, while 21 year old Duke Morrison at 6'4" and 200 pounds, was in prime physical condition. Talker, just another side of the coin. Take care. mike c.
talker said on 20/Jan/07
MikeC like i said,i did send the stills to the editor but like other times in the past,there was no comment,even though i believe they are very enlightening.
Maybe you can rent this movie on DVD and check yourself what i'm saying.Look at the scene in the bar and freeze it where Hudson and Stewart are face to face.About Wayne you know we disagree,i also have a great book on Wayne,The complete films of John Wayne,by MarcRicci and Boris Zmijewsky,with hundreds of photos.I've seen the Duke in most of his films and own at least a dozen of his movies on dvd,i also like him as an actor and its silly some of you think we are disrespectful to his memory.The Duke was a movie actor,and like we all know movies are the art of illusion.
mike c said on 19/Jan/07
talker, Jackie says on 1/Sep/06:
"I also have a documentary about Rock Hudson in which Tony Randall, Doris Day and several others all state Rock was a solid 6'6". Doris Day told and anecdote about "Pillow Talk" where Hudson has to drag Day from her bed and carry her to his apartment. I'm paraphrasing here that she says "but this big, strong 6'6" man had back problems, like so many tall people experience, so the props department built him a harnas(sp) that was concealed by his coat and my blanket, that gave him the necessary support to be able to carry me for the distance....."
Talker, we'll split the difference...John Wayne 6'4" firm.( no argument)...Jimmy Stewart 6'3"..Rock Hudson 6'5" or a tad more .....Wayne did lose .5 inch since his twenties....maybe you can mail the stills to the editor...he has my address as he also has yours...I'm not, and I'm sure you would not, gong to print my e-mail address on this site...maybe Ed. Rob can send them to me..Also, with all due respect (you appear to be genuine)buy The Duke, A Life in Pictures...tell me he's 6'2"/3" after seeing those photos...look at the early Duke...regards, Mike C...ps. I've seen The Undefeated and Hudson appears to be about 1" taller...but the research presented from his site sure makes it difficult to accept less than 6'5"-6"...and Wayne at one time was 6'4.5"....again, buy the book....you'll see why I'm so convinced.
Cantstop25 said on 19/Jan/07
Unless Jimmy Stewart is 6`5, than John Wayne is 6`4, and Hudson is 6`6.
Carl said on 19/Jan/07
If you watch 'The Undefeated' as I did two days ago, you can clearly see gievn what surface they may have been or not that both The Duke and Rock were actually very similar in height if not the same! Watch the movie and you will see that in some scenes the duke is abit taller than rock and then rock abit taller than the duke depending on posture or surface! They really were very similar in height....Kind Regards.....Carl
talker said on 19/Jan/07
This 6'6" thing about Hudson has to stop.Hudson was 6'4".I sent some stills from the movie Bend of the River to the editor where Rock stands face to face with 6'3" J.Stewart,he is clearly only one inch taller,and the same can be seen in many other scenes in same movie.I'm not gonna upload these stills since i'm not sure they are not copyrighted,but its not my fault the editor keeps this joke going on.MikeC,if you want,i can mail the snaps to you.
Gonzalo said on 17/Jan/07
I saw the film "Send me no flowers" years ago. I was very surprised to see that Clint and Rock were very similar in height. I remember Clint Walker from "The dirty dozen" in which he looks huge next to tall guys like Donald Sutherland or Lee Marvin. I think Hudson was 6`5. You should watch the movie instead of making judgements from an inconclusive picture.
In that pic with Wayne Rock looks taller, but not even an inch. From that pic, Wayne is 6`4
kevin tuma said on 16/Jan/07
"HEIGHT MAN-Talk about camera angles, the photo with Wayne and Stewart is totally inconclusive because Wayne is closer to the camera."
If it's the photo I'm thinking about, he's about a foot closer to the camera.
Wayne and Stewart are side by side in the photo in my gallery, and Stewart is clearly 1" to 1.5" taller than Wayne. He also has a noticeably larger head than JW.
Anthony said on 16/Jan/07
If Rock was only 6'4, then why does he look 4.5-5 inches taller than 6'1 Yves Montand in that Paramount group shot. Rock was 6'5 minimum and probably was 6'6. Even Doris Day herself sadmitted he was.
mike c said on 16/Jan/07
Talker, on the Hudson pge. Gary says on 30/Jul/06:
I still think Rock was 6'6". The picture with Clint Walker was on a slope. Clint was also wearing boots, while Rock had flat shoes on. When they stood next to each other on level ground, they were the same height. I agree that Clint looked huge next to Rock, but it had nothing to do with height. It was because of his great build. Rock had a great build as well, but nowhere near Clint's. Rock was very muscular. Clint was extraordinarily muscular. Rock looked massive in all of his roles opposite other leading men. Clint was the only guy who could make Rock look "small."
talker said on 16/Jan/07
Mikec,Hudson was 6'4"like everybody says,not 6'6",its very simple to see that in the movie "send me no flowers " with Doris,when he is next to 6'6" actor Clint Walker who is 6'6",Rock looks clearly 2"shorter.
HEIGHT MAN said on 15/Jan/07
Talk about camera angles, the photo with Wayne and Stewart is totally inconclusive because Wayne is closer to the camera.
mike c said on 15/Jan/07
I guess the boots the people around JW are wearing don't count..no, not the 2-3 inch boots...and guess the JS photo showing JW taller in the Shootist doesn't count as also the fact that in only one scene (the doc's office) does he appear to be as tall as JS...guess camera angles are out....and JS might be wearing loafers..given the fact that it's a western and "there's" horse s*** and mud all around....hmmm. different westerns I've grown up with!
Parker said on 15/Jan/07
talker - i've never seen any evidence that Wayne was shorter than 6'4. What 'evidence' are you referring to?
said on 15/Jan/07
Here's my new John Wayne photo Gallery. Click Here
Check out several candid shots of Wayne in his 3" Cuban heels, and a half dozen not-so-larger-than-life still shots from old movies.
Also one of my pics pretty much puts to rest the argument over who was taller--John Wayne or Jimmy Stewart.[Editor Rob: pretty huge heels, 6ft 3 is something that isn't unheard of in the press.
In a 1934 Deming Newspaper article he was described 6ft 3.]
kevin tuma said on 15/Jan/07
I'm don't mean any disrespect to Wayne. Some people measure heights with shoes on. Wayne wore high-heeled cowboy boots in all his western movies, and the heels are where his rolling walk comes from. Actually if John Wayne wasn't a boyhood hero of mine, I wouldn't notice--I just happen to have a book full of his old photos, and if you look carefully, it's pretty obvious.
He was a big man, but he wasn't the height of a basketball player. That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him an actor. He also advertised "Hair Trigger" on TV commercials in the 70s, while wearing a toupee..!
Anonymous said on 14/Jan/07
Just found this piece of conflab whilst browsing images of the duke as im a portrait artist and was gathering some images to paint from, the fact that the guy was as large as life and a heart the size of a basket ball and brought hours of entertainment,inspiration and pleasure through his movies makes him stand taller than most in my books, i reckon he'd get a kick out of reading a discussion like this.....adios
talker said on 14/Jan/07
actually,Wayne did say he was 6'4.5",in the Quiet man,but evidence shows otherwise....
HEIGHT MAN said on 13/Jan/07
Hey mike c check out in The Shootist when Wayne and Stewart first go into the back room for Waynes examination. When Stewart pulls the curtain across PAUSE IT. You'll see that they are just about even and Stewart has a noticeable hunch.
kevin tuma said on 13/Jan/07
Gonzalo says: "In The shootist, Wayne looks almost two inches taller than Stewart."
No, he doesn't. He looks *bigger* than Stewart because Stewart was a scrawny guy, but he appeared one inch shorter than Stewart, just as he did in Liberty Valance. The evidence that Wayne was ever taller than 6' 2" is very flimsy.
People base these guesses on their perception of an actor's honesty. But in all likelihood the movie stars' heights, especially in Golden Age Hollywood, were provided by their publicists. I don't believe Wayne was ever quoted anywhere saying that he was 6'4" or 6'6". If you study his photos carefully, he appears to be 6 1.5" to 6'2" throughout most of his career.
I think it's a myth that he wore lifts, however. What he wore, in all of his cowboy films, were boots with 2 1/2" heels. On a big-boned man who's 6'2" and well over 200 pounds, wearing a ten-gallon hat, that channels a lot of size.
Mr Mayfair said on 10/Jan/07
Check out the size of Wayne's feet (and handprints)in the cement in Hollywood, they are not those of a Man standing 6'4"! He may have stood 6'2" when young.
But he normally built up heels and/or lifts especially in his later years when he had lost quite a lot of his height, about 2 inches, due to illness?
Gonzalo said on 9/Jan/07
In The shootist, Wayne looks almost two inches taller than Stewart. Height man, talk about Liberty Valance but not about the shootist. In the Shootist Wayne is clearly taller. Watch also The Searchers, with Wayne barefoot next to Jeffrey Hunter. Wayne is three inches taller.
mike c said on 8/Jan/07
I watched The Shootist again....Height Man, please tell me in which scene you see Stewart with flat shoes..remember, it is a western and, considering the horse s*** and mud everywhere, boots with high heels had a specific purpose..The version I have and have seen at least a dozen times clearly shows Wayne's height...taller than Stewart...of special interest, as I've previously stated, is the scene in which JW is barefoot at the foot of the bed standing next to Ron Howard (5'9" in boots....) a blind man can see the difference and "it ain't no 2-3 inches"..pick a scene, use the pause button and get a still that shows Wayne shorter...share it with us....see my comments on 6 Jan 07...
HEIGHT MAN said on 6/Jan/07
Duke looked about an inch shorter than 6'3 Steve Forrest in The Longest Day. More proof that he was about 6'2 without his cowboy boots on. Also, in The Shootist, he is MAYBE eye level with 6'3 Jimmy Stewart but Wayne has cowboy boots on and Stewart is in flat shoes. John Wayne was NEVER an honest 6'4.
mike c said on 6/Jan/07
FRANK 2 SAID: I'm not sure that Wayne lost an inch by the time of 'The Searchers'. That movie was from 1956 and Wayne was only 49. Duke was one to hold his height to the very end. If he lost any height at all, it would be in his movies from the 1970s. Even his last film, 'The Shootist', he is consistently taller than the 6-3 1/2 Jimmy Stewart. I have seen the photo of the two from the movie that you submitted a while back and Stewart is a hair taller. That is not indicative of the movie. Duke is taller throughout. It starts with their first meeting in Stewart's office.
SOME MORE FOOD FOR THOUGHT! GUESS WE HAVE A PATTERN HERE! MAJOR MEDICAL PROBLEMS BY THE TIME THE SHOOTIST WAS MADE....
Paul said on 5/Jan/07
All of this downsizing of Wayne is beyond absurd. He was 6'3" minimum and probably an inch taller at his peak. There is too much documented evidence with him towering over legitimate 6 footers to suggest otherwise. I saw a still in a magazine recently of British actor Dennis Hoey who was 6'3" or maybe a bit more standing directly next to Wayne and Wayne was at least as all.
Hard to believe his 100th birthday is this year. Makes me feel old too.
Anthony said on 5/Jan/07
I think The Duke was 6'2-6'3 barefoot, 6'4+ in hiscowboy boots. Hudson IMO was a solid 6'6. In the pic below, ROck looks 5 inches taller than Yves Montand, who was 6'1. Montand is the actor standing on Wayne's right.
mike c said on 31/Dec/06
Roy's Nephew says on 23/Jul/06
I'd always assumed Rock Hudson was about six foot four, but I was wrong..
John Wayne was over 6' 4", probably by about half an inch. Take a look at the film "The Undefeated" and when you see Wayne & Rock Hudson (very briefly) side by side on LEVEL GROUND (mostly they're on sloping ground) you can see that Hudson was at least an inch taller than Wayne. This would make him close to 6' 6". His legs were extremely long, and when he sat down he lost a lot of his height advantage over other actors. ("Undefeated" was made around 1968, I think, and Hudson was in his early 40s, & I thinkJohn Wayne was around 20 yrs. older, so his height could have declined a bit at that point..... CANTSTOP25 use the pause button on the remote and look at the ground, floor, terrain, etc...then look at the footwear...visit the Hudson, Eastwood, etc. sites...then you can make a decision..Don't drink and drive tonight.
mike c said on 31/Dec/06
Cantstop25..have you read below?...open up any sites?...which version of Valance and the Shootist are you watching...I mean, really watching...read below my mail and that of Gonzalo, Tiger, Frank 2, etc....by the way, put on the Shootist and when JW and JS are facing each other...in a number of scenes..pause the movie and keep on pausing until you get a still that shows them inches away from each other, and in straight up posture....but that may take a little work...Happy New Year...love the debate...
mike c said on 27/Dec/06
Gonzalo,you're a caballero...always polite. Will try to somehow scan the picture I have of Marvin, Eastwood, Hudson, and the Duke...great photo...a little different from the JT photo....in the book I mention, it's so clear...Happy New Year!
Gonzalo said on 27/Dec/06
Merry Christmas, Mike C. And merry Christmas to everybody. You really do your homework, you know my comments of different actors! I think Marvin was 6`1 minimum and 6`2 maximum. It is clear that Wayne was two inches taller, putting Wayne on 6`3 or 6`4.
But, you know, Mike C, it is difficult to tell how tall people are. If I think William Hurt is on the verge of 6`2, then Marvin is also 6`2. But I have also seen Marvin shorter than 6`1 Robert Mitchum. So, all these things leave me confused and they make me contradict myself. That
mike c said on 21/Dec/06
Gonzalo says on 28/Mar/06
Hurt is 6`2. He was a 5 or 6 cms shorter than Jeff Goldblum in the Big chill. He is slightly taller than Kevin Kline so I think he is clearly 1`87-88cm. And a very good actor indeed.....Gonzalo, with all due respect to you, doesn't that make Marvin also 6'2"...and in my pic, Wayne two inches taller...what am I missing? Did you mean to say that Marvin was at least 6'2"?.If so, the Reef pic. shows JW clearly at least 2+ inches taller....Feliz Navidad!
talker said on 21/Dec/06
i havent seen Donovan's reef recently,but i'll try to take a look at it.I saw Valance recently and i'll say it again Wayne was shorter than Stewart,
i dont believe he had lifts there.
I also saw a 1941 Wayne movie "lady from Louisiana",actor Ray Middleton was taller than Wayne there.Middleton was the first actor to portray Superman but i cant find listing of his height.
Gonzalo said on 21/Dec/06
Mike C, that last pic is taken from Donovan
Glenn said on 18/Dec/06
S to the C said on 16/Dec/06
im lookin at aspects of the picture i saw of john wayne and gary cooper, he is a lil shorter than cooper and cooper couldnt b 6'5". because that would b an overstatement 2 his height, i would say because of that photo, john wayne is about 6'2" at the most
talker said on 15/Dec/06
i sent some snaps to padraig from Valance.If you still insist Stewart looks the same or shorter than Wayne there,ask him to put them up,it will finish at least this part of the conversation.
mike c said on 14/Dec/06
Gonzalo, I'm not disappointe. You're a gentleman; an intelligent one at that!..JT, thank you for the web page...Hundreds of JW's pics!..I went through them quickly, but will definitely revisit during the Christmas holiday when I get a breather from school. Gonzalo, are you referring the JT's web page with the 61 pages of pics. of the Duke?..You mention Connors. I saw pics. with Connors, Wayne, and Clayton Moore (The Long Ranger..6'1")..in one with JW close to Connors..only a couple of inches less..Connors was 6'6" I've read...The Duke looks taller and then shorter in myriad pics. What are the strange things you've seen?...Of course I went thru. the 61 pages very quickly...loved the pages! JT, this is great!!! The birthday cake page is diff. from mine...Wayne definitely looks taller than Stewart...bottom line, guys, I respect your opinion..great research. Let's have fun. Remember, camera angles!
mike c said on 13/Dec/06
JT, that is not the photo in the book I have. Rock is standing next to Wayne..your pic may be one of a series taken.....I will try to scan my pic. and send it....Wayne is bending forward as in your pic. but you can tell he's taller than Stewart....also, while I didn't get a chance to see Valance again, I put it on for a few minutes....the kitchen scene is very interesting.....Wayne IS taller by more than an inch...check it out...when the two approach each other, hit the pause button and keep on hitting it..until you can freeze the very last frame before they start to go away from each other. The beauty is you can see what they're wearing..but, if you get a moment, check out the scene with Strode (Pompey) and Wayne...they're standing face to face and, guess what?..Wayne appears a tad taller..then of course...Pompey, a football player and personal friend of Ford was 6'4" tall...but, I guess that's not enough for those of you that insist Wayne was 6'2" or shorter...Gonzalo, are you going to the dark side? You mention the Quite Man...I know you remember the bar scene when Wayne walks in (check out the shoes) and soon encounters Victor McLaglen...the man he'll soon fight..read Victor's bio....6'3"...a powerful boxer...Wayne is clearly taller..of course he was much younger than when he did the Shootist......me alegro que escribes sin insultar....Mike C. PS..guys, when JW did the Shootist he was courting death..one lung taken out, back trouble, and very much overweight..still one of the greatest...on this agree with JT Gonzalo,et.al..the current stars aren't even in the same league....
Gonzalo said on 12/Dec/06
In The searchers and in The quiet man Wayne stands barefoot and still looks very tall, much taller than Jeffrey Hunter in the first case, about three inches.
I have said before in this site that the lifts rumours might be true but I haven`t seen any evidence so far (no, the pic with Cooper is not an evidence for me; the pic of the cake...mmmm, so, so). Anyway, Wayne was no less than 6`2. I am not sure he was 6`4 1/2; that`s Tim Robbins`height and Robbins looks taller to me than Wayne. I always thought Wayne was 6`3.
In the page you sent JT there are some great pics: Wayne next to James Arness, looking fairly tall and next to at least 6`5 Chuck Connors, looking not much shorter.
I totally agree with what you say in the last paragraph, JT. Current stars suck in many cases
JT said on 11/Dec/06
Gonzalo, Stewart is in the background in that pic with Wayne so it's misleading. There's no doubt Wayne was a tall man though. I'm just not sure if he ever was 6'4". If someone could post a vid cap where he is standing barefoot next to 5'7" Lucille Ball (in tennis shoes I think) from that I Love Lucy episode, Wayne did not look close to 6'4" to me. Wayne looked no more than 6'2", even accounting for Lucy wearing shoes. He's in cowboy boots for every other scene. My sister is 5'6" - 5'7" and I'm 6'4" and a head size taller than she is in pictures, so I know pretty well from personal experience what the height difference should look like.
I love those old Hollywood photos too. It's embarrassing to even mention the current "stars" in the same breath with these guys from the past.
mike c said on 10/Dec/06
Talker, do yourself and your friends a big favor a buy the pictoral history of John Wayne..go straight to the page showing Clint 6'4"), Lee 6'2"), Roc 6'5", John W.,Jimmy Stewart (6'3"), Earnest Borgnine *5'11" at prime)and two others...JW is bending down to cut a cake.look at the wall behind the men, the fixtures. Tell me Stewart is taller...they're all dressed in suits...oh! I forgot, Wayne is wearing lifts in his dress shoes just as he did in the pic. with Reagan, Sinatra,Martin, and Hope...Homework? I've done mine..At 60, I make up my own mind, I do read, and I don't take what others have said at face value...hope you're young enough to learn the same....ps buy The Duke, A Life in Pictures
talker said on 9/Dec/06
MikeC,its amazing what you see that others dont....i just finished watching Valance again,you mean to tell me Wayne looks taller than Stewart in that movie?The best scene where they are standing one next to the other is where Wayne is teaching Stewart how to shoot,you mean to tell me Stewart doesnt look a little taller than Wayne there? Also look at the scene where Wayne nominates Stewart and walks up to him.He looks MUCH shorter there.
Instead of telling others to do their homework,why dont you do yours?
mike c said on 8/Dec/06
jt, don't flatter yourself with your shoe size..it means spit!..why aren't the pics with the Coop, Rock, Hutton helpful?...do some work and stop repeating what you've heard .....buy John Wayne, the Man behind the Myth...shoe size 11.....height very very tall....it's amazing how you and a few other on this page draw conclusions from hearsay and no homework...as for the Lucy pic, revisit and watch him on the cot getting a back massage....yep, 6' or just a tad over.....and Lee was 6' as well....break down and buy The Duke, A Life in Pictures.....Barnes and Noble sells it....Tiger, are you still around?
Jason said on 8/Dec/06
I think he wore a size 9. You know what they say about men w/small feet! :0
Kidding about the last bit...
As for his height, 6'2'' and change I'd say as well.
JT said on 7/Dec/06
I have no idea whether Wayne was a legit 6'4" or not. The photos with Cooper, Rock Hudson, Jim Hutton, and his appearance on I Love Lucy where he is barefoot are not helpful to his case though. Didn't Wayne have very small feet also, which would not be consistent with a 6'4" guy? I'm 6'4" and wear a size 12 and read somewhere that Wayne's shoe size was much smaller than this.
Glenn said on 7/Dec/06
I kinda agree James.cause why the lifts rumors for a 6-4 guy?
mike c said on 6/Dec/06
Kevin T...I don't think you've watched "Valance" carefully....see it again..watch the kitchen scene, notice the footwear, and especially notice the hotel scene with Oppie AKA Ron Howard..... with all due respect as you may be genuine, your argument has no merit....am I the only one who has access to some of the comments stated below? I'm 60, grew up in a carpenter's house....I can build a house and I DO have an eye for measurement.....JW was indeed 6'4" or taller....see his earlier pics. in particular The Quiet Man..and for God's sake read....
POD said on 6/Dec/06
If shorter than advertised, Wayne can't be under 6'2"-6'3".
Sometimes i find hard to belive him a full 6'4" or as some say 194cm, but 6'1"?
C'mon that's bull
Kevin T said on 6/Dec/06
No question that Wayne was a big man, a tall man, and a heroic figure but I find the 6' 4" publicity height about as credible as Marilyn Monroe's weight being listed as "120 pounds". Wayne appeared to be, to my artist's eye, about 6' 1" in stocking feet, or around 6'3" in cowboy boots. It is a fact that his height and size were a big part of his image, the same way Schwarzenegger's muscles are a signature item. As for the "proof comparisons" with actors who were 6'1" and 6'2", who says the actors in question were that tall..? Lee Marvin did not look 6' 2" to me--he was about 5' 11" or 6' 0". Ronald Reagan was not 6' 2"..he was at most 6' 1", as proven by photo comparisons with Jimmy Carter and G.H.W. Bush. Jimmy Stewart appeared taller than Wayne in both 'Liberty Valance' and 'The Shootist', and he was officially 6'3".
mike c said on 3/Dec/06
Talker, glad you have knowledge of "The Big Trail"..at least you've read something about the Duke! Our argument, and if you've read the myriad comments below, is whether or not JW was 6'4" inches tall or taller.....scroll down if your computer allows it....plenty of proof to show once and for all that the Duke was in fact 6'4" tall or taller barefoot....of course you might have to buy several books on his life and do a little more homework....mathematically and in pictures he was indeed 6'4" tall or maybe 6'4.5"....what is the name of the movie you mentioned?...buy The Man That Shot Libery Valance and The Shootist..Jim Stewart was 6'3"..compare JW to JS and 6'2" Marvin and tell me JW was shorter..of course you just might go out and buy the book I've mentioned a dozen times..The Duke, A Life in Pictures..no, that would be too easy...you just might be able to compare the Duke with Eastwood, Hudson, and Stewart in suits and dress shoes..no, that would be too easy..seriously, glad you're part of an intelligent debate.
u.ntouchable said on 3/Dec/06
and about this lift buisness, its known FACT that wayne only used lifts LATER in his life, in around the 1960's because of his declining health and his weight which became a big deal, when someone puts that much weight, even on a big frame...its hard to maintain his presence.
u.ntouchable said on 3/Dec/06
talker, those pics you posted.
did you NOT notice that marvin was almost standing straight up when the Duke in BOTH pictures was slouchng, look at his knee and posture...he is deffinetly not his full height there, and clearly in the second photo his knee is bent with his usual posture, so he would definetly be in the vicinity of 6'4.
talker said on 3/Dec/06
Mikec,that was when Walsh cast JW in THE BIG TRAIL,he was 22 and slim and wearing mocassins,(and saying indians are his friends!!!)i have this movie,Wayne looks tall but not huge like in later career.He doesnt tower over anyone in this movie,just looks regularly tall.There are scenes with costar Margueritte Churchill where he looks barely over 6',but generaly i'd say he looks a little over 6'2" which is my opinion about him anyway.
mike c said on 2/Dec/06
Gonzalo, I sent this yesterday, but I think it was lost in e-mail limbo....in the book John Wayne, the Man Behind the Myth, director Raoul Walsh is quoted on pages 23-24, "I was strolling around Fox lot one day and as I walked by the property department, saw this young feller come out-about 6 feet four inches in height....I said, How would you like to be in picture?" that was 1930...!!!! Gonzalo glad you're still around. Mike
mike c said on 2/Dec/06
Talker, look at Wayne's knees in both pics. and the chin line...you do know that Jimmy was 6'3" and Marvin 6'2".....study the pics and watch the movies...
Brad said on 2/Dec/06
Years ago I asked a late radio host here how tall Wayne was since he dated his daughter Aliysa (spelling), he said 6' 4" and "one big man".
talker said on 1/Dec/06
The 4"lifts is a joke,I dont believe people can walk in 4"lifts,its ridiculous.I can believe 2"lifts which is still enormous.
Glenn said on 1/Dec/06
Its weird that such a tall man has lifts rumors.Clint Eastwood never did.
Gonzalo said on 30/Nov/06
Well, that pic again...
The lifts rumour is and will be always there but we haven
Matt said on 30/Nov/06
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but I've heard that Wayne used to wear boots with up to 4-inch heels, which would make him appear to be gigantic, assuming he was actually 6'4''. Can anyone verify that?
mike c said on 24/Nov/06
Talker, with all due respect...can't use geometry here...need a full shot..head to toes for both and a familiar object to prepare a proportional equation to solve...see my proof below..Feb 20, 06....interesting what you can do with math...love the discussion though....at least everyone is being a gentleman about it....ed. Rob posted a pic with Wayne and Scott...they're dancing or walking with a girl in between them.....if I use your reasoning, Wayne is definitely taller, again!....hope Rob would show it again.....I think Frank 2 sent it, not sure. Happy Thanksgiving! Mike
Carl said on 24/Nov/06
John Wayne is the taller one in that pic, just look at the position of head and eyes, he a good inch taller than cooper!
Parker said on 23/Nov/06
Impossible to tell any height difference from this image in my opinion. The camera is looking up at them both.
talker said on 23/Nov/06
mike c,all i asked is for mr.editor to post that photo.you can judge for yourself.I went into the trouble to scan the thing and e-mail it.
this is a photo from a relaxed situation where JW wouldnt wear lifts.Cooper is older and yet he looks taller IMO.The difference in height is subtle,i showed the photo to other people ,they said they look about the same.We're talking about maybe 0.25" in height more for Cooper.But Wayne doesnt look taller.
Like i said i believe JW was about 6'2.5".The difference with the listed 6'4"
is too small to judge next to shorter(RonHoward) people.
Forget any scene in a movie.The lifts thing is well documented,i dont believe these people had reason to lie.
[Padraig: Rob has only sent me Glenn's stuff, nothing else this week.
Why not email the pic to me, it will be faster than sending it again to the Editor:
Glenn said on 23/Nov/06
mike c -I know Wayne was tall.but why the notorious rumors of lifts? the greatest one being someone said back then,they buried him in his lifts.
mike c said on 22/Nov/06
Talker, you have not done your research and it's clear that you are repeating what others have said about JW.....just read below.....one more time! Watch The Shootist...carefully watch the scene between Ron Howard (5'9") and the Duke in the hotel room...JW is barefoot....RH is wearing boots...tell me JW doesn't tower over the kid and tell me he's not at least 6'4" tall...and also, watch the scene when Jimmy Stewart examines JW...please don't tell me JW is wearing lifts...by the way, the Coop was 6'3" and Wayne WAS taller...buy the book I've mentioned a dozen times...then again, don't buy it...that way you can just go on arguing..with all Due Respects. Mike
talker said on 21/Nov/06
i found that photo and sent it to the editor.Can you please put it up mr.editor
so that people can judge for themselves?
talker said on 20/Nov/06
i've seen in some book a photo of Wayne next to Gary Cooper at some studio party,where they both probably were wearing regular shoes,Cooper was taller than Wayne,just a little.I believe Cooper was near 6'3" and Wayne was just under that.Wayne managed to look incredibly tall in his movies because like many have witnessed,wore lifts that probably made him 6'5" or so.
If he was 6'2.5",he wasnt a short man of course and he only needed like 2" inch lifts which doesnt sound strange to me.I believe thats why he had this peculiar walk about him.Some have wondered why he would wear lifts since he was already tall but i think he just wanted to tower over everybody,it was his style of acting to look big.
mike c said on 6/Nov/06
A great photo is to be found in "The Duke, A Life in Pictures"...John Wayne standing next to Jim Hutton...Wayne sure looks 6'4.5" to me...buy the book and then we'll argue.....also, watch The Shootist and Wayne next to 6'3" (documented) Jim Stewart! Tell me Wayne is shorter.....look at the boots they're both wearing.
HEIGHT MAN said on 5/Nov/06
in Hellfighters check out the scene in the hospital when Duke is standing next to 6'5 Jim Hutton. I would say there is AT LEAST a 2.5 inch difference between Wayne and Hutton
mike c said on 23/Oct/06
JT, did you see The Shootist? Check out the seen with JW and "Opie"..JW is barefoot..Opie is 5'9" ..tell me Wayne is 6' tall....
JT said on 14/Oct/06
Anyone have any stills or vid caps of the "I Love Lucy" episode where 5'7" Lucy is giving Wayne a massage in the trailer? I always thought Wayne was 6'4" but he honestly looked several inches shorter in that scene, where he was barefoot.
Mike T said on 5/Oct/06
First of all I must mention that John Wayne is one of my favorite actors of all time. With that being said, I believe his true height to be right around 6'3". If you watch Rio Bravo, which was made in the late 50's, pay attention to actor John Russell who played Nathan Burdette. He is listed as 6'3". When he and Wayne walk into the jail when he first arrives into town, you will notice that their heights are almost identical. If anything Russell looks slightly taller. Just my observation.
Todd B said on 4/Oct/06
I used to deliver to an old lady that was the female voice of movietone news during the 40s and 50s. Her husband was a middle level director during this same period. She had an extensive photo collection of her and a great many movie stars of this era. One of them was her and her husband at the beach with several other people, one of which was John Wayne. They were all barefoot and it was quite obvious that the duke was at least 6 ft.4. I say this because as an old lady, my client was at least 5 ft9. She was 85 years old when I saw the picture so she was about 35 or 40 when it was taken. She was standing with John Wayne next to her. If she was 5 ft10 back then, the photo clearly shows that he was at least 6 in. taller than her. I saw he was 6 ft4 minimum.
Anonymous said on 30/Sep/06
stacey, there was a Rock Hudson quote about John Wayne on the net once and it said something along the lines of 'Wayne wore lifts and a corset and had small feet'. I do think Wayne must have been at the least 6'3'' and probably was 6'4'' at least in his prime. If you watch the films he is obviously a big man and it is not because of camera angles.
stacey said on 27/Sep/06
I must add my name to the list of people who believe that john wayne being 6'4" tall is somewhat of a tall tale.. Not for any other purpose except seeing his boot imprint in concrete in front of the chinese theatre in hollywood ... anyone else been there and seen this?
Gonzalo said on 21/Sep/06
Well, Mike C, I think they don
mike c said on 19/Sep/06
Thanks, Gonzalo...as an elementary school principal been going through state mandated assessments...takes a lot of time...we did very well and I'm proud of my staff...in almost all the movies of JW, due to camera angles and land elevation, his height appears to change....was nose to nose with Rock Hudson in the Undefeated in certain scenes (especially the fight scene) and slightly shorter in some shots...buy the book I mention a few times..when you see the photos of the Duke in his early 20's and celebrating his birthday with the likes of Hudson, Eastwood, Marvin, and other greats the debate is over..you'll truly enjoy the photos...I hope Tiger is still around and has bought it....talk about leyends! Our supposedly movie heroes today aren't even in the same league as Wayne, Marvin, Eastwood,etc. cuidate. ps...Marvin was 6'2"..in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance the Duke is at least 2-3 inches taller than Marvin and 6'2" Van Cleef....guess he had lifts!
Gonzalo said on 18/Sep/06
It was hard to tell who was taller, Ryan or Wayne. When they met at the headquarters, right before their last mission, Wayne appeared clearly taller; but I have seen pictures and Ryan seem slightly taller. 6`3, 6`4, in any case Wyane wasn
CC-Tron said on 16/Sep/06
Robert Ryan is not 6'4. Maybe in boots. He's more like 6'2 IMO. Also he's been listed at different heights ranging from 6'2 to 6'4. So 6'4 is questionable.
mike c said on 15/Sep/06
Great, Gonzalo!..been busy lately and haven't visited this site as I did earlier in the year. You're so right! 6'4" plus...my Feb. 06 math lesson...see below..proves without a doubt...6'4"+..I challenge anyone to prove me wrong....just buy the book...interesting: proves Clint's height also...and Marvin's, but we know there are a few people who just can't imagine the Duke as anyone taller than 6'..cudiate, hermano!
Glenn said on 15/Sep/06
I met Sophia.5-8 sounds right.
said on 15/Sep/06
Sophia Loren was very tall, 5.8 I think. Take a look at her next to Wayne.Click Here
Wayne next to James Stewart. I watched this movie recently (Wayne`s last movie) and he looked very, very tall.Click Here
Gonzalo said on 15/Sep/06
I guess he looks tall in this pic. To say he was under 6
anon said on 11/Sep/06
I believe wholeheartedly that John Wayne was over 6'0" and maybe more. I know his granddaughter and she is atleast 5'11" or an inch shorter since she was inches taller than me and I stand at 5'6". His 13 yr old great granddaughter is already half an inch taller than me. Coincidence that his descendents are so tall? Probably not. Especially since they're females and females tend to not grow that tall unless they have very tall parents and grandparents.
I haven't been in touch with his granddaughter in atleast 2 months or so but maybe if I do speak to her I can ask how tall he was and see if she has an estimate.
said on 11/Aug/06
John was definitely 6-foot-4:Click Here
That man to the left of John is "5-10.5" Bob Hope.
Regus said on 1/Jul/06
Watch him in any of those early movies he did-the Big Trail or whatever, from the thirties, when he was hardly in a position to control how they shot him or what size the extras would be, etc. He towers over his co-stars(Gabby Hayes, etc) it's not even funny. One of my co-workers told me she saw him in person in Boston back in the mid-60s. He was most def. 6-4.
Frank2 said on 29/May/06
Watching In Harm's Way I noticed that Wayne wore regular shoes and towered over everyone except for 6'5" George Kennedy. The Duke was about an inch shorter. Wayne was several inches taller than 6'1" Henry Fonda. I now have no doubt he stood 6'4" barefoot.
Larry said on 29/May/06
Hi Jason - Ahhh... that was a Jimmy Dean song. I wouldn't think it was Big John Hamilton. But I recall the song from my junior high days: "BIG BAD JOHN!"
I think the John we all knew & loved was more like 275 pounds and he had a VERY nasal voice. Well, so DO I being from the same area of Texas. :-) I asked my cousin about seeing John Wayne & he said Mr. Wayne looked about 6'4" and weighed maybe 260-270 when he saw him. He didn't get a look at footwear.
That would have been about 1968.
Frank2 said on 26/May/06
About as hilarious as wasps in one's pants.
Jason said on 26/May/06
Larry, I remember once hearing this song on the radio called ''Big John''. Was an old song about some dude called Big John lol. Said he was 6'6'' 245lbs if I remember correctly. Was it about the Big John you're talking about?
Tiger said on 24/May/06
I know that Clark/McFly/Harvey is a nut; we all know that! Rob: I think you should let this clown have his remarks posted. They are great comic relief. It is fun to watch a person of this nature make a complete idiot out of himself. He is so dumb that he's actually hilarious!