How tall is Mick Mars

Mick Mars Height

5ft 3 ¼ (160.7 cm)

Peak height was 5ft 8 ¾ (174.6 cm)
US Guitarist. Suffers from Ankylosing Spondylitis and has lost 5 inches height, said in blender magazine in 2008 "I used to be almost five-foot-nine, and I'm just a little over five-three now".

Add a Comment79 comments

Average Guess (6 Votes)
Peak: 5ft 8.79in (174.7cm)
Current: 5ft 2.79in (159.5cm)
Hanov said on 25/Mar/20
He looked a weak 5'8 with Nikki and Tommy
Danimal 5'9 3/4 said on 23/Feb/19
Rob, you really should update Mick's current height. Your quote of him being just over 5'3" is from 11 years ago. His disease has progressed immensely since then and he's also around 70 years old today. He looks to be max 5'2" these days.

Also, you should consider adding the lead singer of Great White (Jack Russell). He used to be around 6'0" and is down to about 5'0" today. His entire upper torso has collapsed on him. He's not a well man at all. Still touring though!
Editor Rob
He might be 5ft 2 these days. I read something the other day, wasn't about a celebrity, but a guy who went from a height of 6ft 4 to 5ft 7. Unbelievable loss, but that is what spinal-related cancer done to this man.
Gracian said on 12/Nov/18
It's terrifying, so much loss of heights! He has even more lose height than David Prowse, he lost at least 5 and a half inches! When he was young in the 70's and 80's, he looked comfortable over 5'8" but I saw his photos and recordings from 2015 alongside Alice Cooper and Tommy Lee, it really looks disturbing! Rob, how is such a large loss height possible?
Editor Rob
He has Ankylosing Spondylitis, which can cause some people to lose big amounts over a period of time.
Neron said on 17/Jan/18
He's probably 5'1"
anyonmious said on 21/Oct/17
when he was with motley crue. he was 5'8.5". He is may be 5'1.5" now a days
Danimal said on 23/Oct/14
There are pictures online from 1981 where Mick was TALLER than Vince Neil and they were wearing the same normal flat shoes. Today, Mick wears THESE boots Click Here and is still several inches shorter than Vince. Imo, he's max 5'2" today. That's at least a 7" height loss. Poor guy.
Danimal said on 23/Oct/14
Looks like you deleted all the messages on this page eh Rob?
[Editor Rob: before 2013 a lot of messages are gone.

Ankylosing Spondylitis is one condition that really can seriously effect height, I knew a guy who used to go to cons who had a severe case, the legs of a 5ft 9 man and upper body just collapsed really.]
flys4Food said on 13/Jan/14
I took him and Tommy Lee from Canada to Cincinnati (I was the pilot) for a concert. He's pretty bent over from health problems...couldn't be more than 5'4 now.
Arch Stanton said on 13/Mar/13
Peak , yea he was near 5'9". Might need to update now though in the last 5 years I reckon he's lost another inch. He wears huge shoes but still looks real short next to the other Motley Guys. More 5'2" range today I reckon.
Banana said on 19/Aug/11
Mick Mars is unfortunate enough to have ankyalosis spondalitus. This is a probelm in his back and shoulders, wearing down at the bottom of his spine. In the 198Os he was 5ft9" or 5ft10" but since his disease is getting worse his spine has worn down making him 5ft3"
Anonymous said on 18/Feb/11
I flew Mick and Tommy Lee from Canada to Cincinnati for a concert. Mick is really short. 5'2 max. Very very nice guy though. Tommy Lee...well that's another story.
Shaun said on 11/Feb/11
He wears 5 inches platforms to compensate for the height loss but still looks tiny.
Shaun said on 11/Feb/11
Yeah kind of odd how Mars was the sensible one of the Crue and is in the worst health.
Shaun said on 11/Feb/11
He's tiny and looks a waste. Watch the Kat von D video on youtube of Nikki Sixx getting a tattoo of Mars on his knee. I notice he wears like 4 or 5 inches platform shoes covered by jeans and still looks a tiny man. I'd have guessed without 5'2"- or 5'3"
unknown said on 3/Jan/11
Mick mars and vince neil are both 5'9
Brad said on 29/Apr/09
Like a slinky. You lose space when it collapses. He'd need a major operation to grind out each disc.
Tom said on 28/Apr/09
ankylosing spondylitis effectively collapses your spine and makes it one big bone, so the height loss is probably legit, much more serious than bad posture, your bones actually fuse together, as well as bend.
glenn said on 20/Apr/09
helene-my friend didnt know how to work my camera and i was mortified that mick would walk away.i always had bad luck obtaining a pic with him.
aram x said on 18/Apr/09
I am not sure how someone can loose up to 5 inches of their original height from just spinal curvature alone. That must be some pretty bad curvature of the spine because I've never heard of anyone who has lost anymore than 2-3 inches of height from bad posture/spinal curvature.
Brad said on 18/Apr/09
Schmucky little Long Islanders.
H said on 18/Apr/09
For some odd reason, I kept missing it in the google. Today, I found it again. Sorry for the delay. Glenn, your expression is so funny here! Your personality seems to be the direct opposite as Mr. Mick's. I believe what Mick says about
Ankylosing Spondylitis. I've seen this happen to people.
glenn said on 16/Apr/09
hmm.maybe he is.and wore big boots.i thought 5-4 originally.i could be wrong.boc were suprisingly uncool.
Brad said on 14/Apr/09
Buck is like Dio's height.
glenn said on 14/Apr/09
i love suffocation,but i think theres only a couple original members.maybe im wrong.i have photos with.a 5-7 or 5-6 guy? a 5-8 guy? and possibly the black members? i just cant remember if both black guys are short.
glenn said on 14/Apr/09
so how tall would you say he is brad?
ER. said on 13/Apr/09
Don't think Suffocation and some of the other NYC death metal bands would fall into that category. Two guys there are in the 6-0 range. Glenn must have some more info on this.
Daron Mayweather said on 13/Apr/09
Ain't Vince Neil said to be closer to 5'9?
Brad said on 12/Apr/09
Buck came up to my hip. I doubt he was 5' 4". Everything out of NYC was/is short cept 2 Ramones.
glenn said on 12/Apr/09
omg.how can i forget boc.reaallly shhooorrrrt.i have pics to post one day.5-4,5-6 guys.well,maybe the singer is 5-7.maybe.
Brad said on 10/Apr/09
Blue Oyster Cult guys are a really short band. Anything out of NY is short.
5 ft 3.8 said on 7/Apr/09
TINY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow, that must suck for him!
Brad said on 31/Mar/09
A lot of people don't like their age printed. Dio denying & being a liar is pretty amazing. He usually is a straight shooter. He was doo-wopping in '58. Mick's spine is so messed up no surgery can correct the stuff totally stuck to his discs. Like a paste. Nobody has pinned Mick's age through yearbooks etc.. You'd think it was easy.
Rusty said on 31/Mar/09
He looks alot more than 5'3" in that photo.
motley fan said on 30/Mar/09
hes such a good nice person who is also a great guitarist. poor mick my hart goes out to him he must have a lot of pain in his back. i have back problems too but nothing as bad as his.
glenn said on 29/Mar/09
i would imagine so er.i have a compilation with one or 2 songs.
RisingForce said on 29/Mar/09
Yeah, it's nothing too bad at all. I recall Ronnie saying something to the effect of "that was what music sounded like at the time and everyone starts somewhere" in an interview. Of course I'm paraphrasing. I think he may be worried about his image in the eyes of metal fans, but as you said everyone knows about those recordings and have for years.
Dani said on 29/Mar/09
i don't buy this loss height. it's impossible to lose 14cm. The average loss for a male is 3cm. Can someone explain to me how he lost 14cm. What's he suffering from?(surgeries)? please someone of rob?I've read and 3cm is or one inch is the average.
Mr. T said on 29/Mar/09
It's a pretty bad height loss for a guy relatively young. My dad's lost as much as three inches but isn't in that bad of shape.
ER. said on 29/Mar/09
Those very early 45 rpm singles with Dio from the 50's and 60's, they must be nearly impossible to get hold of these days right..?
glenn said on 29/Mar/09
i have mainly bootlegs too on cd.but i have one official album that said ronnie dio on it and he denied it was him.i couldnt believe it,as everyone knows about it.big whup.its decent music.nothing too bad.
Danimal said on 28/Mar/09
RisingForce says on 28/Mar/09
I'm not doubting you Danimal. it just did surprise me that after all of these years he finally admitted to being born in 1942 after he had stated he was born in 1949 for years. On Cortland highschool's website they state he graduated in 1960 and records under the name Ronald Padavona showed he was born in 1942 anyway. Maybe Ronnie was aware of that and decided to just be honest this time because everyone knew it at this point. It was easier to lie about his age when less information was available, or maybe he just doesn't see a point at this time in his life and he figured the debate would finally go away.

Exactly.
RisingForce said on 28/Mar/09
I have all of that early stuff too Glenn. Not anything official, but bootleg versions.

I can picture that and it doesn't really surprise me that he was very uncomfortable. I've heard numerous times that he doesn't like to talk about that stuff, I remember him being asked about it in one interview and he didn't sound too proud of the early stuff.
RisingForce said on 28/Mar/09
I'm not doubting you Danimal. it just did surprise me that after all of these years he finally admitted to being born in 1942 after he had stated he was born in 1949 for years. On Cortland highschool's website they state he graduated in 1960 and records under the name Ronald Padavona showed he was born in 1942 anyway. Maybe Ronnie was aware of that and decided to just be honest this time because everyone knew it at this point. It was easier to lie about his age when less information was available, or maybe he just doesn't see a point at this time in his life and he figured the debate would finally go away.
Danimal said on 27/Mar/09
Go to Ronnie James Dio's website and one of the guy's on there quoted him in a recent magazine stating his true height when asked straight out. He graduated in 1960 as Brad stated. He is 66 and will be 67 this year.
glenn said on 27/Mar/09
i have some of that doo-wop music he did on compilations.dio and i got into a bizzare argument 2 years ago over it.he acted like it wasnt him and was insulted when i mentioned the word doo-wop.i wished someone did video of it.cause,thought it wasnt heated,it was weird.he the hugged me at the end when i said i wasnt trying to give him a hard time.
glenn said on 27/Mar/09
yes,brad.micks one of those rare cases of,he would love to sign and pose with you,but he cant.
RisingForce said on 27/Mar/09
Ronnie most likely lied about his age initially because he was much older than pretty much anyone else on the 80's metal scene. It's easier to market a singer in his mid 30's than early to mid 40's. I see nothing wrong with him lying about it initially, age is a trivial thing anyway.
Brad said on 27/Mar/09
Dio was born in '42. He graduated high school in '60. So much for Ronnie being straight with people.
RisingForce said on 27/Mar/09
Really Danimal? I'm surprised he admitted it. I guess it was because everyone already knew he was born in 1942. Even as recent as the late 90's he was very emphatic when claiming 1949 as his birth year though. Here is an example

RJD: Well, I was born in '49, and I never told anybody anything other than that. The thing is that I started so young, I think, that I probably flow through a lot of people who are the same age as I am, and have done more than they have, but it's never been a problem for me. You are what you are, you get to be as old as you get to be. It really doesn't matter, but that's me.

Click Here
glenn said on 27/Mar/09
interesting brad.
Danimal said on 26/Mar/09
RisingForce says on 25/Mar/09
I searched Mick's age on Google and there was a photographer claiming that Mick was born around 1941/1942! And there was another claiming 1943/1944. It's funny, I never really thought about Mick's age, I always heard more about Dio's age. In reality though it seems as though Dio is only lying about his age by 7 years while Mick may be lying by 10 years!

Dio no longer lies about his age. He recently admitted to having been born in 1942.
Anonymous said on 26/Mar/09
whoa! how does a person lose five inches?!
Brad said on 26/Mar/09
Dio is around 67, he was in bands in 1959. Mick looked in his mid 20's holding his son in '71. Mick is a tough scribble. He usually runs to a back doctor after every gig or is in a zoned out state.
RisingForce said on 26/Mar/09
The earliest birth year I've heard claimed for Dio I believe was 1937, but that's BS. I believe he was born in 1942, I think it was confirmed that he graduated highschool in 1960. I heard 1940 a lot as well, one of Ronnie's former bandmates told me 1944, but 1942 is most likely correct. Whatever age Dio is doesn't really matter though, he's still a great singer.
Brad said on 26/Mar/09
Nobody can find his high school yearbook photo.
glenn said on 26/Mar/09
j-lee-i respect your suggestion.but risingforce is correct.plus i cant control situations as ive stated to you.the person taking the photo which was micks girl or another peer of mind was taking so long at figuring out how to use my camera,i spoke in the photo and quickly shut my mouth hence the dumb look on my face.i was afraid mick would walk away.i had bad luck for years getting him.after shows he would ignore me due to pain.strangely,he signed for me recently after a show.i bent to make sure the person wasnt cutting the top of my head off in the photo,due to micks shortness.which seems a bit exaggerated.he does always were tremendous heels though.5-3.5 bent over.5-6 straight.
glenn said on 26/Mar/09
yup.some say dio is 70.mick could be 60.heck,ian hunter is 70.obviously,i think dio is 60.but who knows.
RisingForce said on 26/Mar/09
Glenn has stated numerous times that he doesn't take these pictures to compare heights.
J.Lee said on 25/Mar/09
Glenn you seem to want to bend over a lot with very short people. Maybe from now you should stand straight to prove the height difference? Just a suggestion.
RisingForce said on 25/Mar/09
I searched Mick's age on Google and there was a photographer claiming that Mick was born around 1941/1942! And there was another claiming 1943/1944. It's funny, I never really thought about Mick's age, I always heard more about Dio's age. In reality though it seems as though Dio is only lying about his age by 7 years while Mick may be lying by 10 years!
glenn said on 25/Mar/09
anonymous was me.bouncer-he is usually hunched over.
Anonymous said on 25/Mar/09
i agree risingforce.he seems more 5-6 to me in general.
RisingForce said on 25/Mar/09
Mick said in the book The Dirt that his condition has made him 3 inches shorter than he was in highschool. I think that sounds more accurate and his terrible posture makes it seem more like 5.
ACG said on 24/Mar/09
Brad says on 24/Mar/09
'51 is his listed age. Many people agree he is older. He has a 20 year old grandson!


maybe it's the long dark hair and/or the quality of the photo, but he himself looks as though he could be 20!!!
Bouncer said on 24/Mar/09
From 5'8.75 to 5'3.5, how is that possible?? I mean has he even a straight back, glenn?
glenn said on 24/Mar/09
when your supposedly 10 years older than your bandmates thats already nearing or at 50,to me,thats old.especially since they just signed a 10 year contract.mick will be in his late 60s when they retire.i applaud he can handle it that long.
Leung said on 24/Mar/09
I too believe that he could have unintentionally overstated his height loss because he looks at least 5
Brad said on 24/Mar/09
'51 is his listed age. Many people agree he is older. He has a 20 year old grandson!
Ray said on 24/Mar/09
Yeah, poor guy........really sucks to have health issues like that. He still can play the guitar though! Just saw the Crue about 2 weeks ago.
Drenter said on 24/Mar/09
When you have this kind of problem it's hard to say how many inches you can lose. Anyway was he wearing make-up or is it his real skin tone?
RisingForce said on 24/Mar/09
I don't think of 57 as really old, especially these days. Mick is in worse shape than a lot of 75 year olds.
glenn said on 24/Mar/09
i estimated 5-6 in the 90s for him.it does seem extreme,and he looks taller lately.back to 5-8,5-9.but i guess its the footwear.its no surprise.in 1985 he was rocking high heels.im obviously bending.
glenn said on 24/Mar/09
not that old? supposedly he is 10 years older than the other member.
ACG said on 24/Mar/09
I agree with Rising...I do believe it's a serious disease, but could he(most likely unintentionally) be exaggerating his height loss?

What I'm trying to say is that he certainly looks as though he could be taller than 5'3.5....would you be so kind as to offer your take, glenn?

[Editor Rob: I doubt he'd bs about something like that...he does wear very large heels as can be seen here: Mick's Shoes]
Rod said on 24/Mar/09
Poor Mick, ... He is definitely not well, ... and is actually shrinking in height. He is in his early 50's in age.
Brad said on 23/Mar/09
Boot to boot? That poor guy is a midgit now, that's Madonna's height! 313? Detroit. He's around 60 years old now, was in bands in the 60's and has a 38 year old son. He actually looks better than Vince, Vince is really bloated. He'll do the tour knock down in weight then explode to a barrel. Lee & Sixx just don't age even after Colombia & Jack in them.
Bouncer said on 23/Mar/09
OMG! 5 inches loss, that's hard! I'm afraid now ...
glenn said on 23/Mar/09
strangely,he has been looking taller last week to me in person.my only photo with him above.rarely ever saw the guy in the early 90s.took one with him in 1997 that didnt come out.
RisingForce said on 23/Mar/09
He's looked terrible for years. It's sad considering he's not that old. Even considering his condition a 5 inch height loss is shocking. Are you sure some fo that isn't posture?

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.