How tall is Pierce Brosnan

Pierce Brosnan's Height

6ft ¾ in (184.8 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 1 ¼ (186.1 cm)
Irish Actor best known for playing James Bond in Goldeneye, Die Another Day and for roles in films such as The Thomas Crown Affair, Mamma Mia!, Mrs. Doubtfire, Dantes Peak and The Matador. He has claimed "195lbs, 6ft 2 on a good day." and in his Spotlight casting directory page in the 1980's, gave Height 6 feet 1 inch.

How tall is Pierce Brosnan
Photos by PR Photos

You May Be Interested

Height of Sean Connery
Sean Connery
6ft 2 (188 cm)
Height of Roger Moore
Roger Moore
6ft 1 ¼ (186 cm)
Height of Colin Firth
Colin Firth
6ft 1 (185 cm)
Height of Daniel Craig
Daniel Craig
5ft 10 ¼ (178 cm)

Add a Comment1936 comments

Average Guess (121 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 1.49in (186.7cm)
Current: 6ft 0.85in (185cm)
Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 5/Jun/19
Click Here Dylan's height have over estimated to be 6'5 and here next to his dad (closer to camera) they look 2.25" difference.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/May/19
I just around to Taffin and he’s barely shorter than Patrick Bergin (solid 6ft3) and towers over Allison Doody (5ft8-9). Also about 2in on Jeff Fahey in Lawnmower Man. Really I think anywhere from 6ft1¼-6ft1¾ is debatable for his peak and nowadays might still hit 6ft1 on a good day, definitely not lower than the current height
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 16/May/19
🎁🕵️🎂 Happy Birthday Pierce! 🎂🕵️🎁

Have a great 66th Birthday today, Pierce!

My favourite of this guy's films are 'Lawnmower Man' and 'The Long Good Friday'. Both movies show Pierce at his peak height.

6ft1.5 optimum and 6ft0.75 nowadays.
Truth Seeker said on 26/Apr/19
I shook his hand backstage at a premiere in 1997, and he was changing from one pair of dress shoes into dress boots, and was barely 5’10” in his stocking feet.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Apr/19
Rob, I think what you were saying in 05’ is still on point today
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Apr/19
Nah, “tall, dark and handsome” was the trademark. Anywhere from 6ft1 to 6ft3 is ideal. Before Craig, they all ticked that box. He’s meant to be taller than most but still able to blend in and obviously be put in siuations where he’s outsized and has to use brains rather than brawn. If a 6ft4-5 guy played Bond it would start to look ridiculous. For instance Liam Neeson would have been an awful Bond. But at the same time he’s meant to have a certain presence physically...that’s why Connery was brilliant.
Johan 185 cm said on 13/Apr/19
Rick said on 3/Jan/18
For a character like Bond average height would make far more sense than above average. Bond isn't supposed to be a physical brute, he's a spy. His specialty is blending in, his combat ability is primarily in firearms and even when he does fight hand to hand he relies on skill rather than strength. I think the original character in the novels is trained in Judo.

I'm pretty sure in the novels he was described as average in looks and stature too. An ordinary man caught up in extraordinary situations.


Bond was described as 6 foot in the books and the average male height in the 50's was 5'8". So Bond was the equivalent of a 6'1" -6'2" guy today. Nothing to do with average at all. Master tactician/hand to hand specialist what you smoking man? Bond is a male power fantasy haha.

Alot of the actors were 6'1" or near 6'2" who played him in film, Daniel craig was certainly the shortest and with modern height standards a guy who is indeed plain average.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/Apr/19
Peak: 188.6cm/186.7cm
Today: 187cm/185.1cm
billionaireslayer said on 23/Mar/19
Weak 6'1 peak
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Jan/19
He’s not as low as 6ft today
Michael 5'10", 178 cm said on 31/Dec/18
He looked 6'1" in the Bond movies and about 6'0" in the Foreigner with Jackie Chan. 6'1" sounds right for Pierce, he apparently reached his full height at 11 years old, he's barely 6 foot today.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/Dec/18
Peter O’Toole was gawky
Sandy Cowell said on 19/Nov/18
@ Arch Stanton:

Re: Sean Connery - I couldn't agree more! There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER gawky about Sean Connery; not now, not then, not ever! 😊👍
Rising - 174 cm said on 19/Nov/18
Pierce was barely taller than a 68 year old Roger Moore so I doubt he was more than Rob lists him. I mean if he was listed 6'1" early then it's doubtful he was much, if any, taller.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Nov/18
Connery gawky Lol??? Not even slightly. Nicholas Lyndhurst or Jarvis Cocker maybe.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Nov/18
Stallone is 72 now though but I know what you mean!
TheBat said on 15/Nov/18
@Spencer

I agree with you Spencer, Pierce currently looks 6'1" as of now.
Spencer said on 11/Nov/18
6'1.75" peak
6'1" today
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Nov/18
Berta alternatively just give him 186.7cm. That's exactly 6ft1½ and he looked it consistently in the 80's-90's, that or a weak 6ft2. I don't think a 30 year old Brosnan was any shorter than a peak Colin Firth, if anything he had the edge


I'd tweak his current height to 6ft0⅞(185.1cm), not convinced he's just 184cm.
berta said on 3/Nov/18
sometimes today he can look only 184. i dont know if its just posture. But he always have good posture to it cant be it. Sometimes i think 186,5 range is possible for peak but i at the same time dont believe he have lost more than 1-1,5 cm in height max. 186 peak and 184,5 today is good estimate
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Sep/18
Out of bed: 188.6cm
Before bed: 186.7cm
MAD SAM said on 13/Aug/18
Has anyone seen his pics with Roger Federer ? I don’t understand he just looks 5’10” in those ?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Aug/18
I think it's fair to say that Brosnan may lost a tiny bit more than Firth because he's 8 years older. I agree with Berta that he could still measure around 185cm. I can't see him at just 184cm though.


Brosnan: 6ft1½ peak, 6ft0⅞ today
Firth: 6ft1⅜ peak, 6ft1 today


Didn't really think there was much between them in Mamma Mia 2, certainly not 1in anyway
Editor Rob
I was walking by daniel naprous table the other day at film con and saw he had a photo beside Pierce - he must have been a henchman for a scene, but I can't remember which Bond...would be interesting to see how Daniel looked with Pierce if there is indeed a scene.
CDS said on 1/Aug/18
@rampage: In the 1st mamma mia 10 yrs ago, I could've sworn Colin edged out pierce then too, it just didn't seem by as much? I was surprised honestly, especially since I didn't actually think firth was that tall. So that confirms firth to be the 6'1" he claims?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Aug/18
10 years ago Brosnan edged out Firth
CDS said on 30/Jul/18
Just seen mamma Mia here we go again. And was surprised to see now that Colin firth consistently edged out pierce throughout the entire film by a good inch. I think pierce in his prime was a solid 6'1" (6'2" in shoes). So if Colin in 6'1" as he's listed here, is it possible pierce has dropped to a flat 6' these days? 6'2" skellan skarsgard also looked noticeably taller than pierce the entire film..
Editor Rob
Brosnan is in the last few years looking under 6ft 1 at times, he may well be 6ft 0.5-0.75 range now.

Some guys can reach 60's with minimal loss. But once you hit the 'Sly zone', that 65-70 range, that is when many men will begin to lose more noticeable height.
berta said on 28/Jul/18
i i think brosnan was one of the few 6 foot 1 3/8 at peak. today maybe 185 cm flat. He can sometimes look 184 today. but i believe he is over that when measured
Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 9/Jul/18
Look more like 6'0 1/2 to 6'0 5/8 with his 6'5 son Dylan Brosnan.
James B 171.5cm said on 21/Jun/18
In the bond films really didnt look that tall.

Maybe because he has such a big head makes him look shorter?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Jun/18
I think peak was at least the same as Firth (186.4cm)
diavolo said on 29/Apr/18
Terry: Right. Ian Fleming initially disliked the casting of Connery as Bond in Dr. No, because he thought he's too tall and too dark for the role. Later, when he saw Connery's portrayal, he changed his mind and grew to like his Bond persona despite the apparent difference between the literary and the film character's physical appearance. After Connery's success, the filmmakers opted to cast actors of similar height and appearance until Daniel Craig came along and they kinda returned to the original character in the novels.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/Apr/18
Both guys generally looked 186-187cm zone in their primes but I personally would give Brosnan the edge
Rory said on 7/Apr/18
I think in the 90s Brosnan looked 2cms taller than Moore, so Brosnan 186cm and a 67 year old Moore 184cm. At his peak though in the 1960s Moore would have been indistinguishable from Brosnan
QM6'1QM said on 4/Apr/18
I think, he's completely honest with the statement "6'2 on a good day". Definitely he was not above this in the morning (at his peak). Peak height: 6'1.25"/ 186 cm.
Height nowadays: 6'0.5-.75"/ 184 cm range.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Apr/18
Rob, is it possible you temporarily had Pierce at 6ft2 back in 05'?



Certainly seems he was once down here at 6ft1½ looking at the archives
Editor Rob
He was at 6ft 1.5 for a while, but I believe he was first given 6ft 1 flat at least in late 2004.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Apr/18
I reckon Moore was still at least 6ft range in the 90's so Brosnan does look to be 6ft1½ in comparison
Erik9012 said on 31/Mar/18
Pierce and Roger looked close in height. This picture is from 1995 when Goldeneye was premiered. Pierce has a slight advantage so I'd guess he was about 1/4 inch less of 6ft2.

Click Here
Terry said on 26/Mar/18
The real James Bond types are short!so to all the people commenting on here saying Daniel Craig is too short to be Bond are just uneducated. Back to Pierce Brosnan's height then, yes he is tall, about 187cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Feb/18
His son is actually 6ft5, possibly even a bit more
jonas said on 10/Feb/18
His son is listed 6"4 but looks 4.5 inches taller
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Jan/18
Of course, we shouldn't just hand them out blindly
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Jan/18
Rob, how about tweaking this to 6ft1⅜?


That's if you're still unsure of giving him 6ft1½
Editor Rob
I need to be careful with the 1/8ths. I won't rule it out though.
Psychedelic Earth 187 said on 16/Jan/18
Probably has dipped to 184cm by 2018. But 187cm is arguable in prime.
James B said on 4/Jan/18
Rick- that could be why they chose Daniel Craig as bond.

Average in looks and height
Z186 said on 4/Jan/18
Also, we don't need to debate the ideal height for Bond actor... As the writer actually decided his measurements so we don't have to .... In the novel From Russia With Love he clearly describes Bond as 183cm and 76kg (whether that is in shoes or not, I don't know, so I suppose the least he could be is 5'11 / 75 kg.... and he is described as having a swimmers physique, though not in the same novel if I remember correctly.

I'm not sure if @Rob knows but I think average height might have gone up by half an inch in 50 years, so you could factor that in if you wanted to be picky, but according to Northwestern University anthropologist William Leonard “We’ve pretty well maxed out in terms of stature” for humans
Editor Rob: 6ft when that novel was written is certainly like a solid 6ft 1 range man today in the UK.
Z186 said on 4/Jan/18
@Ramage seems different to most who would downgrade celebs - he wants them to be taller than they actually are!
IMO Pierce would have written 6'2 in the directory is he was that or just below (187)... just seems strange that actors seem to grow an inch or two miraculously after becoming famous.

No way was Connery 188 without shoes, he is never really a head taller than many of his female co-stars- and domino (in thunderbolt) who might be five-ten in heels, is nearly as tall as him!
Women tend to tell the truth about their height more than men (because they aren't bothered) so it's often better to compare men with with known female celebs.
Rick said on 3/Jan/18
For a character like Bond average height would make far more sense than above average. Bond isn't supposed to be a physical brute, he's a spy. His specialty is blending in, his combat ability is primarily in firearms and even when he does fight hand to hand he relies on skill rather than strength. I think the original character in the novels is trained in Judo.

I'm pretty sure in the novels he was described as average in looks and stature too. An ordinary man caught up in extraordinary situations.
Rick said on 3/Jan/18
Peak would have been not too far off 6'2.
Current I would say a flat 6'1.
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 3/Jan/18
@Rampage

Any height for 007 is fine as long as the actor's above average in height. I wouldn't call 6'0" too short for any action role.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Jan/18
6ft3 is fine but not over. Connery at a strong 6ft2 did not look gawky at all. He looked the most masculine. I think 6ft is to low for 007.

185cm-190cm perfect range...now let's get back to Pierces height
avi said on 30/Dec/17
I think the perfect Bond height is 6'1.
6'3 (legit 6'3) is too tall.
Connery at 6'2 was even looking a bit gawky at times.

I'd even go as far as agreeing with grizz that a strong 5'11 guy who is trim can pull it off.

Daniel Craig must be 5'10 flat. His build is too muscular too. Not sure what was going through their head the day he was cast as Bond.
grizz said on 27/Dec/17
I agree with Rory- 5'11-6'3 is the perfect range for playing Bond. Over 6'3 and you're entering the henchman territory,as someone mentioned (it's a common practice in the movies that the good guy is always shorter or weaker than the bad guy, some David and Goliath metaphor,I guess).

And yes, Fleming's Bond is described as a 6footer,but bear in mind that the book was written in the 50s when UK's national average was 0.5-1in shorter than today. So,IMO, 6'0.5-6'1 is the perfect height to play Bond nowadays.
Cavill is bang-on perfect for that role, even 10 years after his 1st audition. He even doesn't have to get shredded for the role, Craig's muscular physique worked out perfectly for Bond's box office performance
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Dec/17
No he claimed 6ft2 on a good day which to me implies 6ft1½ range peak and looking at Bond, pre-Bond it's plausible. Even in Remember Me just 7 years ago he looked a good inch taller than Robert Pattinson.


He's still close to 6ft1 today
The Shredder said on 25/Dec/17
He was always just 6'1 and even claimed , 6'0.5 now is correct but no lower.
Kevin said on 25/Dec/17
6'0.5 at best nowadays. 6'1.25 peak

btw Bond in Fleming's novels is said to be 183cm, so 6'0 is really be the ideal height for Bond not 6'1-6'3 like many people think.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Dec/17
I strongly disagree Rob. I think at worst a fraction under 6ft1 today
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Dec/17
I think Pierce still looks around 6ft1 today
Animus said on 24/Dec/17
Rob, what do you think his current height is? He looks to me like he is in the six-foot range. His arms look disproportionately long, which could indicate he has lost a lot of height.
Editor Rob: he could be 6ft 0.5 at most now, he is starting to look like he has lost more than just a small fraction, but it's natural.

For many men, that 60-65 range is where the body begins to suffer a little with disc changes/shrinkage.
Allie said on 23/Dec/17
Rob how do you think is his son, Dylan now? Surely he can't be just 6'4 like google claims.
Editor Rob: it's what is on his model agency, but then maybe he is worth a page now he has hit age 20...he does tower above Pierce, but then Pierce isn't really looking 6ft 1 range these days.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Dec/17
Psychedelic, I think 6ft1-2 is the most ideal 007 height but up to 6ft3 is acceptable aswell. A guy Joe Mangeniello's size would look ridiculous in the role though...he'd start to look like a henchman
Psychedelic Earth 187 said on 18/Dec/17
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Dec/17
I think 6ft1 to 6ft3 is the ideal height for 007
***************
I’d like more 6’1”-6’2”. 6’3” is pushing it.
jason said on 18/Dec/17
Dear Rob before I ask my question I want to tell you that I'm a big fan of yours.and I'm new at this site. rob this question may be off topic but only an height expert like you can ans this.my question is that a person only looks tall at a height of 6 feet 1.agreed by the majoroty .and when ever I see legit tall person and I ask him his height the claim is mostly 6 feet 1, and mostly everybody now days lie about their height.thus do you think the people who we think are genuinely tall are and I'm only talking about 6 feet 1 men.are one inch shorter then their real height making them 6 feet in reality . and thus making the traditional 6 feet mark tall or maybe it was always tall because all of the 6 feet people claiming 6 feet 1 and all the 5 10 and 511 claiming 6 feet and making that mark short thus do you think all the 6 foot people are genuinely tall and claim 6 feet 1 because of the 5 feet 11 men rob plz ans this question I need your opinion. And by the way I think rob has Pierce height bang on .
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Dec/17
I think 6ft1 to 6ft3 is the ideal height for 007
Rory said on 16/Dec/17
Bond I think should really be minimum 5ft11 and maximum 6ft3 and age wise no younger than 35 and no older than 50. In that sense Brosnan and Dalton were the perfect age and heights as Bond.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Dec/17
I'm not a Craig fan...I'm sorry. I'm a traditionalist and Brosnan brought the most authenticity to the role after Connery. Dalton and Moore were on the extreme ends...one too serious the other too comical
James B said on 13/Dec/17
Him being blonde didn't effect the box office either
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Dec/17
In shoes he should be near 6ft3
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Dec/17
I can believe 6ft2 in the morning
James B said on 11/Dec/17
Rob i have seen all the bond films with Roger Moore recently and I must say pierce brosnan pales in comparison too Moore as 007.

Connery and Moore were the best as bond but Daniel craig and Pierce are tedious.
Editor Rob: I think having slightly different Bond's was good for the longevity. And it was also great that they put a 5ft 10ish guy in the role. Had zero effect on the box-office.
Grit said on 9/Dec/17
6'1.5 peak maybe 6'1" now
TheManWithNoName said on 8/Dec/17
Rob, do you think the 6'2" claim is with shoes on?
Editor Rob: early morning type claim I think.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Dec/17
Tom King because he was clearly standing closer to the camera...
Tom King said on 4/Dec/17
I have seen Roger Federer more times and i`m 6 ft.1.5 and i was a this 0.5 in taller. I also have seen later the photos with Roger and Pierce standing on grass, not the best ground. But i think Roger is about 0.5 in taller then Pierce, and Roger is a 6ft 1in, so Pierce must be 6ft maybe out of bed in his youth a bit more, but never more than 6ft 0.25in.
John said on 2/Dec/17
Peak 6' (183 cm) with the help of his hair.
Today around 5'10 and a half (179 cm).
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/Nov/17
Before, then so is Firth
Bego said on 26/Nov/17
Today about 6ft.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Nov/17
James, look at him w/h Robbie Coltrane (probably still 6ft1 then). Easily 1in taller
James B said on 22/Nov/17
Watching world is not enough right now and seriously 6'2 seems impossible too believe in that particular film.

Unless of course they hired a tall cast?
Starlo said on 16/Nov/17
6'1.5 minimum prime. Definitely always gave me a 6'2 impression.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Nov/17
Out of bed: 188.7cm
Before bed: 186.8cm
Scoobydoo said on 4/Nov/17
Between 186-187 was his peak, not more.

Now maybe 184/185 cm barefoot.
Original said on 28/Oct/17
185.5/186 peak, current 184.
Vibram said on 28/Oct/17
186cm 70's > 90's peak. 184cm today.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/Oct/17
I reckon he's about the same as Firth even though the latter is slouching

Click Here
JJAK said on 27/Oct/17
Listing seems accurate looked over 6 1 in 80s maybe very early 90s.
By his bond days had already started shrinking, he looked tiny in the horrible 3rd.
He often looks a weak to strong 6 foot now but he is getting up there.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Oct/17
Remember 6ft1½ is usually rounded up to 187cm (it's really 186.7cm) so it's not a huge leap to give him it. That and still roughly 6ft1 today, not convinced he's 184cm range.
berta said on 19/Oct/17
186,5 peak and 185,5 current
Lucy said on 15/Oct/17
Rob how tall would you say Pierce Brosnan wife Keeley Shaye Smith is she is listed at 5"8 by she looks taller!
Editor Rob: between 5ft 7-8 is possible, but she might actually have lost half inch or so with weight gains.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Oct/17
6ft2 on a good day to me implies a solid 6ft1½ which I think he pulled off maybe a bit more often than Roger...
Mister lennon said on 13/Oct/17
Strong 6'1 peak. Could look 6'2 too.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Oct/17
Rob, is 6ft1½ peak still arguable for Pierce?
Editor Rob: that's the most I think I'd probably argue for him.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Oct/17
Could look a weak 6ft2 guy when he was younger
Anonymous said on 7/Oct/17
I think he is exactly exactly 6'1 nowdays, maybe nearly of the 6'2 mark when he was young.

Nice blue eyes this man
coco said on 3/Oct/17
Johan said on 20/Jul/17
Click Here

I agree, 6' tops there with 6'4" Liam Neeson :)

-------------
I bet you never saw a 6'4 guy then, because 6 foot near a 6'4 is towered, in the link you provide, brosnan is not much shorter, around 6cm.
Slim said on 1/Oct/17
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Sep/17
Agreed, Slim..
******
Thanks. 😉 👍🏻
Rory said on 1/Oct/17
I suppose it's possible guys like Dalton and Brosnan might have rounded down in an attempt to avoid being typecast, they may have been trying to avoid going down an action hero type career so were trying to play their height down. Having said that you can't rule out the chance that actually were just 6ft1 range. I think tbf to Brosnan in some of those 90s pictures with Dalton and Moore he might have been stood on uneven ground.
Rory said on 30/Sep/17
Yh those pictures from the 90s of Dalton,Moore and Brosnan are quite bizarre. Moore you'd have expected to have lost maybe 0.75 inch by then so he naturally would have looked around 184cm but Dalton looks 6ft2 and strangest of all Brosnan looks 6foot there, no more.
Editor Rob: well ultimately both Dalton and Pierce were happy to put out 6ft 1 flat to casting agents in the 80's, Pierce came out with his 6ft 2 on a good day, much like Roger Moore's out of bed 6ft 2, although Moore actually put 6ft 2 in the casting directory.

I suspect Connery once had a 6ft 3 listing associated with him, but I'm not 100% certain as I haven't found it.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Sep/17
Agreed, Slim...
Slim said on 28/Sep/17
Needs a quarter inch upgrade for both peak and current.
X185 said on 25/Sep/17
On Roger Moore's IMDb there are a load of pictures with Moore, Dalton & Brosnan side by side from numerous angles. Obviously Moore was getting on at that stage (late 90s) so had probably lost at least an inch... but both he and Brosnan are similarly shorter than Dalton, by a not un-noticeable amount... meaning Brosnan was the shortest bond before Craig going on what little evidence there is of them all together.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Sep/17
Interesting Brett, similar to Jackman?



I still think he looks 6ft1 today and was taller peak
Anonymous said on 25/Sep/17
I think he is still a strong 6'1 / 185 cm.
Brett said on 22/Sep/17
I reckon I'm the only person on here whose net Brisbane... I've met countless celebrities around my height (185-186cm)... including Hugh Jackman, Will Smith, Gerard Butler... Brosnan was taller than all and pretty much line ball with Jackman ... anything under 6'1" is quite frankly moronic
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Sep/17
@Original: wrong on both...
Original said on 19/Sep/17
Peak at 6'1, now about 6'0.25".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Sep/17
Peak: 186.8cm
Today: 185.2cm
Willes188 said on 18/Sep/17
Or let's say in between the two 186.6
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 16/Sep/17
Willes, agreed...
Willes188 said on 14/Sep/17
187.0cm prime is likelier than 186.1cm,
Axal559 said on 12/Sep/17
Back in his prime (GoldenEye, James Bond days) no doubt 6'1". In GoldenEye he only looked near an inch taller if that than Famke Janssen. Definitely 6ft range now. My father met him 5 years ago in Hawaii. My old man is a weak 6ft and Pierce had about a quarter of an inch on him. He has that tall appearance about him as well so I'm not surprised people would think the lad is taller than he is.
Anon said on 5/Sep/17
Never over 6', if that.
Ted said on 2/Sep/17
For some reason he never looked tall to me. Years ago, I was surprised to hear he was this height. A solid 6' 2'' is definitely pushing it.

186cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Aug/17
He looked no shorter than Letterman
Jug said on 8/Aug/17
His peak was 6'1. David Letterman edged him out a little in 1995. Strong 6'1 but not more. Now looks closer to 6'0.5.
RichardSpain said on 8/Aug/17
Maybe he was 187/188 cm in the morning is plausible but not nowadays. Today seems a strong 184-185 barefoot.

Brosnan was not more than 187cm but not less than 185cm
James said on 7/Aug/17
1.87 is too much in my opinion. Never looked so tall to me.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Aug/17
187cm isn't too much but 188cm might be pushing it though.
James said on 6/Aug/17
No more than 1.86... and no less. Solid 1.86 at peak. 1.87 is too much honestly.
Mister lennon said on 1/Aug/17
No less than 6'1 peak.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/Jul/17
I think 6ft1½ is more than fair, considering it's actually not 187cm but 186.7cm. Wouldn't be a huge leap for him
Chuck said on 26/Jul/17
Based on all the ladies he is eye to eye with, I have to say six feet and yes I considered the ladies in heels.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Jul/17
188.9cm out of bed
RichardSpain said on 24/Jul/17
Peak 186-187
Nowadays strong 184 /185 cm
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Jul/17
Peak: 186.8cm
Today: 185.2cm


He still looks 6ft1 in recent photos.
Johan said on 20/Jul/17
Click Here

I agree, 6' tops there with 6'4" Liam Neeson :)

Click Here
Dan said on 19/Jul/17
6'0" at best...far too much shorter than John Cleese (by at least 4.5") to be 6'1".
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Jul/17
I agree with that Slim
Slim 181 cm said on 16/Jul/17
6'1.5 glory days, 6'1 today.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Jul/17
I'd be very surprised if he's as low as 6ft today.
Christian-196.5cm (6ft5 3/8) said on 15/Jul/17
@6'1.5

I wouldn't take anything that Charlie says seriously if I were you. He once guessed Howard Stern at 5'10"-5'11". You're right, Brosnan's still 6'0" at the very least, and more than likely 6'0.5" Peak was around 6'1" or 6'1.25" as listed.
6'1.5 said on 14/Jul/17
Charlie get off this site Pierce is 6'0" at bare minimum today
Charlie said on 11/Jul/17
Pierce certainly didn't come across as a 6'0 man in The Lawnmower Man.The female actresses in the movie were close to his height. In the movie he is approached by his Beautiful Neighbour both standing on the front lawn chatting. I was surprised how close in height Pierced looked towards the actress. I would say 1 inch height difference. I never believed Pierce to be 6'0 tall ever. He always came across as a 5'9 guy to me. Today he might be 5'8.
Spencer said on 9/Jul/17
6'1.75 peak
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/Jun/17
He could look 6ft1½-2 in the 80's-90's
Slim 181 cm said on 15/Jun/17
6 foot 1.75 young
6 foot 0.75 now
Brett said on 15/Jun/17
I still claim by my citing in the Mark hotel, NYC all those years ago... Brosnan is 187-188cm
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/May/17
I think the 6ft1½ is a better choice for Brosnan and I'd keep Moore at that aswell. That's not because of his death but because I think in The Saint days and the early Bond years he was that mark for sure. He was cast opposite some very tall actor so it didn't do his height justice, made him look average
shiva 181 cms said on 23/May/17
A real 6'1.25 guy could easily pull off near 6'2 especially on screen with angles to favor them ,especially they were both slim in their earlier films
James B said on 22/May/17
Yes I am with Berta 187cm always seemed a bit extreme for Moore
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/May/17
Moore looked 6ft1 flat by his last Bond but in his first near 6ft2
RisingForce said on 19/May/17
Roger Moore at 67 years old was still very close to Brosnan's height: Click Here Click Here Click Here

I don't know if they're standing or walking in the 2nd and 3rd pic. I think standing, but in the first pic, you see Brosnan with perfect posture looks barely taller. Roger Moore didn't strike me as someone who kept his peak height a long time either. If anything, this has made me much less skeptical about Moore's height. Definitely a chance Roger was exactly as tall as he claimed to be. 6'1.5" peak and 6'2" in the morning. His low was probably 186 cm, so it's not a surprise he could look it.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/May/17
I think giving Brosnan 187cm peak is more feasible than downgrading Moore's peak to 186cm.
berta said on 14/May/17
yeah thety where pretty close in height but i think it genereally looked like rooger moore was 186,0 guy while brosnan many times look like he was 186,5 peak.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/May/17
In The Saint Moore could look near 6ft2...as could Brosnan in Remington Steele. I think a 60's Moore and and an 80's Brosnan were similar.
phil said on 11/May/17
so that meaning he about 6'1
SHIVA182CMS said on 11/May/17
MOORE AT HIS PEAK WAS LIKELY LITTLE OVER 6'1 PEAK SAME AS PIERCE
James B said on 10/May/17
Always picture Moore at 6tt1
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/May/17
I think Brosnan and Moore were both 186-187cm range when they played Bond. Not quite 6ft2 but a bit over 6ft1
berta said on 5/May/17
rob do you really think roger moore was taller than him? i think you should atleast give both 186 peak ore even give pierce littel upgrade in peak. there is no way moore was taller.
Editor Rob: both could be argued to be the same.
Rory said on 3/May/17
182cm is ludicrous. You could really argue I think somewhere between 6ft 1 to 6ft 1.5 at peak. Can't see him over 187cm and can't see him under 185cm.
6'1.5 said on 2/May/17
Hiddleston and Pratt range at peak
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Apr/17
6ft2 in the morning is believable but I highly doubt he was quite in the same ballpark as Ryan Reynolds, John Cusack or Hugh Jackman. I still stand by 6ft1½ though.
James B said on 26/Apr/17
Rampage- your putting words in my mout again. I was just saying the lowest I could imagine him in my head being is 182cm but of course he isn't that short lol. It's like the lowest I could imagine John Cleese being is 6ft3 but of course in reality he isn't that low

And yes perhaps even the full 6'1.5 is actually imaginable for Brosnan but never would I guess him at a proper 6'2 188cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Apr/17
I think 187cm for both guys peak is reasonable
Willes188 said on 26/Apr/17
He was probably 0.1-0.5mm taller than Moore when they were in their primes.


If Moore is going to have 6ft 1.5 as his peak height then it's more than fair for Brosnan to get it as well, if not then downgrade Moore to 6ft 1.25 and keep Brosnan at this.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Apr/17
And sorry if he's 182cm then so is Colin Firth and Gerard Butler
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Apr/17
Yeah well your way off the mark
James B said on 24/Apr/17
Certainly he looked closer to 182cm than 188cm with John Cleese
James B said on 24/Apr/17
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Apr/17
I think 187cm peak is perfect, he could even look 188cm at times. He still looked 186cm up to just a few years. 182cm is a such joke, James. When did he ever look that short?



He was barely shorter than solid 6ft3 Patrick Bergin in Taffin and had a decent 5in over 5ft8½ Allison Doody. He actually gave a taller impression with her than Roger Moore did in A View To A Kill and more similar to Connery in The Last Crusade. I don't see 6ft1½ as an unreasonable argument at all. If I started arguing 6ft2 for him then yeah I'd probably be pushing it. I think 6ft1 flat and 6ft2 are out of the question. This is the likelihood as I see it...


6ft1¼: 30%
6ft1½: 45%
6ft1¾: 25%



Rampage- when I say he looked 5'11.5-6'1.25 It means that 182cm is the lowest I would imagine pierce being. And sorry but I could never imagine Pierce being as tall as 188cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Apr/17
I think peak it's too low, shiva…
shiva 181 cms said on 21/Apr/17
Rampage You think 6'1 is out of question I'd say he would have likely been that Mark before bed, 6'1.5 is possible in the morning and near 6'2 straight out of bed
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Apr/17
I think 187cm peak is perfect, he could even look 188cm at times. He still looked 186cm up to just a few years. 182cm is a such joke, James. When did he ever look that short?



He was barely shorter than solid 6ft3 Patrick Bergin in Taffin and had a decent 5in over 5ft8½ Allison Doody. He actually gave a taller impression with her than Roger Moore did in A View To A Kill and more similar to Connery in The Last Crusade. I don't see 6ft1½ as an unreasonable argument at all. If I started arguing 6ft2 for him then yeah I'd probably be pushing it. I think 6ft1 flat and 6ft2 are out of the question. This is the likelihood as I see it...


6ft1¼: 30%
6ft1½: 45%
6ft1¾: 25%
James B said on 18/Apr/17
When I picture pierce brosnan I can imagine him being in the 5'11.5-6'1.25 range but 6'1.5 just seems like slightly too much for him.
James B said on 17/Apr/17
Rampage- personally I think 186cm peak is perfect for brosnan. Like its hard for me to picture clint Eastwood ever being the full 193cm peak likewise it's not easy to picture a legit 187cm peak for pierce.
shiva 181 cms said on 17/Apr/17
He doesn't have the vibe of a 6'1+ tall guy on screen maybe due to large head and his built , I wouldn't have thought he was over 186cms with Liam neeson in 2006
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Apr/17
James I think 6ft1 flat today and 6ft1½ peak is better than what he's currently listed at
James B said on 16/Apr/17
Maybe 6'1 solid if he was 6'1 1/2 prime
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 14/Apr/17
I think he still measures a solid 6ft1 today
James B said on 12/Apr/17
shiva182cms said on 11/Apr/17
I think pierce brosnan was a hair over 6'1 peak and tad below 185cms today, he looked barely a tall guy it's weird most guys look solid tall at his height ,I would have guessed him 5'11 watching his full body shot but after seeing with other celebs, strong 6'1 looked likely


I agree with you on that to a degree but I think pierce always looked more than 5'11 to me in his films. Certainly he looks like a man who is over average height but clearly at the same not a VERY tall guy.
berta said on 12/Apr/17
woooouwwh the average guess think he was even over 6 1 1/2. i think that could be close maybe little under. a 186,6 guy at peak maybe? and today 186 but ould look shorter because different posture.
shiva182cms said on 11/Apr/17
I think pierce brosnan was a hair over 6'1 peak and tad below 185cms today, he looked barely a tall guy it's weird most guys look solid tall at his height ,I would have guessed him 5'11 watching his full body shot but after seeing with other celebs, strong 6'1 looked likely
shiva182cms said on 11/Apr/17
I'm a tad Below 6' I'd like to be 6'1-6'2 but not more though, once you're past 190cms it becomes diffuct to fit in with other people around you ,yeah even in Netherlands,it becomes difficult to do daily life activities as the world is designed for 5'9 guys
I'd say the tallest height without much problems is 6'-6'1 and its an ideal preference for women
@ James b I'd say 5'7 is better than 6'4 as its only 2" below average and 6'4 is 7friggin inches over average
Canson said on 9/Apr/17
@James B: anyone can get cancer tho. Suzanne sommers gad it of course female but still. Or anything else. Look at Michael j fox he's short and has parkinsons. Not disagreeing but saying it can happen at any height none is exempt. Now I have said that no height so superior but I'd rather be 6'4 like I am than 5'6" I will say that because I'm accustomed to it already but would take 5'6" over being 6'8" or 6'9" unless I were meant to be a pro athlete.
Canson said on 9/Apr/17
@James B: anyone can get cancer tho. Suzanne sommers gad it of course female but still. Or anything else. Look at Michael j fox he's short and has parkinsons. Not disagreeing but saying it can happen at any height none is exempt
Canson said on 9/Apr/17
@Insomniak: I understand now. I did misinterpret. My bad. We're good
Headman said on 9/Apr/17
Head length Rob? What would you say?
Editor Rob: about 9.5 probably
insomniak said on 7/Apr/17
Canson again you misinterpret what I said. I don't want to be taller I'm content with how tall I currently am,but if I were to choose between shrinking and growing I would choose to be taller is all.
James B said on 6/Apr/17
Canson-if you google male celebs who have died from cancer all of them are over 5ft6.
Canson said on 5/Apr/17
@James B: no height to me is superior to another. If Insomniak at 6'5" wants to be taller that's cool but I was saying that when you are a height already like 6'5" that is less problematic than 6'8" I made that in reference to the statement he would rather be 3" taller than 3" shorter. I don't think either is "superior" really but for me I'd go with the least problematic and the better quality of life like not having to slouch under every doorway. As for cancer I don't think your risk is really any lower at 5'6" than it'd be at 6'0".
Canson said on 4/Apr/17
@James B: well said! Stern is 6'5" which with some muscle could still look reasonable. He has long limbs more than likely just regularly proportionate and is a guy I doubt dips below that mark and was likely above it in his peak by maybe 1/4-1/2@. Probably 196.2-196.6 prime
James B said on 4/Apr/17
Canson said on 3/Apr/17
@Insomniak: and if that's how you feel that's fine. I totally agree with you most people would rather be taller than shorter hence why so many guys lie up about their height. All I am saying and I am not swaying you one way or another I am just being practical like I am. I don't see anything good about being a height like 6'8 or even 6'6 if not playing pro ball. That is not to say someone who isn't that height doesn't like it but to me it'd be more of an inconvenience than anything. Of course if you are there is nothing you can do you just are who you are. Point that I'm making why would someone want to go out of their way to have to buy sometimes specially made clothes, beds, vehicles, and have to go out of their way to adjust and get different plane seats etc. sounds a bit foolish to me to always be rife for space and inconvenienced but like I said whatever floats someone's boat is cool and it's different strokes for different folks. But I have my opinion just like you do on the subject as does The Don. You both appear to be ridiculing me because I don't "wish" I were taller than the 6'4" and change that I am. And no not "every" person in the western world wishes they were taller. Most guys who are well over 6' typically don't but there are exceptions. You see other taller guys here like Ali baba who is 6'6",SJH who is just about 6'7" and Christian who is also 6'5" and a little say that they'd go with 6'4" over 6'6 or 6'7" as well so it isn't just me. Bobby3342 who is my height said it gets too expensive once you pass 6'3"ish. It's not much different from 6'4 I'd say but he has a point once you hit the high marks like 6'6" it is. And they aren't the only ones there have been loads of others who have even gone as far to say they wouldn't want to be over 6'2". Now id take my height over just about anything because I am accustomed to it for me as a person not because it's a better height than something else is. It's about being happy with ones own self and someone who is plenty tall enough wishing to be taller and not really using the height for anything to me is a bit foolish like Ali Baba once said. It's more an insecurity or an ego thing at that point when already very tall guys claim or wish to be taller




You could even argue a case that being 5'6 is better than being 5'10 because you have a lower risk of getting certain illnesses like cancer the shorter you are.
Canson said on 3/Apr/17
@Insomniak: and if that's how you feel that's fine. I totally agree with you most people would rather be taller than shorter hence why so many guys lie up about their height. All I am saying and I am not swaying you one way or another I am just being practical like I am. I don't see anything good about being a height like 6'8 or even 6'6 if not playing pro ball. That is not to say someone who isn't that height doesn't like it but to me it'd be more of an inconvenience than anything. Of course if you are there is nothing you can do you just are who you are. Point that I'm making why would someone want to go out of their way to have to buy sometimes specially made clothes, beds, vehicles, and have to go out of their way to adjust and get different plane seats etc. sounds a bit foolish to me to always be rife for space and inconvenienced but like I said whatever floats someone's boat is cool and it's different strokes for different folks. But I have my opinion just like you do on the subject as does The Don. You both appear to be ridiculing me because I don't "wish" I were taller than the 6'4" and change that I am. And no not "every" person in the western world wishes they were taller. Most guys who are well over 6' typically don't but there are exceptions. You see other taller guys here like Ali baba who is 6'6",SJH who is just about 6'7" and Christian who is also 6'5" and a little say that they'd go with 6'4" over 6'6 or 6'7" as well so it isn't just me. Bobby3342 who is my height said it gets too expensive once you pass 6'3"ish. It's not much different from 6'4 I'd say but he has a point once you hit the high marks like 6'6" it is. And they aren't the only ones there have been loads of others who have even gone as far to say they wouldn't want to be over 6'2". Now id take my height over just about anything because I am accustomed to it for me as a person not because it's a better height than something else is. It's about being happy with ones own self and someone who is plenty tall enough wishing to be taller and not really using the height for anything to me is a bit foolish like Ali Baba once said. It's more an insecurity or an ego thing at that point when already very tall guys claim or wish to be taller
Canson said on 3/Apr/17
@Insomniak: and if that's how you feel that's fine. I totally agree with you most people would rather be taller than shorter hence why so many guys lie up about their height. All I am saying and I am not swaying you one way or another I am just being practical like I am. I don't see anything good about being a height like 6'8 or even 6'6 if not playing pro ball. That is not to say someone who isn't that height doesn't like it but to me it'd be more of an inconvenience than anything. Of course if you are there is nothing you can do you just are who you are. Point that I'm making why would someone want to go out of their way to have to buy sometimes specially made clothes, beds, vehicles, and have to go out of their way to adjust and get different plane seats etc. sounds a bit foolish to me to always be right for space and inconvenienced but like I said whatever floats someone's boat is cool and it's different strokes for different folks. But I have my opinion just like you do on the subject as does The Don. You both appear to be ridiculing me because I don't "wish" I were taller than the 6'4" and change that I am. And no not "every" person in the western world wishes they were taller. Most guys who are well over 6' typically don't but there are exceptions. You see other taller guys here like Ali baba who is 6'6",SJH who is just about 6'7" and Christian who is also 6'5" and a little say that they'd go with 6'4" over 6'6 or 6'7" as well so it isn't just me. Bobby3342 who is my height said it gets too expensive once you pass 6'3"ish. It's not much different from 6'4 I'd say but he has a point once you hit the high marks like 6'6" it is. And they aren't the only ones there have been loads of others who have even gone as far to say they wouldn't want to be over 6'2". Now id take my height over just about anything because I am accustomed to it for me as a person not because it's a better height than something else is. It's about being happy with ones own self and someone who is plenty tall enough wishing to be taller and not really using the height for anything to me is a bit foolish like Ali Baba once said. It's more an insecurity or an ego thing at that point when already very tall guys want to be taller
James B said on 3/Apr/17
insomniak said on 2/Apr/17
Well James to be fair I don't think it's howard sterns height that makes him visually unappealing.But I guess you do have a point that tall heights may not look good when you're gangly,but once you start putting on muscle I think you can pull off any height.


I think very tall guys should probably aim to pack on muscle because they can always pull of that look well. Shorter guys can't pull of that look well because it makes them look short and square.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Apr/17
Anyway I still think the Broz is around 185-186cm today, not as low as 184cm. In his prime 186-187cm which in feet should really qualify more as 6ft1½ than 6ft1¼.
James B said on 2/Apr/17
Few nights ago met this guy who claimed to be "6ft5" and even with poor posture he looked towering and very tall. Infact looked taller than guys I have bumped into who would claim to be 6ft6 so I have no doubts he was nothing less than an honest 6'5.

It goes to show why many people have no idea just how towering a true 6ft6 looks like because 6ft4 range guys often claim it.
insomniak said on 2/Apr/17
Well James to be fair I don't think it's howard sterns height that makes him visually unappealing.But I guess you do have a point that tall heights may not look good when you're gangly,but once you start putting on muscle I think you can pull off any height.
Canson said on 1/Apr/17
@The Don: that comment doesn't make any sense at all. And if you see what Arch said as well as James B you see it is. I guess whatever floats your boat but why would someone want to be a height where they are close to hitting their heads on doorways or having to duck under them. That seems odd to me but hey we are all different. But don't call the comment BS just because you don't agree with it.
James B said on 1/Apr/17
Being tall does not suit everyone. It all depends how well you can pull it off because not every tall man looks like Rock Hudson or Pierce Brosnan do they? You get lots of tall guys who are more like herward stern or Brosnans son 'awkward' and gangly basically.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Mar/17
I think Clint Walker is really the only guy who didn't really feel awkward with his height. He had a confident stride that at times could come off as a bit arrogant but at least he didn't try to hide it like others.
James B said on 29/Mar/17
Arch Stanton said on 27/Mar/17
Anything over 6'5 is too tall IMO. A legit 6'6 like Clint Walker looks massive, a big body to carry around. I think a guy like Manganiello or Rock Hudson can look very good at 195 ish but it's still a big height and a bit too big to be ideal. I was watching a film yesterday and Chuck Connors at probably 6'5.75 looked quite awkward in a lot of scenes standing. That could never be an ideal height.


Arch- but still you would not want to be 6'4.75 would you? I think your height of 6'1.5 is much better than 6'5.
insomniak said on 28/Mar/17
So arch if you were given the option to be rather 6'6 or 5'4,which would you choose.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Mar/17
Anything over 6'5 is too tall IMO. A legit 6'6 like Clint Walker looks massive, a big body to carry around. I think a guy like Manganiello or Rock Hudson can look very good at 195 ish but it's still a big height and a bit too big to be ideal. I was watching a film yesterday and Chuck Connors at probably 6'5.75 looked quite awkward in a lot of scenes standing. That could never be an ideal height.
insomniak said on 24/Mar/17
I agree with the Don their are 7 footers who are happy with their height.You're acting like I'm a giant and moron for choosing to rather be taller than short and I live in the west and the Don makes a valid point,most people would rather be taller than shorter and anyone who says otherwise is probably lying.
The Don said on 23/Mar/17
What a load of BS Canson, there is no such thing as being "too tall" as a man, especially in Western countries.
Canson said on 23/Mar/17
@Insomniak: steph curry by the way isn't 6'2". Not at his lowest that's why it looks short by comparison
Canson said on 23/Mar/17
@Insomniak: I think you are the one projecting your own feeling onto me. You're asking why I don't want to be taller and act astonished by it. Ok we have differences in opinion get over it
insomniak said on 22/Mar/17
Canson I think you're trying to project your own personal feelings onto me.Its like I said I already instinctively duck already when outside to avoid branches or indoors to avoid hitting low doors or low hanging lights or anything of the sort and no I'm not joking on wanting to be taller I love towering over people and I get height conscience when I see someone my height,taller or even a little close so If I were to be 2 inches or even an inch taller that would greatly diminish the amount of people near my height that I see on a daily basis.And I use public transport abd I can assure you that you're overestimating a 6'4 guy it's not that tall you would only reach the middle of my forehead and your only 2 inches taller than 6'2 which isn't that tall look at Stephen curry he looks miniature.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Mar/17
NIK, I'm 6ft4
James B said on 21/Mar/17
I will say though that I think it's silly for a 6ft2 guy to want to be taller like 6ft7.

6ft2 i think is a much better height than 6ft7
Nik said on 21/Mar/17
@Rampage(-_-_-)Clover

Yes I agree with what you said. Also I have been meaning to ask you for a while, how tall are you?

@James B

You are only a little bit short. I have heard some reports which say it is worse for your health to be tall and others which say it is better to be tall, I don't know what to think.
Canson said on 21/Mar/17
@JamesB; I know you aren't like that so don't take that comments that was said too harshly.

@Imsomniak: nobody ostracized them and I'm tall myself. It just seems that people want to make already tall guys even taller. When they aren't. I'm one of those who doesn't believe in that personally and you should just be the height you were given and not lust for anymore unless your height is a problem in either direction
Canson said on 21/Mar/17
@Insomniak: you're joking when you say you want to be taller right? And at 6'5" in the states you'd rarely be ducking even in shoes.
Editor Rob: I've left a pull-up bar under one room (least used) and it's about 5ft 9. Every time I go into the room I am consciously not standing tall and lose height...

this made me think about being a 6ft 4-5 guy in UK homes - I'd tire quickly of having to duck under all the 6ft 5-6 door frames.
Canson said on 20/Mar/17
@Insomniak: uh hell no I would not want to be any taller. I don't know any guy 6'4" or definitely not 6'5" that would want to be taller. I believe you not saying you're lying but that is crazy. Then again I'm happily married but even before I was was content being 6'4-6'4.5. Many women do not like guys that tall here in the states meaning 6'6+ even sometimes lower. Women I've noticed have bad perceptions on height. They think my height is 6'6" (I'm about 197 in boots). And not to offend you at all and it isn't directed at you but anyone who "wants" to be taller at 6'4" has an ego or is insecure that's unless they need their height for sports. There's no reason why I would want to be taller with back problems etc and then it's doorways which I don't have a problem now with but would if I were taller. Ask S.J.H or Ali Baba a 6'6/6'7 guy and a 6'6 solid guy if they would rather be their height or lose if they had the choice. S.J.H says he'd take 6'4/6'5 over where he is now and Ali Would likely as well. My taller friends also say it themselves as I have one strong 6'5 a 6'6 and a 6'7. The only one who hasn't openly complained is the 6'5" but even he has said he'd take my height over his because he is limited in shoe selection not really wanting to go over maybe 3/4" or an inch
James B said on 19/Mar/17
Sorry I did not mean to offend people on here, I guess I was asking to be called jealous and bitter because of my below average height. And yes I will admit i am a short man at 5ft7.
Adijos said on 19/Mar/17
Peak: 6'2"
Actual: 6'1.5"
insomniak said on 18/Mar/17
Canson I'm not lying theirs a bunch of threads on the subreddit tall asking them if they'd rather grow more or shrink more and most of them answered that they'd rather grow more.And personally I'd agree I wouldn't mind being a bit taller it's kind of like being a mini celeb with girls.I'm shocked you wouldn't want to grow taller and I'm already used to ducking under doorways even though I have like an inch or two of space so I wouldn't mind being taller I hate how guys on this website ostracize tall guys just cause their short and jealous.*cough*James.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Mar/17
I don't think height determines illness. My grandfather lived to be 98 and he was 6ft7
James B said on 18/Mar/17
Well Arch my grandmother was only 5ft-5ft2 and she died of breast cancer 20 years ago. So yeah I guess short people can get cancer but perhaps it's different for short women compared to short men? My grandfather and great uncle on my dads side both died of prostate cancer in there late 60s (they were both 5ft10 I think).

My great great grandad lived to his 90s and was only 5ft4 range and he smoked a lot in his life also he was very overweight at 210 pounds but it just goes to show that height can be a contributing factor to cancer.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Mar/17
James no offence, but the human body is extremely complex, getting cancer is a lot more complex than just being tall and having more cells, otherwise guys in 5 ft 2-7 range wouldn't get cancer much. I believe that an excellent diet and regular exercise and not smoking/drinking much can go a long way to prevent cancer, even in very tall men. Certainly vegetables and fruits have some very powerful chemicals which have been proven to fight cancer or prevent it. But it's really complex. I think a very tall man is more at risk of heart disease/cancer if he is overweight.
James B said on 17/Mar/17
I know a friend of the family who is only in his 40s and might potentially have terminal bowl cancer. the guy I know used to be 6ft1, never smoked or drinked in his entire life, was not particurley overweight at 196-210 pounds and did lots of exercise.

It goes to show that even being healthy some things associated with being tall are unavoidable.
James B said on 17/Mar/17
The human body is meant to be between 5-6ft not 6ft-7ft. If your in the 5ft-6ft height range the closer you get to 6feet the more height related problems you might encounter. I think 5ft8 is when issues with height related cancer increase compared to 5ft4, 5ft6 or 5ft7 guys.

I think the 5ft4-5ft7 range for health/longetiviy reasons is an optimal height to be for a man. Just look at al Pacino he's in his 70s smoked all his life and has lost hardly anything compared to say Michael Douglas who was 5ft9.5, smoked a lot in his life and at age 72 is already minimum 2 inches shorter than he was in his prime.

The bigger you are the more cells you have in your body which could potentially transform into cancer. but hey I guess even if big guys don't live as long they might have an overall more enjoyable quality of life in regards to success with women etc
berta said on 17/Mar/17
i love my height at littel over 6 foot5. i think short guys think it is scary tall but when you are that height you really like it. i mean most guys i know that are around 190 always cliam taller like 192. they want to be taller. i tihnk its when people get ovetr 2 meter it start to get to tall. but it depends on your proportions.
Canson said on 16/Mar/17
@Insomniak: well to a degree. 6'6" is too tall imho if you're talking without shoes on and at your lowest. I'd throw 6'5.5 really as too much but it's right at the cusp of where anyone would want to be at their lowest if they don't use their height to play pro ball. I say this because 6'5.5/6'6 makes you 6'7 in shoes. That's too tall. Not good height imho as doorways are 6'7 or 6'8" typically. A full 6'5/6'5.25 is really where it ends to me. There you're 6'6" in shoes which is manageable. That's very tall but manageable. I only know because I have a solid 6'6 and a 6'7" friend who tell me all the time and I watch them walk around slouching and ducking and wearing flats. Me personally, I'd stay 6'4-6'4.5. if I were given a choice of being 6'1-6'1.5 or 6'7-6'7.5 I'd choose the former and be 3" shorter than I am now. The only thing I'd take higher is 6'5" flat because I am 195.8cm out of bed so I know how it feels and it isn't terrible. Of course I'm under a full 6'5" after maybe a few minutes. But i disagree with you. There aren't a lot of guys at that size of 6'4-6'6 that want to be taller. Now you get 6'4 guys who want 6'5" all the time but not 6'5" wanting to be taller. Most of them say they like being 6'5" but No more.
Canson said on 11/Mar/17
@Spainman: I agree. I'm 6'4 and change and don't feel too tall but I've worn steeled toes and been almost 6'7" in the morning (195.8 cm out of bed) which is what a legit 6'6" would measure in shoes most of the day and that is too tall. Doorways are a problem in some cases if only 6'7" not more and some are as low as 6'6" still
insomniak said on 11/Mar/17
Canson I think what you mean is that 6'5 or 6'6 isn't a bad height but you just might have some inconvenience in everyday life which I agree with you on, like I can't fit in my bed or my shower head is too small or the fact that I have a 36 inseam with a 30 waist so jeans that fit are hard to find.but if I were given the option to grow 3 inches or shrink 3 inches,I would always choose to be taller.Alot of tall people feel the same as me on tall reddit most of them believe we already have everyday problems so why not be taller.
spainmen192cm said on 10/Mar/17
Women love guys over 6ft, and nowdays I dont consider 6ft4 a too tall height like @willes188 said. I consider 6ft3-5 a very tall range height but not too tall and specially amongst the younger generation. maybe 6ft6+ is where that range starts
Canson said on 10/Mar/17
@imsomniak: 6'5" is manageable. Really there is no "nad@ height per Se but I think 6'6 is where people begin to see some problems imho
Canson said on 10/Mar/17
@Rampage: 6'6 pushes it a bit. Only because you're limited in footwear esp If that's your lowest you'd be 6'7 out of bed or near it and would be close to 6'8 in shoes unless flats in the morning. Honestly even 6'7" in shoes is too high because if doorways
insomniak said on 9/Mar/17
I'm a strong 6'5 and I love my height I'm comfortably taller than most and girl's really love my height sometimes I can't tell if they only like me for my height lol.anyways don't feel bad for him being really tall is better than boring ole average whom I make look like little kids
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Mar/17
I don't think 6ft6 is as bad as some say. 6ft8 onwards is a struggle though
Canson said on 8/Mar/17
@Willes: i disagree slightly. 6'4" isn't bad height but I agree 6'6 is pushing it yes because you're 6'7 with shoes on in most cases. 6'5" is tall if it's a low because you're 6'6" in shoes but it is manageable height overall and no diff than 6'4 in some aspects (I'm a small hair over 6'5 out of bed) but 6'4 1/3 at night on an ordinary day. since doorways are usually 6'7-6'8 in the US some now in newer houses are even 6'9".
Willes188 said on 8/Mar/17
His son is very tall, everything over 6'3 is too tall, but 6'6 is a different league.
Canson said on 8/Mar/17
@james B: I agree and would never want to be 6'6" barefoot at my lowest either
Judd said on 4/Mar/17
No doubt he was a genuine 6'1.25" peak but actually i think his loss was less than 0,5"...i prefer a 6'1.25" peak and a 6'1" now
grizz said on 2/Mar/17
@Rampage,not necessarily.
My parents are similarly tall (dad 6'1,mom 5'9) and I too turned out 6ft.
All men in my family are 6' or over, I guess genetics sometimes play the role to make progeny from tall families closer to average (same as progeny from short family to make it above average).
James B said on 1/Mar/17
Arch Stanton said on 1/Mar/17
I wouldn't want to look like his son James. Very strange looking lad.



Well that's what can happen if you get too tall.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/Mar/17
They're both normal tall range, James. Pierce was 6ft1½ peak and the wife looks to be at least 5ft8. I'm shocked his oldest son Sean isn't much taller. He's not even 6ft. Cassandra Harris was also 5ft8-9. He should have ended up 6ft2-3 range at least if not closer to 6ft4!
Arch Stanton said on 1/Mar/17
I wouldn't want to look like his son James. Very strange looking lad.
James B said on 26/Feb/17
His 6ft6 son is not standing at his tallest on purpouse. Suprising he grew so big given neither of his parents are exceptionally tall. Exceptionally tall starts at a strong 6ft3 and pierce obviously was never that.

Feel bad for him though because being 6ft6 must be tough.
berta said on 26/Feb/17
i thought connery, brosnan and moore was all good as bond. i dint like the other that mutch. well daniel craig is pretty good to but the other 3 was better. 1; pierce brosnan ( maybe because i am born 91 makes me like him best) 2 , COnnery , 3 Roger moore ore daniel craig) about the same. and the other was pretty bad.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Feb/17
Sub-6ft1 is too low, 6ft3+ is too high.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Feb/17
Connery, Brosnan then either a toss up between Moore and Dalton.
Willes189 said on 22/Feb/17
Anyways Brosnan and Connery will always be the best Bonds, this is my list of all the Bond actors from best to worst

#1 Pierce Brosnan

#2 Sean Connery (Close 2nd)

#3 Daniel Craig, although i didn't agree with him being casted as Bond based off of his height, he actually made up for it in other areas.

#4 Roger Moore (Close 4th)

#5 Timothy Dalton

#6 George Lazenby


I think that 185-190cm is the perfect range for James Bond actors, absolutely nothing under or over that
berta said on 21/Feb/17
how can he look that short with kimmel :O i wonder if jimmy sometimes wear thicker shoes. i was like one of those awards where he looked 1 cm taller than 182-183 jimmy fallon. there is no chase he is taller.in that photo they look the same height
Sandy Cowell said on 20/Feb/17
@ Rampage Clover - Re: 5th Dec 16 - 👍
shiva 181 cms said on 19/Feb/17
He was the most handsome James bond actor besides Roger Moore

In his peak he looked a bit over 6'1 so 6'1.25-5

Now he looks 6'0.5-0.75
Redwing said on 19/Feb/17
How tall is he now? His son looks 6'7 with him
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/Feb/17
The older son definitely looks around 6ft6
Willes189 said on 18/Feb/17
He is probably 6'6, if not then 6'5.75
Wrs567 said on 18/Feb/17
Pierce looks a tad shorter than Jimmy Kimmel!

Click Here

What do you think Rob?

I think he needs to be taken down to at least 5'11.5''
Editor Rob: they look quite close there...whether Pierce is standing worse than Jimmy though?
Arch Stanton said on 18/Feb/17
@Rob, we have an event photo now with Pierce and his sons. Click Here He's not even standing his best and Dylan towers Pierce. He has to be 6'6 now don't you think? The younger son now looks about 6 ft and still growing!
Editor Rob: he can look near to 6ft 6 there.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Feb/17
Connery: 189cm
Lazenby: 188cm
Dalton: 188cm
Brosnan: 187cm
Moore: 186cm
Wiles189 said on 10/Feb/17
Connery 188.5-189cm

Lazenby 187.8-188cm

Dalton 187.5cm

Brosnan 186.5-187cm

Moore 186.5cm

All prime
berta said on 10/Feb/17
once again mister _lennon you´re absololute right on the estimates. brosnan barely 187 and moore 186. Just to put out something the current listing is to low because he was moore than 1 inch taller than robert pattionson who is listed at 184 and that was about 3 years back ore something?. if pattinson was 184 then brosnan looked 187 even now. althoug i think pattisnon is shorter and maybe is barely 183 and borosnan is barely 186 today.he hast shrunk more than about 7 mm is my guess.
mister_lennon said on 10/Feb/17
I think brosnan was taller.
i think that their peak heigts are:
brosnan:186-187
Moore:185-186
Wiles189 said on 9/Feb/17
Yes Brosnan would have Moore by 0.1-0.5mm (Prime)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Feb/17
My money's on Brosnan
Wiles189 said on 7/Feb/17
Rob, who would be taller in their prime, Brosnan or Moore?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Jan/17
I still feel the current height is too low...

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.