Ringo Starr's Height
5ft 6 (167.6 cm)
Peak height was 5ft 7 (170.2 cm)
British musician from The Beatles. Even a 1964 newspaper joked when someone questioned if he was 5ft 4 and wore lifts "there seems to be no reliable figure on Ringo's height, despite the efforts of statisticians and entomologists everywhere". In response to being asked "Any other Beatles myths you'd care to dispel"
, he said "Yes, that I'm only 5-foot-7."
Photos by PR Photos
Add a Comment124 comments
Average Guess (30 Votes)
Peak: 5ft 6.96in (170.1cm)
Current: 5ft 6.16in (168cm)
Ian C. said on 20/May/20
You might argue that, in his early twenties, Ringo was the most overpaid man on Earth, as he had only modest talent and was in fact a substitute in the Beatles for another man. But a charming and modest guy, who bore his good fortune with grace, good humour and a humble intelligence. You never hear any bad stories about Ringo. Even the vicious bully John Lennon seems to have liked him.
What I have heard is that Ringo got much more fan mail than the other boys. Maybe his talent was that he was personally likable.
khaled taban said on 18/Nov/19
5'7" peak , 5'6" current !
Yang (5 footer 8, 173) said on 7/Oct/19
Peak height - 5ft 6 and half
Current 2019-2020 Height - Weak 5ft 6.
Despite he has lost some height as he will become 80s grandpa next summer 2020, hasn't lost that much height as Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood, Bill Clinton etc.... I do know some grandpa doesnt loose that much height unlike other grandpa......
PS. The way he dressed up in a pic creates an illusion of being bit taller than as he is!!!!
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 27/Jul/19
Hey, I was chatting about Ringo on George's page earlier and how 'Beatley' he sounded!
Well, I have just been well and truly amazed, for it is Ringo who sings the BEAUTIFUL lullaby 'Good Night' at the end of the Beatles' White Album! Even my cats were purring! And to think - it's taken me all these years to find that out! I know it's been played at the end of at least one film, probably far more.
Miss Sandy Cowell said on 7/Jul/19
🎁😁🥁🎂 Happy Birthday Ringo! 🎂🥁😁🎁
Wishing Beatles drummer Ringo a great 79th. His son, Zak Starkey, followed in Dad's footsteps, becoming a drummer as well. I have a DVD of Who members Townshend and Daltrey, of a charity concert they performed in aid of children with cancer. There were reams of guest stars, and Zak was just one of them. They all took part in the playing of the Who's songs, and very effective it was too. At the end, many of the children with cancer came onto the stage, without hair, which denoted that they were undergoing treatment. Well, I hope they all recovered.
Ringo was also a very successful actor.
Have a wonderful birthday, Ringo! XX 🎁
Peak - 5ft7, now - 5ft6.
Paul Wood said on 24/May/19
I think his peak height was probably about 5ft 6.5in. He might even have been nearer 5ft 6in. His wife Barbara Bach is still listed as 5ft 7in but I doubt she's that height now. In recent photos they both look roughly the same height so I think they're both approximately 5ft 6in. Generally speaking, women do tend to lose more height than men as they age.
Anonymous921 said on 23/Dec/18
169 cm peak, 166 cm today. I do not believe that he was a full 5'7.
Mark Harrison said on 16/Dec/18
He was clearly never even 5'7".
Michael 5'10", 178 cm said on 12/Dec/18
Ringo definitely looked shorter than the other Beatles, he was 5'7 at peak, no taller than 5'6" today.
johnberneys said on 28/Nov/18
this man is honest. I'd say maybe 5'6 1/2 peak or maybe 5'7. Probably 5/5 now that he is in his late 70's
Anonim said on 5/Sep/18
5'6 ¾ peak, 5'5 now.
Django said on 5/Apr/18
I met Ringo after a concert a few years ago and I'm only 5'-8", and he was about two inches shorter than me. We were both wearing sneakers. I'd say he is 5'-6", tops. You can't believe press releases. In 1964 they had Eric Burdon at 5'-7". If you've ever seen him in person he is maybe 5"-4".
Anonymous said on 21/Dec/17
If the 3 taller Beatles and its a big "if" were only 5'9 3/4 (at their low), Ringo was no taller than 5'6".
ally N said on 7/Dec/17
Just watched Eight Days A Week film. An early picture of them (1962) showed Ringo the tallest. It shows how pictures are deceiving.
Anonymous said on 7/Dec/17
The 3 front Beatles, 3 inches at least taller than Ringo. But some early photos show him close in height to John and George. Probably cause they both had bad posture at times. Maybe Ringo was 5' 7" at his peak.
gauntclan said on 3/Dec/17
peak is questionable. in his prime, he still kinda looked solid short
ALEXANDREBR said on 28/Nov/17
Ringo is a very healthy man Rob the height loss can be avoided ... I believe he was never a 5'7 full
said on 22/Jul/17
Could he still pass for 5ft 7?
Editor Rob: not sure he can, though of course any guy in 5ft 6 range who is slim and has good posture may well appear taller in person.
said on 1/Jul/17
He claimed a slightly lower height in this video. Maybe he realized how diminutive he looked back then.
MJKoP said on 17/Jun/17
Yup, my memory hasn't failed me...from the Jerry Lee Lewis page:
glenn said on 25/Feb/07
ringo is 5-5 now.yes,misha,jerry has clint syndrome.
MJKoP said on 13/Jun/17
Like I said, he was listed everywhere at 5'8" and was clearly at least 5'7" during his peak....so even though Glenn was prone to human error, he wasn't a liar like so many insist.
Shredder said on 11/Jun/17
He looked 5'7 , 5'7.5 peak and still minimum 5'5.5 now ... Noway just 5'5 .
said on 11/Jun/17
Glenn swore up and down that Ringo was only 5'5"...when I challenged him on that estimate, he admitted that most people didn't believe him, but he subsequently held true to his conviction that Starr was actually a inch shorter than his current listed height upon encountering him. I think Richard Starkey might've been higher than Glenn's low-sounding estimate, but all of this really destroys the prevalent misconception that Glenn would intentionally upgrade all celebs in order to make himself seem taller.
Editor Rob: it's not impossible Ringo wasn't quite 5ft 7 peak, and today has dipped to looking 5ft 5.5 range...a flat 5ft 5 though?
said on 29/Mar/17
Rob, he actually looks 5'8 in that photo Click Here
ST said on 18/Mar/17
Dear Christian. "John, Paul and George wanted to be 5'11". Why would they? They had all the world at their disposal, and they wanted another half-inch to their height? And I'd like to see a reference to the Paul's statement. The British passport for JL isn't strong enough? Take a look at the Live Peace in Toronto snap. Eric Clapton and John Lennon. Both barefooted. Same height. How tall is EC?
Christian said on 12/Mar/17
John, Paul and George wanted to be 5'11 but they were rounding it up. Paul has stated 5.10.5 for him and John. Although I think they were closer to 5.10. George was not taller, in fact he and John looked the same height sometimes. I would say 178 cm för Paul, 177-178 cm for John and George and 170 cm for Ringo in their youth.
said on 11/Mar/17
Any reason you decline my info?
Editor Rob: try submitting a comment again, thanks.
ST said on 10/Mar/17
I already did.
You can guess all you want. But the facts are: John, Paul and George 5'11", Ringo 5'8".
If you're a Beatles fan, you should have seen a page of John's passport which he used to enter Germany in 1960 at the age of 19. 5'11" it is. And it's a document. Ed Sullivan's pics/videos show them in uniforms, including shoes. All three are of the same height.
Now look at the Abbey Road album sleeve/cover. The tallest: George (shoes); second tallest: John (keds); followed by Paul (barefooted), and finally Ringo, who's just an inch or so shorter than Paul due to his high-heeled sneakers, of course. Everything is consistent with the 1964 Beatles' Story album.
And BTW, have you ever seen PM live?
ST said on 9/Mar/17
John, Paul and George: 5'11" or 180 cm. This height is very well documented in many reliable sources. Ringo: The Beatles' Story, an American compilation album from 1964 mentions same 5'11" for John, Paul and George and 5'8" for Ringo. I was quite close to him recently (he performed in Vancouver) and I think 5'8" is more or less correct. I'm only 5'5", and he's definitely not 5'6", as some posts suggest. And he was not wearing high heel shoes, just a pair of sneakers. I stick to 5'8", at least in his youth.
said on 13/Feb/17
Rob, 5'7.5 peak?
Editor Rob: Shredder, I'd still stick with roughly 5ft 7 for him.
Shredder said on 7/Feb/17
I actually skipped over that part lol. So he is basically claiming at least 5'8".
said on 7/Feb/17
Shredder(and Rob!) read the entire quote and question. He wasn't claiming to be five foot seven, he was dispelling the "myth" that he was only that height, therefore directly implicating that his actual claim would be higher.
Editor Rob: yeah I updated the quote to reflect that.
said on 2/Feb/17
Rob , he claimed " Only 5 foot 7 "
Editor Rob: thanks for pointing that out, I'll add it at the top now.
Davy Legend said on 21/Dec/16
If John Lennon, George Harrison and Paul McCartney were all 5'9" or 5'10" in their earlier publicity photos, then Ringo appears to be only an inch shorter than the rest of the fab four.
Ferney said on 22/Oct/16
Ringo Starr was 5'7 in his youth, and 5'6 now 1.70m and 1.68m now.
said on 15/Sep/16
Ringo and Paul McCartney at the Eight Days A Week premiere today:
mande2013 said on 3/Sep/16
My hunch is 5'6.5-5'6.75 in his prime. If he was a strong 5'7, he would have gotten away looking average every now and then and Ringo never did.
169 is said on 20/Jul/16
if he can keep 5'6 range constantly at this age, its possible that he was at least 169 or 170 in his prime.
Person said on 29/Jun/16
He is five six. I've heard he's five eight, but look at pictures of Ringo standing next to either John or Paul. He's a good five inches shorter.
5'6.5 Indiana jones guy said on 27/Jun/16
5'6.5 Indiana jones guy said on 26/Jun/16
I think his peak height was 171 cm and nowadays 169 cm.
truth said on 18/Jun/16
John Lennon: 177-178 cm peak
Paul McCartney: 178-179 cm peak, 176-177 cm now
George Harrison: 176-177 cm peak, 175-176 cm in his older years
Ringo Starr: 169-170 cm peak, 167-168 cm now
Marc said on 29/May/16
I heard his peak height was only 5ft6.5
Arch Stanton said on 21/Dec/15
Seb below also says he thought Ringo could look 2-3 inches shorter than Sellers in the film. I didn't see three inches, but at times it could definitely look a 2-2.5 diff. His posture at times wasn't great though which made him look shorter.
said on 21/Dec/15
Rob, I think Ringo might have been the same height as big G! 5'6.75 might be nearer. I dunno, do see the whole Magic Christian film if you can, I just really got more a 5 ft 6 range impression from him in it. Click Here
A photo there with Sellers and Cleese. He could often look that short in it. My gut is 169cm. I see Tr27 also thinks that below. I guess like John Mills you could argue high 5'6 range peak. I'd lean more on 5'6.5-5'6.75 than the full 5'7.
Jimmmmybrady said on 19/Aug/15
I once met Ringo's good friend Harry Nilsson,I'm 6' tall and Harry was 6'2" just like his Biography says so compare photos of Harry to Ringo,John,Paul + George.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jul/15
He really looks about the same age as a few guys I know in 55-60 age group!
said on 7/Jul/15
Rob can you add a photo? Have you noticed that this guy doesn't seem to age?
I just noticed that he's an astounding 75 now!! Click Here
No wrinkles whatsoever!! He still looks 58 like he has done since the 1990s! Even like Cliff Richard who was previously ageless has aged a lot now in 70s but Ringo still looks young enough to be the son of a guy in his 70s! I wonder what his trick is, going to bed with Barbara Bach every night I'd imagine!
[Editor Rob: he's aged well, hair colour helps a lot, as does the demands of Barbara probably...]
Tr27 said on 28/Jun/15
The Beatles' heights:
John Lennon- 175cm
Paul McCartney- 175cm
George Harrison- 174cm
Ringo Starr- 169cm
Check out their photos with Muhammad Ali.
CD said on 29/May/15
Peak height - 5ft 6.5 (169 cm)
Now 5ft 5.5 (166 cm)
said on 27/May/15
-Rob. Before you said that you thought Ringo was 5'6'' maximum in the 60:s but now you have him at 5'7'' peak. What made you change your mind?
[Editor Rob: from looking at more footage I think there was a chance he was near 5ft 7 and shrunk by now.]
Randy said on 4/Mar/15
Some new data has come to light. The Beatles trouser measurements from 'Help' from D. Millings who were the fabs tailor. In inces: John W32 L30 3/4, Paul W31 1/2 L31, George W31 L30 and Ringo, W29 1/2 L29. So probably pretty small guys...
kevin mask said on 29/Aug/14
1,68 is about right
Sam said on 19/Aug/14
About 3-4 inches shorter than the other Beatles.
Ian C. said on 25/Jan/14
Ringo was definitely short because he got ragged on about it by Beatle-hostile reporters. People would (rudely) ask him how tall he was and he'd say, four foot six, or something equally ridiculous. He probably wanted to be tall, because he got himself cast in a spaghetti western as a villain, and looked perfectly ridiculous with his Liverpool accent and small body. The least talented Beatle, but also the most stable and personally likable which, come to think of it, are very useful talents to have if you're a working class boy from Liverpool who suddenly becomes a pop culture god.
diavolo said on 7/Dec/13
All the Beatles' height were exaggerated in the '60s when they were superstars. Plus they wore 2-inch Cuban heels. Ringo was advertised as 5'8" back in the day. I guess he was 5'6" in his peak.
Seb said on 4/Sep/13
Maybe at his peak 5'6". Check him out against Peter Sellers who IMOb claims 5'8". Sometimes he looks 3 inches shorter that Sellers.
Seb said on 4/Sep/13
Just watched Ringo in the Magic Christian and he looks 2-3 inches shorter than Sellers. So once again even then, about 5'5", unless Sellers is wearing lifts. There is also as scene with Richard Attenborough who seems even shorter that Ringo.
Irving said on 24/Aug/13
Hey any guesses what his weight was on the Beatles? I read somewhere that he was 134lbs is that a fair estimate?
marc said on 6/May/13
some people say ringo is 5ft3 wich i dont think is his proper height he looks 5ft6 i also herd on the radio he was 5ft6 and a half
Tee said on 1/May/13
I also heard somewhere that John was measured to be 5'9.5", although I don't remember where. But it seems pretty believable, I've always thought John, Paul, and George looked in the 5'9"/5'10" range just by their figures. So that would put Ringo at 5'6" for sure.
Seb said on 13/Apr/13
I read somewhere that yoko measured john at 5'9.5". So I'm with lagnagal at 5'5" today for ringo.
lagunagal said on 24/Mar/13
Saw him at sundance. He is 5'4 if that!!!
said on 29/Nov/12
I think he was 5'6' max at his peak.
Marc said on 19/Nov/11
i herd on the radio that george is 5ft10 john 5ft10 1/2 paul 5ft11 witch makes sens cus hes the tallest and for ringo they said hes 5ft6 and half so....
Mae said on 10/Sep/11
I think that's a reasonable height for ringo
said on 13/Aug/11
I don't believe Ringo is this height. Why does he look taller than mccartney in this picture? Click Here
I'd say about 5'8" is fair.
Music said on 6/Jul/11
Next to Dhani Harrison (5'6 1/2'') Ringo is just a bit taller. So maybe 5'7'' is most accurate.
donkey said on 14/May/11
John, Paul, George relativley the same 5'10-11 closer to 5'11 with the cuban heeled boots
with the cuban heeled boots on ringo almost looks 5'8-5'8.5
avi said on 7/May/11
yes 5'6. 5'5.5 min. in The magic Christian with Peter Sellers. (a supposed 5'8 guy)he is 2 inches shorter.
Ezio said on 23/Feb/11
me says on 14/Dec/10
There is not way John and George was only 5.8. I think John was about 5.10 and George was 5.9.5. Their frame just doesn't suggest 5.8. You have no idea how short 5.8 is.
5'8 is extremely short now? LOL. While I do agree they were over 5'8, seeing someone's frame on TV isn't always a good indicator of height.
mark said on 27/Jan/11
I met Ringo once. I stand 5'10 and ringo was at least four inches shorter.
guyfrommars said on 26/Dec/10
Kimber: Those bios in the early 1960s were highly exaggerated. And I guess 5'8" was his height in those Cuban heeled Beatle boots.
cecil noriega said on 19/Dec/10
Why does everybody think George was shorter than paul and john.
He wore converse sneekers all the time after 1967 ( only half inch heels)
He was definitely their height. call it 5-11 or 5-10.
Ringo definitely 5-6 ish.
Ian Fawn-Meade said on 16/Dec/10
Stood in line at Heathrow passport control behind he and Barbara Bach. My wife was 4 11", and she was about the same height. They were a noticeably tiny couple, he was probably no more than 5' 4"
me said on 14/Dec/10
There is not way John and George was only 5.8. I think John was about 5.10 and George was 5.9.5. Their frame just doesn't suggest 5.8. You have no idea how short 5.8 is.
Russ said on 13/Dec/10
I think john and George were only about 5'8, I'd say Ringo was no taller than 5'6
Kimber said on 4/Dec/10
Ringo's wife Barbara Bach is 5'6". If you look at their wedding photos from 1981 they are about the same height however she is wearing heels and it he is wearing dress shoes. So I would say he has to at least 5'7" or 5'8". I have heard that in a 1963 Beatles' bio he was listed as 5'8" and 134 pounds. Of course now that he's 70 years old he's probably closer to 5'6" now. In the end it doesn't really matter how tall he is, what matters is that he's a rock-n-roll icon and has lived an extraordinary life! As MrsRStarkey said Good Things Come in Small Packages!!!
Anonymous said on 29/May/09
He's 5'8, not 5'6.
The other three were 5'11
Mars said on 19/May/09
Some people said he was 5'8'' but
artvandelay said on 29/Apr/09
james w paul doesnt 'tower' ringo on the cover of abbey road. they are level, with maybe a 1cm difference. based on the photo ringo is basically the same height as paul while wearing shoes.
Anonymous said on 16/Mar/09
5'6.5 in his peak and 5'5.75 now. I think he used to wear lifts. That's why he looked 5'8 sometimes.
Nik said on 17/Feb/09
I say Paul was 5-10.5 John and George were 5-10 and Ringo was 5-7
spike wilbury said on 16/Dec/08
he must be 5'6 1/2.looks a half inch shorter than his wife who is listed at 5' 7''
James W. said on 2/Nov/08
Paul TOWERS Ringo on the Abbey Road cover and Ringo has generous footwear there and Paul is barefoot! I say 5'6.5 TOPS for his peak height...and now he is just under 5'6.
Rich said on 4/Oct/08
All the Beatles books/magazines concerning Ringo's height states 5'8". Max Weinberg's book "The Big Beat" has an interview with Ringo where the man himself lists himself as 5'7". That's the one I'll go with.
guyfrommars said on 28/Sep/08
Ringo was 5'8" in the '60s with those 2-inch Cuban heels all four of The Beatles were wearing at that time. He's maximum 5'6.5" but rather 5'6".
TJ said on 19/Sep/08
If there's only 3 inches from your eyes to the top of your head Tim, you have a very small head :-) And snoopy, Ringo was never 5'8. He has said himself that they gave his height as 5'8 in the 60s but that he was in fact only really 5'6 1/2. Now I would expect he is 5'6 maximum.
Tim Wargo said on 17/Sep/08
I met Ringo in 2003.I am 5'11" tall.Ringo came up to my eyes height wise.Ringo must be 5'8" tall according to this observation.
snoopy! said on 12/Aug/08
ringo starr is 5'8 but u have to remember whe ur older u get smaller so back when he was in his 20's 5'8 now in his 60's maybe 5'7 who knows call ringo lol
said on 20/Jun/08
RINGO SPEAKS ABOUT HIS HEIGHT
Any other Beatles myths you'd care to dispel at this time?
Yes, that I'm only 5-foot-7.Click Here
Tim Wargo said on 16/Jun/08
I met Ringo in 2003 in Beverly Hills.He was extremely nice to me.He shook my hand twice and called me "Tim".I'm 5'10" tall and he came up to my eyes height wise.Therefore Ringo would have to be about 5 foot ,7 inches tall at the most.
runt said on 19/May/08
Not only shorter but noticably smaller frame and head than the other Beatles. At only an inch shorter than 5-9ish George Harrison, he wouldn't stick out like a soar thumb. 5'5"-5'6' + 'techniques' is a good guess.
TJ said on 25/Feb/08
Eddie, Ringo himself has said his true height in the 60s was 5.6 1/2 and I really doubt he's grown since :-)
Eddie said on 25/Feb/08
Met Ringo at the Bottom Line in NYC a few years ago. I'm 5'8" and i'd say he is as well.
Viper said on 11/Feb/08
Ringo did not look very short to me last night at the Grammy's. Certantly not just 5-5. I guess I just wasnt noticing his height.
glenn said on 11/Feb/08
wow.maybe i am right that 5-5 was tops.
Big T said on 10/Feb/08
Just saw him doing Grammy interviews and he was noticeably shorter than the likes of Ludacris when being compared to the same interviewer. Even 5'5" seemed generous.
glenn said on 10/Feb/08
good work shredder.and this time i saw the pics.while i always said ringo was 5-5,he did look his tallest to me just a couple of weeks ago.5-6.5. lifts? i didnt realise harrisons son was so short.damn.i thought he would be 5-9 or 5-10.
said on 9/Feb/08
Rob , check this out ! ... lol , Dhani Harrison gets listed 5'6.5 so how is Ringo Starr TALLER ??? Click Here
said on 8/Feb/08
Rob , do you think Glenn is right with 5'5 ? ... Look at him next to 5'10 Pat O'Brien ! Click Here
[Editor Rob: I'm not familiar with who Pat is or his height, but he doesn't look 5 shy of Pat in that particular photo.]
Matt from Sheffield said on 17/Dec/07
No one uses feet and inches for height in England
TJ said on 8/Aug/07
I'm from the UK and I've never met anyone who doesn't give their height in feet and inches. Anonymous, as I said way down in this thread, Ringo has himself stated that his official 60s height was exaggerated and that he was actually 5'6.5.
Anonymous said on 7/Aug/07
Most of me and my friends give our height in feet and inches. Metres and centimetres are becoming more used but most people still say feet and inches (or I do anyway) lol. Most sources I go say Ringo was listed as 5'8 but I always thought he seemed shorter than that even in the 60's. I've noticed he's always been the butt of height jokes within the Beatles but 5'8 isn't really that small. I'd say 5'6 is the safest guess.
Chris said on 13/Feb/07
True footballed28, but is´t centimeters more common today in UK, than during the sixties?
footballed28 said on 8/Feb/07
its pretty curious that they were always listed in feet and not centimeters since they were a british band
Robert.R said on 14/Jan/07
I must have read the same article as Chris, which listed Ringo as 5'8" and the others as 5'11". In the sixties though, no male pop star ever seemed to be listed as under 5'8" and there were some very short ones around. Apart from Ringo there was also Eric Burdon listed as 5'8" and amazingly Keith Hopwood of Hermans Hermits who seemed tiny was always listed as 5'9".
Glenn said on 12/Jan/07
Chris said on 10/Jan/07
-Glenn, When you saw Ringo did you estimate his height as only 5'5''?
Chris said on 10/Jan/07
Ringo was 5'6½'' in the 60´s and John, Paul and George was about the same height. They were listed back in the beatles-days as for Ringo 5'8'' and the rest 5'11''. However I still think Paul was a tad under 5'11'' and John more like 5'10''. George and John were roughly the same height give or take.
the shredder said on 30/Dec/06
maybe hes more 166cm - 167cm ? ... 5'6.5 could have been his height in shoes ?
oh , and David Spade has to be in the 5'4 - 5'5 range ! just watch Joe Dirt !
Anthony said on 29/Dec/06
They're hard to pin down, but most people do agree on Lennon being 5'10 and I as well as Glenn think Paul was about 5'11 at his peak. There's a great pic of John with 6'2-6'3 Peter Boyle in which he looks 5'10 in comparison.
Middle-sized cat said on 29/Dec/06
Am almost sure the album is Son of Dracula - not easy to find, but good luck. They are dressed as vamps! I think they're also seen together in sleeve of that '75 album with the Latin name. Nilsson was a rocker at heart.
Re. Beatles, I always thought Lennon was a little taller than Macca. Seems not. Actually, Macca's brother Mike is over 6', I believe. He was in The Scaffold as Mike McGear.
Anthony said on 29/Dec/06
Middle-sized cat, that would be a great pic. I'll try and find it, Had no idea Nilssn was really as tall as 6'5, but now looking at him in photos he does look at least 6'4.
Like I said, Ringo IMO is 5'6 peak and 5'5 now. My estimates for the group as a whole: Ringo 5'6 peak, Lennon 5'10, Harrison 5'9.25 and Paul a solid 5'11.
Anonymous said on 27/Dec/06
Yeah I recon that 5-6 is about right. I've always read 5'8, but always doubted it as he seemed a fair bit shorter than the other Beatles even in the sixties.
Middle-sized cat said on 27/Dec/06
One picture I love occurs in a Harry Nilsson album. Nilsson and Starr were mates, and played on one another's albums, but Nilsson was 6'5" - towered over the li'l Beatle!
Glenn said on 27/Dec/06
Trust me Shredder.shrunk to 5-5ish.
the shredder said on 27/Dec/06
I can buy 5'6.5 , now that he said hes 5'8 height listing was false ! ... 5'6.5 peak , 5'6ish now
sf said on 26/Dec/06
I never realized Ringo was my height. Alawys pictured 5'8 or so, but, of course, always has on big heels.
Viper said on 26/Dec/06
Lennon looked 5-10. Ringo looks 5-6.
Glenn said on 26/Dec/06
Everyone is taller than Spade! well,except Devito and Seth Green.Lennon is tricky.I always thought 5-9.but he mustve been 5-10.
TJ said on 26/Dec/06
Ringo has been on record as saying that his official 5'8 height of the 60s was false. He says that he was actually 5'6.5. If going to the bother of debunking the official height, it would be weird to replace it with another false height, so I guess he was 5'6.5 in the 60s and maybe a little shorter now.
the shredder said on 25/Dec/06
he only looks 5'5-ish in that Caveman movie ! the only Beatle that i can't figure out with height is John Lennon ?
[Editor Rob: one thing is sure...he's taller than david spade]
Anthony said on 25/Dec/06
5'6 for his peak and 5'5 now looks to be right for Ringo.