How tall is Tom Selleck

Tom Selleck's Height

6ft 3 (190.5 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 4 (193 cm)
American actor best known for starring in TV series Magnum PI and Blue Bloods. In movies he has appeared in Three Men and a Baby, Quigley Down Under, High Road to China and Her Alibi. He said in the NY Times, "I'm 6'4". In a 1983 Time magazine article it also mentioned his peak weight: "6-ft. 4-in, 200-lb. star". He was also once quoted saying 6ft 3.5.

How tall is big Tom Selleck
Tom with Bridget Moynahan
Photos by PR Photos
It had been a problem for me being taken seriously. I'm 6-foot-4 and I came in during the era of leading men like Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino...anybody in the old leading man mold was all of a sudden not acceptable. That was the same reason I didn't do much TV. They said I was too tall or that I conflicted with the hero.
-- 1980
I never tried to project a macho image. In fact, I'm 6 feet, 4 inches tall. I've been taller than most people most of my adult life. I see no reason to run around trying to intimidate people with that. I've always kind of gone the other way.
-- 1989
Dad's my height; Mom's 5-foot-7, My brother Bob, 19 months older, and my kid brother Dan, 10 years younger, are both 6-foot-6½ My sister Marti, who's eight years younger, is 5-foot-9...Being tall is no problem when it's your show. There are ways to get around the differences in height. It's a problem, though, on someone else's show. They don't want anyone to tower over the leading man...
- 1980
At 6ft 3in and more at home outdoors than inside, I was never going to be an ideal romantic lead but put me in a flowery shirt, give me a gun now and then send me out in Hawaii to catch a few criminals and I am your man.
Sunday Post 2019

You May Be Interested

Height of David Hasselhoff
David Hasselhoff
6ft 4 (193 cm)
Height of Ted Danson
Ted Danson
6ft 2 (188 cm)
Height of Burt Reynolds
Burt Reynolds
5ft 11 (180 cm)
Height of Steve Guttenberg
Steve Guttenberg
5ft 10 (178 cm)

Add a Comment575 comments

Average Guess (78 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.85in (192.7cm)
Current: 6ft 3.05in (190.6cm)
Kale - 186.5 said on 21/Oct/20
I honestly think Selleck was the full 6'4 in his prime.

When he joined Friends as Richard Burke, he made everyone look small, even 6'1 David Schwimmer.

He was in his early 50s at that point, so maybe had begun to show signs of height loss, but I doubt it was very much.

Also, given the style of the characters clothes it can be assumed he wore dress shoes in most episodes. Which would have given him an extra 1 - 1.5 inches, making him just over 6'5.
Canson said on 18/Oct/20
He claimed 6’3.5 twice 1981 and 1987. He was never 6’4” in his prime. Don’t know why he would lie about it
Gregory Czerepak said on 14/Oct/20
I'll give him 6-3 and 275 lbs.
Canson said on 27/Sep/20
Yea Rising Force said it before and I agree. Selleck is under 6’3 today. Probably 189-190 range now. Maybe 6’2.75 but that’s the max. Peak height was around 192
Jkiller said on 7/Sep/20
I believe his peak height was fairly close to 6'3.75, and nowadays a decent 6'3.
miko said on 25/Aug/20
Dave, yes we do have to confirm that Rob was cornered by the height police and found to be in a whopping pair of lifts, and was measured barefoot at 5'6.75, and the Glenn photos were doctored too, Glenn is 5'9!

Haha ;)
Canson said on 25/Aug/20
Dave Wilco said on 22/Aug/20
This stuff is laughable. He's taller than all of you, and still looks tall and commanding. What is this obsession? I bet the owner of the site wears elevator shoes out of insecurity.

I doubt Rob is insecure nor does he wear elevator shoes. Don’t be rude
Dave Wilco said on 22/Aug/20
This stuff is laughable. He's taller than all of you, and still looks tall and commanding. What is this obsession? I bet the owner of the site wears elevator shoes out of insecurity.
Editor Rob
🎣 Why are you commenting on Tom Selleck's Height page on a site called And voting on his height too?

You would lose your bet though 👍
Sinclair said on 8/Aug/20
An early 1980s Tom Selleck defines 6’4” for me. I suspect Selleck was over an inch taller than Ted Danson at their peaks and Selleck often practiced quite relaxed posture in Magnum Pi. and in Three Men and a Baby. Selleck seemed to have a couple of inches over Roger E. Mosley in Magnum Pi.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Jul/20
190cm today, Rob?
Editor Rob
Today he might be heading towards it.
Canson said on 30/Jun/20
@Mickie: agreed. Somewhere around 192 peak. Easily round able to 6’4” from his low imho. But not a full 6’4”. Today could be a weak 6’3”. But that’s a bit interesting. He said at 6’3 and he referred to his Magnum PI days in that same sentence that Rob captioned above so I wonder if he was implying that he was never 6’4”. He also claimed 6’3.5 twice once in 1981 and 1987 from what Rising Mentioned
Mickie said on 29/Jun/20
I agree that today he'd be short of 6'3". At his peak, I would estimate him at 6'3.5" with an outside chance of 6'3.75" (6'3.5" - 6'3 5/8" being most likely).
Canson said on 29/Jun/20
Wonder if what Rising estimated today was right (189-190). He doesn’t even look the full 6’3” today like he said. Maybe 6’3.5 peak and 6’2.5-.75 today
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 14/Jun/20
Stilled looked 6ft4 on Friends.
viper said on 9/Jun/20
And yet, I don't think Hasselhoff ever looked taller than a flat 6-4 on Baywatch
viper said on 9/Jun/20
Yep, Hasselhoff can pull off 6-4.5 at times on that show.

Selleck a flat 6-4 at the absolute most
Canson said on 8/Jun/20
watching Magnum PI and Knight Rider marathons on TV, I get a slightly taller impression from Hasselhoff as opposed to Selleck
Charles Crawford said on 7/Jun/20
I read somewhere that the car used in Magnum, P.I. had to be modified due to Tom’s height. A legit 6’4 peak seems very plausible.
Aidan 5'10.5" said on 6/Jun/20
watching him in magnum P.I. he looks a decent 6’4”, he’s probably lost nearly an inch with age
Willes190 said on 5/Jun/20
I could be wrong and Selleck could very well be a legit 6’4 guy, it was just that he gave me some serious 6’3.75 vibes when I last looked at him. Conan actually looked slightly taller even with Selleck having slight camera advantage in the footage I viewed (link on Conan’s page)
Canson said on 5/Jun/20
@Junior: I don’t see why. He claimed it twice
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 3/Jun/20

I agree he isn't below 6'3.75" peak really too low for 6'3.5" peak.
Canson said on 3/Jun/20
@Willes: “192.5cm however could be spot on peak around dinner time”. That means it could be for Conan too. Conan actually thought Selleck was taller. That means 191-192 is not out of the question after all being Selleck only claimed 6’3.5” too. I would actually guess a peak Magnum PI Selleck as taller than Conan but seeing them up close I agree with Rising that Selleck had footwear advantage by maybe 1/2” and he looked maybe 1/2” taller in the one still
Willes190 said on 1/Jun/20
It’s been a couple of years since I last commented on Selleck who I used to believe was a solid 6’4 guy similar to Hasselhoff. However after rewatching episodes of Magnum and looking at him now with guys like Gene Simmons,Ted Danson and Kevin Kline I have to come up with excuses to see it, which is not a good sign. Still 6’3.5 (191.8cm) seems a tiny bit too low, 192.5cm however could be spot on peak around dinner time.
Nik said on 8/May/20
He comes from a very tall family.
James B 172cm said on 25/Mar/20
6ft3.75 could be his peak
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Mar/20
Rob, are you still content with 6ft4 peak?
Editor Rob
6ft 3.5-4, anywhere amongst it is arguable
Canson said on 22/Jan/20
@Berta: that’s because Conan is not 193. Max 192 and Selleck has Slightly more footwear that time
Nik said on 20/Jan/20
6'0" is believable!
Johnny G said on 20/Jan/20
Tom in his peak 6'4"'no argument, but Tom has battled arthritis, so losing some height is understandable.. Also Tom in his 30's was much leaner as well
Mickie said on 17/Jan/20
6'3.5" peak height imo.
berta said on 7/Jan/20
the one thing that is very strange is that he was clearly taller than Conan o brien who i really Think was/ is 193 cm peak ore a tiny fraction under maybe ( 2-3 mm). He have bad proportion when it comes to look tll. broad shoulders, big head and hand. that can make him look 6 foot 3 when standing alone but beside people like Conan and ted danson, you really see that anything under 192 is imposible
Canson said on 3/Jan/20
His claim looked right for his peak 6’3.5
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Jan/20
Same area as Lee Pace, Conan O’Brien, peak D’Onofrio and peak John Wayne but likely edged by guys Neeson, Hasselhoff and Seagal

He doesn’t have the typical 6ft4 proportions and therefore his height isn’t always that apparent until you see him beside other six footers like Ted Danson, James Garner, Roger Mosesley and David Schwimmer.
viper said on 2/Dec/19
I can believe Robbins is 6-4.5 looking shorter than Stern
Canson said on 1/Dec/19
@Junior: Selleck had Danson by only 1” in their primes. I think Danson is listed appropriately for his peak 6’2.5 and Selleck 6’3.5” like he claimed

@Viper: you think Robbins is less or more than 6’4.5? He looks under 6’5 with Stern

@Mickie: maybe 6’2.75 today but no higher. 6’2.5 is very much possible
Mike O said on 30/Nov/19
Flatfooted without shoes 6'3.5" peak/6'2.5" now. Big man.
Mickie said on 28/Nov/19
I'd go with:
Peak 6'3.5"
Current 6'2.5"
viper said on 16/Nov/19
His 6-3.5 is more believable to me than Tim Robbins 6-4.5
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 13/Nov/19
In Blue Blood he still look 6'3 now. I doubt 6'4 is his peak. Ted Danson and Tom Selleck peak look 1.25" never was 1.5" that high. Not sure he is only 6'3 1/2 peak more like rounding down once.
Choco said on 31/Oct/19
Oh wow, Selleck knows about height and is clearly interested!
Canson said on 29/Sep/19
@Rising: agree with everything you said!
Rising174cm said on 28/Sep/19
@Canson: True. December 1980/January 1981 TV Guide and 1987 Houston Chronicle. Unfortunately, the link to the latter has been dead for a few years and a preview of the former is no longer available on Google books. And it's not like Selleck only looked 6'3.5" due to posture. In fact, his loose posture could make him look considerably shorter than that. An example is this full photo with 5'7.5" Spielberg in the mid 90's: Click Here or with a 67 year old Paul Newman, who may have not been a full 5'9" by that point: Click Here Click Here and 5'9.5" listed Don Johnson in 1990: Click Here Click Here Personally, I doubt Johnson was taller than 5'9" flat. Remember, he wasn't taller than EDward James Olmos, which brings me to one more comparison.

Actually, Selleck is standing straighter than 5'9" Edward James Olmos here and closer to the camera: Click Here Ok, one more. Selleck with 5'10" listed F. Murray Abraham in the underrated 1989 film An Innocent Man: Click Here At no point in the film does Selleck appear 6" taller than Abraham and his posture is ok in this particular still. I won't re-post the Swayze photos again, but that's another case where Selleck didn't look 6'4" or actually anywhere near it in that case even accounting for posture. The obvious conclusion is that Selleck was 6'3.5" back in the 80's just as he claimed and is now under 6'3" at 74 years old.
Canson said on 23/Sep/19
@Rob: he was actually quoted twice (as Rising pointed out) with saying that he’s 6’3.5”
Canson said on 22/Sep/19
@Rising: I also am in agreement with you and Sotiris. That (6’3.5” peak height) looked accurate with 6’2.5” Ted Danson and 6’5” Darryl Strawberry as well as a strong 6’4” Dennis Haysbert where there was around 2cm between them. Today I agree probably weak 6’3” guy. He likely rounds up his height to 6’3” today or he measured when he still was the full 6’3”. I’ve noticed with some guys when they lose height that they will still claim their peak. He may not be claiming his max peak 6’3.5” but likely close to it
Rising174cm said on 21/Sep/19
I agree there's no chance Selleck was 6'3" flat peak, but there's also no chance he was a full 6'4" peak since he was claiming 6'3.5". That just makes no sense unless he was about 6'3.5" peak and there's enough evidence of him looking that peak as both myself and Sotiris has shown. Also, Selleck is pretty clear not a full 6'3" anymore. Look at the picture above, he might have still been able to straighten up to 6'3" then, but that pic is now 8 years old! His posture was already making him look 6'2" range next to Bridget Moynihan at 66 and Selleck didn't start shrinking noticeably until probably his early 60s so it stands to reason that he lost more height between age 66 and his current 74.

Look at Selleck over 15 years ago with 5'11"-5'11.5" range Prince Albert: Click Here Click Here He honestly doesn't look over 6'3" there, if that. I don't doubt he still was, but again, it's pretty clear Selleck wasn't telling some nonsensical lie when he said he was 6'3.5" multiple times 6 years apart.

By the way, the 6'3" quote in context doesn't even suggest he's referring to his current height. Notice he's talking about his potential as a leading man and even referring to his Magnum days. It's fairly likely the 6'3" claim was just rounding down his peak height of 6'3.5" instead of his usual round up. Especially since men(particularly celebrities), tend to continue claiming their peak height even long after they've began shrinking. The main exception is when their height loss becomes too noticeable to ignore such as with Arnold and Hulk Hogan, but even then we saw Clint Eastwood claim 6'4" as recent as 2004.

Of course, Selleck could also be rounding up his current height or even not referring to one or the other, but the most I can buy for him currently is 190 cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Sep/19
Ok, maybe he got measured recently at 6ft3 but not a chance he just that peak
Johnny G said on 11/Sep/19
In his prime a solid 6'4 , but a tad shorter today
Sotiris Gravas said on 29/Aug/19
Rob has Michael Cudlitz at 6'1", but he's max 6'0".

Maybe 6'2.5" Selleck w/ Cudlitz (2016)... Click Here

W/ max 6'2" Sheamus (2015)... Click Here , Click Here

Not that it matters, but all of these ppl have a mustache.
Canson said on 15/Aug/19
@Mickie: possible
Mickie said on 14/Aug/19
Peak height maybe 6' 3 5/8". About an inch less today.
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 6/Aug/19
Peak 192.5cm
Now 190.5cm (not under)
Canson said on 4/Aug/19
Peak 6’3.5
Today 6’2.5-.75
Canson said on 1/Aug/19
@Viper: if anything my Dad has lost maybe 1/2” possibly even just a CM. He’s only half inch or maybe 5/8” shorter than me
viper said on 30/Jul/19
My dad is near his age and hasn't shrunk, much less rapidly
Canson said on 30/Jul/19
Peak 6’3.5 like he claimed
Johan 185 cm said on 29/Jul/19
Not sure about his current as he has got to the age where he will begin shrinking rapidly. However 5 years ago he still looked 6'3.5".

I read some interesting comments about Selleck back in his prime. People would say that he bent his knees and stood with his legs in a wide stance to accomodate other actors.

I think 6'3.75"-6'4" is good for a peak range. Not over though.
Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 10/Jul/19
Rob, Tom Selleck claim both 6'3.5" and 6'4 maybe he is just between it at 6'3.75" peak?
Canson said on 9/Jul/19
@Rob: 6’3” doesn’t mean he measured a flat 6’3”. He could’ve easily been near that mark in the morning and rounded up or could’ve been 6’2 1/2 or 5/8 and rounded up. Now I don’t rule 6’3” out because it may be a posture issue like Hulk Hogan or Undertaker for example which make him look shorter than he is but I don’t rule out Sotiris’s estimates. I definitely do not believe that he was 6’4” at his peak if he claimed 6’3.5 and 6’2.5 I could even see today as that’s an inch height loss at that age
Canson said on 2/Jul/19
@Rising: I agree with the heights for Selleck peak and current that Sotiris gave
Editor Rob
Selleck's latest quote (from this year), he did describe himself as 6ft 3.
Rising174cm said on 29/Jun/19
I actually agree with Sotiris. 6'3.5" peak and about 6'2.5" now. He's clearly lost height, but having claimed 6'3.5" at least twice in the 80's and now 6'3", it's really the only thing that adds up. A 6'3.5" guy will usually claim 6'4" if they round, but may also claim 6'3" every now and then, especially if they're older and not specifically referring to peak and current. But if someone claims 6'3.5", then chances are they're not a full 6'4". 6'3.75" is possible, but 6'3.5" suits him better. The man said so himself and could look around that often enough with Haysbert, Danson, Strawberry, Prince Albert, Edward James Olmos, Paul Newman, Chevy Chase etc. The tallest I could see him now at 74 is 6'2.75", even considering his posture.
Canson said on 19/May/19
@Sotiris: Haysbert hardly towers him. That’s about an inch between them maybe 1 1/2”. Their listings add up in the pic or at least very close. I agree with you and Rising that Selleck is probably around 190cm maybe a little less today. Haysbert May be 6’3.75 today. I’d say peak heights Haysbert was my height 6’4.25-.3 at a low and Tom Selleck 6’3.5. He and Conan were close in height at their peaks while he edged 6’2.5 Ted Danson by an inch
Canson said on 19/May/19
@Sotiris: I disagree. Haysbert hardly towers him. That’s about an inch between them maybe 1 1/4”. Their listings add up in the pic or at least very close. I agree with Rising that Selleck is probably around 190cm. Haysbert May be 6’3.75 today
Canson said on 19/May/19
@Sotiris: I disagree. Haysbert hardly towers him. That’s about an inch between them. Their listings add up in the pic
Sotiris Gravas said on 17/May/19
Selleck was shorter than 6'4" Dennis Haysbert back in 1992... Click Here , Click Here , Click Here

Here they both are in 2015... Click Here
In this one, Haysbert towers over him... Click Here

Keep in mind, this was Haysbert being towered by 6'4" Henry Simmons (2017)... Click Here
Click Here

I once thought Selleck was around the same height as Boomer Esiason nowadays when I saw this pic:
Click Here But then I saw this... Click Here

Keep in mind, this was Boomer w/ 6'4.25" Eli Manning (2011)... Click Here
As well as 6'5.25" Peyton Manning (2005)... Click Here

6'5" Darryl Strawberry and Selleck... Click Here

6'5" Lee Canalito and Selleck (1980)... Click Here

I think Selleck might have been max 6'3.5" peak height and now maybe 6'2.5".
Rising174cm said on 11/May/19
@Canson: I agree 100%. 6'3.5" peak, just as he claimed at least twice back n the 80's, but he's now shrunk below 6'3" at 74. 190 cm is the highest I'd go currently, though somewhere in the 189-190 range since his posture makes it difficult to tell exactly now.
Canson said on 11/Mar/19
Peak height 6’3.5
Today 6’2.75
Aletta van der Horst said on 26/Feb/19
Soooo, in my country (The Netherlands) the average height of men is about 184 cm, and women are about 170 cm. What's the issue?
These guys are average height. :-)
Canson said on 25/Dec/18
@Judy: comparing the pics, I have Selleck as precisely an inch taller than 6’2.5 listed Ted Danson. I agree with Rob on Danson as well as he looks an inch shorter in pics for example the one Rising posted. Then comparing Selleck to Strawberry and Selleck to Haysbert, I see a 3.5-4 cm difference with the former and 1.9-2cm (3/4” approximately) with the latter. The difference in the comparisons is approximately half. .75 vs 1.5
Canson said on 25/Dec/18
@Judy: comparing the pics, I have Selleck as precisely an inch taller than 6’2.5 listed Ted Danson. I agree with Rob on Danson as well as he looks an inch taller in pics for example the one Rising posted. Then comparing Selleck to Strawberry and Selleck to Haysbert, I see a 3.5-4 cm difference with the former and 1.9-2cm (3/4” approximately) with the latter. The difference in the comparisons is approximately half. .75 vs 1.5
Canson-6'4 3/8 said on 25/Dec/18
@Judy: I don’t see anything wrong with his neck or anything there. He had better posture back then than he does today. He also wasn’t as heavy as he is today. But Selleck claiming 6’3.5 back then certainly adds us as Strawberry claimed 6’5” despite the 6’6” listing
Rising - 174 cm said on 24/Dec/18
Take off Selleck's cap (which adds at least 1/2" to 3/4") and their heads will be within a fraction of each other.
Rising - 174 cm said on 24/Dec/18
Here's those two Blue Bloods pics with lines at their chins and the top of their heads: Click Here In the first one, Haysbert's head comes out at 153 pixels with Selleck's at 144 and they're both 136 pixels in the second. Haysbert certainly isn't closer to the camera in these pics, but the discrepancy in the first pic is likely due to Haysbert tilting his head down making his head longer. Actually, the difference there is even bigger from their eye level since their eye level is almost the same. I can do the same thing with each and Ted Danson, but I hope this will suffice to show there's not a big difference in head length between Selleck and Haysbert.

@Canson: As a big fan of Cheers, those are cool pics. I agree, I didn't know if Danson was 6'2" or 6'3" for years when I watched the show because I remember reading 6'2", but his character laughs at either a 6'2" or a 6'2.5" character he's competing with for Diane(Shelley Long) and brags he's 6'3". But it turns out Danson was billed at 6'2" in the early 80's, though there were also some 6'2.5" descriptions in the early 90's, which may have come from him so I agree with 6'2.5" for Danson and 6'3.5" for Selleck since an inch difference looked about right in the 80's: Click Here Haysbert at 6'4.25" also seems good. Interestingly, Danson doesn't look more than 1.5" shorter than Haysbert in that full pic from this year so maybe Danson is still 6'2" and Haysbert now struggling with 6'4", though Haysbert still looked all of 6'4" with Danson in 2014. Selleck still looked like he'd be an inch taller than Danson the last time I saw them, but that was at least 7 years ago now: Click Here Could be earlier than 2011, but I can't find the exact date. I think he was probably still a full 6'3" standing straight when Blue Bloods started, but there's a good chance he's lost a little more height since.
Judy said on 24/Dec/18
Get Selleck to stop hunching and to lock his knees and his long head will take him within an inch of Strawberry.
Click Here
Canson said on 24/Dec/18
@Rising: one of the other things I’ve noticed is that Ted Danson has always been on the “lanky side” lol. He physically looked as tall as some 6’3 guys, although I do buy the 6’2.5 as not only his peak but probably around a low for him. Maybe at worst 6’2 3/8 but maybe even on the money for him. But comparing Selleck to Danson, I would say that Selleck had him by an inch at their peaks but Danson gave off and still gives off a taller impression due to the build and his slender body vs Selleck who is heavier. Check out these two pics This is Sam Malone 30 years later lol

Click Here

Click Here
Canson said on 24/Dec/18
@Rising: yea i agree with everything you said. I would lean towards 2cm than 3 or 1 as well. I never got a true 6’4.5 impression on him. But my definition of that type of height is more what a weak 6’5” guy like Tim Robbins would look like. If I had to bet money I would say he’s probably my height at his peak. I’m actually a bit more than solid more strong 6’4. I’m 6’5 out of bed or about 1.5mm over and around 6’4.25-.3 at a low. 6’4.25 if I hit the gym. I think he’d be that type of height. Lunchtime height for me is more 6’4 3/8 if we’re going 5 hours out of bed. To me Haysbert is Probably a little more than a peak Hasselhoff maybe more like a peak Jeff Goldblum as I have him at Rob’s listing as well.
Canson said on 24/Dec/18
@Rising: yea i agree with everything you said. If I had to bet money I would say he’s probably my height at his peak. I’m actually a bit more than solid more strong 6’4. I’m 6’5 out of bed or about 1.5mm over and around 6’4.25-.3 at a low. 6’4.25 if I hit the gym. I think he’d be that type of height. Probably a little more than a peak Hasselhoff maybe more like a peak Jeff Goldblum as I have him at Rob’s listing as well
Rising - 174 cm said on 23/Dec/18
@Judy: You missed the point. I posted that precisely because Haysbert had the advantage to show how that affects head length and to show how much taller Haysbert looks when he has the advantage. It's a greater advantage than the one Selleck had in your photo, but Selleck still has an advantage there with the camera being close and on his side. This is evident because his head looks huge. Remember, I posted this one where Selleck is closer to the camera yet Haysbert still looks taller: Click Here If Haysbert looks taller while at a disadvantage and looks taller for literally the entire film then that goes to show he's taller by a fair amount, probably not less than 2 cm as Canson said. I'll illustrate what I'm talking about regarding their head lengths in a follow up post.

@Canson: Haysbert could very well have been just a solid 6'4" guy peak like you. I agree 6'4.5" at a low might be high, though it's not farfetched at noon. I was somewhat wary of the Strawberry comparison because they're on grass, but with a whole series of pics like that, I agree. There's more than an inch difference.
Canson said on 23/Dec/18
@Judy: Rising is correct. Haysbert is taller than him. Haysbert peak was at least 6’4” if you see those pics and see him with Omar Epps in Love and Basketball. Selleck meanwhile was 6’3.5. That’s all he was next to Darryl Strawberry. If you look at Haysbert with Selleck he’s about half the difference that Strawberry had on Selleck. So what Rising said 6’4.25 is about right which is what I have him. Haysbert claimed 6’4.5 before but that’s probably not a low. He’s probably the same as I am heighwise.
Canson said on 22/Dec/18
@Rising: I agree with what you said. I would say it’s probably 2cm versus just 1. Maybe not quite an inch though but I see Haysbert kinda the same height as I am. He may also be a guy who woke up to 6’5” and dipped to 6’4.25 at his peak or if anything maybe within a mm or two of that in either direction kinda like me
Canson said on 22/Dec/18
He looks 6’3.5 with 6’5” Darryl Strawberry as well
Canson said on 22/Dec/18
@Viper: it does. And a peak Haysbert is more likely around my height versus 6’4.5 at a low
Judy said on 22/Dec/18
Come now Rising. Your last pic clearly gives Haysbert an angle advantage but there is no such obvious (if any) advantage for Selleck in the pic I posted. My pic is without any doubt a better comparison of the two men.
Rising - 174 cm said on 21/Dec/18
@Judy: All I said was Selleck being closer to the camera with the camera itself close to them and on Selleck's side makes his head look larger than it is and makes the height difference smaller than it is. This is not uncommon. Who said anything about it being to a glaring extent? What I was saying is the camera advantage makes Haysbert look only half an inch taller instead of an inch or only 1 cm instead of 2. What I was also saying is seeing the two next to each other where Selleck isn't closer to the camera, I doubt Selleck's head is considerably longer than Haysbert's, if at all. You can also use Ted Danson as a reference and compare each standing next to Danson: Click Here Click Here Haysbert's head actually doesn't look any shorter than Selleck's compared to Danson. When Haysbert was closer to the camera, he looked considerably taller than Selleck in that scene: Click Here When Selleck has the advantage, Haysbert is still taller, albeit not by that much. Haysbert was literally taller the entire movie, if they were about the same height then I'd at least expect Selleck to look taller once in a while or the same height in a few scenes, but that's not the case.
Judy said on 21/Dec/18
Rising, if a camera advantage for Selleck (which I don't see) distorted Selleck's head relative to Haysbert's to that glaring extent, the same advantage should also have Selleck apparently towering over Haysbert because the real height difference between them is very small.
viper said on 15/Dec/18
Sellecks 6-3.5 claim looks right on the money in that pic with Haysbert.
Rising - 174 cm said on 13/Dec/18
@Canson: I can agree with a 2 cm difference. Haysbert about 6'4.25" and Selleck 6'3.5".

@Judy: You're assuming Selleck's head is naturally that much bigger than Haysbert, but that's likely due to a camera advantage the same way Haysbert's head looked bigger when he had the camera advantage in the final scene, which is when that still appears to be taken. Here's some photos to compare their head lengths: Click Here Click Here Haysbert's head actually looks longer in the first photo, including his eye level, but that's probably because he's tilting his head down more and Selleck actually seems closer in the second, but Haysbert's teeth may be apart smiling while Selleck's might not be, but all things considered, their heads seem close in length. Despite being at the disadvantage, Haysbert is still at least 1 cm taller in the still you posted and at least 2 cm comparing their eye level. Selleck's arm around Haysbert's shoulder also might also be minimizing the difference.
Canson said on 12/Dec/18
@Christian: I agree wholeheartedly with your statement and have been saying that since 2015 when I came on here that Conan was closer to 6’3” than 6’4”.
Judy said on 12/Dec/18
Is this not a better comparison with Haysbert? Selleck's huge head takes him to almost the same height as Haysbert.

Click Here
Canson said on 11/Dec/18
@Rising: that’s actually good comparisons there. I think with the first one (definitely when they’re in baseball gear), I would say 2cm. Maybe also the one where they’re both in suits. The others are a bit harder to gauge tho especially on the field. I would have to say that my impression is 2cm up to 3cm in other pics. If we went with 2, that certainly adds up for both guys’ peaks. 6’3.5 which I agree with you on for Selleck and 6’4.25 looks like a good estimate for Haysbert at his peak. I could see both guys having lost height today. But for Haysbert, he looks as if he could still measure a bit higher if he spots straight. I’ve seen some of the Alstate Commercials where he still looks as if he could measure close to 6’4 or right at it. And I had forgotten that they were in True Bloods and Mr Baseball both. I thought just the latter but then I remembered Haysbert made a guest appearance on Blue Bloods. I wish we had a better picture of Haysbert with Peter Hermann. He was on the show as well but in a different season. I have always had Hermann as a legit 6’5” guy.
Jtm said on 11/Dec/18
those pictures with 6'5 darryl strawberry confirm that 6'3.5 was his real height.
Christian 6'5 3/8" said on 10/Dec/18

It goes to show you that Conan wasn't as tall as 192-192.5
Rising - 174 cm said on 10/Dec/18
I'm fairly certain it wasn't a misprint since he said it more than once in Dec. 1980/Jan. 1981 TV Guide and 1987 Houston Chronicle so what are the odds of the same misprint years apart? Also, why would someone misprint 6'4" as 6'3.5"? I could see someone misprinting a round number, but not a half inch as a round number. The most logical answer is that he was a legitimate 6'3.5" man. Conan could be the same, but Selleck's boots made him look a little taller. It's certainly no more difficult for me to believe than Max von Sydow at "only" 191 cm peak.

@Canson: Like I said, I don't know. He could be anywhere from 6'4"-6'4.5", imo. The best scenes for comparing are when they're walking so I can't take stills, but while Selleck is positioned closer to the camera, you can see Haysbert is clearly taller when they're talking: Click Here Selleck is positioned closer to the camera. Haysbert is closer to the camera in this end scene, but I think it still clearly seems like he'd be taller: Click Here and definitely when they argue on the field: Click Here Click Here Here's a wide shot in the clubhouse, though both are unfortunately slouching: Click Here I can see a possibility of an inch difference, especially when they're walking side by side in the clubhouse after the game ends in a tie. Unfortunately, I can't take a still because they're walking, but I think this many stills, while not perfect do get the point across that Haysbert was clearly taller. The question is whether it's as much as an inch, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this.

@Judy: Selleck doesn't look more than 4.5" taller than 5'11" James Woods in the same picture.
Canson said on 9/Dec/18
@Rising: I think in Love and Basketball he definitely looked at least 6’4”. I didn’t get the impression of 6’4/6’5 though which is how I view someone who is 6’4.5 at their low. I saw more of a solid 6’4 or someone who’s maybe a hair over when he was next to Omar Epps and Sanaa Lathan. In the Major Leagues same thing. In 24 with Sutherland he looked legit 6’4” but by the latter he was older so not sure if he had lost height by then
berta said on 9/Dec/18
i wonder if he really said he was 192 cm himself ore misprinted. He was the taller one of him and conan o brien and conan is at worst 192-192,5 peak
Rising - 174 cm said on 4/Dec/18
@Canson: I've wondered that too. It's possible he had an inch on Selleck since there was no doubt he was taller throughout the film, but I'm not certain if it was a full inch in general or slightly less. If Haysbert was always a flat 6'4" then 6'3.5" would be the absolute most Selleck could have been, but Haysbert measured up well to Dr. J back in 2003 so I think he'd at least be one of the more appropriate 6'4.25" listings if he weren't 6'4.5" because 6'4" flat would be the absolute lowest, imo and nothing under it even at his low.

@movieguy12: Clint had probably lost a little height by 1985 and may have not been over 6'3" flat then. I do agree Selleck was taller at that time regardless.
Judy said on 3/Dec/18
For some comparison, Scwarzenegger with Christopher reeve.

Click Here
Judy said on 3/Dec/18
He really towered over Schwarzenegger.

Click Here
movieguy12 said on 26/Nov/18
I think he's kept his height well, maybe it's because he's pretty robust generally. Not a lean guy like Clint Eastwood who has lost a lot of height although Selleck is of course considerably younger. To my eyes Tom Selleck is an example of what a genuine 6'4'' guy looks like. He's not one of those guys who looks huge on screen but smaller in real life. There are photos on the net of Tom Selleck and Clint Eastwood dancing in turn with a young Princess Diana. Selleck looks noticeably taller in comparison with Diana than Eastwood. It could just be angles or something but certainly at that point back in the 80s Selleck looks the bigger man.
Canson said on 18/Nov/18
@Rising: did you believe Haysbert as 6’4.5 peak? I had him more like 6’4-6’4.25 at his absolute peak maybe 6’4.5 morning height a couple hours after waking
Canson said on 18/Nov/18
@Rising: did you believe Haysbert as 6’4.5 peak? I had him more like 6’4-6’4.25 at his absolute peak maybe 6’4.5 morning height
Rising - 174 cm said on 16/Nov/18
@Canson: The pic used above was actually taken back in 2010 when Selleck was only 65 and his posture was already making him look 6'2" and I'd have guessed him more a 189-190 cm guy there, but in fairness, I think it's likely he still stretched up to 6'3" flat then. As for his peak, he was definitely shorter than Dennis Haysbert in Mr. Baseball. Could have been an inch difference, but that may depend on the scene.
Canson said on 13/Nov/18
@Rising: actually after seeing more current pics 189-190 looks very good. I wonder how his posture is and if he has any issues standing straight or if he does. I could buy maybe 190 (6’2.75). But a weak 6’3” (6’2.5-.75) like you mentioned looks about as good as any estimate to tell you the truth. I won’t rule out having lost a full inch at his age. But with him, It’s similar to Undertaker albeit Selleck is older than Taker. I wonder how much height Taker has in the Tank because he looks noticeably smaller today than he was even with Ali Baba about a few years ago. I mention that in correlation with Selleck because I saw a pic of him recently where he looked just 6’2” I believe.
Rising - 174 cm said on 11/Nov/18
@Canson: I think all those estimates are fair. What would you give Selleck currently? He's standing surprisingly well here this year with 177 cm Bridget Moynahan: Click Here Tom looks near 4" taller, imo, but Bridget's heels look closer to 2" than 3" and she's bending her knee. I'd have to figure Selleck is somewhere in the 189-190 cm range today, but the man is 73.
Canson said on 11/Nov/18
@Rising: correct the time of the day is a huge variable. My guesses for them are below (based on afternoon)

Jordan: 194-195 (likely closer to 194 at a low)
Magic 201ish give or take peak
Conan 191-192 peak or 191-191.5
Selleck 191.5-192
Rising - 174 cm said on 9/Nov/18
As brief as the greeting is, I still think Selleck and Chevy Chase were about the same height in 1993: Click Here If Selleck was taller it was by a very small amount and I'm not sure Selleck's boots didn't give him a similarly small advantage: Click Here I think both were honest 6'3.5" guys, but Selleck more likely to have measured that even at his low than Chase, imo. I'd be much less surprised if Chase dropped into the 191 range at night while I think Selleck would have measured closer to 192 even then.

@Canson: Yeah, Strawberry probably wouldn't be taller than he claimed himself and was listed on his booking sheet so that's fair. He does look more than just an inch taller than Selleck to me so I think his claim is honest. There's also a photo of both Jordan and Selleck in the outfield tracking a fly ball. Obviously, they're not standing still so it's not good for comparing height, but fwiw, Jordan looks noticeably bigger. I have MJ 195 cm and Conan about 192, but I don't think either has lost height. That would definitely be a shoe height for Wlad since Conan basically called him his brother's height lol. I buy the 6'7.5" Rob has Magic and I think 6'8.5" claim came from a shoe height, but you can argue about the time of day. He can look 6'7" flat at times too.
Canson said on 9/Nov/18
@Rising: I agree that strawberry is 6’5” as well. As for MJ and Selleck I would guess an about inch in between them 6’3.5 and 6’4.5.

With Conan, I would say at his peak that he could’ve been between 191-192 and may still be a hair over 191 today. I’ve also noticed with Wlad Klitschko that Conan told him he thought he was 6’6/6’7 which is a shoe height for Wlad. And with Magic Johnson, it’s clear that a 6’7” Magic makes Conan closer to 6’3 than 6’4”
Rising - 174 cm said on 20/Oct/18
@Canson: Good catch. I didn't notice that about rounding his brother too. That suggests I was right that Selleck is sometimes precise, but often rounds as most people do and I doubt he thinks anything of it. In fairness, Selleck did have thick boots I'd guess would add near 1.5" on that '98 appearance so he'd be 6'5" in them. Conan guessing him 6'4"-6'5" and even saying "I'm ABOUT your height" can be interpreted as Conan believing Selleck edged him, but Conan seemed to perceive Neeson in dress shoes at least as tall as Selleck or even slightly taller and if you notice, when Conan says he's 6'4" and Neeson must be 6'5", Neeson specifies he's 6'4" and a wee bit in his bare feet. So I agree Conan wasn't quite the full 6'4" barefoot, though I think he's a bit taller than you do and would guess more 192 range, but his exact height is tricky because of that hairstyle.

Btw, as viper has mentioned, Strawberry did in fact claim 6'5" himself and in his prime no less: Click Here And bad angle at the end, but interesting to see some footage of Selleck and Michael Jordan in 1993: Click Here
viper said on 19/Oct/18
There is video of Mike Tyson asking Strawberry's height and he says 6-5.
Canson said on 18/Oct/18
@Rising: I also noticed that Selleck called his 6’6.5 brother “6’7” on Conan’s show when Conan guessed him 6’4/6’5. Likely that Selleck rounded him up just like he does himself.
Canson said on 18/Oct/18
@Rising: 6’3.5 also explains why Conan guessed him taller than he is. Conan asked him “what are you 6’4/,6’5”? Selleck would be 6’4/6’5 in shoes but not barefoot. That’s why I’ve said all along that Conan look like a guy who is probably much closer to 6’3” than 6’4. Conan realized Selleck was taller. Ever notice that Conan always comments on someone’s height when they are his height or taller than he is immediately after they come on his show? Klitschko, Joshua, Magic, Selleck, Neeson, haysbert, lithgow etc. I also notice Conan has inflated almost everyone of them before they answered with the exception of Magic and Joshua and Haysbert. Can’t remember about lithgow but he tried to make Neeson 6’5, Selleck 6’4/6’5, Wlad 6’6/6’7, etc. that points directly to shoe measurements for all three of them. Conan also claimed 6’4/6’4.5 which means like shoe measurement. I think he’s 6’4.25 in shoes and 6’3.25 barefoot maybe just 6’3”. He has very thick hair which makes him taller
Rising - 174 cm said on 16/Oct/18
@Canson: Glad we agree on this one. I wouldn't be as sure if the man hadn't said it himself. I can see why many thought he was a legit 6'4", but I think many have a hard time letting go of that even when it's only a half inch and it comes from Tom himself. 6'3.5" looks about right in the series of pics with 6'5" Darryl Strawberry: Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Darryl Strawberry's booking sheet had him at 6'5" rather than the 6'6" he was listed at when he played: Click Here He was also said to be 6'5" at 18 so the booking sheet makes it probable he never grew past it. The real question is how tall would Selleck measure today?
Canson said on 8/Oct/18
Agree with Rising. 6’3.5 peak
Rising - 174 cm said on 7/Oct/18
Here's a good comparison of Selleck back in 2004 when he was still close to his peak with Prince Albert, whom Rob has estimated 5'11"-5'11.5" range: Click Here Click Here
Full pic of Selleck with 5'7.5" Spielberg back in 1995: Click Here
Selleck with 5'9" Edward James Olmos in 1992: Click Here
Tom and 67 year old Paul Newman in 1992: Click Here Click Here Newman was 2 months shy of his 68th birthday so while he might have been 5'9.5" in his prime, it's doubtful he still was considering how much Newman wound up shrinking.

Pretty strong evidence Selleck wasn't lying when he said 6'3.5".
Terry said on 6/Oct/18
This guy is tall! I am 6'0 and he towered over me. 6'4 peak easily.
Rising - 174 cm said on 6/Oct/18
Gene Simmons may claim 6'2" himself, but Rob lists him 6'1.5" peak and had just been listing him 6'1". I've seen that film and don't remember a good scene to really compare their heights, but Selleck was definitely noticeably taller, but then he would be at 6'3.5".

Selleck in 1993 with another 6'3.5" man Chevy Chase: Click Here The greeting is short, but they look virtually identical and Selleck was wearing boots
Selleck in 1990 with 5'10" Patrick Swayze: Click Here Even considering posture, it's impossible for me to imagine a 6" difference.
Judy said on 4/Oct/18
And with 6ft5 John Cleese. Keep in mind Cleese is closer to the camera :
Click Here
Judy said on 4/Oct/18
And here is Selleck with self described 6ft2 Gene Simmons:
Click Here
Judy said on 4/Oct/18
Here is the Hoff with AJ Calloway who is elsewhere rated at 1.9 m
Click Here
Click Here

And here with Selleck :
Click Here

If you ask AJ he will tell you there is absolutely nothing to choose between the two.
Canson said on 24/Sep/18
People will round you up when you claim half in many instances. Not worth it. Just claim the full number (round down) or round up
Rising - 174 cm said on 23/Sep/18
More civilized? Dude, you're really reaching with that one. I've never heard one person say 6'4" men were "uncivilized", much less that a half inch shorter would make such a dramatic difference. 6'3.5" is very tall as well. To be accurate, it's taller than more than 98% of American men NOW. This is a case where the most simple explanation is the correct one. Selleck was 6'3 1/2" as he said and usually rounded to the nearest inch just like many do. I've said he could've also been something like 6'3 5/8" or maybe even 6'3 3/4" max since he did say "about" 6'3.5" one of those times. Even if someone could come up with a plausible reason Selleck would downgrade himself half an inch, it still wouldn't make sense that he'd try it just a couple of times and then say 6'4" most of the time. And I don't know if Rob only saw the TV Guide claim, but a poster Trent posted a link to the Houston Chronicle claim back in 2012. Selleck could be 6'3.5" in that clip with 6'1.5" Letterman. Their posture is up and down a lot so it's difficult to say exactly, especially since Letterman often worse very low cut shoes without much heel. Nobody is disputing Selleck could look the full 6'4" at times, but he could also look no more than 6'3.5".

With 5'10" F. Murray Abraham in An Innocent Man: Click Here
With 5'9"-5'9.5" Don Johnson in 1990: Click Here Click Here
With 6'1" James Garner: Click Here (Garner may have been 6'1.5" peak, but not by the time he was 50 due to his knees and back)
With 6'2.5" Ted Danson: Click Here Click Here Click Here I included the last pic just to balance out Selleck dropping more height in the second, but Danson is dropping at least an inch in posture in the 3rd pic with Selleck standing straight. Selleck seems about 6'3.5" here overall.

In order to conclude Selleck was lying about being 6'3.5", he'd have to be such a clear cut 6'4"+, but this is not the case. He could definitely look 6'3" range too. Part of this is a tendency people have to arbitrarily assume people are exactly at the full inch even though there's always just as many people just under or over. You wouldn't think that was the case if you just went by claims. Selleck actually looks 6'2" range in the photo above and that was taken in 2010 when Selleck was only 65. Maybe he'd be 6'3" flat there standing straight.
tree said on 21/Sep/18
When people hear 6ft4 they think u are very tall,but 6ft3.5 sounds more civilieazed.
tree said on 21/Sep/18
On the top it says He was also ONCE quoted saying 6ft 3.5.
If he claimed it more it need to be changed.

He did looks 6ft4 with Letterman too Click Here at 9:51 u can see his shoes gave 1 inch only
At worst u could argue 6ft3.75 but he looked more 6ft4
Maybe he was 192,5 and he felt like rounding down.
Canson said on 20/Sep/18
Well said Rising
Canson said on 18/Sep/18
@Tree: I agree with Rising here. He could’ve been 6’3.5 at a low. In addition, 6’3.5 is not going to get him anywhere. At 6’3.5, you will be rounded up to 6’4. I am 6’4.25 at a low and used to claim 6’4.5 as I measured at that in college playing ball and 6’4 3/8 by my doctor previously and when I claimed 6’4 1/2 I was often called 6’5, hence why I stopped claiming it. I consider myself closer to 6’4” and always have really
Rising - 174 cm said on 18/Sep/18
That really doesn't make sense. First of all, 6'3.5" won't get him any roles that 6'4" wouldn't. And he didn't claim 6'3.5" just once. He claimed it in December 1980/January 1981 TV Guide and 1987 Houston Chronicle. If that was his motive then why not list himself 6'3.5"? The fact is, he claimed 6'4" more often so more people knew him as that height regardless. John Lithgow looked 6'4" at 63/64 on Dexter. That doesn't mean he was once 6'4.5". Selleck said it HAD been a problem. That's past tense. He was talking about conflicting with the hero, which means he's likely referring to the 60's and 70's and supporting roles. By the time of the 6'3.5" claims, he was the hero as Magnum. If Selleck had said 6'3" flat then I'd say there may be something to that, but the most logical answer is the 6'3.5" is more precise and the 6'4" is rounding to the nearest inch like most do.
Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 17/Sep/18
@tree The post clip is from 2001 and i disagree Conan is shorter. They look same height from that clip. Prob they're never measure 6'4 from a mid day or night. 6'4 is a morning height from doctor office.
tree said on 16/Sep/18
We saw Connan with many guys whose height we know no way that he is under 6ft3.5 its IMPOSSIBLE
Selleck probably was downgrading a little his height to get more often the big roles,usually 6ft4 is a bit too tall,and u can say he was established by the time he claimed 6ft4 and didn't need to lie but there were other huge names and he often was racing with them for getting big roles.

It had been a problem for me being taken seriously. I'm 6-foot-4 and I came in during the era of leading men like Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino...anybody in the old leading man mold was all of a sudden not acceptable. That was the same reason I didn't do much TV. They said I was too tall or that I conflicted with the hero.

Probalby he thinked that one time claiming 6ft3.5 increasis his chances a bit to get more auditions.
He looked 6ft3.5 in his mid 60's hard to imagine he did not loose anithyng by then.
Rising - 174 cm said on 11/Sep/18
I doubt Conan is a full 6'4". The most probable explanation is Selleck claimed an honest barefoot height of 6'3.5" while Conan claimed a shoe height of 6'4.5".
Canson said on 10/Sep/18
@Tree: he is taller than Conan but because Conan isn’t 6’4”. Selleck is one of many 6’3.5 (which he admitted to) or even 6’4 like Neeson or between like Lithgow that has edged Conan over the years and Conan tries to inflate them. He also called Wlad Klitschko 6’6/6’7 when wlad admitted to 6’6 in the morning 6’5 evening. Conan is 6’3” range (6’3.25 barefoot).
tree said on 9/Sep/18
Here he looked a little taller than 6ft4 Connan Click Here
Rising - 174 cm said on 6/Aug/18
@James B: Selleck is slouching more there, but I don't think he'd be more than an inch taller there if he straightened up, especially since Danson is standing casually himself with hands in his pockets.
James B 172cm said on 3/Aug/18
with ted danson in the 80s

Click Here
Rising - 174 cm said on 1/Aug/18
@James B: It's been decades since I've seen the entire film so I'll have to rewatch and see how he looks with Guttenberg, but I do remember him looking roughly his claim with 6'2.5" Ted Danson. About an inch taller, iirc. No less, but not much more.

@viper: Agreed. Good performance by Selleck and the dynamics in prison are actually far more realistic than most prison movies from that era.
viper said on 31/Jul/18
An innocent man is an awesome movie
James B 172cm said on 30/Jul/18
Well he didnt look a big 6'4 guy in the three men and baby films in the late 80s
Rising - 174 cm said on 26/Jul/18
@James B: I don't see the point in Tom doing that. He claimed 6'3.5" in 1980/1981 and 1987, but his height was usually given as 6'4" so why would he consciously try to make himself a half inch shorter on just those 2 occasions, but then claim 6'4" the rest of the time? It'd be completely ineffective as the vast majority would see 6'4" for him and be unaware he even claimed 6'3.5". It's far more likely he rounded up from 6'3.5" as it's a lot more common to round up to whole inches than vice versa. As I said, he actually didn't look over 6'3" with F. Murray Abraham in An Innocent Man. At most I could see a listing similar to Tim Robbins 6'4.75", but a guy Robbins' height would be more likely to downplay his height, imo. 6'3"-6'4" range is still a height most would admit to. Tom was already established on TV and film when he claimed 6'3.5" so it doesn't make sense he'd do it to get work.
James B 172cm said on 25/Jul/18
i suppouse if john cleese rounded down by claiming 6ft4.5 then so could tom selleck by claiming 6ft3.5
Rising - 174 cm said on 13/Jul/18
Selleck is pretty much the tallest man in An Innocent Man(1989), which includes a pretty tall cast like 6'2" M.C. Gainey, but he honestly didn't look more than 6'3" compared to a 5'10" F. Murray Abraham in An Innocent Man(1989). Some of this can be explained by framing shots, but there are wide shots and this still is pretty representative of how they looked: Click Here I just don't see a full 6" difference at any time and it can actually look 4" range in some scenes, but that can be explained by posture. David Rasche is listed at 6'0" here and the difference is made to look maybe 2" when they're face to face in Selleck's character's house, but this is clearly minimized as you can see Selleck is noticeably taller than Rasche's partner played by Richard Young when Young pats down Selleck at the end of the film, though I don't see Rasche a full 4" shorter either. He does look his typical towering presence when he walks through doorways, but he wears boots in at least some scenes making him 195 cm minimum in footwear excluding hair. I think this is just an example of how tall a legit 6'3.5" is. The difference between Tom and Laila Robins who plays his wife in the film is huge and you at least get an idea in the aforementioned scene with Rasche.

@Canson: I have them both 6'3.5" and Selleck definitely had thicker footwear in 1998, but Selleck still looked a bit taller to me in 2004 and I'm not sure he had much of a footwear advantage then. Maybe some of that was the angle they use on the show, but Conan was definitely no taller even at that point. I give you credit because I had assumed Conan was 6'4" for years and I was skeptical until I really looked into it, but I have to say he's somewhere in that 191-192 cm range barefoot and I think claimed a shoe height when he said 6'4.5".
Canson said on 7/Jul/18
@Rising: agreed. I can see Selleck maybe mildly edging him but at the same time, Selleck May have had a footwear advantage. I only see him edging him because Conan looks closer to 6’3 than 6’4 imho
Rising - 174 cm said on 5/Jul/18
@James B: I think there's a very good chance considering Selleck's claim and there were honestly times even before I saw him claim 6'3.5" where I doubted he was the full 6'4". If a guy like Tim Robbins could be less than 6'5" than Selleck could easily be under 6'4".

@Canson: Selleck is also almost 20 years older than Conan. I don't think Selleck had lost anything by Conan's age either. Selleck was a bigger man and more impressive so imo, 6'3.5" looks a better height on a man like Selleck than Conan who gives more a lanky sort of impression.

@Rob: There's no question about that. He can look 6'2" range to me, but the real question is how much height he typically drops compared to what he'd measure because he does look healthy for his age, but slouches. You have to be careful looking at Blue Bloods cast pics, though because Donnie Wahlberg regularly goes on his toes with Tom. I saw him doing it again in a series of 2017 pics.
James B 171.5cm said on 3/Jul/18
theres always a chance he was a little shy of 6'4 at his peak
Canson said on 24/Jun/18
@Rob: the other thing is that Selleck doesn’t have the proportions that Conan has. Conan has longer legs so he may give off a taller impression than Selleck. To Rising’s credit, I see the same thing as I agree with both of his estimates of 6’3.5 for Selleck and 6’2.5 for Danson at their peaks. That’s how I pegged danson too. Conan on the other hand has Long hair. That gives the illusion he’s taller than he is. My guess for a peak Conan is max 6’3.25-.5 but maybe just 6’3.25. He doesn’t look to have lost any height whereas Selleck has obviously lost but also weighs a lot more than Conan on top of all of that
Dude 173cm said on 22/Jun/18
He was 6'4 in Friends
Rising - 174 cm said on 19/Jun/18
Good downgrade for current height. I'd say weak 6'3" now at 73 years old. Legit 6'3.5" peak or about an inch taller than Ted Danson. In fact, because he said "about" 6'3.5" one of the times, I'd think a 6'3 5/8" listing would be perfect because you could certainly argue the 6'3.75" listing Wayne and Eastwood get, although I think Clint was about 6'3.5" himself. It's likely Conan perceived Selleck as slightly taller than himself because he also said "I'm about your height" while emphasizing the word "about" and we know Conan claims 6'4"-6'4.5" himself, but Selleck had pretty thick boots so this may have been a factor. I believe Conan probably measured 6'4.5" in shoes and I'd bet Selleck did reach about 6'5" in those black boots or at least very close to it. Selleck looked slightly taller to me in 2004 and I'm not sure if he had much of a footwear advantage in that appearance. I don't know how much the camera being on his side was a factor, but Selleck was also 59 at the time so like John Lithgow, I don't think he lost height until his 60's. I can buy anything in the 191-192 cm range for Conan barefoot.
Editor Rob
He is looking max 6ft 3 really, it's noticeable he isn't as tall these days.
Canson said on 26/May/18
@Christian: I have a cousin on my Dad’s side that is 6’7” as well. I was also told someone was 6’8” at one point but never met them
Christian-6'5 3/8" said on 24/May/18

Btw, who's the tallest member in your extended family that you know of? Mine's a 6'7.25" cousin.
Canson said on 23/May/18
Rising Force hit this one on the head. Weak 6’4” peak. 6’3.5-.75. He claimed 6’3.5 and 6’4. But this is how you can tell that Conan isn’t a true 6’4” as he was edged out by Selleck and Conan called Selleck “6’4/6’5” on his show when that would be a shoe height for him.
Canson said on 22/May/18
@Christian: yea my dad got his from his mom mostly. My grandpa was 6’0 I believe and she was somewhere around 5’11”. I was taller than her when she passed but she was every bit of 5’10/5’11
Christian-6'5 3/8" said on 21/May/18
@Mike Voisinet

He's not 6'5" when he claimed 6'4" and 6'3.5"
Mike Voisinet said on 19/May/18
I say that Tom Selleck is 6'4'' tall. He was 2 inches taller than Roger Mosley on Magnum PI. He is also 2 inches taller than his costar Robert Clohessy on Blue Bloods. Clohessy is 6'2. Roger Mosley is also 6'2. So Tom Selleck towers over them both. As far as I am concerned he is still 6'4. He may have been 6'5 at his peak.
Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 9/May/18
I think Selleck can still look 191cm than a flat 6'3.
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 29/Apr/18

My maternal grandmother's only 5'3" but my maternal grandfather's 6'4" (now shrank to 6'3") so that's probably where my mom and my aunt (5'10") got their tall height from. My paternal grandmother's 5'4" and grandfather 5'10" so that's where my dad got his. My uncles (dad's side) are 6'1" (maybe 6'1.5" peak) and 5'11.5" and aunts (dad's side) are 5'8" and 5'5".
Canson said on 28/Apr/18
@Christian: that’s interesting! My grandma (Dad’s Mom) was somewhere around 5’10/5’11
Canson said on 27/Apr/18
@Christian: wow you got yours from your mom. My grandmother, (father’s mother) was your father’s height while my grandfather was 6’0”. My father wound up 6’4” and my uncles 6’3 peak (6’2.5 today) and 6’2
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 26/Apr/18

He's 5'10.5" but my mom is 6'0".
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 25/Apr/18

He's 5'10.5" but my mom is 6'0".
Canson said on 24/Apr/18
@Christian: how tall is your dad?
viper said on 24/Apr/18
He's not real fit or anything, but he's always been fairly healthy. He went over 30 years without seeing a doctor.

My 79 year old Uncle is a pretty fit guy and hasn't lost any height at 5-8. He's been 5-8 155 pounds since his 20s, so that makes sense.
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 24/Apr/18
My dad's in his late 40's so I don't think he lost height yet. Who knows how much he'll lose by the time he hits 70 though.
Canson said on 23/Apr/18
@Rampage: and that’s likely a low for him. Maybe worst case 1/8” lower but usually someone at that age has less of a variance than a guy in his 20s or 30s would. He still clears 6’4” out of bed.
Micky said on 23/Apr/18
@ Viper and Canson - My dad didn't lose any significant height his 60s either (he died before he hit 70 so I can't speak as to even older). All I know is that at age 66 he measured 6-2.25, and he was 6-2.5 in his 20s. I'm 6-3 3/8 or 191.5 cm - I suspect today I'd be a solid cm or 2 taller than Selleck although peak I'd say Selleck could've measured 6'3.5" - 6'3.75" range.
Canson said on 23/Apr/18
@Junior: if Selleck was 6’3.5 peak it means Conan was likely never over 6’3. It’s possible Selleck was more like 6’3.75 and Conan always 6’3.25. He’s definitely not as tall as Padalecki or even a peak Selleck. Padelecki is a legit 6’4” tho from the looks of it

@Rampage: I agree! It is remarkable to say the least
Canson said on 23/Apr/18
@Junior: if Selleck was 6’3.5 peak it means Conan was likely never over 6’3. It’s possible Selleck was more like 6’3.75 and Conan always 6’3.25. He’s definitely not as tall as Padalecki or even a peak Selleck. Padelecki is a legit 6’4” tho from the looks of it
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Apr/18
Yeah he looks around 6ft3 today.

Canson to go from 6ft4 to just under at almost 70 is more than just "not bad" in my book. A lot of guys that age have lost 2in!
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 22/Apr/18

He must have a healthy fit lifestyle then. Most 70 year olds lose at least some height to a certain degree.
Canson said on 21/Apr/18
@Viper: my father is 68 and is in a similar boat. He said he measured 6’4 or 6’4.25 at his peak but it’s possible he was a solid 6’4. I know that when I was 16 and hit a solid 6’4 I was the same exact height as he was and today I’m about 1/2” taller. He’s around 6’3.75 today which is not bad for someone his age
Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 21/Apr/18
@viper Your dad keep it very well at 70. But i'm not sure if Selleck was ever 6'4 because he always look an inch taller than 6'2.5" Ted Danson.
viper said on 20/Apr/18
My 70 year old 6-0 dad hasn't lost anything
viper said on 20/Apr/18
My 70 year old 6-0 dad hasn't lost anything
Sonnecker said on 20/Apr/18
Height loss is always subjective, and Tom hasn't lost much. Still a full 191 cm at recent sight, I think. 193 cm in youth. 6'3" and a little, maybe a quarter.
Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 19/Apr/18
My dad 63 had lost a full cm from 182cm peak and 181cm now. I believe a few mm over half inch lost on Selleck will be closer at 73.

Peak 192cm, now 190.5cm
berta said on 28/Mar/18
have he only lost half inch ? haent seen him in anything last 5 years but it seems very little to loose only half inch at 73 years old? well maybe
Editor Rob
Possibly nearer an inch now at 73, up to about 69-70 I'd have said 1/2 inch range.
Streichs said on 5/Mar/18
That’s just the angle of the picture. Selleck is leaning forward to Kline, not standing straight at all and still towering Kline.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Mar/18
Selleck has a ground advantage in that photo w/h Kline
Streichs said on 26/Feb/18
Selleck here in a good pic with 6ft1,5 Kevin Kline.
Click Here
Streichs said on 23/Feb/18
Selleck again with 6ft3,5 Josh Duhamel :
Click Here
Canson said on 16/Feb/18
@Rampage: but the flip side is someone 6’8” at their lowest will be banging heads on doorways worst if they’re in shoes they’re 6’9”. Not a height I would want to be lol. I’m good being strong 6’4” lol
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 3/Jan/18

I don't see any advantages of being 6'8" other than maybe basketball and towering over everyone, and IMO it would be incovenient for me, but if your height makes you happy, that's good.
Canson said on 2/Jan/18
@Manfred: that’s impressive. A lot of guys won’t like being that tall. good for you!!
Manfred said on 27/Dec/17
I'm 6ft8in and I like being tall. It has more advantages than disadvantages.
cobra said on 19/Dec/17
Would be interesting to see Selleck and Hasselhoff together in their primes, both very tall men.
Canson said on 6/Dec/17
Rob 6’5” is into the 99%ile
Adam said on 3/Dec/17
Selleck towered over Pres Reagan who stood 6.05ft.
Click Here
Karriann Drury said on 26/Nov/17
I love Tom I love that he is so tall he is the best actor in the whole world I respect him very much is a gentleman
Rising - 174 cm said on 18/Nov/17
@Adam: I don't think there's more than 1/4" or so difference in footwear with Chevy, but that's also the biggest height difference I can see between the twpo in the video. Really, I can't tell who is taller there. I believe both men were 6'3.5", but there's a better chance of Selleck being 1/4" to 1/8" more.

Honestly, in Quigley Down Under(good film, imo), Selleck doesn't seem like a clear full 6'4" guy, especially dressed for a Western. I can't say he seemed any taller than a guy like Clint Eastwood did in Westerns.
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 16/Nov/17

That's definitely not a foot difference, unless if Selleck had a 12 inch head, which would be preposterous. At most Hillerman looked 10 inches shorter. Click Here
Adam said on 15/Nov/17
Rampage, no way Mosley was ever 6ft2. The difference between him and Selleck is just too huge as this line up shows :
Click Here
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/Nov/17
Rob, how tall do you think Roger E. Mosley really is?

I've seen 6ft2 for him but next to Selleck I see more than 2in. I could be wrong though. The camera angles on Magnum were never great for judging height!
Editor Rob: 6ft 2 might be a bit optimistic, 6ft 1 maybe is more realistic and under 6ft today.
Adam said on 15/Nov/17
This is Selleck with John Hillerman (supposedly 5ft7 peak). I would say Selleck’s got Hillerman by at least a whole foot, although Hillerman would probably have lost height by then.
Click Here
Adam said on 10/Nov/17
Rising, this is where Selleck meets Chevy Chase on stage. Yes Selleck’s boots have a prominent heel but Chevy’s footwear are not exactly thin dress shoes either. If you account for the camera angle from the left (where Chevy is positioned) and for posture, I don’t think Chevy’s footwear deficit is going to make up the difference if you can “straighten out” the guy on the right. I think if you ask 10 people which of the two is taller, 9 will give Selleck the nod because the mind adjusts for angle and posture.
Click Here
Adam said on 10/Nov/17
A tall man, movie producer Joe Drake, here with Ashton Kutcher :
Click Here

And with Liam Hemsworth :
Click Here

And with Selleck in 2010 when Selleck was already 65 years old :
Click Here
Canson said on 29/Oct/17
@Junior: I can agree with Rising on this one maybe 6’3.75 peak and today closer to 6’3. I think the diff between he and Conan is 1/2” maybe a cm. He made him 6’4/6’5 just like he told Neeson that he’s 6’5 and Wlad that he’s 6’6/6’7 and tippy toed to try to be as tall as hasselhoff did. IMHO Conan looks more 191cm peak (no hair of course) especially comparing him to John Lithgow. I don’t think Conan has lost a lot of height tho prob less than a 1/4” prob. He’s younger than most of those guys. It’s His long hair makes him appear taller than he is to go with his limbs. But Lithgow also edged him by near an inch too. At least half to 3/4.
James B said on 29/Oct/17
Rob too be fair 6ft6 and a half isn't that much bigger than 6'4. I'd putt 6'6 in the same category as 6'4 personally.

If his brothers were both 6ft10 then you could argue it would be strange.
Editor Rob: I think it is noticeable to people if 6ft 6 or 6ft 4, suddenly you go into 99+ percentile range.
Junior said on 20/Oct/17
I did say correct listing here. 193cm peak with loose posture he can look 191 - 192cm and not over 192cm now maybe fraction low since he was 72 now.
Rising - 174 cm said on 15/Oct/17
@Anonymous: I'm referring to the video of Selleck on Chevy's talk show: Click Here The two look just about identical there, imo. The comparison is a bit brief, but a much better reference to me than the lone photo which shows Selleck standing noticeably in front of Chase and if you took every person's apparent height at face value in that pic, the conclusions would be contradictory. I think it makes sense both were legit 6'3.5" guys who rounded up to 6'4". I do see Selleck at 6'3.5" and Danson at 6'2.5", but I don't think there's really visual proof to show whether he's 6'3.5" or 6'4" either way and what I mean is he can look both. His tendency to slouch may make him look shorter at times, but as I've shown, he's also worn pretty thick boots, such as that appearance above, so that could account for some taller appearances as well. I think the real proof is Selleck claiming the more specific 6'3.5" at least twice. The usual 6'4" claim is not something I view as contradictory as this could be accounted for by normal rounding, but rounding down from 6'4" to 6'3.5" -- especially post-stardom in the 80's -- does not make sense to me, unless he really he is that height. But I think there is a bit of breathing room there as one of the times he said "about" 6'3.5" so that could mean something 6'3 5/8" for instance, even 6'3 3/4" like John Wayne apparently was in his prime. But the number of 6'4" men who round down to 6'3.5" will be much fewer than vice versa. If anything, I'd expect the self conscious 6'4" man to round down to say 6'3" as it'd be more effective.

@Rampage: I agree. His slouching makes it difficult for me to tell exactly, but I'd bet somewhere in the 6'2.75" to 6'3" range nowadays at 72 years old. He can still look a lot taller than Donnie Wahlberg when Donnie isn't on his toes and I'd put Donnie around 177 cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/Oct/17
6ft3 flat today
Anonymous said on 13/Oct/17
Rising, I don't think Chevy Chase is any proof of Selleck being sub 6ft4. On the contrary, the picture of the two together suggests otherwise. But your pics with Selleck and Ted Danson are another story. There I do think you have a point. If you compare David Hasselhoff and Dennis Haysbert with Danson (and there are many pics of them together), Hasselhoff and Haysbert do seem to edge Danson by a greater margin than Selleck does.
Rising - 174 cm said on 30/Sep/17
There's a much better chance of Tim Robbins being a full 6'5" than Selleck having been a full 6'4", imo. I'm not necessarily saying Robbins was taller than 6'4.5"-6'4.75", imo, but it'd make more sense if he tried shaving off a half an inch rather than Selleck.

@Canson: I agree that Goldblum was most likely of the bunch to hit 6'4.25", though seeing him nowadays look 6'3.5" tops with Liam Hemsworth, I'm not certain he was over 6'4" flat.
Editor Rob: incidentally, growing up with his brothers, it must have been strange at 6ft 4 having 2 brothers 6ft 6 and a half as he claimed they were!
Canson said on 22/Sep/17
@Rising: agree mostly. I think Conan measures 6'4.5 in shoes early in the day. He's prob 6'3 or 6'3.25 barefoot (not counting hair) at night. I think Hoff is 6'4 peak and with Neeson he could be peak as well. Goldblum is the likeliest to be over that number.
Anonymous said on 18/Sep/17
He is like david hasselhoff in some sense he hasn't even lost any of his height as he has become older.All these tall men become leading actors in films! There never ugly looking.
Rising - 174 cm said on 16/Sep/17
I'm not sure Rob thinks Selleck is still 6'3.5" or if he just hasn't updated this as iirc, Rob had Selleck at a current height of 6'3.5" quite a few years ago now. Imo, 6'3.5" was more his peak height, which he held into his 60s, but I'd guess him 6'3" max now at 72, probably about 190 cm. He could have been a bit taller than 6'3.5" peak, though. Perhaps a 1/4" to 1/8" above so I think 192 cm to 190 so a 2 cm loss, possibly even a full inch. Still not bad height loss as well, especially for a big man with a tendency to slouch.
berta said on 11/Sep/17
1 cm loss and over 70 years old he is like morgan freeman, very good genetics.
Rising - 174 cm said on 6/Sep/17
@Canson: Well, Selleck looked a couple of inches taller than Conan in 1998, but with an angle, footwear and probably posture advantage. But Selleck does look a fraction taller in 2004 in a better comparison: Click Here I think Selleck had held onto his solid 6'3.5" by that point as he doesn't even look to have thick boots that time. But 1/8" to 1/4" over is possible as well. I just think he must be a 6'3" and fraction guy otherwise it's nonsensical for him to be one of the few to claim it. But it's not based purely on that. There have been times to me where Selleck hasn't quite looked the full 6'4". Obviously he does at other times, but then will get at least a fraction from those thicker style boots I showed him wearing on talk shows. As for Conan, I believe he measured 6'4.5" in shoes.

I mostly agree with the rest in that I give Lithgow the solid 6'4" and like Selleck, he held onto his height into his 60s. Hasselhoff was definitely the full 6'4" as he's at least close to it even now. Goldblum may have been that tall, but I don't see Neeson quite that, more of a flat 6'4", imo. I didn't see either of those two with Conan, so I can't comment on how they looked with him, but insisting Neeson was 6'5" suggests Conan saw him as taller than himself.
Canson said on 4/Sep/17
@Rising: I agree with you and Christian. Selleck was probably peak max 6'3.75 at his lowest maybe even 5/8. But maybe when he was on Conans show he still was that height. He only edged Conan by 1/2" prob esp when Conan asked him "what are you 6'4/6'5?" Conan for sure was never a legit 6'4" he likely was either hair included or was a guy who measured 6'3.5-.75 like an hour out of bed and was max 6'3.25. Because of his hair I wouldn't rule him out as only being a flat 6'3 peak either. His hair alone gives him an edge slightly over a lot unless they have similar hair to him. But Christian is correct neither of these guys is as tall as Hasselhoff or Lithgow imho. I think both were solid 6'4" peak and Neeson and Goldblum both prob could go 193.5 peak at night both edged Conan pretty well like 2cm to an inch
Arch Stanton said on 4/Sep/17
Selleck could look at least 2.5 inches taller than John Vernon in the Sacketts and we have Vernon at 6'2!
Rising - 174 cm said on 3/Sep/17
This is a case I agree with Christian. People often guess the round number for convenience, but there will be just as many 6'3.75" and 6'4.25" guys. I'm 99% sure Selleck was either 6'3.5" or 6'3.75" peak since he even claimed 6'3.5" at least twice in the 80s, but said "about" on one of them, which could easily mean 6'3 5/8" for instance. But Selleck and another admitted 6'3.5" guy who sometimes rounded up to 6'4" Chevy Chase looked pretty much identical on Chevy's talk show in 1993. I think Tom maintained a peak height of 6'3.5" (possibly even a 1/8" to 1/4" over) until his 60s, but is now 6'2.75"-6'3" range. He can still tower a 177 cm guy Donnie Wahlberg, though as evidenced by the fact that Donnie is ALWAYS way up on his toes when he appears with Tom at Blue Bloods promos.

I doubt he'd have claimed 6'3.5" twice over a half dozen years apart had it been an error. More likely, many honest 6'3.5" guys round up to 6'4" as Tom often does. There's always a better chance that a claim is accurate when it's a 1/4" or 1/2". It doesn't mean it is necessarily accurate as evidenced by the Stallones, McConaugheys and Rob Lowes of the world, but when people claim a height of feet/inches without a fraction, it shouldn't always be taken as exact since most people I know round from quarter or even half inches. Most 5'9.5" guys who round to 5'10" don't think of themselves as lying.
postmanjones said on 1/Sep/17
Tom Selleck definitely around 6ft4 in his prime
Timothy Jones said on 31/Aug/17
Strong 6 foot 4 in magnum PI.
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 30/Aug/17
@James B

Probably not, maybe he measured 6'3.75" and decided to round down to 6'3.5" instead of rounding up to 6'4". I never saw Selleck as a solid 6'4" unlike guys like Hasselhoff.
James B said on 22/Aug/17
Rob do you think he made an error in measuring himself when he claimed 6'3.5?
Rising - 174 cm said on 5/Aug/17
I'll give Danson 6'2.5" or a strong 189 cm and Selleck 6'3.5" or close to 192: Click Here Click Here If I'm wrong about Selleck being an honest 6'3.5" peak who rounded up to 6'4" then I'd say split the difference between the 6'3.5" and 6'4" claims and give him 6'3.75". But I'd give him the same as Chevy Chase in his prime. Both are probably about 190 cm today.

@Canson: As a follow up on our discussion of Selleck's height today. The photo above is an example of why I think Selleck may have dipped below 6'3" today since if Moynahan goes from 177 cm barefoot to 185 cm in heels then Selleck really only looks about 191 cm in shoes above. I can see him straightening up more, so it's difficult to say just how much, but that's my best guess for now. I mean as difficult as it is to believe, Tom is 72. But 2 cm loss wouldn't be bad at all for early 70s.
Canson said on 3/Aug/17
@Richard Spain: Selleck may be 192-193 peak meaning maybe he was 6'3.75. He claimed both 6'3.5 and 6'4. But that sheds light on how tall Conan really is he for sure isn't 6'4 when he's calling someone else who's taller than him and may not even be 6'4" complete 6'4/6'5 like he called Selleck
RichardSpain said on 2/Aug/17
Who is a strong 193cm is David Hasselhoff.

Tom selleck I think was 192 cm in peak and 189/190 cm nowadays.

Here next to Steve Guttenberg and Ted Danson.

Click Here

Steve Guttenberg seems 181 cm
Ted Danson between 187/188 cm
Tom 192 cm Max.

Rising - 174 cm said on 1/Aug/17
Thanks, Rob.

@Canson: I disagree with you to some extent on Conan and Selleck because if we disregard camera positions, footwear and posture, Conan didn't look much taller with Selleck than 5'10" Patrick Swayze did in nearly a decade earlier: Click Here As you can see, I uploaded 4 pics from a 1990 event of Swayze and Selleck and one from '89. Swayze has a noticeable posture advantage and a bit of a camera advantage as well, but Selleck winds up looking 6'1" in some of those comparisons, or 6'2" at most. Obviously, he's much taller than that and for all I know, Swayze might have worn lifts, but it's an example of why I'm wary of comparisons with too many factors.

Now that is Selleck looking shorter than usual with Swayze. In general, he didn't always seem as towering as a legit 6'4", like a Dolph Lundgren type to me. That's why I think he was honest when he said 6'3.5" and other times just rounded up like many do. I don't think he cared about his height either way, but the sheer number of times Selleck said 6'4" pretty much debunks the idea he didn't want people to think he was that tall. I take Selleck's word for it, just like I take Chevy Chase's word he was 6'3.5". Not surprisingly to me, both looked pretty much identical on Chevy's talk show in the early 90s. Selleck did have some pretty thick boots again on that show, just as he had with Letterman and a number of other appearances, which would explain why he'd look the full 6'4" at 6'3.5" barefoot. I just don't see any reason he'd have said 6'3.5" at least twice if he was a full 6'4" in afternoon. There was a poster on the Conan page who thought he was 6'4" because he was an inch taller than Ted Danson who that poster thought was 6'3", but if you put Danson at 6'2.5" as I do then that poster would have to concede Selleck looks 6'3.5" by their own estimate. Sometimes people think someone is taller by comparing them to someone who is shorter than they think. Hell, that caused me to overestimate countless celebs during the Glenn days.

As for today, I don't think Selleck is actually 188-189 as he looks above, which is probably because of posture, but I do think his days of being over 6'3" are gone. I'd give him 190 cm to a flat 6'3" today.

But I'll say this, while I don't read too much into Selleck's appearance on Conan, I don't believe Conan is taller than Selleck, partially because I don't think Conan thought he was taller than Selleck, otherwise he wouldn't guess him at 6'4"-6'5". I haven't checked to see if my post on Conan's page went through, but if it did, you'll see Selleck's boots probably gave him an advantage, but even so, we're talking a fraction. It's very possible Selleck did appear taller than Conan that day, but I think the camera as well as Conan bending forward made it impossible to say for sure.

I'll try to look at the Conan comparisons you mention that I haven't seen(Haysbert and Mangianello). I'd agree that Conan's comment to Neeson implies Neeson is taller as well and as I agreed, Lithgow really did look taller to me. I'd say both are simply a full 6'4", but not taller. I think people always have a tendency to exaggerate how tall legit 6'4" guys are without realizing how tall that truly is. Go on almost every single page and you see it. I'm talking people who you, me and Rob would all agree are 6'4" flat. My best guess for Conan right now is 6'3.5". I don't think he's a legit 6'4", but our main difference is I don't completely rule it out. I'd be surprised if he's less than 6'3.5", but I'll keep an open mind to 191 cm as well. But I suspect Conan measured 6'4.5" in shoes and then other times just rounds up to 6'4", so that would suggest 6'3.5".

I'm more certain about Selleck than Conan since more often than not, I don't think people claim to be shorter than they really are. Many claim to be taller, though and do so at all heights.
Canson said on 31/Jul/17
@Rising: true. it's weird it does look a lot more like 2cm or an inch from an angle but maybe 1/2" or a cm is accurate like you said. I personally have Conan as 191solid 6'3.25 only because it's been established by pics and his words that he's not as tall as at least Liam Neeson or as tall as Selleck. Lithgow and Hasselhoff while he didn't acknowledge both are clearly also taller as was Haysbert and even Joe Mangianello while possibly my size a strong 6'4 maybe even (a very strong 6'4 or weak 6'5) edged him by an inch too, so I can buy a 190cm Liam. Rob has him as around 6'3" that can easily mean 190cm and a little under the mark per se. He had Anthony Joshua as around 6'6" so I surmise for him that he's at least a full 197cm. I can agree as will many that a full cm isn't that easy to spot nor is the specific shoe type in all cases. There are some casual shoes that appear that way in nature but could have a bit of padding inside that can add to it especially if the inside is curved a bit. Also as mentioned 1/2cm isn't all that easy to tell honestly. Meaning if Hemsworth is 190 vs 190.5 or even if he dipped to like 189.8 it's a 0.7cm diff
Rising - 174 cm said on 30/Jul/17
Rob, since you saw the 6'3.5" claim as well, maybe it'd be good to add it to the top of the page as a poster on another page is actually doubting Selleck claimed it. Also, maybe it's time for at least a 6'3" current height. His relaxed posture makes him look closer to 6'3" in shoes in the photo above if Moynahan is 6'1" in heels.
Editor Rob: I'll mention it, as it definitely exists, I just didn't add it at the time.
RisingForce said on 2/Jul/17
Canson, as for Conan, his exact words were "I'm about your height." As I said, if you want to interpret Conan guessing him 6'4"-6'5" as an indication Conan thought Tom was taller, that's reasonable since Conan has typically only claimed to be 6'4" then 6'4.5" on another occasion. But all I'm saying is I'm not convinced the "I'm not" part was referring to height. That's just my interpretation. I'm starting to suspect Conan may only be 6'3.5" myself. I do think Selleck's boots may have given him an edge over Conan's dress shoes, but yeah, he looked shorter than legit 6'4" Lithgow to me and he must have viewed Neeson as taller than himself to guess him 6'5". I suspect Conan may be 6'4.5" in dress shoes, but I agree to some extent about his hair. Remember the photos I posted of Conan and Liam Hemsworth recently? At first glance, Conan can look about an inch taller, but when you factor in hair, you can see it's maybe 1 cm.
Canson said on 24/Jun/17
@Rising force: I would've thought peak ford was 6'1" but because I heard his height mentioned as that in the Fugitive. I don't think he ever was that ad his lowest tho. You have it right. 6'0.25-.5
RisingForce said on 20/Jun/17
I don't see a full inch with Eisner. Might be if Selleck stood straighter, but not as they're standing there.
Adam said on 17/Jun/17
Michael Eisner, former boss of Walt Disney is atall guy and in many pics he towers various celebs. His height of 6ft3 is invariably mentioned in articles about him. Here he is with 6ft1,5 Schwarzenegger, the latter with footwear advantage, with 6ft1 Jim Henson and with Selleck. A young Selleck is clearly taller by what seems to be at least an inch. Click Here
RisingForce said on 15/Jun/17
Hanks is leaning a bit himself, but definitely standing straighter than Selleck and I agree he has the advantages, that's why the difference between them only looks 2" max in that photo as opposed to the probable real difference of 3.5" minimum or 4". And I agree with Canson about Ford. 6'0.5" max, imo, maybe 6'0.25". He never looked taller than that to me with 5'11" Billy Dee Williams. Was that picture from the early 90s? If so, Ford at 50ish could have very well been a flat 6 feet. By the time of The Devil's Own half a decade later, that looked the most he could be with Brad Pitt, even considering Pitt might wear lifts. I agree Selleck had at least 3" on Ford, but like I say Ford at anything over 6'0.5" is difficult for me to buy. Look at him with Sean Connery in the late 80s, who was probably 187 cm range then.
Canson said on 15/Jun/17
@Adam: if going with 3" that makes Selleck about what rising force says he is. I thought ford was a legit 6'1" before but now see persuasive enough evidence to say he's 6'0.5 or 6' and change. So that puts selleck at 6'3.5ish like he said. However as far as camera angles and the way he uses them I do agree on that aspect
Sandy Cowell said on 14/Jun/17
In his 'Magnum' days, there were plenty of articles written about Tom, and his height of 6ft4 was always one of the first things mentioned about him!
He's been lucky to have only lost half an inch, if that is truly the case! High heels she may be wearing, but the girl standing next to Tom, Bridget Moynahan, must be a very tall woman! With the help of her shoes, she can virtually look Tom straight in the face!
I'm going to give Tom 6ft4 for his peak and 6ft3 for today's height!
Adam said on 14/Jun/17
RisingForce, but if you want to dissect the picture of Selleck with Chase, Tom Hanks and others for angles and distances from the camera and if you want to draw conclusions about Selleck's edge over Hanks (although the one is slouching and the other wears cowboy boots) you must also admit that a youngish Harrison Ford stands at no disadvantage to Selleck in that pic howsoever. At least you must admit it presents an almost perfect height comparison between Selleck and Ford. Again, a slouching Selleck edges 6ft1 Ford by what seems to be at least 3 inch.
Canson said on 13/Jun/17
Rising force: he did acknowledge it. "What are you 6'4/6'5?" "I'm 6'4, what are you"? "I'm almost as tall as you" that was it there and then well I'm 6'4 but I'm not and with the angle when they greeted he was clearly taller. Now this here I'm not arguing at all. I'm not saying even that selleck was anymore than you said he was. He may only be 6'3.5-.75 like you said. because most here know Conan is shorter it's just they don't want to admit he isn't a true 6'4. You may be right with Tom selleck tho and that could mean Conan is in fact what I have him 6'3-6'3.25 as well as others here because he never looks a legit 6'4" guy ever. I'm curious to see how tall he would look without hair because next to the loads of 6'4s like hasselhoff and Selleck and haysbert neeson Lithgow he never looks as tall as them and with the latter he looked an entire inch under. The key with Conan that gives it away as I mentioned on his page multiple times is he always tries to induce people to add to their height whether on purpose or out of not knowing his true height. Selleck Neeson Haysbert he asked Wlad He said "6'6/6'7" then he said his own height once was 6'4-6'4.5 so I deduce all of that to be show heights that he uses to give people. I mean the average guess for selleck is 6'3.85 Conan 6'3.95 and selleck is taller
RisingForce said on 13/Jun/17
Canson, if you're saying I don't factor in camera angles with Barkley then you're not paying attention, but you should really keep these sorts of comments to the Barkley page. I have no desire for Barkley or anyone to be taller than they are. And yes, standing closer to the camera can make someone taller. It's common knowledge and I always mention factors like that or posture if it's necessary in the photo. Once again, your back to trying to find these contradictions in my posts that don't exist.

Back on topic, Conan didn't clearly acknowledge Selleck was taller in the interview either. He got cut off by Tom with the "I'm not" part. Conan may have been about to say that while he was tall like Tom, unlike Tom, he wasn't good looking, well built, broad shouldered, smooth with women etc. because that was the topic of the conversation and context it occurred in. I can't say for sure as I don't read minds, but it's not a clear cut admission from Conan that he's shorter. Basically, I think he could have been going on to saying that in his[Conan's] case, being 6'4" wasn't really an attribute like it was for Selleck because unlike Selleck, he was pale, lanky, awkward etc. However, if you want to read into things, you could possibly interpret Conan asking Tom if he was 6'4" or 6'5" that he thought Selleck might have been a bit taller, though Conan has claimed both 6'4" and 6'4.5" for himself so who knows for sure? His 6'4.5" claim may have been in shoes, though as I think there's a chance both men are/were 6'3.5" barefoot. Even if that's the case and both men were the same height, then with Selleck wearing thick boots for that interview that may have given him an advantage, Conan may have still thought Selleck was taller than himself. But unless I missed a part, I never heard Conan say "you're taller than me." Instead, he said to Tom "I'm about your height."

Incidentally, Tom was described in 1981 newspapers as "6-foot-5, 200 pound, hazel-eyed Tom Selleck."

Whether he he's closer to 6'3.5" or a legit 6'4", I'm sure he's been near 6'5" in footwear. And a legit 6'4" will get called 6'5" a lot. But if he's not 6'3.5" or 6'3.75" then I'd think if he really wanted to downgrade himself during the Magnum days, he'd have been more likely to say 6'3". I'm not sure he had a problem with his height either since he says during that same Conan interview that he felt like the little guy with his taller brothers.
Johan said on 12/Jun/17
Nah no need for that, Selleck was a true 6'4" guy although not over while Conan is somewhere around 6'3.5" but with loads of hair.

He just is solidly built and so looks shorter than say a Hasselhoff today. Go back to his Magnum PI days when he was slim and he looks it.
Canson said on 12/Jun/17
This validates that Conan isn't a true 6'4" if Selleck is under 6'4" peak and Conan acknowledged that Selleck is taller
Christian-196.5cm (6ft5 3/8) said on 12/Jun/17

Agreed. Not a quite 6'4" peak.
Canson said on 11/Jun/17
Rising force: Lewis is just as tall as Barkley is. Since you're using camera angle with chase and Selleck why is that not a factor in any of your Barkley comparisons here or on his page unless it's to make Barkley taller?
RisingForce said on 11/Jun/17
Adam, I think we have different definitions of side by side because if you look where their feet are or even their bodies, Selleck is standing noticeably in front of Chase. Like I said, I think even seeing how Selleck measures up to Tom Hanks brings into question how tall he could be standing there with that posture. Whether he's taller than Chase or not, I don't believe he'd be with a pronounced slouch like he has there. I think that's the camera advantage coming into play. An area we disagree is I believe if all we have isn't convincing then I think we have no choice but to take it with a grain of salt. If the 2 were equal distances from the camera in that picture then I'd at least say we could speculate about how much Selleck drops with his slouch, but how do you quantify height gained or lost from camera distance? As for the Selleck interview, the problem I see is that it's not as simple as Selleck looking down at Conan because Conan starts to bend forward as soon as he reaches out for a hand shake. I get that Selleck appears the bigger man, but it's a flawed comparison and technically, both men are looking down. Not just because of posture, but the position of the camera as well. It's behind Selleck while Conan is in front of Selleck. If you still don't understand what I'm referring to then I can try to demonstrate with a few stills. The video with Chase has a flaw as well in that it's quite brief where we see them with good posture, too brief to make any definitive conclusions. I only determined the two looked very close.

And I appreciate and agree with your last comment. This site wouldn't work, at least as a discussion site if you we all agreed.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Jun/17
I think 6ft3¾ peak could be on the money...
Adam said on 11/Jun/17
RisingForce, unless we get these celebs to dump their shoes and have each pairing go back to back for the camera, we're going to have to rely on the best evidence. At least the picture below presents us with a clear line-up and the two stand right next to each other, a frozen snapshot of people posing in a stationary position for precisely that purpose. Many many less convincing pictures on this site are used to make judgments about relative heights and it is how it should be, because that is all we have. If you say that a video clip of two people meeting each other on stage presents better evidence, well then you would seem on the one hand to dismiss Selleck looking down to Conan (in a clip that would seem perhaps the best evidence of somebody who claims to be 6ft4 and who appears to convicingly edge Conan) but on the other hand holding up a less clear clip of Selleck and Chase meeting on stage as better evidence than a picture where they stand right next to each other, shoulder to shoulder. Off course one can make your own conclusions on the evidence presented to you, but if you have already made up your mind no pic is going to convince you. Having said all of of that, all these arguments are exactly what makes this site enjoyable. After all, we're only a half an inch at odds with each other and I certainly enjoy your perspectives also.
RisingForce said on 10/Jun/17
Adam, Selleck is noticeably closer to the camera there. Look at Tom Hanks in that same photo. Hanks was never more than 6'0", but he's 2" max shorter there than Selleck in that same photo and Selleck is closer to the camera than Hanks as well. Hanks does have cowboy boots giving him potentially near 2 cm footwear advantage, but still, he'd have to look more than 3" taller than Hanks. Selleck does have more of a slouch, but Hanks isn't busting a gut himself and like I said, Selleck is closer to the camera. I wouldn't conclude based on that very same photo that Selleck is 4" taller than Hanks. Video is preferable to a still pic. It's at least as difficult to judge a difference of half an inch from a still photo, especially just one photo. In that particular photo, there's only a fraction difference, but we have to guess whether posture or distance from the camera is making a bigger difference - an impossible task. I believe Selleck was somewhere between 6'3.5" and 6'3.75" and Chase, I think was 6'3.5". I doubt there was more than a fraction difference if they weren't the same height.
Adam said on 10/Jun/17
@risingforce, there's no better comparison between Selleck and Chevy Chase than the still picture posted on 22 June 2016 below. It is impossible to judge a difference of 0,5" on a video clip. In the pic Chase stands right next to Selleck, very upright and straight. Selleck, an olympic sloucher, is still taller.
RisingForce said on 9/Jun/17
Here's Selleck in 1993 on Chevy Chase's show: Click Here At about 3:39 Selleck greets Chevy. They look very close to me, Chevy looks taller when they first greet, then Selleck looks taller when they hug, probably changing as posture changes. Selleck's boots look like they could give him an advantage, but I think they're both legit 6'3.5" men who claimed that to be precise and rounded up to 6'4" at other times.
RisingForce said on 5/Jun/17
Strahan is also visibly closer to the camera than Barkley + eyes and shoulders point to him being shorter. If we could guarantee Barkley was still at his peak, I'd take you up on the Butler bet seeing Barkley with Dr. J, Mullin and others. Lewis is simply not as tall as Barkley. He looks close to the same, but he's standing a step closer to the camera: Click Here Barkley is middle-aged now with a long history of back and knees that acted up a lot in Houston and Phoenix so I don't know how much he shrinks these days. Your disc get dehydrated much easier as you age. I saw 1/4" before 2000, Shawn Kemp was 6'8.75" in '89. As for Sprewell, all I remember thinking was legit 6'4". I was a foot away from him, but I can't tell the difference between a half inch in that situation. I buy either 6'4" or 6'4.5", but no less. As for Larry Johnson, I posted a full photo for you where he and Barkley are identical, we can see their feet and all. I see Barkley as no shorter than 6'5.5" compared to all the other guys I've seen him with, so take that for whatever time of day you like. I wouldn't estimate him shorter or taller than 6'5.5"-6'6". As for 6'4" estimates, we both know that's underestimating and helps prove my point. Barkley isn't 6'4", even you give him more than a half inch taller than that. As for comparing him in hypothetical height match ups we haven't seen, it's really all conjecture. I could say Barkley seems taller to me than Hulk Hogan who I've always pegged 6'5.5" peak, but without photo or video evidence, it doesn't mean much since it's just a subjective impression I got. I don't mean that as a criticism, I use the same examples at times, but at this point, I'm trying to maybe streamline our discussions a bit since we're on several pages with our main debate and sometimes I wind up spending a bit more time here than I intended. I do really believe Christian and Barkley would be about the same and I think you'd be quite surprised with Barkley's height. Barkley has made too many people between 6'1"-6'4" look small for me to believe anything below 6'5.5". But in some cases, when we don't agree on the reference points height we can only really agree to disagree because in some cases we might see the same height difference even. I see the shorter cases for Jordan and Kobe a lot better than I do Barkley.
Canson said on 31/May/17
@Rising Force: id edge strahan if the 6'4.25 is An earlier combine measurement. I'm usually just about 194 at a low 193.9. Strahan isn't an inch shorter than Barkley is. They're about the same height. I'm accounting for a severe lean and the fact he's further over and they come out almost identical. Barkley is also about identical with Lennox Lewis is and if you reverse their spots in the pic Lewis is taller than he is. I'd say Barkley has stragan by less than 1/2". Yes Barkley may or may not be taller than I am or may be exact. Don't know when he was measured but my guess is I wouldn't look up at him because it would not be noticeable if it's 1/4 or less. I will bet my life savings times 20 that Caron butler is taller than Barkley is. Butler is taller than Kobe and Jordan and Jamal crawford as well. The latter is the same as Kobe if you see their pic together (Crawford a pre draft is 6'4.5) and he looks no shorter than Jordan either). But he is shorter than butler. Butler (about 196) along with Carmelo Anthony (198-199) Jarrett jack (188-189) Keith bogans (193-194) are some of the few where their draft measurements are very near their real normal walking heights meaning afternoon levels. Larry Johnson also looked while maybe not 197cm in person (probably was rounded up a bit) he did look 6'5 and change when I met him and identical with another friend who is christians size (196.2 at his lowest). He also has met him and in the pic they are identical. I'd put LJ closer to 6'5 (under 1/2) than to 6'6". He didn't look nearly the size of Abraham Benrubi or Carmelo Anthony or Stacey augmon in person (all of whom are 198/199 in person). You have to also take into account as you mentioned about sprewell once being 6'4.5 pre draft that there were nothing but 1/2" or full inch increments prior to maybe 2000 I think. Sprewell was early 90s so a 6'4 1/8 could be 6'4.5 on paper as they don't typically round down and sprewell admitted himself he's 6'4" which is how my former coach who's a scout said spree is 6'4" when he met him.

If you see willie mcginest when Barkley visited the locker room of the pats they're close in height actually about identical and mcginest is a listed 6'5" on the roster to where bill belichick said Charles is 6'4". Belichick has his own 6'4" solid qb to gauge that off of. I'd say Barkley is taller than Brady but not by an inch more half. And no a 6'5 at his lowest even if he is that tall isn't 6'5.5 midday. Guys this size or that size lose 1/2" in as little as 2. I'm usually 2-2.25 hours to get down to 6'4 5/8. You've heard Christian say before that he's 196.5 after 5 hours maybe 196.6 and that's him being over 198 out of bed. If Barkley is 6'5" at his lowest (we aren't talking an absolute low of course) that would make him 196cm midday. jist for record I myself am 195.8 out of bed and am 194.1 usually tops after 5 hours if I just do normal tasks and have even seen 194 flat after 5. I am 193.9 at night so that's a .2cm difference (if I don't hit the gym) meaning his midday would be maybe 195.7-.8 is he's a solid 6'5" evening. Typically a guy 6'0" or over loses 1/2" out of bed in 2-3 hours and Christian is legitimately taller than Barkley is regardless of our differing belief (you saying he's 6'5.5 me saying 6'4 5/8). Christian loses a good half inch in about 3 hours or so (he doesn't lose it as quickly as I do or as Ali Baba who is a legit 6'6"). Btw Barkley looks nowhere near as tall as Ali baba does.
RichardSpain said on 16/May/17
Classic man 192cm

Nowadays looks 190cm. He has good genetics seems young.
HeightMan said on 15/May/17
From my Magnum binge watching: Surely between 192 - 193cm. But not taller!
RisingForce said on 14/May/17
Key word is IF. That's mentioned in one sports illustrated article and it doesn't even say he measured it. It merely says, "the world learned" Barkley was "more like" 6-4 5/8. It doesn't say how they learned that, or that he was exactly that. But it's just inconsistent for you to insist this occurred and is somehow credible while consistently questioning or disregarding a widely reported 6'3.75" pre-draft measurement for Dwyane Wade, and also knocking 1/2" off Scottie Pippen's 6'7.5" 1987 measurement, though even Pippen at a flat 6'7" would still make Barkley look 6'5"-6'5.5" in comparison. I'd bet Barkley, assuming he hasn't lost height, would still clear 6'5" at his low and give him a midday measurement and I'd put down money on 6'5.5". You're about the same height as Michael Strahan, right? Well, check Strahan with Barkley, he's a good inch shorter.
Canson said on 14/May/17
@Rising Force: from all of the evidence I've seen knowing two people who have met him along with the posts on his page from the likes of Arby etc I think it's safe to say I wouldn't be looking up much if at all. The most he is is 195cm and that's definitely not his lowest if he measured 6'4 5/8 at the olympics
RisingForce said on 12/May/17
It doesn't matter since neither of us have met Barkley, but I think you'll be in for quite a surprise if you ever do meet him and looking up more than 1/2"! As a long time NBA fan, I know what that height looks like on an NBA court, which is most of who I'm comparing Barkley to and sometimes using heights we agree on for reference. Let me put it this way, if we come to someone like Jean-Claude Van Damme for instance, it wouldn't be a valid argument for me to say that because I'm 5'8"-5'9" range, I therefor know what that height looks like and you at 6'4" would struggle with it. Ultimately, we both have to prove our points showing the person in question standing next to others of a fairly well known height. Btw, Butler might very well be taller than Kobe(I've told you, I'm less certain on Kobe than Barkley), but not in every pic: Click Here
Adam said on 10/May/17
And from producer Donald Bellisario in the Chicago Tribune about David James Elliott "playing down" to shorter actors : "I used to have the same problem with Selleck.....who stands 6ft4. The producer then demonstrated the typical Selleck stance - legs apart, knees slightly bent - which made him look several inches shorter."
Adam said on 10/May/17
I also found this quote in a 2003 TV Guide edition : " A lofty 6'4", he was known to downplay his height by an inch to accommodate those shorter than him."
Canson said on 9/May/17
@Rising Force: well I myself am that height 6'4" and change. I can also tell what a legit 6'4" looks like. Meaning a guy like Hoff or Neeson etc (for the latter I mean rob has him listed at 6'4.25 that's hardly a diff from 6'4). I can look at Barkley Jordan and Kobe and say they are all similar (within many 1/2" of me). Now as far as your cousin not undermining what you are saying but I've heard a lot of 6'2 1/2 guys claim their shoes and say 6'4" or 6'4 out of bed guys that are 6'3 at night which is why they make 6'4" looks small. Also has to do with proportions. But all I can say is I have met Caron butler in person before (played against him as well(. He's 196cm in person and is clearly taller than Kobe is in pics and would also edge out Barkley and Jordan the same or more
RisingForce said on 9/May/17
Canson, I'm not saying it's often, only that it happens, which is all that's relevant since I don't claim many do this. You could probably count on one hand the people on this site I argue downplay their height. I'm aware of tall men inflating their heights as well and even wearing elevator boots to try to sell the inflation such as Kane Hodder. My point being, there are exceptions to every rule. A lot of people's perspective is screwed up to begin with because outside of people like us who have an interest in height, many are wildly inaccurate with their height by 2 or more inches. My own height is irrelevant to what we're debating because we're not talking about people I've met in person, but rather people we're comparing to some other frame of reference. Incidentally, while not ideal, I do have a decent enough idea of what a legit 6'4" looks like because for one example, my cousin is about that height.
Canson said on 1/May/17
@Rising Force: I'm sure some do but come on that's a load people feed you. Most men don't downplay their height in reality. If you aren't a certain height like 6'0" you won't know either how tall a legit 6'4 should look. What I'm saying is you could be maybe 5'8" and have a 6'2 1/2 guy say he's 6'4" and you'd believe him when in reality he isn't. So less that guys downplay more that guys lie up and screw up the perspective
RisingForce said on 29/Apr/17
Canson, it's far from just Conan that makes people believe Kobe and especially Barkley are taller than they are, I haven't mentioned that comparison in my case for either and very tall men sometimes do downplay their height, but that's another story. In fact, if it never happened, Rob would have listed Selleck 6'3.5" peak already since he claimed it twice in the 80s and that's how tall I believe Selleck was. As for Conan, I'll check his page to see if I see compelling evidence Conan is less than 6'4". I haven't posted there much.

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.