How tall is Clint Eastwood ?

Home :: Bookmark :: About  

Clint Eastwood's height is 6ft 0in (183 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 4in (193 cm)
American actor and Director best known for films such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Dirty Harry films, Unforgiven, Every Which Way But Loose, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Million Dollar Baby, Escape from Alcatraz, Space Cowboys and Gran Torino. In a racquetball website he stated he was '6ft 4'.

Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry (1971)
Clint Eastwood,...

Buy This at Allposters.com
Add a Comment on the Height of Clint Eastwood



Rory said on 2/Sep/15
Some people just dnt get that men lose height when they get older.
piwo81 said on 31/Aug/15
Click Here

Dwayne Johnson towers over Clint despite there is (was) only 1 cm difference of their official heights.
Andrea said on 30/Aug/15
I don't know, jervis. I just saw 2-3 western movies (the most famous) with him and he really never gave me a "particularly tall" impression to me! You got guys like Alexander Skarsgard, Jared Padalecki, Jeff Goldblum or Boris Kodjoe, who are supposed to be 6'4 range too, and they always look very tall, always! I mean, even if you're not a person who pays attention to height, you will always notice how (very) tall these people are! Clint never really gave me that "impression", but again i've seen only a few movies so maybe they made him look shorter, i don't know...
James B said on 29/Aug/15
Go to 4:50

Click Here
Anonymous1 said on 28/Aug/15
My own opinion is that Dillman was not ever 6 ft. Ben Jones (a super nice guy) is often listed as 6'3, and I met him a decade or more ago. He was easily under 6 ft.(my own height). Heights are exaggerated in Hollywood, even if not by the celebrities themselves.
James B said on 27/Aug/15
Arch - in escape from Alcatraz I don't think he would have been quite as tall as he was in the 50s

On his best day in the 1950s he could have been just about 193cm
jervis said on 26/Aug/15
Bradford Dillman is listed at 6ft everywere I check.Clint looked much taller than him in Sudden Impact,more than 4inches.Anybody know if Dillman was 6ft if not what was his real height?
Arch Stanton said on 25/Aug/15
If you really watch his 60s and 70s films 6'4" does look right in most comparisons, but with some like Gregory Walcott in Joe Kidd and Larry Hankin in Escape from Alcatraz he could look a bit under it. He did seem to edge out Donald Sutherland though who with Elliot Gould was nothing under 6'3.5. I've always seen him as the same height as Wayne, so you could argue 6'3.75 too I think.
jervis said on 25/Aug/15
Andrea what height do you think a peak Clint was?If he was say 6ft2 how did he manage to look the same as George Kennedy,was it with the help of lifts,or do you belive Kennedy was 6ft2 also?I think he was more 6ft3 myself,6ft4.5 in cowboy boots.
James B said on 24/Aug/15
6'2.75 is likely for clint in the early 90s and 6'2.5 by 1995.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Aug/15
Rob do you think 6'3.75 like John Wayne might be the best overall shout? I can well believe he got measured at 6'4 but it might have been a morning measurement. I think most of us think more weak 6'4, with Volonte he didn't look 6'4 but I think Volonte had some boost in his footwear. In most comparisons peak he really did look around 6'4". He certainly looked it with Rock Hudson. He did look to edge out Sutherland but not easy to tell. I think you could argue 6'3.5-6'4 range, perhaps 6'3.75 makes the most sense overall?
[Editor Rob:
I think from all the evidence of Clint in younger years, he might have fallen into the same as Wayne. It might make sense, Wayne was unique in that one time he actually gave the 3.75 mark. Clint has always went with 6ft 4.]
Arch Stanton said on 23/Aug/15
James B said on 6/Aug/15
Arch Stanton says on 5/Aug/15
He looked his most intimidating in Heartbreak Ridge in 1986 IMO.


Intimidating? You mean personality wise? Height wise? Not sure if physically he looked his most largest if anything he looked quite thin in that movie. In films like dead pool and pink Cadillac that's the bulkiest he's ever looked to me.

Granted often a crew cut/short hair makes you look taller and skinnier.

Size doesn't always equate to intimidating. It was the crew cut and if anything being less bulky in it and more toned made him look tougher.
Matthew190 said on 21/Aug/15
Peak height 192 cm range, 6'3.5" is likely with a chance of 6'3.75". Current height... Hard to say if he could straighten up for a measurement at all, but he doesn't look over 6'0" to me.
Lmeister said on 21/Aug/15
Clint had a bad/relaxed posture even when he was young. He rarely stood up to his full 6ft4 . Nowadays his back is so bad that he cannot straighten up. I think this estimate is very accurate. Maybe with some stretching/yoga he might still hit 6ft1.
James B said on 20/Aug/15
Technically he would have lost 9cms if he was 6'3 1/2
Allie said on 14/Aug/15
Lucio - there are no rules with how much height you lose
Why don't you measure yourself when your clints age.
Lucio said on 12/Aug/15
Rob, with all due respect, but 10 cm of height loss seems excessive to me for Clint, then everything is possible, for Heaven's sake, but 10 cm does not seem realistic.
jervis said on 11/Aug/15
It was 18 years ago and Clint was 67 years,at the time Clint was the same height as 6ft2 John Cusack.About an inch short of his peak.
jervis said on 9/Aug/15
Maybe 6ft4 in shoes peak,height loss 2.5 inches at 85 years old from peak?
Spike said on 8/Aug/15
I saw Clint up close directing "The Garden of Good and Evil" in Savannah, about 15 years ago. He looked pretty good back then and was easily in the 6'2" to 6'4" range. Definitely taller than everyone around him--camera guys, security, guys, etc.
Jim Hopper said on 7/Aug/15
Is it possible to lose 4+ inches?? Hell of a lot to lose imo
James B said on 6/Aug/15
It's a no brainer that obviously there going to make clint seem very intimidating for a role as a lieutenant. Because that's the character he plays........ In his prime though he was a tough guy though for sure not someone you would want to get into a fight with. I think he very much played himself in a lot of his movies.
James B said on 6/Aug/15
Arch Stanton says on 5/Aug/15
He looked his most intimidating in Heartbreak Ridge in 1986 IMO.


Intimidating? You mean personality wise? Height wise? Not sure if physically he looked his most largest if anything he looked quite thin in that movie. In films like dead pool and pink Cadillac that's the bulkiest he's ever looked to me.

Granted often a crew cut/short hair makes you look taller and skinnier.
Danimal said on 5/Aug/15
5'11" MAX today.
Danimal said on 5/Aug/15
James B says on 7/Jul/15
How much does clint weigh today rob?

168-175 TOPS.
Anonymous1 said on 5/Aug/15
...good point, Arch......but he had some powerful looking arms in The Rookie and Pink Cadillac, too.
Arch Stanton said on 5/Aug/15
He looked his most intimidating in Heartbreak Ridge in 1986 IMO.
Rory said on 4/Aug/15
Talking about how he looked in 1999 is irrelevant rly, its how he looked in the 60s and 70s which determines his peak somewhere between 191-193.
jervis said on 4/Aug/15
Leary is more 6ft1 Clint was about 6ft2 then about an 1.5 inches below his peak.
Anonymous1 said on 3/Aug/15
...just watched True Crime (1999), and to me, Eastwood never looked more than 6'1. Dennis Leary is listed as 6'2, and James Woods as 5'11. Whether those heights are valid, I don't know. One photo has Clint edging out Leary by an inch, which would make him 6'3. But was Leary really 6'2? One thing is for certain...to me, in that by 1999 and in this movie, no way Eastwood look 6'4...or even 6'3. I've always thought that Eastwood actually looked his most intimidating in The Dead Pool...as he looked more filled out....perhaps from working out more for various 80's movies. In this movie, 11 years later, he looks scrawny.
jervis said on 31/Jul/15
I could imagine Reeve edging out Clint as 6ft4 John Gavin did,6ft3.5 peak for Clint max IMOP.
James B said on 30/Jul/15
Arch could you really imagine clint edging out Christopher reeve?
Arch Stanton said on 28/Jul/15
James B says on 25/Jul/15
Rob will u still leave his peak at 6'4?
[Editor Rob: it's never a certainty, 6ft 3.5 is just as arguable I believe.]

There's a stronger case for full 6'4 in most 60s and 70s film comparisons which others of known height but at times he could look 6'3" range. He looked the same sort of height as John Wayne, just under always possible.
Rory said on 28/Jul/15
Rob, if 6'3.5 is a possibility doesn't it seem reasonable to go between the two and list him 6'3.75 peak ?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Jul/15
192cm range towards the end of the day is a strong possibility.
James B said on 25/Jul/15
Rob will u still leave his peak at 6'4?
[Editor Rob: it's never a certainty, 6ft 3.5 is just as arguable I believe.]
Arch Stanton said on 24/Jul/15
Hardly dwarfed, Click Here about three inches as Rob has listed. The Rock is increasingly looking like Woody Strode.
jervis said on 24/Jul/15
About 1inch taller than Carlos and 3 shorter than Johnson.6ft3 agrd 57 now at 85 6ft flat.At age 57 looks very similer to peak body shape tall and rangey but not quite 6ft4.
movieguy said on 23/Jul/15
Dwarfed by Dwayne Johnson in recent photos. Can't be over 6ft today.
donclint said on 22/Jul/15
Click Here
With Juan Carlos de Borbon, king of Spain... Who was 1,88 m.
Rory said on 22/Jul/15
Hackman is the same age as Clint though, hed have lost some height by then too aged 63 there.
jervis said on 22/Jul/15
Haskman was not 6ft2 in 93 he was about 1inch shorter than Will Smith in Enemy of the State.
movieguy said on 20/Jul/15
I'm surprised donclint by that photo. Clint looks a couple of inches taller than Hackman who is 6'2'' I think. I thought Clint had already started to lose height by 93.
donclint said on 18/Jul/15
Click Here Arnold and clint
donclint said on 16/Jul/15
Here, near to Gene hackm
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 15/Jul/15
James B says on 7/Jul/15
How much does clint weigh today rob?

Probably 180s range.
Emil 182-183 cm said on 13/Jul/15
Tall for his generation? 6'4 is still Hella tall lol
Chris said on 12/Jul/15
When Clint Eastwood dies, it will say his height is 6 ft 4 in, it won't say 6 ft 0 in. That shouldn't happen. It erases infomation.
Sam said on 10/Jul/15
According to this biography, Clint was reportedly over six feet tall by the time he was 13 and was self-conscious about his size & appearance at that time.
Click Here
James B said on 7/Jul/15
How much does clint weigh today rob?
jervis said on 7/Jul/15
Forget what I said about him being 6ft3.5 max.IMOP Clint had not lost any height of his peak by his late fifties and was still 6ft3 and was 6ft3 right up till his mid sixties.Bridges was 6ft1 and Clint bearly looked 2 inches taller.
jervis said on 7/Jul/15
Neeson has very bad posture too.6ft3.5 max for Clint thats as my limit.
jervis said on 7/Jul/15
Same height as 6ft3 Eric Fleming in Rawhide.Cant see Clint as 1 inch taller,sometimes Clint looks a little taller than Fleming and sometimes Fleming looks a little taller than Clint
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jul/15
@James, I think the worst you could argue for Hudson is 6'4.5, If you watch The Bend of The River Hudson looked about 1.5 inches taller than Jimmy Stewart who was a very solid 6'3". 195cm for Hudson is possible, but definitely around 6'5 if you see a lot of his films.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jul/15
You only have to watch magnum Force to see how he fares with 6'2 guys and David Soul, you could argue anything in 6'3.5-6'4 range, nothing under that though.
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jul/15
@Jervis Eastwood had more than 2 inches on Bridges, and had begun losing height in the 80s. A 60s Eastwood would have been virtually the same height as Neeson.
Rory said on 6/Jul/15
Two pretty awful examples you use there to justify Clint being 6'3..firstly bridges was 6'1.5 and eastwood had him by 2 inches whilst holding some pretty loose posture..and secondly Eastwood was 57/58 when acting with neeson,and had probs lost half an inch meanwhile arguably neeson was 6'4.25...so yh based on what your saying 6'3.75 peak for Eastwood..which i think fits him perfectly.
jervis said on 6/Jul/15
6ft3 peak for Clint seems more real it would explain why he looked 1inch short of Neeson and max 2 taller than Bridges rather than he shrank 4inches.
Steve said on 5/Jul/15
With 6'4" George Kennedy Click Here
James B said on 5/Jul/15
Rob maybe clint really was 6'4 if rock Hudson was truely 6'5?
James B said on 5/Jul/15
For his generation he was super tall
movieguy said on 3/Jul/15
Gavin looks taller than Clint in that photo Steve.
jervis said on 3/Jul/15
Gavin looks to have the edge pn Clint,still stick to peak 6ft3 for Clint.
Steve said on 2/Jul/15
Clint with 6'4" John Gavin. Click Here
Rory said on 2/Jul/15
Without splitting hairs id say 6'4 in the 50s and 60s is more the equivalent of 6'5.5 today rather than 6'6...6'6 would mean on average we're getting about a third of an inch taller per decade which seems slightly inflated.
James B said on 1/Jul/15
Rob could be have been 6'4 in the 50s and shrunk slightly to 6'3.5-6'3.75 by the 1960s?
[Editor Rob: would seem unlikely to have lost in his 30's.]
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Jun/15
Rob, is 195cm range out of bed possible at peak?

In the 50's he could look a very solid 6ft4
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Jun/15
6ft4 in the 50's-60's was the equivalent of what 6ft6 is today…
Shrek said on 29/Jun/15
Physically I dont think Clint ever looked quite as tall as say, Vincent Price who everyone agrees was a legit 6'4 guy.

Doesnt mean he was never 6'4 peak though.

And about Nick Faldo, Ive seen him up close and hes easily 6'3.
Rory said on 29/Jun/15
@James B..not sure what you disagree with then lol because i agree with what youve said which is what I put basically.. Think it is possible tall actors were recruited to play parts in his westerns...if they just selected average range guys at the time so say 5'9 ish then the story line would be a bit rubbish as Clint at 192/193 would look like hed dispose of them at ease..hiring people over 6 ft though, those people seem like meaner opponents and make for a better film.
James B said on 28/Jun/15
I disagree Rory since I think he didn't give 2 ****s about his height he would have carelessly just said 6'4 for the the sake of it even if hes just under it. If height was important to him he would have claimed 6'5
Andrea said on 28/Jun/15
6'4 was so tall for his generation? I would have said the opposite from looking at him in those western movies, he looked very normal height to be fair... That's why i asked you if the average actor was 6' and over at that time. As i said, look at Jared Padalecki with a couple of 5'8 guys: Click Here
Now imagine how a 5'7 guy would look next to him! It's hard to believe Clint would have been so much taller than Eli, really!
Rory said on 28/Jun/15
Yh I certainly think Clint wouldn't have knowingly lied about his height, he wasn't the sort..id say in his 60s westerns prime out of bed 6'4.25, last thing at night 6'3.5..so in essence he stood near and around the 6'4 mark to claim it..Clint strikes me as the no nonsense type so adding things like "and a half" or worse "and three quarters" wouldn't have been his thing,he would have just said 6'4.
jervis said on 28/Jun/15
He looked a bit taller than Stroud.I did not see almost 3inches myself.
James B said on 27/Jun/15
Arch clint claimed he was 6'4 in 2004
Andrea said on 27/Jun/15
So, do you really think he would have been very close to a Jared Padalecki when younger? Jared towers most of the people on tv... Do you think the average actor was 6'-6'1? I mean, an average 5'9 guy would have looked quite short in a western movie!
[Editor Rob: he could look very tall, even if you look at something like the Rookie, there's a scene on solid ground indoors and he still had 5 inches on tom skerritt.]
Arch Stanton said on 27/Jun/15
jervis says on 26/Jun/15
In Coogans bluf when he took off his cowboy boots he only looked about 6ft2 next to 5ft8 Susan Clarke.

And in the very same film looked almost 3 inches taller than 6'2" Don Stroud hmm...
Arch Stanton said on 27/Jun/15
I really don't think Clint was sort of guy to claim he was 6 ft 4 if he hadn't have been measured at it. Also he seems pretty sure he was that height at 15 or whatever it was Andrea because he said in his biography there was only one guy taller in the school who was an inch taller at 6 ft 5. He seems sure of the figures, so quite likely he got measured that height in high school. He might have been in gym daps or something, you never know, but he was clearly around it.
Remember also that for his generation 6 ft 4 was so tall that many like Christopher Lee and Rock Hudson would downgrade. Hudson was once put at 6'3.5!
While it is true Hollywood embraced big guys even then, and Arthur Lubin was impressed with his stature when he walked into a studio, in terms of finding work in anything but a macho western it wouldn't have been easy. Rock Hudson in a way was lucky he had the romantic comedy roles he did and they found ways to address the height difference.
James B said on 27/Jun/15
Rock Hudson was not 6'5 if clint was a weak 6'4
James B said on 27/Jun/15
6'4 at lunchtime rob?
[Editor Rob: eating breakfast might eventually be more believable.]
Andrea said on 27/Jun/15
So, the answer is 'yes'? He surely would have hit the 6'4 mark at some point of the say? 100%?
[Editor Rob: yes I'm sure he measured that mark, it's a question of what time.]
Height183 said on 27/Jun/15
I read that in David Beckham's voice. That's exactly something he would say! LOL
jervis said on 26/Jun/15
In Coogans bluf when he took off his cowboy boots he only looked about 6ft2 next to 5ft8 Susan Clarke.
Andrea said on 26/Jun/15
Rob, you are 100% sure that a young Clint would have touched the 6'4 mark barefoot at some point of the day (whether it is out of bed or at evening)?
[Editor Rob: a weak 6ft 4 range is probably a safe bet for Clint.]
Andrea said on 26/Jun/15
I don't know, Arch. As i said, it could be that most of the actors in his era were over 6 foot? Look at this: Click Here
The tall actor on the left, Larry Hankin, is listed at 6'4 on the net... I've seen him in Breaking Bad and Pain and Gain and thought he could look 6'2-6'3. Now, this guy is in his 70s, so you'd expect he's lost at least an inch, so he probably was not much far off the 6'4 mark when younger... In that clip, he looks similar to Clint, i'll give you that!
James B said on 26/Jun/15
I thought you guys would not find it funny?
jervis said on 26/Jun/15
Here the peak listing for David Saul and the current height listing for Bradley Cooper is 6ft.5 ok,if this is correct,then you can compear the old Clint with 6ft.5 Cooper and the younger Clint with 6ft.5 Saul,and you can see how much height Clint has losz next to a 6ft.5 guy.If Saul was 6ft.5 peak Clint looks about 2 or 2.5 inches taller than Saul,not 3.5 inches,thats why i say Clint was more 6ft3 peak.If you see the height diference between Neeson and Cooper in The A Team there is a much bigger diference between 6ft4 Neeson and Cooper than there was between Clint and Saul..
Arch Stanton said on 25/Jun/15
LMAO James, that really is hilarious!!! Yup, exactly how I'd imagine the conversation to go!! :-)
James B said on 24/Jun/15
Imagine the conversation when beckham meets eastwood for first time

Beckham : "Alright Mr Eastwood"

Eastwood: "Grrr there letting girls who cant even learn to do the alphabet like you act in Hollywood today. Back in my day we would not have even let you into the audition room punk"

Beckham: "Me, Victoria and the kidz were watching that adorable little western film of yours fistful of dollars the other night over a kebab. The Mrs remarked that you looks like me in that film. Vic is going to buy me a poncho and hat tomorrow and dress me up in it. We're going to then put it on my official facebook page"


Clint: "LISTEN punk I back in the day I was handsome and liked REAL women and didn't sound like a little girl". So beat it kid"

Beckham: " Alright mr Eastwood lovely meeting you i will send my love to Victoria and the kids"




LOL
jervis said on 24/Jun/15
6ft3 max looked close in height to 6ft2 listed royal Dano in an episode of rawhide no way 2inches taller.
James B said on 23/Jun/15
Rob do you agree that it would be a historic moment if david beckham and clint eastwood met at some awards ceremony and had a few pictures together? Clint as we all know has met face to face with hugh jackman. Beckham and jackman were on graham norton together recently too. Yet for some reason eastwood and beckham have not crossed paths YET.


It would be great if they did meet before clint eastwood dies but it may never happen :-(. Never say never though beckham I think is getting more into acting and will mixing with Hollywood big names. Odd though beckham has a lot of photos with Hollywood celebs since 2007 but he has never bumped into clint eastwood in LA where he spends most of his time.
[Editor Rob: beckham has met a fair amount, but yeah by the time he meets Eastwood he might be the same size.
I've only seen a few things with Beckham like that comic relief and that corden barefeet parodyvert...to be fair he could probably do some roles.]
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jun/15
@ Andrea I read somewhere that Clint got measured for a waxwork in his western garb for a Californian museum in the 60s and it measures 6'5.5. Cowboy boots typically give around 2 inches so think what of that as you may. I still think he'd have easily hit 6'4" early in the day anyway, but possible his lowest was 6'3" range.
Andrea said on 22/Jun/15
Arch, if that guy really is 5'8 and the ground is even for both of them, yeah, Clint does look between 6'3 and 6'4...
But again look how huge Jared looks next to two guys listed at 5'8 (who Rob met): Click Here
I've seen like 7 seasons of Supernatural and a couple "movies" with Jared and he always looks huge compared to the others... These days i've seen 2-3 western movies with a young Clint and i'd expect him to look very tall next to the others, as a big 6'4 should, but he didn't TO ME. Maybe every actor was 6'+ in his era, i don't know, but I don't get that very tall impression I get from 6'4 tall actors like J. Padalecki, A. Skarsgard or J. Goldblum! Hell, even a Lance Reddick always strikes me as being very tall and that guy claims 6'2...
Arch Stanton said on 22/Jun/15
@Andrea, check out this video of Clint in 1967 with 5 ft 8 John Humphries. Click Here The height difference is similar to Rob and George Romero IMO. I really do think Clint was near than 6'4 mark, but as he said. 6'3.5-6'4 is arguable, but in most comparisons the fully 6'4" checks out back in 60s and 70s.
Sam said on 22/Jun/15
Clint is dropped a little more height I think than Wallach in that still, though I would admit at times that Wallach looked closer than he should to Clint's height at times in it, although a lot of uneven terrain doesn't help. There's one shot near the end where Eastwood I think looks 8+ inches taller than Wallach.
Mike said on 22/Jun/15
6ft 3.5-6ft 3.75 is better for his peak.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Jun/15
He was in great shape and had good posture back in the day. If you were to take away those injuries and subsequent surgeries he'd still be 6ft2 range at least now. Connery has lost about 1in from his peak.
Andrea said on 20/Jun/15
Here's Clint walking OUTSIDE with Eli Wallach in GBU: Click Here
Rob, do you think he was wearing lifts here (Eli)? I mean, in this single shot he looks maybe about 5 inches shorter... Of course they're outside so it's hard to make a good comparison but if Clint was really 6'4 this guy didn't look under 5'9-5'10 to me in the movie! A 5'7 guy should be around the chin of a 6'4 guy! This is about the difference i'd expect: Click Here
James B said on 20/Jun/15
6'3-6'3.5 for sutherland and 6'3.5-6'4 for eastwood makes sense
James B said on 20/Jun/15
Nearer 6'4 than 6'3 peak but not a legit 6'4

Rob do you think 6'3.25 peak for Donald Sutherland is a possibility if clint Eastwood was 6'3.75? If Sutherland was a solid 6'3.5 there would have looked no difference between him and clint in Kelly's heroes yet clint did edge him out.

And yes I know Sutherland had 2 inches on sean connery
jervis said on 19/Jun/15
Just watched a very intresting clip from an old western on youtube,with a young Lee van Cleef ,James coburn and Clint Walker together.Van Cleef looks taller than Coburn but both men were ment tp be 6ft2,and Walker looks about 3 inches taller than Van Cleef and 4 taller than Coburn.As for Eastwood strong 6ft3 peak.
Judd ISR said on 19/Jun/15
I think Eastwood was 6'3.5" max at peak...he never been a full 6'4"...
today he does look 6' flat and actually i have several doubts that a person can lose (with same posture) 4" in height with age, that in this case would mean more than the 5% of his body lenght...
it's also possible he was 6'3" flat...
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Jun/15
@Arch: 6ft2 is questionable for both of those guys...particularly Lee Marvin.
James B said on 17/Jun/15
Rob if clint was 6'3.75 then now way was Rock Hudson a full 6'5.. You had your doubts that he did not look over 6'4 yourself.
Rory said on 17/Jun/15
I think 6'3.75 is fair...most sane people argue between 6'3 and 6'4 for his peak height.
NBAer said on 16/Jun/15
Clint Eastwood peak height range:6'2-6'3(most likely around 190cm flat)
Nowadays:5'11-6'0,probably about 181cm(strong 5'11),really can't see him over 182 these days,and with his terrible slouch habits,he could look as low as 180cm.Just going to show you that being tall isn't always good for your body,and especially if you have a long spine,it means you could lose more height as you age,just like Clint's case,who always seemed to be physically healthy and fit(until about 2000 probably),but has already lost a good 3 inches at 85...
Greg said on 16/Jun/15
I watched a recent interview with Bradley Cooper on 60 Minutes. There was a brief shot of him and Eastwood walking together. I was actually a little shocked to see that Clint looked about even with Cooper — if not shorter. The younger man is reportedly listed at 6' or 6'1".
Arch Stanton said on 15/Jun/15
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 12/Jun/15
Rob, ever consider giving him the same as John Wayne?
[Editor Rob: it is a possibility. Everybody ultimately can't be all on even marks like 6ft 3 or 4, like Wayne he could be a guy who is a fraction under but naturally would say 6ft 4.]

If you see him with Marvin in Paint your Wagon and Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and Tim Matheson in Magnum Force though I still see the full 6 ft 4. 6'3.5-6'4" is arguable though, I always thought he looked about the same height as Wayne on screen.
James B said on 15/Jun/15
Yeah I have been saying all along like john Wayne 6'3.75 peak for eastwood
Andrea said on 14/Jun/15
Arch, i finally know where your name comes from... :)
I just saw "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", which is basically the first old movie with Clint i've ever seen. And, to be fair, he never struck me as a big 6'4 in that movie... Also, i was very surprised to see that Eli Wallach was only 5'7 on here, i thought he was something like 5'9-5'10 with Clint! Never looked 9 big inches shorter than him! Many scenes were outside, that's true, so it is hard sometimes to tell the real difference but still 9 inches should be a huge difference, very noticeable! I know you probably will attack to me till death, Arch, but still 6'4 should be a very tall height and he didn't look very tall at all... Again, this is the first movie i see with a young Clint so it could be just this movie, i'll try to see other movies with him ;)
Arch Stanton said on 13/Jun/15
Watching Django, the original from 1966 and made me realize just how badass Clint was in those westerns. Although Franco Nero can look like Clint from a distance the face and the dubbed voice isn't even a tenth of badass as Clint was. Django is a great film. but would have been much better if Clint was in ir.
movieguy said on 12/Jun/15
I think with Clint the image people have of him is still the virile guy in his 30s and 40s. He is very elderly although still at the top of his game in terms of directing. I think that it is feasible that he may have shrunk 4 inches or thereabouts given he recently turned 85 years of age. Not all men lose this much height but then again not all men live to this age.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Jun/15
Rob, ever consider giving him the same as John Wayne?
[Editor Rob: it is a possibility. Everybody ultimately can't be all on even marks like 6ft 3 or 4, like Wayne he could be a guy who is a fraction under but naturally would say 6ft 4.]
Danimal said on 12/Jun/15
an anonymous peach says on 11/Jun/15
What could Clint have done to shrink 4 inches in height? Not even Jackie Chan who has tortured his body his entire career will shrink as much as Clint. Maybe taller people shrink more because of a larger spine? But even then... shrinking 4 inches is quite a substantial amount no matter how tall you are.

He's an 85 year old man with severe scoliosis, that's how.
Danimal said on 12/Jun/15
mrbobh5344 says on 6/Jun/15
I'm 73... and have lost 1 1/2" since my peak. I'm now 6' even. I volunteer with a group of men my age and older. A few of the 80 year old men have lost 3" in height since young. It happens. I believe I've lost 1/2" in just the last 3 or so years. I stand straight, still exercise with weights and have no health issues. Height just goes, like the hair line, the night vision and a few other once important things.

Thanks for posting Bob!
an anonymous peach said on 11/Jun/15
What could Clint have done to shrink 4 inches in height? Not even Jackie Chan who has tortured his body his entire career will shrink as much as Clint. Maybe taller people shrink more because of a larger spine? But even then... shrinking 4 inches is quite a substantial amount no matter how tall you are.
movieguy said on 9/Jun/15
Arch Stanton, I thought Walcott was bigger than Clint. More stocky for sure but also slightly taller to my eyes. I've seen Walcott state that he was picked for the bad guys in some of Clint's films because he was similar size to Clint just a little bigger. I don't know for sure if he was referring to just his build or height and build but overall he was a bigger man.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Jun/15
@Movieguy, you missed him edging out 6'4" Gregory Walcott in it obviously. Granted in Joe Kidd Walcott had the edge though.
Anonymous1 said on 7/Jun/15
mrbobh5344; You closed with the phrase, "a few other once important things". I like your attitude, as it appears that these cosmetic losses (or changes) do not matter to you, at 73. As for another poster's comment about knee surgery being partially responsable for height loss, I've read articles that say a knee replacement requires an exact fit...meaning nothing changes the length of the leg. I've lost a lot of cartilige in my right knee, but haven't lost height and nor do I sense it when I stand with my legs straight. Who knows.
James B said on 7/Jun/15
Not a full a 193cm nor just a flat 6'3 peak

Rock Hudson I think was between 6'4-6'5
movieguy said on 7/Jun/15
Looked at Eiger Sanction again last night and he was similar to George Kennedy in height though he no doubt weighed a lot less. Eastwood must have been at least 6'3'' when young although not sure a full 6'4''.
mrbobh5344 said on 6/Jun/15
I'm 73... and have lost 1 1/2" since my peak. I'm now 6' even. I volunteer with a group of men my age and older. A few of the 80 year old men have lost 3" in height since young. It happens. I believe I've lost 1/2" in just the last 3 or so years. I stand straight, still exercise with weights and have no health issues. Height just goes, like the hair line, the night vision and a few other once important things.
littlesue said on 6/Jun/15
He probably lost it due to old age, majority of people get some form of Osteophorsis. My uncle was 5ft 6 he now 5ft 2 at 80. My nan and her 3 sisters all lived to 93 but lost about 6 to 8 inches each.
Parker said on 6/Jun/15
Statement on a famous movie database. Where the info comes from I don't know

"He stood at 6'4" at his peak, but due to recent back problems, he can only stretch up to 6'2".

Hard to say if he'd reach 6'1" now. As 'Rory' pointed out his legs are longer than Bradley Cooper's.
Darren510 said on 6/Jun/15
How did he lose 3-4 inches? Maybe he had back or knee surgery or both.
Anonymous1 said on 4/Jun/15
...I really don't see eastwood as sad or frail looking, myself. Most peple change dramatically when they get old. Eastwood still looks the same to me. Just more wrinkles. But, he always had wrinkles. Dennis Weaver, to my recollection, aged the same way. The basic look never changed, only the hair got whiter and more wrinkles. If you took Eastwood, colored his hair and took a full body photo of him from 30 feet away, standing like Dirty Harry, he'd look right out of Sudden Impact...age 53. It's his height loss that perplexes me. One could argue he's lost 4 inches. It's not like he's bent over with crippling osteoporosis. 4 inches is dramatic. I just can't figure it.
nembokid said on 4/Jun/15
Also descibed as tall 1,98 meter
Rory said on 3/Jun/15
You can see in that pick from his trouser line and legs which are much higher than brad coopers that he would have been a good few inches taller as a young man probs would have 3 inches on cooper if he was the same age e.g 40.
Parker said on 3/Jun/15
Still think he could hit 6' in February 2015, 3 months before his 85th birthday
Click Here
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Jun/15
I think if you asked him his height he'd say he's 6ft3 and that he used to be 6ft4. James Garner for years said he was 6ft2 down from a peak of 6ft3 when he wasn't even 6ft!
Arch Stanton said on 2/Jun/15
I never believed Faldo was a legit 6'3", always thought about 6'2", but he does genuinely look near 6'3" with Clint. Clint's increasingly looking 5'11" range. I'd like to see a face off between Clint and Arnie and struggling to hit that 6' mark hehe! I still think stood his very best Clint could manage a bit over 6 ft.
[Editor Rob: I seen Faldo up close at an Open and he looked a big guy, 6ft 3 is believable, I think he used to claim that although added an inch and has claimed 6ft 4 recently!]
hijopotamus said on 1/Jun/15
Nick Faldo was 6'3" at least in the late 80s minimum. Maybe taller. Slouches pretty much as most tall golfers. He was about 3 inches taller than Ballesteros.
Rob, are there any studies that state that the taller you are the more chances of loosing height as you grow older?
For some reason that's what it seems!
John B said on 30/May/15
I say Clint was at tops 6'3 by the time he was 50 he was 6'2 but to day looks around 6 foot...
Bruno said on 30/May/15
Sad to see, gone small and frail.
Click Here
jervis said on 30/May/15
His peak IMOP was more 6ft3 than 6ft4.He looked this height up until his mid sixties droped to 6ft2 by 70 6ft1 by 80,if he lives to 90 I would say he would drop down below 6ft.
Rory said on 30/May/15
It would be a strange feeling if it happened over night, but not when it happens gradually over 40 yrs in clints case.
Anonymous1 said on 29/May/15
...ok, back to square one. If Faldo is, indeed, 6'3 (and I'm only going by what previous posts said), no way is Eastwood anything but around 6 even. Nothing wrong with 6 even, or any height for that matter. But, if Eastwood was 6'4 peak (I think 6'3.5, myself), it's got to be a very strange feeling to be taller than even 6'2 and 6'3 guys, and then 4 inches less than you were.
jervis said on 29/May/15
Yes with Faldo he looks old and tin around 6ft even.
movieguy said on 28/May/15
Nick Faldo recently caddied for Eastwood in a charity tournament. Faldo has always been given as 6'3'' and genuinely looks it. He looks taller than Eastwood by a couple of inches when they stand together.
Anonymous1 said on 24/May/15
Food for thought; According to writer Andrew Purcell, in the article, "Straight Shooter; Jersey Boys director Clint eastwood, 84, and going strong" (The Sydney Morning Herald), Eastwood is still 6'3. Either the author felt that was his height, or Eastwood claims it. I have my doubts about 6'3, based on many comparisons. But, if either the writer or Eastwood is still claiming he's 6'3, he can't be "too" far from it. Who knows. Id have to stand next to the guy, myself, to really know. As an side, it bugs me that Eastwood alters his voice for recent movies, with all that gutteral sound. He doesn't speak like that in interviews, and...with the exception of Heartbreak Ridge (and even tht voice bugs me. I keep wanting o clear my throat when watching), didn't speak that way in movies until recent acting appearances.
Wow said on 24/May/15
sorry ROB, but even if he was working as a slave carrying bolders uphill well into his eighties, NO ONE LOSES 10CM! Either peak or current height is wrong
[Editor Rob: I know people who have lost 4 inches, even 5...heck, Jenny's Dad is 2 years younger than Clint and has lost at least 4 inches of height.
]
Statto said on 24/May/15
Just watching the dead pool. Clint is same height as neeson when they're standing on flat ground in the freezer room. It's only when they walk that neeson looks taller as clint has a terrible habit of really slouching when he walks. His spine was really bent even then
jervis said on 24/May/15
That photo just shows how much height Clint had lost.Some one who could hold his own with big guys like Rock Hudson ,George Kennedy,look taller than Lee Marvin,James Coburn now isII only slightly taller than 5ft11.5 max Dicaprio.
james b said on 24/May/15
I doubt clint would have measured over 192cm at night
McIdontcare said on 22/May/15
Click Here
jervis said on 22/May/15
Yes DonD Clint looked about 6ft3 next to Bridges,but he looked the same height as 6ft 4 George kennedy.Im open about Kennedys height maybe he was 6ft3 also Coburn was maybe 6ft1 and Lee Marvin 6ft1 too,that would explain why Clint looked 6ft4 with these guys because their listed heights were 1inch over their real height.
movieguy said on 21/May/15
In that clip with Hudson, Rock looks bigger in build than Eastwood. I'm not sure there was not much in it in terms of height.
DonD said on 20/May/15
Jervis, Eastwood two inches taller than Jeff Bridges to me.
Two inches max. Bridges was a strong 6'1" at most.
jervis said on 16/May/15
Yes Dan but only a little bit.If Hudson was 6ft4 or even 6ft3.5 then Clint would be abour 6ft3 peak,that is what I think anyway.
Dan said on 15/May/15
Jervis...I'll have to check out the Coburn and Hudson comparisons to Eastwood, but I will say that Hudson was a firmly established 6'4"--many believe 6'3.5". Therefore, if he looks, by your own admission, he looks shorter than Hudson, the he couldn't have been 6'4" even in his youth.
james b said on 14/May/15
he did look 194cm if rock hudson really was 6'5
Sam said on 13/May/15
I feel like there's somebody trolling on here a little bit.
jervis said on 13/May/15
IMOP he was 6ft3 peak bear foot 6ft4 in shoes,now he is 6ft1 and can look 6ft because of bad posture.Total height loss 2inches.
jervis said on 13/May/15
Thats very controversial Joe,if he was wearing lifts,why did he stop?
joe said on 12/May/15
He can't have lost 4 inches of height, regardless of posture. If he was 6'4 at his peak it was evidently lifts. John Wayne was the same.
jervis said on 11/May/15
Freeman is 7 years younger Dan.Clint always has bad posture he stands with his belly out and and his knees slightly bent in a lot of the photos ive seen of him,when he stands stright as a rod he can gain as much as 2inches.Ive looked at Clints pictures very closely over the years and ive noticed this about his posture.In tunder bolt And lightfoot he can look only 6ft2 with 6ft1 jeff Bridges but in one scene he stands stright up to his full height and has 3 inches on Bridges.
jervis said on 10/May/15
The episode of rawhide with James Coburn is called Hostage child.Coburns listed height is 6ft2 and Clint has a scene with him and is a clear 2inchs taller maybe even more.If Clint was 6ft2 peak then Coburn was max 6ft maybe 5ft11.5.Clint is also the same height as 6ft4 listed greg walcot.
jervis said on 10/May/15
In one of Clints early parts he is in a scean with Rock Hudson were Hudson looks only slightly taller thsn Clint,not 3 inches,and Hudson was the leading man and Clint was just a bit player.
Dan said on 10/May/15
Jervis...Lemmon looks to me four inches shorter than Garner, and he walked with a bad hunch by that point. I can see 5'5"-5'6" for him. Maybe Rebhorn was really over 6'3", but I challenge you to look at the difference between them and tell me it's less than 6 inches. Steve McQueen was notorious for being short and trying to look taller. I haven't seen him with Garner before but I'd be suspicious even of 5'9" for McQueen. I've never noticed bad posture on Eastwood. I'm sure I'll find more evidence supporting my claim on him, but the reason I doubt he lost more height than average is that he looks the same when standing next to people now as he did years ago. Even the 6'2" Morgan Freeman, who is about 16 or so years younger than Eastwood, looks maybe an inch taller than him today.
jervis said on 10/May/15
In one of Clints early parts he is in a scean with Rock Hudson were Hudson looks only slightly taller thsn Clint,not 3 inches,and Hudson was the leading man and Clint was just a bit player.
Rory said on 9/May/15
@dan just type in on google images Clint Eastwood 1950s or 1960s in any young black and white pic he looks tall if not very tall at times...the kind of tall where 6'2 seems an underestimate just by looking at body proportions..oh and while you do that look at him next to lee van cleef,Tim Matheson,Jeff bridges and Donald Sutherland to name but a few...deep down no one in their right mind could argue against this fella being minimum 6'3 in his youth. About the whole oh but my dad hasn't lost any height blah blah....well good for him..some people can smoke a packet of ciggies a day and last till 100, others can lead a healthy life and die at 50..point is we're all different and you cannot use your dad or any one person as being representative of everyone
..theres no way today clints anywhere near as tall now as he was in 60s..hes lost 3 inches at least.
jervis said on 9/May/15
3 inches Dan I dont think so.They look to me very same if Kennedy strightend up,as they did in their sceans together in that movie.
Dan said on 9/May/15
Jervis...if you know anything about Eastwood's personal life, you'd know thay morally he's kind of bum...lying about his height would be small potatoes for him. I've never looked into James Coburn's height so I'll have to get back to you on that.
jervis said on 9/May/15
Ok Dan if Garner is 6inches shorter than Rebhorn making him 5ft9 aged 68,then what height does that make the 5ft9 listed Jack lemmon aged 71,who is about 5inches shorter than Garner in that movie?There is plenty pf photos pf the young Garner with 5ft9 actors such as Steve Mc queen were Garner looks like a strong 6ft2 beside him.why has Clint lost so much height?I dont know,but they say the avarage man loses 2inches by the age of 80,and Clint just lost a little bit more.If he was 6ft3peak and lost 2inches with his bad posture he could look 6ft flat making it look like he has lost 4inches when he has only lost 2.l can also see Liam Neeson going the same way as Clint with his hunch back posture he will drop a few inches to by the time he is 84.i
Dan said on 9/May/15
No, Jervis...I'm saying that many leading men whose reputations were assisted by their being tall had exaggerated height listings. George Kennedy was not leading man type so there was no reason to exaggerate his. John Wayne's definitely was exaggerated, so was James Garner's. I generally trust the heights of supporting players or heavies. Rock Hudson was obviously tall no matter who he stood next to.
Dan said on 8/May/15
Rory...if you're concerned about having a serious argument then don't misstate mine. I never said Eastwood lost no height, but the 4"-5" loss is plain silly especially for someone who has had no physical deformities that I know of. Look at any picture of Clint with Morgan Freeman, who is listed at 6'2"...about the same, but if there's any difference, it favors Freeman. Look at the pic I mentioned with George Kennedy. The top of their heads are about exact, certainly less than a half inch apart, yet Kennedy is easily losing three inches with his knee-bent slouch. I have yet to see a single pic where Clint is standing next to someone of known height and by comparison appears 6'4". The one and only certifiably 6'4" guy I've seen Clint next to frequently was Liam Neeson, and Clint is noticeably shorter. I don't believe a healthy, built 57 year old in 1987 would be two full inches shorter than his peak height. My father is 6'0" and hasn't lost an inch, and he's 61. I put Eastwood at a peak of 6'2" and now 6'1". Bradley Cooper, who is 6'1", appears an inch taller than Eastwood in a pic of them together, but Cooper is wearing noticeably thicker heeled shoes. Eastwood lost one inch...he is NOT the Incredible Shrinking Man.
Dan said on 8/May/15
No way, Jervis...Kennedy is giving away easily three inches in that knee bent slouch. If they were the same height, Eastwood would be substantially taller. They wouldn't be that close. Look at the top of their heads...a fraction of an inch difference. Ground looks level to me.
jervis said on 8/May/15
Im around 6ft in shoes but 5ft11 bearfoot in the morning d around 5ft10.5 by the evening.So maybe Clint was 6ft4 in shoes as a young man.Maybe all the old movie stars were measured in shoes.I would still go no lower than 6ft3 peak for Clint.I could knock 1inch to allow for shoes.
jervis said on 8/May/15
Just seen that photo Dan and Clint is taller than Kennedy there not at the same eye level also there on uneven ground,If Kennedy strightend up i would say both men were more or less the same height.
jervis said on 8/May/15
Kennedy is 5 years older than Clint.Kennedy was 50 and Clint 45 at the time of that movie.l saw the movie and there was not a clear height difference between the two.Dan what height do you think James Coburn was peak?By the way he was only 2 years older than Clint.You must remember Clint said homself he was 6ft4 so that would mean he lied about his height,and was maybe wearing some sort of lifts in his shoes in his younger days so it would look as if he wad 6ft4 next to taller co stars.
Dan said on 7/May/15
I came across an old pic of Eastwood with the legitimately 6'4" George Kennedy, and Kennedy is leaning on Eastwood with a knee bent, and he is still at Eastwood's level even though Eastwood is standing straight and tall. Kennedy is also older than him so the height loss theory won't work. If Eastwood was 6'4", in that position he'd be at least a couple inches above Kennedy.
jervis said on 7/May/15
So what you are saying Dan is that James Coburn,Lee Marvin,George Kennedy,Rock Hudson,John Wayne,James stewart,and everybody else who ive seen Clint being taller than or as tall as were all 2inches shorter than there listef hights.
Dan said on 7/May/15
Sorry, Sam...I see,no evidence of vertebral deformities in Eastwood.
Rory said on 7/May/15
@ Dan...im sorry but the moment you suggest Eastwood has lost no height at all is the moment where I stop taking your argument seriously. Id quite like to hear what you think Clints..well ok lets not use the words peak height with you, lets say "height" is then, 5'10 I reckon maybe 5'9 eh ? No. Peak the man was minimum 6'3, not a hair less and probably a bit more. I dunno who your comparisons are with but ive not seen a plausible one yet (and no 6'4.25 Neeson "towering" (aka having 1.5 inches max)an Eastwood nearing 60 doesnt count).
Sam said on 6/May/15
Sorry, Dan, height loss is more fact than theory, a number of scientific studies show this. Some lose a considerable amount of height, other's do not.
Click Here
Click Here
Dan said on 5/May/15
Jervis...listed heights were ALWAYS exaggerated half a century ago. James Garner ever being 6'2" is a total laugh. Everyone I've ever seen who looks a legitimate 6'2" towers over him. You should see "My Fellow Americans" where the 6'3" James Rebhorn is easily six inches taller than him. He may have lost some height from back issues but he never looked over 6'0" to me...if that.
Dan said on 5/May/15
Rory...what's laughable is your standard for measuring height. He just somehow "looked" taller in the 1960s?? What I've noticed is that when you actually compare Eastwood to various other stars, he is always equal with those billed in the 6'1"-6'2" range and ALWAYS shorter that those in the 6'3"-6'4" range. You have to have a REASON to lose substantial height.Eastwood has always been remarkably fit, and I know men his age and older and far less fit who are exactly or darn close to their peak heights. Let's not forget in the 1960s they went out of their way to make stars look tall, using small doors, buildings, or short leading ladies.
James B said on 5/May/15
192-193cm peak
jervis said on 4/May/15
Just watched an episode of raw hide,Clint was at least 2 inches taller than James Cobourn.Also Dan Clint was taller than 6ft2.5 Heston in the only photo ive seen of them togethet.James Garner shrank from 6ft2 to about 5ft11 and Heston lost about the same or a bit more.If Clint was only 6ft2 max peak it would mean Heston, Garner ,Kennedy, Wayne were about 2 inches shorter than there listed heights.IMOP Clint was 6ft4 peak max in the morning in perfect posture.By night time closer to 6ft3.Now 6ft1 in the morning and closer to 6ft at night.Height loss around 3inches.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/May/15
@James B: That's spot on

Eastwood was still at least 6ft3 in the 80's and Neeson possibly a fraction over 6ft4.
Rory said on 3/May/15
Laughable to suggest Eastwood hasn't lost any height..just look at the guy in his films from the 1960s where he looked strong tall and lean and look at him today, a shadow of his former self..if you stood a 1965 Eastwood with a 2015 Eastwood your barely be able to tell they were the same people.
Alex said on 2/May/15
He was tall lol at these people saying 6'1. Get real he was not under 6'3.5 in his prime
Dan said on 1/May/15
Danimal...as I mentioned in an earlier post, I reject the loss of height theory. People lose height if they have things like osteoporosis or something. Eastwood remained remarkably fit and muscular throughout his 60s and had no reason to just lose height. I know people in their 70s who are still their peak heights. I met Karl Malden in 2005, and he was about an inch shorter than I am (and I'm 6'2.5"), so he was still at least 6'1" even at 93 years old while he was 6'2" at his peak.

Arch Stanton...did you see the black tie pic I mentioned? Also, look at when Clint and Liam are filmed from the back walking side by side...way more than a half inch difference.
James B said on 1/May/15
Arch in dead pool I'd say

Clint Eastwood 6'3.25
Liam nee son 6'4.25
James B said on 1/May/15
Anyone seen play misty for me? He looked every bit of 6'4 in that film
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 1/May/15
I'd argue 191-192cm for Eastwood in The Deadpool if Neeson was pushing 194cm.
Sam said on 1/May/15
I think that you could argue Clint still looked as tall as 6'2.5" range by 1992-1993, compare him with Morgan Freeman, Gene Hackman, Dylan McDermott and Richard Harris around the time of Unforgiven and In the Line of Fire.
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 30/Apr/15
At Dan, no way, 1.5 inches absolutely max. I saw about an inch.
Danimal said on 29/Apr/15
Dejavu says on 15/Mar/15
Its hard to believe that he lost 4 inches from his prime.

He's lost closer to 5"
Danimal said on 29/Apr/15
Dan says on 23/Apr/15
No way was Eastwood ever 6'4". Just look st "The Dead Pool". Liam Neeson towers ovet Eastwood, and Neeson himself is 6'4".

First of all, Eastwood had already lost height by the Dead Pool and secondly, Neeson did not tower over him.
Dan said on 29/Apr/15
The problem is that Eastwood is far MORE than a half inch shorter than Neeson.
James B said on 29/Apr/15
Saw unforgiven he other night and the impression Clint gave me in that film was 6'2 1/2.

In dead pool looked anything from 6'2 to 6'3 but never 6'4 in that movie
James B said on 29/Apr/15
Saw forgiven the other night and the impression Clint gave me in that film was 6'2 1/2
Rory said on 29/Apr/15
Yh there's no way height wise a 60 odd year old Eastwood was the same height he was in fistful of dollars..looked 190 next to neeson which by then hes lost at least half an inch.
Dan said on 28/Apr/15
I don't know how to add links here, but look at the picture of Eastwood and Neeson in black tie attire at the premiere for Dead Pool. Neeson is slouching and is still three inches taller than Eastwood. Even now the 6'4" D. Sutherland is noticeably taller than Clint. Funny how Eastwood magically shrinks over time when his costars don't.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Apr/15
In Heartbreak Ridge (1986) though he did seem to have a good inch and change on 6'2.5 Everett McGill.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Apr/15
In Pale Rider (1985) Eastwood looked to slightly edge out 6'3 Moriarty. However in Pink Cadillac (1989) he was looking in 6'2.5-6'3 range with 6'6.5 James Cromwell and about 6'3" with Morgan Freeman in Unforgiven (1992). He could have been around 190cm by that period.
Dan said on 27/Apr/15
I saw the video of Ali and Eastwood. They look the same height to me. When Eastwood and Neeson walk together, Neeson is at least two inches taller...and spare me the "losing height" garbage. My girlfriend's father is 80 with back problems and he told me he was 6'4" at his peak. He is still taller than I am and I'm 6'2.5". Also, look at Eastwood and the 6'2" Heston...same height. And in "Space Cowboys" the 6'6" James Cromwell is at least 4" taller. Was Eastwood's peak when he was 17???
Sam said on 27/Apr/15
Neeson never towers Eastwood in The Dead Pool, IMO he looks an inch and change taller there. If Neeson was 6'4", Eastwood looks a weak 6'3" there.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Apr/15
Towers LOL? I saw an inch at most in the warehouse scene walking side by side, and Eastwood had already begun losing height by the 80s, Dead Pool was 1988. And there's a strong case for 194 for Neeson peak anyway.
James B said on 25/Apr/15
Neeson looked 1.5 inches max taller to me
Peyman said on 24/Apr/15
peak, 6' 3"
now, 5' 11.5in
Dan said on 23/Apr/15
No way was Eastwood ever 6'4". Just look st "The Dead Pool". Liam Neeson towers ovet Eastwood, and Neeson himself is 6'4".
"
CKG said on 19/Apr/15
Does it matter? He'd look good at 6'1" or 6'4" in my opinion. Anyway, isn't Clint Eastwood the one laughing all the way to the bank standing tall!
Maza said on 11/Apr/15
His Madame Tussaud wax figure at least is considerably taller than me at 6'1, about 6'4 I'd say. (While Arnold was exactly my height, reasonable that they are not in some flicks...)
Arch Stanton said on 7/Apr/15
@Steve Ali himself said though that Clint was much taller than him!!
Steve said on 5/Apr/15
I was recently watching a video of him with Ali on the same talkshow and they looked a similar height, maybe a slight edge to Clint Eastwood.

I think 6'3 is a more accurate listing for his peak.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Apr/15
Click Here

Rob, would you say most of these guys were past their prime height-wise this was taken?
[Editor Rob: a few of them yes...Jimmy Stewart I think was a guy who by 60 still looked near 6ft 3, I don't think he dropped much in that time frame]
Parker said on 3/Apr/15
Anonymous1 says on 1/Apr/15
...assuming Eastwood "was" 6'4...and I do mean at absolute peak, it must be somewhat odd to find yourself 4 inches shorter, even if it happened over time

He's still close to 6' in his mid eighties. I doubt he gives a rats backside.
Sixseven said on 1/Apr/15
Clint Eastwood is 6'1"tall.
Anonymous1 said on 1/Apr/15
...assuming Eastwood "was" 6'4...and I do mean at absolute peak, it must be somewhat odd to find yourself 4 inches shorter, even if it happened over time. I think it would matter more to a guy, than a woman.
James B said on 1/Apr/15
3.5-4 inches loss is not unusual at all for someone who was near 6'4 peak. If anything it is too be expected for someone that size to lose that much.
littlesue said on 30/Mar/15
Old age Jake, 4 inches not unusual for someone in there 80's,. My Nan and her two sisters had lost about 8 inches by the time they reached 93 although Osteoporosis runs in the family, men can get it too,.
Jake said on 29/Mar/15
Rob, how did he lose so much height? 4 inches.......
James B said on 26/Mar/15
I'd say compared to Jeff Bridges Clint looked 6'3 range but his posture was bad in thunderbolt and light foot.

I think judging by how tall he looked with David Soul, Rock Hudson and Jeff Bridges we can rule out 6'2.5 peak. Him 'looking' 6'2 1/2 at times in some of his films like Dirty Harry and Magnum Force is irrelevant.

the full 6'4 is still not certain in my opinion for Clint.
James B said on 26/Mar/15
Clint Eastwood has not been 6'2.5 since the 90s
ZTL said on 24/Mar/15
"I'd put him at 6'3.5" in his absolute prime and 6'2".5 now"

Not possible Thor. There is NO WAY Eastwood was 6'2.5" in 2013.
Anonymous1 said on 24/Mar/15
..based on all recent pics I've seen, I would never, ever put Eastwood anywhere near as high as 6'2.5, now. Just my own opinion.
Thor said on 22/Mar/15
I saw Clint in Monterrey 2 years ago. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was slightly shorter (we both had low heel Sperry Dock Sider type shoes on)
I'd put him at 6'3.5" in his absolute prime and 6'2".5 now.
James B said on 19/Mar/15
ZTL says on 17/Mar/15
I think more often than not Clint looked in the 6'2" to 6'3" range in his movies. He did look 6'4" in a few scenes but only a few.

The airport scene in Magnum force he for sure did not appear over 6'2.5.
ZTL said on 17/Mar/15
I think more often than not Clint looked in the 6'2" to 6'3" range in his movies. He did look 6'4" in a few scenes but only a few.
James B said on 16/Mar/15
Anyone agree in Magnum Force clint looked 6'2.5 and occasionally 6'4? Again no way am i implying he was as short as 6'2.5 peak just saying 6'2-6'3 range is what he mostly 'looked' in that particular movie from what i remember. In Dirty Harry as well looked under 6'4 for most of the film and yet occasionally scene pulled of looking above 6'3.

In the Enforcer clint did not look under 6'3 range in that film and like arch pointed out there was once scene when he walked through a doorway where he looked 6'4.
Judd said on 15/Mar/15
Its hard to believe that he lost 4 inches from his prime.

I agree
Dejavu said on 15/Mar/15
Its hard to believe that he lost 4 inches from his prime.
184.3cm said on 14/Mar/15
Always a chance he was 6'3.5 or 6'3.75 like Wayne claimed but really if you measure between those marks claiming 6'4 isnt really that wild. A guy that size probably shrinks round 1 inch morning to night. Probably solid 6'4.5 out of bed.
Alex said on 13/Mar/15
Eastwood was 6'4 in his prime NOT 6'2 or 6'3
5'11" barefoot said on 12/Mar/15
never 6'4" maybe in his boots.
James B said on 10/Mar/15
Arch we don't know Mcgills official height because he has not got a listing on this site. 6'2.5 for Mcgill is possible but then so is 6'2 as well.

I don't think clint eastwood was quite as tall as 6'3 1/2 in 1986.
ZTL said on 9/Mar/15
Yeah Bran, Eastwood looked about 6'2" or a smidgen taller in Heart Break Ridge.
ZTL said on 9/Mar/15
Yeah Bran, Eastwood looked about 6'2" or a smidgen taller in Heart Break Ridge.
jervis said on 9/Mar/15
Bran swede was played by 6ft6 Peter kotch,Lesnar was only 9 years old in1986.l think the pictures of Sutherland andConnery show that Connery was closer to 6ft1 than 6ft2.Yes Sutherland dose look 6ft4 next to Connery if Connery was 6ft2.But he dose not look 6ft4 next to goldbloom in body snachers and goldbloom states his height as 6ft4 in that movie.As for Blocker there is a fight scean between him and Chuck Conners in rifle man Conners at6ft5.5 looks about 2 or 3 inches taller than Blocker.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Mar/15
Bran says on 6/Mar/15
Just been watching heartbreak ridge and this guy gives me no indication of a 6ft4 range guy at all. The guys i know who are 6'4 look so more stand out ish, im really confused, i mean i know Clint was 56 or something then, but the guy looks like a 6ft2 man maybe 6ft2.5

Eastwood had begun to lose height by 1986 and in that film had about 1-1.5 inches on 6'2.5 Everett McGill.
Danimal said on 7/Mar/15
jervis says on 4/Mar/15
Kennedy was 50 and Clint 45 at the time of eiger sanction,I dont think Kennedy would have lost any height at 50.To me in that film I did not see any hight difference between them.I dont belive Kennedy was 6ft4 he was more 6ft3 like Clint did not look much taller than Dan Blocker in Bonanza did not tower him Like Clint Walker did.Blocker looked about 6ft2 max next to Walker but very similer to Kennedy.

The human body gradually begins to start shrinking between 30 and 40. It becomes noticeable by 50 and even more noticeable every decade after that. The average MALE will have lost 1.2" by 70. That does not happen over night. It's a gradual height loss of about .3" every decade after 30, so YES, he could have lost .5" by 50 years old.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Mar/15
Dan Blocker looked every inch of 6'4" with Sinatra in Tony Rome...
Arch Stanton said on 6/Mar/15
No, not just 1.5 inches. Watch the film. Sutherland had an EASY two inches on him, there's some screenshots Click Here Eastwood and Sutherland looked very similar in Kelly's Heroes but in one scene Eastwood looked to edge him out a bit. Sutherland was a strong 6'3, looked it with Elliot Gould in MASH. The lowest you can really argue for Eastwood is 6'3.5 at peak,
jervis said on 6/Mar/15
Same height as6ft3 Eric Fleming in Rawhide.
Bran said on 6/Mar/15
Just been watching heartbreak ridge and this guy gives me no indication of a 6ft4 range guy at all. The guys i know who are 6'4 look so more stand out ish, im really confused, i mean i know Clint was 56 or something then, but the guy looks like a 6ft2 man maybe 6ft2.5, never 6'4, unless he had shrunk. My friends 6ft4 and he dwarfs most people eastwood looks eye to eye with 6ft2 Lesner in the film, and there's guys bigger than eastwood in the film, Rob ?, was he really as big as 6ft4 ?
ZTL said on 6/Mar/15
Eastwood was never a legit 6'4".
I agree Judd, he had a slim wire build that made him seem taller than he really was. No way he was over 6'3" barefoot.
jervis said on 6/Mar/15
Connery was 6ft1.5 as he said himself,and Sutherland round 6ft3 that would make a difference of around 1.5 inches in Sutherlands favour.You must remember that goldbloom was at least 1inch taller then Sutherland in body snachers.On Kennedys height if Blocker was 6ft4 then yes him and Kennedy were the same height,but im not convinced Blocker was 6ft4,not compered to the rest of the cast members on Bonanza.l taught that German guy was 6ft6 if he wad only 6ft4 that would mean Clint and Kennedy were not 6ft4 because he had about 2 on both of them.
,
Judd said on 6/Mar/15
Arch, i've a question for you: it's likelier that a person has lost 3-4" (8-10 cms) at 70-80 years old that's the equivalent of 5-10% of his/her height (it depends by his/her prime height) or maybe that an actor/actress wore lifts when he played his/her role????

Look Sutherland next to TLJ (rob listed him at 6'0.25" and i guess that's is a good listing for his peak, also if in the end of XX century he did look more a flat 6'): Click Here
That pic was taken in 2000, so Sutherland was 65 years old and he didn't look taller than 6'1.5" ...you think that it's possible that DS had already lost 2.5" since he was young?
Same topyc for Clint Eastwood...they were both 6'3" at peak...being generous 6'3.25" IMO.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Mar/15
I think Kennedy was a strong 6ft4. He could look 194cm at times.
Eastwood could have been 6ft4 but most likely dropped slightly below it in the evening.
James said on 5/Mar/15
Gonzalo says on 4/Mar/15
Eastwood and Kennedy were the same height in Eiger sanction. There is no doubt Kennedy was 1`93.

There was one scene i remember between the 2 in that film when they meet up with some Swedish rock climbers where clint looks at good 1 inch shorter than kennedy
movieguy said on 5/Mar/15
There is a 6'4'' German guy in the Eiger Sanction and he looks taller than both Eastwood and Kennedy. Or at least a German guy who is given 6'4'' on the net, checked once but can't remember guy's name.
Arch Stanton said on 4/Mar/15
Eastwood edged out legit 6'4 Gregory Alcott in Eiger, there's a scene with them walking together. In Joe Kidd though Alcott edged out Clint. Both men were around 6'4", so was George Kennedy.
Arch Stanton said on 4/Mar/15
Judd, watch The Great Train Robbery and try telling me Sutherland was 6'2.75! If that was the case Sean Connery look no more than 60.'75 in that film!
Arch Stanton said on 4/Mar/15
Haha, if George Kennedy was just 6'3" then James Coburn was no more than 6'1! And if anything Coburn could often pull off 189. Kennedy had an easy two inches on him in Charade.
jervis said on 4/Mar/15
The episode is called The scapegoat.You can judge his height with all the cast.
jervis said on 4/Mar/15
Gonzalo watch Kennedy bonanza and see if he looks 6ft4 next to the rest of the cast,him and Blocker are the same height and Blocker was max 6ft3.
Gonzalo said on 4/Mar/15
Eastwood and Kennedy were the same height in Eiger sanction. There is no doubt Kennedy was 1`93.
jervis said on 4/Mar/15
Kennedy was 50 and Clint 45 at the time of eiger sanction,I dont think Kennedy would have lost any height at 50.To me in that film I did not see any hight difference between them.I dont belive Kennedy was 6ft4 he was more 6ft3 like Clint did not look much taller than Dan Blocker in Bonanza did not tower him Like Clint Walker did.Blocker looked about 6ft2 max next to Walker but very similer to Kennedy.
Judd said on 4/Mar/15
Arch, i actually have several doubts that a person can lose 1/19th (about 6%) of his/her height...I can buy 5-6 or even 7 cms is particulary situations, but 10 cms are too much...

I think Eastwood had (when was young) a very slim figure which make him seems taller and he has always claimed 6'4".
About Sutherland i think he might have been 6'2.75-3" max at peak, while today he's in the 6'1-1.5" range...
Look at him next to Tommy Lee Jones in 2000. I guess TLJ was at times 6-0.25" and for sure Sutherland and even Eastwood didn't look 6'2-3" next to him, but more 6'1"+.

IMO Eastwood was 6'3" (his perfect listing) or being very generous 6'3.25"...6'4" was probably a morning measurement or the lenght with a normal dress shoes on...
ZTL said on 3/Mar/15
I thought Eastwood and Sunderland looked the same height in Kelly's Heroes. Eastwood did not look taller to me. I would give Sutherland 6'3" peak.
ZTL said on 3/Mar/15
Arch, I don't believe six feet is a downgrade for Soul. He clearly did not look any taller in all his movies.
James said on 3/Mar/15
I thought originally clint looked 6'3 flat next to george kennedy in eiger sanction and that was with hair advantage but then Kennedy could have been 194cm peak. That said Kennedy was no fresh spring chicken when that film was made so he could have lost a small amount from his peak.
jervis said on 3/Mar/15
3 on Holbrook max.In a movie dont know the name but Holbrook was a bit shorter than a very young Alac Baldwin who was know more than 6ft.
jervis said on 2/Mar/15
Talking of Hal Holbrooks height Arch,there is film with him and a very young Alac Baldwin in it and Baldwin is a bit taller then Holbrook,and Baldwin is know more than 6ft tall.So was Holbrook really 6ft.05.
Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
If you watch a few of Hal Holbrook's films you'll see that peak he was looking between 6' and 6'1 generally. Now watch Magnum Force. Eastwood only 2 inches taller? He made Holbrook look average at best.
Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
@Judd and ZTL, Donald Sutherland had 2 inches on Sean Connery in The Great Train Robbery who had worst was 6'1.5 peak. Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Strong 6'2" you say? That would make Sutherland 6'2" flat and Connery struggling with a flat 6 ft!
Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
@Judd and ZTL, Donald Sutherland had 2 inches on Sean Connery in the train Connery who had worst was 6'1.5 peak. Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Strong 6'2" you say? That would make Sutherland 6'2" flat and Connery struggling with a flat 6 ft!
Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
Oh so we're downgrading Soul now just to fit with the theory Clint was nothing over 6'3" LOL. Both Ulrich and Matherson were lying too and we're both no more than 6'1" too. Downgrade everybody just to fit!!

gian92 says on 1/Mar/15
in old age a person can lose a 1 inch but not 3 o 4 inches !

Try telling that to Michael Douglas whose father looks no more than 5 ft 4 today at 97.
ZTL said on 2/Mar/15
Soul was only 6ft tall Arch. And that's on a good day. Eastwood definitely did not look 4 inches taller than Soul in Magnum Force. Clint was 6'3" tops. No way was he 6'4". He always struck me as a strong 6'2" guy anyway, but I'll give him 6'3"
Judd said on 2/Mar/15
yeah, i agree with jervis and i want to underline that Soul has been listed 5'11" today at 65-70 years old, and i think there's a chance that 6'0.5" is a bit an optimistic result...he might have been just 6'0"...
However IMO Eastwood had never been taller than 6'3"...that's his fairest listing as "peak height".
Voiceless Dental Fricative said on 2/Mar/15
Click Here

With Bradley cooper. Around 6' today.
gian92 said on 1/Mar/15
in old age a person can lose a 1 inch but not 3 o 4 inches !
Steve said on 1/Mar/15
obviously, Clint Eastwood has shrunk due to age-related deterioration of his spinal column. It happens to everybody by the time they're in their eighties. He was definitely 6-4 in the Dirty Harry days, but he's been shrinking ever since. But I'd say he'd still be 6 feet or more if he stood up straight.
Arch Stanton said on 1/Mar/15
LOL Jervis, Clint looked a more clear cut 6'4" in magnum Force next to David Soul, Hal Holbrook and Tim Matheson
than he did in most of his films! In that airport scene he had between 3 and 4 inches on Soul.
jervis said on 28/Feb/15
In the airport scean from magnum force next to 6ft.05 listed David Saul,if you change Saul for Bradley Cooper who is also listed at 6ft.05,you can see how Clint would have looked beside someone of coopers size at peak.To me Clint looks more 6ft3 next to someone of 6ft.05.He always looked taller than 6ft2 too me but short of 6ft4 so thats why l say his peak height was 6ft3 a strong 6ft3 peak.I also think there was alot of hight inflating going on in the old days when Clint was younger so that would explian the height comparisons in old films between him and costars.Height inflations todays stars would not get away with because people have much mpre persnol contact with stars than in the past and can see their real hight face to face.But in Clints youth 6ft3 was very tall like someone of 6ft5 today.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Feb/15
Danimal says on 26/Feb/15
JFM says on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...

It's possible that he was around 6'0.5" in the early 2000's. Today he's closer to 5'11". In his prime, he would have edged you out.

Watch Bloodwork, similar height to Jeff Daniels, if anything looked a bit taller than Daniels in some scenes!
James B said on 27/Feb/15
He was still 6'2 in 1999
jervis said on 27/Feb/15
There is a clip of the Jonny Carson show from 1992 on youtube.Clint is a guest,David Letterman is also on it,when Clint shakes Lettermans hand you can see that Clint is clearly taller than him.Letterman is listed at 6ft1.5 and claims 6ft2,he also mentions Clints hight and what an intimadating guy Clint was because of his size.Clint was 62 at the time and Letterman 45.
jervis said on 27/Feb/15
There is no way he was as low as 6ft0 in 2003 he had a good 2inchs on larry fishbourne at the time and 3 on Kevin Bacon,and only 2 years befor that was about 4 shorter than 6ft6 James Cromwell in space cowboys and the same hight as 6ft2 or 3 Jeff Daniles in bloodwork.
Danimal said on 26/Feb/15
JFM says on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...

It's possible that he was around 6'0.5" in the early 2000's. Today he's closer to 5'11". In his prime, he would have edged you out.
Danimal said on 26/Feb/15
Ken says on 23/Feb/15
There's a photo of Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper standing next to each other at the Oscars. Cooper is an inch taller, and is listed as 6'1". Can a person shrink 5 inches when they are 84 years old?

First of all, your math is off. If Cooper is 6'1" and had 1" on Eastwood, that would put Eastwood at 6'0", so how did he lose 5" if he was never over 6'4". Secondly, Cooper is max 6'0", putting Eastwood in the 5'11" range today, so yes, he has lost around 5", but not based on your math.
ZTL said on 26/Feb/15
Nah..6-3" peak height. No taller.
Rory said on 25/Feb/15
No there's no chance his height was dramatically inflated, looking at his limbs and proportions back in the 60s and 70s there was no way he was below a strong 6'3. I think 6'3.75 would be bang on for peak Eastwood, to me hes not the type to lie about his height and if hes 6'3.75 its normal hed say 6'4.
jervis said on 24/Feb/15
For peak I would say strong 6ft3 no lower than that.
Anonymous1 said on 24/Feb/15
In an earlier post (23/Feb), I stated, "From a potential 6'5.5...". That was supposed to be 6'3.5.
Ken said on 23/Feb/15
There's a photo of Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper standing next to each other at the Oscars. Cooper is an inch taller, and is listed as 6'1". Can a person shrink 5 inches when they are 84 years old?
Anonymous1 said on 23/Feb/15
I don't want to overdose on Eastwood height postings, but if Bradley Cooper is 6'2, as he says, or 6.05, as this site says, then..barring lifts or heel variations, Eastwood is definitely no more than 6'0 max, or 5'10.5, minimum. From a potential 6'5.5 or 6'4, down to 6'0 or less...wow. My uncle is or was 6'2. At 80, if he stands straight, he still is. Either Eastwood's got spinal issues, or his height was inflated..."in my opinion".
JFM said on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I think that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...
JFM said on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...
Arch Stanton said on 21/Feb/15
Rock Hudson said he was 6'5" but shrunk to 6'4" by 1967. As I said 6'4.5-6'5" for Hudson and 6'3.5-6'4" for Eastwood is arguable.
James B said on 20/Feb/15
Yeah I agree rock looked 6'4.5
James said on 19/Feb/15
Frank 2 said that clint eastwood was huge when he met him
Ron B. said on 18/Feb/15
Arch, A 6'5" peak for Rock Hudson is debatable. Rock always claimed he was 6'4" when asked about his height. I personally think he was 6'4.5" barefoot.
cole said on 18/Feb/15
@Editor Rob: Looks like he's standing quite tall in the second shot, but the angle might be a little low?
Click Here
Click Here
Anonymous1 said on 17/Feb/15
Arch; I know it sounds absurd to you, but I'm in just as much of a position to judge his height, as you. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't met Eastwood or any of his many co-stars. So, you are basing all of your opinions on listed heights and visual comparisons...which are based on listed heights or what people claim their heights to be. I am amazed at how many people who post here are absolutely certain of the height of people they compare Eastwood to, and somehow think they are in a better position to judge heights than others. Over the past 32 years, I have met maybe 20 or 25 celebrities. Some were in their prime, others just slightly passed it (50's). With the exception of Kevin Nash, a admittedly recent meeting, not one actor was nearly as big or tall as generally listed. I'm sure George Kennedy, Geoffrey Wolcott, William Smith and many others were over 6 feet in their prime. But not one of us will ever know, exactly, by how much, which other actors and Eastwood co-stars were not really over 6 feet as self-described, or how tall Eastwood really was in his prime. For celebrities well past their prime, juding heights will forever be enirely opinion. People, including a nearly lifelong friend, have misjudged my height (6'), calling me 6'2 or 6'3. Friends who describe themselves as 6 footers, going as far back as college, were shorter than me by an inch, or even two. Another friend's dad met eastwood, decades ago. My friend's dad decribed himself as 6'4 when telling me this 25 years ago, and said Eastwood was much taller. So, even if someone "met" Eastwood in his prime, I would only take their comment on his height as just opinion. Unless we all go back in time, barefoot with Eastwood, and gather a small team of scientists to accurately measure Eastwood, and the rest of us for comparison's sake...all at the same time of day, we will never know his exact height, or anyone else's. I think I just got bored.
CDS said on 16/Feb/15
Almost everyone I know is surprised to see the 6'4" claim (myself included). I'll give him 6'3" max in his prime. I know there were a lot of cowboy boots being worn back then, plus generally people state their height in inch-thick soled shoes. His height now?- dunno I'd go as low as 6', however, maybe in the 6'0 1/2"- 6'1" range. I noticed his ID in the movie "Gran Torino" had 6'1" listed.
Arch Stanton said on 16/Feb/15
Each case can be argued individually, of course, but were many of the main actors in several of Eastwood's films actually over 6 feet? Maybe, but I'm no more certain of that than I am of Eastwood's actual height in his prime.

If you're not aware of how many guys over 6 ft were in his films then you're probably not in a place to really judge his height. Virtually every film of his , particularly in the 1960s-1980s period had multiple guys over 6ft and often had a fair few co stars of similar height.
Anonymous1 said on 14/Feb/15
...though I stand by my consistant comments that Eastwood was generally 6'3-ish in his prime, I don't claim to know, for certain. But, the other independant variables often cited, here, are other actors' heights. Having met several in my lifetime, what I do know is that many of them were hardly what their official heights stated. And, even if I didn't know their officially listed height, I immediately knew that some of their co-stars who's height "was" listed couldn't possibly be as tall as "their official heights, based on what I was seeing as the height of the guy I met. Each case can be argued individually, of course, but were many of the main actors in several of Eastwood's films actually over 6 feet? Maybe, but I'm no more certain of that than I am of Eastwood's actual height in his prime.
Arch Stanton said on 13/Feb/15
Also if you look through Rock Hudson's filmography, particularly 50s, a lot of his roles were around women, not many of Eastwood's films involved him being in romantic roles around women.
Arch Stanton said on 13/Feb/15
That's because in most of his films anon a lot of his co stars were six footers themselves. Look at Magnum Force, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, The Eiger Sanction and Escape from Alcatraz for instance.
These were films where most of the main actors were over 6 ft. If you look through his back log of films you'll find most of them in fact have multiple guys over 6 ft in them.
Arch Stanton said on 13/Feb/15
Great find Parker!! Rock Hudson was pretty much 6'5" peak, Eastwood pretty much 6'4, Hudson certainly looks no more than 4 cm taller in the comparison, and Eastwood's posture is poorer. You could argue half an inch shorter for both, but all the "Eastwood was 6'2-6'3" max is nonsense.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Feb/15
6ft1-2 peak is ridiculous for Eastwood.
Ron B. said on 12/Feb/15
I agree Arch, Clint's not the BS type. In the military ones height is usually rounded up to the nearest whole inch. Nothing wrong with a person saying he is 6'4" if he is 6'3.5". Clint may have even been 6' 3.75".
Yes James, A strong 6'3" guy would tower over most actors who are generally short or average height.
Judd said on 12/Feb/15
it's hard to belive that he can have lost 1/19 of his body lenght...also if with those injuries...

there's always the chance that he will measure more than 6' standing perfectly straight with his back, but if with the best pose today he is no more than 6' then i think he was 6'4" for sure, but at most 6'3"...
Anonymous1 said on 11/Feb/15
...2 opposite statements, here. 1) I still think, based on everything from still pictures, to scenes with other actors, to appearances with other actors...that he was 6'4 out of bed or at his absolute peak, but more 6'3.5-ish in general. BUT....I have never seen that footage of him with Rock Hudson. I'm assuming the Youtube clip is actually Eastwood and Hudson. If that's the case, I don't think there's any doubt Hudson was a big man. And Eastwood looks about even with him. I was quite shocked, actually, to see this. All I know is, 6'4 guys tower over people. I never see Eastwood as doing that in most of his films. I'm not saying this Youtube footage completely changes my mind, but it sure shakes things up. Hudson was easily at least a couple inches taller than Peter Breck in a McMillan and Wife, and Breck was 6'2.
James said on 11/Feb/15
While Eastwood isn't the BS type, the publicists paid by the studios to capture the attention of the audience certainly are. One could argue, BS is all they do. Given that, was Eastwood ever six foot four? Doubtful. But given how short many actors are, he could pass for it by comparison.
jervis said on 11/Feb/15
Even if he was 6ft3 and not 6ft4 he s still lost at least 3inches.lf you can belive he lost 3 why not 4?lf he was lying about his height and had normal aging shrinkage,that would have made him between 6ft1 and 6ft2 peak.If he was that height then there will have to be a lot of down grades.Mybe Rock Hudson was only 6ft3.5.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Feb/15
Eastwood isn't the BS type Ron. Obviously he got measured at around 6'4", whether it was in gym daps or whatever though is questionable.
Ron B. said on 10/Feb/15
Hey Parker,

A little testy are we? Of course someone 6'3" or 6' 3.5" could exaggerate their height to 6'4". I have known people who have done it. Its very common for someone to round their heights a half inch or so. Wow age 15, lol.
jtm said on 10/Feb/15
Considering Bradley appears to have footwear advantage, Clint still looks close to 6' at 85 years of age.

more like the other way around and i think cooper's listing is generous but eastwood's posture looks terrible.
jervis said on 9/Feb/15
Even if he was say 6ft3 peak that would mean a loss of 3inches that is still more than the average height loss,so there is some sort of health problem there,unless his height at peak was only 6ft2 or 6ft1.5 and all his costars in his films also lied about there hights too.
Parker said on 9/Feb/15
Pause at 1.25/26 with 6'5 listed Rock Hudson.
Click Here
Parker said on 9/Feb/15
Ron B. says on 8/Feb/15
Hey Parker, lots of people exaggerate their own heights a bit

Lots of short people yes, not one of 6'4. Why would he give a rats a*** whether he was 6'3 or 6'4. He said there was one guy taller in his year at 6'5 age 15.
jervis said on 9/Feb/15
What hight do you think he was Matt?
Matt said on 8/Feb/15
Losing 4 inches just because of age seems unlikely. I'm pretty sure he never had any extensive back surgeries. I think on average people tend to lose 1-2" max. He just exaggerated his height back in the day.
Ron B. said on 8/Feb/15
Hey Parker, lots of people exaggerate their own heights a bit. Just because Clint Eastwood said he was 6'4" does not make it so.


Why on earth would he lie??? Lots of people exaggerate their heights
Danimal said on 7/Feb/15
Bradley Cooper looks a good 1.5" taller than Clint today based on that pic. He's certainly not 6'0.5" (which would put him at taller than Cooper) as Rob has him listed. I'm sort of surprised you're ignoring very good evidence Rob.
Danimal said on 7/Feb/15
Clint was between 6'3" and 6'4" peak. Today he's between 5'11" and 6'0".
Arch Stanton said on 7/Feb/15
Rob maybe the 6 ft flat might be spot on now? He looks to have a lost a bit more of late.
Parker said on 7/Feb/15
Ron B. says on 6/Feb/15
Quartt, I am not debating with anyone. I do not believe that Eastwood was 6'4" peak. That's my opinion and alot of people agree with it.

Yes, but a lot of people don't, and thankfully one is the editor of this site. 6'4 for Eastwood at peak. He said himself he was 6'4 at age 15. Why on earth would he lie? He had 2 inches over 6'2 Robert Urich in Magnum Force, same height as 6'4 George Kennedy in the Eiger Sanction.

Considering Bradley appears to have footwear advantage, Clint still looks close to 6' at 85 years of age.
Click Here
Ron B. said on 6/Feb/15
Quartt, I am not debating with anyone. I do not believe that Eastwood was 6'4" peak. That's my opinion and alot of people agree with it.
James Edward Crowley Maximus Meridius said on 5/Feb/15
Rob is it possible Clint Eastwood could be 5ft 11.5in now will you downgrade his current height at some point he will be 85 this year he could be 5ft 10in when he is 90 and 5ft 9in when he is 95 there is a chance he could lose even more height in a span between 5 years and 10 years.
[Editor Rob: Looking 5ft 11.5 but measuring taller - I believe Clint can look smaller than he might actually measure.]
jervis said on 5/Feb/15
If Clint was not 6ft4 peak that means George Kennedy was not 6ft4 because both men wete the same hight in iger sanction and tunderbolt.As for Arnold he is a well knowen lift wearer and always stands with perfect posture.If you had a young Clint and a young Arnold standing beside each other bear foot both in perfect posture i think Clint would have about3inches on him,but we dont.If Clint was not6ft4 peak and only 6ft2.5 you will have to down grade lots of actors like Lee Marvin ,Rock Hudson ,George Kennedy ,Graeg Wallcot etc.
Pierre said on 4/Feb/15
Look at pictures of Clint Eastwood with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
James Edward Crowley Maximus Meridius said on 4/Feb/15
Rob Clint Eastwood could be 5ft 11.5in will downgrade he is current height at some point he will be 85 this year he could be 5ft 10in when he is 90 and 5ft 9in when he is 95 there is a chance he could lose even more height in a span between 5 years and 10 years.
qartt said on 4/Feb/15
Ron B. saying 'I am right does not win a debate', providing evidence and explaining does. Produce full length pictures of clint looking 6'2 in the 70s. You so far have just produced a list of people who you think lie about their height. The problem I have is when I look at photos of those people with other celebrities I end up having to downgrade everybody including people with photos with rob. Do we downgrade Rob to 5'6 1/2 ouch e.g. Rob with larry holmes, larry holmes with ali and ali with clint
Ron B. said on 4/Feb/15
M. Ali was never 6'3". He was 6'2". George Foreman was 6'2.5" to 6'3" and looked noticeably taller than Ali in their "rumble in the jungle".
jervis said on 3/Feb/15
I checked out that episode and yeah he looks the same height as Woody Strode. This indicates 6'4'' as you say but then as always unless you have seen someone in person it's hard to be certain about someone's height and even then how do you tell 6'4'' from 6'3'' or 6'5''.

All heights are barefeet Estimates, derived from quotations by celebrities, official websites, agency resumes, actors I've met at conventions and pictures/films.

Vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been taken from quotes in newspapers, books and resumes.

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