How tall is Clint Eastwood ?

Home :: About  Latest :: Comments :: Top 50 

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
Comment on the Height of Clint Eastwood

Rory said on 4/Oct/15
Any guess under 6'3 is a waste of everyone's time rly, the poster and myself as a reader.
Jim Hopper said on 3/Oct/15
6-2.75" peak. Now just a 5-11.75 or 6-0" just..
Matt said on 3/Oct/15
How bent does his upper body look in the photo next to Dwayne Johnson? straighten him out and you would see six foot four....his spine is incredibly curved so no wonder he is shorter now. Muhammed Ali is 6' 2 1/2" (he himself has said it, his boxing medical records show it & Clint had him by a good inch or so...even Ali himself made a comment about how much taller Clint was than him
James B said on 2/Oct/15
Danimal said on 2/Oct/15
How soon we forget that YOU James had Clint at 6'2" when you first came to this site, or did you forget that?

Opinions change over time. Rob originally thought brad Pitt was 6'0 in 2004.
Danimal said on 2/Oct/15
How soon we forget that YOU James had Clint at 6'2" when you first came to this site, or did you forget that?
Danimal said on 2/Oct/15
Arch Stanton said on 24/Sep/15
LOL Ali, he had two inches on Tim Matheson, and 3.5 on David Soul and Hal Holbrook

Hal was a legit 6'1". Btw, you can't honestly tell .5" difference in a movie. Come on now. You just said what you said, because you want Clint to be 6'4", so every other actor's height falls into your preconceived notion of what you want Clint to be. If Rob had Hal at 6'0 3/4", you would have said that Clint had 3 1/4" on him.
jervis said on 1/Oct/15
If Ali was 6ft1.5 that would make John Lennon,Paul McCartney and George Harrison around 5ft8,because Ali had about 5 or 6 inches on them.As for Ford and Clint.Clint is more of a film maker and has much more all round talent than Ford.Ford is just and actor.
James B said on 30/Sep/15
Ali- clint was a lot craggier and more wrinkled than Harrison ford
Sam said on 29/Sep/15
To each their own, Eastwood is may be a little bit more of a minimalist as an actor than Ford. I also enjoy Ford and his films and it's basically apples and oranges. I think Eastwood's talent as a director and a producer is what if anything really gives him an advantage over Harrison Ford. Also outside of the Jones and Star Wars franchises Ford's outstanding films are much sporadic (couple of expections like The Fugitive or Witness) than Eastwood's. Your preference may have to do with genre as well, pretty much one has to enjoy Westerns to enjoy Clint's filmography.
Rory said on 29/Sep/15
Ford may have rivalled Clint acting wise, but not looks wise in his heyday.
Ali said on 29/Sep/15
I have seen a lot of 6'4 guys in my life. I live in the Netherlands. Clint just wasn't that tall. He looks
taller than 6'2, but definitely shorter than 6'4. Take in account that he has a slender build which makes him look
taller, he is closer to 6'2 than he is to 6'4.

Muhammed Ali was about 6'1.5 and max a weak 6'2. Clint isn't even an inch taller than Ali. Look
at the youtube video of both. Type ''Eastwood Ali''. 6'2.5 for Clint IMHO, which I think is a fantastic

Nowadays he is about 5'11. He has lost 3-4 inches. That is quite a bit. Clint had the legs of a 6'5 guy and the upper body
of a sub 6 foot guy if you ask me. I still think he always had problems with his back and abdominal area.

And Harrison Ford having better looks than Clint is just hilarious.
James B said on 28/Sep/15
I hate to say this to die hard clint fans but in my opinion Harrison ford was better than clint Eastwood in terms of acting abilities, looks and just had better on screen prescense. Ford had much stronger facial features (no homo) and more charm which added to his presence in his movies.

Indiana jones in my opinion tops any clint Eastwood spaghetti western or Dirty Harry film.
184.3cm (Night) said on 28/Sep/15
Yes lets downgrade Muhammad Ali to 6'1 range just to fit a shorter Clint. The smallest Ali could have been was 6'2 flat and he was looking up at Clint.
Im not ruling out him being under 6'4 as he could have been like John Wayne, falling a fraction short of the mark..

Just don't see him being under 6'3.5" at peak, thats the minimum i think that you can argue.
James B said on 27/Sep/15
6'2 is too low
Henrik said on 27/Sep/15
But in High Plains Drifter, Clint was still at his peak height. I believe it was 192cm or a weak 6'4". He had lost a fraction by the '80s, if you ask me. Probably 189-190cm (so not a flat 6'2"). He also aged noticeably quick in his appearance between the Philo Beddo movies and SI/Tightrope.
jervis said on 27/Sep/15
Ali do you think that all the actors are an inch or more shorter than their listed heights?lf not who do you think are their actual listed heights?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Sep/15
6ft2 is a joke for Clint...
SJH said on 26/Sep/15
Physically look at his length of arm span and shoulder width look like 6'2-6-3 guy proportion. But I wouldn't say he was under 6'2.5 at peak. He could be proper 6'3 and listed 6'4 as standard American actor listing.
jtm said on 26/Sep/15
heston was 188cm.
Sam said on 25/Sep/15
It's hard for me to believe that people seem to dispute that you can have up to 3 to 4 inches of height loss, I thought it was in the realm of scientific fact. 190 cm seems improbably low for a peak for Clint...that would make him 6'2.75", I think a full inch downgrade would be necessary for almost all his co-stars from the 60s and 70s.
Ali said on 25/Sep/15
What I noticed was that Clint has a very slender body which makes him look taller.
Charlton Heston is not a full 6'2 IMHO. Looks more like 186cm. Clint has about 3cm or so on him.
Clint is about 189cm.

Clint Eastwood looking only slightly taller than 187cm Muhammed Ali. Interesting to see how slender
Eastwood looks compared to Ali. 190cm max for Eastwood.

Remember guys, 190cm in Hollywood is huge. Most male stars are like 5-8 to 5-10. Clint was 5-6 inches
taller than the average actor. Keep that in mind.
James B said on 25/Sep/15
In magnum force at times he could look very tall

In the film where he fell victim to the bunny boiler (play misty for me) he looked very tall throughout the entire movie
Rory said on 25/Sep/15
Charlie, i think you're onto something there..the big height conspiracy..yh Clint 5'8...and im thinking Peter Crouch 5"9.5(in shoes)....madness. Bet you're not 5'10 either Charlie, 5'5 tops i reckon, as you say we all lie.
jervis said on 25/Sep/15
I think Ali has his own idea about the heights of the other actors in Magnum Force.They were all an inch or so shorter than their listed heights.Am I right in thinking that Ali?He could be right,maybe?
S.J.H said on 24/Sep/15
He was either 190cm and 6'4 with shoe or he was really 6'4 at peak. I'm still quite confuse he does look flat 6'3 in Magnum force which i watch thrice. He shrink 4inch at 85 of age theres incredible much..
Arch Stanton said on 24/Sep/15
LOL Ali, he had two inches on Tim Matheson, and 3.5 on David Soul and Hal Holbrook. He might not have looked very tall to you but that's because it had a tall cast. 190cm is a shade under 6'3, not 188 or 189. 188 is pretty much 6'2 flat.
charlie said on 23/Sep/15
Hollywood tricks people when it comes to heights.people are comparing 6'5" Dwayne Johnson to Clint Eastwood at the awards. How do we know Dwayne is really 6 foot 5? common. He looks tall but so do I and I am 5 foot 10. I tower over most guys in Toronto.I believe Clitn has lost height he is 85 years of age now he will lost some height. If anything I would say Clint Eastwood is probably 5'8 inches and Dwayne is probably 6 feet tall. Dotn believe everything you read online. Same with Arnold Schwarzeneggar he was listed as 6'2" now 20 years older than I am and I am 5 foot 10 inches. But I saw a youtube video of Arnold disquising himself at a gym looking Mexican ha and he looked no joke 5 foot 6". the females were the same height as him and one customer was twice his height. People lie about their height all the time.Most men measure their height while they wear shoes and who knows maybe shoe lifts. Its a guy thing to be taller because it represents masculinity. The Taller than man the more masculine he is.
Rory said on 23/Sep/15
Odd that youd watch magnum force where he looks 6'4 when you compare him to all the other actors and their height listings such as David Soul,Felton Perry,Hal Holbrook,Tim Matheson and Robert Urich and youd come up with.....a weak 6'3 in that film ? Please explain.
jervis said on 23/Sep/15
If he was 188 - 189 that would make Charlton Heston 184-185 peak,because he had about an inch and a half on Heston in 1973.Heston was about 189-190 peak IMO and a lot of other people, so if Clint was 188-189 how come he was taller than Heston?
Ali said on 22/Sep/15
Just saw him in Magnum force. Didn't look very tall to me. I give him 6'3 max peak. 188-189cm
is still wat I think. A shade under 6'3.
jervis said on 16/Sep/15
There is a black and white photo of Russ and Clint standing beside each other on the set of sudden impact.Russ is taller but no more than an inch.If Russ was 6ft5 Clint was no way only 6ft2 compered to Russ in that photo,Clint looks if not the full 6ft4 very close to it.
jervis said on 16/Sep/15
Russ McCubbin sand besides beside Clint in high plains drifter and is about 1inch taller
177cmGuy said on 14/Sep/15
Don't know about these 6'2 claims but the lowest I think he would measure at peak height is 6'3.25-6'3.75. I do believe he could have Been a guy just fraction shy of 6'4 just like John Wayne.
Henrik said on 13/Sep/15
6'2" at the time of Sudden Impact, I think. Russ McCubbin (Kruger's brother-in-law and Mick's henchman) was 6'5" and seemed to edge him noticeably. Don't think Clint could have whopped him in real life as in the movie.
jervis said on 11/Sep/15
If Heston was 6ft2.5 peak,then Clint was 6ft4 if you go by the 1973 oscars clip.
James B said on 9/Sep/15
Saying a 186-187cm guy is a tall guy and then describing a 6'3.5-6'4 guy like eastwood as "quite tall" does not make sense.

6'1-6'2 guy is tall and above average but it certainly is not very tall.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Sep/15
In Wreck of the Mary Deare Heston was barely shorter than strong 6'3 Gary Cooper, about 2 cm and a smidge shorter than Gregory Peck in The Big Country.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Sep/15
In some films you could argue 190cm for Charlton Heston. Arguing that for Clint is really not arguable. The worst you could argue peak for Eastwood is 192 I think.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Sep/15
@Ali Watch Touch of Evil, in some scenes Heston could look a comfortable two inches taller than Welles, 1.5 at worst. Welles could generally look in 6'0.5-6'1 range. And Eastwood had about 1.5 inches on Heston.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Sep/15
More chance of Charlton Heston being 6 ft 3 peak than 186! If Heston was 186 Orson Welles was little more than 180 cm in Touch of Evil! Charlton Heston I think is one of the best examples of a solid 6 ft 2 guy you can get.
Ali said on 7/Sep/15
I hadn't seen the '73 Oscars. Clint does appear quite tall. Charlton Heston definitely was a tall guy. I don't think he was a full 6'2, more like 186,187cm. Clint appears to be an inch and a half or so taller. This gives a good case for a strong 6'3 height for Clint. 192cm is just too much for him I think and 188cm is too short. 190cm.

Next question is how did Eastwood lose so much height? He's lost about 3,5 to 4 inches. I mean he is famous and has lots of money. There is practically no info on this matter.
ednerd said on 7/Sep/15
my sister and her husband saw him in SF about 15- 20 years ago. I asked how tall was he. and she said the same as her husband. Her husband is 6'3".
Arch Stanton said on 6/Sep/15
If Clint was 6'2" range Ali, Jeff Bridges was struggling with 6 ft flat! A classic 6'2" range guy would be somebody like John Payne or Charlton Heston. Eastwood was clearly taller than Heston at the 73' Oscars.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Sep/15
@Jervis Yes that's what I mean, the full 6'4" did check out with most actors in 50s-70s period. Strode always looked a proper 6'4 guy. I do think he got measured at it earlier in the day at one point. I don't think his lowest would be closer to 6'3" though, the lowest I could possibly see him dropping to is 6'3.5. Out of bed I think he'd have cleared 6'4".
jervis said on 6/Sep/15
But in paint your wagon looks a strong 6ft4 with Marvin even if he was 6ft1.5.So if he was only 6ft2.5,that would make Marvin 6ft flat.
184.3cm (Night) said on 6/Sep/15
People who claim he is 6'2.5" peak can you explain why Muhammad Ali was shocked at how tall he was then? Ali was a legit 188-189cm guy so im curious.
jervis said on 5/Sep/15
Taller than 6ft2 shorter than 6ft4,so 6ft3 is about right.
Morning height 6ft4 by night 6ft3.
jervis said on 4/Sep/15
6ft4 in the morning,by the evening closer to 6ft3.Weak 6ft4 peak.
jervis said on 4/Sep/15
Just watched hin with Woody Strode again in awhide.Both men looked the same height.Strode is listed at 6ft4.Clint looked 6ft4 comperd to other actors heights in rawhide .Maybe they were all
Ali said on 3/Sep/15
Hey guys. Check this out. Clint Eastwood is 85 years old! He is an old man!

Clint is like 5'11 nowadays. 6'2.5 peak. 189cm in hollywood is very tall and perhaps in the past even more so. Definitely lost quite a bit of height.
His back looks very weak and of course he is old. Clint is somebody who has very obviously become shorter. His whole abdominal area has collapsed. Even when I look at his younger pictures, it seems his abdominal area looks weaker, slightly compressed.

Hollywood heights are always exaggerated. Clint was tall, but never had the body of a 6'4 guy. He has the classic look of a 6'2 guy, just a bit taller.

I'd take 6'2.5 over 6'4 any day. 6'4 is too tall.

By the way, Clint looks to me as a person who definitely needs hormone replacement.
movieguy said on 3/Sep/15
I think he was probably just under 6'4''. Pondered a lot on this one but he just doesn't look quite as big as genuine 6'4'' guys. There is a photo of Clint with 6'4'' John Gavin and Clint looks shorter. Has lost a heck of a lot of height with age though although I guess most famous people his age have long since retired from the spotlight so hard to compare with others.
James B said on 2/Sep/15
Rory said on 2/Sep/15
Some people just dnt get that men lose height when they get older.

jervis said on 2/Sep/15
Yes Skarsgard and Goldblum do look taller on screen than Clint did.Clint was more like Donald Sutherlands height when young.If you look at the body snachers movie you can see that Goldblum has a least 1inch in height over Sutherland.IMO he would have the same over a young Clint.If Clint was any less than 6ft3 peak it would mean a lot of downgrades from Lee Marvin to George kennedy Greg Walcoot,Rock Hudson,and many more,all downgradeing by around 1.5inches.I can belive that there was a little bit of exaggerating of peoples heights in the old days,but now it is more difficult to get away with it.
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 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 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' 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 say in his 60s westerns prime out of bed 6'4.25, last thing at night 6' 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"

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 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
@ 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 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.

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.