How tall is Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood's Height

6ft 0in (183 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 3.75in (192 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'.

How tall is Clint Eastwood
60's Publicity Photo, via Wikimedia Commons

You May Be Interested

Scott Eastwood
Height of Scott Eastwood
5ft 10.75in (180 cm)
Gene Hackman
Height of Gene Hackman
6ft 2in (188 cm)
John Wayne
Height of John Wayne
6ft 3.75in (192 cm)
Lee Van Cleef
Height of Lee Van Cleef
6ft 2in (188 cm)

Add a Comment 250 comments




Freeper said on 30/May/16
My uncle is turning 78 this summer and he hasn't lost anything. Still 5-8
Crypto139 said on 28/May/16
You know my grandpa just visited me recently for an occasion and he saw my grand who he hasn't seen in over 30 years. They divorced by the way. Anyway I ask him how tall she was when she was younger and he said she was the same height. Also my mom says my grandma was a bit taller. Now she is about 166 cm at best late. My grandpa is about 173 cm standing at his best. My grandma claimed 175 when she was younger and my grandpa claimed 178 cm. Kind of strange huh? So Rob can you believe that? Both are just under 80 years old.
Editor Rob: some can lose different amounts...if you are a women, nearly 80 and 2-3 inches lost is very common. If you make it to that age with 1 inch you've done remarkably well based against the average. For a man, 1 inch lost by then is also excellent...if somebody offered me 80 and 5ft 7 I'd bite their hand off!
jervis said on 26/May/16
Peak height 6ft3 to 6ft4.6ft4 morning height, by night closer to 6ft3.
175 cm said on 25/May/16
Arch Stanton
Yes Eyes and Nose do remind me on Clint but the chin is too massive...
Brad said on 24/May/16
Close to 6 feet 6 in boots easy.
Arch Stanton said on 24/May/16
Look out of the corner of your eye Click Here , Nutter could pass for Clint I think, virtually the same proportions and look.
Arch Stanton said on 24/May/16
Watch him in films like Play Misty for Me, The Gauntlet and Magnum Force. I think it's pretty obvious he was near 6'4. Always looked inches taller than 6'1-6'2 guys. His legs and frame are typical of a 6'4 guy, just too lanky for just 6'2-6'3. If you watch Thunderball Rik Van Nutter had an almost identical build, he was 6'4. Him next to Connery in that film is exactly how Clint would have looked to a guy that height in his prime.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 24/May/16
James B said on 18/May/16
am I right in think clint walked walked around at 6'5.75 in coogans bluff since he had on 2 inch Cowboys?

Yeah I'd say he was easily closing in on 6ft6 in boots. Add the hat and probably clearing 6ft6...
jervis said on 23/May/16
Rob,what is your opinion of the Hudson Clint photo?
Brad said on 23/May/16
6-4 prime. I was just under 6' 8" in cowboy boots so he looks like a building in them with Sergio's camera angles on top of his prime height.
jervis said on 20/May/16
More like 6ft5 in boots in Coogans Bluff.The scene where he is in just socks with Susan Clarke,who's 5ft9 he looks max 6ft 3 in comparison.
Rory said on 19/May/16
6'3 peak is too low, 6'3.5 is possible, but just 6'3 seems unlikely...he looked 6'3 to me in the 80s, but by then he was in his fifties and especially someone like him would have lost height. 6'3.75 peak is accurate.
James B said on 18/May/16
am I right in think clint walked walked around at 6'5.75 in coogans bluff since he had on 2 inch Cowboys?
jervis said on 18/May/16
There is another photo taken at the same time as that one,were their stance is slightly different on borsari images.And IMO Hudson is at least 1.5 inches taller but I still think 2.Clint was maybe 6ft 3.5 peak,but I still feel more comfortable with 6ft 3 peak height
jervis said on 17/May/16
I can see more than an inch,Hudson is also a but hunched.Standing with the same posture as Clint I can see a clear 2 inch difference in Hudsons favour.
movieguy said on 17/May/16
An inch to inch and a half for Hudson over Eastwood in that photo. 6'5'' Hudson, Eastwood round about 6'4'' maybe just under.
Sam said on 17/May/16
jervis, are you talking about this shot? Click Here
I have a hard time seeing 2 inches between them there, you could say a strong inch advantage for Hudson though.
Arch Stanton said on 17/May/16
Out of bed, yeah something like 6'4.5. Looked between 3 and 4 inches taller than Soul.
jervis said on 17/May/16
6ft2.75 is the max in that movie James B.Sometimes looked no more than 6ft2.Did you check out that photo with Rock Hudson?,just google Susan Anton Clint Eastwood images it shows that Hudson is about 2 inches taller.There are more of thease photos on Bursaries images.There is also a photo of Susan Anton with David Soul that's entreating.
James B said on 16/May/16
Arch Stanton said on 13/May/16
I think he'd have measured 6 ft 4 in the morning peak. Near enough 6'4 to claim it, probably just under overall is the best shout. Down to 6'3 by late 80s.


Out of bed clint would have been 6'4.75 and by lunchtime down to a flat 6'4.

He made David soul look under 6'0.5 didn't he arch?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/May/16
6ft3-6ft3 at worst peak if not 6ft4. He was head and shoulders above almost everyone in Dirty Harry. A 6ft2 guy can't pull that off.
James B said on 14/May/16
Anyone else agree in line of fire clint was probably no taller than 6'2.75?
jervis said on 14/May/16
If you google Susan Anton Clint Eastwood,go into images,there is a photo of Clint and Rock Hudson there.If Hudson was 6ft5 Clint looks about 6ft3 beside him.
jervis said on 13/May/16
Gene Hackman was about the same height as Sean Connery in Bridge to Far.The lowest peak height I've heard for Connery is 6ft1.5.Clint had about 2 inches on Hackman.So if Clint was 6ft2 peak that would make Connery about 6ft flat peak and Hackman the same.Also if Clint was 6ft2 peak that would make Forest Whitaker 6ft flat because Clint had about 2inches on him.IMO Hackman was more 6ft1 peak,Whitaker 6ft1,Connery 6ft1.5.Making Clint 6ft3 not 6ft2.By the way if my memory serves me well,I'm sure Connery said he was 6ft1.5,back in 1985 on the Wogan show.
Arch Stanton said on 13/May/16
I think he'd have measured 6 ft 4 in the morning peak. Near enough 6'4 to claim it, probably just under overall is the best shout. Down to 6'3 by late 80s.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 13/May/16
No this guy cleared 6ft3 comfortably and may very well have been 6ft4 on a good day in his prime
jervis said on 12/May/16
He was taller than ,Hackman who is listed as 6ft2 peak,by about 2 inches,taller than Lee Marvin by at least 2 inches but could look taller than that,Marvin is listed as 6ft1.5.Taller than Charlton Heston whos listed as 6ft2.5,by about 1.5 inches.6ft3 min
James B said on 11/May/16
Arch- timberlake is a robin thick clone.
Charlie said on 11/May/16
"Parker" Its not about age, its about looks, he is not that "oldold guy" yet...
bobbyh3342 said on 11/May/16
nah clint was a strong 6 2 in his prime and may have claimed 6'4 but never was, think ben Affleck
jervis said on 10/May/16
Yes Baron Choan thats the man who Clint would have been the same height as at his peak.
Arch Stanton said on 9/May/16
James, even Justin Timberlake is starting to look like Clint haha Click Here
I never used to get why people thought JT was good looking but he looks way better these days.
jervis said on 9/May/16
Rob,what is your opinion on Clint being 6ft4 morning height at his peak?.He could have been measured in the army at this height and didn't realize you shrink Durning the day,so when he was asked his height he just said 6ft4.It would explain his height loss and it wouldn't seem so extreme.
James B said on 7/May/16
Anonymous1 said on 5/May/16
Saw Dirty harry again, last night, and I still say 6'3-ish (which can mean 6'4 out of bed). Regarding another poster's comment about him playing unlikable characters, it's the voice he uses in recent movies which irritates me. He's obviously doing it to create a character, but I can't stand it and that's not how he talks in real life. He did it in Heartbreak Ridge, but reverted back to his normal voice for a while after. I keep wanting him to clear his throat.



Yeah I noticed the change in voice too
jervis said on 6/May/16
I agree 6ft3,morning height 6ft4.Maybe he was measured 6ft4 in the morning and just went with that.
Will said on 5/May/16
How is it possible to shrink 9 cm!?!
Anonymous1 said on 5/May/16
Saw Dirty harry again, last night, and I still say 6'3-ish (which can mean 6'4 out of bed). Regarding another poster's comment about him playing unlikable characters, it's the voice he uses in recent movies which irritates me. He's obviously doing it to create a character, but I can't stand it and that's not how he talks in real life. He did it in Heartbreak Ridge, but reverted back to his normal voice for a while after. I keep wanting him to clear his throat.
jervis said on 4/May/16
I have no problem with Borsari images on my PC,it's a Pitt because there at some good pictures of Clint and other Celebs on it,Clint with Rock Hudson,Hudson clearly taller.
movieguy said on 3/May/16
Was going to check the Borsari images but there was a warning on google search that the site could be hacked. I'd advise caution until this gets sorted out.
James B said on 2/May/16
Clint looked on the slim side up until the late 1980s when he seemed to bulk up more (see him in deadpool and pink Cadillac). But he only seemed to maintain that bulky look for a brief time since in line of fire he looked quite frail.

I dunno why but in a lot of his movies for example line of fire and blood work (to name a few) maybe it's my interpretation but he seems to play characters that people dislike.
jervis said on 2/May/16
Google borsari images serch for clint eastwood there are a lot of thumbnail size pictures.There is a few of Clint with 6ft2.5 Sidney Poitire,zoom in and you will see at the time of that photo Clint was the taller man.
jervis said on 2/May/16
Because Clint has lost so much height it is hard to see him ever been even close to 6ft4 in his life,but just look at him next to Lee Marvin,Forest whitaker,Charlton Heston,Gean Hackman etc and you will see how tall he was.Strong 6ft3 min IMO.
jervis said on 1/May/16
There is one on Borsari images in the thumbnail images with Clint and Sidney Poitier in witch Clint is taller,just zoom in and you can see clearer.
James B said on 30/Apr/16
Rob am I the only one who finds it hard to believe that a peak clint would be slightly taller than Sacha baron Cohen?
Editor Rob: I'm sure some probably think of them as similar range
James B said on 30/Apr/16
I doubt neeson was a full 6'4.5 but 6'4.25 like Jeff goldblum maybe?
jervis said on 29/Apr/16
That's a very good example of Clints height loss Danimal 176 178.If you want to see more google Borsari images
jervis said on 29/Apr/16
Rob,did you have a look at Borsari images?There are a lot of good photos,there is one of Clint with Rock Hudson that's very good.
Editor Rob: yes I have looked at his site, it has a good archive of images, a shame some are in a kind of thumbnail/proof style.
jervis said on 28/Apr/16
Neeson said he was a bit over 6ft4,Clint was about 6ft3 at the time of the dead pool,there is a photo of him with Chevy Chase taking at around the same time and Chase is a bit taller than Clint.IMO Clint was 6ft3.5 peak and Neeson 6ft4.5.
Danimal176-178 said on 28/Apr/16
Clint and Forest Whitaker in 1988: Click Here & Click Here
Clint and Forest in a recent pic: Click Here

Clint and Morgan Freeman in 1988: Click Here
Clint and Morgan in a recent pic: Click Here & Click Here

And 1988 was already a shrunken Clint who many believe was already down to 6'3".
Danimal176-178 said on 28/Apr/16
Rob, how do you have him at 6'0" today when Bradley Cooper is clearly taller than Clint today? He's MAX 5'11".
Editor Rob: I do have cooper at 184 range, but clint looking 5ft 11 and measuring it is another matter...it can be harder with elderly gentleman to know if they can still stretch up a bit more for measuring. Sometimes the curvature means they can't.
James B said on 27/Apr/16
If neeson was not over 6'4 peak then I'd say clint at times in deadpool looked 6'2.5 range.
jervis said on 23/Apr/16
There are lots of photos on Peter Borsari website,of Clint,Arnold,Heston,Peck,etc,if anyone is interested just google Peter Borsari
jervis said on 21/Apr/16
If you google Peter Brosari,search Clint Eastwood,under 037 ON there is a picture of Clint with Sidney Poitier where Clint is taller,as competed with the more recent ones that Poitier is taller,there are also lots of pictures of Clint with Forest Whitaker that show Clint was at least 2 inches taller.
mat989 said on 19/Apr/16
I met him about a year and a half ago. I'm 6'2" and seemed to be 5'11" - 6'0."
jervis said on 18/Apr/16
lee Marvin looks about 3 inches shorter than Clint
jervis said on 18/Apr/16
I have hit the jackpot Peter Borsari if you want to see hundreds of Clint photos.
jervis said on 17/Apr/16
If you google Peter Borsari you can go to Clint Eastwood photos there are lots of photos by peter Bursaries.
jervis said on 15/Apr/16
I ment 6ft3
jervis said on 15/Apr/16
The photos with his son Kyle are from 93,and Clint looks the taller of the two,Kyle would have been 25 at the time,so I think you can rule out Kyle ever being 6ft4.The ones with Chase were from 89,Clint aged 59 Chase 46,Chase looks to have the edge over Clint.The Hudson one looks like it is at the same time of the one were there at the birthday party with Lee Marvin,John Wayne etc.Hudson looks taller than Clint by around 1.5 or 2 inches.Clint looks a strong 6from to me in those photos.
jervis said on 14/Apr/16
That's Brosire images.
jervis said on 14/Apr/16
Chevy chase seems to have the edge on Clint and there is also some good height comparisons between Clint and Mel Gibson. Google Brosier images Clint Eastwood,I have never seen these images before.
jervis said on 13/Apr/16
Google borsire images Clint Eastwood there are lots of photos of Clint with other stars never seen them before.One with Rock Hudson,Hudson is taller by about 2 inches
James B said on 13/Apr/16
Brad said on 13/Apr/16
@Rampage Jackman does resemble Eastwood. Ive commented on that before

Well so does beckham
Brad said on 13/Apr/16
@Rampage Jackman does resemble Eastwood. Ive commented on that before
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Apr/16
6ft3 flat is too low his peak.
Rory said on 4/Apr/16
Id say Clint up until '75 was 6'3.75...in the late 70s-6'3.5..early 80s-6'3.25...late 80s-6'2.75/6'3...early 90s- 6'2.5...late 90s- 6'2...early- '00s 6'1.5.. late '00s- 6'1...early '10s- 6'0.5...2016- 6'0. Hes lost height at a rapid rate over the last 30 yrs, losing perhaps an inch per decade.
James B said on 3/Apr/16
The rookie came out in 1990 rob.
5'11 Guy said on 30/Mar/16
What do you think how tall he was in 1980's,Rob??
Editor Rob: well if you go back to maybe some stuff like a couple of those Dirty Harry movies, he definitely looked a good inch or so less than Neeson, but then in the Rookie in early 90's still could look 6ft 3
James B said on 23/Mar/16
Rampage- I don't think he looks that similar to jackman at 5;23

My uncle actually looks much more similar to jackman except for his colouring (blue eyes and light hair)

We have Australian relatives apparently in my family so maybe Hugh is a relation? Lol
Rory said on 21/Mar/16
I think 6'3.5 is arguable, but i think 6'3.75 is nearer..dont forget Clint was a guy who stood with pretty labored posture and even so he looked like hed clear 6'3. Stood tall for a measurement and near 6'4.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Mar/16
Hmmm...when he had the 5 o'clock shadow I could see a little bit of a resemblance to Beckham. But other times uncannily like Jackman.

Click Here pause at 5:23, swear to God it looks like Jackman went back in time
James B said on 19/Mar/16
Rob is just 6'3.5 a possibility for clints peak?
Editor Rob: that mark you might argue, but I'm not sure I'd try to argue say just 6ft 3 for him.
James B said on 18/Mar/16
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 16/Mar/16
No Hugh Jackman resembles Clint the closest. Height-wise I think he could it pull off with bigger boots. Beckham doesn't look anything like Clint lol.


You cleary haven't looked at the Clint Eastwood 60s publicity photo on this height page have you? The squint, stubble and even hairstyle is uncanny To Beckham,
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 16/Mar/16
No Hugh Jackman resembles Clint the closest. Height-wise I think he could it pull off with bigger boots. Beckham doesn't look anything like Clint lol.
jervis said on 15/Mar/16
He looked 6ft1 beside 5ft11..5 Chris Waken.
Rory said on 14/Mar/16
I dnt get why people struggle to believe hes lost 3-4 inches..its not common but it is possible and would probably happen to one in three or four 80 something men. Some on here though talk about as if its biologically impossible which i dnt understand..id love to know what Clint could measure today though with strong posture. He stands at around 182 today, but itd be interesting to see what hed stretch to, could be as low as 6ft but equally it wouldn't be a massive surprise if he rose up to 6'1.
Parker said on 14/Mar/16
@Gary. He's 86 in May. What do you call an old old guy?
jervis said on 14/Mar/16
Gary what is old old after all he will be 86 in may?He could have been 6ft3 in his youth and now looks 6ft because of old man posture.
Gary said on 13/Mar/16
I doubt he lost that much inches, I think he's peak was 6ft3 and today he can't be lower than 6ft 1. So he is about 6ft1 now and only lost about 2 inches in height. He's an old guy, but not an old old guy.
Andrea said on 9/Mar/16
Rob, do you really think a young Clint would have been at least as tall as the 6'3.5 guy from the HC?
Editor Rob: yes I do think he would have been.
James B said on 5/Mar/16
David Beckham would be a better choice to play Eastwood because he looks more like him facially than Hugh Jackman but it would never work because of David's acting ability lol
mjkzero said on 2/Mar/16
damn how has he lost nearly 4 inches?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Mar/16
Jackman could pull off the part. In the movie Australia he reminded me of Clint a lot facially.
James B said on 29/Feb/16
When eastwood dies Hugh Jackman could play clint in a film about his life
5'11 Guy said on 28/Feb/16
He lost 4 inches?'That seems too much..
Anonymous1 said on 18/Feb/16
My neighbor just turned 85, today. A couple months ago, he told me his doc said he'd lost an inch of height since his 20's. The guy is in phenomenal shape, but has had horrible posture since I met him, 39 years ago. I'm surprised he hasn't lost more height. Just food for thought. He's Eastwood's age, and though started out at 5'11, lost only an inch.
jervis said on 18/Feb/16
Had about 2 inches on Slim Pickins in Rawhide.
jervis said on 18/Feb/16
Copper is 6ft1ish Pitt is 5ft11 Clint is around 6ft even in bad posture,he is always in bad posture.Dont know what height he would be standing straight because he never does.
Johno said on 16/Feb/16
Bradley Cooper has over a bit over an inch on him and Cooper looks 6'0 himself.

He is also a bit over an inch taller then Brad Pitt thus he is between Cooper's and Pitt's height.

No doubt he was a very tall man when he was younger but he has lost alot of height and at his current age looks barely 5'11.

5'11/weak 5'11 at 85 years old
Rory said on 15/Feb/16
At his height he may have shrunk a full inch from out of bed..id say 194.5 out of bed and 192 flat lowest.
jervrs said on 14/Feb/16
posterior pelvic tilt,thats the term for Clints posture.You can lose up to 2 inches of your height standing in this posture.
Peterson188cm said on 11/Feb/16
Rob, There is a possibility of achieving a mark of (194cm 195cm) in the morning when he was young?
Editor Rob: I think 195cm is quite possible
jervis said on 11/Feb/16
Looked similar to Jim Davis in an episode of rawhide ive just watched,and Davis is listed at 1.89.Sometimes I think that all the big stars of that time and befor,all exaggerated their height.I have also seen Davis listed at 6ft3 too,but he is listed at 1.87 too.By the way for those who dont know Davis was Jock Ewing on Dallas.If Clint turned out to be say 1.90 or 1.91 I would not be shocked.
184.3cm (Night) said on 11/Feb/16
movieguy said on 28/Jan/16
I doubt if Clint has scoliosis or curvature of the spine. This develops during adolescence. He has lost height through ageing, going from 6'4'' or thereabouts to roughly 6ft today. Looks much better than most people his age though.

He almost had a hunchback at one point. His spine is curved and yet he still appears to be over the 6 foot mark.
James B said on 7/Feb/16
Watched play misty for me earlier and clint looked really towering in that film.
Rory said on 4/Feb/16
@kurtz...you missed out a "9" because yes he was a weak 6'3 in 1990, about an inch below his peak.
sebs said on 4/Feb/16
jervis, a rapid rate? the man is 85 and is still tall...
jervrs said on 4/Feb/16
The lowest I would go is a strong 6ft3 191cm,he was a clear 2inches taller than Lee Marvin in 1969,Marvin was only 6 years older than Clint.The lowest i would go for Marvin is 6ft1,making Clint 6ft3 min.
kurtz said on 3/Feb/16
weak 6' 3'' -190 cm. his peak- best, no way above

today 6' 0'' or so
jervis said on 1/Feb/16
Similar to Tom Hanks height now,there are some pics of them together.They are making a movie called Sully,he seems to be shrinking at a rapid rate.
jervrs said on 30/Jan/16
Alex Clint is 85 not 70, when he was 70 he was still near 6ft2 with a height loss from peak of about 2 inches,which is around 5 cm.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/Jan/16
192cm minimum peak...
Alex said on 28/Jan/16
9 cm? How can be possible? There are a lot of people of 70 years old and they have lost much less than this. Most probably Clint never was 192 but something lower.
jervis said on 28/Jan/16
I think Clint was selfconscious about his height in his youth so he tried to hide it by slouching.You must remember in the 1940s and 50s Clints height wss very tall.Also a young actor at the time as tall as Clint may have put some people hiring him,a lot of the big stars of the time would not like some taller than them in a movie.Look at him next to Rock Hudson in a early bit part,he was similar to him in height.
movieguy said on 28/Jan/16
I doubt if Clint has scoliosis or curvature of the spine. This develops during adolescence. He has lost height through ageing, going from 6'4'' or thereabouts to roughly 6ft today. Looks much better than most people his age though.
184.3cm (Night) said on 26/Jan/16
He has scoliosis it has nothing to do with age. Bloody hell.
James B said on 24/Jan/16
Jervis- tall people shrink more with age
Scotty Bo said on 23/Jan/16
Jervis has got it spot on about poor posture (Jan 19); Clint always had a lazy posture & his spine has now set in that curved way so 3-4 inches loss is easily explained
BwanaSimba said on 21/Jan/16
In the youtube video with Ali, both looks the same height to my eyes. People misundertood that because around 1,5 inch in Clint apparent height is only hair and he is near the camera, making him look taller. In the sequence the camera is far away and then you can clearly see both are the same height or maybe clint have maximum half a inch on Ali. So Clint must have been at peak 1,91 / 1,92m or 6 3 6 3,5ft.
jervis said on 20/Jan/16
Kirk Douglas will be 100 years old this December and he has lost at least 4 inches propably more.
jervis said on 19/Jan/16
Just watch rawhide if you doubt Clint was at least 6ft3 peak.You will see how tall the young Clint looked with the guest stars on the show.You will also notice Clints lazy posture even at a young age he did not stand to his full height.When he did which was not very often he looked an easy 6ft4.Now because of his bad p osture in his youth I belive it has caused his massive height loss.Look at Liam Neeson he has droped at least half an inch from peak at 63 ,and will drop more buy Clints age,because of bad posture.Even Jeff Goldblum looks the same or a bit less than liam hemsworth who is 6ft3.Jeff Goldblum a strong 6ft4.5 peak,so its not just Clint that shrinks with ag,we all do.
jervis said on 19/Jan/16
Look at the lenght of Clints legs compared to Sheens.Clint is leaning slightly to the left if he was more upright he would gain about an inch.
James B said on 19/Jan/16
10 years ago on this site he was listed at 6'1 (current height). In that time span he has lost near 1.5 inches so in 10 years if (if he's still alive) aged 95 he will probably be no more than 5'10. If he makes it to his 100s he will probably be 5'9 but i don't think he will be around for that long.

You never know this guy is still making films so he could live longer than we think.
jervrs said on 18/Jan/16
Type your comment here... Clint wasj probley measured in the morning at 6ft4 but by evening was nearer 6ft3 at the end of the day. Also very bad posture made him look a bit shorter
Anonymous1 said on 17/Jan/16
...whatever Sheen's height in 1990, Eastwood has 5 inches on him, as he could see over the top of his head.
Mat said on 17/Jan/16
Rob are you serious? 9 cm? That's absurd!
julian said on 16/Jan/16
come on, clint was 193 cm.He musn't be downgraded.
James B said on 16/Jan/16
Sheen is 5'9

Looks for sure 6'3 next to him
jack said on 15/Jan/16
eastwood in 1990 aged 60 with 5'10 sheen

Click Here
James B said on 14/Jan/16
jervis said on 13/Jan/16
Yes James B he was around 6ft3 in 90 aged 60,I think by the time of in the line of fire he was around 6ft2.5.At the time of Space cowboys he was around 6ft1.5 maybe 6ft2,but in that movie he did not seem much taller than 6ft Tommy lee Jones.From his early seventies on to 80 he looked in the 6ft1 range,now he bearly looks 6ft.If he makes it to 90 I would say he will be 5ft10.5.

He could make it to 100........
Peterson said on 13/Jan/16
Today: 6ft 0.5in (184 cm)

Peak height was 6ft 4 (193 cm)
jervis said on 13/Jan/16
Yes James B he was around 6ft3 in 90 aged 60,I think by the time of in the line of fire he was around 6ft2.5.At the time of Space cowboys he was around 6ft1.5 maybe 6ft2,but in that movie he did not seem much taller than 6ft Tommy lee Jones.From his early seventies on to 80 he looked in the 6ft1 range,now he bearly looks 6ft.If he makes it to 90 I would say he will be 5ft10.5.
James B said on 13/Jan/16
Jervis- Eastwood was 6 3, even in 1990. Just look at him compared to Arnold Schwarzenegger back then
jervis said on 12/Jan/16
In Dead Pool Neeson was a strong 6ft4 Clint at peak was a weak 6ft4,and by the time of Dead Pool Clint droped a bit of height and was around 6ft2.5 or max 6ft3.
James B said on 10/Jan/16
Michael was 6'3 not 4 and neeson had at least 1 inch on Clint in deadpool
charlie said on 9/Jan/16
Clint Eastwood in his days stood aroudn 5 foot 10 inches. with cowboy boots easy 6 foot 4 inches.Most males are between 5 foot 7 and 5 foot 8 nd seeing his movie Joe Kidd he was very close in height with his male costars
Scotty Bo said on 9/Jan/16
Pale Rider is on in the UK at the moment. looks same height as 6'4 Michael Moriarty in every scene. We also had Dead Pool on the other day and in the cold store warehouse scene when he stood up straight (for once!) he was same as Neeson. These days his spine is so badly bent to the side & forwards lower down so no wonder he's lost -4 inches. Can't see what the big mystery is; he's always had poor posture and now he's old, his spine is permanently bent out of shape six ways to sunday!
James B said on 7/Jan/16
Arch Stanton said on 6/Jan/16
Nah, Eastwood was always rugged looking, even without makeup. Not leading romantic man material.


You saying Eastwood was not good looking (no homo).
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/Jan/16
Yeah James, Neeson looked 6ft4 beside Eastwood.
Tunman said on 6/Jan/16
Perfect listing.I always though he was a weak 6'4.In fact 192-3 was arguable but certainly he was not looking over 6'4.BTW that also coincides with Volonte at 6'0 since he seemed near 4" taller.Is it me or his legs looked quite long in his heydays?
Arch Stanton said on 6/Jan/16
Nah, Eastwood was always rugged looking, even without makeup. Not leading romantic man material.
James B said on 5/Jan/16
Saw deadpool last night and neeson looked to have over 1 inch on clint
James B said on 4/Jan/16
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jan/16
Harrison Ford looks unusually good and fit for 73. Eastwood was always a wrinkly looking guy, Ford was always smooth faced/cleanup type.


My dad commented when watching magnum force that Eastwood was a lot cragier than david beckham. And beckham himself is a guy who is really wrinkly even at only 40
movieguy said on 4/Jan/16
I wouldn't say the young Clint was anything other than clean cut handsome. He wasn't wrinkly looking. For the Leone films I think they applied make up to make him look older and more weather beaten than he was. They also padded him up to add bulk as he was lean and rangy when young. I suppose all things said and done he looks pretty good for his age and he's still making great movies.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jan/16
Harrison Ford looks unusually good and fit for 73. Eastwood was always a wrinkly looking guy, Ford was always smooth faced/cleanup type.
jervis said on 2/Jan/16
6ft2 max aged 70 with 60 year old James Cromwell who was about 6ft6 at the time of Space Cowboys.
jervis said on 2/Jan/16
Ford looks in the 5ft10.5 range to me now.He has lost at least 2 inches off his peak .At 85 I would put him at 5ft9,thats about the same amount of height loss as Clint.
jervis said on 2/Jan/16
You must remember ford is 12 years younger than Clint.We will see what Ford looks like at 85 if he lives that long.
jervis said on 1/Jan/16
Even if he wad 6ft3 peak,3 inches is a lot of height too lose,so why not 4.
James B said on 1/Jan/16
Arch Stanton said on 30/Dec/15
Considering how extremely fortunate he's been in life with height, looks, wealth and status, I'm sure the height loss doesn't bother him too much. If I know Clint I think he'd be more upset about ageing/losing his looks than height. He was interviewed by Ellen one time and said she needed her eyes tested when she said he looked good, so he clearly doesn't think much of his appearance now!

I think you could argue 5'11.5 now, but he might scrape 6' if stood his best.


I think Harrison ford aged better than eastwood
movieguy said on 31/Dec/15
This is one of the guy's I'm most perplexed about. 6'5'' Tim Robbins dwarfed him at the time of Mystic River. Robbins looked several inches taller at this point. Yet I can't deny that the young Clint looked tall. As someone pointed out he looked identical in height to 6'4'' Woody Strode in a Rawhide episode. Today I can't see more than 6ft tops.
jervis said on 30/Dec/15
You mean 186.5 peak or now or peak?If you mean peak he must have been wearing lifts or everyone in Hollywood at the time were 2inches under their listed heights.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Dec/15
Considering how extremely fortunate he's been in life with height, looks, wealth and status, I'm sure the height loss doesn't bother him too much. If I know Clint I think he'd be more upset about ageing/losing his looks than height. He was interviewed by Ellen one time and said she needed her eyes tested when she said he looked good, so he clearly doesn't think much of his appearance now!

I think you could argue 5'11.5 now, but he might scrape 6' if stood his best.
jervis said on 29/Dec/15
Poor Clint so much height lost its not fair.
Kian Height said on 29/Dec/15
He is around 186.6 cm. The measured him in the television show rawhide in the 1950's and now he is 85 so he must've shrunk
James B said on 25/Dec/15
rob Google clint and Michael buble

He looks 6ft tops compared to him
Editor Rob: he can look a bit under with Buble yeah.
jervis said on 25/Dec/15
If the Rock is 6ft2.5,Clint is only 5f11 max IMO.
Big C said on 22/Dec/15
@jervrs The Rock was never 6'3, more like 6'2.5, today he really doesn't look over 6'2, Clint I think is just under 6'0.
Big C said on 21/Dec/15
6ft 3.75 at his peak and 5ft 11.75 today I think.
jervrs said on 20/Dec/15
Dwayne johnston is 6ft 3 not 6ft2 . If he was 6ft2 clint looks 5ft11 with him. There looks to me at least 3inches in johnstons favour.
Big C said on 19/Dec/15
Rob he looks a weak 6'0 here with 6'2 Dwayne Johnson Click Here
Big C said on 19/Dec/15
Rob is 5ft 11.75 for Clint today more likely?
Editor Rob: he can look under 6ft.
James B said on 5/Dec/15
6'3.75 is very close to 6'4

So Clint was more 6'4 than 6'3 in his prime. Very tall
Arch Stanton said on 3/Dec/15
Riley said on 20/Nov/15
In one of his first films with ginger Rogers,, First Travelling saleswoman, made in 1956, he appeared standing next to James Arness,who was 6ft 7inches . Clint looked easily 5 inches shorter that puts him at 6ft 2.. strange . Perhaps arnerss had got cowboy boots on but Eastwood, normal shoes although i couldnt see that happenning, it was a cowboy movies.
made me realise how big a man Arness was.If he had been a bodibuilder like Clint walker he would have been huge. Apparently a really nice man

No he didn't look 5 inches shorter, it was the camera angle and Clint was away from the camera and Arness near it. It looked between 3 and 4 inches to me accounting for the advantage to Arness.
Sam said on 1/Dec/15
I think Magnum Force was a little early for his shrinkage for him, even by the much later Dead Pool he could still seem to clear 6'3" easily near Liam Neeson as he only looks a half inch under Neeson IMO.
James B said on 28/Nov/15
I think we can all agree by the early 90s clint was no more than 6'3. Throughout most of the 80s clint was probably like 6'3-6'3.5?
James B said on 28/Nov/15
By magnum force he could have started shrinking a tiny bit so 6'3.5 by that stage perhaps?
Rory said on 28/Nov/15
In a few dollars more he had a good inch on solid 6'2 Lee Van Cleef, so yh maybe 191 in that film, i wouldn't have said 189.
184.3cm (Night) said on 27/Nov/15
Its a good compromise. He claimed 6'4 and many believe him. However he did look more 6'3.5" in Magnum Force and also in Any which Way but Loose. So right in the middle is good.
Mathew Robinson (190 cm) said on 25/Nov/15
6'3.75" is probably a better estimate than 6'4". He was pretty close to his claimed height, it's quite reasonable to round up a quarter inch!
jervis said on 24/Nov/15
In all the dirty harry movies he did not wear cowboy boots.He only wore them in westerns.
jervis said on 24/Nov/15
So you seem to be saying Clint was lift wearer? If he was 6ft2 then it would mean Lee Marvin was under 6ft peak and John Wayne was 6ft2 peak Charlton Heston was 6ft.5 ,know!Clint was at least 6ft3.5 peak IMO.
Sean said on 24/Nov/15
Hi Rob do you measure people barefoot or with shoes on when taking heights?
Editor Rob: I'm always considering heights without shoes.
James B said on 24/Nov/15
Rory I thought in some of his westerns like a few dollars more he looked 189cm range
Riley said on 23/Nov/15
As I said previous, I did see an old Clint movie and the evidence is there to see, i always thought he was an at least 6ft 3 guy but if anyone gets to see the movie I mentioned make your own mind up. Never did see clints shoes in any of his movies apart from cowboy boots.
jervis said on 23/Nov/15
Riley I saw that movie could not make any height comparisons between Clint and Arnes.But I can make a height comparison between Arnes and John Wayne in big Jim Mclane Arnes has about 3inches on Wayne.I also can make a comparsion between Wayne and George Kennedy,both men were more or less the same height 6ft4.Clint and kennedy looked very similar in height,maybe Kennedy had the edge.Minimum height for Clint 6ft3.5 IMO.
Rory said on 22/Nov/15
I don't know where people get these wild and ill informed guesses like "189cm peak" they clearly haven't looked into it, and perhaps have never even seen an old Clint movie. Its impossible to watch a 1960s/70s Clint movie and think he was below 6'3..6'3.75 is bang on.
bobby3342 said on 20/Nov/15
189cm peak
Riley said on 20/Nov/15
In one of his first films with ginger Rogers,, First Travelling saleswoman, made in 1956, he appeared standing next to James Arness,who was 6ft 7inches . Clint looked easily 5 inches shorter that puts him at 6ft 2.. strange . Perhaps arnerss had got cowboy boots on but Eastwood, normal shoes although i couldnt see that happenning, it was a cowboy movies.
made me realise how big a man Arness was.If he had been a bodibuilder like Clint walker he would have been huge. Apparently a really nice man
Powerhouse said on 19/Nov/15
Good downgrade, never quite a full 6'4.
jervis said on 16/Nov/15
In space cowboys looked about 6ft3ish next to 6ft6.5 James Cromwell.But looked shorter than Sutherland.
jervis said on 16/Nov/15
About an inch off peak in that movie.Was in his early sixties by then.
James B said on 14/Nov/15
In the line of fire probably 6'2.5-6'3 range
jervis said on 10/Nov/15
Watching a old rawhide episode with Warren Oats Clint has about 5 or 6 inches on him,and Oats is listed at 5ft11.5 maybe Oats needs a downgrade.
Sam said on 9/Nov/15
Clint can actually still look solid six foot with his best stance...I think he passes for a six footer as he edges out strong 5'11" Leonardo DiCaprio and can look a couple inches taller than 5'10" listed Matt Damon.
Click Here
Click Here
jervis said on 9/Nov/15
If you stand with bad posture you are going to drop an inch or more from your real height.In Clints case being 85 years old and standing with a hunch if he can pull off 5ft11 he is easely 6ft standing in good posture.
Danimal said on 6/Nov/15
I see you changed his peak height Rob, but honestly he hasn't looked a mm over 5'11" recently. Maybe you should consider changing his current height as well.
Editor Rob: he may still measure taller than his current standing height suggests
Sam said on 5/Nov/15
What made you finally take the leap to 6'3.75", Rob, considering that he never claimed anything but 6'4"? I would say that this is quite realistic, he definitely seemed a weakish 6'4" for the most part at peak. I'd believe Clint was a bit over 6'4" in the morning and a bit over 6'3" by the end of the day. However, it also makes me suspect that Rock Hudson was not really 6'5", Hudson gave the impression of only being about a half inch taller than Eastwood, not more than an inch.
[Editor Rob: I think for me it is an overall fit, from everything I've seen early in his career.]
movieguy said on 4/Nov/15
Like this change. Maybe he might have scraped 6'4'' but was probably at lower end of scale.
James B said on 2/Nov/15
Rob do you think by Dirty Harry by that stage he was not over 6'3.5 afternoon height? Going from 6'3.75 to 6'3.5 in his 40s is possible.
[Editor Rob: he could still hold that range in dirty harry I feel, 3.5ish]
Rory said on 2/Nov/15
Yh i think the change to 6'3.75 peak is perfect, he was definitely over 6'3, but ive never visualised him as a solid 6'4 guy, probably fell to 6'3.5 at his lowest and naturally claimed 6'4.
jervis said on 31/Oct/15
Robbins had an easy 3 inches on Freeman in shawshank,lnfact at theRobbins had an easy 3 inches on Freeman in shawshank,lnfact at the time I taught he was 6ft6.
James B said on 29/Oct/15
Nah I don't think Tim Robbins was ever truly a legit 6'5. Robbins is heading towards 6'4 now.
jervis said on 29/Oct/15
William Holden and Brad Pitt are both listed at 5ft11,so if you compare Clint from 40 years ago with Holden with the more recent photos with Brad Pitt,it will give you a good idea of how much height Clint has lost over the past 40 years.
Danimal said on 28/Oct/15
James B said on 24/Oct/15
jervis said on 23/Oct/15
When you see how much taller Tim Robbins looks compered to Clint at the time of Mystic River when Clint would have been around 70,its hard to belive there was only .75 of an inch in the difference between them both at their peaks.Clint looks 6ft1beside Robbins which would mean a 3inch height loss by age 70.I definitely think Clint height was not 6ft4 more like 6ft3.He was IMO measured in shoes at 6ft4.

Peak 1 inch between him and Robbins to be precise

Clint peak 6'3.75
Tim Robbins 6'4.75

Tim Robbins was 6'4 3/4"-6'5" just before BED at his peak. He woke up at close to 6'6" in the 1980's.
Danimal said on 28/Oct/15
josey wales said on 25/Oct/15
Probably 6'3" true peakheight and roubded ala holywood to the "manly" height of 6'4". Not to much of a stretch anyway...

So 6'3" wasn't manly 60 years ago when the average height for a man was like 5'7" or 5'8"?
Danimal said on 28/Oct/15
Steve said on 26/Oct/15
Clint towering over William Holden. Click Here

The scary thing is that's EXACTLY the same amount of height Clint has lost since then. A current day Clint would be "around" the same height as Holden there.
jervis said on 28/Oct/15
The two Holden with Clint photos show how camera angles can distort peoples heights.The black and white one makes Clint look only a couple of inches taller than Holden,but the colour one shows Clint looking 4 or 5 inches taller.
Movieguy said on 27/Oct/15
Wow Steve, Clint does dwarf Holden in that photo. If only we could stack a 30-40 yr old peak height Clint against Tim Robbins and compare.
Steve said on 26/Oct/15
Clint towering over William Holden. Click Here
josey wales said on 25/Oct/15
Probably 6'3" true peakheight and roubded ala holywood to the "manly" height of 6'4". Not to much of a stretch anyway...
jervis said on 25/Oct/15
I Dont think he would have been under 6ft3,if he was that would mean Charlton Heston was only around 6ft1.
184.3cm (Night) said on 25/Oct/15
Weak 6'4 i think is possible , 6'3 flat is nonsense. Easily taller than a 6'2-6'2.5" Muhammad Ali. The thing is about giving him a 6'3.75" peak we don't really know, Wayne actually put it down in his own hand, quarter inches are hard.
James B said on 24/Oct/15
jervis said on 23/Oct/15
When you see how much taller Tim Robbins looks compered to Clint at the time of Mystic River when Clint would have been around 70,its hard to belive there was only .75 of an inch in the difference between them both at their peaks.Clint looks 6ft1beside Robbins which would mean a 3inch height loss by age 70.I definitely think Clint height was not 6ft4 more like 6ft3.He was IMO measured in shoes at 6ft4.

Peak 1 inch between him and Robbins to be precise

Clint peak 6'3.75
Tim Robbins 6'4.75
Rory said on 24/Oct/15
A flat 6'3 is too low, easily had 2 inches on Lee Marvin and Jeff Bridges...i reckon peak 6'4.25 out of bed and 6'3.5 at night could be bang on.
jervis said on 23/Oct/15
Is that the colour photo or black and white.Because there is a colour photo of them and Clint looks a good 4inches taller.Also he is in another photo with Dennis Weaver and looks a good inch taller Which would put him at 6ft3.Just google Clint Eastwood William Holden and you will see.
jervis said on 23/Oct/15
When you see how much taller Tim Robbins looks compered to Clint at the time of Mystic River when Clint would have been around 70,its hard to belive there was only .75 of an inch in the difference between them both at their peaks.Clint looks 6ft1beside Robbins which would mean a 3inch height loss by age 70.I definitely think Clint height was not 6ft4 more like 6ft3.He was IMO measured in shoes at 6ft4.
Matthew said on 22/Oct/15
I saw a picture of Clint (on his Wikipedia article) and 5'11 William Holden during the filming of Breezy. I think 6'2 sounds right for Clint, maybe a smidge over
jervis said on 22/Oct/15
Watching reruns of rawhide Greg Walcott was in a scene standing on level ground with 6ft3 Eric Fleming and Fleming had the edge on him.
jervis said on 21/Oct/15
Did not tower Bridges like Tim Robbins did in Arlington road.Looked to have 2inches on Bridges in Eiger Saction.Looked the same height as 6ft3 Eric Fleming in rawhide,did not look 3.5inches taller than David Soul.All these examples to me add up to Clint been a weak 6ft4 or 6ft3.5 peak,rounded up tp 6ft4.
jervis said on 21/Oct/15
Looked the same height as Greg Walcott in eiger sanction.Just watched a bit on youtube havent seen the movie for years but I did see Kennedy having a bit of an edge over Clint.Maybe Kennedy was strong 6ft4 and Clint a weak 6ft4.
James B said on 19/Oct/15
Rory- when I saw the film a few years ago from what i remember I thought clint looked 6'3 in comparison in a scene they Shared together. Especially considering clint had hair advantage.

Anyway clint might have been no more than 6'3.5 in the afternoon by the time of that film.
jervis said on 16/Oct/15
I did not notice a big difference between Clint and Kennedy.If anything Eiger Sanction made me question if Kennedy was the full 6ft4.As for Sutherland,in Kellys Heros no matter how much I scarched I can not see a scene where Clint and Sutherland are together that I can say who was taller.There is a clip on youtube from this years oscers where Clint and Bradley Cooper are standing together,I think its a photo shoot after or befor the event.Cooper has the edge on Clint,but right at the end Clint is walking away and you can see how bad his posture is and how old he looks.If he was standing stright with good posture I can still see him being taller than Cooper.
Rory said on 16/Oct/15
"Noticeably shorter than Kennedy" is a bit misleading, at most he was half an inch shorter, at certain angles they looked the same even.
jervis said on 15/Oct/15
James Garner and Charlton Heston lost a lot of height too.
jervis said on 14/Oct/15
Clint and sutherland were both the same height IMO weak 6ft4 for both.Ranman very funny they must have been 6inch lifts in his shoes so.
James B said on 14/Oct/15
Yeah he looked noticeably shorter than Kennedy in eiger sanction
Big C said on 14/Oct/15
Hey Rob if Clint was 6ft 3.75 or weak 6ft 4 (which I agree with) could that make him 5ft 11.75 today?
[Editor Rob: today he might look shorter and measure taller...but some older gentlemen have spine curvature which you can't straighten, so they have a permanent rounded shoulder look, that can be mistaken for bad posture, when they actually are standing fine.]
jervis said on 13/Oct/15
I think the 6ft4 measurement was in the morning and Clint was standing with perfect posture.By the end of the day he was nearer 6ft3.Weak 6ft4 peak IMO.
movieguy said on 13/Oct/15
I agree weak 6'4'' as opposed to strong 6'4''. I know some disagree but I thought he looked shorter than Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and shorter than George Kennedy in films they made together in the 1970s. Has experienced most height loss of any celeb I can think of even if was not quite full 6'4'' in prime.
Rey said on 13/Oct/15
Clint Eastwood was never 6' 4"!!! At best 6' 2 1/2" - a weak 6'3".
Ranman said on 13/Oct/15
My cousin worked on a set, and stands 6'6" . He stood right next to Eastwood and SWEARS Clint Eastwood only came up to the top of his chest, which would put Clint at around 5'8". Now my cousin is not the lying type. When Eastwood appeared at the Oscars, and walked by Hugh Jackman who is a self proclaimed 6'2", Jackman dwarfed Eastwood. You could visibly see it for yourself on the tv screen. So now I'm doubtful of his previously proclaimed height. I believe Eastwood has worn heels for most of his acting career. He looks buff in his old flicks, but I believe has tiny legs? I'm putting him, in his younger days, at around 5'8" - 5'9".
jervis said on 12/Oct/15
I can feel a downgrade coming.
James B said on 11/Oct/15
When might u downgrade his peak rob?
[Editor Rob: I've not decided yet]
James B said on 9/Oct/15
Rob at peak he could have measured no more than 6'3.5 by evening/night and held onto to 6'3.75 for most of the afternoon.

Do you agree?
[Editor Rob: I think many would agree Clint probably could fall into the weak 6ft 4 category, whereas a guy like say hasselhoff/goldblum fall into the stronger 6ft 4 category during their peaks.]
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
height.

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.

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.