Add a Comment680 comments
Average Guess (113 Votes)
Peak: 5ft 10.4in (178.8cm)
Current: 5ft 9.41in (176.3cm)
Peak: 5ft 10.4in (178.8cm)
Current: 5ft 9.41in (176.3cm)
AD said on 5/Apr/07
Well...back to the topic in question...Macca..lol... aged 42 was 5'9.5" which I personally think can't be much different than 10 years or more before. I met him on 2 occasions and had photos taken with him. I'm pretty sure that John, Paul and George were 5'11" WITH their beatle boots on...and Ringo 5'8" with his on.
Well...back to the topic in question...Macca..lol... aged 42 was 5'9.5" which I personally think can't be much different than 10 years or more before. I met him on 2 occasions and had photos taken with him. I'm pretty sure that John, Paul and George were 5'11" WITH their beatle boots on...and Ringo 5'8" with his on.
glenn said on 5/Apr/07
whats wrong leanari? why do you get upset too much? you even just said in extremity it can be.and most people are obsessive in gyms.
whats wrong leanari? why do you get upset too much? you even just said in extremity it can be.and most people are obsessive in gyms.
leonari said on 4/Apr/07
Anthony: BULLs***! Normal bodybuilding/weightlifting is only healthy. If you go to extremes like ARNOLD yeah: it's bad for your health and can affect height in the long run. Please stop posting comments on topics you seem to know nothing about.
Anthony: BULLs***! Normal bodybuilding/weightlifting is only healthy. If you go to extremes like ARNOLD yeah: it's bad for your health and can affect height in the long run. Please stop posting comments on topics you seem to know nothing about.
glenn said on 4/Apr/07
true anthony.
true anthony.
Anthony said on 3/Apr/07
I think weight lifting and bosdybuilding in general makes you look sorter, as it makes you heavieer due to muscle mass and affects your height as well as your posture. This could be the reason why SLy as well as Arnie nowadays look shorter than they were in their respective peaks.
I think weight lifting and bosdybuilding in general makes you look sorter, as it makes you heavieer due to muscle mass and affects your height as well as your posture. This could be the reason why SLy as well as Arnie nowadays look shorter than they were in their respective peaks.
glenn said on 3/Apr/07
they say that its a myth.but i think its a myth that it stunts growth at a young age.however at an older age,ala sly,maybe it has an affect.
they say that its a myth.but i think its a myth that it stunts growth at a young age.however at an older age,ala sly,maybe it has an affect.
Anthony said on 3/Apr/07
Yeah, bodybuilding is a factor. I wonder how much my uncle will lose if that's the case. I wonder if that happened to Sly and that accounts for the short sightings.
Yeah, bodybuilding is a factor. I wonder how much my uncle will lose if that's the case. I wonder if that happened to Sly and that accounts for the short sightings.
glenn said on 3/Apr/07
true anthony.its not only age.i have a friend who was 5-10.5 like stallone and he is 5-9 now at age 41.body builder.
true anthony.its not only age.i have a friend who was 5-10.5 like stallone and he is 5-9 now at age 41.body builder.
The Horse of FUNK said on 2/Apr/07
No, sorry, Viper, I respect you as regular on here who is generally accurate, but shrinking is a big reality. Generally when men reach 50 - 60 years of age, they can expect to lose a half of an inch, with more shrinking as the years go by. My father is 58, approaching 59 and was 5.9.75" in his younger years (navy measurements), but now is a mere 5'9".
There are all sorts of reasons why people shrink. Back injuries such as Clooney and my father. Then, there are some that don't drink at all. I think genetics and health has a lot to do with it. Be glad that your genetics are of the favorable breed lol.
No, sorry, Viper, I respect you as regular on here who is generally accurate, but shrinking is a big reality. Generally when men reach 50 - 60 years of age, they can expect to lose a half of an inch, with more shrinking as the years go by. My father is 58, approaching 59 and was 5.9.75" in his younger years (navy measurements), but now is a mere 5'9".
There are all sorts of reasons why people shrink. Back injuries such as Clooney and my father. Then, there are some that don't drink at all. I think genetics and health has a lot to do with it. Be glad that your genetics are of the favorable breed lol.
Anthony said on 2/Apr/07
I think that it's rare to shrink the amount Clint has, but shrinking is not uncommon. Though I don't think age is the only factor. A lto has to do with health and lifestyle. My aunt was 5'4 in her youth and due to health problems, she's about 4'8 now. Granted, women supposedly shrink more than men, but either way height loss is not BS.
I think that it's rare to shrink the amount Clint has, but shrinking is not uncommon. Though I don't think age is the only factor. A lto has to do with health and lifestyle. My aunt was 5'4 in her youth and due to health problems, she's about 4'8 now. Granted, women supposedly shrink more than men, but either way height loss is not BS.
Viper said on 2/Apr/07
I think Eastwood is an extremely rare case.
I think Eastwood is an extremely rare case.
Anthony said on 2/Apr/07
Viper, if shrinking is BS, hwo do you explain Clint Eastwood?
Viper, if shrinking is BS, hwo do you explain Clint Eastwood?
AD said on 30/Mar/07
I can tell you ABSOLUTELY...Paul when he was 42 was 5'9.5". I really wish that I still had the photo of Paul posing with me to post here. I seriously doubt that at 42 he had shrunk any from his twenties. Old age maybe...42...still very young!
I can tell you ABSOLUTELY...Paul when he was 42 was 5'9.5". I really wish that I still had the photo of Paul posing with me to post here. I seriously doubt that at 42 he had shrunk any from his twenties. Old age maybe...42...still very young!
Anonymous2 said on 29/Mar/07
Your family has been very lucky then, Viper. But here are the medical facts from Harvard:
Click Here
Not BS.
Your family has been very lucky then, Viper. But here are the medical facts from Harvard:
Click Here
Not BS.
Alexander said on 29/Mar/07
hmm, thought Ringo was more like 5-6...that's about his son's Zak's heighth. BTW, all these Brit rockers appear shorter/slighter in person, I have met a few.
hmm, thought Ringo was more like 5-6...that's about his son's Zak's heighth. BTW, all these Brit rockers appear shorter/slighter in person, I have met a few.
Viper said on 28/Mar/07
My family members over the years havent shrunk at all. All of them. I think this shrinking stuff is BS mostly. Some people do shrink slightly but certaintly not everyone. I wouldnt even say half of the population. The people who usually shrink are wrestlers and some athletes. But normal people USUALLY stay the same height roughly till their 70-80.
My family members over the years havent shrunk at all. All of them. I think this shrinking stuff is BS mostly. Some people do shrink slightly but certaintly not everyone. I wouldnt even say half of the population. The people who usually shrink are wrestlers and some athletes. But normal people USUALLY stay the same height roughly till their 70-80.
glenn said on 28/Mar/07
i saw paul give the illusion of 6ft,7 years ago.so he was at least 5-11.
i saw paul give the illusion of 6ft,7 years ago.so he was at least 5-11.
Anonymous2 said on 27/Mar/07
Everyone shrinks an average of 1-2" by the time they're 60, what's so hard to believe?! it's a scientific fact, some lose even 4-6"! Paul is now a 65 year old man in case you forget! I think JOhn lost the most height though, I truly believe he was once a solid 5'11" and taller than Paul in his prime (looking at many of the Hamburg photos and such) but shrunk 5'9.5" by the time the Beatles broke up, well before Paul became that height probably in his 50's and 60's.
Everyone shrinks an average of 1-2" by the time they're 60, what's so hard to believe?! it's a scientific fact, some lose even 4-6"! Paul is now a 65 year old man in case you forget! I think JOhn lost the most height though, I truly believe he was once a solid 5'11" and taller than Paul in his prime (looking at many of the Hamburg photos and such) but shrunk 5'9.5" by the time the Beatles broke up, well before Paul became that height probably in his 50's and 60's.
AD said on 27/Mar/07
I very much agree with ringo that John, Paul and George were always 5'9.5", and Ringo 5'6.5". The 5'11 and 5'8 listings was with their Beatle boots on. Paul was 5'9.5" when I met him in his early forties.... I doubt VERY much that he'd shrunk any since his youth!...he'd always been that height.
I very much agree with ringo that John, Paul and George were always 5'9.5", and Ringo 5'6.5". The 5'11 and 5'8 listings was with their Beatle boots on. Paul was 5'9.5" when I met him in his early forties.... I doubt VERY much that he'd shrunk any since his youth!...he'd always been that height.
Anonymous2 said on 26/Mar/07
Good video comparing Lennon with McCartney:
Click Here
It's odd how they fluctate with one being taller than one in one video, then vice-versa in the next.
Good video comparing Lennon with McCartney:
Click Here
It's odd how they fluctate with one being taller than one in one video, then vice-versa in the next.
AD said on 27/Feb/07
mcfan is absolutely right for saying 5'9.5" for Macca now. I met him in 1986 and had photos taken with him on an even indoor surface which unfortunately have been lost since. These photos showed him clearly at 176/177.
mcfan is absolutely right for saying 5'9.5" for Macca now. I met him in 1986 and had photos taken with him on an even indoor surface which unfortunately have been lost since. These photos showed him clearly at 176/177.
Anthony said on 2/Feb/07
Brian's definitely at least 6'2, possibly 189 cm. Jay did look 2 inches shorter than Paul in the "Back In The U.S." concert movie. I remember seeing the difference and looking shocked!
Brian's definitely at least 6'2, possibly 189 cm. Jay did look 2 inches shorter than Paul in the "Back In The U.S." concert movie. I remember seeing the difference and looking shocked!
mcfan said on 2/Feb/07
Brian Wilson is probably 6'3. He was a lot taller than McCartney. There's many of them together. Also, Leno is taller than Paul McCartney if my memory is right by an inch.
Brian Wilson is probably 6'3. He was a lot taller than McCartney. There's many of them together. Also, Leno is taller than Paul McCartney if my memory is right by an inch.
Anthony said on 1/Feb/07
Alec always looked a solid 5'11-6' to me. Definitely no less. And yes, Brian does tend to slouch a bit. I always thought he was average or so. But now, when I look at some of the older Beach Boys photos, he deos look really 6'2. How tall is the rst of the band I've always wondered. I guess Mike Love's around 6'. Not sure on Dennis or Carl or Bruce Johnston. Jardine looks short. I'm guessing 5'4-5'5 for him.
Alec always looked a solid 5'11-6' to me. Definitely no less. And yes, Brian does tend to slouch a bit. I always thought he was average or so. But now, when I look at some of the older Beach Boys photos, he deos look really 6'2. How tall is the rst of the band I've always wondered. I guess Mike Love's around 6'. Not sure on Dennis or Carl or Bruce Johnston. Jardine looks short. I'm guessing 5'4-5'5 for him.
Anthony said on 1/Feb/07
Alec always looked a solid 5'11-6' to me. Definitely no less. And yes, Brian does tend to slouch a bit. I always thought he was average or so. But now, when I look at some of the older Beach Boys photos, he deos look really 6'2. How tall is the rst of the band I've always wondered. I guess Mike Love's aound 6'. Not sure on Dennis or Carl or Bruce Johnston. Jardine looks short. I'm guessing 5'4-5'5 for him.
Alec always looked a solid 5'11-6' to me. Definitely no less. And yes, Brian does tend to slouch a bit. I always thought he was average or so. But now, when I look at some of the older Beach Boys photos, he deos look really 6'2. How tall is the rst of the band I've always wondered. I guess Mike Love's aound 6'. Not sure on Dennis or Carl or Bruce Johnston. Jardine looks short. I'm guessing 5'4-5'5 for him.
Glenn said on 1/Feb/07
I studied Wilson 2 months ago.it is indeed a slouch that had me fooled.this site alone made me learn things about height I never realised.I always thought or saw Alec at 6ft.but mcfan pinned that one down.mcfan is right on Alec.
I studied Wilson 2 months ago.it is indeed a slouch that had me fooled.this site alone made me learn things about height I never realised.I always thought or saw Alec at 6ft.but mcfan pinned that one down.mcfan is right on Alec.
mcfan said on 31/Jan/07
That would make more sense Alec being 6'0.5. In the movie "Malice" he only looked an inch taller than Nicole Kidman (5'10?) when they were both barefoot. Maybe he does wear lifts.
That would make more sense Alec being 6'0.5. In the movie "Malice" he only looked an inch taller than Nicole Kidman (5'10?) when they were both barefoot. Maybe he does wear lifts.
Glenn said on 31/Jan/07
Alec walked past me 48 hours ago.he seemed 6ft.5.
Alec walked past me 48 hours ago.he seemed 6ft.5.
mcfan said on 30/Jan/07
No, I'm saying Paul is 5'9.5 at the most now. 5'10.5 at the most in the Beatles' heydey. I don't dispute Baldwin at 5'11 if he wears lifts, but I know for a fact he was taller than Martin on SNL who is listed as 5'11.5.
No, I'm saying Paul is 5'9.5 at the most now. 5'10.5 at the most in the Beatles' heydey. I don't dispute Baldwin at 5'11 if he wears lifts, but I know for a fact he was taller than Martin on SNL who is listed as 5'11.5.
Anthony said on 30/Jan/07
So you're saying Paul is 5'8, mcfan? Rediculous. First of all, Martin always looked maybe 6' to me, though 5'11.5 is more realistic. And Baldwin does strike me as a guy who might wear lifts occasionally. I saw a pic where he looked the same height as 6'1.5-6'2 David Letterman.
So you're saying Paul is 5'8, mcfan? Rediculous. First of all, Martin always looked maybe 6' to me, though 5'11.5 is more realistic. And Baldwin does strike me as a guy who might wear lifts occasionally. I saw a pic where he looked the same height as 6'1.5-6'2 David Letterman.
mcfan said on 29/Jan/07
Steve Martin was almost two inches than McCartney on SNL with the skit with Alec Baldwin. I see Baldwin listed as only 5'11, but he was clearly an inch taller than Steve Martin so nothing jives from the heights listed. Baldwin looked 3 inches taller than McCartney.
Steve Martin was almost two inches than McCartney on SNL with the skit with Alec Baldwin. I see Baldwin listed as only 5'11, but he was clearly an inch taller than Steve Martin so nothing jives from the heights listed. Baldwin looked 3 inches taller than McCartney.
Anthony said on 29/Jan/07
Thank you, Glenn.
Thank you, Glenn.
Glenn said on 29/Jan/07
Exactly Anthony.
Exactly Anthony.
Robert.R said on 23/Jan/07
In the sixties he was listed as 5'11" then years later after he married Linda there was an article in the health section of a daily paper about his conversion to vegetarianism and article quoted his height as 5'9".
In the sixties he was listed as 5'11" then years later after he married Linda there was an article in the health section of a daily paper about his conversion to vegetarianism and article quoted his height as 5'9".
Glenn said on 23/Nov/06
Yes we can.
Yes we can.
Rastus said on 23/Nov/06
Only a joke, Glenn. Can't we all just get along?
Only a joke, Glenn. Can't we all just get along?
Glenn said on 22/Nov/06
Mind your business Rastus.
Mind your business Rastus.
Rastus said on 22/Nov/06
Settle down, ladies. To get back to the topic, random guy's photo of Macca, Depp and Weller is interesting. This site has Weller at 5' 10.5" and Macca at 5'10" (now, 5'11" previously). But Weller looks a good 2 or 3 inches taller. Isn't it just that Macca and Lennon were never over 5'10" - probably 5'9.5" at the most - and that nowadays Macca is around 5'8"? Oh, and don't forget that you never see him now without his big chunky black trainers.
Settle down, ladies. To get back to the topic, random guy's photo of Macca, Depp and Weller is interesting. This site has Weller at 5' 10.5" and Macca at 5'10" (now, 5'11" previously). But Weller looks a good 2 or 3 inches taller. Isn't it just that Macca and Lennon were never over 5'10" - probably 5'9.5" at the most - and that nowadays Macca is around 5'8"? Oh, and don't forget that you never see him now without his big chunky black trainers.
Brad said on 19/Nov/06
Depp wears lifts. Is there any actor under 5' 10" that doesn't?
Depp wears lifts. Is there any actor under 5' 10" that doesn't?
Glenn said on 19/Nov/06
Mcfan,need I remind you,you are the WORST judge of height on this site? Jimmy Page 5-9? you wanna get wise with me,Ill tear you apart.
Mcfan,need I remind you,you are the WORST judge of height on this site? Jimmy Page 5-9? you wanna get wise with me,Ill tear you apart.
mcfan said on 17/Nov/06
Glenn,
It really is the end of the world then and here it is the holidays. I think the other one you agreed with was the one where I said you're only 5'7 barefoot.
Glenn,
It really is the end of the world then and here it is the holidays. I think the other one you agreed with was the one where I said you're only 5'7 barefoot.
Glenn said on 17/Nov/06
Twice this week I agreed with Mcfans postings.must be the end of the world.seriously,I dont remember the other I agreed with,but I agree with Depps possible lifts.
Twice this week I agreed with Mcfans postings.must be the end of the world.seriously,I dont remember the other I agreed with,but I agree with Depps possible lifts.
ralph said on 16/Nov/06
Johnny Depp doesnt wears lifts. He is not that type of guy, I met him.
Johnny Depp doesnt wears lifts. He is not that type of guy, I met him.
mcfan said on 10/Nov/06
I don't trust Johnny Depp with his photos because he goes from 5'9 -5'11 because of obvious lifts. Yeah, I agree with Chris that Lennon was 5'10, but that was already his proven height. He was a lot taller than Cilla Black who was supposed to be 5'8. He was 2-3 inches taller than Elton John. In the videos for Rain and Paperback Writer he's McCartney's height...just taller than George. I don't think you can make a good argument for McCartney being over a half-inch taller than John or George. In the Abbey Road sessions both he and George are at the mike and Paul is barefoot and George is in tiny flipflops and they're the same height. The flipflops look 1/2 inch...maybe 3/4 inches. I think you can argue that none of these guys were 5'11. I'll buy 5'11 in sneakers but not barefoot. I know from my memory that Clapton was taller than John and Paul...not by much but a noticeable amount. Certain people lose more height than others and neither Clapton nor McCartney look over 5'9.5 now. My friend who I absolutely know is 5'10 saw him in Toronto and says he (macca) is shorter than him. Chris Farley was only like an 1-1.5 shorter than him on SNL. One thing about Paul is he has fantastic posture. I have yet to see a photo of him slouching.
I don't trust Johnny Depp with his photos because he goes from 5'9 -5'11 because of obvious lifts. Yeah, I agree with Chris that Lennon was 5'10, but that was already his proven height. He was a lot taller than Cilla Black who was supposed to be 5'8. He was 2-3 inches taller than Elton John. In the videos for Rain and Paperback Writer he's McCartney's height...just taller than George. I don't think you can make a good argument for McCartney being over a half-inch taller than John or George. In the Abbey Road sessions both he and George are at the mike and Paul is barefoot and George is in tiny flipflops and they're the same height. The flipflops look 1/2 inch...maybe 3/4 inches. I think you can argue that none of these guys were 5'11. I'll buy 5'11 in sneakers but not barefoot. I know from my memory that Clapton was taller than John and Paul...not by much but a noticeable amount. Certain people lose more height than others and neither Clapton nor McCartney look over 5'9.5 now. My friend who I absolutely know is 5'10 saw him in Toronto and says he (macca) is shorter than him. Chris Farley was only like an 1-1.5 shorter than him on SNL. One thing about Paul is he has fantastic posture. I have yet to see a photo of him slouching.
Glenn said on 9/Nov/06
Your missing my point Chris.
Your missing my point Chris.
Chris said on 9/Nov/06
No way John Lennon was 5'8'', more around 5'10''.
No way John Lennon was 5'8'', more around 5'10''.
Glenn said on 8/Nov/06
Except,Depp can look 5-10,5-11 in public.and that would make Lennon 5-8.and Paul was 6ft when I saw him in 2000 in dress shoes.5-11,not smaller.
Except,Depp can look 5-10,5-11 in public.and that would make Lennon 5-8.and Paul was 6ft when I saw him in 2000 in dress shoes.5-11,not smaller.
Chris said on 8/Nov/06
It is true that all of the beatles wore boots. John looked very tall and slim his last years, because he had a eating-disorder. If you look at this clip they all had these cuban-heels.
Click Here
It is true that all of the beatles wore boots. John looked very tall and slim his last years, because he had a eating-disorder. If you look at this clip they all had these cuban-heels.
Click Here
Glenn said on 5/Nov/06
Rod is close to 5-11.Paul was close to 6ft in the heyday.no way is Rod 5-9.I saw him in slippers.
Rod is close to 5-11.Paul was close to 6ft in the heyday.no way is Rod 5-9.I saw him in slippers.
Anonymous said on 4/Nov/06
Stewart's 5'10.5, which puts Paul as easy 5'11. I never saw him as anything less than that. I used to actually think he was 6', though now I realize that 5'11-5'11.5 is more accurate.
Stewart's 5'10.5, which puts Paul as easy 5'11. I never saw him as anything less than that. I used to actually think he was 6', though now I realize that 5'11-5'11.5 is more accurate.
Chris said on 11/Oct/06
When he was on Ellen, he was wearing snickers looking 3 inches taller then her. Paul is at least 5'10'', more 5'11''.
I saw a concert when Rod Stewart was next to Paul. Paul was 1½ inch taller. I don´t think Rod Stewart is any taller than 5'9''.
When he was on Ellen, he was wearing snickers looking 3 inches taller then her. Paul is at least 5'10'', more 5'11''.
I saw a concert when Rod Stewart was next to Paul. Paul was 1½ inch taller. I don´t think Rod Stewart is any taller than 5'9''.
Volpe said on 30/Sep/06
If blown up this photo reveals that Beatle George is shorter than both Beatle John and Beatle Paul.It also shows Beatle Paul is standing closer to the camera than Beatle John.I'm in total agreement with anonymous and macfan that JL and PM are the same stature.JL has a longer neck and larger features.PM has a smaller head and neck with higher shoulders giving the appearance of a taller person.If JL and PM are five eleven then GH is five ten and a half.
Click Here
If blown up this photo reveals that Beatle George is shorter than both Beatle John and Beatle Paul.It also shows Beatle Paul is standing closer to the camera than Beatle John.I'm in total agreement with anonymous and macfan that JL and PM are the same stature.JL has a longer neck and larger features.PM has a smaller head and neck with higher shoulders giving the appearance of a taller person.If JL and PM are five eleven then GH is five ten and a half.
Click Here
Sullivan said on 30/Sep/06
yes.as my friend stated, Paul is shorter than 5 ten.im 5 eleven.super guy.friend to the NYPD.you owe me Vec!
yes.as my friend stated, Paul is shorter than 5 ten.im 5 eleven.super guy.friend to the NYPD.you owe me Vec!
Anthony said on 29/Sep/06
Paul always looked a solid 5'11 in his youth IMO.
Paul always looked a solid 5'11 in his youth IMO.
Anonymous said on 28/Sep/06
I used to llive very near him in Kent/East Sussex and often saw him on the high st in Tenterden. I'd have guessed he's 5'9.
I used to llive very near him in Kent/East Sussex and often saw him on the high st in Tenterden. I'd have guessed he's 5'9.
Vecchio said on 25/Sep/06
My buddy looked taller than him.Paul took his police cap from him and put it on his head.This guys not even close to 5 11.Sully is 5'11 and Paul was over an inch less.5 '9 1/2.
My buddy looked taller than him.Paul took his police cap from him and put it on his head.This guys not even close to 5 11.Sully is 5'11 and Paul was over an inch less.5 '9 1/2.
Chris said on 24/Sep/06
It is true that in the 60:s their height was listed as 5'11'' and 5'8'' for Ringo, but the other three was not more popular than Ringo, it was the beatles and every fan had their own favorite, but saying Ringo was less popular is wrong.
It is true that in the 60:s their height was listed as 5'11'' and 5'8'' for Ringo, but the other three was not more popular than Ringo, it was the beatles and every fan had their own favorite, but saying Ringo was less popular is wrong.
Glenn said on 24/Sep/06
WAY wrong Teenager.
WAY wrong Teenager.
Chris said on 23/Sep/06
Very intresting to read C.P.Mohin. It means that 5'11'' for John, Paul and George is a bit to much. The three of them were 178-179 cm?
Very intresting to read C.P.Mohin. It means that 5'11'' for John, Paul and George is a bit to much. The three of them were 178-179 cm?
A Teenaged Beatlemaniac said on 23/Sep/06
I've never met Paul (I's like to!) or any of the other Beatles in person but I can speak from experience in saying that it seems most young Beatles fans have the height stats down like this...
John- 5'11"
Paul- 5'11"
George- 5'11"
Ringo- considerably shorter, around 5'7" or 5'8"
Their heights were also almost always listed in this manner in the '60s during the height of Beatlemania. Although it seems highly unlikely (and really dumb to say) that all three (John Paul and George) were exactly the same height there might have been a method to the madness of whoever reported it. First off, it's whole lot easier to remember 3 heights that are exactly the same. Second, John Paul and George were most certainly the most popular and most in the limelight...to make them taller than Ringo who had fewer fans and sat in the back behind his drums most of the time only makes sense. This leads to my third point, Ringo was most often sitting behind his drum set, he also slouched...this obviously would make him appear shorter. Finally, Ringo was also constantly picked on by the other three, especially John and Paul, it was all in good fun of course but it makes sense for them to be taller.
I do think Ringo was shorter though..by how much I don't know.
I've never met Paul (I's like to!) or any of the other Beatles in person but I can speak from experience in saying that it seems most young Beatles fans have the height stats down like this...
John- 5'11"
Paul- 5'11"
George- 5'11"
Ringo- considerably shorter, around 5'7" or 5'8"
Their heights were also almost always listed in this manner in the '60s during the height of Beatlemania. Although it seems highly unlikely (and really dumb to say) that all three (John Paul and George) were exactly the same height there might have been a method to the madness of whoever reported it. First off, it's whole lot easier to remember 3 heights that are exactly the same. Second, John Paul and George were most certainly the most popular and most in the limelight...to make them taller than Ringo who had fewer fans and sat in the back behind his drums most of the time only makes sense. This leads to my third point, Ringo was most often sitting behind his drum set, he also slouched...this obviously would make him appear shorter. Finally, Ringo was also constantly picked on by the other three, especially John and Paul, it was all in good fun of course but it makes sense for them to be taller.
I do think Ringo was shorter though..by how much I don't know.
C.P. Mohin said on 23/Sep/06
I'm 5'10"..I met Paul in New Orleans on a Wings tour in the late 70's,putting him in him 30's.Eye to eye both of us wearing standard street shoes,he was just slightly taller than me,making him about 5'10.5 ". Met Tom Jones in 1980.Tom was wearing a high heel platform type shoe,and I was weraing street shoes,and he was about a half inch taller than me,so I don't know where anyone comes up with anything over 5'8.5" for Tom.Tom has almost always worn shoes with elevated heels,and apparently shoe inserts.I was face to face with both Paul,and Tom. I've never seen them in person together,at the same time,but I can say definitely in that time period Paul,with street shoes was no more than 5'10.5',and Tom was the same height with large hills on his shoes.So,in fact,in bare feet ,Tom,would be shorter than Paul.I was there face to face with them people,amd I'm 5'10",and neither Paul ,nor Tom with his heels were more than a small ,half inch taller than me ! I'm sure they have both shrunk a bit with age.The Beatle pictures are somewhat misleading.Being a guitar player myself,with a an 8 to 20 pound guitar straped across your shoulder,and leaning in,and out of a microphone to sing,you're not always standing straight.Actually,if you look at most of the Beatle pictures,and footage,while playing,you'll see that their knees,are almost always bent while singing.It's called working the mike.This would account for a lot of the different heights in images.It's very clear to me,that John,Paul,and George were fairly close in height. Paul, being the only former Beatle ,I've met though,I can only say what his height was in relation to me,at 5'10".He was only slightly taller.
I'm 5'10"..I met Paul in New Orleans on a Wings tour in the late 70's,putting him in him 30's.Eye to eye both of us wearing standard street shoes,he was just slightly taller than me,making him about 5'10.5 ". Met Tom Jones in 1980.Tom was wearing a high heel platform type shoe,and I was weraing street shoes,and he was about a half inch taller than me,so I don't know where anyone comes up with anything over 5'8.5" for Tom.Tom has almost always worn shoes with elevated heels,and apparently shoe inserts.I was face to face with both Paul,and Tom. I've never seen them in person together,at the same time,but I can say definitely in that time period Paul,with street shoes was no more than 5'10.5',and Tom was the same height with large hills on his shoes.So,in fact,in bare feet ,Tom,would be shorter than Paul.I was there face to face with them people,amd I'm 5'10",and neither Paul ,nor Tom with his heels were more than a small ,half inch taller than me ! I'm sure they have both shrunk a bit with age.The Beatle pictures are somewhat misleading.Being a guitar player myself,with a an 8 to 20 pound guitar straped across your shoulder,and leaning in,and out of a microphone to sing,you're not always standing straight.Actually,if you look at most of the Beatle pictures,and footage,while playing,you'll see that their knees,are almost always bent while singing.It's called working the mike.This would account for a lot of the different heights in images.It's very clear to me,that John,Paul,and George were fairly close in height. Paul, being the only former Beatle ,I've met though,I can only say what his height was in relation to me,at 5'10".He was only slightly taller.
Anonymous said on 31/Aug/06
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
(paul is slightly closer to the camera than John -- appear same height)
Click Here
Conclusion: the three beatles were the same height but Harrison just a tad shorter.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
(paul is slightly closer to the camera than John -- appear same height)
Click Here
Conclusion: the three beatles were the same height but Harrison just a tad shorter.
lennon_fan said on 26/Aug/06
I saw him in 1976. He seemed almost 6'0
I saw him in 1976. He seemed almost 6'0
Stef said on 25/Aug/06
guys, once again, i met paul 2 years ago, both had nike shoes on, i'm 178 cm, he was a bit shorter than me at around 176 cm, period.
IMO, at his peak Paul was 179; John 178, George 177,5, Ringo 170/171.
Paul, John and George were really close in height, but Paul was clearly the tallest among them.
guys, once again, i met paul 2 years ago, both had nike shoes on, i'm 178 cm, he was a bit shorter than me at around 176 cm, period.
IMO, at his peak Paul was 179; John 178, George 177,5, Ringo 170/171.
Paul, John and George were really close in height, but Paul was clearly the tallest among them.
mcfan said on 17/Aug/06
Rut,
I said Jackson was 5'9, but he might have only been 5'8.5. Weren't him and Donnie Osmond the same height? The reason I speak of the Beatles as being shorter than they were is the 3 listed themselves as 5'11 when they were actually 5'10. Did Glenn meet Michael Jackson?
Rut,
I said Jackson was 5'9, but he might have only been 5'8.5. Weren't him and Donnie Osmond the same height? The reason I speak of the Beatles as being shorter than they were is the 3 listed themselves as 5'11 when they were actually 5'10. Did Glenn meet Michael Jackson?
Rut said on 17/Aug/06
Sorry accidentally used a wrong name, I dont think the Beatles indeed where differnt in Height, also I don't buy that baloney story of Ringo being 5 6 and a half, five seven okay, okay if it's true,-link the page where it is you can read it..
Sorry accidentally used a wrong name, I dont think the Beatles indeed where differnt in Height, also I don't buy that baloney story of Ringo being 5 6 and a half, five seven okay, okay if it's true,-link the page where it is you can read it..
Anonymous said on 17/Aug/06
Hey McFan, isn't clear enough?!! if McCCartney showed measurements of himself in the 60s being 183 cm with shoes and 180 cm without, that is................ ....height, Jackson is not five nine, I give him a bit more that that, oke it's possible that schrinking by Macca earlyer in his life has set in, but get a f***ing life man, it's perfetic how you go on about it. Oke that's it from me.
Rut
Hey McFan, isn't clear enough?!! if McCCartney showed measurements of himself in the 60s being 183 cm with shoes and 180 cm without, that is................ ....height, Jackson is not five nine, I give him a bit more that that, oke it's possible that schrinking by Macca earlyer in his life has set in, but get a f***ing life man, it's perfetic how you go on about it. Oke that's it from me.
Rut
mcfan said on 17/Aug/06
Yeah, I agree Paul was the tallest...maybe. John was either the same height or was very close. Harrison was also very close to Paul, but maybe not quite a half-inch shorter. Here a four very good reasons for Paul not being 5'11: Stevie Wonder (6'0), Pete Townshend (6'0) and Robert Plant (6'0) were all taller than Paul by a couple inches. The other reason is 5'9 Jackson is too close to Paul in height in "Say, Say, Say". I think 178cm is a good estimate for Paul, but I don't think he is even that now...more like 177cm. In "Spies Like Us" 6'1 Dan Aykroyd is at least 3 inches taller than Paul.
The Beatles all looked taller than what they were due to being so skinny.
Yeah, I agree Paul was the tallest...maybe. John was either the same height or was very close. Harrison was also very close to Paul, but maybe not quite a half-inch shorter. Here a four very good reasons for Paul not being 5'11: Stevie Wonder (6'0), Pete Townshend (6'0) and Robert Plant (6'0) were all taller than Paul by a couple inches. The other reason is 5'9 Jackson is too close to Paul in height in "Say, Say, Say". I think 178cm is a good estimate for Paul, but I don't think he is even that now...more like 177cm. In "Spies Like Us" 6'1 Dan Aykroyd is at least 3 inches taller than Paul.
The Beatles all looked taller than what they were due to being so skinny.
Dries said on 16/Aug/06
Paul was the tallest Beatle. I estimate him at about 178 cm (5'10''). He must be as tall as Mick Jagger and Clapton, but NOT shorter. As for Jagger, there is a picture of him and George Harrison. George is a bit taller (1cm, 0.5 inch). Both wear low-heeled sport shoes. Jagger is a person who wants to be taller than he is.
Paul was the tallest Beatle. I estimate him at about 178 cm (5'10''). He must be as tall as Mick Jagger and Clapton, but NOT shorter. As for Jagger, there is a picture of him and George Harrison. George is a bit taller (1cm, 0.5 inch). Both wear low-heeled sport shoes. Jagger is a person who wants to be taller than he is.
mcfan said on 16/Aug/06
Jones was always taller than McCartney. When the both performed for the queen and this other concert they both were wearing nothing but normal shoes. Clapton and Jagger were taller than Lennon/McCartney too by just a hair. This is why I'm surprised that he is listed at 5'11. Just look at "Say, Say, Say" with Michael Jackson. There's these pictures too:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Michael Jackson, at the very most, was 5'9 so 5'11 for Paul seems impossible.
Jones was always taller than McCartney. When the both performed for the queen and this other concert they both were wearing nothing but normal shoes. Clapton and Jagger were taller than Lennon/McCartney too by just a hair. This is why I'm surprised that he is listed at 5'11. Just look at "Say, Say, Say" with Michael Jackson. There's these pictures too:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Michael Jackson, at the very most, was 5'9 so 5'11 for Paul seems impossible.
Anonymous said on 15/Aug/06
mcfan, that pic of him with Jones is ridiculous, you can't judge from that, besides Jones could have had bigger heels...
mcfan, that pic of him with Jones is ridiculous, you can't judge from that, besides Jones could have had bigger heels...
mcfan said on 14/Aug/06
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
If Tom Jones is 5'10 now, 5'10.5 at his peek then there is no way McCartney could have been 5'11.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
If Tom Jones is 5'10 now, 5'10.5 at his peek then there is no way McCartney could have been 5'11.
mcfan said on 10/Aug/06
In Rockpile's Little Sister 6'0 Townshend is two inches taller than McCartney. Paul was only 37 y/o so he wouldn't have shrunk. I see Glenn claiming 6'2 for Pete, but Townshend only ever looked 6'0 and this was all he ever claimed.
In Rockpile's Little Sister 6'0 Townshend is two inches taller than McCartney. Paul was only 37 y/o so he wouldn't have shrunk. I see Glenn claiming 6'2 for Pete, but Townshend only ever looked 6'0 and this was all he ever claimed.
mcfan said on 3/Aug/06
Leno was over an inch taller than McCartney I thought. Neil Young is still two inches taller than McCartney and this guy was only 6ft in his peek. I have a video of him giving Paul his lifetime achievement and Neil is two inches taller than him. Neil only claimed to be 6ft back then.
I would downgrade McCartney to 5'10-5'10.25 for his peek and 5'9.5 now. He wasn't even as tall as Jagger or Tom Jones.
Leno was over an inch taller than McCartney I thought. Neil Young is still two inches taller than McCartney and this guy was only 6ft in his peek. I have a video of him giving Paul his lifetime achievement and Neil is two inches taller than him. Neil only claimed to be 6ft back then.
I would downgrade McCartney to 5'10-5'10.25 for his peek and 5'9.5 now. He wasn't even as tall as Jagger or Tom Jones.
Chris said on 2/Aug/06
Paul McCartney was on the tonight show with Jay Leno a couple of years ago. They looked exactly the same height, 5'10"-5'11".
Paul McCartney was on the tonight show with Jay Leno a couple of years ago. They looked exactly the same height, 5'10"-5'11".
john said on 2/Aug/06
Ali looks like a solid 6-3 in the below pic if John and Paul were 5-10 to 5-11.
Ali looks like a solid 6-3 in the below pic if John and Paul were 5-10 to 5-11.
Rut said on 29/Jul/06
McCartney said once in the german program "Wedden das" to a tallish (Maybe 178 cm-to 180 cm barefoot + heels around 185-taller?)
German lady: "kleine engelsman, Grosse deutsche fraulein" or something....
McCartney said once in the german program "Wedden das" to a tallish (Maybe 178 cm-to 180 cm barefoot + heels around 185-taller?)
German lady: "kleine engelsman, Grosse deutsche fraulein" or something....
Rut said on 16/Jul/06
Eric Burdon gave his height as 5 ft 7 inch in 1964, Alan Price says(of himself) he was 5 ft 9, Chas Chandler 6 ft 4, others I can't remember..
Eric Burdon gave his height as 5 ft 7 inch in 1964, Alan Price says(of himself) he was 5 ft 9, Chas Chandler 6 ft 4, others I can't remember..
Anonymous said on 29/Jun/06
One of the most amazing things is how slim Paul, as well as the other three, has always been. I don't thin he ever gained more than 10 punds from the Beatle years up until now. Is that a genetic Liverpool "pool". I have read they ate fish & chips and corn flakes and drank milk and whiskey and coke. Not the best diet, right? Anyone has any photos of a fat Maca or John, George or Ringo?
One of the most amazing things is how slim Paul, as well as the other three, has always been. I don't thin he ever gained more than 10 punds from the Beatle years up until now. Is that a genetic Liverpool "pool". I have read they ate fish & chips and corn flakes and drank milk and whiskey and coke. Not the best diet, right? Anyone has any photos of a fat Maca or John, George or Ringo?
mcfan said on 13/Jun/06
My2Cents...good photographs all showing the three were of similar height. I don't think John was the tallest. Paul has his leg bent in the one photo. John does look a hair taller than Harrison, though. I still disagree with the editor that there was an inch difference between John and George with Paul. They were way too close in height. They were not separated by more than a half-inch.
My2Cents...good photographs all showing the three were of similar height. I don't think John was the tallest. Paul has his leg bent in the one photo. John does look a hair taller than Harrison, though. I still disagree with the editor that there was an inch difference between John and George with Paul. They were way too close in height. They were not separated by more than a half-inch.
Paul MacCartney said on 8/Jun/06
It is funny, we have similar names and similar heights. I am 5ft 10 1/2.
It is funny, we have similar names and similar heights. I am 5ft 10 1/2.
Chris said on 21/May/06
Yes, I have also met Yoko and she was about 5'5'' in heels.
Here he looks like 6'3''.
Click Here
From another angle
Click Here
Looks very tall
Click Here
Yes, I have also met Yoko and she was about 5'5'' in heels.
Here he looks like 6'3''.
Click Here
From another angle
Click Here
Looks very tall
Click Here
Anonymous said on 19/May/06
I met Yoko Ono, I am 5'9.5, she was wearing high heels and looked to me as a 5'5 lady, however John always looked so much taller than her.
I met Yoko Ono, I am 5'9.5, she was wearing high heels and looked to me as a 5'5 lady, however John always looked so much taller than her.
Anonymousse said on 10/May/06
Muhammad Ali towered over the Beatles and he was only 6'2" to 6'3":
Click Here
5'10" sounds about right.
Muhammad Ali towered over the Beatles and he was only 6'2" to 6'3":
Click Here
5'10" sounds about right.
Anonymous said on 28/Apr/06
I met Mick Jagger in 1992 in LA, I am 5'10 he is at most 5'8, no kidding! He is short and incredibly skinny.
I met Mick Jagger in 1992 in LA, I am 5'10 he is at most 5'8, no kidding! He is short and incredibly skinny.
TJ said on 26/Apr/06
You're welcome McFan. Chris, Ringo said it in a fairly recent interview. I just wish I could remember exactly when and where it was published. He definitely said it though.
You're welcome McFan. Chris, Ringo said it in a fairly recent interview. I just wish I could remember exactly when and where it was published. He definitely said it though.
Anonymous said on 26/Apr/06
Does anybody know Brian Epsten's and George Martin's height? It seems that Brian was about an inch taller than John and Paul, and George Martin looks like 6'2 at least.
Does anybody know Brian Epsten's and George Martin's height? It seems that Brian was about an inch taller than John and Paul, and George Martin looks like 6'2 at least.
mcfan said on 25/Apr/06
Thanks, TJ! I never knew Ringo's height, but I knew he was a lot shorter than the other three. My friend who was just a hair taller than me at 5'10.5 said he saw McCartney in Toronto years ago and swears he was lucky if he was 5'10.
Thanks, TJ! I never knew Ringo's height, but I knew he was a lot shorter than the other three. My friend who was just a hair taller than me at 5'10.5 said he saw McCartney in Toronto years ago and swears he was lucky if he was 5'10.
Chris said on 25/Apr/06
TJ-When did Ringo say he was 5'6½''?
TJ-When did Ringo say he was 5'6½''?
TJ said on 25/Apr/06
Mcfan. Ringo has himself said that his 60s height was not true and that he was really 5'6.5. As for Paul, I'd guess 5'10.5 in his prime.
Mcfan. Ringo has himself said that his 60s height was not true and that he was really 5'6.5. As for Paul, I'd guess 5'10.5 in his prime.
Rut said on 24/Apr/06
A big difference between 178cm and 180cm c'mon! oke, a little difference ok..
A big difference between 178cm and 180cm c'mon! oke, a little difference ok..
mcfan said on 23/Apr/06
Rob2,
I also have a book of People from 1981 listing McCartney at 5'9, Harrison at 5'8.5, and Ringo at 5'8. I don't think any of these heights are correct. All I know is that Tom Jones was always taller than McCartney by a quarter to a half-inch and Tom only claimed to be 5'10.5. Jagger was also 5'10.5 and slightly taller than McCartney so 5'10.25 would be very realistic for Paul. Even Elton John at 5'8 was only two inches shorter than Paul not three. If Harrison was about a half-inch shorter than McCartney...then 5'9.75 would be pretty accurate for him. Ringo did wear cuban heels an awful lot and judging from photos where you can see them all standing next to one another, he looked roughly 3-3.5 inches shorter than the other three. I'm guessing Ringo was 5'7, but he might have been only 5'6.75. 5'11 for John, Paul, and George was totally false and I don't know how people come to the conclusion that any of them were 5'11. It's just not possible. There's a big difference between 5'10.25 and 5'11.
Rob2,
I also have a book of People from 1981 listing McCartney at 5'9, Harrison at 5'8.5, and Ringo at 5'8. I don't think any of these heights are correct. All I know is that Tom Jones was always taller than McCartney by a quarter to a half-inch and Tom only claimed to be 5'10.5. Jagger was also 5'10.5 and slightly taller than McCartney so 5'10.25 would be very realistic for Paul. Even Elton John at 5'8 was only two inches shorter than Paul not three. If Harrison was about a half-inch shorter than McCartney...then 5'9.75 would be pretty accurate for him. Ringo did wear cuban heels an awful lot and judging from photos where you can see them all standing next to one another, he looked roughly 3-3.5 inches shorter than the other three. I'm guessing Ringo was 5'7, but he might have been only 5'6.75. 5'11 for John, Paul, and George was totally false and I don't know how people come to the conclusion that any of them were 5'11. It's just not possible. There's a big difference between 5'10.25 and 5'11.
mcfan said on 22/Apr/06
Anonymous,
Look at Blackpool "Ticket To Ride." Lennon does not appear as tall as McCartney there nor does he appear as tall as McCartney anywhere else. My impression is that Paul was just a hair taller no more than a quarter inch and Harrison was only a half-inch shorter. Lennon had very bad posture, but I'll agree that "Your Mother Should Know" is probably the most accurate of all the footage.
Anonymous,
Look at Blackpool "Ticket To Ride." Lennon does not appear as tall as McCartney there nor does he appear as tall as McCartney anywhere else. My impression is that Paul was just a hair taller no more than a quarter inch and Harrison was only a half-inch shorter. Lennon had very bad posture, but I'll agree that "Your Mother Should Know" is probably the most accurate of all the footage.
Anonymous said on 21/Apr/06
I just finished watching footage from the Anthlogy video about the Magical Mistery Tour, specifically Your Mother Should Know and it is very noticeable as the four Beatles dance toward the big stairway with their backs to the camera and turning back every now and then, that John is at least an ich taller than Paul, and George is about the same height than Paul.
I just finished watching footage from the Anthlogy video about the Magical Mistery Tour, specifically Your Mother Should Know and it is very noticeable as the four Beatles dance toward the big stairway with their backs to the camera and turning back every now and then, that John is at least an ich taller than Paul, and George is about the same height than Paul.
MHouillon said on 19/Apr/06
Finally someone mentions it !!!!! The appearance of a height is not only matched by the length of a body, it's also the WIDE (= broad shoulders, narrow shoulders). I am 177,8 cm tall = 5'10". My shoulders are not broad anyway, having problems with shoulder-dislocations -right side- and the resulting less muscles, I appear a little shorter than I am. I asked many other people to guess my height. And most people said: "You're a 174-175cm (5'8.5-5'9) guy." When I tell those people "I'm 178cm, most of them get a strange look on their face. When I prove it (normally getting measured by them), they raise their eyebrow like Mr. Spock and begin to mumble something.
Many people think. the thinner you are, the taller (or longer) you look. That sounds logical. But I made the experience, the broader you are, the "mightier" you are, the taller you look.
Finally someone mentions it !!!!! The appearance of a height is not only matched by the length of a body, it's also the WIDE (= broad shoulders, narrow shoulders). I am 177,8 cm tall = 5'10". My shoulders are not broad anyway, having problems with shoulder-dislocations -right side- and the resulting less muscles, I appear a little shorter than I am. I asked many other people to guess my height. And most people said: "You're a 174-175cm (5'8.5-5'9) guy." When I tell those people "I'm 178cm, most of them get a strange look on their face. When I prove it (normally getting measured by them), they raise their eyebrow like Mr. Spock and begin to mumble something.
Many people think. the thinner you are, the taller (or longer) you look. That sounds logical. But I made the experience, the broader you are, the "mightier" you are, the taller you look.
Djay said on 12/Apr/06
I think that John was the tallest of the Beatles. This is very deceiving though. The clearest information is from the Magical Mystery Tour Movie. If you look at the Your Mother Should Know bit, they are all wearing the same shoes. After the Beatles go down the steps and are in line with each other, it appears that John was the tallest. The deceiving thing is that Paul appears to be taller, only because he had broader shoulders than John's. With them being so close in height along with Paul's broader shoulders, gives the impression that Paul is taller. I agree wholeheartadly that both John and Paul were about an inch taller than George. So with Paul being John's height or just a hair shorter(very hard to tell) along with his broader shoulder's, he would be considered the tallest(biggest) of the Fab Four.
I think that John was the tallest of the Beatles. This is very deceiving though. The clearest information is from the Magical Mystery Tour Movie. If you look at the Your Mother Should Know bit, they are all wearing the same shoes. After the Beatles go down the steps and are in line with each other, it appears that John was the tallest. The deceiving thing is that Paul appears to be taller, only because he had broader shoulders than John's. With them being so close in height along with Paul's broader shoulders, gives the impression that Paul is taller. I agree wholeheartadly that both John and Paul were about an inch taller than George. So with Paul being John's height or just a hair shorter(very hard to tell) along with his broader shoulder's, he would be considered the tallest(biggest) of the Fab Four.
MHouillon said on 1/Apr/06
Glenn, do you still believe that Paul had two inches on John ?
Glenn, do you still believe that Paul had two inches on John ?
Tobin said on 29/Mar/06
Knuckleheads. I was at a bar on Conches Point Long Island NY, summer near The Mamptons, Mick Jagger was in. Cut the bull about Mick Jagget being taller than anyone. He is a little guy 5'6, maybe 5'5 or so, really short. I am 5'11 and his mellon was just a tad above my shoulder. Fact. plain fact.
Knuckleheads. I was at a bar on Conches Point Long Island NY, summer near The Mamptons, Mick Jagger was in. Cut the bull about Mick Jagget being taller than anyone. He is a little guy 5'6, maybe 5'5 or so, really short. I am 5'11 and his mellon was just a tad above my shoulder. Fact. plain fact.
Glenn said on 28/Mar/06
When I get to a computer Ill check those out,this is a cell phone.you didnt read that other comment someone said that paul was near 6ft? I always saw him taller than lennon.no, I never met lennon,but everyone who did tells me he was 5-9.and paul isnt 5-9.5.5-10.5 minimum,5-11 max in his youth,which would explain why he looks 5-11.5 in shoes,whenever I see him.with all due respect,your not taking my side into account,and Im not blind.he must have bad posture at times.
When I get to a computer Ill check those out,this is a cell phone.you didnt read that other comment someone said that paul was near 6ft? I always saw him taller than lennon.no, I never met lennon,but everyone who did tells me he was 5-9.and paul isnt 5-9.5.5-10.5 minimum,5-11 max in his youth,which would explain why he looks 5-11.5 in shoes,whenever I see him.with all due respect,your not taking my side into account,and Im not blind.he must have bad posture at times.
mcfan said on 28/Mar/06
Glenn,
"As much as two inches with Lennon?" Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
The three Beatles were lucky if they were separated by half an inch. They were all way too close in height. 5'9.75 to 5'10.25 is my guess barefoot when they were in their prime.
Have you met John Lennon? I haven't, but it's obvious that he was much taller than Julian or Sean by about 2 inches. Also, rent Magical Mystery Tour and look for the segment where they are all wearing the same shoes in the "Your Mother Should Know" piece. John is Paul's height and they are both taller than Harrison by almost a half-inch. In all the concert footage John is doing his usual crouching, but here he stands up straight.
It's amazing to me that people think that Paul was an inch or two taller than John or George. The Sgt. Pepper cover is very deceptive. Just off the top of my head I know that Stevie Wonder who is about 6 foot was taller than Paul by a couple of inches and that was almost 25 years ago. He's a skinny guy with good posture. George and especially John had bad posture.
Glenn,
"As much as two inches with Lennon?" Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
The three Beatles were lucky if they were separated by half an inch. They were all way too close in height. 5'9.75 to 5'10.25 is my guess barefoot when they were in their prime.
Have you met John Lennon? I haven't, but it's obvious that he was much taller than Julian or Sean by about 2 inches. Also, rent Magical Mystery Tour and look for the segment where they are all wearing the same shoes in the "Your Mother Should Know" piece. John is Paul's height and they are both taller than Harrison by almost a half-inch. In all the concert footage John is doing his usual crouching, but here he stands up straight.
It's amazing to me that people think that Paul was an inch or two taller than John or George. The Sgt. Pepper cover is very deceptive. Just off the top of my head I know that Stevie Wonder who is about 6 foot was taller than Paul by a couple of inches and that was almost 25 years ago. He's a skinny guy with good posture. George and especially John had bad posture.
Glenn said on 28/Mar/06
So Im not crazy,Paul can look tall.Im glad people are starting to agree.I will also buy that he is looking 5-10 now.
So Im not crazy,Paul can look tall.Im glad people are starting to agree.I will also buy that he is looking 5-10 now.
Chris said on 28/Mar/06
About Julian Lennon: He has said I
About Julian Lennon: He has said I
Dominic said on 27/Mar/06
I never heard of Paul wearing lifts. And the cover of Abbey Road Paul still looks the tallest out of all of them and he is barefoot. 5'11 to 6'0 in his prime, right now he is probably about 5'10 to 5'10.5.
I never heard of Paul wearing lifts. And the cover of Abbey Road Paul still looks the tallest out of all of them and he is barefoot. 5'11 to 6'0 in his prime, right now he is probably about 5'10 to 5'10.5.
Glenn said on 27/Mar/06
You are right about the sons and john.but I still dont agree about paul.I always see paul the tallest,as much as 2 inches with lennon.unless paul wears lifts?
You are right about the sons and john.but I still dont agree about paul.I always see paul the tallest,as much as 2 inches with lennon.unless paul wears lifts?
Virgil said on 26/Mar/06
I read comments by a 60s girlfriend of Pauls, saying that he was the tallest, with around 6ft (though he might have been wearing lifts, and can be seen streching as much as he can in all pictures), George exactly 5ft 11 and John 5ft 10.
I read comments by a 60s girlfriend of Pauls, saying that he was the tallest, with around 6ft (though he might have been wearing lifts, and can be seen streching as much as he can in all pictures), George exactly 5ft 11 and John 5ft 10.
mcfan said on 25/Mar/06
Glenn,
Julian and Sean were much shorter than John. I saw Julian with Paul and Paul towered over him by two inches. I think Julian is only 5'8.
I have a SNL where Chris Farley and Paul are standing next to each other and Paul tries to lift him. If Farley is only 5'8 then Paul is at the most 5'9.5.
Glenn,
Julian and Sean were much shorter than John. I saw Julian with Paul and Paul towered over him by two inches. I think Julian is only 5'8.
I have a SNL where Chris Farley and Paul are standing next to each other and Paul tries to lift him. If Farley is only 5'8 then Paul is at the most 5'9.5.
Glenn said on 23/Mar/06
If Paul Is 5-9.5,the Lennon Is 5-7.5? I dont believe that.lennon and his sons are 5-9.
If Paul Is 5-9.5,the Lennon Is 5-7.5? I dont believe that.lennon and his sons are 5-9.
Glenn said on 22/Mar/06
Whats amazing is that all of seem to forget I see all of these people all the time.and most of you never met these people.back then clapton was good with heels.now looking 5-9.5.bowie shrunk to 5-9.jagger 5-9.5,paul still looking 5-10.5.my friends agree.
Whats amazing is that all of seem to forget I see all of these people all the time.and most of you never met these people.back then clapton was good with heels.now looking 5-9.5.bowie shrunk to 5-9.jagger 5-9.5,paul still looking 5-10.5.my friends agree.
mcfan said on 22/Mar/06
Glenn,
Clapton, I know for a fact, was taller than Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and John Lennon. He was taller than Harrison by about an inch and about a half-inch taller than Lennon/McCartney. I'll agree with you that McCartney might look 5'11 in shoes, but not 6 foot. 5'9 for Clapton looks wrong, but people shrink more than others. How tall do you think Bowie is? If you look at "Dancing In the Streets" video, Jagger is taller than him by a half-inch so where do you place his height? I would say Bowie is the same height as McCartney or maybe .25 less.
Glenn,
Clapton, I know for a fact, was taller than Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and John Lennon. He was taller than Harrison by about an inch and about a half-inch taller than Lennon/McCartney. I'll agree with you that McCartney might look 5'11 in shoes, but not 6 foot. 5'9 for Clapton looks wrong, but people shrink more than others. How tall do you think Bowie is? If you look at "Dancing In the Streets" video, Jagger is taller than him by a half-inch so where do you place his height? I would say Bowie is the same height as McCartney or maybe .25 less.
MHouillon said on 22/Mar/06
Thank you, AD.
Rob, how many more people do you need until you correct Paul's height to 177cm (5'9.5) ?
Thank you, AD.
Rob, how many more people do you need until you correct Paul's height to 177cm (5'9.5) ?
AD said on 22/Mar/06
I've met Paul on 3 occasions, he's definately either 1.76m or 1.77m ...no taller.... no smaller.
I've met Paul on 3 occasions, he's definately either 1.76m or 1.77m ...no taller.... no smaller.
Glenn said on 22/Mar/06
Whats bizzare is I believe all of you cause this what got me fascinated in heights 13 years ago when I saw a 6ft johnny depp.then looking 5-9 years later.Bowie,clapton both look 5-9 to me.go on google and type Blind faith replacement album cover.not the one with the naked 12 year old girl on cover.search for the one with band photo.tell me clapton looks 5-11 there,then I must be blind.he looks 5-9 next to 6-2 Ginger baker.or smaller.
Whats bizzare is I believe all of you cause this what got me fascinated in heights 13 years ago when I saw a 6ft johnny depp.then looking 5-9 years later.Bowie,clapton both look 5-9 to me.go on google and type Blind faith replacement album cover.not the one with the naked 12 year old girl on cover.search for the one with band photo.tell me clapton looks 5-11 there,then I must be blind.he looks 5-9 next to 6-2 Ginger baker.or smaller.
Chris said on 21/Mar/06
When Paul preformed on the tribute to harrison concert, he looked one 1 inch smaller than Clapton. Also on the mtv-music awards a couple of years ago, paul and David Bowie looked the same height. About 5'10''. That means clapton got to be 5'11''.
When Paul preformed on the tribute to harrison concert, he looked one 1 inch smaller than Clapton. Also on the mtv-music awards a couple of years ago, paul and David Bowie looked the same height. About 5'10''. That means clapton got to be 5'11''.
MHouillon said on 21/Mar/06
Rob, could you please add something ? The heights we are talking about on celebheights.com are always barefeet! Not with shoes or boots on. So if you claim he looks a six footer, please tell us, that added the heels into this height.
You are asking me if I can judge heights of celebs better than you ? No I don't. I'd never dare to argue with you, Glenn.
I just have eyes, and most other people on this thread, too.
Marco
Editor Rob
Rob, could you please add something ? The heights we are talking about on celebheights.com are always barefeet! Not with shoes or boots on. So if you claim he looks a six footer, please tell us, that added the heels into this height.
You are asking me if I can judge heights of celebs better than you ? No I don't. I'd never dare to argue with you, Glenn.
I just have eyes, and most other people on this thread, too.
Marco
Editor Rob yeah, all barefoot heights. McCartney for most career did look 180cm man. Lately, maybe not. With a strong 6ft 2 guy. Maybe his posture is sometimes making him look 177cm?
Glenn said on 20/Mar/06
Photos cannot gauge anything precise.meeting him twice a year,gives me better authority to judge his height.in shoes,he looks near 6 feet,which means he is 5-10.5 at smallest.maybe he shrunk.I have a photo with jones too.so what.6ft in boots possibly.so 5-10 is right.so you can judge height better than me when I have thousands of photos with celebs?
Photos cannot gauge anything precise.meeting him twice a year,gives me better authority to judge his height.in shoes,he looks near 6 feet,which means he is 5-10.5 at smallest.maybe he shrunk.I have a photo with jones too.so what.6ft in boots possibly.so 5-10 is right.so you can judge height better than me when I have thousands of photos with celebs?
Glenn said on 20/Mar/06
By the way,some say rudy can look 5-8.Ive seen him look as tall as 5-11 in shoes.
By the way,some say rudy can look 5-8.Ive seen him look as tall as 5-11 in shoes.
Glenn said on 20/Mar/06
He shrunk or wears lifts.plant shrunk too.but can look 6-4 in heels even in the mid 90s.macca in shoes did look 5-11.5,3 years ago.ringo has to be downgraded seriously.
He shrunk or wears lifts.plant shrunk too.but can look 6-4 in heels even in the mid 90s.macca in shoes did look 5-11.5,3 years ago.ringo has to be downgraded seriously.
mcfan said on 19/Mar/06
Glenn,
McCartney was like an inch shorter than Mayor Giuliani and the Mayor only claims to be 5'10. 6 foot Robert Plant skied over him in Rockpile's "Little Sister" video by about 2-3 inches. I agree with Marco that Paul only looks 5'9.5 now, but I will give him 5'10.25 in his Beatle days.
Glenn,
McCartney was like an inch shorter than Mayor Giuliani and the Mayor only claims to be 5'10. 6 foot Robert Plant skied over him in Rockpile's "Little Sister" video by about 2-3 inches. I agree with Marco that Paul only looks 5'9.5 now, but I will give him 5'10.25 in his Beatle days.
MHouillon said on 19/Mar/06
Hi, Glen.
Paul McCartney near six feet is just ridiculous!!!
I have met Tom Jones several times, you can see the pictures (down right corner) here:
Click Here
I am 5'10" (178cm) and so is Tom, can you see that ? We are exactly eye to eye.
Tom is at 0.5 - 1 inch taller than Paul McCartney look here, please :
Click Here
However, even if you meet Paul McCartney twice a year, that does not make him taller than 5'9.5" (177cm).
Best whishes, Marco
Hi, Glen.
Paul McCartney near six feet is just ridiculous!!!
I have met Tom Jones several times, you can see the pictures (down right corner) here:
Click Here
I am 5'10" (178cm) and so is Tom, can you see that ? We are exactly eye to eye.
Tom is at 0.5 - 1 inch taller than Paul McCartney look here, please :
Click Here
However, even if you meet Paul McCartney twice a year, that does not make him taller than 5'9.5" (177cm).
Best whishes, Marco
Glenn said on 19/Mar/06
No way.I see Paul twice a year and he can look near 6 feet! ringo looks 5-5,and harrison looked 5-9 when I saw him.
No way.I see Paul twice a year and he can look near 6 feet! ringo looks 5-5,and harrison looked 5-9 when I saw him.
MHouillon said on 18/Mar/06
Rob, I think you should correct Paul's height to 5'9.5". Many other people (+ one, who actually met him) swear for the 176-177cm height.
Thanks
Rob, I think you should correct Paul's height to 5'9.5". Many other people (+ one, who actually met him) swear for the 176-177cm height.
Thanks
Rut said on 8/Mar/06
Ringo was maybe 171 cm..
Editor Rob
Ringo was maybe 171 cm..
Editor Rob 5ft 7.5 would be a good guess
sf said on 4/Mar/06
That Paul McCartney site is hilarious. They actually take one photograph where Paul is obviously bigger in the photographs(takes ups more space in the photo) and compare it to another where he is smaller and say he's not the same height or some crap. Not to mention many other idiotic comparisons based on a about 5 photographs. Whoever this new Paul is, he sure does look like the old Paul!
Editor Rob
That Paul McCartney site is hilarious. They actually take one photograph where Paul is obviously bigger in the photographs(takes ups more space in the photo) and compare it to another where he is smaller and say he's not the same height or some crap. Not to mention many other idiotic comparisons based on a about 5 photographs. Whoever this new Paul is, he sure does look like the old Paul!
Editor Rob yeah, the McCartney death thing is as crazy as saying from early 2004- July 2005 a different Editor was running this website...a 5ft 3 Rob, who went to France on holiday and drove his car off a cliff. Then, me, an older, but 5 inch taller Rob was drafted in to replace him! Now you know the reason why I never reveal myself!
stef said on 4/Mar/06
agreed Anonymous. I met Paul in Rome in 2003 and he looked 176/177 cm (5'9.5"), not more.
agreed Anonymous. I met Paul in Rome in 2003 and he looked 176/177 cm (5'9.5"), not more.
Anonymous said on 3/Mar/06
If there was any truth in what that site claims, the 'new' Paul ,(post 1966), would be around 6'1" - 6' 2".... now you ask anyone whose met him, including me, he's no more than 5'10", even 20 years ago.
If there was any truth in what that site claims, the 'new' Paul ,(post 1966), would be around 6'1" - 6' 2".... now you ask anyone whose met him, including me, he's no more than 5'10", even 20 years ago.
TJ said on 2/Mar/06
GM, I assumed you were kidding and then I looked at the site. There sure are some nuts on the Internet.
GM, I assumed you were kidding and then I looked at the site. There sure are some nuts on the Internet.
GM said on 2/Mar/06
Viper652, the genuine Paul who died in 1966 would have been 63. Not this guy. Here's a height comparison. http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc42.html. It's hard to find pictures of the Beatles that show their feet.
Viper652, the genuine Paul who died in 1966 would have been 63. Not this guy. Here's a height comparison. http://digilander.libero.it/jamespaul/fc42.html. It's hard to find pictures of the Beatles that show their feet.
Frank2 said on 26/Feb/06
I also met him, but way back in the very early 1960's when he came to Los Angeles with The Beatles. He appeared to be about five feet ten. Nice man. A class act all the way.
I also met him, but way back in the very early 1960's when he came to Los Angeles with The Beatles. He appeared to be about five feet ten. Nice man. A class act all the way.
Anonymous said on 16/Feb/06
I met Paul back in 1986 when I was 16 and had my photo taken with him (which unfortunately I've lost since).At the time I was 5'9" and although we are dead level on the photo, he was wearing flat pumps (sneakers), so I think 5'9.5" is about right.
I met Paul back in 1986 when I was 16 and had my photo taken with him (which unfortunately I've lost since).At the time I was 5'9" and although we are dead level on the photo, he was wearing flat pumps (sneakers), so I think 5'9.5" is about right.
mcfan said on 13/Feb/06
Tom Jones I think was a solid 5'10.5 as he claimed on Leno. If Lennon was 5'10 as Yoko claimed then McCartney must have been at the most 5'10.25 because he was not quite Tom's height back then and just barely a tad taller than John. People shrink at different rates. He only looks to me at most 5'9.5, but he's probably shrunk close to an inch due to his age.
Tom Jones I think was a solid 5'10.5 as he claimed on Leno. If Lennon was 5'10 as Yoko claimed then McCartney must have been at the most 5'10.25 because he was not quite Tom's height back then and just barely a tad taller than John. People shrink at different rates. He only looks to me at most 5'9.5, but he's probably shrunk close to an inch due to his age.
Viper652 said on 13/Feb/06
GM, Paul is 63 years old. And, Paul sure did look a solid 5-10.5 to 5-11 next to 6-1 Jay-Z at the grammy awards. No way is he under 5-10 though. If he is 5-9, then Jay Z is under 6-0.
GM, Paul is 63 years old. And, Paul sure did look a solid 5-10.5 to 5-11 next to 6-1 Jay-Z at the grammy awards. No way is he under 5-10 though. If he is 5-9, then Jay Z is under 6-0.
MHouillon said on 12/Feb/06
Rob, I have several pictures of him beside Tom Jones. One from the late 60's and some from the late 90's on the Linda McCartney tribute concert. Having Tom Jones at 5'10 (178cm), Paul McCartney is a 176cm (5'9.25).
Rob, I have several pictures of him beside Tom Jones. One from the late 60's and some from the late 90's on the Linda McCartney tribute concert. Having Tom Jones at 5'10 (178cm), Paul McCartney is a 176cm (5'9.25).
GM said on 11/Feb/06
The man we know as Paul McCartney now isn't the same man as the pre-1967 Paul (he really did die in 1966). The original Paul McCartney was a bit shorter than John. The current "Paul" topped John by at least 1-2 inches. Check the photos. Hasn't anyone noticed how bad health nut Paul looks for a 64-yr. old? That's because he's at least 72!
The man we know as Paul McCartney now isn't the same man as the pre-1967 Paul (he really did die in 1966). The original Paul McCartney was a bit shorter than John. The current "Paul" topped John by at least 1-2 inches. Check the photos. Hasn't anyone noticed how bad health nut Paul looks for a 64-yr. old? That's because he's at least 72!
Chris said on 25/Jan/06
Oh that´s right, Dustin Hoffman is 5'5''
Oh that´s right, Dustin Hoffman is 5'5''
Chris said on 25/Jan/06
The thing is I don
The thing is I don
Tubbs said on 24/Jan/06
i've found a pic of Macca wearing some Nike trainers, they do look pretty chunky, any room for lifts? I dont know, but they do look quite big and cumbersome - Any ideas?
http://www.southportforums.com/pics/c106.JPG
i've found a pic of Macca wearing some Nike trainers, they do look pretty chunky, any room for lifts? I dont know, but they do look quite big and cumbersome - Any ideas?
http://www.southportforums.com/pics/c106.JPG
Tubbs said on 24/Jan/06
Macca next to Parky, I know there both leaning in, but Macca looks marginally taller to me, not too sure about Parkinsons height, he has described himself as being tall, but having looked at this picture, he looks at tops 5'10.5", with reference to rastus comment on 6 Jan about Macca's footwear, I also noticed that he wears those suede trainers, had no idea that there may be lifts in them, anymore info on them Rastus?
http://www.bbcamerica.com/images/genre/home_living/parkinson_im2.jpg
Macca next to Parky, I know there both leaning in, but Macca looks marginally taller to me, not too sure about Parkinsons height, he has described himself as being tall, but having looked at this picture, he looks at tops 5'10.5", with reference to rastus comment on 6 Jan about Macca's footwear, I also noticed that he wears those suede trainers, had no idea that there may be lifts in them, anymore info on them Rastus?
http://www.bbcamerica.com/images/genre/home_living/parkinson_im2.jpg
Anonymous said on 15/Jan/06
Pete Best is 5'8''.
Pete Best is 5'8''.
Anonymous said on 7/Jan/06
Does any one know how tall Pete Best was? He looks like John's height.
Does any one know how tall Pete Best was? He looks like John's height.
mcfan said on 6/Jan/06
Rastus,
The three Beatles that you think were only 5'9 were in too many photos with people even after they stopped wearing heels where it's obvious they weren't that short. I agree with you that the three were not 5'11, but I would guess McCartney was 5'10.25, Lennon 5'10, and Harrison 5'9.75. Just off the top of my head, I remember Dick Cavett's show where Chuck Berry (6'1-6'1.5) was only like 3 inches taller than Lennon. The guy that probably has shrunk the most is Keith Richards. He used to be like 5'10.25, but he looks like 5'8.5 now.
McCartney is still like a half-inch shorter than Tom Jones so he's probably 5'9.5-5'9.75 now.
Rastus,
The three Beatles that you think were only 5'9 were in too many photos with people even after they stopped wearing heels where it's obvious they weren't that short. I agree with you that the three were not 5'11, but I would guess McCartney was 5'10.25, Lennon 5'10, and Harrison 5'9.75. Just off the top of my head, I remember Dick Cavett's show where Chuck Berry (6'1-6'1.5) was only like 3 inches taller than Lennon. The guy that probably has shrunk the most is Keith Richards. He used to be like 5'10.25, but he looks like 5'8.5 now.
McCartney is still like a half-inch shorter than Tom Jones so he's probably 5'9.5-5'9.75 now.
Rastus said on 6/Jan/06
Sadly, time catches up with us all and Macca is 5'8"-5'9" these days. Any keen-eyed fans will have noticed Paul's preferred footwear over the last two or three years have been these black suede trainers with a black rubber soul (no pun intended). They look quite chunky and uncomfortable until you realise why he's wearing them - they're definitely 3" lifts. Macca and lennon may have appeared 5'10" in their heyday, but remember that the group was famed for wearing Cuban heels! They were both 5'9" max and Macca is definitely closer to 5'8" now. Also, don't forget that a lot of their peers (i.e. the people in photos with them) were pretty short too - all of the Stones, Byrds, Dylan, Yoko, Bowie etc.
Sadly, time catches up with us all and Macca is 5'8"-5'9" these days. Any keen-eyed fans will have noticed Paul's preferred footwear over the last two or three years have been these black suede trainers with a black rubber soul (no pun intended). They look quite chunky and uncomfortable until you realise why he's wearing them - they're definitely 3" lifts. Macca and lennon may have appeared 5'10" in their heyday, but remember that the group was famed for wearing Cuban heels! They were both 5'9" max and Macca is definitely closer to 5'8" now. Also, don't forget that a lot of their peers (i.e. the people in photos with them) were pretty short too - all of the Stones, Byrds, Dylan, Yoko, Bowie etc.
Anonymous said on 5/Jan/06
My name is F. Traeger; I went to Madamme Tussaud's wax museum in London in 1979 and they had the 4 Beatles on display in the White Album kind of look . I am 5ft 10in and was surprised to see Paul, John and George standing like 6 ft 2 in., at least, and they were not on a platform- and Ringo about my height. I wonder how come the museum got their heights so wrong. Plus, if you see the same museum's wax renditions of the fab 4 on the Sgt. Pepper sleeve album, they stand at least 3 inches shorter than the real ones. What's wrong with Madamme T?
My name is F. Traeger; I went to Madamme Tussaud's wax museum in London in 1979 and they had the 4 Beatles on display in the White Album kind of look . I am 5ft 10in and was surprised to see Paul, John and George standing like 6 ft 2 in., at least, and they were not on a platform- and Ringo about my height. I wonder how come the museum got their heights so wrong. Plus, if you see the same museum's wax renditions of the fab 4 on the Sgt. Pepper sleeve album, they stand at least 3 inches shorter than the real ones. What's wrong with Madamme T?
Anonymous said on 5/Jan/06
Thank you for all your info on the Beatles heights. I was at Abby Road studios and a guy that knows Paul very well told me he is 5'11, an inch taller than John and George.
Federico, LA
Thank you for all your info on the Beatles heights. I was at Abby Road studios and a guy that knows Paul very well told me he is 5'11, an inch taller than John and George.
Federico, LA
Rut said on 3/Jan/06
Question for editor Rob: Did you already add George to this site? (can't seem to find him)
How tall was Brian Epstein you think..?
Question for editor Rob: Did you already add George to this site? (can't seem to find him)
How tall was Brian Epstein you think..?
CelebHeights Editor said on 2/Jan/06
Telegraph article: "He is indeed looking lithe, tanned and moisture-free - and a little shorter than I'd imagined. I've read that he is 5ft 11in..."
Telegraph article: "He is indeed looking lithe, tanned and moisture-free - and a little shorter than I'd imagined. I've read that he is 5ft 11in..."
Rut said on 29/Dec/05
The Beatles (except Ringo) where all the same height maybe a few millimeters between them (!!!)I'm looking forward to seeing George and Ringo added to this site. I let Rob deceide if he agrees that Paul, John & George where the same height..back to you Rob..
The Beatles (except Ringo) where all the same height maybe a few millimeters between them (!!!)I'm looking forward to seeing George and Ringo added to this site. I let Rob deceide if he agrees that Paul, John & George where the same height..back to you Rob..
mcfan said on 27/Dec/05
Here is one photo with Jagger. They look about the same height, but I know Jagger appeared a quarter inch taller than him in another. Jagger was only 5'10.5 at his peek.
http://wheelinthesky.org/beatles/mickpaul.jpg
Here is one photo with Jagger. They look about the same height, but I know Jagger appeared a quarter inch taller than him in another. Jagger was only 5'10.5 at his peek.
http://wheelinthesky.org/beatles/mickpaul.jpg
Rut said on 27/Dec/05
Yes, not bad..Rob!
Yes, not bad..Rob!
CelebHeights Editor said on 27/Dec/05
Rut sent a Dutch article to me where McCartney looks to have listed all sorts of measurements. His height is stated "180cm, 183 with shoes.", weight 72kg, Chest 96.5cm, waist 76cm, Neck 38cm, inside leg 79cm, shoe size UK 8 (US 9) (Eur 42). At least that's what I thought it gave, Rut that right?
Rut sent a Dutch article to me where McCartney looks to have listed all sorts of measurements. His height is stated "180cm, 183 with shoes.", weight 72kg, Chest 96.5cm, waist 76cm, Neck 38cm, inside leg 79cm, shoe size UK 8 (US 9) (Eur 42). At least that's what I thought it gave, Rut that right?
mcfan said on 9/Dec/05
http://history.absoluteelsewhere.net/February/February%20Graphics/john&paul_singing.jpg
This was from "Hey Bulldog" video.
http://history.absoluteelsewhere.net/February/February%20Graphics/john&paul_singing.jpg
This was from "Hey Bulldog" video.
TJ said on 4/Dec/05
Mcfan and Chris, Ringo was generally listed at 5'8 in the 60s, but that was false. 5'7 is also wrong. He has since said in interviews that the publicist made up his height and he's only really 5'6. No reason he would lie.
Mcfan and Chris, Ringo was generally listed at 5'8 in the 60s, but that was false. 5'7 is also wrong. He has since said in interviews that the publicist made up his height and he's only really 5'6. No reason he would lie.
Dries Van Dongen said on 4/Dec/05
Paul was the tallest Beatle, probably almost 1.80 m (= 5'11"), followed by Harrison's 5'10" and then Lennon's 5'9"1/2. Ringo measures about 1.68/69
Paul was the tallest Beatle, probably almost 1.80 m (= 5'11"), followed by Harrison's 5'10" and then Lennon's 5'9"1/2. Ringo measures about 1.68/69
mcfan said on 4/Dec/05
Harrison was shorter than Lennon. They all said they were 5'11 except Ringo. They were all close in height but the differences between them wasn't that much. Lennon and McCartney were not an inch apart...more like a quarter inch. Harrison looked to me to be a quarter inch shorter than Lennon and a half-inch shorter than McCartney. Lennon was the one that fooled me initially because I thought he was the shortest of the three. After I saw the films and photos he had this thing when he sang where he would slouch down and have his legs far apart. The videos of "Hello Goodbye" and "Your Mother Should Know" show he was taller than Harrison as do the rare pictures where he isn't slouching.
In all honesty I think the correct heights for the three are: 5'10 for McCartney and 5'9.75 for Lennon and 5'9.5 for Harrison. I have no idea about Ringo. He looks 5'6 or 5'7.
Harrison was shorter than Lennon. They all said they were 5'11 except Ringo. They were all close in height but the differences between them wasn't that much. Lennon and McCartney were not an inch apart...more like a quarter inch. Harrison looked to me to be a quarter inch shorter than Lennon and a half-inch shorter than McCartney. Lennon was the one that fooled me initially because I thought he was the shortest of the three. After I saw the films and photos he had this thing when he sang where he would slouch down and have his legs far apart. The videos of "Hello Goodbye" and "Your Mother Should Know" show he was taller than Harrison as do the rare pictures where he isn't slouching.
In all honesty I think the correct heights for the three are: 5'10 for McCartney and 5'9.75 for Lennon and 5'9.5 for Harrison. I have no idea about Ringo. He looks 5'6 or 5'7.
Chris said on 4/Dec/05
McFan - It would be interesting to see thoose pictures. I´m a huge Beatlefan myself and I looked through an old Beatle-magazin. It was an article on every member of The Beatles. It said:
McCartney 5'11''
Lennon 5'11''
Harrison 5'11''
Starr 5'7''
I´ve seen the shows you´re talking about and I don´t think Jagger was taller than Lennon. John Lennon was meassured by Yoko Ono as 5'10'' (178 cm) McCartney was about 1 inch taller than Lennon and a half inch taller than Harrison. Ringo I think is about 5'7''. I saw a documentary about T-Rex from the 70:s. He was about 5'4½'' and Ringo was a guest on his show. Standing beside eachother the diffirence was 3 inch, although Ringo had boots on. He may aswell be in the 5'6 area. I still belive this was there true heights.
McCartney 5'11''
Lennon 5'10
Harrison 5'10½''
Starr 5'7''
McFan - It would be interesting to see thoose pictures. I´m a huge Beatlefan myself and I looked through an old Beatle-magazin. It was an article on every member of The Beatles. It said:
McCartney 5'11''
Lennon 5'11''
Harrison 5'11''
Starr 5'7''
I´ve seen the shows you´re talking about and I don´t think Jagger was taller than Lennon. John Lennon was meassured by Yoko Ono as 5'10'' (178 cm) McCartney was about 1 inch taller than Lennon and a half inch taller than Harrison. Ringo I think is about 5'7''. I saw a documentary about T-Rex from the 70:s. He was about 5'4½'' and Ringo was a guest on his show. Standing beside eachother the diffirence was 3 inch, although Ringo had boots on. He may aswell be in the 5'6 area. I still belive this was there true heights.
McCartney 5'11''
Lennon 5'10
Harrison 5'10½''
Starr 5'7''
stef said on 4/Dec/05
rob, in that last pic you posted, Macca looks shorter than 5'9" Jack Nicholson and 5'8" Stallone... What do you think? As I said earlier, I met him in 2003 and to me he looked 176/177cm, not more!! (myself being 178 without shoes)
Editor Rob
rob, in that last pic you posted, Macca looks shorter than 5'9" Jack Nicholson and 5'8" Stallone... What do you think? As I said earlier, I met him in 2003 and to me he looked 176/177cm, not more!! (myself being 178 without shoes)
Editor Rob that pic that rut found was interesting...maybe he kind of slouches sometimes. But in old photos from 60s he does look 5ft 11
McFan said on 3/Dec/05
Rut, There is no way McCartney is 5'11 nor was he ever 5'11. At his peek he may have been at the most 5'10.5, but today he isn't even as tall as Leno or even Rudolf Guliani. I think he is barely scraping 5'10. I know it's difficult to size up McCartney, Lennon, and Harrison because they were all very close in height, but I would say McCartney was 5'10-5'10.5 followed by Lennon at 5'10.25 and Harrison a quarter inch shorter than Lennon. Again, look at "Your Mother Should Know" for the comparison. They were all lined up by height it appears: McCartney, Lennon, Harrison, and Starr. Another good way to get a true take on Lennon's height is to watch the Mike Douglas show where he and Chuck Berry appears. They're both wearing the same huge heels and Berry who was known to be 6'1.5 looked 3 inches taller than Lennon.
Also, in "Rock and Roll Christmas" with the Stones, CLapton was not shorter than Lennon or Richards. Lennon looked to be the shortest of the three although he had his usual stance with his legs apart and slouching. Clapton was a true 5'11er. Jagger was taller than McCartney and Lennon. You can see it in the photos. He's got a quarter inch on them both.
I have other photos of the Beatles which show their heights. I'll post them when I look through them.
Rut, There is no way McCartney is 5'11 nor was he ever 5'11. At his peek he may have been at the most 5'10.5, but today he isn't even as tall as Leno or even Rudolf Guliani. I think he is barely scraping 5'10. I know it's difficult to size up McCartney, Lennon, and Harrison because they were all very close in height, but I would say McCartney was 5'10-5'10.5 followed by Lennon at 5'10.25 and Harrison a quarter inch shorter than Lennon. Again, look at "Your Mother Should Know" for the comparison. They were all lined up by height it appears: McCartney, Lennon, Harrison, and Starr. Another good way to get a true take on Lennon's height is to watch the Mike Douglas show where he and Chuck Berry appears. They're both wearing the same huge heels and Berry who was known to be 6'1.5 looked 3 inches taller than Lennon.
Also, in "Rock and Roll Christmas" with the Stones, CLapton was not shorter than Lennon or Richards. Lennon looked to be the shortest of the three although he had his usual stance with his legs apart and slouching. Clapton was a true 5'11er. Jagger was taller than McCartney and Lennon. You can see it in the photos. He's got a quarter inch on them both.
I have other photos of the Beatles which show their heights. I'll post them when I look through them.
Rut said on 3/Dec/05
Hey is exact the same document I send..
But you agree he maybe still could be it..?
I don't know, but maybe he should be just be changed to 5 ft 11 because that he was for most of his career..
Hey is exact the same document I send..
But you agree he maybe still could be it..?
I don't know, but maybe he should be just be changed to 5 ft 11 because that he was for most of his career..
Rut said on 3/Dec/05
Mcfan, McCartney was at least 5 foot 11 inches at his peak, personally I think he still is, maybe he has a back problem these days..
Yes, this is rut joining again the ever going battle of heights..
Rob, I'm sending you a page from a souvenirprogram from 2003 that shows McCartney still could be 5 ft 11, but just for yourself.
I'll still have some interesting points (on other heights) but I send them to you after christmas.
Editor Rob
Mcfan, McCartney was at least 5 foot 11 inches at his peak, personally I think he still is, maybe he has a back problem these days..
Yes, this is rut joining again the ever going battle of heights..
Rob, I'm sending you a page from a souvenirprogram from 2003 that shows McCartney still could be 5 ft 11, but just for yourself.
I'll still have some interesting points (on other heights) but I send them to you after christmas.
Editor Rob hey, the Rut is still alive ;) McCartney near Stallone, Jason Patric, Nicholson, Leno and tyler
Chris said on 3/Dec/05
In the concert a tribute to George Harrison, Clapton looked taller than McCartney. My best friend talked to Eric Clapton outside Grand Hotell here in Stockholm. It was only him and Clapton outside and according to my friend Clapton is at least 5'11''. Later on I asked my father 5'10'' to stand next to my friend the way Clapton did. I wanted to be sure and my dad was wearing normal shoes. In thoose he is about 5'11''and he still looked shorter than Clapton. Clapton must be about 5'11''. There is no way he is only 5'9''. But if Glen met him ok...but also did my friend and he was very sure what he saw.
In the concert a tribute to George Harrison, Clapton looked taller than McCartney. My best friend talked to Eric Clapton outside Grand Hotell here in Stockholm. It was only him and Clapton outside and according to my friend Clapton is at least 5'11''. Later on I asked my father 5'10'' to stand next to my friend the way Clapton did. I wanted to be sure and my dad was wearing normal shoes. In thoose he is about 5'11''and he still looked shorter than Clapton. Clapton must be about 5'11''. There is no way he is only 5'9''. But if Glen met him ok...but also did my friend and he was very sure what he saw.
Glenn said on 3/Dec/05
I met all these people except lennon.and can proove I did.paul is 5-11,lennon was 5-9,harrison was 5-9,clapton is 5-9 and ringo is no way even 5-7.he is 5-5.Im 5-8.bernard is right! oh jagger is 5-10.
I met all these people except lennon.and can proove I did.paul is 5-11,lennon was 5-9,harrison was 5-9,clapton is 5-9 and ringo is no way even 5-7.he is 5-5.Im 5-8.bernard is right! oh jagger is 5-10.
Chris said on 2/Dec/05
Eric Clapton is about 1 inch taller than McCartney. John Lennon was about 1 inch shorther tahn McCartney...also I read a biography about Paul, where he said he was taller than Mick Jagger.
In the 60´s:
Paul McCartney 5'11''
John Lennon 5'10''
Mick Jagger 5'10
Eric Clapton 5'11½-6'
Eric Clapton is about 1 inch taller than McCartney. John Lennon was about 1 inch shorther tahn McCartney...also I read a biography about Paul, where he said he was taller than Mick Jagger.
In the 60´s:
Paul McCartney 5'11''
John Lennon 5'10''
Mick Jagger 5'10
Eric Clapton 5'11½-6'
Dries Van Dongen said on 2/Dec/05
Mick Jagger certainly isn't taller than Paul or George! Eric Clapton is shorter than John Lennon, as can be seen clearly on the 'Rock 'n'Roll Circus' video, in which he performed with Lennon in the 'Dirty Mac' supergroup, alongside Keith Richards (who wasn't taller than Lennon either).
Mick Jagger certainly isn't taller than Paul or George! Eric Clapton is shorter than John Lennon, as can be seen clearly on the 'Rock 'n'Roll Circus' video, in which he performed with Lennon in the 'Dirty Mac' supergroup, alongside Keith Richards (who wasn't taller than Lennon either).
mcfan said on 26/Nov/05
Heightfind, I blew up Abbey Road and disagreed with your assessment of the cover. Lennon was wearing tennis shoes and is looking down at the ground with both his hands in his pockets. McCartney always kept his back arched giving him very good posture. It's very difficult to get good photos of Lennon and McCartney because Lennon always had his legs far apart and slouched giving the impression of a smaller person. If you look at "Your Mother Should Know", "Hey Bulldog", or "Hello Goodbye" videos where Lennon kept his back straight...he and McCartney could have been bookends. McCartney was never 5'11 nor was Lennon. Jagger was taller than both of them just by a hair and he was only 5'10.5. Clapton was also taller than both of them by at least a half inch. Tom Jones was also taller than McCartney.
Heightfind, I blew up Abbey Road and disagreed with your assessment of the cover. Lennon was wearing tennis shoes and is looking down at the ground with both his hands in his pockets. McCartney always kept his back arched giving him very good posture. It's very difficult to get good photos of Lennon and McCartney because Lennon always had his legs far apart and slouched giving the impression of a smaller person. If you look at "Your Mother Should Know", "Hey Bulldog", or "Hello Goodbye" videos where Lennon kept his back straight...he and McCartney could have been bookends. McCartney was never 5'11 nor was Lennon. Jagger was taller than both of them just by a hair and he was only 5'10.5. Clapton was also taller than both of them by at least a half inch. Tom Jones was also taller than McCartney.
A beatles fan said on 23/Nov/05
paul mccartney is 5'11"
paul mccartney is 5'11"
Bernard Baker said on 15/Nov/05
Paul Mccartney's height! For the record-once and for all! I'm 5'9" and used to live near Mccartney so kept crossing paths in the supermarket.He is definately 5'11".My brother is 6'and Mccartney seemed practically as tall.Period!
Paul Mccartney's height! For the record-once and for all! I'm 5'9" and used to live near Mccartney so kept crossing paths in the supermarket.He is definately 5'11".My brother is 6'and Mccartney seemed practically as tall.Period!
Heightfind said on 22/Oct/05
If you closely examine the cover of Abbey Road, you can clearly see that Ringo is about 5' 7" wearing those black shoes, which have a nice heel. Lennon in front is wearing flat soled plimsoles, and looks about 5' 10". McCartney is, of course barefoot, and looks every inch 5' 11" .Harrison at the back is somewhat slouched,and is wearing some kind of desert boot with a small heel, but he looks to be at least the same height as Paul,if not a shade taller. Ringo even jokes about his height in "Hard day's night" moaning that it's "just because i'm small" Ringo in my view is 5'6" but it's never bothered him, and to be honest,you never really think of him being shorter than the others.It suits him.
If you closely examine the cover of Abbey Road, you can clearly see that Ringo is about 5' 7" wearing those black shoes, which have a nice heel. Lennon in front is wearing flat soled plimsoles, and looks about 5' 10". McCartney is, of course barefoot, and looks every inch 5' 11" .Harrison at the back is somewhat slouched,and is wearing some kind of desert boot with a small heel, but he looks to be at least the same height as Paul,if not a shade taller. Ringo even jokes about his height in "Hard day's night" moaning that it's "just because i'm small" Ringo in my view is 5'6" but it's never bothered him, and to be honest,you never really think of him being shorter than the others.It suits him.
CelebHeights Editor said on 25/Aug/05
From beatles newgroup: "I am 5'9" and met Paul at a press conference a few years ago. He seemed to be my height or an inch shorter."
From beatles newgroup: "I am 5'9" and met Paul at a press conference a few years ago. He seemed to be my height or an inch shorter."
McFan said on 22/Aug/05
Here is a photo of the group giving a more realistic height comparison. Lennon, in particular, slouched quite a lot in the photos but he was roughly the same height as McCartney. You can see Harrison isn't quite their height. Starr appears much shorter as he does in all the photos. Is Ringo really 5'8? He looks more like 5'6-7.
http://www.beatlespennylane.com/beatles009.jpg
Here is a photo of the group giving a more realistic height comparison. Lennon, in particular, slouched quite a lot in the photos but he was roughly the same height as McCartney. You can see Harrison isn't quite their height. Starr appears much shorter as he does in all the photos. Is Ringo really 5'8? He looks more like 5'6-7.
http://www.beatlespennylane.com/beatles009.jpg
MHouillon said on 5/Aug/05
I think 177cm is more realistic. Definitely a 5'9.5"
I think 177cm is more realistic. Definitely a 5'9.5"
McFan said on 7/Jul/05
All three Beatles were listed at 5'11, but if you look, it's obvious that George is slightly shorter than Lennon or McCartney who appear extremely close in height...although Lennon always slouched down when singing and looked shorter. I would estimate Lennon and McCartney at 5'10-11 with McCartney less than half-an-inch taller. Harrison would be close to an inch shorter than McCartney.
All three Beatles were listed at 5'11, but if you look, it's obvious that George is slightly shorter than Lennon or McCartney who appear extremely close in height...although Lennon always slouched down when singing and looked shorter. I would estimate Lennon and McCartney at 5'10-11 with McCartney less than half-an-inch taller. Harrison would be close to an inch shorter than McCartney.
Chris said on 9/Jun/05
Janie - Yes, ...George´s posture was bad and sometimes it made him look like a solid 5'9''. I´ve seen a lot of diffirent documentaries, concerts and many other things involving George. He looked like 5´10½'' in the movie...Magical Mystery Tour. There you can see very clear the heights of The Beatles preforming the song, "Your Mother Should Know" ...Check it out.
Janie - Yes, ...George´s posture was bad and sometimes it made him look like a solid 5'9''. I´ve seen a lot of diffirent documentaries, concerts and many other things involving George. He looked like 5´10½'' in the movie...Magical Mystery Tour. There you can see very clear the heights of The Beatles preforming the song, "Your Mother Should Know" ...Check it out.
Janie said on 9/Jun/05
I think George is smaller, or was his posture not that good??
I think George is smaller, or was his posture not that good??
Chris said on 7/Jun/05
Petez, Personally this is what I think the height was of members of the beatles in their youth.
Paul MCcartney 5'10 3/4'' (180 cm)
George Harrison 5'10½'(179 cm)
John Lennon 5'9½ (177 cm)
Ringo Starr 5'7''(170 cm)
Petez, Personally this is what I think the height was of members of the beatles in their youth.
Paul MCcartney 5'10 3/4'' (180 cm)
George Harrison 5'10½'(179 cm)
John Lennon 5'9½ (177 cm)
Ringo Starr 5'7''(170 cm)
Chris said on 6/Jun/05
Petez - To answer your question, Lennon was listed first as 5'11'', which is wrong. So, I changed that to 5
Petez - To answer your question, Lennon was listed first as 5'11'', which is wrong. So, I changed that to 5
stef said on 6/Jun/05
as i said earlier, i met macca and he was shorter than me (i'm 5'10"). as for ringo, i do believe he is in the 5'6" range.
as i said earlier, i met macca and he was shorter than me (i'm 5'10"). as for ringo, i do believe he is in the 5'6" range.
Anonymous said on 5/Jun/05
I saw a fairly recent interview with Ringo where he said he was 5'6.5", they had told him back in the day to fudge it.
I saw a fairly recent interview with Ringo where he said he was 5'6.5", they had told him back in the day to fudge it.
Rut said on 27/May/05
Paul is a good 178 cm, period..!
Paul is a good 178 cm, period..!
Stef said on 15/Apr/05
met paul last year in Zurich. hes 176 max but still he looks great
met paul last year in Zurich. hes 176 max but still he looks great
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 or shoe 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.