How tall is Paul McCartney ?

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

Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.5in (177 cm)

Peak height was 5ft 10.25in (178 cm)
English Singer from The Beatles and Wings. In a interview he said regarding the film Nowhere Boy, "I've not seen it yet. I saw some early rushes of it and the whole thing came off well. But I want to tell Sam Taylor-Wood off as I hear that my character is not as tall as John - I'm not having that! Both of us are 5ft 10 and a half!". In an early Tiger Beat it also gave his weight as 159 pounds, Chest 39 inch, Waist 32 inch, 15.5in Collar and shoe size 8.5.

Photos by PR Photos
You May Be Interested
John Lennon
Height of John Lennon
5ft 10in (178 cm)
George Harrison
Height of George Harrison
5ft 10in (178 cm)
Ringo Starr
Height of Ringo Starr
5ft 7in (170 cm)
Elvis Presley
Height of Elvis Presley
5ft 11.75in (182 cm)
Comment on the Height of Paul McCartney

JB said on 30/Jan/16
@Brian He was 21/22 on the Ed Sullivan show. He was born in 1942 and the Ed Sullivan show performance was in 1964.
Brian said on 23/Jan/16
Wasn't Paul 17 or 18 years old when he was on the Ed Sullivan show? I'm sure he could grow 3 inches from an 18 year old to a 21 year old, right?
paul said on 11/Jan/16
well I stood next to mcartney in london 2 years ago and I am about 5.9 in trainers and macca couldnt have been nore than .1 inch taller than me which makes him about 5,9 and a half max
FIVE NINE said on 6/Jan/16
Beatle Peak:
Paul- 5' 10
John- 5' 9.5"
George- 5' 9.5"
Ringo- 5' 6"
TJE said on 27/Nov/15
The peak height is correct, but Lennon was downgraded too steeply.

Both were 5'10.25 peak.
Christian said on 18/Nov/15
Paul must have shrunked a bit more than 1 cm over the years. Since the begining of 2000 he wears a high heel boot everytime he is in the spotlight. There is a book from the eighties I dont know the title where he describs himmel as 176 cm and Linda as 169 cm.I have heard about it but I dont know if it is true. The rumors of John beeing 5'8'' is a bit low but the more I see of John and Paul I start to question their heights. People that have met Paul that I know has said he looks around 5'9'' and the same with John back in the days. It is interesting that Georges passport say 5'10'' and to me John and George was the same height and Paul a tad tallar. I think the possibility if Ringo was 5'7'' in his you youth that John and George was 177 cm and Paul 178 cm.
Sizzlier said on 11/Nov/15
He never gave me the impression of anything under 5'10, but John and George can look a bit under the mark.
Sam said on 5/Nov/15
Thanks for this update as well, although Paul and John could look practically the same, Paul has the strongest evidence of having been the tallest Beatle.
Sam said on 4/Nov/15
Thanks for downgrading John to 5'10", I think Paul should follow suit. Sometimes Paul could seem a smidge taller but then so could John & in general they looked pretty even. Paul even specifies that they were the same height. If John was 5'10", the most I could see Paul listed is 5'10.25".
[Editor Rob: 10.25 is probably a good enough shot for him.]
Christian said on 15/Sep/15
Paul looks at least an inch shorter then 5'10'' Paul Weller. Click Here
Stuboy82 said on 16/Aug/15
Tom jones only claims a peak height of 5"10.5 and is listed as this here.. but a google image search of him with both paul and john lennon reveal that he is at least an inch taller than them..
JB said on 24/Jun/15
@thewonders Exactly. Paul was the tallest and he was never taller than 5'10" John and George were both about an inch shorter. Nobody seems to believe me when I tell them this.
john said on 12/May/15
Paul said he was 5 foot 10 inches tall in a
Rolling Stone interview 2 years ago. And Ringo says he is 5 foot 6 inches tall.
dinah said on 2/May/15
I'd say probably now he is 5'8" now but in the Beatles era, he was about 5'10" to even 5"11. I heard in an interview he did in 1964 that he was 5'11" when he was 21. It is true that he was the tallest Beatle, even though there was some controversy.
john said on 24/Apr/15
Paul yes he is 5 foot ten inches tall
thewonders said on 15/Apr/15
Paul has never been taller than 5'10", probably closer to 5'9.5".
Also, some people don't seem to know that Paul was the tallest Beatle - John was around an inch shorter than Paul.
Art said on 3/Apr/15
I will say 5'10 at the most. I stepped next to him at my job, in NYC. He has being report at 5'11, no way Jose. Remember the Beatles , used to wear boots .
Tymmo said on 6/Mar/15
isn't 177cm, 5ft9.75? or even 5ft10? I thought 178cm was 5ft10.25 and 179cm was 5ft10.50 and 180cm 5ft10.75
Bran said on 6/Feb/15
Sorry i take some of that back, on a closer look at his height in the recent years, i actually agree with the 5ft9.5 listing, with fallon and others, my bad, hes never 5ft8 or something now, still holds at least 5ft9 range, so i suppose after all 5ft10-11 does look likely as hes what 72-3, my grandads 78-9 and has lost a couple of inch, so i suppose 1-1.5 inch height loss by early 70s is average range, good listing Rob .
JB said on 5/Feb/15
Watch the FourFiveSeconds video. Both Rihanna and Kanye are 5'8" and Paul's not much taller.
Bran said on 5/Feb/15
Rob, why do you take the 5ft10.5 claim as so literal by mccartney, do you believe the beatles were prehaps measured barefoot sometime, and contested whos the talest and he noted him and Johns, the two tallest? were the same,.. well prehaps the 5ft10.5 are in shoe measurements , well either way they looked minus 5ft10 with Ali imo, and nowadays paul can look 5ft8-9 range, has he really lost a full two inch,.. i see 5ft10.5 as the best case scenario for both Lennon and mccartney.
[Editor Rob: in that era it seemed they all wanted to be 5ft 11 with Ringo wanting to be 5ft 8. I do think Paul lost height, how much to be precise is the ultimate question!]
Peter Jones said on 3/Feb/15
I've seen his waxworks at the Blackpool Madame Tussaud's and the one it replaced, Louis Tussaud's (an independent company). I'm 5'10" and it probably stands 3" shorter than me, approximately. Maybe 2" but I'd have to double-check. The old one, at the Louis T museum, was about the same, as I remember.
AD said on 7/Jan/15
London Boy I believe you are bang on ...I met him a long time ago, had a photo with him ... 177cm is the most accurate for then, 175cm accurate for now confirmed on here a while ago by someone who works at his company.
Alex said on 6/Jan/15
5'10 max peak height
gian92 said on 3/Jan/15
Who can explain this photo ?
Click Here
London Boy said on 3/Jan/15
I think 5' 10" peak height is possible, but no more. 177 cm barefoot for peak is where I'd place my money. 175 cm now.
London Boy said on 3/Jan/15
5' 10.5" peak height really is a stretch though. I really think you could argue anything between 5' 9.5" and 5' 10". But 179 cm (barefoot) is an overlisting. This coming from a huge fan!
Liam 176 said on 26/Oct/14
Doesn't look above 5' 9" now. Do an image search of him with Liam Gallagher (5' 10") or Dave Grohl (6' 0").
Sean said on 26/Aug/14
Was Paul's peak height ever listed at 5'11", Rob?
TJE said on 25/Aug/14
Not seeing this 5'10.5 peak, looked too average sized. Still, he's pretty similar to John Lennon. Maybe 5'10.25 peak, 5'9.25 now.
JB said on 16/Aug/14
My best guess is 5'9.75" peak, weak 5'9" now. Factor in the Beatles boots they used to wear and he would have looked 5'11", which is what he claimed in the 60s.
Sam said on 11/Aug/14
I think he could have been 5'10", as with Lennon, but not 5'10.5" ever. I see that as a bit more than a 4 inch difference with Muhammad Ali.
Click Here
Spirit Level said on 11/Aug/14
I'd list him 5' 9.5" (177 cm) peak height and 5' 9" (175 cm) current height. He hasn't shrunk more than 2 cm yet, in my opinion.
Spirit Level said on 10/Aug/14
Sir Paul was 177 cm peak height. 179 cm really is a stretch. Look at him alongside Bruce Forsyth in the 1960s.
rockitbaby said on 5/Aug/14
Probably 1,77m or 1,78m. This is him next to 6'0 Dave Grohl:

Click Here
AD said on 31/Jul/14
I'm still confused why the 5ft 10.5in is still displayed? On top of all the other sightings of Macca around 5ft 9in now I met him in his early 40s and he was 5ft 9.5in then (most definitely) so I doubt he was ever taller than that?
Tyler said on 29/Jul/14
5'8 and 3/4
Tokyo Yoshi said on 26/Jul/14
I watched McCartney at Tokyo International Airport in this May. McCartney approximately 2cm was taller than me. My height is 175cm. The height of McCartney is certainly approximately 177cm.
Tyler said on 25/Jul/14
174cm now
JB said on 14/May/14
He doesn't seem much taller than Paul Rudd. Who is listed as 5'9", although there seems to be a general consensus that's he's more like 5'8". Thus once again providing evidence that Sir Paul can't be more than 5'9"
Tape Measure said on 1/May/14
Rob really, he weren't above 177 cm at peak height. It's just like the "Harry Styles is 5' 11" or 6 feet" BS. With boots he looked taller - just like Styles...
Karateman said on 2/Mar/14
Click Here
With Steven Tyler.(5ft 9in)
Paul McCartney wears flat shoes.
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in.
JB said on 4/Feb/14
I'd say 5'9.5" was more like his peak height. The fact that his claim is 5'10.5" tells us that he was actually more like 5'9.5". All celebrities add the extra inch or two when giving their height. All the Beatles claimed to be 5'11" or as John said "just under six feet" to try and give the impression of being above average. And back in the 1960s it was easier to get away with lies like that.

Anyways, nowadays he looks more like a 5'8.5" kinda guy.
little sue said on 29/Jan/14
My mate 71 and he was always 5ft 11 but he was measured at Doctors last week and they said he was 5ft 9 so two inches shrinkage easily possible
Torg said on 27/Jan/14
If McCartney is 5' 10" (give or take an inch, then every other male in the world must be 6' 3" or more..... McCartney is noticeably shorter than other celebs who state their height as 5' 10". I'd guess he's actually closer to 5' 7" or 5' 8".
Dora said on 26/Jan/14
How Paul can be 178 or 180 cm when standing by his newest wife who is 170 where he almost looks shorter than her. SHE WEARS FLATS!!!! Is he shrinking that rapidly? I don't think anyone can at age 71 - his face looks terribly old for his age too.
truth said on 3/Jan/14
181cm morning like he said, then yes 179cm is beleivable.
Christian said on 17/Dec/13
-mcfan,yes I know. I was suprised as well.
Christian said on 4/Dec/13
-mcfan, No it is Paulīs quote: Have a look here: Click Here
Sam said on 27/Nov/13
Sure, just over 5'11" peak, in his Cuban heels, standing ramrod straight in the morning.
Christian said on 26/Nov/13
Hey Rob. This is what Paul stated in an interview from 1964.

What is your full real name?

James Paul McCartney.

Where and when were you born?

I was born in Liverpool, England, on June 18, 1942.

What is your height, weight and coloring?

I'm just above 5 feet 11 inches tall and weigh 158 pounds.

Interesting that he said just above 5'11''. This was the at the same time John stated he was just under six feet tall.
[Editor Rob: it's a big claim]
Sam said on 19/Nov/13
I'd take a stab that at peak McCartney was 5'10.25" in the morning and shrinking as much as half inch over the day and is now nearly an inch shorter than his peak.
jimbo said on 18/Nov/13
Paul was 5'9 3/4" in bare feet in 1966. I've seen his tailor's measurements.
heightwise said on 15/Nov/13
As a big Beatles fan, what I perceive their peak heights to be:

Paul- 178-179cm
John 177-178cm
George 177cm
Ringo 167-169cm

Very fractionally taller than John though could appear an inch+ taller due to better posture. To me it's clear George is third tallest despite the 3 of them always looking roughly the same. Ringo i'm a bit more unsure of so i've given him a bigger bracket, at times he looked to have enough on his footwear to give the illusion of other 2-3inches shorter than the others, but is definitely a good 4.

I did however see a newspaper clipping from when they met Muhammad Ali saying "The Beatles, none of whom measured over 5ft10" which is quite revealing. So maybe he was just exactly 5'10 peak
Hiro said on 3/Nov/13
Click Here

Paul McCartney.(5ft 9.75in)
Jeff Lynne.(5ft 10.5in )
Claude Nobs.(?)
Joe Walsh.(5ft 10.5in )
Pascal 5 10 said on 1/Nov/13
Rob, did you see my last comment? What do you think?
[Editor Rob: he can look 5ft 9-9.5 today, but how much height he has lost, whether it is only a little or a full inch, that's the question]
Pascal 5 10 said on 31/Oct/13
Rob, I don't mean to give you a hard time over this. 5' 9.5" is actually closer to his peak height. He has only lost around half an inch - and these days does look 175 cm most of the time (when he isn't wearing his big Cuban heels or Beatle boots).

There is no way he or John were legit 5' 10.5" men barefoot!
Pascal 5 10 said on 30/Oct/13
Rob, what makes you think that he's 5' 10"? Do you seriously think that he would stand like Ronnie O'Sullivan or Mike Tyson in a photo next to you?
[Editor Rob: nowadays he can look shy of 5ft 10]
Sam said on 30/Oct/13
He has looked pretty consistently close to 5'9" for years. I think 5'10.5"-5'11" self claims are an attempt to squeeze a little more height out for McCartney, Lennon and Harrison, perhaps a citing of their height wearing shoes. Next to 5'9.5"-5'10" peak guys like Eric Clapton, David Bowie and Mick Jagger, they look very similar heights. The three non-Ringo Beatles never got over 5'10" barefoot IMO, maybe more like a peak of 5'9.75" for McCartney and Lennon, about a half inch less for Harrison.
Yoshi said on 30/Oct/13
Click Here
With Bruce Springsteen.(5ft 9in)

Click Here
With Neil Young.(5ft 11in)

Click Here
With Tom Hanks.(6ft)

Paul McCartney wears flat shoes.
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in.

Yokosan said on 29/Oct/13
Hello, satchy.
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in.
On a day of this photography, Chris Pine wears western boots and Paul McCartney wears sneakers.
Christian said on 28/Oct/13
In the documentary "The Love We Make" Paul is standing talking to CNN-reporter Dan Rather. Rob has Dan as 5'10'' and McCartney looks an inch shorter. This was back in 2001 and the more I see of Paul the more he seems to be in the 5'9'' range. Have you seen the documentary Rob?
Yokosan said on 28/Oct/13
Click Here

George Michael's height is 5ft 11in (180 cm).
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in (177 cm).
Yokosan said on 28/Oct/13
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in (177 cm).
MD said on 28/Oct/13
Definitely not 5'10", anymore. He's lost quite a bit of height.
satchy said on 27/Oct/13
he is no taller than 5ft he is with Chris Pine Click Here
Berni said on 26/Oct/13
I met Paul last week 18/10/2013 and was taken by how much shorter he appeared to be than me.i am 5.101/2 or 179 in new money. Guess he must be approx 5.91/2.
Yokosan said on 25/Oct/13
Click Here
Yokosan said on 25/Oct/13
Click Here

Please watch the shoes of two people. Jimmy Fallon wears high heel shoes. Paul McCartney wears flat sneakers.
MD said on 18/Oct/13
With 5'11.5" Jimmy Fallon:

Click Here
Pascal 5 10 said on 10/Oct/13
This needs amending. He's one of the most famous people in the world! I love the guy, but he's over-listed here.

More like 177 cm peak and 175 cm now.
Uncle P said on 27/Sep/13
He describes himself as 5'10" in an interview in the current edition of Mojo, the British music magzine.
Pascal 5 10 said on 13/Sep/13
Just saw a picture of Paul with Prince Charles, from the mid '90s. They were identical - 5' 9.5".
christian said on 2/Sep/13
There is a documentary called The Love We Make. It takes place in the aftermath of 9/11 and when Paul was gathering celebs to a concert for the victims and for the heroes there is a scen when Paul is talklng to Eric Clapton. The are standing on the same ground and Paul is wearing black sneakers. They look to add an inch. Eric is in some flat shoes. In this scene Eric looks an inch taller. I was suprised cause Eric seemed to be in the 5'11' region. But if he is 5'9 and a half Paul is max 5'9''. Have you seen the documentary Rob?
randall said on 26/Aug/13
Yes, 5' 9.5" barefooted is about right. Celebs fudge a lot with height even members of the Beatles.
Craig 177 said on 29/Jul/13
5' 8.75" (175 cm) now. 5' 9.5" (177 cm) peak.

I really do believe that this is accurate. What do you think Rob?
AJ said on 21/Jul/13
Definetely a smidge over lennon I'd say 5'10.75"
Craig 177 said on 1/Jul/13
Paul McCartney: 5' 9.5"
John Lennon: 5' 9.5"
George Harrison: 5' 9"
Ringo Starr: 5' 6"

These are their barefoot heights.
Tee said on 19/Jun/13
5'9" range for Paul, John, and George is totally believable. Ringo has even stated that he was 5'6" and if you look at all of the Beatles together it's easy to see that they're no more than 3 inches taller than Ringo.
Gregorovich said on 23/May/13
The more photos I see of the Beatles, the more I believe that they were all just a tad above 5'9". The best evidence we have is Paul's height now. Even if he has lost an inch due to age, he was never more than 5'10".
Dries said on 20/Apr/13
Not quite 1.80m the tallest Beatle ...
Christian said on 15/Apr/13
-Bruno, nice clip. I would say Paul looks 5'8'" there. Interesting.
Bruno said on 13/Apr/13
Have a look at Duke Wayne presenting an award to Macca, he makes him look like a midget. Click Here
Christian said on 25/Mar/13
Here is 5'8'' Joe Jonas next to Paul. Joe Jonas has also been listed 5'7'' but according to himself he is 5'8''. Paul looks 5'10''.

Click Here

And that clip AD posted, Paul has very low cut shoes and Baldwin is in regular 1 inch dress shoes. I think itīs fair too say Paul is 178 cm or just about.
runt said on 21/Mar/13
Rob, would it be too far-fetched for you to be in a photo with one of the remaining Beatles? I suppose its a little presumptuous of me to expect that you would have had a photo with one of the Beatles by now. Are they often in country?
[Editor Rob: cost of travel and helping out other family mean I can't do much travelling the last year to get any celebrities, and I hate visiting London ]
AD said on 21/Mar/13
Was 5'9.5" when I met him in mid 80s so could never have been taller than that,maybe a cm or 2 smaller now plus check out this clip which shows him definately looking about 5'9" now next to 5'11.5" Alec Baldwin
Click Here
Christian said on 11/Mar/13
Have a look at 12 seconds in to the clip. Paul looks 1.5 inches taller than 5.8.5 Joe Cocker

Click Here
Christian said on 11/Mar/13
Here is from the same event:

Click Here
Christian said on 11/Mar/13
-Koalized, Bruce must have 2 inch boots on. But we donīt know for sure.
Koalized said on 7/Mar/13
Click Here
Something is happening here.
Christian said on 28/Feb/13
-Sean, Great clip.
Sean said on 21/Feb/13
Click Here 0:30, Brian must have been having them round up, eh?
IDK said on 6/Dec/12
Not sure guys, next to 6'2.5-3" Cassius Clay Paul McCartney seems about 5'9.5" peak. The top of his head without the hair would only be up to about his lip.

Maybe he didnClick Here
Mac said on 29/Nov/12
I watched Paul near last year. Paul McCartney's height is about 5 ft 10 in (178 cm). Yoshihiro is right
Yoshihiro said on 21/Nov/12
Paul McCartney's height is 5 ft 10 in (178 cm).
Eric Clapton's height is 5 ft 9.5 in (177 cm). 

Click Here
Yoshi said on 21/Nov/12
Paul McCartney's height is 5 ft 10 in (178 cm).
Eric Glapton's height is 5 ft 9.5 in (176.5 cm).

Click Here

Christian said on 14/Nov/12
Yes, I think it is time for a downgrade. Paul is closer to 5'9.5'' today than 5'10. Would you agree Rob?
AD said on 5/Nov/12
I'm not sure about Charles' height but mcfan you're right about the listing for Macca being wrong should be 174.5cm current height.... 177cm peak height.
Alex said on 24/Oct/12
Admittedly I've never seen him but I always had the impression Charles was a six footer. I'm surprised to see him this low.
MHouillon said on 4/Oct/12
5'9 flat these days.

177, maybe 178 back when, but never 179 or 180.
178 said on 27/Jul/12
I am a gigantic Paul McCartney fan. In truth, I'd estimate him to be 5' 8.5" (174 cm) maximum these days.

At the Diamond Jubilee, Prince Charles (who is 5' 9" to 5' 9.5") was almost 1 inch taller. Also, Tom Jones who is 5' 9.5" now, was 1 inch taller than Sir Paul.

I'd list Paul as 5' 9.5" (177 cm) peak height. 5' 8.5" (174 cm) today at age 70.
Christian said on 26/Jul/12
Hi Rob. If you take a look at this photo Jack linked to Click Here Paul looks 5'8-5'9''. Do you think he is under 5'10'' now?
[Editor Rob: he does look 5ft 9 in a number of pics nowadays.]
jack said on 25/Jul/12

barlow is 5'7.5
jack said on 23/Jul/12
5'9 now looks to be.
Russ said on 27/Sep/07
I work with a guy who used to be work as a "parking lot valet" in Los Angeles back in the 80's. He once opened the car door for George Harrison and then parked George's car. He said that George was about 5'9". He knew this because he stood right next to George. So with that in mind, I'd have to say that McCartney is (was) maybe 5'10". Perhaps 5'10 &1/2 in his younger days. If you watch "A Hard Day's Night", you can see that none of the Beatles appear to be tall, especially when they are in a crowd.
AD said on 17/Aug/07
Ok Julie.. in which case I may have been measured wrongly at the time..I'm pretty sure I was no more than 5'9" at the time and we were dead level on the photo...but this is going back 20 years so I'm not going to swear blind that I'm 100% right!
The other entry on here that made me also think that though is the from the guy who works at his office who says Macca is 5' I understand what you're saying but it looks like it's a bit of a mystery that some of us have met him and think he's about this height, and some... like you, meet him and think he's more like 5'11"'s very hard to say.
Julie said on 16/Aug/07
AD -
Not to refute what you're saying, but I met Paul in June of '01 and he stood right next to me as he signed an autograph and we chatted. I was wearing sandals (which would have made me 5'6.5" at the very most) and he was considerably taller than me (taller than 5'9" that's for sure). He was wearing black loafer type shoes and I can say with a lot of confidence that he's around 5'11"...definitely not 5'9" though.
AD said on 16/Aug/07
The reason I'm convinced he's no more than 5'9.5 is ....that by my 16th birthday I was measured at exactly 5'9" barefoot and it was around this time that I met Paul at the BBC and had a photo taken with him (I wish I still had it). I was wearing shoes with about a standard 1 inch heel... he was wearing flat pumps (those deck shoes that were popular in the mid 80s) which are about half an inch. The photo was taken on a studio floor, even surface, and we came out on the photo as dead level in height. As Macca's shoes were half an inch less than mine, this would make him 5'9.5 ....he was in his early forties so I very much doubt he was ever any taller than that. 5'11" in his Beatle boots.
glenn said on 7/Aug/07
exactly julie.
Julie said on 6/Aug/07
I met Paul in 2001 and I would put his height at around 5'11" I'm 5'6" and he was about 5 inches taller than me.
AD said on 26/Jul/07
When I met him, from a distance he looked much taller as he has an athletic build, his shoulders are quite high and broad. As I actually faced him I realised that he was around 5'9.5 but his build definately made him appear a little taller.
Marc said on 26/Jul/07
At the risk of getting sacked I work for him at MPL hes 5'9'
glenn said on 25/Jul/07
lots of bull on this page.
mcfan said on 24/Jul/07
Mhouillon, he was shorter than Tom Jones even in the 60s. Why he is listed as 5'11 in his prime and Jones as 5'10.5 doesn't make sense. Even Jagger had a slight hair on McCartney so did Clapton.
AD said on 20/Jul/07
I saw a documentary on the Beatles the other day, when you see footage of John, Paul & George walking amongst other people, they looked very average in height. I'd actually give all 3 of them 177cm with the 5'11" listing coming from being measured with their Beatle boots on.
I really don't think that Macca was EVER this 'peak' height of 5'11" as listed above.... he was definately 5'9.5" when I met him in his early forties, and it's doubtful he would have been any taller when he was in his twenties.
MHouillon said on 4/Jul/07
I said it previously and I say it once more: 179cm (5'10.5") youth height (pushed via kinky british 60's Star-Trek-high-heel-boots), and 176-177cm (5'9.25-5'9.5) today-height.

Was shorter than 177-178cm (5'9.5-5'10) Tom Jones during the Linda McCartney tribute-concert.
mcfan said on 1/Jul/07
Paul looked 3 possibly 4 inches taller than Ringo.
Anonymous said on 28/Jun/07
What? If you look at this clip you see that Paul looks quit tall, taller than Ringo. Click Here
Hmm said on 28/Jun/07
In the paper today Paul and Ringo (with Yoko and George's wife) unveiled a tribute to George and John. The four were standing side by side and Ringo looked 1.5-2 inches taller than Paul. The footing is uncertain but I wouldn't put it past Ringo that he was wearing huge heels.
mcfan said on 11/Jun/07
Click Here

Sorry, that's what I meant to copy.
Chris said on 10/Jun/07
Irua- Yoko Ono is at least 5'2''- 5'3''. I have met her. She wore big heels though, and looked almost 5'6''. Iīd say about 5'3'' barefoot. 5'11'' for Paul back in the days. John looked sometimes tall, but he wore boots a lot of times. My guess is 5'10''. When he was on Dick Cavett show he towerd over Cavett. Cavett is no more than 5'5'' and John looked 5'11''-6ft.
glenn said on 10/Jun/07
he is very mean and nasty as of the last 6 years.but pulls surprises by signing once in a blue.never poses in those years either.i have one with me, paul and linda.not good to judge height.and lost.
Anthony said on 9/Jun/07
Paul looks at least 5'10 if he were to straighten up. He's supposed to be doing a secret show in NYC Wednesday. Maybe Glenn can get him.
glenn said on 9/Jun/07
he is slouching in that pic.he was at 5-11 in his prime.i met him many times.
Jack said on 9/Jun/07
Does not look 5'10 in this photo more like 5'8 Click Here
lrua said on 5/Jun/07
Paul McCartney was never 5'11", I used to believe what was listed in all the books on the Beatles and I wondered why 6'2" Mal Evans (their roadie) looked 6'5" , and why in the famous Feb '64 pictures with Cassius Clay (Ali) the Beatles looked tiny, and why 5'10" Mick Jagger looked taller than McCartney, well it's because Paul McCartney was 5'9 and half" back then now looking 5'9" at most, he was the tallest Beatle (slightly) , John Lennon and George were both approx 5'9" , keep in mind Yoko is 5'1" at most , and Ringo 5'6" to 5'7" at most.
mcfan said on 1/Jun/07
Click Here
Anthony said on 25/May/07
I've seen quite a lot of recent photos of Paul in converse, and he looks 5'10 in them. He also looks 5'10 in his new music video.
AD said on 5/Apr/07
Well...back to the topic in 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.
leonari said on 4/Apr/07
Anthony: BULLSHIT! 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Viper said on 2/Apr/07
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
glenn said on 28/Mar/07
i saw paul give the illusion of 6ft,7 years 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.
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.
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.
ringo said on 17/Mar/07
john, paul, george was around 5'9.5". They're not 5'11". They are all about the same height. Ringo was aroung 5'6.5".

They were never that tall, but they were not midgets either.
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 said on 4/Feb/07
Click Here
Click Here
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!
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.
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.
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.
Glenn said on 1/Feb/07
I studied Wilson 2 months 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.
Glenn said on 31/Jan/07
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.
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.
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.
Anthony said on 29/Jan/07
Thank you, Glenn.
Glenn said on 29/Jan/07
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".
Anonymous said on 16/Jan/07
Macca and Lennon were the same height in the early Beatlemania heydays, about 5'11". Lennon shrunk a bit due to drugs and macrobiotic vegan diets, maybe 5'9.5" when he died. Macca kept his height well into his 40's and 50's, but now probably 5'10", shrunk a bit which is normal for anyone in their 60's.
Glenn said on 23/Nov/06
Yes we can.
Rastus said on 23/Nov/06
Only a joke, Glenn. Can't we all just get along?
Glenn said on 22/Nov/06
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.
Glenn said on 21/Nov/06
Im going to respect Padraig and keep my mouth shut.which is what alot of you should do including myself.but when one gets wiseass,they turn it around that Im a baby that gets mad cause of excuse.I was actually trying to back you up mcfan.but you wanted to get stupid.thank you Padraig.
mcfan said on 20/Nov/06
It's ashame Glenn gets all bad-tempered when you disagree with him [Padraig: McFan, appreciate that if I let that other little comment through then the thread would become too argumentitive. Your point is taken though.]
Brad said on 19/Nov/06
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 said on 17/Nov/06

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.
ralph said on 16/Nov/06
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.
Glenn said on 9/Nov/06
Your missing my point Chris.
Chris said on 9/Nov/06
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.
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
Glenn said on 5/Nov/06
Rod is close to 5-11.Paul was close to 6ft in the 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.
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.
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 1― inch taller. I donīt think Rod Stewart is any taller than 5'9''.
Sullivan said on 30/Sep/06 my friend stated, Paul is shorter than 5 5 eleven.super guy.friend to the owe me Vec!
Anthony said on 29/Sep/06
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.
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.
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.
Glenn said on 24/Sep/06
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?
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 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 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.
lennon_fan said on 26/Aug/06
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.
mcfan said on 17/Aug/06

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..
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 fucking life man, it's perfetic how you go on about it. Oke that's it from me.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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".
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.
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....
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..
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?
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.
Paul MacCartney said on 8/Jun/06
It is funny, we have similar names and similar heights. I am 5ft 10 1/2.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chris said on 25/Apr/06
TJ-When did Ringo say he was 5'6―''?
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.
Rut said on 24/Apr/06
A big difference between 178cm and 180cm c'mon! oke, a little difference ok..
mcfan said on 23/Apr/06

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

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.
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.
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.
MHouillon said on 1/Apr/06
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.
Glenn said on 28/Mar/06
When I get to a computer Ill check those out,this is a cell didnt read that other comment someone said that paul was near 6ft? I always saw him taller than, 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
mcfan said on 25/Mar/06

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.
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 looking 5-9.5.bowie shrunk to 5-9.jagger 5-9.5,paul still looking friends agree.
mcfan said on 22/Mar/06

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) ?
AD said on 22/Mar/06
I've met Paul on 3 occasions, he's definately either 1.76m or 1.77m 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 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''.
Glenn said on 20/Mar/06
Photos cannot gauge anything precise.meeting him twice a year,gives me better authority to judge his shoes,he looks near 6 feet,which means he is 5-10.5 at smallest.maybe he shrunk.I have a photo with jones what.6ft in boots 5-10 is 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.
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.
mcfan said on 19/Mar/06

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 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.
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.

Rut said on 8/Mar/06
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: 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.

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.
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 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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!
Chris said on 25/Jan/06
Oh thatīs right, Dustin Hoffman is 5'5''
Anonymous said on 15/Jan/06
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.

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

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