Paul McCartney's Height
5ft 9.5in (177 cm)
Peak height was 5ft 10.25in (178 cm)
English Singer from The Beatles and Wings. In a WalesOnline.co.uk 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
Add a Comment 250 comments
Average Guess (3 Votes)
Peak: 5ft 10.25in, Current: 5ft 9.33in
Christian said on 30/Sep/16
The thing is that I think Pauls shoes that he wears today is with a heel with almost 2 inches. He seems to be at around 180-181 cm with them on. That would put him at 175-176 cm today max. And I doubt that Paul has ever been over 5.10.
said on 27/Sep/16
This is a really good pic of them standing together on a level surface with the same stance... John, Paul and George really looking the same height. Macca was 177cm when I met him and I really think that's the nearest for the 3 of them ....
TJE said on 25/Sep/16
That's what I'm saying. It's initially 10 cm difference; but they took their shoes off and Ringo matched posture, there would only be about 8 cm between them. Maybe Paul could be 5'9.25 today?
said on 21/Sep/16
Paul and Ringo met together at the Eight Days a Week premiere last Thursday along with 173 Ron Howard:
Paul looks 10 cm taller at the most, but RIngo has less footwear and posture. I can't see 9 cm between them today, but Paul can still look 3-4 cm taller than Ron. Someone here needs a downgrade.
Editor Rob: he can look 10cm smaller yes, but with a pair of vans and paul in a bigger than normal heel that accounts for some of the difference.
AD said on 20/Sep/16
Had my photo taken with him when he was 44, he was definitely 5' 9.5" ....looked a little taller cause he had high and broad shoulders. He was very nice mannered, a real gentleman.
John said on 17/Sep/16
Paul McCartney is just about 6' tall. During the whole ""Paul is dead"" debacle, the radio DJ who started it all, showed two, comparative photos of the beatles, all barefoot in Paul's father's back yard. Paul towered over George and Ringo and was noticeably taller than John Lennon. John Lennon's Death Certificate / Coroner's report, lists his height as 5'10.5". So, if Paul was noticeably taller than John Lennon, and we have Lennon's officially confirmed height of 5'10.5", then it is safe to assume that Paul is clse to, if not, 6'.
Andrew said on 5/Sep/16
Rob, on a scale from 1-10 (10 being very surprised), how surprised would you be if he actually was 5'10.5" normally as he has claimed himself and John Lennon to have been at the peak of their lives?
Harry said on 18/Jul/16
The Beatles height:
anonymous said on 15/Apr/16
Who is right lol
mark said on 20/Mar/16
On the Sgt. Peppers cover Paul is 3" taller then George and John. He's taller by 2 or 3 inches in the picture wearing the black rose where the other 3 wore a red rose( I forgot what the picture was relative to )......
Raejean said on 18/Mar/16
I don't know how tall Paul really was back in the day, but I will say the press releases had Paul, John, and George all at 5'11". Too many pictures later, I would say that Paul was the tallest, followed by John, then George by as much as an inch shorter than Paul. Recent pictures of Paul with Jimmy Fallon (6'0") and Barack Obama (6'1") seem to show Paul to be 4-5 inches shorter.
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
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.
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.]
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.
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
said on 3/Jan/15
Who can explain this photo ?
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.
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.
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.
said on 5/Aug/14
Probably 1,77m or 1,78m. This is him next to 6'0 Dave Grohl:
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
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...
said on 2/Mar/14
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.
said on 4/Dec/13
-mcfan, No it is Paul´s quote: Have a look here: Click Here
Sam said on 27/Nov/13
Sure, just over 5'11"...at peak, in his Cuban heels, standing ramrod straight in the morning.
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:
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
said on 3/Nov/13
Paul McCartney.（5ft 9.75in）
Jeff Lynne.（5ft 10.5in ）
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.
said on 30/Oct/13
With Bruce Springsteen.（5ft 9in）
With Neil Young.（5ft 11in）
With Tom Hanks.（6ft）
Paul McCartney wears flat shoes.
Paul McCartney's height is 5ft 9.75in.
Yokosan said on 29/Oct/13
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?
said on 28/Oct/13
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.
said on 27/Oct/13
he is no taller than 5ft 8...here 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.
said on 25/Oct/13
Please watch the shoes of two people. Jimmy Fallon wears high heel shoes. Paul McCartney wears flat sneakers.
said on 18/Oct/13
With 5'11.5" Jimmy Fallon:
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.
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
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''.
And that clip AD posted, Paul has very low cut shoes and Baldwin is in regular 1 inch dress shoes. I think it´s fair too say Paul is 178 cm or just about.
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 ]
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
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
said on 11/Mar/13
Here is from the same event:
Christian said on 11/Mar/13
-Koalized, Bruce must have 2 inch boots on. But we don´t know for sure.
said on 7/Mar/13
Something is happening here.
Christian said on 28/Feb/13
-Sean, Great clip.
said on 21/Feb/13
0:30, Brian must have been having them round up, eh?
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
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).
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)．
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 ....it 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.
mcfan said on 14/Aug/12
While I don't dispute Paul and John were the same height, I just don't think they were quite 5'10.5. How could they have been if Tom Jones was taller than both of them even in the 60s? I'd put them max of 5'10 in the 60s. Bowie was probably 5'9.25 and Jagger 5'9.5. Clapton I think was a true 5'10 guy.
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.
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.
mcfan said on 6/Jun/12
Tom Jones is still one-inch taller than Paul McCartney so nothing has changed. Did you see the Queen's Diamond Jubilee? They're only feet apart towards the end of the program.
AD said on 17/Jan/12
Take it from someone who's met him, shaken his hand and had a photo with him ...he was 5'9.5" ...probably more towards 5'9" these days.
Christian said on 14/Jan/12
ckashekfa- Interesting. Where did you see this video?
ckashekfa said on 12/Jan/12
I saw a video were Paul said he was "5 foot 6" but he seems to be taller... I thought he would be like 1.85 meters
Christian said on 10/Dec/11
I was on the first row watching PaulÂ´s On The Run tour here in Stockholm, Sweden. He is quite thin but seems to be in the 5'10'' range or slightly under. He is not short, just average.
guyfrommars said on 9/Dec/11
John was definately shorter than Paul with at least half an inch. If Paul was 5'10.5" John was rather 5'10" (I'd say 5'9.5") and not the 5'10.5" listed here.
jessica eaton said on 5/Dec/11
i am a huge fan of the beatles and i even own a hard days night and the movie help
my coworkers dont like the beatles at all
joker said on 3/Dec/11
Agree that the fact Tom Jones was taller than them really knocked their heights down a little. They just look taller because they were fit and therefore, more lanky than the people today who are more overweight. But they are not tall people by any means.
AD said on 25/Nov/11
Yeah mcfan I agree .. and sorry, just to be clear I was saying that 5'11" for John, Paul and George was WITH their Beatle boots on, which means barefoot the 3 of them would have been around 5'9.5" (the height that Macca was at 43). Your Mother Should Know clip shows them at the same height as you say, and also the pic I posted below when they're stood together on a doorstep.
mcfan said on 24/Nov/11
Yeah, I highly doubt he shrunk by 43. Still, I think they were about 5'10 at the most. All you can say is that John and Paul were the same height as per Paul's quote and "Your Mother Should Know" video with the same shoes/outfits. If Tom Jones was truly 5'10.5, why was he taller than both John & Paul?
AD said on 20/Nov/11
I really don't think he would have shrunk an inch and a half by age 43, I'm in my 40s now and exactly the same height as in my 20s. John, Paul and George would have all 3 been 5'11" with their Beatle boots on so I guess that's what their management would have told them to say as their height, Ringo was listed as 5'8" which would have been more like 5'6.5" barefoot. If Paul was 5'9.5" at 43 then I seriously doubt he was ever any more than that ...177cm at the most.
Marc said on 19/Nov/11
i herd on the radio hes 5ft 11 there is also footage of him saying he is 5ft11 at the age of 22 but you know with age you can shrink
said on 17/Nov/11
Sorry Lyra, I've met Paul, stood next to him and had a photo taken on a flat surface... he was most definately 5'9.5" at that time when he was 43. I'm being incredibly honest about that, you can read my account on it if you scroll down... I must add though he was an incredibly nice person. Paul, George and John were all around the same height as you can see from this picture, maybe within a cm of each other but all 3 around 5'9.5" or a little over. The reason that Paul appeared taller a lot of the time is because he has very broad and high shoulders
Just for comparism, this is Paul with 6'0" Tom Hanks
I'd say 5'9" flat nowadays is about right.
Lyra said on 16/Nov/11
That can't be right! He seems much taller then John and John is 5'11 !!! i think this is wrong.
178 said on 5/Nov/11
Sir Paul McCartney is 5' 9" flat now. He still looked 5' 9.5" about 15 years ago. In fact the photo of him with Prince Charles that I previously uploaded was when Charles was 5' 9.5"... but he's also 5' 9" flat now.
said on 26/Oct/11
-Rob, Do you remeber Glenns photo with Paul? Paul looked 5Â´8-5'9'', didnÂ´t he?
[Editor Rob: a lot of those shots were very close, although mccartney can look 5ft 9 range at times.]
Christian said on 13/Oct/11
I belive John and Paul were 5'10ish, George a tad shorter and Ringo about 5'6''.
AD said on 11/Oct/11
Sorry to disagree there wayne77 ..but although I agree they were all the same height, that height was more 5'9.5" ...Paul was most definately that height when I met him when he was 43 so I seriously doubt he was ever any taller barefoot. 5'11" was their height with their cuban heeled boots that they wore as almost a uniform in the early years.
wayne77 said on 6/Oct/11
paul ,john and george were all 5'11.what makes this difficult to understand,is that john had the worst posture,of all of the beatles.but when he stood upright he,and paul and george,were all 5'11.
check out 'Your Mother Should Know" from MMT video,all wearing the same shoes.You could almost put a table on there heads,and it would be even.
mcfan said on 13/Sep/11
If he was ever 5'11, I'm 1-inch taller than I claim to be.
Jennifer said on 6/Sep/11
I am 5'8" and have a pic with Macca when he was 46, 47, I was in flats, he was in loafers (it was the 80s)and he is at least 2 inches taller than me. I think he is 5'11".
castillo said on 16/Aug/11
5'9"+ sounds fair enough to me. he never claimed to be more than 5'10 1/2" in the beatles and that was nearly 50 years ago. an inch shrinkage at nearly 70 would be standard and i can't blame him for adding an inch or so to his shoes when he's got tall guitarists in his band. macca has never claimed to be 6' or whatever like lots of shorty celebs who are debated on this site. maybe that's the confidence being one of the greatest songwriters ever and the object of millions of women's desires gives you.
Frank45 said on 1/Aug/11
Saw Paul McCartney at Comerica Park in Detroit last week, second row, center state, 30 feet away. Paul was wearing his Cuban heels and is no taller than 5'9' with his heels. Fantastic show BTW.
178 said on 29/Jul/11
AD says on 28/Jul/11
I can very honestly say that when I met him and had a photo taken with him shoulder to shoulder when he was 43 he was 176/177 cm ... so I very much doubt he was ever taller than 177cm. Probably 175/176cm now.
I believe you. But so other people do, I don't suppose you could upload the photo and state your own height as well?
AD said on 28/Jul/11
I can very honestly say that when I met him and had a photo taken with him shoulder to shoulder when he was 43 he was 176/177 cm ... so I very much doubt he was ever taller than 177cm. Probably 175/176cm now.
John Tak said on 22/Jul/11
He my height kool. Paul i can be your drummer when you need someone in my part of Florida ........John Tak.......www.ucandoit.info
mike said on 15/Jul/11
Maybe his younger brother is posing as him? I think his brother is a couple inches taller than he is.
Ace said on 13/Jul/11
this would be a good place to discuss the most absurd part of the "paul is dead" theory: that the 2nd paul was a different height than the original paul. I've seen claims that the "2nd" Paul was as much as 6'1! C'mon! Like no one would notice that if it were true!?!? Thoughts?
mcfan said on 4/Jun/11
David Lynch looks 2 inches taller than Paul, not an inch.
mike said on 22/May/11
That picture with prince charles took the mystery out of it. He's the same height as 5.9 prince charles with similar footwear.
Martyr said on 22/May/11
...and Bowie wears elevator shoes, remember him next to David Lynch (a legit 5'11), they looked nearly the same height. Next to Lynch, Paul himself looks an inch shorter nowadays. He's probably closer to 5'9 and a half. But I really think he was an inch taller in his younger beatles days.
mcfan said on 17/May/11
David Bowie was not quite 5'9.5, not 5'10.
Sean said on 17/May/11
David Bowie is 5'10" just for the record
mike said on 12/May/11
Very good links there. From those pics, he's 5'9" to 5'9"1/2
Looks like Dave Grohl had 4 inches on him though.
Christian said on 11/May/11
I agree with 178 that Paul look closer to 5'9'' than 5'10''. What would you say Rob?
J said on 11/May/11
No, as for the height of Paul McCartney, there is 5 ft 9.75 in when all photographs look well．
said on 10/May/11
This should settle it!
With 5' 9" Prince Charles: Click Here
With 5' 9" Paul Rudd: Click Here
With (questionable 5' 9") Simon Pegg: Click Here
With 5' 9" David Bowie: Click Here
With 6' 0" Dave Grohl: Click Here
With 5' 6" Ringo Starr: Click Here
Sir Paul McCartney is 5' 9" (175 cm) in truth.
He was possibly 5' 10" during The Beatles era though and could appear as tall as 5' 11" in 2" 'Beatle Boots' or Cuban heels. He wears lifts or elevator shoes on some occasions nowadays, which make him appear between 5' 10" and 5' 11" but don't be fooled.
todd r. brassner said on 5/May/11
the fab four were average height for blokes born c. ww2, itried on the beatle suits at the1987 sotheby's 1st rock rock auction,amongst other stuff were the beatle suits like or did wear nov. 64 on ed sullivan show,i tried on a couple,now! i'm 58 even 135lb. in 87 and not one of the suites was much larger ,or not at all,ringo i would say 5.6,john &paul 5.8-5.9,george about the same.i spent a wonderful night w/ringo and his palsc.75,john many times in nyc,i would say just shy of 5.9. but in reality they stood very high,miles and across the universe,we all got by,with a little help from these friends,won't happen again! maybe after the next ice age if hendrix is in the mix.
mcfan said on 28/Apr/11
George was slightly under John and Paul.
guyfrommars said on 23/Apr/11
McCartney is 5'10". He and George were 6' in those 2" Cuban heels in 1962-1966. John is slightly under, 5'9.5". He had a tendency to wear boots with large heels, even after the classic Beatle days were over.
Roddodg said on 9/Apr/11
John was definietly much taller than 5-6. He and Paul were around 5-11, George 5-10 and Ringo 5-6.
mcfan said on 7/Apr/11
avi, if that's only 2.5 inches between Paul and Barack then I need a new set of glasses.
avi said on 5/Apr/11
he was about 2.5 shorter than 6'1ish Obama. If Obama is missing 6'1 (like 6'0 1/2) then McCartney is 5'10 flat.He looks 5'10 though. there was a special at the white house where McCartney sang for Obama and an audience.
Fred said on 27/Mar/11
i think paul is 180cm because when he was near to michael jackson, he was a little bigger than mj that was 178cm.
AD said on 15/Mar/11
I think remove 2cm exactly from the listed 'now' and 'peak' heights above .... and that would be spot on.
mcfan said on 21/Feb/11
Optobob, yeah, he was probably even 3 inches taller than Paul in that SNL skit. However, there's a problem with Alec Baldwin. He also appears over an inch taller than Steve Martin who I don't think was ever over 5'11, but is listed here as 5'11.5. At other times stocky Alec Balwin only looks 5'11 and this is undoubtedly due to lifts.
optobob said on 20/Feb/11
Just saw 5'11" Alec Baldwin in a photo with an at least 2" shorter McCartney on the Saturday Night Live retro show.
said on 9/Feb/11
I think Sam is right. Paul look closer to 5'9Â½'' nowdays. Sometimes I think he can look only 5'9'' but I guess that could be angles.
said on 7/Feb/11
Rob, do you think 5'10" is really his current height? He has not been looking that tall
[Editor Rob: he could be 1/2 inch less now]
AD said on 14/Jan/11
The 5'10.5" that Paul mentions for both himself and John would only have been with shoes on ...5'11" with the cuban heeled Beatle boots. Peak height barefoot of 176/177cm ....nowadays 175cm.
me said on 11/Jan/11
That apple picture was altered. I saw the original and george and paul was the same height.
177lad! said on 10/Jan/11
Just seen that Pegg is listed as '175 cm maximum, possibly 174 cm' by Rob (many posters agree on 5' 8" ish).
What does that say for Sir Paul?
My opinion is 175 cm nowadays and 5' 10" during The Beatles heyday... same as Bowie.
177lad! said on 10/Jan/11
Appeared to be exactly the same height as 5' 9" (175 cm) Simon Pegg at an awards event recently.
me said on 5/Jan/11
The apple add was just a pose. None of them were exactly standing straight except for paul and ringo for artistic reasons. How boring will it be for everyone of them to be standing up straight in good posture on every shot they take?
me said on 4/Jan/11
All 3 of them are about the same height separate by .5 inch.
anon said on 4/Jan/11
John Paul and George were the same height, 5'11". Everyone has known this since 1963. But given Paul's quote that he's 5'10.5" (imagine a celebrity actually bumping DOWN his height!), there you go. Poor George looks much shorter than Paul in the new iTunes advertisements that are EVERYWHERE now, but that's a Photoshop that was done to align them properly (if you look at the original picture he's the same height as Paul).
Sam said on 3/Jan/11
At the Kennedy Center Honors, he looked about 4" under 6'1" Barack and a heeled 5'10" Michelle Obama, a bit(maybe an inch) taller than a heeled 5'6" Oprah Winfrey and maybe 2.5-3" inches taller than Merle Haggard, who appears under-average but Idk his true height. About consistent with 5'9" and change these days.
me said on 3/Jan/11
Maybe depp has shorter legs. But it's pretty weird that depp is as tall as him because he's supposed to be 5.10. Depp is around 5.8.
jtm said on 3/Jan/11
well if mccartney had a footwear advantage over depp and is still shorter then that would make him 5'6 because depp is 5'8.
me said on 1/Jan/11
good find. Maybe McCartney need a downgrade? I looks like Mac has more footwear too. You can tell by his hip being higher in that pic.
said on 31/Dec/10
hmmmm.... they say johnny's a 5'8 maybe a weak 5'9 guy, after seeing this i don't know what to think anymore
me said on 21/Dec/10
They looked like the 3 stooges.
Bevyn said on 20/Dec/10
Wow, they look shorter in photos and movies/TV....
me said on 14/Dec/10
I've noticed that too.
mcfan said on 13/Dec/10
Anonymous, that's simply not true. John is taller than Paul in the Abbey Road walk that I'm sure you're referencing. It only takes some quick glance to see John is hunched with his hands in his pockets and Paul is walking on his heels barefoot. How you come up with 1.5 inches for Paul and not almost an inch for John tells me you have not studied the Abbey Road footage. John is clearly taller than Paul on the album cover. There is an incline in the road left to right. To quote Macca's own words, or rather, to summarize it we were both 5'10.5.
TallGuy said on 13/Dec/10
Looked about two to three inches shorter than Jimmy Fallon, who is nearly six feet tall, so I would say Paul is currently 5'9" and some change.
Anonymous said on 12/Dec/10
in an old beatles poster that I have there walking in a line and lennon is wearing shoes and mccartney is barefoot and he's about 1 and 1/2 shorter than lennon...he's shrunken since... so he's about 5'8 1/2 at night and 5'11 in the morning.
said on 11/Dec/10
Here is the video you mentioned:
Lefty said on 10/Dec/10
It is so strange that I asked the question how tall is he and obviously many others were wondering the same thing. I noticed that Paul McCartney seemed so much shorter than Jimmy Fallon.
Christian said on 10/Dec/10
Standing next to Jimmy Fallon, Paul lokked 5'9'' but it could have been the angle.
Kevin said on 10/Dec/10
Fallon was swearing heeled dress shoes, while Paul was wearing flat tennis shoes
AD said on 10/Dec/10
That would make sense cause Macca is most definately 5'9.5"
smegma said on 10/Dec/10
Just saw him on Jimmy Fallon and Fallon (listed at 5'11.75" is easily 2-3 inches taller.
elaine pappas said on 10/Dec/10
paul mcCartney is not 5 10 standing next to jimmy fallon paul is 2 inchs shorter then fallon
Mack said on 10/Dec/10
John and Paul both 5'6, George was 5'3 and Ringo is 4'11".
said on 9/Dec/10
Podeis consultar en Click Here
, si no recuerdo mal estan entre 1,78 y 1,80 (McCartney algo mÃƒÂ¡s alto que los demÃƒÂ¡s), sin embargo a Ringo le dan 1,70.
Gregorovich said on 4/Dec/10
Anonymous, just because a document is official or govt issued does not mean it is 100% accurate. For my US military ID card, the person making the card asked me for my height. People are just issuing the document and don't really care how accurate certain things are as long as they are in the ball park (within say two inches).
said on 3/Dec/10
John Lennon was definitely 5,11 feet (= 180 cm.). That's what his passport said! These documents are still available and there exist pictures / copies of his pass.
I think there are some pictures in the web, too... Yeah, I just found one:
Look at this; it definitely says, 5'11.
Anonymous said on 27/Nov/10
To me, The taller Beatles always looked to be within the 174-179cm range. I'd wager John and Paul were, in youth, about 5'10". The average height of a man back then would have been around 5'8" as opposed to today's 5'9"1/2"-5'10" average.
Five foot ten and a half inches tall is a fair estimate; maybe being a bit clingy to that half inch... Alas we shall never know for sure now that they are, as we will all be, either old and slouching or dead.
Greatest honors to the Fab Four; especially John and Paul, who were at the helm of their melodic sound. I'm glad to have been born into an era that can at least still appreciate their music for all it is worth (albeit it would have been pretty bad-ass to experience it first hand).
RIP The Beatles, the modern era needs your talent and, over anything, your rock and roll attitude more than ever. Pop music post 1980 has been as a plague upon activist, free-thinking minds.
AD said on 22/Nov/10
This guy is pushing 70 let's not forget ;o) ...he's not gone too OTT on the 'youth enhancements', hats off to him as well for working so damn hard at what he loves to bring his fans what they want year after year when it could have been so easy to retire and relax 30 years ago! His height has always been between 176cm and 177cm, his broad high-set shoulders and sheer presence of the guy makes him appear taller when you meet him... also, on a personal note, extremely friendly and down to earth. An absolute legend.
Chris said on 16/Nov/10
Yep, that's a toupee. His hair got thicker over the last few years. Also, looks extremely fake now.
me said on 9/Nov/10
Did you really had a chance encounter with the Sir?
JAMESGP said on 2/Nov/10
I was drinking in the Toucan off soho square and Macca was in there with Suggs-I am 5"10' and Macca was definitley shorter than me so would say 5"8' for me to notice- an very dyed hair!
castillo said on 2/Nov/10
In his authorised biog, Barry Miles, who knew Macca at the time, said in the 60s Paul and Jane Asher were a striking couple and that this was partly because Paul was quite tall. In the 60s, 5' 10 1/2" was quite tall and as others say he's never seemed insecure about his height like lots of other stars. NB he does wear quite big heels on stage these days but his guitarists are pretty tall so he probably just wants to look in proportion. I'd go with 5'10" ish in the 60s with the usual shrinkage now so probably 5' 9" ish. (A recent article on The Scaffold remarked on the "imposing" height of Paul's brother, Mike.)
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 5'9...so 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"...it's very hard to say.
Julie said on 16/Aug/07
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
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.
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.
said on 11/Jun/07
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''. I´d 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.
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.
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 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.
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
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!
said on 29/Mar/07
Your family has been very lucky then, Viper. But here are the medical facts from Harvard:
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 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.
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.
said on 26/Mar/07
Good video comparing Lennon with McCartney:
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.
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!