Add a Comment662 comments
Average Guess (124 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.9in (192.8cm)
Current: 6ft 2.96in (190.4cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.9in (192.8cm)
Current: 6ft 2.96in (190.4cm)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Jun/11
Quite the badass in Magnum...although I doubt he's ever been taller than 6ft4, in his early career he could from time to time appear close to 6ft5 because he was so lean.
Quite the badass in Magnum...although I doubt he's ever been taller than 6ft4, in his early career he could from time to time appear close to 6ft5 because he was so lean.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 29/May/11
Despite the comical genius that he displays so well in Three Men & a Baby and Magnum, he doesn't come across as the type of bloke you'd want to mess with. I think 6ft4 is fine for his peak
Despite the comical genius that he displays so well in Three Men & a Baby and Magnum, he doesn't come across as the type of bloke you'd want to mess with. I think 6ft4 is fine for his peak
James said on 18/May/11
Remember the photo of Selleck with glenn? He looked nowhere near 6'4.
Remember the photo of Selleck with glenn? He looked nowhere near 6'4.
Robert Jay said on 18/May/11
Appearing on the Travis Smiley Show yesterday Selleck said that being 6'-4" and good looking may have hindered his ability to get acting work during the anti-hero (i.e. Richard Dreyfuss, Dustin Hoffman etc.) period of the 1970's.
Appearing on the Travis Smiley Show yesterday Selleck said that being 6'-4" and good looking may have hindered his ability to get acting work during the anti-hero (i.e. Richard Dreyfuss, Dustin Hoffman etc.) period of the 1970's.
James said on 17/May/11
i still maintain that he might have been 6'3 1/2 at his peak. 6'4 does seem extreme when you the three men and a baby movies.
i still maintain that he might have been 6'3 1/2 at his peak. 6'4 does seem extreme when you the three men and a baby movies.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 15/May/11
He was most likely 6"4.5 out of bed at his peak
He was most likely 6"4.5 out of bed at his peak
Lenad said on 14/May/11
Actually probably never been over 6'4. Today hes 6'3ish.
Actually probably never been over 6'4. Today hes 6'3ish.
Lenad said on 14/May/11
6'4ish younger days. Today 6'3ish.
6'4ish younger days. Today 6'3ish.
James said on 13/May/11
Selleck is still very tall though even if he looks small compared to his family
Selleck is still very tall though even if he looks small compared to his family
hey i know that guy said on 13/May/11
he comes from a tall family. his dad was like 6-6. tom, in his young adult days, was 6-4. he did a cheesy B film in the phillipines when he was in his 20s called Daughters of Satan and he towered over everyone in that film. most of us however know the middle age/older tom, who is 6-3.
he comes from a tall family. his dad was like 6-6. tom, in his young adult days, was 6-4. he did a cheesy B film in the phillipines when he was in his 20s called Daughters of Satan and he towered over everyone in that film. most of us however know the middle age/older tom, who is 6-3.
Curt said on 12/May/11
I saw some Selleck family wedding pics taken in Jan 2011. His niece married a former U.S. National Vollebally Team player who is 6'6". In the photo, Tom at 6'3" is one of the shorter people in the whole family, very tall brothers, and sisters, former volleyball players.
I saw some Selleck family wedding pics taken in Jan 2011. His niece married a former U.S. National Vollebally Team player who is 6'6". In the photo, Tom at 6'3" is one of the shorter people in the whole family, very tall brothers, and sisters, former volleyball players.
James said on 8/May/11
looked more 6'3 in Three Men and a Baby. Not easy to belive 6'4 for Selleck in that movie.
looked more 6'3 in Three Men and a Baby. Not easy to belive 6'4 for Selleck in that movie.
TJ said on 7/May/11
Rob, watch Blue Bloods and you will start doubting 6ft 3.5. He looks 6ft 2.5 maximum against Wahlberg.
Rob, watch Blue Bloods and you will start doubting 6ft 3.5. He looks 6ft 2.5 maximum against Wahlberg.
James said on 4/May/11
looks between 6'2-6'3 these days
looks between 6'2-6'3 these days
Lenad said on 25/Apr/11
He had 1-1.5 inches on Kutcher in Killers. 6'3.5 min
He had 1-1.5 inches on Kutcher in Killers. 6'3.5 min
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Apr/11
What Rob has him at is bang on
What Rob has him at is bang on
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Apr/11
Not under 6"3 today...
Not under 6"3 today...
Jimbo said on 21/Apr/11
I think Tom at his peak was 192cm 6'3.5, I would like to know what shoes Don,Sly and Patrick were wearing in your photos James because for Guys around the 5'8 to 5'9 range they looked no more than 3 inches shorter than Tom at most.
I think Tom at his peak was 192cm 6'3.5, I would like to know what shoes Don,Sly and Patrick were wearing in your photos James because for Guys around the 5'8 to 5'9 range they looked no more than 3 inches shorter than Tom at most.
James said on 27/Mar/11
Rob do you think 192cm is not improbable for his peak and maybe today he has shrunk and is 6'3 (191cm)?
In the three men and a baby films never struck me as a legit 6'4 guy more like 6'3 but maybe his build makes him look shorter than he is? i don't know i mean he might have been 6'4 but he just comes across as a 6'3 guy in his films.
Rob do you think 192cm is not improbable for his peak and maybe today he has shrunk and is 6'3 (191cm)?
In the three men and a baby films never struck me as a legit 6'4 guy more like 6'3 but maybe his build makes him look shorter than he is? i don't know i mean he might have been 6'4 but he just comes across as a 6'3 guy in his films.
James said on 10/Mar/11
I guess 192cm is not impossbile as well when he was younger. probably more 192cm than 194cm if you get what i mean.
I guess 192cm is not impossbile as well when he was younger. probably more 192cm than 194cm if you get what i mean.
Bon_ said on 8/Mar/11
a fraction under 6'4 at peak, 6'3.75 would be my best guess.
a fraction under 6'4 at peak, 6'3.75 would be my best guess.
James said on 5/Mar/11
Tom Sellecks dad looks like 6'6 (probably more when younger)
Click Here
Click Here
Tom Sellecks dad looks like 6'6 (probably more when younger)
Click Here
Click Here
Viper said on 27/Feb/11
Well, he sure looked a solid 6-4 with 6-2 Ted Danson.
Well, he sure looked a solid 6-4 with 6-2 Ted Danson.
James said on 26/Feb/11
I don't think he was an "An easy 6'4" an easy 6'4 guy would be tim robbins. Selleck was just 6'4 flat at his peak, thats it. Never striked me as looking over 6'4 in three men and a baby etc..... if anything at times he looked a weak 6'4 esspecially in three men and a little lady.
Today Selleck is between 6'3-6'3.5.
Vegas I disagree look at Wight square up to the great khali he still looks roughly around 7ft.
Click Here
I don't think he was an "An easy 6'4" an easy 6'4 guy would be tim robbins. Selleck was just 6'4 flat at his peak, thats it. Never striked me as looking over 6'4 in three men and a baby etc..... if anything at times he looked a weak 6'4 esspecially in three men and a little lady.
Today Selleck is between 6'3-6'3.5.
Vegas I disagree look at Wight square up to the great khali he still looks roughly around 7ft.
Click Here
Viper said on 25/Feb/11
I thought he looked an easy, solid 6-4 on Magnum PI. Same has David Hasselhoff
I thought he looked an easy, solid 6-4 on Magnum PI. Same has David Hasselhoff
Viper said on 25/Feb/11
So hes at least 6-3.5 minimum today If he looked 7 inches shorter than 6-11 Show.
So hes at least 6-3.5 minimum today If he looked 7 inches shorter than 6-11 Show.
Vegas said on 24/Feb/11
wight was 6'11 when i met him 10 years ago, selleck looked about 7 inches shorter in the clip, not sure on year ain't recent because wight has hair in it, so that rules out anything after 2006
wight was 6'11 when i met him 10 years ago, selleck looked about 7 inches shorter in the clip, not sure on year ain't recent because wight has hair in it, so that rules out anything after 2006
James said on 24/Feb/11
Yeah but the big show ain't 7ft these days more like 6'11 1/2.
Yeah but the big show ain't 7ft these days more like 6'11 1/2.
Vegas said on 23/Feb/11
looks about 6'4 standing next to paul wight (big show) in wights new dvd
looks about 6'4 standing next to paul wight (big show) in wights new dvd
James said on 22/Feb/11
Probably 191-192cm range today.
Probably 191-192cm range today.
Anonymous said on 21/Feb/11
Looks 6ft 3in to 6ft 3.5n at most with Wahlberg
Looks 6ft 3in to 6ft 3.5n at most with Wahlberg
James said on 9/Feb/11
Yeah he dwarfs 5'10 Donnie Walhberg in Blue Blood.
Yeah he dwarfs 5'10 Donnie Walhberg in Blue Blood.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/Feb/11
He's in this new show called Blue Blood and he still looks very tall...
It's likely he's still close to 6"4. 192cm now and 193cm peak
He's in this new show called Blue Blood and he still looks very tall...
It's likely he's still close to 6"4. 192cm now and 193cm peak
James said on 16/Jan/11
Kutcher is 6'2.5......
Kutcher is 6'2.5......
5'7.37 said on 15/Jan/11
Man, Sly uses full boxes to stand next to Tom. Isn't Ashton Kutcher 6'3? Tom must then be 6'4.
Man, Sly uses full boxes to stand next to Tom. Isn't Ashton Kutcher 6'3? Tom must then be 6'4.
James said on 4/Jan/11
Actually even though he could have been 6'4 at his peak 6'3 1/2 (192cm) is also possible as well. he does not look over 6'3 today.
Actually even though he could have been 6'4 at his peak 6'3 1/2 (192cm) is also possible as well. he does not look over 6'3 today.
James said on 1/Jan/11
With Ted Danson who is a legit 6'2.5 he did look a true 6'4.
With Ted Danson who is a legit 6'2.5 he did look a true 6'4.
Jimbo said on 29/Dec/10
Tom is a really tall guy in his prime 191-192cm 6'3.5in at the very least, not quite 193cm 6'4.
Tom is a really tall guy in his prime 191-192cm 6'3.5in at the very least, not quite 193cm 6'4.
MichaelinDenver said on 17/Dec/10
He used to live in NW Montana. I am from MT, and met him a couple times. I'm 6'4" also, and see him eye-to-eye.
He used to live in NW Montana. I am from MT, and met him a couple times. I'm 6'4" also, and see him eye-to-eye.
James said on 16/Dec/10
In Three Men and a Little Lady may have been 6'3.75?
In Three Men and a Little Lady may have been 6'3.75?
Anonymous said on 15/Dec/10
Went on the blue bloods CTV website, and did the tom selleck quiz.
The question asking about what he got his scholarship for has some good insight for this site:
You selected: b) Basketball
Good decision!
Tom Selleck is a tall man, at close to 6 feet four inches. He is a natural on the court.
Notice: "at close to 6 feet four inches" (so 6ft 3.5in it is!)
Went on the blue bloods CTV website, and did the tom selleck quiz.
The question asking about what he got his scholarship for has some good insight for this site:
You selected: b) Basketball
Good decision!
Tom Selleck is a tall man, at close to 6 feet four inches. He is a natural on the court.
Notice: "at close to 6 feet four inches" (so 6ft 3.5in it is!)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 3/Dec/10
Rob has this guy nailed.
Has lost quite a considerably small amount of height
Rob has this guy nailed.
Has lost quite a considerably small amount of height
sue said on 3/Dec/10
Saw him in an airport, looked about 6'2" to 6'3" compared to my friends 6'8" boyfriend who was with us.I think he may have lost some height but not aging badly.His parents could be shorter than their genes say they should be, their heights stunted by illness or malnutrition as kids.Height is influanced by what you eat and having enough to eat in childhood.
Saw him in an airport, looked about 6'2" to 6'3" compared to my friends 6'8" boyfriend who was with us.I think he may have lost some height but not aging badly.His parents could be shorter than their genes say they should be, their heights stunted by illness or malnutrition as kids.Height is influanced by what you eat and having enough to eat in childhood.
James said on 19/Nov/10
Not looking as high as 6'3.5 with 5'10 Donnie Wahlberg.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Not looking as high as 6'3.5 with 5'10 Donnie Wahlberg.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Rusty said on 18/Jun/09
Actually I weigh about 175 on a good day and I can go as low as 170.
Actually I weigh about 175 on a good day and I can go as low as 170.
peteyork said on 13/Jun/09
Rusty you are unusual most of us fill out as we get older. You can perhaps argue some us take along to time to fill out and its quite usual for some guys to be 20 even 30 pounds heavier at 25 than they are 18. However if you look at weight to age charts, not including getting fat, you will find average guy is 20 heavier at 45 than he was at 25. I would not have belive at 21 i could be 180 pounds and not fat as i was 155. I cycled across Norway 450 miles at 33. Left at 172 came back at 172 pounds. Now Norway is not flat, and mountain bikes with 25 pounds of gear are not light, so you will never look like a tour de france cyclist, as they have 1/2 tyres not 2 inch tyres a cycle position the wind goes over you not into you and are carrying about 45 pounds less weight. Now in 8 days cycling including 114 miles in a day you would expect me to loose any excess weight. What I am trying to say is I could not get any smaller through exercise. 10 years before I cycled around france at 155 a little over a thousand miles but over a longer time period. So the amount of activity did not change and yet I was 17 pounds heavier. I could not see me getting under 175 now.
Rusty you are unusual most of us fill out as we get older. You can perhaps argue some us take along to time to fill out and its quite usual for some guys to be 20 even 30 pounds heavier at 25 than they are 18. However if you look at weight to age charts, not including getting fat, you will find average guy is 20 heavier at 45 than he was at 25. I would not have belive at 21 i could be 180 pounds and not fat as i was 155. I cycled across Norway 450 miles at 33. Left at 172 came back at 172 pounds. Now Norway is not flat, and mountain bikes with 25 pounds of gear are not light, so you will never look like a tour de france cyclist, as they have 1/2 tyres not 2 inch tyres a cycle position the wind goes over you not into you and are carrying about 45 pounds less weight. Now in 8 days cycling including 114 miles in a day you would expect me to loose any excess weight. What I am trying to say is I could not get any smaller through exercise. 10 years before I cycled around france at 155 a little over a thousand miles but over a longer time period. So the amount of activity did not change and yet I was 17 pounds heavier. I could not see me getting under 175 now.
slapmouth said on 4/Jun/09
kurt russel is short
kurt russel is short
Ray said on 22/May/09
Selleck had to have been 6'4" during Magnum. If you notice TC wore very big heels and was still about 3" shorter. I think TC was over 6'. Also an episode with Ted Danson (6'2")he appeared to be about 2 inches taller if you take away Danson's massive perm.
Selleck had to have been 6'4" during Magnum. If you notice TC wore very big heels and was still about 3" shorter. I think TC was over 6'. Also an episode with Ted Danson (6'2")he appeared to be about 2 inches taller if you take away Danson's massive perm.
Doug said on 7/May/09
Mmm Selleck looks the full 6'3" not sure about 6'4", he was almost an inch above the 6'3" panel on the door so it isn't impossible. I think 6'3.5" is about right now. To me Selleck looks more like how a strong 6'3" guy looks. Maybe he is 6'3.5 or 6'3.75 and rounds up to 6'4". I bet he's not 6'4" on the mark.
Mmm Selleck looks the full 6'3" not sure about 6'4", he was almost an inch above the 6'3" panel on the door so it isn't impossible. I think 6'3.5" is about right now. To me Selleck looks more like how a strong 6'3" guy looks. Maybe he is 6'3.5 or 6'3.75 and rounds up to 6'4". I bet he's not 6'4" on the mark.
Rusty said on 29/Apr/09
Yeah Doug I realize that as you weighed 170, but now youre 215. So you went from a thin guy to a rather bulky one. I still have the same height and weight as well as wrists that I can circle with my fingers.
Yeah Doug I realize that as you weighed 170, but now youre 215. So you went from a thin guy to a rather bulky one. I still have the same height and weight as well as wrists that I can circle with my fingers.
Doug said on 29/Apr/09
It is very unusual though Rusty as my body changed dramatically between 17 and 23. A lot of guys bulk out considerably in their early twenties, my doctor said this is normal that you end up weighing a lot more at 23 than you did at 17 as your bones and cartlidges etc thicken. At 17 I was light.
It is very unusual though Rusty as my body changed dramatically between 17 and 23. A lot of guys bulk out considerably in their early twenties, my doctor said this is normal that you end up weighing a lot more at 23 than you did at 17 as your bones and cartlidges etc thicken. At 17 I was light.
Anonymous said on 28/Apr/09
Selleck in the 80s: 6'4'', 205 - 210 lbs
Selleck today: 6'3.5'', more like 225+ lbs
Selleck in the 80s: 6'4'', 205 - 210 lbs
Selleck today: 6'3.5'', more like 225+ lbs
Rusty said on 27/Apr/09
jake says on 24/Apr/09
Ok Rusty. Now you're stretchin the truth by saying your body looks the exact same at 40 as it did at 17. Sorry. Not buyin it buddy.
You better buy it, I am the same height and weight.
jake says on 24/Apr/09
Ok Rusty. Now you're stretchin the truth by saying your body looks the exact same at 40 as it did at 17. Sorry. Not buyin it buddy.
You better buy it, I am the same height and weight.
Anonymous said on 25/Apr/09
Tom Selleck is 6'3.5" and weighs 195lbs. Clint Walker is 6'4" and at his best weighed 230lbs and had a 34" waist. Sorry folks, I saw them together at the Cowboy Hall of Fame in 2004 and Selleck actually looked about and inch taller than Walker like it or not.
Tom Selleck is 6'3.5" and weighs 195lbs. Clint Walker is 6'4" and at his best weighed 230lbs and had a 34" waist. Sorry folks, I saw them together at the Cowboy Hall of Fame in 2004 and Selleck actually looked about and inch taller than Walker like it or not.
jake said on 24/Apr/09
Ok Rusty. Now you're stretchin the truth by saying your body looks the exact same at 40 as it did at 17. Sorry. Not buyin it buddy.
Ok Rusty. Now you're stretchin the truth by saying your body looks the exact same at 40 as it did at 17. Sorry. Not buyin it buddy.
Rusty said on 21/Apr/09
I dont think it has to do with when you hit puberty. My body still looks the exact same at age 40 as it did at 17. The only change is the addition of chest hair.
I dont think it has to do with when you hit puberty. My body still looks the exact same at age 40 as it did at 17. The only change is the addition of chest hair.
Yaspaa said on 13/Apr/09
Yeah but everyone is different,depends on when you hit puberty.
Yeah but everyone is different,depends on when you hit puberty.
Rusty said on 11/Apr/09
You dont really fill out as you get older. I graduated high school at 6'3" and 170 pounds and thats still what I am 22 years later. I agree the BMI isnt good for measuring health, but its still good for determing if someone is big or not.
You dont really fill out as you get older. I graduated high school at 6'3" and 170 pounds and thats still what I am 22 years later. I agree the BMI isnt good for measuring health, but its still good for determing if someone is big or not.
peteyork said on 10/Apr/09
Rusty the bmi, is not a good measure, it does not measure fat, only height verus weight. I am just about 5'11 and 180, so 10 pounds more than you at a similar age. According to bmi I need to loose weight, I have 42 inch chest, 33 inch waist and size 11 (12 us) feet. I have done a lot of sports but I am not a body builder. You need to loose weight when you are 20-25% fat if you are a guy. Your US Navy neck to waist measure gives me a fat ratio of 12-13%, the bmi has me carrying 15 pounds more fat. Now at 25 I was a 160 guy, meduim build. Yes you fill out as you get older, but to mark average guy as me as fat, when you do not have a belly, no love handles, or flabby bits is just daff. BMI is positiviley dangerous when people talk about weight, it is great way to end up with an epidemic of annorexics.
Rusty the bmi, is not a good measure, it does not measure fat, only height verus weight. I am just about 5'11 and 180, so 10 pounds more than you at a similar age. According to bmi I need to loose weight, I have 42 inch chest, 33 inch waist and size 11 (12 us) feet. I have done a lot of sports but I am not a body builder. You need to loose weight when you are 20-25% fat if you are a guy. Your US Navy neck to waist measure gives me a fat ratio of 12-13%, the bmi has me carrying 15 pounds more fat. Now at 25 I was a 160 guy, meduim build. Yes you fill out as you get older, but to mark average guy as me as fat, when you do not have a belly, no love handles, or flabby bits is just daff. BMI is positiviley dangerous when people talk about weight, it is great way to end up with an epidemic of annorexics.
Rusty said on 5/Apr/09
I dont think 6'4" and 215 pounds would really be slim. Its not fat on Reeve, but he didnt look skinny at all in Superman, he looked muscular. A skinny guy would be like Brosnan in Goldeneye or Edward Norton. I usually buy athletic fit clothes so I can look more built but people always ask me how I am only 170 pounds at age 40. I also coach the football team at the school i teach at and nearly all of the players i have coached at my height weigh 185 or more and they always tell me I need to put meat on my bones, but my wife is fine with my build and thats what matters.
I dont think 6'4" and 215 pounds would really be slim. Its not fat on Reeve, but he didnt look skinny at all in Superman, he looked muscular. A skinny guy would be like Brosnan in Goldeneye or Edward Norton. I usually buy athletic fit clothes so I can look more built but people always ask me how I am only 170 pounds at age 40. I also coach the football team at the school i teach at and nearly all of the players i have coached at my height weigh 185 or more and they always tell me I need to put meat on my bones, but my wife is fine with my build and thats what matters.
Dani said on 28/Mar/09
He always looked tall in Magnum, i thought he was 190cm but 193 meters is quite accurate.Great actor by the way.
He always looked tall in Magnum, i thought he was 190cm but 193 meters is quite accurate.Great actor by the way.
_-_-_-(Hugh)-_-_-_/ said on 10/Mar/09
I'm reffering to Selleck Doug. He looks to have packed on some noticeable pounds. Reeves has always appeared to be a lean but muscular guy all the same prior to his horseriding accident in 1995.
I'm reffering to Selleck Doug. He looks to have packed on some noticeable pounds. Reeves has always appeared to be a lean but muscular guy all the same prior to his horseriding accident in 1995.
\\_-_-_-Hugh-_-_-_/ said on 10/Mar/09
I'm reffering to Selleck Doug. He looks to have packed on some noticeable pounds. Reeves has always appeared to be a lean but muscular guy all the same prior to his horseriding accident in 1995.
I'm reffering to Selleck Doug. He looks to have packed on some noticeable pounds. Reeves has always appeared to be a lean but muscular guy all the same prior to his horseriding accident in 1995.
Doug said on 9/Mar/09
Rusty you may want to check out the discussion on Christopher Reeves page. At 6'4" and 190 pounds Reeve self proclaimed himself as skinny as a rake. He bulked up by 30 pounds for SUperman and retained some of the muscle afterwards and was around 212-215 pounds towards his later years before the accident. We were having a discussion that Reeve at 6'4" and 215 pound was still looking slender and is really not that heavy for a man of that height and build. Basically people were saying anything over 200 pounds at 6'4" is overweight. I've lost another 5 pounds BTW Rusty by cutting down on processed fats and doing more cardio work. I'm down to 215 now. Yes Hugh could you elaborate? A little heavier than 195 or 225 pounds?
Rusty you may want to check out the discussion on Christopher Reeves page. At 6'4" and 190 pounds Reeve self proclaimed himself as skinny as a rake. He bulked up by 30 pounds for SUperman and retained some of the muscle afterwards and was around 212-215 pounds towards his later years before the accident. We were having a discussion that Reeve at 6'4" and 215 pound was still looking slender and is really not that heavy for a man of that height and build. Basically people were saying anything over 200 pounds at 6'4" is overweight. I've lost another 5 pounds BTW Rusty by cutting down on processed fats and doing more cardio work. I'm down to 215 now. Yes Hugh could you elaborate? A little heavier than 195 or 225 pounds?
Rusty said on 26/Feb/09
How much heavier?
How much heavier?
\\ -_-_-(Hugh)-_-_-/ said on 25/Feb/09
Actually he looks a little heavier these days.
Actually he looks a little heavier these days.
Rusty said on 24/Feb/09
Yeah Doug, i definately agree with Selleck's height, he just didn't look 225 pounds to me, maybe more like 195-200 in Quigley Down Under. The BMI gives around 5 pounds per inch, so if I was 6'2", like you are, I would weigh about 165. And my arms have a fair amount of muscle tone as I do a set of 100 pushups when I wake up, another set when I come home from work, and another before bed so I am a little toned. But for my build, 170 is a perfect weight for me, even though the ideal weight for 6'3" is 185 pounds.
Yeah Doug, i definately agree with Selleck's height, he just didn't look 225 pounds to me, maybe more like 195-200 in Quigley Down Under. The BMI gives around 5 pounds per inch, so if I was 6'2", like you are, I would weigh about 165. And my arms have a fair amount of muscle tone as I do a set of 100 pushups when I wake up, another set when I come home from work, and another before bed so I am a little toned. But for my build, 170 is a perfect weight for me, even though the ideal weight for 6'3" is 185 pounds.
Doug said on 24/Feb/09
Clint Walker had a 32 waist, the same as yourself and weighed 245 pounds. A lot of his weight came from his chest and shoulders, if not also from his huge height.
Clint Walker had a 32 waist, the same as yourself and weighed 245 pounds. A lot of his weight came from his chest and shoulders, if not also from his huge height.
Doug said on 22/Feb/09
Yes thats what I mean Rusty, I have little body fat and am a pretty toned guy!! Muscle and fat in terms of weight can mean two very different things. The bulk of my weight comes from the chest and shoulders and the thigh muscles. I have a 47.5 inch chest. Brosnan, Rusty even when slim still had very good muscle tone. I was surprised to learn he was as low as 165 in Goldeneye, he looked more 180 to me. Anyway Selleck was 6'4" peak anyway perhaps he has lost a little now.
Yes thats what I mean Rusty, I have little body fat and am a pretty toned guy!! Muscle and fat in terms of weight can mean two very different things. The bulk of my weight comes from the chest and shoulders and the thigh muscles. I have a 47.5 inch chest. Brosnan, Rusty even when slim still had very good muscle tone. I was surprised to learn he was as low as 165 in Goldeneye, he looked more 180 to me. Anyway Selleck was 6'4" peak anyway perhaps he has lost a little now.
Rusty said on 21/Feb/09
James Cracknell looks quite built in the picture i saw of him in a wetsuit. Your 34 waist I find hard to believe as your about an inch shorter and 50 pounds heavier than me. A guy with a similar build as me is Pierce Brosnan (back in Goldeneye, certainly not now as he weighs 215 nowadays) and Edward Norton, who is 6'0" and 155 pounds.
James Cracknell looks quite built in the picture i saw of him in a wetsuit. Your 34 waist I find hard to believe as your about an inch shorter and 50 pounds heavier than me. A guy with a similar build as me is Pierce Brosnan (back in Goldeneye, certainly not now as he weighs 215 nowadays) and Edward Norton, who is 6'0" and 155 pounds.
Mark D. said on 20/Feb/09
Phil, there is an obiesity epidemic going on. So being 6'4" 220 isn't 'skinny'.
Those are fat people trying to make average 'skinny', so fat will be 'average'.
I'm 1/2 inch taller than you and weight almost 50 lbs less, I'm thin, but not
quite 'skinny' (again unless you ask fat people). Always consider the source.
Phil, there is an obiesity epidemic going on. So being 6'4" 220 isn't 'skinny'.
Those are fat people trying to make average 'skinny', so fat will be 'average'.
I'm 1/2 inch taller than you and weight almost 50 lbs less, I'm thin, but not
quite 'skinny' (again unless you ask fat people). Always consider the source.
darren said on 19/Feb/09
Tall guy, he may be 6'3 1/2 now, he might have been 6'4 at least in his peak he is a really tall guy.
Tall guy, he may be 6'3 1/2 now, he might have been 6'4 at least in his peak he is a really tall guy.
Doug said on 19/Feb/09
Google image James Cracknell who has a similar build to myself although he's two inches taller. 6'4", 100 kilos (225 pounds). Doesn't look that bulky either.
Google image James Cracknell who has a similar build to myself although he's two inches taller. 6'4", 100 kilos (225 pounds). Doesn't look that bulky either.
Doug said on 19/Feb/09
32 waist and 34 leg at 40 is excellent but yes weight is all about the height and particularly build. I'm 34 waist (still pretty slim) and 34 leg although when I actually measure my waist it is actually 36. I have a larger torso but my legs are still a good length and look neither too long or short in comparison. Well I'm not a die hard bodybuilder but I work out regularly and sure have little body fat. The thing is I have broad shoulders (inherited from my father and grandfather who was a boxer) and a large chest around 47.5 inches but the frame is pretty much natural nowadays. It wasn't always this way, my body has changed a great deal from aged 20-25. At 20 I had little of the muscle density that I have now and I weighed around 165 - 170 for a while at 6'1" before I grew another inch. I used to be a 30 waist at 18, I was very toned but had little of the muscle mass I have now, I can assure you though that the 50 pounds I gained is mostly from the growth of the shoulders, chest and thighs and my bone structure seems to have thickened out. I used to think 200 pounds very heavy when I was younger and never thought I'd ever be over 200, but when you pass this weight it doesn't seem much. I am according to the book at least 20 pounds overweight for my height but it is definately to do with muscle mass and bone density which explains the extra weight. But when I say I'm 220 I do seem to be noticeably heavier compared to many people than I had realised. Anyway saw an episode of Friends earlier and Selleck was barefoot standing nearer the door. He was a slightly taller than the top panel which on my door and most doors is around 6'3". Looks a legit 6'4".
32 waist and 34 leg at 40 is excellent but yes weight is all about the height and particularly build. I'm 34 waist (still pretty slim) and 34 leg although when I actually measure my waist it is actually 36. I have a larger torso but my legs are still a good length and look neither too long or short in comparison. Well I'm not a die hard bodybuilder but I work out regularly and sure have little body fat. The thing is I have broad shoulders (inherited from my father and grandfather who was a boxer) and a large chest around 47.5 inches but the frame is pretty much natural nowadays. It wasn't always this way, my body has changed a great deal from aged 20-25. At 20 I had little of the muscle density that I have now and I weighed around 165 - 170 for a while at 6'1" before I grew another inch. I used to be a 30 waist at 18, I was very toned but had little of the muscle mass I have now, I can assure you though that the 50 pounds I gained is mostly from the growth of the shoulders, chest and thighs and my bone structure seems to have thickened out. I used to think 200 pounds very heavy when I was younger and never thought I'd ever be over 200, but when you pass this weight it doesn't seem much. I am according to the book at least 20 pounds overweight for my height but it is definately to do with muscle mass and bone density which explains the extra weight. But when I say I'm 220 I do seem to be noticeably heavier compared to many people than I had realised. Anyway saw an episode of Friends earlier and Selleck was barefoot standing nearer the door. He was a slightly taller than the top panel which on my door and most doors is around 6'3". Looks a legit 6'4".
Rusty said on 19/Feb/09
I also have narrow shoulders and long, skinny arms. And i have longer legs and a shorter torso. My pants that i buy are 32 waist 34 length. If I weighed as much as Tom Selleck, I would look quite heavy, but on your body, Doug, it probobly wouldnt look as heavy as you have a much bigger frame than me and my bone structure is thinner most likely.
I also have narrow shoulders and long, skinny arms. And i have longer legs and a shorter torso. My pants that i buy are 32 waist 34 length. If I weighed as much as Tom Selleck, I would look quite heavy, but on your body, Doug, it probobly wouldnt look as heavy as you have a much bigger frame than me and my bone structure is thinner most likely.
Rusty said on 17/Feb/09
Well if youre a body builder, that wouldnt be fat at all, but if youre a sedentary man who doesnt work out, it would be. The BMI chart says overweight for 6'3" is 200 and for 6'4" is 205. So I would have to gain 30 pounds to be overweight. I am 40 years old, 6'3" and 170 pounds, which is what I have been for more than half my life.
Well if youre a body builder, that wouldnt be fat at all, but if youre a sedentary man who doesnt work out, it would be. The BMI chart says overweight for 6'3" is 200 and for 6'4" is 205. So I would have to gain 30 pounds to be overweight. I am 40 years old, 6'3" and 170 pounds, which is what I have been for more than half my life.
Doug said on 15/Feb/09
I think Sam who has seen Selleck and thought WOW thats a big guy, 6'4" and probably 225 pounds is actually an excellent estimate, thats what I would have estimated exactly. As I said a legit 6'4" guy with a broad relatively muscular frame and shoulders while still being in good shape like Selleck 225 pounds would still be a good weight without him looking remotely fat or unfit. Steven Seagal who is also 6'4" would very likely weigh 50-60 pounds more than Selleck.
I think Sam who has seen Selleck and thought WOW thats a big guy, 6'4" and probably 225 pounds is actually an excellent estimate, thats what I would have estimated exactly. As I said a legit 6'4" guy with a broad relatively muscular frame and shoulders while still being in good shape like Selleck 225 pounds would still be a good weight without him looking remotely fat or unfit. Steven Seagal who is also 6'4" would very likely weigh 50-60 pounds more than Selleck.
Doug said on 15/Feb/09
So Rusty you think I am fat? 6'3" and 170 pounds is rake thin. Funny how many professional athletes such as fit ice hockey players etc can easily weigh 240 pounds at a similar height to myself or taller but on a height/weight chart would be classed as "obese". James Cracknell the rower is super fit and toned and is 6'3"-6'4" and at least 220 pounds. Laird Hamilton the super fit big wave surfer 6'3" and 225 pounds. Very fat?? Uh I think NOT! They both have very low body fat!! I think you are misjudging how tall such a height is and how much muscle weighs. Selleck is a big guy a good 6'4" and a broad frame he must be at least 220 pounds.
So Rusty you think I am fat? 6'3" and 170 pounds is rake thin. Funny how many professional athletes such as fit ice hockey players etc can easily weigh 240 pounds at a similar height to myself or taller but on a height/weight chart would be classed as "obese". James Cracknell the rower is super fit and toned and is 6'3"-6'4" and at least 220 pounds. Laird Hamilton the super fit big wave surfer 6'3" and 225 pounds. Very fat?? Uh I think NOT! They both have very low body fat!! I think you are misjudging how tall such a height is and how much muscle weighs. Selleck is a big guy a good 6'4" and a broad frame he must be at least 220 pounds.
Doug said on 15/Feb/09
Phil I agree somewhat I'm 220 also and two inches shorter. I also lift weights and keep my body toned and I've never looked fat. A lot of people always say how fit I look. Muscle weighs a lot more than fat so if you are 6'2"-6'4" with a large frame that has a higher muscle than fat ratio it is possible to easily weigh this amount and still look slender not "skinny" but still pretty toned.
Phil I agree somewhat I'm 220 also and two inches shorter. I also lift weights and keep my body toned and I've never looked fat. A lot of people always say how fit I look. Muscle weighs a lot more than fat so if you are 6'2"-6'4" with a large frame that has a higher muscle than fat ratio it is possible to easily weigh this amount and still look slender not "skinny" but still pretty toned.
yoyo said on 14/Feb/09
Phil if you are 220pounds with 6ft4 people think you skinny they must be crazy.. 220pounds was about 98kg fits 6ft9 is then looks skinny.. 6ft4 220pounds skinny no way.
Phil if you are 220pounds with 6ft4 people think you skinny they must be crazy.. 220pounds was about 98kg fits 6ft9 is then looks skinny.. 6ft4 220pounds skinny no way.
sam said on 13/Feb/09
Seeing Tom in the restaurant, my first thought was that's a big dude. Tom is a big man with broad shoulders... but I definitely would not consider him fat. He is slim and in good shape, but not skinny. I really think he was over 200 pounds. If a man with Tom's stature only weighed 170 pounds, he would look too skinny. Just my opinion.
Seeing Tom in the restaurant, my first thought was that's a big dude. Tom is a big man with broad shoulders... but I definitely would not consider him fat. He is slim and in good shape, but not skinny. I really think he was over 200 pounds. If a man with Tom's stature only weighed 170 pounds, he would look too skinny. Just my opinion.
phil said on 12/Feb/09
I am 6'4" and 220 #. I work out 3/4 times a week. People at work tell me I am skinny....
I am 6'4" and 220 #. I work out 3/4 times a week. People at work tell me I am skinny....
Danimal said on 10/Feb/09
Rusty says on 10/Feb/09
225 pounds is 20 pounds overweight for 6'4". Im 6'3" and 170 pounds and I would feel very fat if I weighed that much.
So, that would make you 35 pounds underweight for your height.
Rusty says on 10/Feb/09
225 pounds is 20 pounds overweight for 6'4". Im 6'3" and 170 pounds and I would feel very fat if I weighed that much.
So, that would make you 35 pounds underweight for your height.
MD said on 10/Feb/09
You are crazy, Rusty. You're just very skinny for your height.
You are crazy, Rusty. You're just very skinny for your height.
Rusty said on 10/Feb/09
225 pounds is 20 pounds overweight for 6'4". Im 6'3" and 170 pounds and I would feel very fat if I weighed that much.
225 pounds is 20 pounds overweight for 6'4". Im 6'3" and 170 pounds and I would feel very fat if I weighed that much.
Doug said on 6/Feb/09
Hugh I'm 6'2.25" out of bed, around 6'2" barefoot most of the day and I (weighed) 224 pounds, actually around 220 at the moment (yey I've lost 4 pounds) on checking and I'm pretty fit, haven't much body fat but I'm well built. I'm working out every other day with weights and rowing, muscle weighs a lot more than fat. Selleck is a well-built guy, not as slim as he was naturally of course but you put a broad muscular frame on a 6'4" body and the result is likely to be a guy heavier than some of the fatties. 225 is not that much trust me for a guy as legit tall as this.
Hugh I'm 6'2.25" out of bed, around 6'2" barefoot most of the day and I (weighed) 224 pounds, actually around 220 at the moment (yey I've lost 4 pounds) on checking and I'm pretty fit, haven't much body fat but I'm well built. I'm working out every other day with weights and rowing, muscle weighs a lot more than fat. Selleck is a well-built guy, not as slim as he was naturally of course but you put a broad muscular frame on a 6'4" body and the result is likely to be a guy heavier than some of the fatties. 225 is not that much trust me for a guy as legit tall as this.
Rusty said on 15/Jan/09
I saw quigley down under and he looks 6'4" and chage, hes a tall guy.
I saw quigley down under and he looks 6'4" and chage, hes a tall guy.
Lenad said on 11/Jan/09
Looks a solid 6'4.
Looks a solid 6'4.
Jonathan Clark said on 19/Dec/08
to be considered extraordinary these days - we have to be 6ft 8" and good looking with great hair and physique
every man needs height, hair and a Ferrari - a real bonus if you're good looking like George Clooney and Tom Cruise (poor George and Tom are suffering height issues :-))
to be considered extraordinary these days - we have to be 6ft 8" and good looking with great hair and physique
every man needs height, hair and a Ferrari - a real bonus if you're good looking like George Clooney and Tom Cruise (poor George and Tom are suffering height issues :-))
Hugh said on 14/Nov/08
6ft4 is genuine but 225lbs. Selleck is a tall guy but I never wouldnt thought he'd be carrying those extra pounds on him. I always thought he was slim.
6ft4 is genuine but 225lbs. Selleck is a tall guy but I never wouldnt thought he'd be carrying those extra pounds on him. I always thought he was slim.
sam said on 2/Nov/08
I live in Halifax. Tom is filming a movie here. Saw him having dinner in a local restaurant. I stood next to him for a moment while getting a table. He is 6'4" and maybe weighs 225. He was definitely taller than just about everyone else in the room.
I live in Halifax. Tom is filming a movie here. Saw him having dinner in a local restaurant. I stood next to him for a moment while getting a table. He is 6'4" and maybe weighs 225. He was definitely taller than just about everyone else in the room.
Hugh said on 21/Sep/08
He might be a full 6ft4 even today.
He might be a full 6ft4 even today.
Mr. R said on 1/Aug/08
I saw him 6 years ago at Robert Urich's funeral. At that point, he was still pretty close to 6-4. He may have lost a little by now.
I saw him 6 years ago at Robert Urich's funeral. At that point, he was still pretty close to 6-4. He may have lost a little by now.
Yaspaa said on 1/Aug/08
Josh is a bit taller than that.
Josh is a bit taller than that.
Eddie said on 11/Jul/08
Tom Selleck must have lost a good inch or two since he appeared on the show "Las Vegas", he is as tall as 6 ft 3 Josh Duhamel.
Tom Selleck must have lost a good inch or two since he appeared on the show "Las Vegas", he is as tall as 6 ft 3 Josh Duhamel.
Yaspaa said on 18/Jun/08
There is another episode with Schwimmer and Selleck wearing there girlfriends robes and standing right next to each other in Monica's apartment,it's an excellent shot to judge unfortunately I cant find it.
There is another episode with Schwimmer and Selleck wearing there girlfriends robes and standing right next to each other in Monica's apartment,it's an excellent shot to judge unfortunately I cant find it.
Hugh said on 10/Jun/08
I think Tom is still 6ft4.
I think Tom is still 6ft4.
Ray said on 21/May/08
I see possibly 4 inches difference. Definitely more than 3. It's what I suspected too. Schwimmer is 6' or a smidge over.
I see possibly 4 inches difference. Definitely more than 3. It's what I suspected too. Schwimmer is 6' or a smidge over.
anonymous said on 10/May/08
This is the scene where schwimmer and selleck are barefoot on friends. Click Here
This is the scene where schwimmer and selleck are barefoot on friends. Click Here
anonymous said on 3/May/08
He had about 2.5-3 inches on david schwimmer.
He had about 2.5-3 inches on david schwimmer.
Viper said on 30/Apr/08
How many inches did he have on David schwimmer?
How many inches did he have on David schwimmer?
thekiddd said on 29/Apr/08
He towered over Roger E Mosley who was about 6ft or 5'11" in PI.
He towered over Roger E Mosley who was about 6ft or 5'11" in PI.
Yaspaa said on 22/Mar/08
He towered David Schwimmer in Friends. The scene in Monica's apartment when Tom and David are wearing their girlfriends night gowns is a good example.
He towered David Schwimmer in Friends. The scene in Monica's apartment when Tom and David are wearing their girlfriends night gowns is a good example.
Slim THugga said on 23/Feb/08
What did these dudes ever do yo you giant (who is pobably 4 foot 8 but said he was 6 foot 8 in another height list)
What did these dudes ever do yo you giant (who is pobably 4 foot 8 but said he was 6 foot 8 in another height list)
170at14kris said on 20/Feb/08
sweet god he doesnt have his moustache there!...mkay ignore that. on friends he looked 6'2-6'3
sweet god he doesnt have his moustache there!...mkay ignore that. on friends he looked 6'2-6'3
Yaspaa said on 14/Jan/08
When you catch Tom and Josh Duhamel standing together at a good angle on Las Vegas you can tell that Tom has him,just. 6'4.
When you catch Tom and Josh Duhamel standing together at a good angle on Las Vegas you can tell that Tom has him,just. 6'4.
clark said on 9/Jan/08
Josh lived in Upper West Side NYC--he probably a bit over 6'3--nice guy too.
Josh lived in Upper West Side NYC--he probably a bit over 6'3--nice guy too.
Giant said on 28/Dec/07
By the way, it
By the way, it
lsu alum said on 18/Nov/07
wonderfully nice man,met him myself.very tall im 6'3",and he's taller i thinj he's still 6'4".needs to be upgraded
wonderfully nice man,met him myself.very tall im 6'3",and he's taller i thinj he's still 6'4".needs to be upgraded
Scott B. said on 17/Nov/07
Hey Glenn. I noticed the nasty comments by the Giant idiot are out there where it says Tom Selleck's Height How Tall. Need to fix that.
Editor Rob
Hey Glenn. I noticed the nasty comments by the Giant idiot are out there where it says Tom Selleck's Height How Tall. Need to fix that.
Editor Rob the giant comments I'd left as an example of typical drivel you read if you ever moderate websites...
Tom said on 13/Nov/07
We all get a little shorter with age. I was 6"4" at my prime, but I have lost a 1/2 inch or so. Gravity folks.
We all get a little shorter with age. I was 6"4" at my prime, but I have lost a 1/2 inch or so. Gravity folks.
ed said on 7/Nov/07
Watch this video:
Click Here
At 1:00 you can see that Tom Selleck and Duhamel are the same height there is maybe 1/2 inch difference max.
Watch this video:
Click Here
At 1:00 you can see that Tom Selleck and Duhamel are the same height there is maybe 1/2 inch difference max.
Anonymous said on 19/Oct/07
Current height = 6'3". He looks 1" taller than James Lesure.
Current height = 6'3". He looks 1" taller than James Lesure.
RT said on 5/Oct/07
Watched the new season of Vegas. He looks a tad shorter than Josh Duhamel, who is 6'3". Has he lost 1 or 2 inches due to aging?
Watched the new season of Vegas. He looks a tad shorter than Josh Duhamel, who is 6'3". Has he lost 1 or 2 inches due to aging?
sam said on 1/Oct/07
Wow, way to class up the joint, Giant. Your both a gentleman and a genius...I can tell by the way you spell "retarted".
Wow, way to class up the joint, Giant. Your both a gentleman and a genius...I can tell by the way you spell "retarted".
Viper said on 1/Oct/07
Tom Selleck at 6-2 is funny to me. Hes looked 6-4 consistently more times than not. Looked an easy 6-4 in Magnum PI. He might have shrunk down to the 6-3 range these days. Or he could still be a full 6-4. Duhammel looked the same height or a little taller due to the camera angle.
Tom Selleck at 6-2 is funny to me. Hes looked 6-4 consistently more times than not. Looked an easy 6-4 in Magnum PI. He might have shrunk down to the 6-3 range these days. Or he could still be a full 6-4. Duhammel looked the same height or a little taller due to the camera angle.
Giant said on 30/Sep/07
Fuc* you Leonari. Fuc* you Rob. Fuc* Glenn. Fuc* Tom Sellek and FUC* CELEB HEIGHTS. ALL OF YOUR FUC*ERS SHOULD GET LIVES. WHAT A BUNCH OF FUC*IN LOSERS. FINALLY. FUC* LEONARI AND ROB AGAIN.
Editor Rob
Fuc* you Leonari. Fuc* you Rob. Fuc* Glenn. Fuc* Tom Sellek and FUC* CELEB HEIGHTS. ALL OF YOUR FUC*ERS SHOULD GET LIVES. WHAT A BUNCH OF FUC*IN LOSERS. FINALLY. FUC* LEONARI AND ROB AGAIN.
Editor Rob for anybody wondering why I have to moderate this site, here is an example of garbage I read every few days.
Anonymous said on 30/Sep/07
I see that he was given a peak height and current height. Why 6'3 1/2" because at times he looked the same height as the young fellow on Vegas. Makes sense to me.
I see that he was given a peak height and current height. Why 6'3 1/2" because at times he looked the same height as the young fellow on Vegas. Makes sense to me.
Giant said on 29/Sep/07
No Duhamel wasn't wearing lifts cause Duhamel is at least 2 inches taller then the fellow that plays Mike Cannon and has been at least 2 inches taller then the fellow that plays Mike cannon throughout the shows history while Tom Selleck looked about the same height or an inch taller maximum with the fellow that plays Mike Cannon. I think Selleck has been 6'2 thorughout his career. Also, i think Tom Selleck is one of the worst actors also and this site celebheights is a retarted sight for retarts. Fuc* you celeb heights u fuc*in idiots. Fuc* glenn, hes prolly 5'0 anyway, that ugly bastar&
No Duhamel wasn't wearing lifts cause Duhamel is at least 2 inches taller then the fellow that plays Mike Cannon and has been at least 2 inches taller then the fellow that plays Mike cannon throughout the shows history while Tom Selleck looked about the same height or an inch taller maximum with the fellow that plays Mike Cannon. I think Selleck has been 6'2 thorughout his career. Also, i think Tom Selleck is one of the worst actors also and this site celebheights is a retarted sight for retarts. Fuc* you celeb heights u fuc*in idiots. Fuc* glenn, hes prolly 5'0 anyway, that ugly bastar&
mark said on 29/Sep/07
just saw the vegas episode with him standing beside Josh Duhamel. Duhamel is listed as 6' 3 1/2. Well he must have been wearing high heels because he was taller than Tom.
just saw the vegas episode with him standing beside Josh Duhamel. Duhamel is listed as 6' 3 1/2. Well he must have been wearing high heels because he was taller than Tom.
Giant said on 29/Sep/07
He looks like he is 6'0 or 6'1 cause he was smaller than Duhamel in Las Vegas and was a little taller then Mike Cannon from Vegas. There is no way he is 6'4. He is 6'2 at tops.
He looks like he is 6'0 or 6'1 cause he was smaller than Duhamel in Las Vegas and was a little taller then Mike Cannon from Vegas. There is no way he is 6'4. He is 6'2 at tops.
Anonymous said on 28/Sep/07
Based on comparing him to the Duhamel fellow and the fellow that plays Mike, although camera angles could play a role and such, the following would appear to be the case:
2" taller than the fellow that plays Mike.
1" shorter than the Duhamel fellow.
Sometimes looks either the same height as the Duhamel fellow, or just under (so as a guess 1/2" under).
Therefore it would appear to be the case that it would be safe to say that:
Peak Height = 6ft 4in
Current Height = 6'3" (taking all things into consideration) with the possibiilties of being either 6'3 1/2" at most or 6'2 1/2" at least
Based on comparing him to the Duhamel fellow and the fellow that plays Mike, although camera angles could play a role and such, the following would appear to be the case:
2" taller than the fellow that plays Mike.
1" shorter than the Duhamel fellow.
Sometimes looks either the same height as the Duhamel fellow, or just under (so as a guess 1/2" under).
Therefore it would appear to be the case that it would be safe to say that:
Peak Height = 6ft 4in
Current Height = 6'3" (taking all things into consideration) with the possibiilties of being either 6'3 1/2" at most or 6'2 1/2" at least
Anonymous said on 26/Sep/07
Just compare him to that Duhamel fellow in Vegas if you all are really wanting to contest that.
Just compare him to that Duhamel fellow in Vegas if you all are really wanting to contest that.
spike said on 17/Sep/07
If you remember the episode of Friends when Tom was in it. When he stood next to Ross he looked at least 6'4 as Ross is supposed to be 6'3.
If you remember the episode of Friends when Tom was in it. When he stood next to Ross he looked at least 6'4 as Ross is supposed to be 6'3.
Scott B. said on 13/Sep/07
He is unquestionably 6'4". Taller than Ted Danson and a class guy and
a great actor. I wish he would star in Magnum PI the movie.
He is unquestionably 6'4". Taller than Ted Danson and a class guy and
a great actor. I wish he would star in Magnum PI the movie.
anonymous said on 2/Aug/07
I had the chance to sit and talk with tom selleck when he was doing a movie about IKE. I am 6'3" without shoes. He was 1-2" taller than me. He also weighs in my opion about 250. If anything he's closer to 6'5". Very nice guy to boot. I have worked with a lot in the industry and he was by far the most normal seeming. I don't know him personally so he could be a jerk in his day to day life so i can't say for sure. Also I worked with sam elliot--also a class guy from what i know. In the pic linked below selleck is standing behind connors and elliot which i think gives the illusion of him being shorter than elliot. As far as chuck connors goes never met him but judging by the pic he is clearly taller than both. Also met steve mcqueen and he was tiny which was a big surprise. Hope this helps.
I had the chance to sit and talk with tom selleck when he was doing a movie about IKE. I am 6'3" without shoes. He was 1-2" taller than me. He also weighs in my opion about 250. If anything he's closer to 6'5". Very nice guy to boot. I have worked with a lot in the industry and he was by far the most normal seeming. I don't know him personally so he could be a jerk in his day to day life so i can't say for sure. Also I worked with sam elliot--also a class guy from what i know. In the pic linked below selleck is standing behind connors and elliot which i think gives the illusion of him being shorter than elliot. As far as chuck connors goes never met him but judging by the pic he is clearly taller than both. Also met steve mcqueen and he was tiny which was a big surprise. Hope this helps.
Anonymous said on 22/Apr/07
I have worked with Tom and he is such a nice guy and a great family man. Which is rare in hollywood. I would say that he is 6'3 easy. And has great blue eyes. Tom good luck with the show Las Vegas.
I have worked with Tom and he is such a nice guy and a great family man. Which is rare in hollywood. I would say that he is 6'3 easy. And has great blue eyes. Tom good luck with the show Las Vegas.
Viper said on 28/Mar/07
He sure looked 6-4 on Magnum PI.
He sure looked 6-4 on Magnum PI.
Ray said on 27/Mar/07
Antron; I said a tad over 6'3". I think its quite possible to see 3/4 inches up to an inch difference, especially on tv. That's just my opinion. Cheers.
Antron; I said a tad over 6'3". I think its quite possible to see 3/4 inches up to an inch difference, especially on tv. That's just my opinion. Cheers.
antron said on 26/Mar/07
how can you eyeball that half an inch on tv??
how can you eyeball that half an inch on tv??
Ray said on 26/Mar/07
I dunno about 6'4" barefoot for Tom. I'd say he rounds up. He's maybe a tad over 6'3". In an episode of Magnum, Ted Danson was in it and there only seemed to be at most an inch between them, similar footwear I think. I'd put Selleck at 6'3.5" tops if Danson is supposed to be 6'2.5".
I dunno about 6'4" barefoot for Tom. I'd say he rounds up. He's maybe a tad over 6'3". In an episode of Magnum, Ted Danson was in it and there only seemed to be at most an inch between them, similar footwear I think. I'd put Selleck at 6'3.5" tops if Danson is supposed to be 6'2.5".
Ted said on 4/Feb/07
talking about R. Mosely (TC) he seemed only my height 6'1 in 86. In the photos he looks 3 inches shorter than magnum, not 2 inches.
talking about R. Mosely (TC) he seemed only my height 6'1 in 86. In the photos he looks 3 inches shorter than magnum, not 2 inches.
Braullius said on 21/Dec/06
He is bending.
He is bending.
David Kramer said on 11/Nov/06
I saw Tom in person. He is unquestionably 6'4". Remember, he was a male model before he acted and they are always extremely tall.
I saw Tom in person. He is unquestionably 6'4". Remember, he was a male model before he acted and they are always extremely tall.
Viper652 said on 21/Oct/06
Hes slouching big time.
Hes slouching big time.
ralph said on 20/Oct/06
6'4" is a very high height. Next to Glenn he looks more 6'1.5"-6'2"
6'4" is a very high height. Next to Glenn he looks more 6'1.5"-6'2"
Brad said on 12/Sep/06
I heard a story where somebody asked him if he dated Johnny Crawford and got really mad til his buddy asked him what's making him mad and he fell on the ground laughing so hard saying "I just can't say!". Hilarious story.
I heard a story where somebody asked him if he dated Johnny Crawford and got really mad til his buddy asked him what's making him mad and he fell on the ground laughing so hard saying "I just can't say!". Hilarious story.
Glenn said on 22/Jul/06
I forgot 3 men and baby.well when I think hard about it,he did have a serious attitude before I spewed venom.
I forgot 3 men and baby.well when I think hard about it,he did have a serious attitude before I spewed venom.
J. said on 22/Jul/06
OUCH, Glenn!!! You New Yorkers got those razor tongues! In Tom's defense, I've seen him in quite a few projects. I actually forgot all about Magnum P.I., I actually always automatically remember him from the 'Three Men and a Baby' series and some romantic drama from the late '80s. 'Her Alibi', I believe it was called. And who can forget the turn as the gay intruding reporter in 'In and Out'?
OUCH, Glenn!!! You New Yorkers got those razor tongues! In Tom's defense, I've seen him in quite a few projects. I actually forgot all about Magnum P.I., I actually always automatically remember him from the 'Three Men and a Baby' series and some romantic drama from the late '80s. 'Her Alibi', I believe it was called. And who can forget the turn as the gay intruding reporter in 'In and Out'?
Glenn said on 21/Jul/06
He didnt really deserve it,and I give him credit being a man about it.
He didnt really deserve it,and I give him credit being a man about it.
Gotxo said on 21/Jul/06
Glenn-
Tom Selleck must be a humble guy them, wheter he's not on the center of the business now or not i guess that many guys who have scored much less would verbally fight you in some manner or another, plus i guess he had some reasons for being angry.
Some of those guys react in a way similar to the wild animals Larry meets, not so dangerous (but less inteligent too) :D.
Glenn-
Tom Selleck must be a humble guy them, wheter he's not on the center of the business now or not i guess that many guys who have scored much less would verbally fight you in some manner or another, plus i guess he had some reasons for being angry.
Some of those guys react in a way similar to the wild animals Larry meets, not so dangerous (but less inteligent too) :D.
Glenn said on 21/Jul/06
Oh,you mean Phoenix.I approached a limo that Miro Sorvino just entered,when Leaf(his real early career name),who I didnt notice or knew who he was yelled at me from the other side of the limo outside "leave her alone man".I say in classic venom tone "I aint talking to you,mind your business".he then gets in my face and we stand off.he appeared 5-10.my friend gets in between us and breaks it up.my friend then tells me that was River Phoenixes brother.I had the same exact words and situation with Stephen Dwarf 5-6,uh Dorph and Liv Tyler.1994.the Leaf story was late 1996 or early 97.
Oh,you mean Phoenix.I approached a limo that Miro Sorvino just entered,when Leaf(his real early career name),who I didnt notice or knew who he was yelled at me from the other side of the limo outside "leave her alone man".I say in classic venom tone "I aint talking to you,mind your business".he then gets in my face and we stand off.he appeared 5-10.my friend gets in between us and breaks it up.my friend then tells me that was River Phoenixes brother.I had the same exact words and situation with Stephen Dwarf 5-6,uh Dorph and Liv Tyler.1994.the Leaf story was late 1996 or early 97.
sam said on 21/Jul/06
Yeah, what happened Glenn? And what's the Johnny Cash thing, Rob?
Editor Rob
Yeah, what happened Glenn? And what's the Johnny Cash thing, Rob?
Editor Rob joaquin pheonix, well I think it was 'nearly a fight' as glenn put it...I think
leonari said on 20/Jul/06
Please GLENN share the story...so you had a fight against Rocky and Magnum!! Amazing. Please tell the story how it came to the fight and who won! thanks man. appreciate it.
Editor Rob
Please GLENN share the story...so you had a fight against Rocky and Magnum!! Amazing. Please tell the story how it came to the fight and who won! thanks man. appreciate it.
Editor Rob don't forget Johnny Cash aswell!
Glenn said on 20/Jul/06
I actually got into a fight with him after this photo was taken.
Editor Rob
I actually got into a fight with him after this photo was taken.
Editor Rob how come, care to elaborate...I hope you didn't insult his moustache!!!
Gonzalo said on 20/Jul/06
He looks 6`4. He was clearly taller than Kevin Kline in "In and out" and taller than Ted Danson.
He appeared in a movie with Robert Satck and he looked at least four inches taller.
He looks 6`4. He was clearly taller than Kevin Kline in "In and out" and taller than Ted Danson.
He appeared in a movie with Robert Satck and he looked at least four inches taller.
Nelson Heights said on 26/Jun/06
The Duke even wore lifts to bed!
The Duke even wore lifts to bed!
Xhavier. said on 25/Jun/06
Although I really don't care, I noticed that when Tom worked with Denny Miller (also 6'4") he was a full inch shorter than Miller.
Although I really don't care, I noticed that when Tom worked with Denny Miller (also 6'4") he was a full inch shorter than Miller.
Viper652 said on 9/May/06
I really cant see Tom anything under 6-4. He looks it 99 percent of the time in pics and on TV.
I really cant see Tom anything under 6-4. He looks it 99 percent of the time in pics and on TV.
jon said on 9/May/06
I think he's 6'4. all these comparisons with other performers get nowhere-posture, shoe's , angle of shot, lots of factors make comparing photo's untenable. also, since everyone contests everyones listed height then whats the point of saying 'well he's 6'4 so then Selleck or whoever can't be. Sure prowrestling ups their "wrestlers" heights"(andre stood on a chair in interviews with Vince Mcmahon) but this view that every celebritites height is raised is crazy. Also, this is just a fun game people-it's not scientific research.
I think he's 6'4. all these comparisons with other performers get nowhere-posture, shoe's , angle of shot, lots of factors make comparing photo's untenable. also, since everyone contests everyones listed height then whats the point of saying 'well he's 6'4 so then Selleck or whoever can't be. Sure prowrestling ups their "wrestlers" heights"(andre stood on a chair in interviews with Vince Mcmahon) but this view that every celebritites height is raised is crazy. Also, this is just a fun game people-it's not scientific research.
Charlie said on 10/Apr/06
Unless there is some trick photography or a bad angle involved, Chuck Connors looks a lot more than an inch taller than Selleck. Connors was supposed to be 6'5". Selleck 6'4"
Unless there is some trick photography or a bad angle involved, Chuck Connors looks a lot more than an inch taller than Selleck. Connors was supposed to be 6'5". Selleck 6'4"
Xhavier said on 19/Mar/06
look at selleck in the picture with Sam Elliot and Chuck Connors!
Click Here
That's one of the few times I've seen him look short.
look at selleck in the picture with Sam Elliot and Chuck Connors!
Click Here
That's one of the few times I've seen him look short.
Xhavier said on 25/Feb/06
Something important to note with all taller people is that they tend to unconsciously slouch down when standing beside someone significantly shorter.
Tom Selleck is 6'4". At shortest I would say Selleck is 6'3.5". Roger Mosely (T.C.) was supposedly 6'2" (and at times look 6'2" or 6'1"), but looks 6'0" now.
Something important to note with all taller people is that they tend to unconsciously slouch down when standing beside someone significantly shorter.
Tom Selleck is 6'4". At shortest I would say Selleck is 6'3.5". Roger Mosely (T.C.) was supposedly 6'2" (and at times look 6'2" or 6'1"), but looks 6'0" now.
CelebHeights Editor said on 1/Feb/06
If Selleck straightens up in this picture beside Glenn he can still look tall.
If Selleck straightens up in this picture beside Glenn he can still look tall.
Xhavier said on 26/Jan/06
Yes Selleck can or could dunk. He went to University on a basketball scholarship.
Yes Selleck can or could dunk. He went to University on a basketball scholarship.
Buzz said on 11/Dec/05
Right David, the whole world is wrong. Take the lifts off pal.
Right David, the whole world is wrong. Take the lifts off pal.
dmeyer said on 19/Nov/05
i think he is aleast 6 '4 but if he is only 6foot 4 then schwimmer is less than 6 foot 2 there is a scene in friends theyre both barefeet schwimmer might be only 186 cm wich tall enaugh i alwais thaught david was 6'2" thaugh
i think he is aleast 6 '4 but if he is only 6foot 4 then schwimmer is less than 6 foot 2 there is a scene in friends theyre both barefeet schwimmer might be only 186 cm wich tall enaugh i alwais thaught david was 6'2" thaugh
Tubbs said on 10/Oct/05
I saw him in a movie with Kevin Kline, he was atleast 2 inches taller than him, and Klines listed at 6'1.5.
I saw him in a movie with Kevin Kline, he was atleast 2 inches taller than him, and Klines listed at 6'1.5.
Jack said on 4/Oct/05
I met him at a movie premiere in New York. He was definitely 6 inches taller than me and I'm 5'9.
I met him at a movie premiere in New York. He was definitely 6 inches taller than me and I'm 5'9.
Debra said on 21/Feb/05
I have met him I'm 5'4 he is exactly a foot taller than I'm . I'm actress in Charlotte NC .
I have met him I'm 5'4 he is exactly a foot taller than I'm . I'm actress in Charlotte NC .
David said on 8/Feb/05
I was at a party where Tom Selleck was a guest. I am 6'2" and there is no way he was taller than me.
I was at a party where Tom Selleck was a guest. I am 6'2" and there is no way he was taller than me.
Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.
Other vital statistics like weight or shoe size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.
Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.