How tall is Clint Eastwood - Page 13

Judd said on 4/Mar/15
Arch, i actually have several doubts that a person can lose 1/19th (about 6%) of his/her height...I can buy 5-6 or even 7 cms is particulary situations, but 10 cms are too much...

I think Eastwood had (when was young) a very slim figure which make him seems taller and he has always claimed 6'4".
About Sutherland i think he might have been 6'2.75-3" max at peak, while today he's in the 6'1-1.5" range...
Look at him next to Tommy Lee Jones in 2000. I guess TLJ was at times 6-0.25" and for sure Sutherland and even Eastwood didn't look 6'2-3" next to him, but more 6'1"+.

IMO Eastwood was 6'3" (his perfect listing) or being very generous 6'3.25"...6'4" was probably a morning measurement or the lenght with a normal dress shoes on...

ZTL said on 3/Mar/15
I thought Eastwood and Sunderland looked the same height in Kelly's Heroes. Eastwood did not look taller to me. I would give Sutherland 6'3" peak.

ZTL said on 3/Mar/15
Arch, I don't believe six feet is a downgrade for Soul. He clearly did not look any taller in all his movies.

James said on 3/Mar/15
I thought originally clint looked 6'3 flat next to george kennedy in eiger sanction and that was with hair advantage but then Kennedy could have been 194cm peak. That said Kennedy was no fresh spring chicken when that film was made so he could have lost a small amount from his peak.

jervis said on 3/Mar/15
3 on Holbrook max.In a movie dont know the name but Holbrook was a bit shorter than a very young Alac Baldwin who was know more than 6ft.

jervis said on 2/Mar/15
Talking of Hal Holbrooks height Arch,there is film with him and a very young Alac Baldwin in it and Baldwin is a bit taller then Holbrook,and Baldwin is know more than 6ft tall.So was Holbrook really 6ft.05.

Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
If you watch a few of Hal Holbrook's films you'll see that peak he was looking between 6' and 6'1 generally. Now watch Magnum Force. Eastwood only 2 inches taller? He made Holbrook look average at best.

Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
@Judd and ZTL, Donald Sutherland had 2 inches on Sean Connery in The Great Train Robbery who had worst was 6'1.5 peak. Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Strong 6'2" you say? That would make Sutherland 6'2" flat and Connery struggling with a flat 6 ft!

Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
@Judd and ZTL, Donald Sutherland had 2 inches on Sean Connery in the train Connery who had worst was 6'1.5 peak. Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Strong 6'2" you say? That would make Sutherland 6'2" flat and Connery struggling with a flat 6 ft!

Arch Stanton said on 2/Mar/15
Oh so we're downgrading Soul now just to fit with the theory Clint was nothing over 6'3" LOL. Both Ulrich and Matherson were lying too and we're both no more than 6'1" too. Downgrade everybody just to fit!!

gian92 says on 1/Mar/15
in old age a person can lose a 1 inch but not 3 o 4 inches !

Try telling that to Michael Douglas whose father looks no more than 5 ft 4 today at 97.

ZTL said on 2/Mar/15
Soul was only 6ft tall Arch. And that's on a good day. Eastwood definitely did not look 4 inches taller than Soul in Magnum Force. Clint was 6'3" tops. No way was he 6'4". He always struck me as a strong 6'2" guy anyway, but I'll give him 6'3"

Judd said on 2/Mar/15
yeah, i agree with jervis and i want to underline that Soul has been listed 5'11" today at 65-70 years old, and i think there's a chance that 6'0.5" is a bit an optimistic result...he might have been just 6'0"...
However IMO Eastwood had never been taller than 6'3"...that's his fairest listing as "peak height".

Voiceless Dental Fricative said on 2/Mar/15
Click Here

With Bradley cooper. Around 6' today.

gian92 said on 1/Mar/15
in old age a person can lose a 1 inch but not 3 o 4 inches !

Steve said on 1/Mar/15
obviously, Clint Eastwood has shrunk due to age-related deterioration of his spinal column. It happens to everybody by the time they're in their eighties. He was definitely 6-4 in the Dirty Harry days, but he's been shrinking ever since. But I'd say he'd still be 6 feet or more if he stood up straight.

Arch Stanton said on 1/Mar/15
LOL Jervis, Clint looked a more clear cut 6'4" in magnum Force next to David Soul, Hal Holbrook and Tim Matheson
than he did in most of his films! In that airport scene he had between 3 and 4 inches on Soul.

jervis said on 28/Feb/15
In the airport scean from magnum force next to 6ft.05 listed David Saul,if you change Saul for Bradley Cooper who is also listed at 6ft.05,you can see how Clint would have looked beside someone of coopers size at peak.To me Clint looks more 6ft3 next to someone of 6ft.05.He always looked taller than 6ft2 too me but short of 6ft4 so thats why l say his peak height was 6ft3 a strong 6ft3 peak.I also think there was alot of hight inflating going on in the old days when Clint was younger so that would explian the height comparisons in old films between him and costars.Height inflations todays stars would not get away with because people have much mpre persnol contact with stars than in the past and can see their real hight face to face.But in Clints youth 6ft3 was very tall like someone of 6ft5 today.

Arch Stanton said on 28/Feb/15
Danimal says on 26/Feb/15
JFM says on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...

It's possible that he was around 6'0.5" in the early 2000's. Today he's closer to 5'11". In his prime, he would have edged you out.

Watch Bloodwork, similar height to Jeff Daniels, if anything looked a bit taller than Daniels in some scenes!

James B said on 27/Feb/15
He was still 6'2 in 1999

jervis said on 27/Feb/15
There is a clip of the Jonny Carson show from 1992 on youtube.Clint is a guest,David Letterman is also on it,when Clint shakes Lettermans hand you can see that Clint is clearly taller than him.Letterman is listed at 6ft1.5 and claims 6ft2,he also mentions Clints hight and what an intimadating guy Clint was because of his size.Clint was 62 at the time and Letterman 45.

jervis said on 27/Feb/15
There is no way he was as low as 6ft0 in 2003 he had a good 2inchs on larry fishbourne at the time and 3 on Kevin Bacon,and only 2 years befor that was about 4 shorter than 6ft6 James Cromwell in space cowboys and the same hight as 6ft2 or 3 Jeff Daniles in bloodwork.

Danimal said on 26/Feb/15
JFM says on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...

It's possible that he was around 6'0.5" in the early 2000's. Today he's closer to 5'11". In his prime, he would have edged you out.

Danimal said on 26/Feb/15
Ken says on 23/Feb/15
There's a photo of Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper standing next to each other at the Oscars. Cooper is an inch taller, and is listed as 6'1". Can a person shrink 5 inches when they are 84 years old?

First of all, your math is off. If Cooper is 6'1" and had 1" on Eastwood, that would put Eastwood at 6'0", so how did he lose 5" if he was never over 6'4". Secondly, Cooper is max 6'0", putting Eastwood in the 5'11" range today, so yes, he has lost around 5", but not based on your math.

ZTL said on 26/Feb/15
Nah..6-3" peak height. No taller.

Rory said on 25/Feb/15
No there's no chance his height was dramatically inflated, looking at his limbs and proportions back in the 60s and 70s there was no way he was below a strong 6'3. I think 6'3.75 would be bang on for peak Eastwood, to me hes not the type to lie about his height and if hes 6'3.75 its normal hed say 6'4.

jervis said on 24/Feb/15
For peak I would say strong 6ft3 no lower than that.

Anonymous1 said on 24/Feb/15
In an earlier post (23/Feb), I stated, "From a potential 6'5.5...". That was supposed to be 6'3.5.

Ken said on 23/Feb/15
There's a photo of Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper standing next to each other at the Oscars. Cooper is an inch taller, and is listed as 6'1". Can a person shrink 5 inches when they are 84 years old?

Anonymous1 said on 23/Feb/15
I don't want to overdose on Eastwood height postings, but if Bradley Cooper is 6'2, as he says, or 6.05, as this site says, then..barring lifts or heel variations, Eastwood is definitely no more than 6'0 max, or 5'10.5, minimum. From a potential 6'5.5 or 6'4, down to 6'0 or less...wow. My uncle is or was 6'2. At 80, if he stands straight, he still is. Either Eastwood's got spinal issues, or his height was inflated..."in my opinion".

JFM said on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I think that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...

JFM said on 22/Feb/15
I met Clint Eastwood at a gym in Boston back when he was filming the movie "Mystic River". I thank that movie was made in 2002 or so. I'm 6'3" barefoot and Clint was only 6'0" or maybe 6'1" tops....His is older now and his posture isn't great but I'd put him at a real solid 6'2" or even 6'3" in his prime...real nice guy to talk to...

Arch Stanton said on 21/Feb/15
Rock Hudson said he was 6'5" but shrunk to 6'4" by 1967. As I said 6'4.5-6'5" for Hudson and 6'3.5-6'4" for Eastwood is arguable.

James B said on 20/Feb/15
Yeah I agree rock looked 6'4.5

James said on 19/Feb/15
Frank 2 said that clint eastwood was huge when he met him

Ron B. said on 18/Feb/15
Arch, A 6'5" peak for Rock Hudson is debatable. Rock always claimed he was 6'4" when asked about his height. I personally think he was 6'4.5" barefoot.

cole said on 18/Feb/15
@Editor Rob: Looks like he's standing quite tall in the second shot, but the angle might be a little low?
Click Here
Click Here

Anonymous1 said on 17/Feb/15
Arch; I know it sounds absurd to you, but I'm in just as much of a position to judge his height, as you. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't met Eastwood or any of his many co-stars. So, you are basing all of your opinions on listed heights and visual comparisons...which are based on listed heights or what people claim their heights to be. I am amazed at how many people who post here are absolutely certain of the height of people they compare Eastwood to, and somehow think they are in a better position to judge heights than others. Over the past 32 years, I have met maybe 20 or 25 celebrities. Some were in their prime, others just slightly passed it (50's). With the exception of Kevin Nash, a admittedly recent meeting, not one actor was nearly as big or tall as generally listed. I'm sure George Kennedy, Geoffrey Wolcott, William Smith and many others were over 6 feet in their prime. But not one of us will ever know, exactly, by how much, which other actors and Eastwood co-stars were not really over 6 feet as self-described, or how tall Eastwood really was in his prime. For celebrities well past their prime, juding heights will forever be enirely opinion. People, including a nearly lifelong friend, have misjudged my height (6'), calling me 6'2 or 6'3. Friends who describe themselves as 6 footers, going as far back as college, were shorter than me by an inch, or even two. Another friend's dad met eastwood, decades ago. My friend's dad decribed himself as 6'4 when telling me this 25 years ago, and said Eastwood was much taller. So, even if someone "met" Eastwood in his prime, I would only take their comment on his height as just opinion. Unless we all go back in time, barefoot with Eastwood, and gather a small team of scientists to accurately measure Eastwood, and the rest of us for comparison's sake...all at the same time of day, we will never know his exact height, or anyone else's. I think I just got bored.

CDS said on 16/Feb/15
Almost everyone I know is surprised to see the 6'4" claim (myself included). I'll give him 6'3" max in his prime. I know there were a lot of cowboy boots being worn back then, plus generally people state their height in inch-thick soled shoes. His height now?- dunno I'd go as low as 6', however, maybe in the 6'0 1/2"- 6'1" range. I noticed his ID in the movie "Gran Torino" had 6'1" listed.

Arch Stanton said on 16/Feb/15
Each case can be argued individually, of course, but were many of the main actors in several of Eastwood's films actually over 6 feet? Maybe, but I'm no more certain of that than I am of Eastwood's actual height in his prime.

If you're not aware of how many guys over 6 ft were in his films then you're probably not in a place to really judge his height. Virtually every film of his , particularly in the 1960s-1980s period had multiple guys over 6ft and often had a fair few co stars of similar height.

Anonymous1 said on 14/Feb/15
...though I stand by my consistant comments that Eastwood was generally 6'3-ish in his prime, I don't claim to know, for certain. But, the other independant variables often cited, here, are other actors' heights. Having met several in my lifetime, what I do know is that many of them were hardly what their official heights stated. And, even if I didn't know their officially listed height, I immediately knew that some of their co-stars who's height "was" listed couldn't possibly be as tall as "their official heights, based on what I was seeing as the height of the guy I met. Each case can be argued individually, of course, but were many of the main actors in several of Eastwood's films actually over 6 feet? Maybe, but I'm no more certain of that than I am of Eastwood's actual height in his prime.

Arch Stanton said on 13/Feb/15
Also if you look through Rock Hudson's filmography, particularly 50s, a lot of his roles were around women, not many of Eastwood's films involved him being in romantic roles around women.

Arch Stanton said on 13/Feb/15
That's because in most of his films anon a lot of his co stars were six footers themselves. Look at Magnum Force, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, The Eiger Sanction and Escape from Alcatraz for instance.
These were films where most of the main actors were over 6 ft. If you look through his back log of films you'll find most of them in fact have multiple guys over 6 ft in them.

Arch Stanton said on 13/Feb/15
Great find Parker!! Rock Hudson was pretty much 6'5" peak, Eastwood pretty much 6'4, Hudson certainly looks no more than 4 cm taller in the comparison, and Eastwood's posture is poorer. You could argue half an inch shorter for both, but all the "Eastwood was 6'2-6'3" max is nonsense.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 12/Feb/15
6ft1-2 peak is ridiculous for Eastwood.

Ron B. said on 12/Feb/15
I agree Arch, Clint's not the BS type. In the military ones height is usually rounded up to the nearest whole inch. Nothing wrong with a person saying he is 6'4" if he is 6'3.5". Clint may have even been 6' 3.75".
Yes James, A strong 6'3" guy would tower over most actors who are generally short or average height.

Judd said on 12/Feb/15
it's hard to belive that he can have lost 1/19 of his body lenght...also if with those injuries...

there's always the chance that he will measure more than 6' standing perfectly straight with his back, but if with the best pose today he is no more than 6' then i think he was 6'4" for sure, but at most 6'3"...

Anonymous1 said on 11/Feb/15
...2 opposite statements, here. 1) I still think, based on everything from still pictures, to scenes with other actors, to appearances with other actors...that he was 6'4 out of bed or at his absolute peak, but more 6'3.5-ish in general. BUT....I have never seen that footage of him with Rock Hudson. I'm assuming the Youtube clip is actually Eastwood and Hudson. If that's the case, I don't think there's any doubt Hudson was a big man. And Eastwood looks about even with him. I was quite shocked, actually, to see this. All I know is, 6'4 guys tower over people. I never see Eastwood as doing that in most of his films. I'm not saying this Youtube footage completely changes my mind, but it sure shakes things up. Hudson was easily at least a couple inches taller than Peter Breck in a McMillan and Wife, and Breck was 6'2.

James said on 11/Feb/15
While Eastwood isn't the BS type, the publicists paid by the studios to capture the attention of the audience certainly are. One could argue, BS is all they do. Given that, was Eastwood ever six foot four? Doubtful. But given how short many actors are, he could pass for it by comparison.

jervis said on 11/Feb/15
Even if he was 6ft3 and not 6ft4 he s still lost at least 3inches.lf you can belive he lost 3 why not 4?lf he was lying about his height and had normal aging shrinkage,that would have made him between 6ft1 and 6ft2 peak.If he was that height then there will have to be a lot of down grades.Mybe Rock Hudson was only 6ft3.5.

Arch Stanton said on 11/Feb/15
Eastwood isn't the BS type Ron. Obviously he got measured at around 6'4", whether it was in gym daps or whatever though is questionable.

Ron B. said on 10/Feb/15
Hey Parker,

A little testy are we? Of course someone 6'3" or 6' 3.5" could exaggerate their height to 6'4". I have known people who have done it. Its very common for someone to round their heights a half inch or so. Wow age 15, lol.

jtm said on 10/Feb/15
Considering Bradley appears to have footwear advantage, Clint still looks close to 6' at 85 years of age.

more like the other way around and i think cooper's listing is generous but eastwood's posture looks terrible.

jervis said on 9/Feb/15
Even if he was say 6ft3 peak that would mean a loss of 3inches that is still more than the average height loss,so there is some sort of health problem there,unless his height at peak was only 6ft2 or 6ft1.5 and all his costars in his films also lied about there hights too.

Parker said on 9/Feb/15
Pause at 1.25/26 with 6'5 listed Rock Hudson.
Click Here

Parker said on 9/Feb/15
Ron B. says on 8/Feb/15
Hey Parker, lots of people exaggerate their own heights a bit

Lots of short people yes, not one of 6'4. Why would he give a rats a*** whether he was 6'3 or 6'4. He said there was one guy taller in his year at 6'5 age 15.

jervis said on 9/Feb/15
What hight do you think he was Matt?

Matt said on 8/Feb/15
Losing 4 inches just because of age seems unlikely. I'm pretty sure he never had any extensive back surgeries. I think on average people tend to lose 1-2" max. He just exaggerated his height back in the day.

Ron B. said on 8/Feb/15
Hey Parker, lots of people exaggerate their own heights a bit. Just because Clint Eastwood said he was 6'4" does not make it so.


Why on earth would he lie??? Lots of people exaggerate their heights

Danimal said on 7/Feb/15
Bradley Cooper looks a good 1.5" taller than Clint today based on that pic. He's certainly not 6'0.5" (which would put him at taller than Cooper) as Rob has him listed. I'm sort of surprised you're ignoring very good evidence Rob.

Danimal said on 7/Feb/15
Clint was between 6'3" and 6'4" peak. Today he's between 5'11" and 6'0".

Arch Stanton said on 7/Feb/15
Rob maybe the 6 ft flat might be spot on now? He looks to have a lost a bit more of late.

Parker said on 7/Feb/15
Ron B. says on 6/Feb/15
Quartt, I am not debating with anyone. I do not believe that Eastwood was 6'4" peak. That's my opinion and alot of people agree with it.

Yes, but a lot of people don't, and thankfully one is the editor of this site. 6'4 for Eastwood at peak. He said himself he was 6'4 at age 15. Why on earth would he lie? He had 2 inches over 6'2 Robert Urich in Magnum Force, same height as 6'4 George Kennedy in the Eiger Sanction.

Considering Bradley appears to have footwear advantage, Clint still looks close to 6' at 85 years of age.
Click Here

Ron B. said on 6/Feb/15
Quartt, I am not debating with anyone. I do not believe that Eastwood was 6'4" peak. That's my opinion and alot of people agree with it.

James Edward Crowley Maximus Meridius said on 5/Feb/15
Rob is it possible Clint Eastwood could be 5ft 11.5in now will you downgrade his current height at some point he will be 85 this year he could be 5ft 10in when he is 90 and 5ft 9in when he is 95 there is a chance he could lose even more height in a span between 5 years and 10 years.

jervis said on 5/Feb/15
If Clint was not 6ft4 peak that means George Kennedy was not 6ft4 because both men wete the same hight in iger sanction and tunderbolt.As for Arnold he is a well knowen lift wearer and always stands with perfect posture.If you had a young Clint and a young Arnold standing beside each other bear foot both in perfect posture i think Clint would have about3inches on him,but we dont.If Clint was not6ft4 peak and only 6ft2.5 you will have to down grade lots of actors like Lee Marvin ,Rock Hudson ,George Kennedy ,Graeg Wallcot etc.

Pierre said on 4/Feb/15
Look at pictures of Clint Eastwood with Arnold Schwarzenegger.

James Edward Crowley Maximus Meridius said on 4/Feb/15
Rob Clint Eastwood could be 5ft 11.5in will downgrade he is current height at some point he will be 85 this year he could be 5ft 10in when he is 90 and 5ft 9in when he is 95 there is a chance he could lose even more height in a span between 5 years and 10 years.

qartt said on 4/Feb/15
Ron B. saying 'I am right does not win a debate', providing evidence and explaining does. Produce full length pictures of clint looking 6'2 in the 70s. You so far have just produced a list of people who you think lie about their height. The problem I have is when I look at photos of those people with other celebrities I end up having to downgrade everybody including people with photos with rob. Do we downgrade Rob to 5'6 1/2 ouch e.g. Rob with larry holmes, larry holmes with ali and ali with clint

Ron B. said on 4/Feb/15
M. Ali was never 6'3". He was 6'2". George Foreman was 6'2.5" to 6'3" and looked noticeably taller than Ali in their "rumble in the jungle".

jervis said on 3/Feb/15
I checked out that episode and yeah he looks the same height as Woody Strode. This indicates 6'4'' as you say but then as always unless you have seen someone in person it's hard to be certain about someone's height and even then how do you tell 6'4'' from 6'3'' or 6'5''.

Judd said on 3/Feb/15
Sincerly rob i have always been skeptical about his 6'4"...i think that he was a strong 6'3" is likelier!
For example, in 1973 (Eastwood was 43) had a role in a movie with David Soul, who you met and you listed him at 5'11" and 6'0.5" peak. Personally I think he was a flat 6'0" is S&H, but maybe he actually was 6'0.5".
However, the topic of the comment is that in 1973 between Soul and Eastwood there weren't 3.5" for sure! Eastwood had max 2-2,5" on him (being very generous 3") and I don't think Soul wore lifts there.
IMO Eastwood was a strong 6'3" at peak and today is in the 6' zone, but with bad posture make him appear shorter!

jervis said on 31/Jan/15
In an episode of rawhide he is the same hight as 6ft4 Woody Strode.I think in his youth if he was not 6ft4 he was very near to it.People just have to belive that like Heston he has lost a lot of hight as he aged,also Garner and ive noticed Donald Sutherland has droped a few inches too.

Arch Stanton said on 31/Jan/15
He's not standing straight Thomas. Later in the video they're at a punch back and Clint briefly looks 1-1.5 inches taller and again not standing great.

Thomas said on 31/Jan/15
quart at the 14 and 15 second mark of the youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO63MjUkeH4 clint eastwood is standing up directly behind Ali. They look to be the same exact height.

frenchythefry said on 29/Jan/15
I saw Ali about 15 years ago on a flight to LA. The first thing I said to myself, after 'Wow,' that's Muhhmad Ali' was Jesus, I never thought he was so tall. I grew up in the 80's and he was still a big star, but whenever I saw him on TV I figured he was just an average guy 5 11 or 6 foot, but I would say even when I saw him in c. 2000 he could have been 6' 3 easy, and this was old and bent with Parkinson's, so I have no trouble believing the 6'3 during his fighting days.
Foreman always looked bigger to me, but they were listed at the same height. The eye plays tricks. I also give Clint 6'4 without much disbelief. It's guys like Shwarznegger and Stalone who are always borrowing inches.
By the way height should not be mistaken for presence. At his full height my Dad was just under 6feet, but people always remember him to me as much taller. They also always credit him with a full head of hair when he was actually receeding like Jack Nicholson, so glamour however understood can deceive.
Ali 6'3
Clint 6'4

Arch Stanton said on 29/Jan/15
That Ali put 6'2.5 on his passport I think is honest, I don't think he's the sort of guy who'd BS about that, and it's not as if you could argue it was a shoe measurement as under 6'2" peak for him is silly. If Clint hadn't have been noticeably taller he's not said anything. And I don't think Clint was really the sort of guy who'd BS about it if he wasn't really near it. He had the legs of am even taller guy of something like 6'5-6'6" guy.

Arch Stanton said on 29/Jan/15
Yeah there's about 1.5 inches between Ali and Clint.

Arch Stanton said on 24/Jan/15
Difficult to argue under 6'4" with Ali!

qartt said on 23/Jan/15
thomas, there is a video on youtube of clint eastwood with muhammed ali on the david frost show in 1970. Ali was listed 6'2 1/2 to 6' 3 in his boxing days. Ali states how surprise he is how much taller clint is in comparison.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO63MjUkeH4

You could argue 6' 3 1/2 for clint if you assume ali is 6'2

thomas said on 22/Jan/15
I've watched all Clint Eastwoods movies. It is my belief, he was at his peak 6'2.5" and know around 6'tall.

Ron B. said on 22/Jan/15
6'3" and a bit of change
Never looked a full 76 inches

Anon said on 21/Jan/15
@jervis: Bill Travers was indeed listed at 6'6".

184.3cm said on 19/Jan/15
There are photos from the 70's where Arnold towers Stallone in the gym while Sly has footwear advantage. Clint at a flat 6'3 peak is rubbish he was a towering figure in Rawhide during the 50's and in all the Sergio Leone Westerns after that. In Dirty Harry he looked more 6'3.5 So even by the 70's i thought he had maybe lost a fraction. Was for sure close to 6'4.

jervis said on 19/Jan/15
If Arnold was as low as 5.10,what about all the photos of him with Clint were Clint is not much taller.He would have had to be wearing 4inch lifts to get near Clints hight even if Clint was 6ft3.

Arch Stanton said on 19/Jan/15
LOL if he wore lifts he'd have looked 6'6". Just look at his legs, that was a guy genuinely near 6'4". Clint would be the last guy I'd have expected to have ever worn lifts!!

Sunvalley said on 18/Jan/15
I stood next to Arnold in Sun Valley Idaho at a high end Craft Fair. This was 1996. There is no way he was near 6 foot. I would guess 5'10". He was wide and a broad shouldered man for sure, but his height was no where near his claimed height. My father, who was there as well could not believe how "short" he was as we all have this mental image of Arnold in our minds.

jervis said on 18/Jan/15
Has anybody ever taught that Clint may have worn lifts in his younger years but as he aged he couldnoonger wear them,that could explane his dramatic hight loss.

jervis said on 18/Jan/15
Just saw an old rawhide show on youtube with an old british actor named Bill Travers in it.Now if you check his hight it says 1.98m that is 6ft6 inches,Clint is in a fighting scean with him and in more sceans and he looks easly 6ft4 in comparason.But i dont know if 6ft6 is the correct hight listing for Bill Travers.

Judd said on 18/Jan/15
In my opinion he has never been 6'4"...he was a strong 6'3", like 6'3.25", while today he does look in the 6' zone...

Steve said on 17/Jan/15
Rob, is it possible for someone that tall to lose so much height? Eastwood is in his eighties, but is in remarkably good shape considering.

I wonder how long he'll keep working. At 84 he's made the Guinness Book of World Records for being the oldest film director still on the job. American Sniper is a terrific film.

Danimal said on 17/Jan/15
Judd says on 12/Jan/15
Rob probably he needs a downgrade, today! Look there: Click Here
He does look no more than 5'11.5" next to Bradley Cooper (6'0.5")...

I usually call it right on the money. To my eyes he has looked to be in the 5'11" range for a while now.

Rory said on 16/Jan/15
I dont think 6'3.5 can be ruled out for Clints peak, I think 6'3.75 would be a fair listing, always looked a weak 6'4 to me.

Parker said on 15/Jan/15
Judd says on 12/Jan/15
Rob probably he needs a downgrade, today! Look there: Click Here
He does look no more than 5'11.5" next to Bradley Cooper (6'0.5")...

Agreed = Looks under 6' now next to Bradley

jervis said on 15/Jan/15
I think posture is very important when judging Clints hight,he can easley drop 2inches with bad posture.If he can look 6ft even at 84 with Cooper,he could be taller if he stood stright for a change.I think he was 6ft4 standing stright with very good posture as a very young man,but he never stands like this in everyday life he is always in bad posture.So its very hard to judge him in his youth and old age.

jervis said on 15/Jan/15
It could have been Clint Walker you met Adrain.

Arch Stanton said on 14/Jan/15
Actually that photo I posted Clint was higher up on a ramp. The other photo you can see he's shorter than Cooper, although I wouldn't rule out lifts of some kind for Cooper, not that he needs them, but he can often look taller than 6'0.5.

Emil 183 cm said on 13/Jan/15
Adrian, you're either 176-177 cm tall or maybe it wasn't Clint Eastwood you met

Silent_D said on 12/Jan/15
He has lost a lot of height since his 6 foot 4 peak. I think 6 foot now is about right.

Judd said on 12/Jan/15
Rob probably he needs a downgrade, today! Look there: Click Here
He does look no more than 5'11.5" next to Bradley Cooper (6'0.5")...

Sam said on 12/Jan/15
No, have too many awards season films to catch up on and it seems that it is not the best effort from the few reviews I've read of it.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Jan/15
Rob, who do you think was taller peak, Eastwood or Wayne?

Arch Stanton said on 11/Jan/15
@ Danimal, do you think he only looks 5 ft 11 with Bradley Cooper here?? Click Here

Anonymous1 said on 10/Jan/15
...obviously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, there seems to be a semi-consensus that Eastwood was losing height, even by the 1980's. Personally, I find that ridiculous, and the only changes I see in him by the 1980's are that his pompadour hair was much flatter due to thinning, and he had gained a good degree of bulk, off and on, for various films. I think he looked about 6'3-plus-ish, in the 1980's, because he was never really over that, unless you count just being out of bed or footwear. Now the mid-1990's, that's when things did begin changing. A little over 6 foot now, from a little over 6'3-ish. The fact is, if you use your thumb and first finger to show the span of 3 inches, it really isn't as much as you think. The man always had kind of a slightly curved spine...and I don't mean the "hump". From front on, it's like his spine was always in the position of a slight question mark.

Danimal said on 9/Jan/15
Roy says on 9/Jan/15
This listing is very inaccurate.
In the Irish Pub in Pattaya in Thailand there is pic of the pub manager with Clint Eastwood dated 1969.
Clint Eastwood looked a proper 6 feet 4 inches guy.
and no looses 3.5 inches in height

No one loses 3.5"?? Really??? Medicine and science begs to differ with you.

Roy said on 9/Jan/15
This listing is very inaccurate.
In the Irish Pub in Pattaya in Thailand there is pic of the pub manager with Clint Eastwood dated 1969.
Clint Eastwood looked a proper 6 feet 4 inches guy.
and no looses 3.5 inches in height

Ron B. said on 8/Jan/15
I don't believe he a full 6'4" at peak. Close but no cigar.

Btw, I don't believe Dan Stroud is a full 6'2" either.

184.3cm said on 7/Jan/15
Is maybe similar to Wayne a guy who was just a quarter inch short of the 6'4 mark. Id bet on that more than him being a 6'4.25 guy at peak. Small fractions though i think his 6'4 claim is fair just like John Wayne's claim.

Danimal said on 6/Jan/15
MrTBlack says on 5/Jan/15
@Adrian

He has dowangers hump. Most men who were his height at his age shrink to 6'2-6'2.5" but that makes you lose much more height than normal.

No, the majority of his height loss comes from scoliosis of the spine. The hump (from Osteoporosis) doesn't help though,

Danimal said on 6/Jan/15
By Dead Pool (1986), he had definitely lost some height next to Liam Neeson, where as if he had stood next to him in the 1970's, you probably couldn't separate the 2 heights from each other.

Danimal said on 6/Jan/15
Arch Stanton says on 5/Jan/15
Yeah you're right Damimal I think, generally I think he started looking 6'3" range by 1982-3, in Firefox and Sudden Impact age seemed to be getting its hold on him, certainly by Pale Rider he was no longer looking a full 6'4".

Yeah, in Escape from Alcatraz (1979), he still looked 6'4", but those 4 years in between that and Sudden Impact (never saw Firefox, so I can't comment on 1982), he did appear to have lost some height. I don't think that it was age as much as his scoliosis started to become noticeable.

James B said on 6/Jan/15
Arch Stanton says on 5/Jan/15
Watch Coogan's Bluff Joe and him with 6'2" Don Stroud if you can't see 6'4"!


He had on 2 inch cow boy boots in that film..........

Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/15
Joe. Eastwood clearly had more than an inch on Ford even in the 90s with height loss!!

Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/15
Yeah you're right Damimal I think, generally I think he started looking 6'3" range by 1982-3, in Firefox and Sudden Impact age seemed to be getting its hold on him, certainly by Pale Rider he was no longer looking a full 6'4".

Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/15
Watch Coogan's Bluff Joe and him with 6'2" Don Stroud if you can't see 6'4"!

Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/15
Nah Joe he looked 6'3.5-6'4" range I thought up until early 80s. Firefox (1982) was the first film I thought he looked more 6'3 range than 6'4". There's one scene in which he's stood in the doorway in the cafe in Sudden Impact (1983) in the iconic "Make my day" scene though where he still looked easily 6'4".

James B said on 5/Jan/15
Anyone here agree clint did not look 6'4 in Dirty Harry?

James B said on 5/Jan/15
Rob 6'3.75 for clints peak could be bang on.

Joe said on 5/Jan/15
I think he was close to 6'4" in the 1960s, when he was Dirty Harry in the 1970s he looked 6'3". By the late 80s and 90s he was around 6'2". There were a few photos of Eastwood with Scwharzeneegger in the 1990s, and Eastwood seemed to be an inch taller and Arnie's peak height was 6'1" (although he claimed to be 6'2"), He also had an inch on Harrison Ford in the 1990s as well. He lost a lot of height, he is now nearly 84 years old.

didhe said on 5/Jan/15
No human WALKING (try a wheelchair) this earth can lose nearly 4 inches. I think his peak was more likely 6'3... and today 6'1. Thats fair enough, and "only" a 2 inches loss.

MrTBlack said on 5/Jan/15
@Adrian

He has dowangers hump. Most men who were his height at his age shrink to 6'2-6'2.5" but that makes you lose much more height than normal.

Danimal said on 5/Jan/15
Joe says on 30/Dec/14
Eastwood was never a full 6'4". My most educated guess would be 6'2.5" maybe 6'3" in his peak. He lost height even during his peak career acting years. I think he was 6'2" around the time he was portraying Dirty Harry.

Are you kidding me? In Magnum Force (1973) he had 3" on then 6'1" Hal Holbrook, 2" on Tim Matheson, about 3.5" on David Soul, 2" on 6'2" Robert Urich. Just watch the movie for yourself. That said, he DID began to look shorter by Sudden Impact (1983).

Danimal said on 5/Jan/15
To those claiming he's 6'1" today, he's not even close to that. He was struggling with 6'0" flat already for a few years now. Wouldn't be surprised if he's 5'11" today.

Arch Stanton said on 4/Jan/15
Sure Adrian, and Tim Robbins is easily 6'8"!! Click Here

jtm said on 4/Jan/15
dicaprio ia not not even 5'11.

adrian said on 3/Jan/15
There is NO WAY he has schrunk to 184. I stood next to him a few months ago. I am exactly 186, I was wearing 1 inch shoes and he was still towering over me. He is for sure still 6'4, absolutely. 184 is total nonsense, sorry

Sam said on 2/Jan/15
I agree with those who claim 6'3.5"-6'4" peak, 6'3" by the early 90s, 6'0"-6'1" today for Clint. I guess there were always be those who think Clint was at peak only about 6'2" but those people are wrong. 90% of Clint's co-stars from the 60s and 70s would need to be shrunk an inch or two from their listings.

Nemo said on 2/Jan/15
Rob, Leonardo DiCaprio height 6 foot. Leo and Clint Click Here
Clint Eastwood peak height was 6ft 4in. Today 6ft 1in

Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
Click Here Only an inch taller?? Looks like early 90s too there when he'd already lost an inch.

Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
If you doubt Charlton Heston was 6'2.5 see Wreck of the Mary Deare and Touch of Evil. Barely shorter than Gary Cooper and could look 2 inches taller than Orson Welles in some scenes.

Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
Click Here Not sure when that was taken but compare the chin levels.. 6'3.5" peak is arguable I think like Wayne but neither of them really generally looked under it. By the late 80s and early 90s though I'd agree he was looking 6'3" flat.

Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
Joe says on 31/Dec/14
He lost a lot of his height whether he was 6'4" or 6'3", I genuinely believe that his peak height was 6'3". I still do not buy he was full 6'4" in his younger years. In one of the Academy Awards, Eastwood stood with Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg. Ford was allegedly 6'1" in his prime, and Eastwood appeared to be only an inch or two taller than Ford. Regardless he was still a big guy when he was in his prime.

That was the 1990s, he'd already lost height by then. Compare him to Charlton Heston at the 1972 awards I think it was and you'll see he was noticeably taller. Heston wasn't far off 6'3" himself.

Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
You don't buy it Joe, but your guess is hardly an "educated" one when most of the evidence peak points to a full 6'4" rather than 6'3"...

Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/15
Yes by late 80s, early 90s he was looking 6'3" ish generally, looked about that with Neeson too. I think he began losing height in his 50s. He was 60 around that time.

Joe said on 31/Dec/14
He lost a lot of his height whether he was 6'4" or 6'3", I genuinely believe that his peak height was 6'3". I still do not buy he was full 6'4" in his younger years. In one of the Academy Awards, Eastwood stood with Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg. Ford was allegedly 6'1" in his prime, and Eastwood appeared to be only an inch or two taller than Ford. Regardless he was still a big guy when he was in his prime.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Dec/14
192-193cm could be on the money for his peak. Similar to John Wayne

Arch Stanton said on 31/Dec/14
If Eastwood was just 6'2", Don Stroud was 5'11" range in Coogan's Bluff and Lee Marvin struggling with 6' in Paint your Wagon !! Seriously, there's a wealth of evidence to indicate 6'4" on the nose peak. 6'3.5-6'4 is arguable but anything under that, especially sub 6'32 is laughable. Yes, with poor posture he could often seem shorter, but I think it's pretty clear he was very close to it.

Arch Stanton said on 31/Dec/14
In the Eiger Sanction Eastwood looked very similar to George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott, in fact Eastwood edged out Walcott in that film although it looked the other way around in Joe Kidd. If
you've seen the Naked Gun you'll know that Kennedy was easily 3 than O.J. Simpson who was supposed to have been measured at 6'1 in his football days.

Arch Stanton said on 31/Dec/14
If Eastwood was just 6'2" as Dirty Harry, Hal Holbrook and David Soul were struggling with 5 ft 11, Tim Matheson and Robert Ulrich were 6 ft max, Liam Neeson was never a hair over 6'3" etc. LOL.

Sam said on 31/Dec/14
@filmfan, I think it's all just an educated guess, you can see Clint's curved back if you look closely at pictures in the last 15 years or so, it can even appear he has a "dowager's hump" at the top of his back. I always come him to Sidney Poitier has another older guy who had the luck to maintain straight back and seemed to have lost almost nothing with age, at least until the last couple years.

Parker said on 31/Dec/14
Wish I could find the quote, but in an interview from some years ago he did say he was 6'4 at age 15, and there was only one taller guy (6'5) in his year.

Why would he lie? Doesn't really make any difference if your 6'3 or 6'4 does it?

Arch Stanton said on 31/Dec/14
Joe says on 30/Dec/14
Eastwood was never a full 6'4". My most educated guess would be 6'2.5" maybe 6'3"

LOL, Eastwood edged out Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and Sutherland had two inches on Connery easily in the Great Train Robbery. Are you telling me Connery was max 6 ft? Eastwood had about 2.5 inches on Jeff Bridges are you telling me Bridges was also only 6 ft. The Arnie photos were taken about 1995 when he had already lost 1-1.5 inches and was actually looking about 6'2.5 by then.

Joe said on 30/Dec/14
Eastwood was never a full 6'4". My most educated guess would be 6'2.5" maybe 6'3" in his peak. He lost height even during his peak career acting years. I think he was 6'2" around the time he was portraying Dirty Harry. In some old photos of him an Arnold Schwarzenegger, who I believe was 6'1" in his prime, Eastwood is an inch or a little taller than Arnie. Seems like today in his old age he is a full 6 feet tall.
Eastwood portrayed Cowboys, and wore boots, my guess is the 6'4" measurement is him with boots on.

James B said on 27/Dec/14
He looked a full 6'4 in play misty for me

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Dec/14
Eastwood looks a decent 6ft1 in Gran Torino. The height loss is entirely in his upper body. He still has very long legs

Marv said on 22/Dec/14
Just seen Gran Torino on TV in the UK today. His posture is pretty bad in that, with humped upper back & really sideways bent lower spine. It's easy to see why he's lost 3 inches in height. I'd buy 6'4" in his younger days

Ron B. said on 22/Dec/14
Never looked a full 6'4" to me.

Arch Stanton said on 22/Dec/14
Only Greg Walcott looked a bit taller in that film Brad.

Brad said on 21/Dec/14
Easy 6-4 in Joe Kidd.

Danimal said on 19/Dec/14
Mr. Kaplan says on 23/Oct/14
Morgan Freeman was never 6'3". He's 6'2". You can tell because he's shorter than 6'3" Sidney Poitier.

Morgan Freeman was over a flat 6'3" imo. He used to claim being close to 6'4" at his peak.

James B said on 18/Dec/14
In reference to his loss remember as well there is just good a chance he was 6'3.5 as the full 6'4.

Arch Stanton said on 14/Dec/14
Difficult to pinpoint exactly where he began losing height Bud but he could give a bit smaller impression even in films like Firefox and Sudden Impact in 1982-3 and barely edged out Moriatry in Pale Rider. I think he looked more a strong 6'3" throughout most of the 80s, but he didn't seem to generally look sub 6'3" really until about 1994 or 1995. Bridges of Madison County was one of the first I think where he really looked 6'2" range.

Bud said on 12/Dec/14
rob when he started to lose height?at what year he was 6'2 and 6'3?

and why he lost so much height?

James B said on 12/Dec/14
Yeah 6'3 flat is too low for his peak but he could have been 192cm

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Dec/14
The flat 6ft3 is too low for his peak. By the late 80's-early 90's he looked closer to that though.

Arch Stanton said on 4/Dec/14
Oh yeah they actually look little like each other of course, it just goes to show what they can do to alter one's appearance and image!

Sam said on 1/Dec/14
Arch & James, on that Bravados poster I feel like the big image looks like a cross between Peck and Eastwood, there's another poster from that movie where it also looks like a cross between them, just inaccurate renderings of Peck I guess because their features are not that similar actually.

Ron B. said on 1/Dec/14
I believe Clint's peak height was 6'3", w/o shoes. I do not think he was a legitimate 6'4". Yes, he did look taller in some of his movies but he had a lean rangy body type which can make him seem a bit taller. A legitimate 6'3" nothing to sneeze at.

jervis said on 29/Nov/14
6ft4 in shoes I think peak

Arch Stanton said on 29/Nov/14
Robbins had about 3 inches on Morgan Freeman. Granted Freeman can often look 6'2.5-6'3" in some comparisons in films but I think 6'5" range like Cleese peak. I know it's easy to assume both were 6'6" but I think it's a bit of a stretch for Robbins.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/Nov/14
Danimal, You've been spending the last decade of your life on this site so if anyone has an unnatural obsession, it's you and if you respond to this it just means I'm right :)

Arch, I'll admit maybe I do comment more on the 6ft+ but that's only because I'm in that range myself (6ft3½) and naturally it's easier.

Arch Stanton said on 28/Nov/14
A 6'2.5 prime Eastwood would put Donald Sutherland at 6'2" flat and David Soul at 5 ft 11. Sutherland looked 2 inches taller than Connery in The Great Train Robbery, are you telling me Connery was only 6ft?

James B said on 28/Nov/14
These days robbins is looking 6'4 more than 6'6

Arch Stanton said on 28/Nov/14
Rampage does like commenting on 6'2-6'3 especially, he does seem to have a thing for 189cm in particular, but in fairness he also comments on the heights of a big range of people, even shortish or average.

Arch Stanton said on 27/Nov/14
Looks 6'2.5 in The Rookie.

Danimal said on 27/Nov/14
James B says on 19/Sep/14
What do you think rob about minimum 6'6 peak for robbins?
[Editor Rob: it's hard to believe that one.]

Why is it hard to believe Rob? He towered over Morgan Freeman in 1994 and had at least 2" on 6'4" Conan O'brien a few years ago. It's not unheard of very tall actors shaving 1-2" off their heights so that they can get more roles in Hollywood?

Danimal said on 27/Nov/14
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 26/Oct/14
Eastwood's height loss is real bad. My uncle whose around the same age was 6ft5 peak and is still at least 6ft4 today. Almost like the polar opposite of this dude. No serious injuries, been married to the same woman for 40+ years (a statuesque 5ft11) and generally has a positive outlook on life.

You really like tall people, don't you? You seem to have an unnatural obsession with them.

Danimal said on 27/Nov/14
1.89m says on 21/Nov/14
I never see 6-4" peak imo. 6-3.5" max peak if that. 6-3" imo.

So your eyes are able to tell the difference between 6'3.5" and 6'4"? Wow, what's your secret?

Danimal said on 27/Nov/14
filmfan says on 25/Nov/14
Clint's height loss seems unusual. Most guys lose an inch I understand, Clint appears to have lost several. The photo of him being towered by Tim Robbins is hard to reconcile with him being a 6''4'' guy.

Most guys lose more than 1" by 84. In fact, the average man loses 1.2" by 70, and 2" by 80. Clint is in his mid 80's and has severe scoliosis.

jervis said on 26/Nov/14
Looks very like hugh lurie in hight and build as a younger man.

jervis said on 26/Nov/14
I agree with filmfan always looked around 190 or191 to me peak.Now around 183 to 185 depending on posture.You just have to look at the clip on youtube with 193Harve Presnel and 188 Mahommad ali Clint is shorter than Presnel by at least an inch and taller than ali by about an inch,and that was in 1970 when he was at his peak.Also l think a lot of the old stars of the time lied about their hight and added about an inch.

BGee said on 24/Nov/14
Dang, 4 inches?! My granddad was about 6'2 in his prime and was still there by the time he died a few years back, and he did real extensive hard labor too, which is a lot more than a Hollywood star would go through. Wonder what cause such a dramatic shrink.

Arch Stanton said on 24/Nov/14
Haha the eyebrows hair and tan yeah. Obviously generally he looks like neither of them but he could certainly look like Clint from a distance in cowboy garb and beard. I thought that in Yellow Sky, a surprisingly good film actually.

James B said on 22/Nov/14
Arch I thought Gregory peck was a dead ringer for Steven seagal actually in this pic
Click Here

1.89m said on 21/Nov/14
I never see 6-4" peak imo. 6-3.5" max peak if that. 6-3" imo.

Arch Stanton said on 18/Nov/14
Click Here 6'3" Peck on The Bravados poster looks a dead ringer for Clint and in height too!!

Arch Stanton said on 18/Nov/14
I caught Eastwood's first film the other day The Revenge of the Creature from 1955. LOL, the role was about as good an example of bad casting as you can get.

Arch Stanton said on 14/Nov/14
It could have been Sondra Locke! I think it's probably genetic. Eastwood was the poster boy for healthy living in an industry plagued with drug and alcohol problems. He did work out a lot though and lift a lot of weights, his height loss seems to be pretty similar to some of the bodybuilder types.

Sam said on 30/Oct/14
You make it sound like emotional stress or relationship problems has an contribution to height loss?

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Oct/14
Eastwood's height loss is real bad. My uncle whose around the same age was 6ft5 peak and is still at least 6ft4 today. Almost like the polar opposite of this dude. No serious injuries, been married to the same woman for 40+ years (a statuesque 5ft11) and generally has a positive outlook on life.

Mr. Kaplan said on 23/Oct/14
Morgan Freeman was never 6'3". He's 6'2". You can tell because he's shorter than 6'3" Sidney Poitier.

James said on 15/Oct/14
Clint has lost quite a bit of height due to aging. Back in the day, he was an intimidating guy. I met him, kind of, in California when I was a kid. My Dad and I got lost in Carmel, where Clint lives or used to live, and we stopped for directions at a convenience store. My father and I parked and stopped short of going in the store b/c Clint was walking out. I was probably 10 years old but I knew exactly who he was. Before I know it, my father was asking him for directions to our hotel. Clint could not have been more kind if he tried! He spent nearly 5 minutes directing us and part of what I remember is how huge he was next to my father. Keep in mind, I was about 10 and my dear old Dad is 5'6" on a grand day. After we got in the car, I told my Dad that we just got directions from "Dirty Harry." Great memory. Based on pics of Clint, I give him a 6'4" as an absolute max. He was tall on screen but he never, at least in my eyes had that looming feature that really tall actors have. These days, 6'2 absolute max. Hell of a nice guy!

Arch Stanton said on 14/Oct/14
Rob have you got a really bad ass photo from the 60s or 70s to add, preferably Dollars or Dirty Harry?

James B said on 11/Oct/14
Clint could be 183cm now

Sam said on 10/Oct/14
Yeah he does look more 6'3" range in Hang En High, which I just reached part of on TV. 6'3.75" is possibly as valid as Eastwood as for Wayne.

Arch Stanton said on 9/Oct/14
Shrugs :-) I must admit that it's difficult to see him at 6 ft 6 in cowboy boots. I mean you can see 6 ft 5 but 6'6. Especially with the hat etc. But unless everybody elses heights are exaggerated I think there's enough proof to indicate 6'4 ish. In some cases he could look 194 actually, next to Lee Marvin and Rock Hudson for starters but generally 6'3.5-6'4 range like John Wayne.

Judd said on 9/Oct/14
roy, clint portrayed the blondie in the good, the bad and the ugly in 1966. he was 36 so in the core of his peak height and the editor rob said he was 6'4" when was young...6'0.5" it's his current height (2014) not peak...maybe you did not pay attention...
however i think he has never been a full 6'4", like tom selleck or Christopher Reeve...i would put him at 6'3.5".

James B said on 8/Oct/14
Arch that could indicate that clint was 6'3.5

Arch Stanton said on 8/Oct/14
Lee looked maybe an inch taller?

Roy said on 8/Oct/14
Dear editor,
Clint Eastwood was way taller than 184cm during the Goid the Bad and the ugly.
He was around 191cm.
Please correct this.

James B said on 7/Oct/14
Arch yes but that was only the 'bar' scene from hang em high.

Arch how much taller on screen did Christopher Lee look in his prime compared to a peak clint?

Buzzer said on 7/Oct/14
Anyone who thinks he isn't 6'4"....watch joe Kidd, about 8 mins in. He is next to Walcott, on a flat floor, & is exactly as tall..Walcott is six-four so is Clint. His awful posture has made him around six-one now

Arch Stanton said on 7/Oct/14
Tallest? Coogan's Bluff
Shortest? Million Dollar Baby.

Looked almost 6'5" in the first and 6' max in the latter! Shortest in his prime? Probably Hang em High actually.

James B said on 6/Oct/14
Arch which film did you think clint looked his tallest? I'd say Coogans Bluff where he looked taller than 6'4.

The shortest clint looked in his 'prime' from the films I have seen him in is probably a few dollars more where he looked 6ft2ish quite a lot.

Arch Stanton said on 6/Oct/14
@James, They were a close item in real life from around 1975 to about 1984 I think so not surprising they often appeared together in a number of films during that period. Yeah, seems an odd choice, I mean a guy like Clint Eastwood, especially as a big movie star could have had any woman in the world, and in fairness he did have a lot of them from what I've read. Sondra Locke is one of those women who are not conventionally "beautiful", a bit scrawny and wide-eyed looking, like a lost animal or something, but I do get that she had that sexual thing which could captivate men Click Here

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 5/Oct/14
Absolute lowest for a prime Eastwood 6ft3½-6ft3¾.

James B said on 4/Oct/14
Arch its odd them pairing clint with Sandra lock in the gauntlet and his other films isn't it?

In a lot of his movies he'd usually have the hottest girl lol

Arch Stanton said on 3/Oct/14
The Gauntlet is one of my favourites of his, a very underrated action film. I suspect it's where Dolph got the inspiration with Joshua Tree which has some similarities in locations and on the run sort of thing with girl.

Arch Stanton said on 3/Oct/14
@James Eastwood looked an inch taller than Jeff Daniels in Blood Work in most scenes! And The Gauntlet was one of those films where he looked his tallest and easily 6 ft 4 I thought.

James B said on 2/Oct/14
My opinions of how tall he looked in some of his films

Fistful of dollars 6'3-6'4
A few Dollars More 6'2-6'3
Dirty Harry 6'3
Coogans Bluff 6'5
Escape from Alcatraz 6'3-6'4
Magnum Force 6'3-6'4
Play Misty For Me 6'4-6'5
Heartbreak Ridge 6'3-6'4
Deadpool 6'2-6'3
Hang Em High 6'3-6'4
The Enforcer 6'3-6'4
Any Which Way you can 6'3-6'4
Where Eagles Dare 6'3
Sudden Impact 6'3-6'4
Good, Bad and Ugly 6'3-6'4
In Line of Fire 6'2-6'3
Pink Cadillac 6'2-6'3
Tightrope 6'3-6'4
City Heat 6'3-6'4
Un forgiven 6'2-6'3
The Gauntlet 6'3
Eieger Sanction 6'3-6'4
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6'3
Two Mules For Sister Sara 6'4
Blood work 6'2

Arch Stanton said on 29/Sep/14
Humphreys was 5 ft 8 and yes Clint looks a solid 6'4 in comparison.

James B said on 19/Sep/14
Sam says on 19/Sep/14
Just saw the back-half of Sudden Impact for the first time in decades, what a bad movie, bad acting by everyone, including Clint and Sondra Locke.

I kinda like that film.

On a different note clint claiming "6ft4" a little over a decade ago is just as bizarre as his 'chair' speech.

Sam said on 19/Sep/14
Just saw the back-half of Sudden Impact for the first time in decades, what a bad movie, bad acting by everyone, including Clint and Sondra Locke.

James B said on 19/Sep/14
What do you think rob about minimum 6'6 peak for robbins?

Danimal said on 18/Sep/14
Tim Robbins from 20 years ago who is not even standing straight (in the first pic) had at least 3" on THEN 6'3" Morgan Freeman (who also claimed to be 6'4" in his youth) and even had close to 4" on him in other pics:

Click Here

Click Here

Click Here

I will admit, that Tim is looking closer to 6'5" TODAY at 55 years old than he did at 30-35 years old, but 20-25 years ago, he was minimum 6'6", if not 6'7" out of bed.

Sam said on 18/Sep/14
Well, "a big 6'4" guy". A majority of these pictures have already been on here. There are some pictures where he does indeed look more a weak-to-strong 6'3":
w/ 6'4" Gregory Walcott Click Here
w/ 6'3" Michael Moriaty (not standing even, at times in Pale Rider Clint could look near an inch over him) Click Here
w/ 6'2" Gene Hackman Click Here
w/ 6'1.5" Jeff Bridges (bad shot, both are dropping height) Click Here
w/ 6'0.5" David Soul Click Here
w/ 6'4" Liam Neeson (again not the best) Click Here
w/ 6'3" Buddy Ebsen (there Clint even looks sub-6'3", weird shot) Click Here
But then, there's occasions where IMO he could really pass as 6'4"
w/ 6'2" Lee Marvin Click Here
w/ 6'4" George Kennedy (Kennedy's dropping more) Click Here
w/ 6'5" Rock Hudson & 6'3.75" John Wayne Click Here
w/ 6'4" John Gavin Click Here
w/ 6'4" Donald Sutherland Click Here
w/ 6'2" Lee Van Cleef (both dropping height, more so Van Cleef) Click Here
w/ 6'2" Forest Whitaker (Clint has advantage in postion but still hard to see anything near 6'3") Click Here
You could argue 6'3"-6'4" range, maybe 6'3.75" like Wayne but generally a flat 6'3" doesn't fit Eastwood pre-height loss!

James B said on 17/Sep/14
Andrea I do agree 6'4 does seem hard to imagine for clint Eastwood but 6'3 range seems easier to picture.. When I think of 6'4 someone like Steven Seagal pops in my head.

Saw escape from Alcatraz last night and in that film clint looked 6'3-6'3.5 range in that movie for sure.

James B said on 17/Sep/14
Danimal- robbins looks closer to 6'4 than 6'6 with del toro

Click Here

Danimal said on 17/Sep/14
James B says on 6/Sep/14
Like Arch said people have no clue how tall a legit 6'5 really is. For those who say no way is robbins between 6'4-6'5 he must be nearer 6'6 they think that because 6'3 guys claim to be 6'4 or 6'5 hence distorting our view of how big 6'4-6'5 range is.

No. You shouldn't speak for everyone like that. I think Tim Robbins is at least 6'6" because he had at least 2" on 6'4" Conan O'brien, Over 3" on 6'2.5" listed John Cusack and the list goes on.

Danimal said on 17/Sep/14
Anonymous1 says on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70

Past 70? He's almost 85 years old.

Danimal said on 17/Sep/14
Anonymous1 says on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70

Pat 70? He's almost 85 years old.

Andrea said on 17/Sep/14
I admit i've never seen any movies of him when he was young... But was he really a big 6'4 guy? I mean, when i think to big 6'4 guys i think to a Jared Padalecki or Alexander Skargard, who always look very tall. It seems Arch is really convinced he was near that mark and he usually is very good in estimating heights... Today he looks 6' range, how did he lose 4 inches?

Arch Stanton said on 16/Sep/14
Me too Sam. I highly recommend Jersey Boys his latest BTW, I don't know why critics didn't think much of it. It's very well made IMO.

Sam said on 15/Sep/14
That link doesn't work for me, Arch. There's a good chance Clint was 6'3.75" for a beter of the day like Wayne.

I doubt Eastwood himself would put himself near the level as Day-Lewis, De Niro, Nicholson or Pacino, but I think as a director, he's good at recognizing acting talent in others. I respect him most as a director, secondarily as an actor and least as a politican (ignoring his love life on purpose!)

James B said on 13/Sep/14
A 6'3 1/2 clint eastwood would mean Donald Sutherland was 6'3 flat.

James B said on 13/Sep/14
Cant upload your pic arch.

Anonymous1 said on 13/Sep/14
There's a prominent leader in our small town who has said he's 6'4, going back 20 years. He's maybe early 60's, now. Neither then nor now was he imposing. Tall, yes, but I'm 6'0, and if he's telling the truth, 6'4 to a 6'0 guy is not imposing. BUT, my guess is he, like Eastwood, was never really 6'4, ut was measured one day, EARLY in the morning, and was close enough to 6'4 to claim so, but really 6'3. Add a slouch and age past 70, and you have 6' to 6'1. As for acting, if someone is both believable and entertaining in a role, they're a good actor in my book. I don't care about range, or if they can cry or if they are really just playing themselves. If I believe them and am entertained (Eastwood in his Dirty harry movies, or comedies), it's good acting. Most Acadamy Award winners are boring actors, to me.

Arch Stanton said on 13/Sep/14
Click Here

James B said on 12/Sep/14
Arch Stanton says on 12/Sep/14
Yeah Sutherland had Connery by an easy 2 inches in The Great Train Robbery.


Easy 2 inches? I am starting to suspect thst Connery could have been 6'1.75 peak. If Donald was that much taller then it would mean by 1987 Connery was 6'1-6'1.25 range.

Arch Stanton said on 12/Sep/14
Yeah Sutherland had Connery by an easy 2 inches in The Great Train Robbery.

James B said on 11/Sep/14
Clint in his prime could have been 2 inches taller than a peak sean Connery believe it or not. I am skeptical of the 6'2 1/2 claims for Connery since by the end of 70s he was looking 2 inches shorter than Sutherland. High chance sean was 6'1.5 by 1978.

Arch has pointed out that clint edged out Donald in Kelly's heroes which is decent evidence that clint Eastwood truly was 6'4. Donald was like 35 in that film so unlikely he was dropping height by that stage? In invasion of the body snatchers jeff goldblum looked near 6'4 1/2 in comparison to Sutherland i think?

192cm is always possible for clint but for the time timebeing...........

Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Jeff Goldblum 6'4.25 (194cm)

Arch Stanton said on 11/Sep/14
As an actor of course Eastwood was never anywhere near as talented as the like of Daniel Day Lewis, Jack Nicholson, De Niro and Al Pacino for instance, and Sergio Leone was all too aware of that, but as a film star with a unique identity he's certainly right up there with the biggest film actors of all time and most of his films are the sort you can watch again and again so that says it all.

Arch Stanton said on 11/Sep/14
Yeha Sam I agree. I don't think Kyle or Scott come close to a peak Clint in looks. The thing is though Eastwood was never the best actor, certainly not a natural. A lot of his mannerisms are unintentional (like hissing his lines through his teeth etc) are just the way he was. I think in a lot of his roles he was being himself or at least exaggerating his true self which didn't require much exacting. I think his acting came through more in his more comic roles actually. He hit his peak as an actor in the 90s I think with some impressive performances but it is as a director he has been become accomplished I feel. Connery was never the greatest of actors either, but he had that leading man charisma and presence. Clint never had the smooth charm of Connery or Grant, but he definitely had that thing in a more rugged way. I'd put Cary Grant above both of them as an actor, his comic timing especially was brilliant but as Sam says you can't really compare them, they were three different actors, I don't think you can really compare any of them. They were unique and great for different reasons and great in the types of roles that they played. Clint was never intended as a romantic leading man type.

Arch Stanton said on 11/Sep/14
I don't know James, I suppose it is because they're far enough away from average that it becomes harder to guess. You know what it's like guessing people over 6 ft 8. The margin of error is greater. Over 6'4" guessing becomes more difficult.

Sam said on 11/Sep/14
Hmm, not sure what you mean on any of that...
Scott may be have more traditional good looks, if not his presence, charisma or directorial talent, but Kyle handsomer than Clint? I don't think so. Also, contend with Cary Grant? Cary Grant retired the same year that Clint got his breakthrough in A Fistfull of Dollars and they were 100% different kinds of actors/stars. Also, compared, Entertainment Weekly's list of 100 Greatest Movie Stars of all time listed Clint at 16 and Sean at 24...so, I think Eastwood more than contends with Connery in general.

James B said on 9/Sep/14
Kyle inherited clint eastwoods height and Scott inherited clint eastwoods good looks. That said Kyle facially is a bit better looking that his dad was in his prime and Clint was more notorious for his westerns and Dirty Harry films than his looks. He did have charisma, charm and height on his side but he still could not contend with leading men like Cary Grant or Sean Connery

James B said on 9/Sep/14
Arch Stanton says on 9/Sep/14
No, but those very tall guys over 6 ft 4, it's easy to get a taller impression.


Why?

qartt said on 9/Sep/14
Rob why not add Kyle Eastwood. There are plenty of photos of kyle and clint back in 1988 when Kyle was 20, they looked pretty much the same size then.

Arch Stanton said on 9/Sep/14
No, but those very tall guys over 6 ft 4, it's easy to get a taller impression.

James B said on 8/Sep/14
True Arch but clint was a proper 6'3-6'3.5 range barefoot in the 80s and you wouldn't guess him at 6'5 would you? I guess as well clint wasn't skinny but even in earlier films when he was slimmer did not look over 6'4.

Arch Stanton said on 8/Sep/14
Yeah James, a proper 6'4.5" barefoot will probably look 6'6" to most people anyway. And it's true that a lot of people underestimate how big a real 6'4.5-6'5" is. Just look at Guy Henry as your dad said!... My dad guessed Colin Salmon at 6'6 too!

James B said on 7/Sep/14
6'3 James brolin is taller then clint in this pic
Click Here

James B said on 6/Sep/14
Like Arch said people have no clue how tall a legit 6'5 really is. For those who say no way is robbins between 6'4-6'5 he must be nearer 6'6 they think that because 6'3 guys claim to be 6'4 or 6'5 hence distorting our view of how big 6'4-6'5 range is.

moe said on 5/Sep/14
Jame B is wrong. I've met Tim Robbins twice. He runs the Actor's Gang in Culver City and is a strong 6'5. Go down there and meet him for yourself.

James B said on 5/Sep/14
How tall would u say robbins is today then rob?

James B said on 5/Sep/14
You think robbins is not as tall as you originally thought rob?

James B said on 5/Sep/14
Robbins is closer to 6'5 than a flat 6'4 but common danimal he ain't over 6'5 like you say he is. These days 6'4.5 at night is likely for tim robbins.

Sam said on 5/Sep/14
@James, I'd question even the full inch difference between Neeson and Eastwood there, maybe 0.5-0.75 advantage for Neeson IMO.

Sam said on 5/Sep/14
@Arch Yeah, he was a frightening looking dude...I watched Twin Peaks and McGill as a decent guy in that he reminded me a bit of Robert Ryan in his good guy roles.

Bill said on 5/Sep/14
I would have thought he'd still be around 6'2. I had no idea you could lose that much height.

Is that common?

Arch Stanton said on 5/Sep/14
I think by 1988 he could look a bit over 6 ft 3 next to a bit over 6 ft 4 peak Neeson. He certainly didn't look 6'4" next to James Cromwell. But he could look near it still at times in some of his early 90s films.

Danimal said on 5/Sep/14
Rick says on 9/Aug/14
Clint Eastwood with 6'4" Tim Robbins

Click Here

Tim Robbins is not 6'4". He had several inches on Morgan Freeman. Is substantially taller than 6'2.5"-6'3" John Cusack and was noticeably taller than 6'4" Conan Obrien.

Sam said on 3/Sep/14
I forgot about Heartbreak Ridge, I kind of liked it, a bit underrated but I recall it loses steam near the end. Not the best shot considering Eastwood's camera advantage, but definitively was taller than McGill. McGill was a big imposing guy, at times in other roles I thought he was 6'3"+ but he has to be a weak 6'3" compared to Clint.
Click Here

James B said on 2/Sep/14
Yeah in magnum force looked 6ft4 at times but he also looked 6'3 as well in that film which is why I think he was between those 2 heights.

James B said on 31/Aug/14
We don't know McGills official height cause he is not listed on this site. 6'3.5 consistent in the 80s? Remember 6'4 Liam Neeson had 1 inch or so on him in dead pool and in heartbreak ridge he stood with military posture where I think McGill had more relaxed posture.

James B said on 31/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 31/Aug/14
James have you seen Heartbreak Ridge? You can't say he looked skinny in that film, he looked tough as hell in it and looked like he'd be working out with the marines for a year!


Slightly disagree Arch when he had on his officer uniform in that film he look slim/skinny. When he wore his tank top though he looked ripped and muscular. Personally i think in films like deapool, pink caddlilic and any which you can he looked really bulky and tough. In good the bad and ugly he looked well built also.

In heartbreak ridge his characters personality was as tough as hell that's for sure.

berta said on 31/Aug/14
he could still look 6 fot 1 if he standing tall. peak a little over 6 foot 3

Arch Stanton said on 31/Aug/14
Eastwood looked about an inch taller than Everett McGill in Heartbreak who is supposed to be 6'2.5" so 6'3.5 for mid 80s is consistent with Pale Rider and Dead Pool...

Arch Stanton said on 31/Aug/14
James have you seen Heartbreak Ridge? You can't say he looked skinny in that film, he looked tough as hell in it and looked like he'd be working out with the marines for a year!

Arch Stanton said on 30/Aug/14
Looked near 6'4" and 220 pounds odd in Heartbreak Ridge.

James B said on 18/Aug/14
Arch Stanton says on 18/Aug/14
I think he was more 6'3" by then but he did still look near 4 inches taller than Dylan McDermott who Rob has at 6 ft. In some scenes in White Hunter he could still look 6'4" too in 1990.


Haven't seen white Hunter. I think clint could look shorter than he really was in reality in a lot of his movies and to me he gave of the vibe of a guy who is between 6'2-6'3 in Line of Fire.

I mean just look show much shorter he looks next to Lady Di compared to 6'4 Tom selleck in the 80s.

Click Here