Add a Comment5615 comments
Average Guess (457 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.82in (182.4cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.82in (182.4cm)
Arch Stanton said on 30/Oct/13
The worst you could argue for Van cleef peak is 6'1.5". And Eastwood had him by two inches. Trust me, GBU is one of my favourite films ever and I've seen it zillions of times and know how they compared.
The worst you could argue for Van cleef peak is 6'1.5". And Eastwood had him by two inches. Trust me, GBU is one of my favourite films ever and I've seen it zillions of times and know how they compared.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Oct/13
Beatty looked a full 6'2" next to Diane Keaton in Reds and if anything Hackman edged Beatty out in Bonnie and Clyde.
Beatty looked a full 6'2" next to Diane Keaton in Reds and if anything Hackman edged Beatty out in Bonnie and Clyde.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Oct/13
@Ali. How is 6'2" for Hackman hilarious? Hackman and Warren Beatty were about the same height 6'1.5"-6'2 and clearly look that sort of height next to Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde. Both close enough to 6'2" to claim it I think. Hackman could look 6'1 range a lot though, in The Conversation he could seem a bit shorter. The scene in Unforgiven between Eastwood and Hackman in which you can compare height is extremely brief though and Eastwood I think was nearer the camera but it did seem about 2 inches the difference. Eastwood by 1992 though I think might have been nearer 6'3".
Try watching Coogan's Bluff, Magnum Force and The Gauntlet anybody who doubts he was a proper 6 ft 4 prime.
@Ali. How is 6'2" for Hackman hilarious? Hackman and Warren Beatty were about the same height 6'1.5"-6'2 and clearly look that sort of height next to Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde. Both close enough to 6'2" to claim it I think. Hackman could look 6'1 range a lot though, in The Conversation he could seem a bit shorter. The scene in Unforgiven between Eastwood and Hackman in which you can compare height is extremely brief though and Eastwood I think was nearer the camera but it did seem about 2 inches the difference. Eastwood by 1992 though I think might have been nearer 6'3".
Try watching Coogan's Bluff, Magnum Force and The Gauntlet anybody who doubts he was a proper 6 ft 4 prime.
Mark said on 29/Oct/13
Just for kicks, if that photo that Greg posted, with Eastwood standing with Buddy Ebsen, is truly representative of heights, I'd conclude the following; Max Baer always had a solid couple inches on Ebsen, and so I don't believe that Ebsen was quite 6'3. That being said (typed), and this photo shows it, I believe Eastwood either was measured soon after getting out of bed or after stretching out on a couch, or was measured with shoes on to get the 6'4 listing. Sure, he could pass for 6'4, but, in my opinion, was 6'3 tops.
Just for kicks, if that photo that Greg posted, with Eastwood standing with Buddy Ebsen, is truly representative of heights, I'd conclude the following; Max Baer always had a solid couple inches on Ebsen, and so I don't believe that Ebsen was quite 6'3. That being said (typed), and this photo shows it, I believe Eastwood either was measured soon after getting out of bed or after stretching out on a couch, or was measured with shoes on to get the 6'4 listing. Sure, he could pass for 6'4, but, in my opinion, was 6'3 tops.
Richie said on 25/Oct/13
Doubters! Watch the documentary "Out of the Shadows" on the Dirty Harry Blu-Ray dvd. A still from 1:17:02 with 6'2" Jim Carrey-a clear 2 inches on Carrey. 2nd still at 1:17:10 with a 5'10" Prince Charles-towers over him even with a crappy posture. Get real people: he was 6'4" in his prime!
Doubters! Watch the documentary "Out of the Shadows" on the Dirty Harry Blu-Ray dvd. A still from 1:17:02 with 6'2" Jim Carrey-a clear 2 inches on Carrey. 2nd still at 1:17:10 with a 5'10" Prince Charles-towers over him even with a crappy posture. Get real people: he was 6'4" in his prime!
Ali said on 18/Oct/13
Gene Hackman was clearly shorter than Will Smith, who in his turn
was about 0.5-1 inch shorter than Roger Federer who is 6'1. Nothing
ignorant about that.
Jim Carrey at 6'1.5 is hilarious, but knowing that hollywood
actors add 2 inches, that makes him 5'11.5.
Gene Hackman was clearly shorter than Will Smith, who in his turn
was about 0.5-1 inch shorter than Roger Federer who is 6'1. Nothing
ignorant about that.
Jim Carrey at 6'1.5 is hilarious, but knowing that hollywood
actors add 2 inches, that makes him 5'11.5.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 17/Oct/13
Ali, your ignorance is beyond compare. Jim Carrey is 6ft1.5 and Hackman was without a doubt 6ft2.
Ali, your ignorance is beyond compare. Jim Carrey is 6ft1.5 and Hackman was without a doubt 6ft2.
bob said on 15/Oct/13
Those who mention back issues for Clint are partly right. Clint was a very good 6' 3.5 when younger. Several years ago he had back surgery including disc removal. He currently reaches around 6'1" barefoot. Yes age can cause shortening of the spinal column through a lower amount of fluid. However this does not happen to thpse who exercise the bacl sufficoently throigh a series of stretching exercises. I'm still 6'4" at the age of 65.
Those who mention back issues for Clint are partly right. Clint was a very good 6' 3.5 when younger. Several years ago he had back surgery including disc removal. He currently reaches around 6'1" barefoot. Yes age can cause shortening of the spinal column through a lower amount of fluid. However this does not happen to thpse who exercise the bacl sufficoently throigh a series of stretching exercises. I'm still 6'4" at the age of 65.
Rusty said on 14/Oct/13
I saw a 6'3" 185 lbs listing for Eastwood before. He never gave the same kind of 6'4" impression Neeson did. He was over 6'3" for certain, but not sure about 6'4".
I saw a 6'3" 185 lbs listing for Eastwood before. He never gave the same kind of 6'4" impression Neeson did. He was over 6'3" for certain, but not sure about 6'4".
Gerry said on 13/Oct/13
Anyone who thinks Clint was not 6'4" in his younger days should watch the Eiger Sanction more closely. He is nose to nose with Greg Walcott in one scene, side by side with George Kennedy in several & matches them exactly. They are both 6'4, unless everyone in Hollywood adds exactly 2 inches to their real height-and what are the odds of that?????
Anyone who thinks Clint was not 6'4" in his younger days should watch the Eiger Sanction more closely. He is nose to nose with Greg Walcott in one scene, side by side with George Kennedy in several & matches them exactly. They are both 6'4, unless everyone in Hollywood adds exactly 2 inches to their real height-and what are the odds of that?????
Sam said on 11/Oct/13
Greg's photo is definitely a weird one...the shortest seeming a young Eastwood has looked. As to Ali, Jim Carrey is not 5'11" and there's no reason to disbelieve Gene Hackman was near 6'2" at his peak...if you have evidence to the contrary, please post.
Greg's photo is definitely a weird one...the shortest seeming a young Eastwood has looked. As to Ali, Jim Carrey is not 5'11" and there's no reason to disbelieve Gene Hackman was near 6'2" at his peak...if you have evidence to the contrary, please post.
qartt said on 11/Oct/13
terrible photo greg, buddy looks a foot taller.
Click Here
why not compare eastwood to forest whitaker in 1988. he actually still looks 6'4 if whitaker is 6'2. Clint might not be 6'4 in 1988 but he is close.
terrible photo greg, buddy looks a foot taller.
Click Here
why not compare eastwood to forest whitaker in 1988. he actually still looks 6'4 if whitaker is 6'2. Clint might not be 6'4 in 1988 but he is close.
Ali said on 9/Oct/13
Rampage in the 1992 movie with Morgan Freeman, Clint is clearly shorter. I think the movies name
is unforgiven. Look for it and check the pictures. Clint is clearly about an inch or so shorter.
Jim Carrey is not tall. About a strong 5'11. Sure on this site he is 6'1.
Liam Neeson is definitely a tall guy about 6'3 6'4.
Gene Hackman was never 6'2. 6'2 for Hackman is hilarious.
Remember most hollywood heights are real height+2 inches.
Rampage in the 1992 movie with Morgan Freeman, Clint is clearly shorter. I think the movies name
is unforgiven. Look for it and check the pictures. Clint is clearly about an inch or so shorter.
Jim Carrey is not tall. About a strong 5'11. Sure on this site he is 6'1.
Liam Neeson is definitely a tall guy about 6'3 6'4.
Gene Hackman was never 6'2. 6'2 for Hackman is hilarious.
Remember most hollywood heights are real height+2 inches.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Oct/13
Yeah Neeson had about an inch on him in Dead Pool, he was around 6'3" up until 1993 I think. He looked a good 6'3 in Pink Cadillac too. He looked between 6'2" and 6'3 in Madison County which was 1995.
Yeah Neeson had about an inch on him in Dead Pool, he was around 6'3" up until 1993 I think. He looked a good 6'3 in Pink Cadillac too. He looked between 6'2" and 6'3 in Madison County which was 1995.
thebad7 said on 9/Oct/13
One other comment: Clint's height loss really didn't become noticeable to me until about 2000. In 1988's THE DEAD POOL, Clint stands face-to-face with a young Liam Neeson--whom I believe to be 6'4 1/2" - weak 6'5" at the time--and he's only 1/2" - 1" shorter, placing Clint in the strong 6'3"/weak 6'4" range. Furthermore, he's still noticeably taller than Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in 1992's UNFORGIVEN--and I believe both Hackman and Freeman to have been strong 6'2" men even at that time. Clint appears at least 1" taller than both of them, and all the actors are sporting cowboy boots.
By the time of BLOOD WORK in 2002, it's clear that Clint has lost a few inches. He looks a strong 6'2" at the most in that film, and he appears to stay in the 6'2" range through MILLION DOLLAR BABY a few years later. In GRAN TORINO in 2008, he looks to be a weak 6'2"/strong 6'1" and in photos he took with Sidney Poitier and Morgan Freeman around 2011, Clint looks 6'1" next to weak 6'2" Poitier and Freeman. Today, at 83, Clint is probably 6'1" flat immediately out of bed after a good night's sleep and 6' 1/2" for most of the day.
tb7
One other comment: Clint's height loss really didn't become noticeable to me until about 2000. In 1988's THE DEAD POOL, Clint stands face-to-face with a young Liam Neeson--whom I believe to be 6'4 1/2" - weak 6'5" at the time--and he's only 1/2" - 1" shorter, placing Clint in the strong 6'3"/weak 6'4" range. Furthermore, he's still noticeably taller than Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman in 1992's UNFORGIVEN--and I believe both Hackman and Freeman to have been strong 6'2" men even at that time. Clint appears at least 1" taller than both of them, and all the actors are sporting cowboy boots.
By the time of BLOOD WORK in 2002, it's clear that Clint has lost a few inches. He looks a strong 6'2" at the most in that film, and he appears to stay in the 6'2" range through MILLION DOLLAR BABY a few years later. In GRAN TORINO in 2008, he looks to be a weak 6'2"/strong 6'1" and in photos he took with Sidney Poitier and Morgan Freeman around 2011, Clint looks 6'1" next to weak 6'2" Poitier and Freeman. Today, at 83, Clint is probably 6'1" flat immediately out of bed after a good night's sleep and 6' 1/2" for most of the day.
tb7
thebad7 said on 9/Oct/13
Rob, I posted this a few years ago, and I hope you'll post it again: the definitive proof can be found in 1973's MAGNUM FORCE in the scene that takes place at the indoor pistol range. Here, Clint is introduced to the young vigilante traffic cops played by David Soul, Tim Matheson, Kip Niven, and Robert Urich. Both Matheson and Urich are 6'2", Niven is about 6'1", and Soul is about 6'. You'll notice Clint walks down an incline from the lot wearing flat-soled sneakers while the rookies are all wearing knee-length Red Wing style boots with a 1" heel. Despite their footwear advantage, Clint is clearly taller than Matheson and Urich by about 2". In particular, Matheson is the best gauge as he shoots Clint's S&W Model 29 and both stand nose to nose. Even with less than perfect posture, Clint is clearly taller than Matheson--and Urich as Urich is identical in height to Matheson.
Further evidence can be found in 1974's THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT. Clint has at least 2"--and probably a bit of change--on 6'2" Jeff Bridges--and he is the same height as 6'4" George Kennedy--with both men wearing identical dress shoes. There are scenes in which Clint stands face-to-face with both actors--Clint is clearly taller than Bridges, and virtually identical with Kennedy.
Today is a different story; time catches us all. As late as three years ago, Clint was pushing 6'2"; today in 2013, he can barely scrape 6'1". In recent photos, he barely looks taller than Justin Timberlake or Leo DiCaprio--both of whom I believe to be under 6' and more likely strong 5'10"/weak 5'11".
Peak: 6'4" (early 50s - late 80s).
2013, at 83: 6' 1/2" - 6'1" first thing in the morning; weak 6' by bedtime.
tb7
Rob, I posted this a few years ago, and I hope you'll post it again: the definitive proof can be found in 1973's MAGNUM FORCE in the scene that takes place at the indoor pistol range. Here, Clint is introduced to the young vigilante traffic cops played by David Soul, Tim Matheson, Kip Niven, and Robert Urich. Both Matheson and Urich are 6'2", Niven is about 6'1", and Soul is about 6'. You'll notice Clint walks down an incline from the lot wearing flat-soled sneakers while the rookies are all wearing knee-length Red Wing style boots with a 1" heel. Despite their footwear advantage, Clint is clearly taller than Matheson and Urich by about 2". In particular, Matheson is the best gauge as he shoots Clint's S&W Model 29 and both stand nose to nose. Even with less than perfect posture, Clint is clearly taller than Matheson--and Urich as Urich is identical in height to Matheson.
Further evidence can be found in 1974's THUNDERBOLT AND LIGHTFOOT. Clint has at least 2"--and probably a bit of change--on 6'2" Jeff Bridges--and he is the same height as 6'4" George Kennedy--with both men wearing identical dress shoes. There are scenes in which Clint stands face-to-face with both actors--Clint is clearly taller than Bridges, and virtually identical with Kennedy.
Today is a different story; time catches us all. As late as three years ago, Clint was pushing 6'2"; today in 2013, he can barely scrape 6'1". In recent photos, he barely looks taller than Justin Timberlake or Leo DiCaprio--both of whom I believe to be under 6' and more likely strong 5'10"/weak 5'11".
Peak: 6'4" (early 50s - late 80s).
2013, at 83: 6' 1/2" - 6'1" first thing in the morning; weak 6' by bedtime.
tb7
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/Oct/13
@Ali: excuse me...he was 2in taller than a young Jim Carrey in 1987 and was barely edged out by a then strong 6ft4 Liam Neeson (Deadpool). By the mid 90s he was still taller than legit 6ft2 guys like Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman (Unforgiven).
Don't even mention his peak height. The iconic footage of him and Lee Van Cleef (not under 6ft2) speaks for itself.
@Ali: excuse me...he was 2in taller than a young Jim Carrey in 1987 and was barely edged out by a then strong 6ft4 Liam Neeson (Deadpool). By the mid 90s he was still taller than legit 6ft2 guys like Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman (Unforgiven).
Don't even mention his peak height. The iconic footage of him and Lee Van Cleef (not under 6ft2) speaks for itself.
Ali said on 3/Oct/13
One more things guys. In 1990 Clint is already like 60 years old. At that age one loses
about 1 inch, but Clint had back issues and has already lost 2 inches. He aged quite rapidly
if you ask me. I think he has lost in total about 3-4 inches.
Look at his upper body in pictures when he was young and when he was over 60. His upper body
looks much smaller. This makes it look like he has very long legs. It is clear that clint has lost at least
2.5-3inches.
Even in the picture with Selleck, Clint looks like he has lost a little bit of height.
There is no way Clint stands 6ft1 these days. He looks 5'11.5. Add 3-4 inches
that he has lost and you get something like 6'3. Maybe he was 6'2.5 which is a
great height.
One more things guys. In 1990 Clint is already like 60 years old. At that age one loses
about 1 inch, but Clint had back issues and has already lost 2 inches. He aged quite rapidly
if you ask me. I think he has lost in total about 3-4 inches.
Look at his upper body in pictures when he was young and when he was over 60. His upper body
looks much smaller. This makes it look like he has very long legs. It is clear that clint has lost at least
2.5-3inches.
Even in the picture with Selleck, Clint looks like he has lost a little bit of height.
There is no way Clint stands 6ft1 these days. He looks 5'11.5. Add 3-4 inches
that he has lost and you get something like 6'3. Maybe he was 6'2.5 which is a
great height.
Ali said on 3/Oct/13
Guys Clint was a tall guy in his prime. I am thinking 6'3 peak. 6'4 is too much.
The thing is that Clint lost height early in his career I think. He had/has back problems.
Has Clint ever commented on his back problems?
Guys Clint was a tall guy in his prime. I am thinking 6'3 peak. 6'4 is too much.
The thing is that Clint lost height early in his career I think. He had/has back problems.
Has Clint ever commented on his back problems?
Arch Stanton said on 3/Oct/13
@Bazzer In 1989 James Cromwell looked way taller than Clint Eastwood in Pink Cadillac. 6'4 next to his peak of 6'6.5"-6'6.75" looked impossible to me. Eastwood looked 6'3" in Pink Cadillac as he did throughout most of the 80s.
@Bazzer In 1989 James Cromwell looked way taller than Clint Eastwood in Pink Cadillac. 6'4 next to his peak of 6'6.5"-6'6.75" looked impossible to me. Eastwood looked 6'3" in Pink Cadillac as he did throughout most of the 80s.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Oct/13
Strange but in 1989 in Pink Cadillac Eastwood looked a good 2 inches shorter than Gary Howard Klar. He was wearing cowboy boots but Klar was supposedly only 6'3". That film has so many tall guys, a number in the film are taller than Clint.
Strange but in 1989 in Pink Cadillac Eastwood looked a good 2 inches shorter than Gary Howard Klar. He was wearing cowboy boots but Klar was supposedly only 6'3". That film has so many tall guys, a number in the film are taller than Clint.
Bazzer said on 1/Oct/13
I was in Carmel in the summer of 1989 & was in the Hog's Breath Inn, which he part owned at the time, when he walked in as we were leaving. Me & my mate are both legitimate 6'1" (accurately measured, as we are in the UK Police Force) & he had a good 3 inches on us. We said hello but were too star struck to say much else! He was seriously tall & also large with it. All this nonsense about never being 6'4" is just that-utter nonsense. It's not uncommon that big guys like him suffer with posture problems later in life
I was in Carmel in the summer of 1989 & was in the Hog's Breath Inn, which he part owned at the time, when he walked in as we were leaving. Me & my mate are both legitimate 6'1" (accurately measured, as we are in the UK Police Force) & he had a good 3 inches on us. We said hello but were too star struck to say much else! He was seriously tall & also large with it. All this nonsense about never being 6'4" is just that-utter nonsense. It's not uncommon that big guys like him suffer with posture problems later in life
Arch Stanton said on 1/Oct/13
Rob do you think 179-180cm looks about right for Scott? Click Here The strange thing though is that Kyle barely looks 6'2" in that photo but seeing him on stage in jazz concerts he really does look near Clint's peak height and towers above the other musicians.
Rob do you think 179-180cm looks about right for Scott? Click Here The strange thing though is that Kyle barely looks 6'2" in that photo but seeing him on stage in jazz concerts he really does look near Clint's peak height and towers above the other musicians.
Arch Stanton said on 1/Oct/13
@Wiven. His son probably claims 6' or 6'1" I'd imagine but he really looks nothing over 5 ft 11 and is noticeably shorter than a shrunken Clint at 83. Like Clint though I think Scott is the sort of guy who'll look better in his late 30s and 40s than he does now at 27.
@Wiven. His son probably claims 6' or 6'1" I'd imagine but he really looks nothing over 5 ft 11 and is noticeably shorter than a shrunken Clint at 83. Like Clint though I think Scott is the sort of guy who'll look better in his late 30s and 40s than he does now at 27.
Wiven said on 27/Sep/13
How tall is his son Scott eastwood?
How tall is his son Scott eastwood?
Lorne??? said on 26/Sep/13
Yeah, claiming Clint Eastwood wasn't 6ft4 is outrageous to me. Like Arch said, 192cm minimum, and a solid one at that. I mean he towered over everybody in his early films. I do think height loss began in 40's, from 60's to 80's they're is a difference, although remember too, he did edge out 6ft2.25in Morgan Freeman at age 60, and as Arch said, looked a tad taller legit 6'3 Moriarty(but was Moriarty in cowboy heels? Can't remember) but yeah, this 6!2 nonsense is a joke.
Yeah, claiming Clint Eastwood wasn't 6ft4 is outrageous to me. Like Arch said, 192cm minimum, and a solid one at that. I mean he towered over everybody in his early films. I do think height loss began in 40's, from 60's to 80's they're is a difference, although remember too, he did edge out 6ft2.25in Morgan Freeman at age 60, and as Arch said, looked a tad taller legit 6'3 Moriarty(but was Moriarty in cowboy heels? Can't remember) but yeah, this 6!2 nonsense is a joke.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Sep/13
Considering how tall his dad was peak, Scott Eastwood is rather short. He looks 5'10-5'11" to me. Facially, yes he looks a lot like a young Clint, but he has neither the lanky frame nor special charisma that his dad had.
Considering how tall his dad was peak, Scott Eastwood is rather short. He looks 5'10-5'11" to me. Facially, yes he looks a lot like a young Clint, but he has neither the lanky frame nor special charisma that his dad had.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Sep/13
Considering how tall his tall was peak, Scott Eastwood is rather short. He looks 5'10-5'11" to me. Facially, yes he looks a lot like a young Clint, but he has neither the lanky frame nor special charisma that his dad had.
Considering how tall his tall was peak, Scott Eastwood is rather short. He looks 5'10-5'11" to me. Facially, yes he looks a lot like a young Clint, but he has neither the lanky frame nor special charisma that his dad had.
Goose said on 25/Sep/13
I've seen Jeff Bridges in person (Los Gatos) and he was a legit 6'2 and that was two years ago. When he and Clint were in 'Thunderboldt and Lightfoot' Clint had three inches on him. Some tall actors downgrade their height. I figure Clint was actually 6'5 in his prime.
I've seen Jeff Bridges in person (Los Gatos) and he was a legit 6'2 and that was two years ago. When he and Clint were in 'Thunderboldt and Lightfoot' Clint had three inches on him. Some tall actors downgrade their height. I figure Clint was actually 6'5 in his prime.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Sep/13
@Jason. Watch The Gauntlet. Proportionally he looked a clear 6 ft 4.
@Jason. Watch The Gauntlet. Proportionally he looked a clear 6 ft 4.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Sep/13
@Danimal, he was a still a bit taller than Michael Moriarty in Pale Rider in 1985 but yeah I think by then he'd begun losing height. Certainly by the late 80s he looked more 6'3". Jason, there is a wealth of evidence to indicate that Eastwood was a full 6'4" peak. He was a bit taller than Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and Sutherland himself had an easy two inches on Sean Connery in the Great Train Robbery. Similarly Eastwood looked his claimed 6'4" next to at least three actors and their claimed heights in Magnum Force. 192 of course is possible but I've watched all of his films and I think he looked more 6'4" than 6'3" in the 60s and 70s.
@Danimal, he was a still a bit taller than Michael Moriarty in Pale Rider in 1985 but yeah I think by then he'd begun losing height. Certainly by the late 80s he looked more 6'3". Jason, there is a wealth of evidence to indicate that Eastwood was a full 6'4" peak. He was a bit taller than Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes and Sutherland himself had an easy two inches on Sean Connery in the Great Train Robbery. Similarly Eastwood looked his claimed 6'4" next to at least three actors and their claimed heights in Magnum Force. 192 of course is possible but I've watched all of his films and I think he looked more 6'4" than 6'3" in the 60s and 70s.
Jason said on 19/Sep/13
@DaveC
In Any Which Way You Can, Clint Eastwood looked about 2" taller than supposedly 6'2" William Smith. I suspect, however, that Smith was never the full 6'2" that he's always listed at. I've seen several clips of Smith where he looks the same height as guys who are listed as 6'1". I, myself, doubt that Eastwood was ever the full 6'4"; more like 6'3" tops!
@DaveC
In Any Which Way You Can, Clint Eastwood looked about 2" taller than supposedly 6'2" William Smith. I suspect, however, that Smith was never the full 6'2" that he's always listed at. I've seen several clips of Smith where he looks the same height as guys who are listed as 6'1". I, myself, doubt that Eastwood was ever the full 6'4"; more like 6'3" tops!
Yaspaa said on 14/Sep/13
Just looks like he's leaning back to me.
Just looks like he's leaning back to me.
dmeyer said on 2/Sep/13
does look taller than legit 5 ft 11 plus dicaprio , the guy is stil a bit over 6 ft at 80 plus
does look taller than legit 5 ft 11 plus dicaprio , the guy is stil a bit over 6 ft at 80 plus
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 27/Aug/13
@James: Eastwood had lost a bit of height by that point.
But I doubt he was less than 6ft3. Selleck was easily 6ft4.
Aswell, I think Princess Diana was between 5ft10 and 5ft11
@James: Eastwood had lost a bit of height by that point.
But I doubt he was less than 6ft3. Selleck was easily 6ft4.
Aswell, I think Princess Diana was between 5ft10 and 5ft11
Mark said on 26/Aug/13
I was long done posting about Eastwood, but after seeing the Princess Di photos, it's quite clear that in 1985 Eastwood was not 6'4. Granted, no one shown is standing perfectly straight for a legit comparison. But, and I'm under the belief that Selleck was indeed a solid 6'4...at least in the 80's, Princess Di's eyes are even with Eastwood's nose and Selleck's adam's apple. Even if Eastwood stood straight in this photo, he couldn't extend himself as much over the Princess as Selleck is. In my opinion, my guess is that somewhere back in time, Eastwood was measured early in the day...putting him close to 6'4. He was more likely 6'2.5 plus, but the measurement stuck and is what he went by for years after. That's simply my opinion.
I was long done posting about Eastwood, but after seeing the Princess Di photos, it's quite clear that in 1985 Eastwood was not 6'4. Granted, no one shown is standing perfectly straight for a legit comparison. But, and I'm under the belief that Selleck was indeed a solid 6'4...at least in the 80's, Princess Di's eyes are even with Eastwood's nose and Selleck's adam's apple. Even if Eastwood stood straight in this photo, he couldn't extend himself as much over the Princess as Selleck is. In my opinion, my guess is that somewhere back in time, Eastwood was measured early in the day...putting him close to 6'4. He was more likely 6'2.5 plus, but the measurement stuck and is what he went by for years after. That's simply my opinion.
Kyuss said on 24/Aug/13
6-3" min,imo 6-3.5" peak. now 6-0".
6-3" min,imo 6-3.5" peak. now 6-0".
jamz said on 24/Aug/13
Never really struck me as 6'4" in his prime. More 6'2.5" - 6'3".
Never really struck me as 6'4" in his prime. More 6'2.5" - 6'3".
James said on 24/Aug/13
This is my final post but even though I think Clint Eastwood was at least 6ft3 peak these photos do support the 6'2 estimates for Eastwood.
This is my final post but even though I think Clint Eastwood was at least 6ft3 peak these photos do support the 6'2 estimates for Eastwood.
James said on 24/Aug/13
Have not posted here for a long time but I came across these rare pics from the mid 80's of tom selleck, princess Diana and clint eastwood that might be of great interest to you guys.
Click Here
Click Here
Compare Selleck and Clint Eastwood next to Diana and clearly Tom Selleck (who is 6'4) looks significantly taller. Clint Eastwood does not even look 6'3 let alone 6'4 next to the princess. Even when Selleck is a few feet away from Eastwood you can tell you that Selleck is more than 1 inch taller.
By the time of these pics age and maybe even posture probably robbed Clint eastwood of some of his height. Granted Eastwood looks much taller than Ronald Regan does next to Diana.
Have not posted here for a long time but I came across these rare pics from the mid 80's of tom selleck, princess Diana and clint eastwood that might be of great interest to you guys.
Click Here
Click Here
Compare Selleck and Clint Eastwood next to Diana and clearly Tom Selleck (who is 6'4) looks significantly taller. Clint Eastwood does not even look 6'3 let alone 6'4 next to the princess. Even when Selleck is a few feet away from Eastwood you can tell you that Selleck is more than 1 inch taller.
By the time of these pics age and maybe even posture probably robbed Clint eastwood of some of his height. Granted Eastwood looks much taller than Ronald Regan does next to Diana.
qartt said on 21/Aug/13
Okay folks how much taller do you think Eastwood is compared to Whitaker in the video. I think 2 inches, what do you think Rob?
Four years later in 1992 Eastwood look the same size as Morgan Freeman who i believe was 6ft 2.5 inches, Whitaker I think is 6ft 1.75 inches. I think Clint lost at least an inch if not one and half in the four years between 1988 and 1992. does anybody know if he had an injury?
Okay folks how much taller do you think Eastwood is compared to Whitaker in the video. I think 2 inches, what do you think Rob?
Four years later in 1992 Eastwood look the same size as Morgan Freeman who i believe was 6ft 2.5 inches, Whitaker I think is 6ft 1.75 inches. I think Clint lost at least an inch if not one and half in the four years between 1988 and 1992. does anybody know if he had an injury?
qartt said on 19/Aug/13
Click Here
Eastwood with forest Whitaker in 1988, Whitaker is taller than Eastwood now.
Click Here
Eastwood with forest Whitaker in 1988, Whitaker is taller than Eastwood now.
little sue said on 19/Aug/13
Disagree with this about shrinking Clintfan. My Mom a healthy 77 year old has gone from 5ft 1 to 4ft 11, my dad is 83 and he has gone from 5ft 6 to 5ft 4, neither have a hump back. My Nan and her two sisters all lived to 93 and went from around 5ft 2 to about 4ft 8. Just the one had a bit of a hump. I now work with a woman who is still working at 80 and she has gone from 5ft 4 to about 4ft 10. People can be fit and healthy but suffer with Osteophorosis which can cause shrinkage.
Disagree with this about shrinking Clintfan. My Mom a healthy 77 year old has gone from 5ft 1 to 4ft 11, my dad is 83 and he has gone from 5ft 6 to 5ft 4, neither have a hump back. My Nan and her two sisters all lived to 93 and went from around 5ft 2 to about 4ft 8. Just the one had a bit of a hump. I now work with a woman who is still working at 80 and she has gone from 5ft 4 to about 4ft 10. People can be fit and healthy but suffer with Osteophorosis which can cause shrinkage.
Brad said on 18/Aug/13
Eastwood 6-4? I cannot believe that. People can shrink more than several milimeters when getting older. That is possible,but that all can happen if your posture is bad while aging. You don't get really smaller, you just get slouched. I don't think that this apply for Eastwood.
I believe that he is no more than 5-11. I saw him on the show on Ellen. He was not that much bigger.Compared to Ellen, he seems shorter than no more than 6' Bill Clinton, but it is hard to say,since you don't know whether Ellen wears high heels shoes or not.
Eastwood 6-4? I cannot believe that. People can shrink more than several milimeters when getting older. That is possible,but that all can happen if your posture is bad while aging. You don't get really smaller, you just get slouched. I don't think that this apply for Eastwood.
I believe that he is no more than 5-11. I saw him on the show on Ellen. He was not that much bigger.Compared to Ellen, he seems shorter than no more than 6' Bill Clinton, but it is hard to say,since you don't know whether Ellen wears high heels shoes or not.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Aug/13
Haha yeah he was 187 in his prime, sure!! I suppose David Browse was 189 tops peak too!!
Haha yeah he was 187 in his prime, sure!! I suppose David Browse was 189 tops peak too!!
SL said on 17/Aug/13
It is ridiculous to even think that one person can shrink whole 9 cm just because of aging! As far as I know, Eastwood never had serious skeletal trauma, so there is no way of such a huge shrinkage! Aging can shrink a person by just several MILIMETERS! I think Eastwood was never over 1.88 m (6' 2"). He only appeared taller, because of his early haircut. Now he appears around 1.85 m (6' 1"), because he is often humped, as almost every old person. I think he was 1.87 m (6' 1.5") in his prime, and now is not less than 1.86 m (6' 1.2"). Please Editor Rob, consider my statement.
It is ridiculous to even think that one person can shrink whole 9 cm just because of aging! As far as I know, Eastwood never had serious skeletal trauma, so there is no way of such a huge shrinkage! Aging can shrink a person by just several MILIMETERS! I think Eastwood was never over 1.88 m (6' 2"). He only appeared taller, because of his early haircut. Now he appears around 1.85 m (6' 1"), because he is often humped, as almost every old person. I think he was 1.87 m (6' 1.5") in his prime, and now is not less than 1.86 m (6' 1.2"). Please Editor Rob, consider my statement.
DaveC said on 14/Aug/13
Eastwood was 6'3" at his peak, same as his co-star in Rawhide. Look at him next to the 6'2" William Smith in "Any Which Way You Can". Very close. Certainly, no more than an inch taller. Look at "Unforgiven" 1992. He is shorter than Morgan Freeman. More so in "Million Dollar Baby" Now, he is about 6'1", but he's 83 !!
Eastwood was 6'3" at his peak, same as his co-star in Rawhide. Look at him next to the 6'2" William Smith in "Any Which Way You Can". Very close. Certainly, no more than an inch taller. Look at "Unforgiven" 1992. He is shorter than Morgan Freeman. More so in "Million Dollar Baby" Now, he is about 6'1", but he's 83 !!
Ian C. said on 11/Aug/13
I admit it's churlish of me to call down Eastwood's physique. It's just that he's played so many characters that are physically overpowering, when he doesn't quite have the goods. He's the sort of man I would call rangy. He's not like Charlton Heston or Woody Strode, who were Herculean, but he likes to play characters that are. His bulking up (however he did it) in middle age is a bit of a forced effect, like an average-sized man wearing elevator shoes.
I admit it's churlish of me to call down Eastwood's physique. It's just that he's played so many characters that are physically overpowering, when he doesn't quite have the goods. He's the sort of man I would call rangy. He's not like Charlton Heston or Woody Strode, who were Herculean, but he likes to play characters that are. His bulking up (however he did it) in middle age is a bit of a forced effect, like an average-sized man wearing elevator shoes.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Aug/13
Unknown says on 6/Aug/13
There is no way that he ever lost 4 inches height.As a young man, he was the same height as he is today.I don't think that he has lost any height.
You must be blind LOL. He looked 4 inches shorter in Million Dollar Baby than he did in the 1960s!
Unknown says on 6/Aug/13
There is no way that he ever lost 4 inches height.As a young man, he was the same height as he is today.I don't think that he has lost any height.
You must be blind LOL. He looked 4 inches shorter in Million Dollar Baby than he did in the 1960s!
wingnut said on 11/Aug/13
Click Here;wap2
aan interesting read about clint.
He even mentions height and weight
Click Here;wap2
aan interesting read about clint.
He even mentions height and weight
wingnut said on 10/Aug/13
Ian C. He's even bigger and older in Heartbreak Ridge
Ian C. He's even bigger and older in Heartbreak Ridge
Ian C. said on 9/Aug/13
Of course I'm only guessing about Eastwood's steroid use, Sam, but he seems to have put on about twenty pounds or so for those Philo Beddoe movies. Is this actually possible for a man in his forties who is already very physically fit, unless he uses chemicals to help him along? In Any Which Way You Can, he outfights a character played by William Smith, who really was an unusually muscular man. Eastwood never looks as strong as Smith in any of their scenes together, simply because Smith was a polar mesomorph, and Eastwood possessed only slighter better than average muscularity.
Of course I'm only guessing about Eastwood's steroid use, Sam, but he seems to have put on about twenty pounds or so for those Philo Beddoe movies. Is this actually possible for a man in his forties who is already very physically fit, unless he uses chemicals to help him along? In Any Which Way You Can, he outfights a character played by William Smith, who really was an unusually muscular man. Eastwood never looks as strong as Smith in any of their scenes together, simply because Smith was a polar mesomorph, and Eastwood possessed only slighter better than average muscularity.
Rey said on 9/Aug/13
There did not seem to be much height difference between Clint and Rock.
There did not seem to be much height difference between Clint and Rock.
Rey said on 9/Aug/13
Wow good photos. Some shots (angles) reminded me of Chris Reeve, near the Superman IV era.
Wow good photos. Some shots (angles) reminded me of Chris Reeve, near the Superman IV era.
7ft5 johnson said on 7/Aug/13
max 1 inch taller than Pitt
max 1 inch taller than Pitt
Knowitall said on 6/Aug/13
Losing four inches is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Bob Hope started out at five ten and ended up around five six.
Actor Elliot Reid who recently passed away at the age of 93 was six foot two in his prime. I met him about a year ago at the facility he was living in since my mom lives there. He had packed down to about five ten.
I met Clint in the 1970s. He was definitely six four. He and George Kennedy were the same height.
Today Eastwood looks like he's down to around six one. But then he's over 80.
Losing four inches is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Bob Hope started out at five ten and ended up around five six.
Actor Elliot Reid who recently passed away at the age of 93 was six foot two in his prime. I met him about a year ago at the facility he was living in since my mom lives there. He had packed down to about five ten.
I met Clint in the 1970s. He was definitely six four. He and George Kennedy were the same height.
Today Eastwood looks like he's down to around six one. But then he's over 80.
Unknown said on 6/Aug/13
There is no way that he ever lost 4 inches height.As a young man, he was the same height as he is today.I don't think that he has lost any height.
There is no way that he ever lost 4 inches height.As a young man, he was the same height as he is today.I don't think that he has lost any height.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Jul/13
Watched Unforgiven earlier and although the angle wasn't great (over Clint's shoulder), I thought he looked about 2 inches taller than Gene Hackman.
Watched Unforgiven earlier and although the angle wasn't great (over Clint's shoulder), I thought he looked about 2 inches taller than Gene Hackman.
Arch Stanton said on 24/Jul/13
Anybody who is convinced he was shorter than 6ft 4 peak watch The Gauntlet. Anything under a legit 6'4" looks a joke. He looks every inch of a full 6'4" in that film just watch him walk in it, never looks anything under it.
Anybody who is convinced he was shorter than 6ft 4 peak watch The Gauntlet. Anything under a legit 6'4" looks a joke. He looks every inch of a full 6'4" in that film just watch him walk in it, never looks anything under it.
jervis said on 24/Jul/13
Did not look 1inch taller than Eric Fleming in rawhide;they both looked the same hight;and Fleming was said to be 6ft 3.
Did not look 1inch taller than Eric Fleming in rawhide;they both looked the same hight;and Fleming was said to be 6ft 3.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Jul/13
And then I watched Million Dollar Baby last night and he barely looked 6' in it and looked 4 inches shorter than the one I watched before it. Although I thought he looked easily 6'1" in Gran Torino but he was around short Hmongs.
And then I watched Million Dollar Baby last night and he barely looked 6' in it and looked 4 inches shorter than the one I watched before it. Although I thought he looked easily 6'1" in Gran Torino but he was around short Hmongs.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Jul/13
Watch Two Mules for Sister Sara yesterday and he looked nothing under a legit 6'4", the man's legs alone are just too long. In one scene he absolutely towered one of the actors in it, a full head taller.
Watch Two Mules for Sister Sara yesterday and he looked nothing under a legit 6'4", the man's legs alone are just too long. In one scene he absolutely towered one of the actors in it, a full head taller.
Parker said on 22/Jul/13
Lorne says on 30/Jun/13
That fact that people think he would have measure less than 192cm at peak is just sad. Looks a legit 6ft4 constanly(in his youth) going under 192cm is just...weird man.
Lorne - 100% agree. He said he was 6'4 when he was 15. Why on earth would he lie about that. He looked an easy 6'4 in Dirty Harry and Magnum Force.
Lorne says on 30/Jun/13
That fact that people think he would have measure less than 192cm at peak is just sad. Looks a legit 6ft4 constanly(in his youth) going under 192cm is just...weird man.
Lorne - 100% agree. He said he was 6'4 when he was 15. Why on earth would he lie about that. He looked an easy 6'4 in Dirty Harry and Magnum Force.
Arch Stanton said on 18/Jul/13
Jervis Eastwood had more than 2 inches on Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, at times it could look nearer 3, I'd say 2.5 inches.
Jervis Eastwood had more than 2 inches on Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, at times it could look nearer 3, I'd say 2.5 inches.
DB Cooper said on 11/Jul/13
6'3.5 peak
6'3.5 peak
jervis said on 3/Jul/13
I think there was a lot more than 2 cm between Eastwood an Robbins more like 2 inches.Eastwood looks max 2 inches taller than Bridges and Robbins looks at least 4 inches taller than Bridges.Remember both men were 41 years old Eastwood in 1971 add Robbins in 2009 and Bridges was at the time 6ft1 with Eastwood and Robbins,but to me there seemed to be a much bigger hight difference between Robbins and Bridges than Eastwood and Bridges,much more than 1 inch.
I think there was a lot more than 2 cm between Eastwood an Robbins more like 2 inches.Eastwood looks max 2 inches taller than Bridges and Robbins looks at least 4 inches taller than Bridges.Remember both men were 41 years old Eastwood in 1971 add Robbins in 2009 and Bridges was at the time 6ft1 with Eastwood and Robbins,but to me there seemed to be a much bigger hight difference between Robbins and Bridges than Eastwood and Bridges,much more than 1 inch.
Heightcritique said on 2/Jul/13
Eastwood looks between 6'4" and 6'5" in the early Dirty Harry movies. When he walks by door frames there is only about 3" left in the clearance. Now a days because of bad posture and spinal deterioration looks between 6'1" and 6'2" and sometimes even 6'3" which is apparent when he stands next to Freeman who is listed at 6'2".
Eastwood looks between 6'4" and 6'5" in the early Dirty Harry movies. When he walks by door frames there is only about 3" left in the clearance. Now a days because of bad posture and spinal deterioration looks between 6'1" and 6'2" and sometimes even 6'3" which is apparent when he stands next to Freeman who is listed at 6'2".
Sam said on 1/Jul/13
Comparing Eastwood to Robbins, I don't think anyone claims that Robbins and Eastwood at peak were the same height but they could have been within like 2 cm of each other, with the advantage to Robbins obviously.
Comparing Eastwood to Robbins, I don't think anyone claims that Robbins and Eastwood at peak were the same height but they could have been within like 2 cm of each other, with the advantage to Robbins obviously.
Lorne said on 30/Jun/13
That fact that people think he would have measure less than 192cm at peak is just sad. Looks a legit 6ft4 constanly(in his youth) going under 192cm is just...weird man.
That fact that people think he would have measure less than 192cm at peak is just sad. Looks a legit 6ft4 constanly(in his youth) going under 192cm is just...weird man.
jervis said on 28/Jun/13
in arlington road robbins was 41 years old and in tunderbolt and light foot eastwood was also 41 years old but with the same actor jeff bridges robbins looked the far taller man much more than 1 inch with bridges .the only explanation is bridges has shrank about 2 inches by the age of 50.
in arlington road robbins was 41 years old and in tunderbolt and light foot eastwood was also 41 years old but with the same actor jeff bridges robbins looked the far taller man much more than 1 inch with bridges .the only explanation is bridges has shrank about 2 inches by the age of 50.
Mark said on 26/Jun/13
(Here's what I said in an old post)...there seems to be many who think that, by your late 40's, you've lost height. Newsflash; I'm almost 48, and the same, if not a hair taller, than I was 20 years ago, based on height taken at morning and night now...and 20 years ago. No change.
(Here's what Danimal said, in reply) The average man will have lost 1.2" by 70 and 2" by 80. Women more. We lose .4-.5" per DECADE after 40 and some claim after 30. There is medical proof of this. You're almost 50. I promise you that you are by no means the same height as you were at 25, let alone taller...haha.
(Here's my reply to Danimal, with an additional Eastwood comments just to keep it on topic); "Ha, ha"? What is that, like your expressing some kiddish glee that I'm insecure and you're catching me in some sort of lie? This is why I avoid message boards, generally, and only came on here to kill time today. 5'11 and 3/4ths in my 20's, 6'0.5 at 48, at night and throughout the year. If I were so insecure as to lie on a message board, I'd make my current height 6'2. For the rest who could care less about this silly banter, myself included, I still say that lifting heavy weights while standing, repeatedly and over time (like with Eastood doing heavy curls, standing presses, etc(Read up on his workout routines of years past..) can break down the cartilige in your spine much faster as you age, especially if you are skinny like Eastwood. That may explain some of his dramatic height loss.
(Here's what I said in an old post)...there seems to be many who think that, by your late 40's, you've lost height. Newsflash; I'm almost 48, and the same, if not a hair taller, than I was 20 years ago, based on height taken at morning and night now...and 20 years ago. No change.
(Here's what Danimal said, in reply) The average man will have lost 1.2" by 70 and 2" by 80. Women more. We lose .4-.5" per DECADE after 40 and some claim after 30. There is medical proof of this. You're almost 50. I promise you that you are by no means the same height as you were at 25, let alone taller...haha.
(Here's my reply to Danimal, with an additional Eastwood comments just to keep it on topic); "Ha, ha"? What is that, like your expressing some kiddish glee that I'm insecure and you're catching me in some sort of lie? This is why I avoid message boards, generally, and only came on here to kill time today. 5'11 and 3/4ths in my 20's, 6'0.5 at 48, at night and throughout the year. If I were so insecure as to lie on a message board, I'd make my current height 6'2. For the rest who could care less about this silly banter, myself included, I still say that lifting heavy weights while standing, repeatedly and over time (like with Eastood doing heavy curls, standing presses, etc(Read up on his workout routines of years past..) can break down the cartilige in your spine much faster as you age, especially if you are skinny like Eastwood. That may explain some of his dramatic height loss.
cole said on 25/Jun/13
He's 6ft flat now. that's for sure, if he was 6'4 or wahtever in his prime, it doesn't really matter now does it.
He's 6ft flat now. that's for sure, if he was 6'4 or wahtever in his prime, it doesn't really matter now does it.
jervis said on 24/Jun/13
watch arlington road with tim robbins and jeff bridges then tunder bolt and lightfoot whit bridges and eastwood.there is about 4 0r 5 inches between bridges and roobins in that film but in tblf with eastwood and bridges some times there seems to be only 1inch in eastwoods favour.if eastwood was 6ft4 and robbins 6ft5 they would have been very simler in there hight diffirance with bridges.but robbins looked clearly taller than eastwood with 6ft1inch bridges about 2 to 3inches.
watch arlington road with tim robbins and jeff bridges then tunder bolt and lightfoot whit bridges and eastwood.there is about 4 0r 5 inches between bridges and roobins in that film but in tblf with eastwood and bridges some times there seems to be only 1inch in eastwoods favour.if eastwood was 6ft4 and robbins 6ft5 they would have been very simler in there hight diffirance with bridges.but robbins looked clearly taller than eastwood with 6ft1inch bridges about 2 to 3inches.
alan brisco said on 24/Jun/13
Parker says on 20/Jun/13
alan brisco says on 19/Jun/13
but as you can see, many people here agree with me.
And many don't. No doubt in my mind Clint was a legit 6'4 in his prime
Left to right Marvin (6'2),Eastwood (6'4) Hudson (6'5).
-------------
ahhh listen, gene hackman claimed an unbelievable 6'2"!!!!!ahahah
he struggled with 6ft !!!!!!!!!!
many people do not realize how a legit 6'3" really is. This is the problem. So i see everywhere, listed heights at 6'2"-6'3"-6'4", very easily...ahahaha
Parker says on 20/Jun/13
alan brisco says on 19/Jun/13
but as you can see, many people here agree with me.
And many don't. No doubt in my mind Clint was a legit 6'4 in his prime
Left to right Marvin (6'2),Eastwood (6'4) Hudson (6'5).
-------------
ahhh listen, gene hackman claimed an unbelievable 6'2"!!!!!ahahah
he struggled with 6ft !!!!!!!!!!
many people do not realize how a legit 6'3" really is. This is the problem. So i see everywhere, listed heights at 6'2"-6'3"-6'4", very easily...ahahaha
alan brisco said on 24/Jun/13
jtm says on 21/Jun/13
doesn't matter if many people agree that eastwood was never over 6'3. that doesn't make it true. a lot of people here thought syl was 5'10 but he was 3.5-4 inches shorter than 5'11 ray liotta.---------------
sly at 5'10"? ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. who said that? maybe some fanboys, like for schwarzenegger or ferrigno. i always said sly was 5'7"-5'8" (barefeet).
jtm says on 21/Jun/13
doesn't matter if many people agree that eastwood was never over 6'3. that doesn't make it true. a lot of people here thought syl was 5'10 but he was 3.5-4 inches shorter than 5'11 ray liotta.---------------
sly at 5'10"? ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. who said that? maybe some fanboys, like for schwarzenegger or ferrigno. i always said sly was 5'7"-5'8" (barefeet).
Silent d said on 22/Jun/13
Chris the kid in gran torino looked about 160cm next to clint eastwood. He used to be 6 foot 4 but I think now 6 foot is about right. He has lost a lot of height. Dowagers hump and other health problems.
Chris the kid in gran torino looked about 160cm next to clint eastwood. He used to be 6 foot 4 but I think now 6 foot is about right. He has lost a lot of height. Dowagers hump and other health problems.
Yaspaa said on 22/Jun/13
Not everyone is an average man, Danimal.
Not everyone is an average man, Danimal.
Kyuss said on 22/Jun/13
Imo 6-3" is more closer.
Imo 6-3" is more closer.
Parker said on 22/Jun/13
I think Clint would measure 6'-6'1 at 83 years old
This pic with DeCaprio was taken ~ 18 months ago. Clint looks to have approx an inch on him IMO....maybe a smidge less
Click Here
I think Clint would measure 6'-6'1 at 83 years old
This pic with DeCaprio was taken ~ 18 months ago. Clint looks to have approx an inch on him IMO....maybe a smidge less
Click Here
jtm said on 21/Jun/13
doesn't matter if many people agree that eastwood was never over 6'3. that doesn't make it true. a lot of people here thought syl was 5'10 but he was 3.5-4 inches shorter than 5'11 ray liotta.
doesn't matter if many people agree that eastwood was never over 6'3. that doesn't make it true. a lot of people here thought syl was 5'10 but he was 3.5-4 inches shorter than 5'11 ray liotta.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Jun/13
I think it might be is slumped posture though. In most photos with Morgan Freeman he looks near 2 inches shorter but in a few where his posture looks right they look closer.I would agree in a lot of photos he can even look like he struggling with 6' today.
I think it might be is slumped posture though. In most photos with Morgan Freeman he looks near 2 inches shorter but in a few where his posture looks right they look closer.I would agree in a lot of photos he can even look like he struggling with 6' today.
Henrik said on 21/Jun/13
He suffers of scoliosis, so I don't see why he could not have suffered a big height loss.
He suffers of scoliosis, so I don't see why he could not have suffered a big height loss.
Parker said on 20/Jun/13
alan brisco says on 19/Jun/13
but as you can see, many people here agree with me.
And many don't. No doubt in my mind Clint was a legit 6'4 in his prime
Left to right Marvin (6'2),Eastwood (6'4) Hudson (6'5).
Click Here
alan brisco says on 19/Jun/13
but as you can see, many people here agree with me.
And many don't. No doubt in my mind Clint was a legit 6'4 in his prime
Left to right Marvin (6'2),Eastwood (6'4) Hudson (6'5).
Click Here
Terry said on 20/Jun/13
Is that 6'4 wearing cowboy boots? His peak height is 6'2, not sure if he has lost height now though.
Is that 6'4 wearing cowboy boots? His peak height is 6'2, not sure if he has lost height now though.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Jun/13
Arch Stanton says on 15/Jun/13
Rob this is a strange one, Click Here
Angle is funny above but him and Affleck look a similar height don't you think?
[Editor Rob: affleck would be taller looking at that photo, he's losing a few cm leaning in I think.]
He can still look 6'1" range at times though don't you think Rob? Then others he can barely look 6'. I still think he could scrape 6'1" earlier in the day with his best posture.
Editor Rob
Arch Stanton says on 15/Jun/13
Rob this is a strange one, Click Here
Angle is funny above but him and Affleck look a similar height don't you think?
[Editor Rob: affleck would be taller looking at that photo, he's losing a few cm leaning in I think.]
He can still look 6'1" range at times though don't you think Rob? Then others he can barely look 6'. I still think he could scrape 6'1" earlier in the day with his best posture.
Editor Rob in general I think he looks 6ft range more often than above it
alan brisco said on 19/Jun/13
5/11 on my knees says on 15/Jun/13
6'4" barefoot no at all...he's the same heigth as dicaprio now..be it he shrunk an inch or two..6'2 barefoot peak...now 6'-------------clintfan, sorry, but as you can see, many people here agree with me. Clint (barefeet), could NOT be over 6'3".
5/11 on my knees says on 15/Jun/13
6'4" barefoot no at all...he's the same heigth as dicaprio now..be it he shrunk an inch or two..6'2 barefoot peak...now 6'-------------clintfan, sorry, but as you can see, many people here agree with me. Clint (barefeet), could NOT be over 6'3".
Arch Stanton said on 15/Jun/13
I suppose Affleck is leaning and the angle is funny, Eastwood has a longer head which confuses things, Affleck's chin level is a few inches higher.
I suppose Affleck is leaning and the angle is funny, Eastwood has a longer head which confuses things, Affleck's chin level is a few inches higher.
Arch Stanton said on 15/Jun/13
Rob this is a strange one, Click Here
Angle is funny above but him and Affleck look a similar height don't you think?
Editor Rob
Rob this is a strange one, Click Here
Angle is funny above but him and Affleck look a similar height don't you think?
Editor Rob affleck would be taller looking at that photo, he's losing a few cm leaning in I think.
Arch Stanton said on 11/Jun/13
At 2 hrs 40 Tuco is digging me up!!
At 2 hrs 40 Tuco is digging me up!!
Arch Stanton said on 11/Jun/13
Click Here
See 2 hrs 11:11. That's the tallest I ever saw Clint look in any of his films, he looks 6 ft 6 there but is on slightly higher ground.
Click Here
See 2 hrs 11:11. That's the tallest I ever saw Clint look in any of his films, he looks 6 ft 6 there but is on slightly higher ground.
alan brisco said on 8/Jun/13
Clint fan says on 7/Jun/13
Alan, I think that you may be underestimating the effect of posture on how tall someone may appear. Why are you not willing to consider that as a possibility?-----because they are only justifications!!! it is not correct to face any topic claiming justifications!---Henrik says on 7/Jun/13
Even if Eastwood was 6'2.5" at peak, what does it prove? Still a pretty tall height, even taller for his time and era.---yes totally agree with you, i do not want prove anything, i am just saying that 6'4" (barefeet) is a overestimated height for clint. (just a little bit). This is only my opinion.
Clint fan says on 7/Jun/13
Alan, I think that you may be underestimating the effect of posture on how tall someone may appear. Why are you not willing to consider that as a possibility?-----because they are only justifications!!! it is not correct to face any topic claiming justifications!---Henrik says on 7/Jun/13
Even if Eastwood was 6'2.5" at peak, what does it prove? Still a pretty tall height, even taller for his time and era.---yes totally agree with you, i do not want prove anything, i am just saying that 6'4" (barefeet) is a overestimated height for clint. (just a little bit). This is only my opinion.
Henrik said on 7/Jun/13
Even if Eastwood was 6'2.5" at peak, what does it prove? Still a pretty tall height, even taller for his time and era.
I think Eastwood proportionally looked just like Christopher Reeve, who the producers of Superman described 6'4" or 6'5". Very ectomorphic with the legs of a 6'6"+ man.
Even if Eastwood was 6'2.5" at peak, what does it prove? Still a pretty tall height, even taller for his time and era.
I think Eastwood proportionally looked just like Christopher Reeve, who the producers of Superman described 6'4" or 6'5". Very ectomorphic with the legs of a 6'6"+ man.
alan brisco said on 6/Jun/13
Clint fan says on 3/Jun/13So, if Ed Harris is 5'9, and Clint was 5 inches taller than him, that puts him at 6'2, at 66 years old, when he would likely have lost significant height.----
NO!!! at 66 he did not lose significant height. It has been proven, a man in good health, can not lose 3-4-5 inches from 20 to 70. This is a nonsense without a serious hump. For ex. if you are 5'11" at 20-40, you can not be 5'7"-5'8" at 60-70!!!!! Is it clear? So at 66 clint lost max max 1 inch. I said ed harris is 5'9" because many people listed him at 5'9", but at the same time many other people listed him at a more realistic 5'8". And i said clint looked 4-5 inches taller. You do not have to say just 5 inches. So for me he looked in the 6'1" range in "absolute power" at 66. I underline the fact that height is measured barefeet, because it is the starting point. For everybody of course. In this case, most say clint peak was 6'4". Being 6'4" barefeet, it means he was 6'5"- 6'6" with shoes or cowboy boots on. This is simply not true. So he could be 6'4" but with shoes on, it means he was 6'2.5"-6'3" barefeet. I keep my idea
Clint fan says on 3/Jun/13So, if Ed Harris is 5'9, and Clint was 5 inches taller than him, that puts him at 6'2, at 66 years old, when he would likely have lost significant height.----
NO!!! at 66 he did not lose significant height. It has been proven, a man in good health, can not lose 3-4-5 inches from 20 to 70. This is a nonsense without a serious hump. For ex. if you are 5'11" at 20-40, you can not be 5'7"-5'8" at 60-70!!!!! Is it clear? So at 66 clint lost max max 1 inch. I said ed harris is 5'9" because many people listed him at 5'9", but at the same time many other people listed him at a more realistic 5'8". And i said clint looked 4-5 inches taller. You do not have to say just 5 inches. So for me he looked in the 6'1" range in "absolute power" at 66. I underline the fact that height is measured barefeet, because it is the starting point. For everybody of course. In this case, most say clint peak was 6'4". Being 6'4" barefeet, it means he was 6'5"- 6'6" with shoes or cowboy boots on. This is simply not true. So he could be 6'4" but with shoes on, it means he was 6'2.5"-6'3" barefeet. I keep my idea
alan brisco said on 1/Jun/13
arch struns, you talk only with justifications, you are able only to scream "manipulated videos, bad posture, bad camera angle", bla bla bla. Ed harris is 5'9", many say he is more like 5'8". in that movie THERE ARE NOT 7-8 INCHES of difference between ed and clint. Clint was 4-5 inches taller than ed. So in the 6'1" range. But he was 65. THIS IS NOT A MANIPULATED VIDEO. Clint never looked 6'6" with cowboy boots on. Eli wallach was for sure in the 5'7" range. You can not see 9-10 inches difference between the two. THIS IS NOT BAD POSTURE. HEIGHT IS MEASURED BAREFEET, but you avoid this concept. Clint could be 6'4" in his prime, BUT WITH SHOES ON. If you do not accept it, never mind.
arch struns, you talk only with justifications, you are able only to scream "manipulated videos, bad posture, bad camera angle", bla bla bla. Ed harris is 5'9", many say he is more like 5'8". in that movie THERE ARE NOT 7-8 INCHES of difference between ed and clint. Clint was 4-5 inches taller than ed. So in the 6'1" range. But he was 65. THIS IS NOT A MANIPULATED VIDEO. Clint never looked 6'6" with cowboy boots on. Eli wallach was for sure in the 5'7" range. You can not see 9-10 inches difference between the two. THIS IS NOT BAD POSTURE. HEIGHT IS MEASURED BAREFEET, but you avoid this concept. Clint could be 6'4" in his prime, BUT WITH SHOES ON. If you do not accept it, never mind.
Arch Stanton said on 31/May/13
Brisco and Johnno will claim Rock Hudson was 6'3.5" as listed and say Eastwood was 6'2.5", about an inch shorter.
Brisco and Johnno will claim Rock Hudson was 6'3.5" as listed and say Eastwood was 6'2.5", about an inch shorter.
Parker said on 29/May/13
@ Clint Fan - Ignore the doubters. He claimed 6'4, why would he do that if he was 6'2-6'3. Why would you care at that height?
Go to 1.26 on this clip next to 6'5 Hudson.
Click Here
Clint was 6'4 prime, no doubt in my opinion.
@ Clint Fan - Ignore the doubters. He claimed 6'4, why would he do that if he was 6'2-6'3. Why would you care at that height?
Go to 1.26 on this clip next to 6'5 Hudson.
Click Here
Clint was 6'4 prime, no doubt in my opinion.
Arch Stanton said on 29/May/13
Clint fan, beware of Brisco and Johnno, they always come up with the stark minimum of all human possibility of heights and at times overstep the mark and look like they're trolling but I think they actually believe what they're saying. To me is seems they'll manipulate any photograph or video and claim just the opposite.
Clint fan, beware of Brisco and Johnno, they always come up with the stark minimum of all human possibility of heights and at times overstep the mark and look like they're trolling but I think they actually believe what they're saying. To me is seems they'll manipulate any photograph or video and claim just the opposite.
Arch Stanton said on 29/May/13
Mark says on 20/May/13
I don't, I generally think men lose height by 60 onwards. But a small percentage lose height by their 50s and Eastwood was one of them, you can see he looked noticeably shorter by his late 50s than as a young man.
Mark says on 20/May/13
I don't, I generally think men lose height by 60 onwards. But a small percentage lose height by their 50s and Eastwood was one of them, you can see he looked noticeably shorter by his late 50s than as a young man.
alan brisco said on 29/May/13
i just saw "absolute power" with clint and ed harris. Well Harris is not a tall man for sure, listed anywhere at 5'9". It should be realistic. Watch the movie. Clint was approx. 4 inches(10cm) taller than him, max 5 inches. 7-8 inches of difference between the two is only a fake, absolutely. Watch the movie. Clint at the time was 65, but still in good shape, any hump or serious back problem. So he looked in the 6'1" range in that movie, at 65. You can understand he could not be 6'4" barefeet at 20-30. My resume: clint peak barefeet 6'2.5"-6'3". With normal shoes on: 6'3.5"-6'4". With cowboy boots on: 6'4.5"-6'5".
i just saw "absolute power" with clint and ed harris. Well Harris is not a tall man for sure, listed anywhere at 5'9". It should be realistic. Watch the movie. Clint was approx. 4 inches(10cm) taller than him, max 5 inches. 7-8 inches of difference between the two is only a fake, absolutely. Watch the movie. Clint at the time was 65, but still in good shape, any hump or serious back problem. So he looked in the 6'1" range in that movie, at 65. You can understand he could not be 6'4" barefeet at 20-30. My resume: clint peak barefeet 6'2.5"-6'3". With normal shoes on: 6'3.5"-6'4". With cowboy boots on: 6'4.5"-6'5".
alan brisco said on 29/May/13
Clintfan, do you know this brolin? face to face? many people stated him at 6'3".
My simple question is: if Clint was 6'4" barefeet, he would have been tall approx. 6'5" with "normal shoes" on, and 6'6" with cowboy boots on. Did he look 6'5"-6'6" with normal shoes or cowboy boots on? my simple answer is: NO!
Clintfan, do you know this brolin? face to face? many people stated him at 6'3".
My simple question is: if Clint was 6'4" barefeet, he would have been tall approx. 6'5" with "normal shoes" on, and 6'6" with cowboy boots on. Did he look 6'5"-6'6" with normal shoes or cowboy boots on? my simple answer is: NO!
alan brisco said on 22/May/13
Arch Stanton says on 16/May/13: I've got most of Clint's films on DVD and how he looks in the films which is much better for looking at height that the odd photograph and up until the early 80s he really did look very close to 6'4".-----
YES 6'4", BUT WITH SHOES ON!!! HEIGHT IS MEASURED BAREFOOT. It means he was 6'2.5"-6'3" barefoot.
Arch Stanton says on 16/May/13: I've got most of Clint's films on DVD and how he looks in the films which is much better for looking at height that the odd photograph and up until the early 80s he really did look very close to 6'4".-----
YES 6'4", BUT WITH SHOES ON!!! HEIGHT IS MEASURED BAREFOOT. It means he was 6'2.5"-6'3" barefoot.
alan brisco said on 22/May/13
in fact in the pic with brolin he does not look over 6'3". Absolutely. He does not look taller than brolin. Look also the shoulders level. And he had shoes on of course. I am a little bit tired of reply, but i have to:Arch Stanton says on 16/May/13 Alan, you pick select photographs.
And cowboy boots generally give 1.5-2 inches. I think it is possible they measured him at 6'5.5" in boots.-----------Well minimum cowboy boots give you 2 inches, minimum, he never looked 6'6" or 6'6.5" close to lee vc and eli wallach.
A man at 6'4" barefoot look clearly 6'6" with cowboy boots on. I am realizing here in this great website that people do not understand height is measured barefoot. So with shoes on (of course it depends on shoes) you add something.
I keep my idea, you keep your idea. For me clint eastwood was 6'2.5-6'3" barefoot. So with normal shoes on he looked 6'3.5"-6'4", with cowboy boots on he looked 6'6". This is realistic. All the pics here have the same value. Stop with justifications. Posture or camera angle.
in fact in the pic with brolin he does not look over 6'3". Absolutely. He does not look taller than brolin. Look also the shoulders level. And he had shoes on of course. I am a little bit tired of reply, but i have to:Arch Stanton says on 16/May/13 Alan, you pick select photographs.
And cowboy boots generally give 1.5-2 inches. I think it is possible they measured him at 6'5.5" in boots.-----------Well minimum cowboy boots give you 2 inches, minimum, he never looked 6'6" or 6'6.5" close to lee vc and eli wallach.
A man at 6'4" barefoot look clearly 6'6" with cowboy boots on. I am realizing here in this great website that people do not understand height is measured barefoot. So with shoes on (of course it depends on shoes) you add something.
I keep my idea, you keep your idea. For me clint eastwood was 6'2.5-6'3" barefoot. So with normal shoes on he looked 6'3.5"-6'4", with cowboy boots on he looked 6'6". This is realistic. All the pics here have the same value. Stop with justifications. Posture or camera angle.
Mark said on 20/May/13
...there eems to be many who think that, by your late 40's, you've lost height. Newsflash; I'm almost 48, and the same, if not a hair taller, than I was 20 years ago, based on height taken at morning and night now...and 20 years ago. No change.
...there eems to be many who think that, by your late 40's, you've lost height. Newsflash; I'm almost 48, and the same, if not a hair taller, than I was 20 years ago, based on height taken at morning and night now...and 20 years ago. No change.
wingnut said on 18/May/13
clint also had a bit part in a rock hudson film; there's a scene
where they are standing next to each other.
They are practically the same height.
Sorry i can't post link but there are a couple of new documentaries on
youtube; just type clint eastwood and the scene with hudson is on one
of them.
clint also had a bit part in a rock hudson film; there's a scene
where they are standing next to each other.
They are practically the same height.
Sorry i can't post link but there are a couple of new documentaries on
youtube; just type clint eastwood and the scene with hudson is on one
of them.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/13
Rickles was listed at 5 ft 6, but check out his big heels at 1:46. Looks like he's wearing big lifts with stack heels on the outside too. And Clint still looked near 10 inches taller than him even in 1986 when he seemed to have begun losing a bit of height.
Rickles was listed at 5 ft 6, but check out his big heels at 1:46. Looks like he's wearing big lifts with stack heels on the outside too. And Clint still looked near 10 inches taller than him even in 1986 when he seemed to have begun losing a bit of height.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/13
Alan, you pick select photographs. I've got most of Clint's films on DVD and how he looks in the films which is much better for looking at height that the odd photograph and up until the early 80s he really did look very close to 6'4". As Orne says, he wasn't under 192 peak. He has consistently looked easily 3 inches taller than 6'1" listed guys, had between 2 and 3 inches on Jeff Bridges etc, had about 2 inches on guys like Tim Matheson, was slightly taller than Michael Moriarty even at a time he had seemed to have begun to lose a bit of height. I used to think Clint was about 6'2" and was shocked when I first found out he was 6 ft 4, but I've seen enough of his films and how he looked in his prime to think it is quite clear he was as tall as this. I, Rob, James and others here have said that he could have been 6'3.5", but none of us believe he was as low as 6'3" or less. As for him not looking 6'6" in the westerns I agree, but there is a waxwork of him in a Californian museum which was taken of him during the Dollars period and it measures 6'5" and a half in boots. And cowboy boots generally give 1.5-2 inches. I think it is possible they measured him at 6'5.5" in boots.
Alan, you pick select photographs. I've got most of Clint's films on DVD and how he looks in the films which is much better for looking at height that the odd photograph and up until the early 80s he really did look very close to 6'4". As Orne says, he wasn't under 192 peak. He has consistently looked easily 3 inches taller than 6'1" listed guys, had between 2 and 3 inches on Jeff Bridges etc, had about 2 inches on guys like Tim Matheson, was slightly taller than Michael Moriarty even at a time he had seemed to have begun to lose a bit of height. I used to think Clint was about 6'2" and was shocked when I first found out he was 6 ft 4, but I've seen enough of his films and how he looked in his prime to think it is quite clear he was as tall as this. I, Rob, James and others here have said that he could have been 6'3.5", but none of us believe he was as low as 6'3" or less. As for him not looking 6'6" in the westerns I agree, but there is a waxwork of him in a Californian museum which was taken of him during the Dollars period and it measures 6'5" and a half in boots. And cowboy boots generally give 1.5-2 inches. I think it is possible they measured him at 6'5.5" in boots.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/13
jervis says on 9/May/13
the photos with segal were from 95 when clint was 65 years old and there is about 2 inches between
Clint had already shrunk to 6'2.5-6'3" by 1995, see the Arnie pics. Seagal often wears big boots and a case could be made for 6'4.5" for him anyway. Seagal claims 6'5". That Seagal had two inches on him by then is expected.
jervis says on 9/May/13
the photos with segal were from 95 when clint was 65 years old and there is about 2 inches between
Clint had already shrunk to 6'2.5-6'3" by 1995, see the Arnie pics. Seagal often wears big boots and a case could be made for 6'4.5" for him anyway. Seagal claims 6'5". That Seagal had two inches on him by then is expected.
Arch Stanton said on 16/May/13
Great find Jack. Look at him sitting down at 1:13, he just looks like a 6'4" man sitting down (and standing up next to Rickles too). Clint is an honest straight laced guy, I can't see a man who was clearly very tall peak fudging his height can you?
Great find Jack. Look at him sitting down at 1:13, he just looks like a 6'4" man sitting down (and standing up next to Rickles too). Clint is an honest straight laced guy, I can't see a man who was clearly very tall peak fudging his height can you?
Jack said on 14/May/13
Did any of you actually know Clint Eastwood? He has said himself he was 6'4" I would tend to go along with that. John Wayne and Clint were both very similar in height 6'4". Are you going to tell us next John Wayne was only 6' foot?
Did any of you actually know Clint Eastwood? He has said himself he was 6'4" I would tend to go along with that. John Wayne and Clint were both very similar in height 6'4". Are you going to tell us next John Wayne was only 6' foot?
alan brisco said on 13/May/13
please arch, everytime there is a pic where clint does not tower the other person, you speak about bad posture or bad camera angle. Please stop! when i say he was about 6'2.5"-6'3", yes it means 6'3" range. This is realistic. 6'4" is overestimated for clint, this is my opinion. i am totally agree with yaspaa. If he was 6'4", with cowboy boots on, he would have been tall in the 6'6" range. Please! absolutely a fake!!!
please arch, everytime there is a pic where clint does not tower the other person, you speak about bad posture or bad camera angle. Please stop! when i say he was about 6'2.5"-6'3", yes it means 6'3" range. This is realistic. 6'4" is overestimated for clint, this is my opinion. i am totally agree with yaspaa. If he was 6'4", with cowboy boots on, he would have been tall in the 6'6" range. Please! absolutely a fake!!!
wingnut said on 10/May/13
hey,guys.Go to youtube and type in Don Rickles roasts Clint Eastwood.
I know Rickles is short but Clint towers him.
Even back then,in the mid-80's,in my opinion,he was well over 6'2".
hey,guys.Go to youtube and type in Don Rickles roasts Clint Eastwood.
I know Rickles is short but Clint towers him.
Even back then,in the mid-80's,in my opinion,he was well over 6'2".
jervis said on 9/May/13
the photos with segal were from 95 when clint was 65 years old and there is about 2 inches between
the photos with segal were from 95 when clint was 65 years old and there is about 2 inches between
Lorne$ said on 9/May/13
believ me, being a doctor does not make you smart; Remember, AVERAGE loss at 70 is around 2 inches; so by 80 it would be closer to 3 inches. How much closer? Not sure. Point is, if average, as in, you know, NORMAL loss is 2 inches at age 70, then losing 3.5 inches by age 80 honestly idn't that extreme at all. Especially considering his hump these days! But seriously, if you haven't researched height loss, don't talk about it please, much less what some mysterious "doctor" or group of doctors said, when I have a strange feeling they have never studied height at all. Seriously, ask them they're morning height ;). And again, for the record, Eastwood wasn't under 192cm at peak...$&@?!
believ me, being a doctor does not make you smart; Remember, AVERAGE loss at 70 is around 2 inches; so by 80 it would be closer to 3 inches. How much closer? Not sure. Point is, if average, as in, you know, NORMAL loss is 2 inches at age 70, then losing 3.5 inches by age 80 honestly idn't that extreme at all. Especially considering his hump these days! But seriously, if you haven't researched height loss, don't talk about it please, much less what some mysterious "doctor" or group of doctors said, when I have a strange feeling they have never studied height at all. Seriously, ask them they're morning height ;). And again, for the record, Eastwood wasn't under 192cm at peak...$&@?!
Arch Stanton said on 8/May/13
You could argue 6'3" range peak, but seriously anything under 190 peak is absolute b******s.
You could argue 6'3" range peak, but seriously anything under 190 peak is absolute b******s.
Arch Stanton said on 8/May/13
Alan, Eastwood was also barely an inch shorter than Rock Hudson in 1955.
Alan, Eastwood was also barely an inch shorter than Rock Hudson in 1955.
Arch Stanton said on 8/May/13
Alan, Eastwood looks an easy 6'3" next to Holden but the angle really isn't a good photo, the height difference would look more pronounced if taken from in front of them for sure. Eastwood had 1-1.5 on Charlton Heston at an award ceremony in 1972 or so. Heston was 6'1" max peak huh?
Alan, Eastwood looks an easy 6'3" next to Holden but the angle really isn't a good photo, the height difference would look more pronounced if taken from in front of them for sure. Eastwood had 1-1.5 on Charlton Heston at an award ceremony in 1972 or so. Heston was 6'1" max peak huh?
Gus said on 5/May/13
Was at least 191cm peak, had 2 inches on legit 6'1 Jeff Bridges right the way through thunderbolt and lightfoot who some even say is 6'2.
Was at least 191cm peak, had 2 inches on legit 6'1 Jeff Bridges right the way through thunderbolt and lightfoot who some even say is 6'2.
alan brisco said on 5/May/13
Danimal, for you all those celebs are 6'2"-6'3"-6'4"-6'5". You can continue to live in your fake world, if you like it. No problem.
It is totally a nonsense for a man being tall 6'4" at 20-40, then shrinking at 6ft at 70-80. I know what doctors say. You can lose a couple of inches, but 4 inches are a nonsense!
Hope it works, Clint with william holden:
Click Here
So, william holden was for sure in the 5'10" range, shorter than the legit 5'11" glenn ford. You can clearly see a young clint eastwood about 4 inches taller than holden. YOU CAN NOT SEE 6-7 INCHES BETWEEN THE TWO!!! IS IT CLEAR???
Clint Eastwood peak was 6'2.5"-6'3"(189-190cm) NOTHING MORE.
Danimal, for you all those celebs are 6'2"-6'3"-6'4"-6'5". You can continue to live in your fake world, if you like it. No problem.
It is totally a nonsense for a man being tall 6'4" at 20-40, then shrinking at 6ft at 70-80. I know what doctors say. You can lose a couple of inches, but 4 inches are a nonsense!
Hope it works, Clint with william holden:
Click Here
So, william holden was for sure in the 5'10" range, shorter than the legit 5'11" glenn ford. You can clearly see a young clint eastwood about 4 inches taller than holden. YOU CAN NOT SEE 6-7 INCHES BETWEEN THE TWO!!! IS IT CLEAR???
Clint Eastwood peak was 6'2.5"-6'3"(189-190cm) NOTHING MORE.
Arch Stanton said on 5/May/13
LOL OK 6'2" for Eastwood and 6'0" for Connery if it makes you feel better folks!!
LOL OK 6'2" for Eastwood and 6'0" for Connery if it makes you feel better folks!!
thin man said on 4/May/13
Danimal I totally agree with you man. Guy was never 6'4" To all those others who say he lost 7.5cm -10cm say what? 5-6cm perhaps but 10cm for an 80 year old Healthy 80 year old I may add. no way. There is a picture of hin in his 50's next to steven seagal and Clint look all of 6'1.5" tall. Seagal towered over him then.
Danimal I totally agree with you man. Guy was never 6'4" To all those others who say he lost 7.5cm -10cm say what? 5-6cm perhaps but 10cm for an 80 year old Healthy 80 year old I may add. no way. There is a picture of hin in his 50's next to steven seagal and Clint look all of 6'1.5" tall. Seagal towered over him then.
Yaspaa said on 1/May/13
Still doesn't mean he was 6'4. Pushing 6'6 in his cowboy boots, no way. Under 6'3 peak. Wasn't as tall as Larry Hankin in Escape.
Still doesn't mean he was 6'4. Pushing 6'6 in his cowboy boots, no way. Under 6'3 peak. Wasn't as tall as Larry Hankin in Escape.
alan brisco said on 1/May/13
please arch, do not joke with "the posture story"...any bad posture can cancel 3 inches! (6'1"-6'4")
here the posture is correct for both:
Click Here
So i keep my idea: lee vc a legit 6'1", clint at 6'2.5"-6'3".
6'4" is overestimated for clint.
Sutherland a shadow shorter than clint.
And about connery, i saw "rising sun" with wesley snipes. Well, snipes is a legit 5'9"....YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY THAT CONNERY WAS TALLER THAN SNIPES OF ABOUT 2-3 INCHES. Nothing more. So in the 6ft range!. Of course he was "old", lost something in height....Peak connery max 6'1". Nothing more. 6'1.5"-6'2" overestimated.
please arch, do not joke with "the posture story"...any bad posture can cancel 3 inches! (6'1"-6'4")
here the posture is correct for both:
Click Here
So i keep my idea: lee vc a legit 6'1", clint at 6'2.5"-6'3".
6'4" is overestimated for clint.
Sutherland a shadow shorter than clint.
And about connery, i saw "rising sun" with wesley snipes. Well, snipes is a legit 5'9"....YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY THAT CONNERY WAS TALLER THAN SNIPES OF ABOUT 2-3 INCHES. Nothing more. So in the 6ft range!. Of course he was "old", lost something in height....Peak connery max 6'1". Nothing more. 6'1.5"-6'2" overestimated.
Dmeyer said on 30/Apr/13
With DiCaprio he looks taller than à Guy like 183/184 watanabe Clint could be 185cm or Léo Israël 181cm ,
With DiCaprio he looks taller than à Guy like 183/184 watanabe Clint could be 185cm or Léo Israël 181cm ,
Arch Stanton said on 29/Apr/13
Brisco, look at Eastwood's posture in that photograph LOL. Really bad angle and photo and posture to judge height. I've seen the films zillions of times and Eastwood looked more than an inch taller than Van Cleef. As for comparing somebody's height with Stallone, you clearly know little about height and Stallone's footwear. Likeihood is that he is pulling off a look taller than 5'8"-5'9" in his films and nearer 5'10"-5'11". If you are claiming Sutherland was 6'2 tops then you're also claiming Sean Connery was 6 ft max when it is a fact that he was measured at 6'1.5" by the Bond tailors and what he has claimed. Add two inches to Connery's measured height and you have Sutherland's height at peak, 6'3.5". And also remember Connery was supposedly measured once at 6'2.4, so claiming both Sutherland and Eastwood were 6'2" range is laughable.
Brisco, look at Eastwood's posture in that photograph LOL. Really bad angle and photo and posture to judge height. I've seen the films zillions of times and Eastwood looked more than an inch taller than Van Cleef. As for comparing somebody's height with Stallone, you clearly know little about height and Stallone's footwear. Likeihood is that he is pulling off a look taller than 5'8"-5'9" in his films and nearer 5'10"-5'11". If you are claiming Sutherland was 6'2 tops then you're also claiming Sean Connery was 6 ft max when it is a fact that he was measured at 6'1.5" by the Bond tailors and what he has claimed. Add two inches to Connery's measured height and you have Sutherland's height at peak, 6'3.5". And also remember Connery was supposedly measured once at 6'2.4, so claiming both Sutherland and Eastwood were 6'2" range is laughable.
Parker said on 29/Apr/13
I'd always come back to the interview he gave some years ago where he said he was 6'4 at 15. 6'3/6'4 its tall! Why would he say it if he wasn't 6'4?
Look at the shooting scene in Magnum Force with Robert Urich and Tim Matheson both listed 6'2 on here. Clint looks a clear 2 inches taller.
I'd always come back to the interview he gave some years ago where he said he was 6'4 at 15. 6'3/6'4 its tall! Why would he say it if he wasn't 6'4?
Look at the shooting scene in Magnum Force with Robert Urich and Tim Matheson both listed 6'2 on here. Clint looks a clear 2 inches taller.
alan brisco said on 28/Apr/13
i do not know if it is works:
Click Here
It is clear clint had just an inch over leevc. Just a little bit taller.
lee vc was in the 6'1" range. Nothing more. for sure. without cowboy boots
clint eastwood, i keep him at 6'2.5" (189cm). Max max max at 6'3".
Connery at 6'2" was overestimated. I read on a movie magazine, listed at 6ft(183cm) Realistic.
Sutherland for sure was in the 6'2" range. I repeat, just watch him in the movie with stallone. Stallone at 5'8"-5'9", you can not see 8-9 inches between the two. Sutherland taller than stallone of 5-6 inches is more realistic.
i do not know if it is works:
Click Here
It is clear clint had just an inch over leevc. Just a little bit taller.
lee vc was in the 6'1" range. Nothing more. for sure. without cowboy boots
clint eastwood, i keep him at 6'2.5" (189cm). Max max max at 6'3".
Connery at 6'2" was overestimated. I read on a movie magazine, listed at 6ft(183cm) Realistic.
Sutherland for sure was in the 6'2" range. I repeat, just watch him in the movie with stallone. Stallone at 5'8"-5'9", you can not see 8-9 inches between the two. Sutherland taller than stallone of 5-6 inches is more realistic.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Apr/13
A case could be made for 6'3" range for both Eastwood and John Wayne, I could believe 192cm peak for both but I think Eastwood clearly looked too lanky to have been anything under 6'3". To me he looked a good 2 inches taller on screen than guys like Connery and Van Cleef who were about the same height, 6'1.5"-6'2". And Eastwood did have a clear 2 inches on Van Cleef in For a Few Dollars more, 1 inch would have been barely noticeable; the difference was clear.
A case could be made for 6'3" range for both Eastwood and John Wayne, I could believe 192cm peak for both but I think Eastwood clearly looked too lanky to have been anything under 6'3". To me he looked a good 2 inches taller on screen than guys like Connery and Van Cleef who were about the same height, 6'1.5"-6'2". And Eastwood did have a clear 2 inches on Van Cleef in For a Few Dollars more, 1 inch would have been barely noticeable; the difference was clear.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Apr/13
Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Connery in the Great Train Robbery, 6 ft for Sean Connery? Because Connery consistently looked around 6'2" himself...
Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Connery in the Great Train Robbery, 6 ft for Sean Connery? Because Connery consistently looked around 6'2" himself...
wiltonstilts said on 23/Apr/13
You people are insane. He was 6'04 at his peak ... He's a very tall man even now I don't believe he's a man of 6 foot even. 6'02 now seems like a better estimate.
You people are insane. He was 6'04 at his peak ... He's a very tall man even now I don't believe he's a man of 6 foot even. 6'02 now seems like a better estimate.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Apr/13
In the 50s Daniele when he was in his 20s, Eastwood was in a movie with Rock Hudson and barely looked shorter.
In the 50s Daniele when he was in his 20s, Eastwood was in a movie with Rock Hudson and barely looked shorter.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Apr/13
I agree, it seems incredibly hard to believe he was anywhere near Tim Robbins in height when you seem him next to him, looks 4-5 inches shorter today. But look at his legs, he has longer legs than Tim Robbins. And if you look at him peak, yes he had lanky legs but he had a sizeable length torso too. He's lost a lot of height, it happens to some people.
I agree, it seems incredibly hard to believe he was anywhere near Tim Robbins in height when you seem him next to him, looks 4-5 inches shorter today. But look at his legs, he has longer legs than Tim Robbins. And if you look at him peak, yes he had lanky legs but he had a sizeable length torso too. He's lost a lot of height, it happens to some people.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Apr/13
Also if Eastwood was max 6'2.5" why was he a shade taller than Donal Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes, when Donald Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Sean Connery in the Great Train Robbery? That would put Sutherland at 6'2" and Connery at 6' tops peak.
Also if Eastwood was max 6'2.5" why was he a shade taller than Donal Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes, when Donald Sutherland had an easy 2 inches on Sean Connery in the Great Train Robbery? That would put Sutherland at 6'2" and Connery at 6' tops peak.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Apr/13
Alan, Eastwood had a clear 2 inches on Van Cleef. Van Cleef wasn't under 6'1.5" peak.
Alan, Eastwood had a clear 2 inches on Van Cleef. Van Cleef wasn't under 6'1.5" peak.
alan brisco said on 14/Apr/13
Clint at 6'4" was a fake listed for years. He was clearly shorter. A tall man for sure, but not so tall. He was very similar to lee van cleef, who was in the 6'1" range. How a man can lose 4 inches? is it a joke? when you get old, of course you lose something but 4-5 inches is a joke for a healthy man. You can lose 5-10 inches if you have the hump, but clint is normal. So for me he was 6'1.5"-6'3" (187-190 cm). I would say max 6'2.5" (189 cm).
No way he was taller than 6'3". Fake.
Clint at 6'4" was a fake listed for years. He was clearly shorter. A tall man for sure, but not so tall. He was very similar to lee van cleef, who was in the 6'1" range. How a man can lose 4 inches? is it a joke? when you get old, of course you lose something but 4-5 inches is a joke for a healthy man. You can lose 5-10 inches if you have the hump, but clint is normal. So for me he was 6'1.5"-6'3" (187-190 cm). I would say max 6'2.5" (189 cm).
No way he was taller than 6'3". Fake.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Apr/13
@Daniele
What you mean is that you saw him in 2003, thought he looked a bit shorter than you at 6'1.5" but noticed his slouching and dowagers hump back problem so estimated that at his peak he'd have been a strong 6'3" guy but 6'4" seemed a bit high to imagine he ever was right? Because I agree in 2003 he'd have been 6'1.5-6'2" range and could probably look 6'1" even by then because of posture.
@Daniele
What you mean is that you saw him in 2003, thought he looked a bit shorter than you at 6'1.5" but noticed his slouching and dowagers hump back problem so estimated that at his peak he'd have been a strong 6'3" guy but 6'4" seemed a bit high to imagine he ever was right? Because I agree in 2003 he'd have been 6'1.5-6'2" range and could probably look 6'1" even by then because of posture.
Arch Stanton said on 14/Apr/13
Daniele, you're a guy right? Can't think of many girls called Daniele who'd be taller than a strong 6'3" !
Daniele, you're a guy right? Can't think of many girls called Daniele who'd be taller than a strong 6'3" !
Arch Stanton said on 14/Apr/13
Daniele says on 4/Apr/13
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Eastwood began losing height in the 80s. He was 6'4" prime or at least 6'3.5". Agreed 6'4" evening height is hard to believe but I think he was a guy who genuinely measured 6'4" or a bit over in the morning. Daniele by 1988 he was a little over 6'3" I think based on comparison with Liam Neeson, by 1995 he was looking 6'2.5" range next to Meryl Streep and Arnie, by 2003 Mystic River period he'd shrunk to 6'1.5-6'2" range. He defiinitely wouldn't have been a strong 6'3' in 2003, compared him to Tim Robbins in 2003, he was looking 6'1.5"-6'2" range. Today I think he could just scrape 6'1" f stood straight earlier in the day but he can look barely 6' at times because of posture.
Daniele says on 4/Apr/13
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Eastwood began losing height in the 80s. He was 6'4" prime or at least 6'3.5". Agreed 6'4" evening height is hard to believe but I think he was a guy who genuinely measured 6'4" or a bit over in the morning. Daniele by 1988 he was a little over 6'3" I think based on comparison with Liam Neeson, by 1995 he was looking 6'2.5" range next to Meryl Streep and Arnie, by 2003 Mystic River period he'd shrunk to 6'1.5-6'2" range. He defiinitely wouldn't have been a strong 6'3' in 2003, compared him to Tim Robbins in 2003, he was looking 6'1.5"-6'2" range. Today I think he could just scrape 6'1" f stood straight earlier in the day but he can look barely 6' at times because of posture.
Lenad said on 6/Apr/13
I dont think he was ever over 6'3
I dont think he was ever over 6'3
Parker said on 5/Apr/13
Daniele says on 4/Apr/13
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Parker maybe this photo (Click Here) is better for a comparison between Clint and DiCaprio. A inch sounds a bit excessive, but I admit not to be an expert in guessing people's height... What do you think about that (considering that DiCaprio is 182cm tall)? According to this photo and my personal experience I'd say today he's in 6'0.5-6'1 range.
Eyes to bottom of nose ~ 2 inches.I do think Clint has at least an inch on DiCaprio, possibly 3cms. I think your estimate is bang on.
In regarding Clint's peak height. All I can say is I remember him speaking in an interview many years ago and he said at age 15 he was the second tallest in his school year at 6'4, the tallest being 6'5. He looked to have a good 2 inches on Robert Urich in Magnum Force. 10 years ago he would have been in his 70's and would have definately been below his peak height.
Daniele says on 4/Apr/13
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Parker maybe this photo (Click Here) is better for a comparison between Clint and DiCaprio. A inch sounds a bit excessive, but I admit not to be an expert in guessing people's height... What do you think about that (considering that DiCaprio is 182cm tall)? According to this photo and my personal experience I'd say today he's in 6'0.5-6'1 range.
Eyes to bottom of nose ~ 2 inches.I do think Clint has at least an inch on DiCaprio, possibly 3cms. I think your estimate is bang on.
In regarding Clint's peak height. All I can say is I remember him speaking in an interview many years ago and he said at age 15 he was the second tallest in his school year at 6'4, the tallest being 6'5. He looked to have a good 2 inches on Robert Urich in Magnum Force. 10 years ago he would have been in his 70's and would have definately been below his peak height.
Mark said on 5/Apr/13
I'm confused. How can Eastwood have been a strong 6'3, which is only barely an inch from 6'4, but it not be conceivable that he was actually 6'4 when you saw him? I mean, we're only talking an inch. As for the 2 photos, here, with he and DiCaprio, they look the smae to me, making Eastwood, then, around 6'0 to 6'1. Personally, I say he was 6'3 peak, "maybe" 6'4 out of bed.
I'm confused. How can Eastwood have been a strong 6'3, which is only barely an inch from 6'4, but it not be conceivable that he was actually 6'4 when you saw him? I mean, we're only talking an inch. As for the 2 photos, here, with he and DiCaprio, they look the smae to me, making Eastwood, then, around 6'0 to 6'1. Personally, I say he was 6'3 peak, "maybe" 6'4 out of bed.
Daniele said on 4/Apr/13
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Parker maybe this photo (Click Here) is better for a comparison between Clint and DiCaprio. A inch sounds a bit excessive, but I admit not to be an expert in guessing people's height... What do you think about that (considering that DiCaprio is 182cm tall)? According to this photo and my personal experience I'd say today he's in 6'0.5-6'1 range.
I met him ten years ago in London at a preview of Mystic River (I was barely 18 years old). I saw him from the distance (more than 3-4 meters) but he seemed just a bit shorter than me. Maybe he has shrunk during these years but I can't believe that he was 6ft 4. He was definitely a strong 6ft 3 but no more than that.
Parker maybe this photo (Click Here) is better for a comparison between Clint and DiCaprio. A inch sounds a bit excessive, but I admit not to be an expert in guessing people's height... What do you think about that (considering that DiCaprio is 182cm tall)? According to this photo and my personal experience I'd say today he's in 6'0.5-6'1 range.
Daniele said on 1/Apr/13
If he stretches he can look even taller than 6ft 1in. I met him (I'm 6'1.5 on the dot), he was just a bit shorter than me because of his awful posture. He looks very tall in Sergio Leone's movies because he is slim and slounched. He was 6ft 3, + - 1cm, according to me. He was a really good looking man!
If he stretches he can look even taller than 6ft 1in. I met him (I'm 6'1.5 on the dot), he was just a bit shorter than me because of his awful posture. He looks very tall in Sergio Leone's movies because he is slim and slounched. He was 6ft 3, + - 1cm, according to me. He was a really good looking man!
eddie said on 31/Mar/13
6'3'5'' peak 6'0-511.5 now.
6'3'5'' peak 6'0-511.5 now.
Anonymous said on 25/Mar/13
Imo Id say clint was a round 6-3" peak,now lost a good few inches.
Imo Id say clint was a round 6-3" peak,now lost a good few inches.
Arch Stanton said on 25/Mar/13
He can still look 6'1" range in my opinion at times.
He can still look 6'1" range in my opinion at times.
Arch Stanton said on 23/Mar/13
Hey James, how tall does Chris Brosnan look proportionally to you Click Here . See him next to Pierce. He looks like he could be legit 6'4" doesn't he?
Hey James, how tall does Chris Brosnan look proportionally to you Click Here . See him next to Pierce. He looks like he could be legit 6'4" doesn't he?
Arch Stanton said on 14/Mar/13
Yeah LOL, James you're looking a bit too much into it! James, in Play Misty for Me because his hair was longer than normal his hair actually wasn't as high as it was as Dirty Harry due to the weight of it.
Yeah LOL, James you're looking a bit too much into it! James, in Play Misty for Me because his hair was longer than normal his hair actually wasn't as high as it was as Dirty Harry due to the weight of it.
Mark said on 3/Mar/13
For what little it's worth, I saw a photo of Chuck Connors (6'5), Larry Byrd and Robert Urich. Proximity to the camera aside, Urich looked a "great deal" shorter, 3 to 4 inches minimum, than Chuck Connors. I mention this because it's often assumed, on Eastwood's height page, that Urich was a full 6'2. I've never believed that. It's the same with David Soul. In judging Eastwood's height, often Urich's and Soul's are given as comparisons..those being 6'2 and 6'1, respectively. I've never believed that height, for either man, and believe, based on all I've seen and read of them, growing up in the 70's, that Urich was 6'1 tops, and Soul 5'11. Just my opinion, but nothing I've ever read here has given me cause to change my mind.
For what little it's worth, I saw a photo of Chuck Connors (6'5), Larry Byrd and Robert Urich. Proximity to the camera aside, Urich looked a "great deal" shorter, 3 to 4 inches minimum, than Chuck Connors. I mention this because it's often assumed, on Eastwood's height page, that Urich was a full 6'2. I've never believed that. It's the same with David Soul. In judging Eastwood's height, often Urich's and Soul's are given as comparisons..those being 6'2 and 6'1, respectively. I've never believed that height, for either man, and believe, based on all I've seen and read of them, growing up in the 70's, that Urich was 6'1 tops, and Soul 5'11. Just my opinion, but nothing I've ever read here has given me cause to change my mind.
James said on 28/Feb/13
6'3.5 is more sound for his peak.
6'3.5 is more sound for his peak.
Arch Stanton said on 25/Feb/13
Click Here
She wasn't hot in Play Misty for Me at all, but with long hair when she was younger, looks absolutely beautiful in that photo.
Click Here
She wasn't hot in Play Misty for Me at all, but with long hair when she was younger, looks absolutely beautiful in that photo.
James said on 24/Feb/13
Whatching play misty for me now and Clint looks 6ft4.5 for sure. That is probably his hairstlye creating that effect though.
Funny cause in dirty harry which came out the same year only looked 6ft3.
Whatching play misty for me now and Clint looks 6ft4.5 for sure. That is probably his hairstlye creating that effect though.
Funny cause in dirty harry which came out the same year only looked 6ft3.
James said on 24/Feb/13
seagal was claiming his out of bed height
seagal was claiming his out of bed height
James said on 23/Feb/13
Looked 191cm in the Gauntley
Looked 191cm in the Gauntley
wingnut said on 23/Feb/13
The shape of one's body can have an effect on how tall somebody look's.
Eastwood looked his tallest into his mid 40's.Then he bulked up for every which way but loose:looking wider and therefore not as rangy.
The shape of one's body can have an effect on how tall somebody look's.
Eastwood looked his tallest into his mid 40's.Then he bulked up for every which way but loose:looking wider and therefore not as rangy.
wingnut said on 23/Feb/13
I heard in a interview seagal say he was 6'5
I heard in a interview seagal say he was 6'5
TonyO said on 23/Feb/13
In the firing range scene in "Magnum Force", he looked at least 1" taller than Matheson and Urich.
In the firing range scene in "Magnum Force", he looked at least 1" taller than Matheson and Urich.
James said on 22/Feb/13
A textbook example of a 6'4 man would be Steven seagal not Clint eastwood
A textbook example of a 6'4 man would be Steven seagal not Clint eastwood
James said on 22/Feb/13
Donald Sutherland 6'3.25 (191cm) peak
Clint Eastwood 6'3.5 (192cm) peak
Jeff Goldblum 6'4.25 (194cm) peak
Jeff Bridges 6'1.25 (186cm) peak
Liam Neeson 6'4.5 (194cm) peak
Donald Sutherland 6'3.25 (191cm) peak
Clint Eastwood 6'3.5 (192cm) peak
Jeff Goldblum 6'4.25 (194cm) peak
Jeff Bridges 6'1.25 (186cm) peak
Liam Neeson 6'4.5 (194cm) peak
Arch Stanton said on 22/Feb/13
Yeah he does James, he certainly looks a solid 6'3" guy. Click Here He's certainly got the torso of a 6'4" guy anyway..
Yeah he does James, he certainly looks a solid 6'3" guy. Click Here He's certainly got the torso of a 6'4" guy anyway..
James said on 22/Feb/13
Christopher Lee did not look 6'5 in James bond
Christopher Lee did not look 6'5 in James bond
James said on 20/Feb/13
Arch the Indian guy looks 6'4 in the pic
Arch the Indian guy looks 6'4 in the pic
Arch Stanton said on 20/Feb/13
@Filmfan, it's widely known Clint had already begun losing height at least 10 years before. He was about 6'3" by 1990 and about 6'2" by 2000. Eastwood was taller than Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes.
@Filmfan, it's widely known Clint had already begun losing height at least 10 years before. He was about 6'3" by 1990 and about 6'2" by 2000. Eastwood was taller than Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes.
James said on 20/Feb/13
arch shocking how much beckham recently is looking facially similar too clint eastwood. the more becks is aging the more he is looking like clint.
beckham
Click Here
Click Here
clint eastwood
Click Here
Click Here
arch shocking how much beckham recently is looking facially similar too clint eastwood. the more becks is aging the more he is looking like clint.
beckham
Click Here
Click Here
clint eastwood
Click Here
Click Here
Arch Stanton said on 20/Feb/13
See the final scene where Brigg's car blows up and Eastwood is walking and squinting in the sunlight outside a warehouse, he looks a genuine 6'4" in that scene. Yes as I said I thought he looked near 6'4" in most of the 60s and 70s films, 192 is always possible. But there is one scene with the police sergeant who also appeared in Dirty Harry and he's listed at 6' and Eastwood looked no more than 6'2.5" in comparison but he was probably slouching.
James an Indian guy on Rob's page is saying Abhishek Bachchan is 6'1.5" tops and this Rana Dagubatti guy is 6'2.5". I had always thought Abhishek to be 189 range but Dagubatti has him easily by an inch. Dagubatti is listed at 191cm but so is Abhishek who has also claimed 6'3". Any opinions? I think Dagubatti looks a genuine 6'3" guy Click Here and can look near 6'4" in some pics. I think he's probably 6'3" and Abhishek 6'2".
See the final scene where Brigg's car blows up and Eastwood is walking and squinting in the sunlight outside a warehouse, he looks a genuine 6'4" in that scene. Yes as I said I thought he looked near 6'4" in most of the 60s and 70s films, 192 is always possible. But there is one scene with the police sergeant who also appeared in Dirty Harry and he's listed at 6' and Eastwood looked no more than 6'2.5" in comparison but he was probably slouching.
James an Indian guy on Rob's page is saying Abhishek Bachchan is 6'1.5" tops and this Rana Dagubatti guy is 6'2.5". I had always thought Abhishek to be 189 range but Dagubatti has him easily by an inch. Dagubatti is listed at 191cm but so is Abhishek who has also claimed 6'3". Any opinions? I think Dagubatti looks a genuine 6'3" guy Click Here and can look near 6'4" in some pics. I think he's probably 6'3" and Abhishek 6'2".
James said on 19/Feb/13
Arch Stanton says on 18/Feb/13
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
That's disputable as Clint had 2-3 inches on Jeff Bridges who I believe was a genuine 6'1.5" peak. And actually I thought Clint looked taller in Magnum Force than any of the other Dirty Harry films and looked a clear 6'4" to me. I'd agree with you on most of the 80s and 90s films though.
At times i think he could pull of 6'4 in magnum force but mostly he looked 6'3.
do u agree that in play misty for me he looked a legit 6'4?
Arch Stanton says on 18/Feb/13
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
That's disputable as Clint had 2-3 inches on Jeff Bridges who I believe was a genuine 6'1.5" peak. And actually I thought Clint looked taller in Magnum Force than any of the other Dirty Harry films and looked a clear 6'4" to me. I'd agree with you on most of the 80s and 90s films though.
At times i think he could pull of 6'4 in magnum force but mostly he looked 6'3.
do u agree that in play misty for me he looked a legit 6'4?
Arch Stanton said on 18/Feb/13
filmfan says on 16/Feb/13
Just watched Escape from Alcatraz. A guy called Butts who is played by a 6'4'' actor appears alongside Eastwood and he does look a bit taller than Eastwood. Maybe 6'3'' is right for his prime afterall.
No, they looked about the same height, it was camera angle in the yard scene which made him seem taller. Watch the corridor scene when they're stood either side of the door they're roughly even. Eastwood even looked shorter than the fat guy in the shower scene who was 6'3", that doesn't mean he was 6'2"...
filmfan says on 16/Feb/13
Just watched Escape from Alcatraz. A guy called Butts who is played by a 6'4'' actor appears alongside Eastwood and he does look a bit taller than Eastwood. Maybe 6'3'' is right for his prime afterall.
No, they looked about the same height, it was camera angle in the yard scene which made him seem taller. Watch the corridor scene when they're stood either side of the door they're roughly even. Eastwood even looked shorter than the fat guy in the shower scene who was 6'3", that doesn't mean he was 6'2"...
Arch Stanton said on 18/Feb/13
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
That's disputable as Clint had 2-3 inches on Jeff Bridges who I believe was a genuine 6'1.5" peak. And actually I thought Clint looked taller in Magnum Force than any of the other Dirty Harry films and looked a clear 6'4" to me. I'd agree with you on most of the 80s and 90s films though.
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
That's disputable as Clint had 2-3 inches on Jeff Bridges who I believe was a genuine 6'1.5" peak. And actually I thought Clint looked taller in Magnum Force than any of the other Dirty Harry films and looked a clear 6'4" to me. I'd agree with you on most of the 80s and 90s films though.
James said on 16/Feb/13
This is how tall I think Clint looked in some of his films.
Dirty Harry 6ft3 (191cm)
Play Misty for Me 6ft4 (193cm) (cause of his hairdo)
Fire Fox 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Heartbreak Ridge 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Where Eagles Dare 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
In the Line of Fire 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Coogans Bluff 6ft4.5 (194cm) (he was in 2 inch cowboy boots)
Fistful of Dollars 6ft4 (193cm)
Dead pool 6ft3.25 (191cm)
The Enforcer 6ft3.5 (192cm)
Unforgiven 6ft2.5 (189cm)
The Bridges of Madison County 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Any Which Way you can 6ft3 (191cm)
City Heat 6ft3 (191cm)
High Plains drifter 6ft4 (193cm)
Eiger Sanction 6ft3 (191cm)
Paint your wagon 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Escape from Alcatraz 6ft3 (191cm)
The Gauntlet 6ft3 (191cm)
Just by watching quite a few of his movies the overall impression I have got for Clint Eastwoods height is 6'3. I think in the dirty harry era he always looked 6'3 or occasionally 6'3.5.
Maybe he was a 192cm guy who could look 190-191cm cause of bad posture?
This is how tall I think Clint looked in some of his films.
Dirty Harry 6ft3 (191cm)
Play Misty for Me 6ft4 (193cm) (cause of his hairdo)
Fire Fox 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Heartbreak Ridge 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Where Eagles Dare 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Magnum Force 6ft3 (191cm)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot 6ft3 (191cm)
In the Line of Fire 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Coogans Bluff 6ft4.5 (194cm) (he was in 2 inch cowboy boots)
Fistful of Dollars 6ft4 (193cm)
Dead pool 6ft3.25 (191cm)
The Enforcer 6ft3.5 (192cm)
Unforgiven 6ft2.5 (189cm)
The Bridges of Madison County 6ft2.5 (189cm)
Any Which Way you can 6ft3 (191cm)
City Heat 6ft3 (191cm)
High Plains drifter 6ft4 (193cm)
Eiger Sanction 6ft3 (191cm)
Paint your wagon 6ft2.75 (190cm)
Escape from Alcatraz 6ft3 (191cm)
The Gauntlet 6ft3 (191cm)
Just by watching quite a few of his movies the overall impression I have got for Clint Eastwoods height is 6'3. I think in the dirty harry era he always looked 6'3 or occasionally 6'3.5.
Maybe he was a 192cm guy who could look 190-191cm cause of bad posture?
James said on 16/Feb/13
Eastwood at 6'3.5 puts Sutherland at 6'3 flat.
Eastwood at 6'3.5 puts Sutherland at 6'3 flat.
Arch Stanton said on 16/Feb/13
Yeah, but we keep coming back to Sutherland having an easy 2 inches on Connery and Eastwood edging out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes... i believe Sutherland was 6'3.5" and Eastwood I think he's was pretty much a full 6'4" at least in the morning, I definitely think his peak was more 192-193 than 191-2 or whatever anybody else claims here.
Yeah, but we keep coming back to Sutherland having an easy 2 inches on Connery and Eastwood edging out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes... i believe Sutherland was 6'3.5" and Eastwood I think he's was pretty much a full 6'4" at least in the morning, I definitely think his peak was more 192-193 than 191-2 or whatever anybody else claims here.
Gus said on 14/Feb/13
near certainty 192cm peak
near certainty 192cm peak
James said on 14/Feb/13
yeah i think he looked more a strong 6'3 than a proper 6'4 man.
yeah i think he looked more a strong 6'3 than a proper 6'4 man.
matt678 said on 13/Feb/13
Rob dont u think 6ft3 peak is more realistic then 6ft4? I've never seen any proof that hes 6ft4 ever
Editor Rob
Rob dont u think 6ft3 peak is more realistic then 6ft4? I've never seen any proof that hes 6ft4 ever
Editor Rob while 6ft 3.5 is always a chance, I'm not sure just 6ft 3 flat for him...
James said on 9/Feb/13
190cm is what I think he appeared in that film
190cm is what I think he appeared in that film
James said on 9/Feb/13
In Firefox looked a weak 6'3
In Firefox looked a weak 6'3
Henrik said on 9/Feb/13
Vegas says on 5/Feb/13
Henrik says on 3/Feb/13
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back.
____________
even with the helmet prowse didn't look 4 inches taller than glover in that scene, comparison of prowses actual head size and the helmet Click Here
-----
Vader seems to be slouching though, while Glover is standing as straight as he can.
Vegas says on 5/Feb/13
Henrik says on 3/Feb/13
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back.
____________
even with the helmet prowse didn't look 4 inches taller than glover in that scene, comparison of prowses actual head size and the helmet Click Here
-----
Vader seems to be slouching though, while Glover is standing as straight as he can.
Arch Stanton said on 9/Feb/13
Rob, do you think it would be very painful living with that spine condition? The curvature looks horrendous.
Editor Rob
Rob, do you think it would be very painful living with that spine condition? The curvature looks horrendous.
Editor Rob yeah, it's the old classic hunchback that won't be exactly pain free
Arch Stanton said on 8/Feb/13
He looks 6'5" range in boots I thought, same as he looked in the Dollars trilogy and most of his old westerns.
Editor Rob
He looks 6'5" range in boots I thought, same as he looked in the Dollars trilogy and most of his old westerns.
Editor Rob R3 would have lost maybe nearly 4 inches in height himself with the curved spine
James said on 6/Feb/13
In heartbreak ridge looked a legit 6'2.5 with good army posture.
In heartbreak ridge looked a legit 6'2.5 with good army posture.
James said on 6/Feb/13
Do u agree Arch that that Clint looked 6'4-6'5 with his 2 inch cowboy boots in coogans bluff? I don't think he really appeared 6'6 in that film cause 198cm is just 1 inch short of giant territory. Clint just appeared 'very tall' in that film.
Do u agree Arch that that Clint looked 6'4-6'5 with his 2 inch cowboy boots in coogans bluff? I don't think he really appeared 6'6 in that film cause 198cm is just 1 inch short of giant territory. Clint just appeared 'very tall' in that film.
James said on 6/Feb/13
Play Misty for me was one of the few films where Clint Eastwood looked 6'4.
In his spaghetti westerns he really did not look 193cm.
Play Misty for me was one of the few films where Clint Eastwood looked 6'4.
In his spaghetti westerns he really did not look 193cm.
Arch Stanton said on 5/Feb/13
Hey folks, check out Click Here . And you think Eastwood's spine is in a bad shape. Richard III's spine is like S shaped!! Rob how much height do you reckon Richard III would have lost from having a spine condition like that?
Hey folks, check out Click Here . And you think Eastwood's spine is in a bad shape. Richard III's spine is like S shaped!! Rob how much height do you reckon Richard III would have lost from having a spine condition like that?
Vegas said on 5/Feb/13
Henrik says on 3/Feb/13
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back.
____________
even with the helmet prowse didn't look 4 inches taller than glover in that scene, comparison of prowses actual head size and the helmet Click Here
Henrik says on 3/Feb/13
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back.
____________
even with the helmet prowse didn't look 4 inches taller than glover in that scene, comparison of prowses actual head size and the helmet Click Here
James said on 4/Feb/13
John Wayne at times could look 6'5
John Wayne at times could look 6'5
Arch Stanton said on 3/Feb/13
Actually Outlaw, Clint, John Wayne and Tom Selleck can all seem more like 6'2 on screen at times and it often takes a comparison with somebody to realise they're very tall. I guess the Duke could look nearer his height alone more because he was much heavy built than Eastwood. I think that Eastwood and Wanye looked the same height though and I believe they were 6'4" ish maybe 6'3.5". The only thing is, in the old westerns there was a tendency to cast big macho guys so they often didn't stand out much. Eastwood stood out more in GBU next to then 5'7" Eli Wallach.
Actually Outlaw, Clint, John Wayne and Tom Selleck can all seem more like 6'2 on screen at times and it often takes a comparison with somebody to realise they're very tall. I guess the Duke could look nearer his height alone more because he was much heavy built than Eastwood. I think that Eastwood and Wanye looked the same height though and I believe they were 6'4" ish maybe 6'3.5". The only thing is, in the old westerns there was a tendency to cast big macho guys so they often didn't stand out much. Eastwood stood out more in GBU next to then 5'7" Eli Wallach.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Feb/13
Prowse has lost the most height out of anybody even Hulk Hogan and Clint.
Prowse has lost the most height out of anybody even Hulk Hogan and Clint.
James said on 3/Feb/13
how about.....
clint eastwood 6'3.75 (192cm)
George kennedy 6'4 (183cm)
how about.....
clint eastwood 6'3.75 (192cm)
George kennedy 6'4 (183cm)
Henrik said on 3/Feb/13
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back. According to Rob who saw Prowse recently, he doesn't stand much taller than 6' flat these days.
Reeve was 6'4" according to himself.
Prowse was more like 6'6". He looked about four inches taller than 6'2" Julian Glover in The Empire Strikes Back. According to Rob who saw Prowse recently, he doesn't stand much taller than 6' flat these days.
Reeve was 6'4" according to himself.
Chris said on 3/Feb/13
Ever seen Gran Torino, Rob? How tall do you think the neighbor kid is? Eastwood looks a bit less than 6 ft in this film imho
Editor Rob
Ever seen Gran Torino, Rob? How tall do you think the neighbor kid is? Eastwood looks a bit less than 6 ft in this film imho
Editor Rob can't remember much about heights in that movie
Outlaw said on 2/Feb/13
James, here is a picture of the two during The Eiger Sanction: Click Here
They're both wearing the same footwear. If Kennedy were to stand straight, like Eastwood, he'd likely edge him out. However, the difference in height would still be VERY little.
James, here is a picture of the two during The Eiger Sanction: Click Here
They're both wearing the same footwear. If Kennedy were to stand straight, like Eastwood, he'd likely edge him out. However, the difference in height would still be VERY little.
wingnut said on 2/Feb/13
outlaw.Yeah,sorry about that.
re-runs of course.
Also,speaking of dave prowse,I just resd an article about him training christopher reeve for superman.He said he-prowse-was 6'7 which surprised me
because I thought he was 6'5.
He also said reeve was 6'5.
As for eastwood, he was imo 6'4 and very lean looking,although over the years
he's lost 3-4 inches.It does happen.
outlaw.Yeah,sorry about that.
re-runs of course.
Also,speaking of dave prowse,I just resd an article about him training christopher reeve for superman.He said he-prowse-was 6'7 which surprised me
because I thought he was 6'5.
He also said reeve was 6'5.
As for eastwood, he was imo 6'4 and very lean looking,although over the years
he's lost 3-4 inches.It does happen.
Jamesy said on 2/Feb/13
If danson was 190cm then tom selleck could look 194cm next too him
If danson was 190cm then tom selleck could look 194cm next too him
James said on 2/Feb/13
eastwood looked shorter than george kennedy in eiger sanction
eastwood looked shorter than george kennedy in eiger sanction
Outlaw said on 1/Feb/13
Oh, wingnut... There are no recent Cheers episodes, unfortunately. But, yeah, in Cheers, Danson's character claims 6'3". I believe he was 6'2.5" prime, but 6'3" isn't ruled out.
While Clint Eastwood, standing alone, never gave me the impression of a 6'4" guy, I believe he was just that. In fact, in his "Man With No Name" series, I could only see about 6'1" for him, until he stood next to someone.
In The Eiger Sanction, when he walked and stood next to George Kennedy (who I believe was 6'4.5"), he looked, more or less, identical in height. In every shot they were in. I believe the footwear was similar, too.
Oh, wingnut... There are no recent Cheers episodes, unfortunately. But, yeah, in Cheers, Danson's character claims 6'3". I believe he was 6'2.5" prime, but 6'3" isn't ruled out.
While Clint Eastwood, standing alone, never gave me the impression of a 6'4" guy, I believe he was just that. In fact, in his "Man With No Name" series, I could only see about 6'1" for him, until he stood next to someone.
In The Eiger Sanction, when he walked and stood next to George Kennedy (who I believe was 6'4.5"), he looked, more or less, identical in height. In every shot they were in. I believe the footwear was similar, too.
Henrik said on 1/Feb/13
@Nitro_90:
I don't think there's any evidence on it but yes, I seem to have gotten that impression. I believe taller people are claimed to have more back problems overall, and I don't see why height shrinkage would not be one of these problems.
Apart from Clint, we also have David Prowse and Christopher Lee. Some also claim that Sean Connery is 6' flat these days.
@Nitro_90:
I don't think there's any evidence on it but yes, I seem to have gotten that impression. I believe taller people are claimed to have more back problems overall, and I don't see why height shrinkage would not be one of these problems.
Apart from Clint, we also have David Prowse and Christopher Lee. Some also claim that Sean Connery is 6' flat these days.
wingnut said on 31/Jan/13
In a recent cheers episode,Danson said he was 6'3
In a recent cheers episode,Danson said he was 6'3
Nitro_90 said on 30/Jan/13
Wow, he lost 9 cm of his peak height, that's unbelievable.
Is it true that taller people lose more height when they get old?
Wow, he lost 9 cm of his peak height, that's unbelievable.
Is it true that taller people lose more height when they get old?
Arch Stanton said on 22/Jan/13
Ted Danson did look near 190 at peak, agreed.
Ted Danson did look near 190 at peak, agreed.
Jamesy said on 19/Jan/13
Although with potentially 190cm Ted Danson he looks a legit 6'4.
Although with potentially 190cm Ted Danson he looks a legit 6'4.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Jan/13
Yeah, I think he generally looks 6'3".
Yeah, I think he generally looks 6'3".
Jamesy said on 17/Jan/13
Arch I think selleck looked just 6'3 in the three men and a baby films would u agree?
Arch I think selleck looked just 6'3 in the three men and a baby films would u agree?
Arch Stanton said on 17/Jan/13
James, Tom Selleck like Eastwood and John Wayne is another of those around 6'4" guys who you think "is he really that big" on screen. All of them can seem more 6'2" a lot, even in the older films, do you agree?
James, Tom Selleck like Eastwood and John Wayne is another of those around 6'4" guys who you think "is he really that big" on screen. All of them can seem more 6'2" a lot, even in the older films, do you agree?
Larc 74in said on 16/Jan/13
Definitely not 6'4, 6'3 flat seems far more realistic for his peak, today he's around 6'0-6'0.5:
Click Here
Definitely not 6'4, 6'3 flat seems far more realistic for his peak, today he's around 6'0-6'0.5:
Click Here
Maximus Meridius said on 13/Jan/13
Hey Rob is it rare for anyone in their 70s too lose almost 4 inches in height normal height loss for anyone in their 70s is no more than a inch or two he should only be about 6ft 2in you should upgrade him ive heard people lose height in their 50s but i think the 50s is too young too lose height even the 60s is too young too lose height people don't normally lose height at least until they hit their 70s people today even in their 50s and even in their 60s are still at that prime height.
Hey Rob is it rare for anyone in their 70s too lose almost 4 inches in height normal height loss for anyone in their 70s is no more than a inch or two he should only be about 6ft 2in you should upgrade him ive heard people lose height in their 50s but i think the 50s is too young too lose height even the 60s is too young too lose height people don't normally lose height at least until they hit their 70s people today even in their 50s and even in their 60s are still at that prime height.
James said on 11/Jan/13
Yeah no way 6'4 in 80s. Even that height is debatable for his his peak.
6'3 range in 1980s
Yeah no way 6'4 in 80s. Even that height is debatable for his his peak.
6'3 range in 1980s
Sam said on 9/Jan/13
And what if I don't? :=)
And what if I don't? :=)
James said on 8/Jan/13
Well 6'3.5 range is not impossible hence why maybe he did not look 6'6-6'7 in cowboy boots.
Of course its possible that Clint really was 193cm but I would not rule out 192cm either.
Well 6'3.5 range is not impossible hence why maybe he did not look 6'6-6'7 in cowboy boots.
Of course its possible that Clint really was 193cm but I would not rule out 192cm either.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Jan/13
Sam says on 7/Jan/13
I'm not sure how a 6'4" guy would pull off looking 6'7" even in cowboy boots and a duster, maybe over 6'5" but not 3 inches boost. I do feel sometimes Clint looks more 6'3" (6'4"-6'5" in boots) sometimes even in early movies but when in scenes with other 6'4"ish guys until the 1980s, he looks close enough to a full barefoot 6'4".
Cowboy boots, 1.5-2 inches, big western hat which adds several inches, long western coat and long thin build, by no stretch of the imagination could you imagine a legit 6'4" guy seeming more 6'6"-6'7" range..
Sam says on 7/Jan/13
I'm not sure how a 6'4" guy would pull off looking 6'7" even in cowboy boots and a duster, maybe over 6'5" but not 3 inches boost. I do feel sometimes Clint looks more 6'3" (6'4"-6'5" in boots) sometimes even in early movies but when in scenes with other 6'4"ish guys until the 1980s, he looks close enough to a full barefoot 6'4".
Cowboy boots, 1.5-2 inches, big western hat which adds several inches, long western coat and long thin build, by no stretch of the imagination could you imagine a legit 6'4" guy seeming more 6'6"-6'7" range..
James said on 7/Jan/13
I think 6'3.5 at night at his peak... Although it depends how much height Clint lost during the day?
Clint of course probably measured 6'4-6'5 out of bed
I think 6'3.5 at night at his peak... Although it depends how much height Clint lost during the day?
Clint of course probably measured 6'4-6'5 out of bed
Gus said on 7/Jan/13
I agree with James,at peak Clint was 6'3.5. I think 6'4 is pushing it perhaps,in The Gauntlet last night aged about 47 Clint looked 6'3 flat and had probably lost a centimeter.
I agree with James,at peak Clint was 6'3.5. I think 6'4 is pushing it perhaps,in The Gauntlet last night aged about 47 Clint looked 6'3 flat and had probably lost a centimeter.
James said on 7/Jan/13
Maybe he had footware advantage over Sean?
Its fair too say Connery was no taller than 6'1.5 by that time. The difference between a 6'3.25 and 6'1.5 man is virtually 2 inches anyway
Maybe he had footware advantage over Sean?
Its fair too say Connery was no taller than 6'1.5 by that time. The difference between a 6'3.25 and 6'1.5 man is virtually 2 inches anyway
Sam said on 7/Jan/13
I'm not sure how a 6'4" guy would pull off looking 6'7" even in cowboy boots and a duster, maybe over 6'5" but not 3 inches boost. I do feel sometimes Clint looks more 6'3" (6'4"-6'5" in boots) sometimes even in early movies but when in scenes with other 6'4"ish guys until the 1980s, he looks close enough to a full barefoot 6'4".
I'm not sure how a 6'4" guy would pull off looking 6'7" even in cowboy boots and a duster, maybe over 6'5" but not 3 inches boost. I do feel sometimes Clint looks more 6'3" (6'4"-6'5" in boots) sometimes even in early movies but when in scenes with other 6'4"ish guys until the 1980s, he looks close enough to a full barefoot 6'4".
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jan/13
James, see the John Wayne page, somebody found a 1948 passport and he's at 1.88m on it!!
James, see the John Wayne page, somebody found a 1948 passport and he's at 1.88m on it!!
Arch Stanton said on 7/Jan/13
No, otherwise Connery was 6'1".
No, otherwise Connery was 6'1".
James said on 6/Jan/13
Arch do u agree that donald Sutherland was more of a 6'3 guy at his peak?
In my opinion I think Clint was a very strong 6'3.5 whereas Sutherland was a very solid 191cm like 6'3.25
Arch do u agree that donald Sutherland was more of a 6'3 guy at his peak?
In my opinion I think Clint was a very strong 6'3.5 whereas Sutherland was a very solid 191cm like 6'3.25
Arch Stanton said on 6/Jan/13
Andi pandi says on 5/Jan/13
Are you all kidding me here?
No idea what you mean, but yes, he's way off 6'4 today, clearly.
Andi pandi says on 5/Jan/13
Are you all kidding me here?
No idea what you mean, but yes, he's way off 6'4 today, clearly.
James said on 5/Jan/13
Yeah Arch true.... Probably just the way the time were shot perhaps?
Yeah Arch true.... Probably just the way the time were shot perhaps?
Andi pandi said on 5/Jan/13
There was a comment on his costumes being compared from gran torino vs. etc. shoulder height of jacket to floor is entirely different than top of head to floor. Just from working out trap muscles heavily, can effect height at shoulder an inch-2 inches. So that wld explain difference in height at shoulder since he wld be much more jacked in earlier films than in gran torino!
There was a comment on his costumes being compared from gran torino vs. etc. shoulder height of jacket to floor is entirely different than top of head to floor. Just from working out trap muscles heavily, can effect height at shoulder an inch-2 inches. So that wld explain difference in height at shoulder since he wld be much more jacked in earlier films than in gran torino!
Andi pandi said on 5/Jan/13
Are you all kidding me here?
Are you all kidding me here?
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/13
The strange thing I guess James is that you'd expect a legit 6'4" guy in those long western coats, boots and hat to look 6'7" and that's definitely pushing it, he never looked that big..
The strange thing I guess James is that you'd expect a legit 6'4" guy in those long western coats, boots and hat to look 6'7" and that's definitely pushing it, he never looked that big..
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/13
Clint still looked very tall in some scenes in Pale Rider. But those real long western coats and cowboy boots give the illusion of making people look taller. Did you see the baddies stand in a line at the end in that film? They looked seriously imposing, as imposing if not more imposing than any of the bad asses from 80s action films. One of them was 6'4"-6'5" legit, he appeared in some of Clin's other 70s westerns, can't think of his name right now though. But Christopher Lloyd was dressed the same way in Back to the Future III and gave the illusion of 6'3"-6'4" in some scenes. Well he might have been 6'3" ish in cowboy boots at peak anyway, but his long frame, long coat, hat and boots definitely made him look taller than 6'1" in that film.
Clint still looked very tall in some scenes in Pale Rider. But those real long western coats and cowboy boots give the illusion of making people look taller. Did you see the baddies stand in a line at the end in that film? They looked seriously imposing, as imposing if not more imposing than any of the bad asses from 80s action films. One of them was 6'4"-6'5" legit, he appeared in some of Clin's other 70s westerns, can't think of his name right now though. But Christopher Lloyd was dressed the same way in Back to the Future III and gave the illusion of 6'3"-6'4" in some scenes. Well he might have been 6'3" ish in cowboy boots at peak anyway, but his long frame, long coat, hat and boots definitely made him look taller than 6'1" in that film.
Arch Stanton said on 5/Jan/13
I used to too. When I read 6 ft 4 for Clint in a newspaper I was shocked!! To the casual eye I'd suppose you'd think of him as tall but 6'4" is really a height which is starting to get real big barefoot where you'd start to notice it more. I never noticed it watching some of his films as a kid. But if you see most of his films actually you can see that he was taller than 6'2" and pretty much 192-193cm range.
I used to too. When I read 6 ft 4 for Clint in a newspaper I was shocked!! To the casual eye I'd suppose you'd think of him as tall but 6'4" is really a height which is starting to get real big barefoot where you'd start to notice it more. I never noticed it watching some of his films as a kid. But if you see most of his films actually you can see that he was taller than 6'2" and pretty much 192-193cm range.
James said on 4/Jan/13
if larry hankin is 6'3 then again that does suppourt these 6'2 peak estimates for clint eastwood. and also he was shorter than that 6'3 guy in the shower scene wasn't he?
it does seem a coincidence that a lot of people think a peak clint was 6'2 doesn't it arch? i for one think he was 192-193cm range peak since he edged out 191-192cm donald sutherland in kelly hearoes. too me sutherland was 6'3.25 peak.
if larry hankin is 6'3 then again that does suppourt these 6'2 peak estimates for clint eastwood. and also he was shorter than that 6'3 guy in the shower scene wasn't he?
it does seem a coincidence that a lot of people think a peak clint was 6'2 doesn't it arch? i for one think he was 192-193cm range peak since he edged out 191-192cm donald sutherland in kelly hearoes. too me sutherland was 6'3.25 peak.
James said on 4/Jan/13
clints probably on higher ground. Too me there looked just about 1.5 inches (3-4cm) between the 2. esspecially in the scenes they shared in the prision yard.
i do agree though arch i thought clint could still look 6'4 compared too Moriarty. But i think he had on bigger cowboy boots? i did think that mortiarty might have been 6'2.5 but he did look minimum 6'3 next too 6ft.25 denzel.
clints probably on higher ground. Too me there looked just about 1.5 inches (3-4cm) between the 2. esspecially in the scenes they shared in the prision yard.
i do agree though arch i thought clint could still look 6'4 compared too Moriarty. But i think he had on bigger cowboy boots? i did think that mortiarty might have been 6'2.5 but he did look minimum 6'3 next too 6ft.25 denzel.
Arch Stanton said on 4/Jan/13
Can't tell what the ground is like but they were definitely very close in height in the film. Oh and in one scene they're sitting down on the yard steps and Clint's legs looked a bit longer. But he has the legs of a 6'6" guy so that doesn't mean anything! Watched Pale Rider yesterday and Eastwood looked a bit taller than Michael Moriarty I thought, don't know who said Moriarty was taller but Clint looked taller to me. Moriarty is 6'3" ish. He also wasn't dwarfed by Richard Kiel. Actually in one of the last scenes in which he shoots a band dead in a cafe and walks out into the open in the town I thought he looked 6'6" range in the boots and hat. I think a 1985 Clint was not under 6'3.5".
Can't tell what the ground is like but they were definitely very close in height in the film. Oh and in one scene they're sitting down on the yard steps and Clint's legs looked a bit longer. But he has the legs of a 6'6" guy so that doesn't mean anything! Watched Pale Rider yesterday and Eastwood looked a bit taller than Michael Moriarty I thought, don't know who said Moriarty was taller but Clint looked taller to me. Moriarty is 6'3" ish. He also wasn't dwarfed by Richard Kiel. Actually in one of the last scenes in which he shoots a band dead in a cafe and walks out into the open in the town I thought he looked 6'6" range in the boots and hat. I think a 1985 Clint was not under 6'3.5".
James said on 3/Jan/13
WTF Shaun I thought charlie butts looked taller than Clint. There looked a good 1 inch between the 2 in fact.
Of course by 1979 its not impossible for Clint too have lost a bit of height. I'd say he was around 6'3 by late 70's.
Of course though its not impossible that charlie was 194cm?
WTF Shaun I thought charlie butts looked taller than Clint. There looked a good 1 inch between the 2 in fact.
Of course by 1979 its not impossible for Clint too have lost a bit of height. I'd say he was around 6'3 by late 70's.
Of course though its not impossible that charlie was 194cm?
Mathew said on 3/Jan/13
Arch Stanton says on 3/Jan/13
James, that Larry Hankin guy who played Charlie Butts is listed at 6'4" and he looked a very similar height to Eastwood, if anything Eastwood edged him out I think.
---
Larry Hankin looks much more like 6'3" though.
Arch Stanton says on 3/Jan/13
James, that Larry Hankin guy who played Charlie Butts is listed at 6'4" and he looked a very similar height to Eastwood, if anything Eastwood edged him out I think.
---
Larry Hankin looks much more like 6'3" though.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jan/13
Strange but that Wolf (Bruce M. Fisher) looks taller than Eastwood in the shower scene but on the yard he barely looks taller than "English" the 6'1.5" black librarian! On one of the yard scenes in which Charlie Butts meets Litmus and believes he is Al Capone Butts actually looks even taller than Eastwood but Eastwood is lifting weights and slouching.
Strange but that Wolf (Bruce M. Fisher) looks taller than Eastwood in the shower scene but on the yard he barely looks taller than "English" the 6'1.5" black librarian! On one of the yard scenes in which Charlie Butts meets Litmus and believes he is Al Capone Butts actually looks even taller than Eastwood but Eastwood is lifting weights and slouching.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jan/13
James, that Larry Hankin guy who played Charlie Butts is listed at 6'4" and he looked a very similar height to Eastwood, if anything Eastwood edged him out I think.
James, that Larry Hankin guy who played Charlie Butts is listed at 6'4" and he looked a very similar height to Eastwood, if anything Eastwood edged him out I think.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jan/13
In Escape to Alcatrz actually there is a scene where Doc is about to slice off his fingers and a lot of inmates pass Eastwood and Charlie Butts at the doorway and all of them but one were shorter than Eastwood most of them half- a full head shorter. I think that Charlie Butts guy is close in height to Eastwood, they tower over most of the inmates in it.
In Escape to Alcatrz actually there is a scene where Doc is about to slice off his fingers and a lot of inmates pass Eastwood and Charlie Butts at the doorway and all of them but one were shorter than Eastwood most of them half- a full head shorter. I think that Charlie Butts guy is close in height to Eastwood, they tower over most of the inmates in it.
Frank said on 1/Jan/13
I dont think that Eastwood was taller than 6.3 barefoot in his peak.
Now 6.0 maximum i think...
I dont think that Eastwood was taller than 6.3 barefoot in his peak.
Now 6.0 maximum i think...
James said on 1/Jan/13
i defo thought in the dirty harry police station scenes that clint eastwood gave of a 6'1.5-6'2 impression whereas reni looked 5'11
i defo thought in the dirty harry police station scenes that clint eastwood gave of a 6'1.5-6'2 impression whereas reni looked 5'11
Edgar_Hernandez said on 31/Dec/12
happy new year to all.
thanks for all editor Rob.
happy new year to all.
thanks for all editor Rob.
James said on 27/Dec/12
Arch Stanton says on 26/Dec/12
Have you noticed that though James that in some films even guys who are 6'3 or 6'4" look shorter than they are and more 6'1"-6'2"? Like a 6ft guy can appear average height. Don't know whether its the type of film it is shot on which is wider and makes actors appear shorter but it definitely varies.
True in batman forever val kilmer looked like a guy who was in the 5'10 range. likewise in taken liam neeson at times could defo look signifigantly shorter than 6'4.
there are exceptions though cause in braveheart mel gibson appeared 5'11-5'11.5 but that was probably because he had on big lifts
Arch Stanton says on 26/Dec/12
Have you noticed that though James that in some films even guys who are 6'3 or 6'4" look shorter than they are and more 6'1"-6'2"? Like a 6ft guy can appear average height. Don't know whether its the type of film it is shot on which is wider and makes actors appear shorter but it definitely varies.
True in batman forever val kilmer looked like a guy who was in the 5'10 range. likewise in taken liam neeson at times could defo look signifigantly shorter than 6'4.
there are exceptions though cause in braveheart mel gibson appeared 5'11-5'11.5 but that was probably because he had on big lifts
Arch Stanton said on 26/Dec/12
Have you noticed that though James that in some films even guys who are 6'3 or 6'4" look shorter than they are and more 6'1"-6'2"? Like a 6ft guy can appear average height. Don't know whether its the type of film it is shot on which is wider and makes actors appear shorter but it definitely varies.
Have you noticed that though James that in some films even guys who are 6'3 or 6'4" look shorter than they are and more 6'1"-6'2"? Like a 6ft guy can appear average height. Don't know whether its the type of film it is shot on which is wider and makes actors appear shorter but it definitely varies.
Arch Stanton said on 26/Dec/12
Got the Escape from Alcatraz DVD for Christmas. Watch it yesterday. Strangely in a lot of scenes Clint looked 6'2" tops, and he also strangely looked a good inch shorter than the "shower buddy" Bruce M. Fischer who is listed at 6'3" and if anything looks a solid 6'4" guy and near 300 pounds. The scene where Clint walks into the jail he looked 6'1"-6'2" LOL!! But he definitely looked 6'4" next to the 6'1.5" black librarian in it.
Got the Escape from Alcatraz DVD for Christmas. Watch it yesterday. Strangely in a lot of scenes Clint looked 6'2" tops, and he also strangely looked a good inch shorter than the "shower buddy" Bruce M. Fischer who is listed at 6'3" and if anything looks a solid 6'4" guy and near 300 pounds. The scene where Clint walks into the jail he looked 6'1"-6'2" LOL!! But he definitely looked 6'4" next to the 6'1.5" black librarian in it.
Original said on 24/Dec/12
6'3.25" in peak.
6'3.25" in peak.
James said on 24/Dec/12
Arch if reni is 6'1 then 6'3.75 could be on the money for clint
Arch if reni is 6'1 then 6'3.75 could be on the money for clint
Arch Stanton said on 24/Dec/12
Watched Dirty Harry yesterday James and that Reni Santoni guy I thought looked 2.5-3 inches shorter than Eastwood in the corridor scene. He's listed as 6'1, and he definitely more than 2 inches shorter than Eastwood as you once claimed James.
Watched Dirty Harry yesterday James and that Reni Santoni guy I thought looked 2.5-3 inches shorter than Eastwood in the corridor scene. He's listed as 6'1, and he definitely more than 2 inches shorter than Eastwood as you once claimed James.
James said on 17/Dec/12
Arch u seen recent pics of Beckham on Getty images? He really has perfected the dirty harry look
Arch u seen recent pics of Beckham on Getty images? He really has perfected the dirty harry look
James said on 17/Dec/12
Arch his hair and slim build can make him taller in that clip but yeah 6'4 seems fair in that clip or maybe 6'3.5?
Arch his hair and slim build can make him taller in that clip but yeah 6'4 seems fair in that clip or maybe 6'3.5?
Arch Stanton said on 17/Dec/12
Actually yes Edgar, Christopher Reeve and Clint had very similar shoulders. I don't think Reeve was broader than Eastwood, maybe after intensive training periods but generally they were pretty similar; also both were around 215 pounds with training. Very similar frames.
Actually yes Edgar, Christopher Reeve and Clint had very similar shoulders. I don't think Reeve was broader than Eastwood, maybe after intensive training periods but generally they were pretty similar; also both were around 215 pounds with training. Very similar frames.
Arch Stanton said on 17/Dec/12
Not naturally though Henrik. Those shoulders were the result of intense training!! Although Eastwood did lift a lot of weights too. Naturally he would have been a beanpole.
Not naturally though Henrik. Those shoulders were the result of intense training!! Although Eastwood did lift a lot of weights too. Naturally he would have been a beanpole.
Edgar_Hernandez said on 17/Dec/12
henrik, if I can help you, this a better comparation:
Click Here
Click Here
the same pose.
henrik, if I can help you, this a better comparation:
Click Here
Click Here
the same pose.
Henrik said on 16/Dec/12
Mossop says on 8/Dec/12
Saw Superman the other day & Gene Hackman was a little shorter than Chris Reeve by about the same amount as he was shorter than Eastwood in the 70's & early 80's. I'd give hime around 6'4" in his prime but his posture is so poor it's no wonder he looks around 6'1 ish now
-----
In the film, Reeve wore flats, while Hackman wore much thicker footwear. It should be visible in some scenes. Reeve was very similar to a peak Eastwood in proportions. Lanky and extremely long-legged:
Click Here
Click Here
One difference was that Reeve had much better developed shoulders.
Mossop says on 8/Dec/12
Saw Superman the other day & Gene Hackman was a little shorter than Chris Reeve by about the same amount as he was shorter than Eastwood in the 70's & early 80's. I'd give hime around 6'4" in his prime but his posture is so poor it's no wonder he looks around 6'1 ish now
-----
In the film, Reeve wore flats, while Hackman wore much thicker footwear. It should be visible in some scenes. Reeve was very similar to a peak Eastwood in proportions. Lanky and extremely long-legged:
Click Here
Click Here
One difference was that Reeve had much better developed shoulders.
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.