Add a Comment5728 comments
Average Guess (476 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.77in (182.3cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.77in (182.3cm)
Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Denny Miller was the first blonde Tarzan BTW in 1959 in case the name didn't twig. Big guy and much more built than Eastwood but similar proportions and features.
Denny Miller was the first blonde Tarzan BTW in 1959 in case the name didn't twig. Big guy and much more built than Eastwood but similar proportions and features.
Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Rob can you start a page for Denny Miller. I saw him in a film the other day and he looked a ringer for Clint Eastwood, a genuine 6'4" and looked very tall and screen. I guessed his height at 6'4" without even checking as you can just tell. He was wearing cowboy boots and must have been 6'6" range in them.
Rob can you start a page for Denny Miller. I saw him in a film the other day and he looked a ringer for Clint Eastwood, a genuine 6'4" and looked very tall and screen. I guessed his height at 6'4" without even checking as you can just tell. He was wearing cowboy boots and must have been 6'6" range in them.
Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Click Here
In High Plains Drifter. Judging by his shoulder/collar bone definition I'd say he was a very keen swimmer.
Click Here
In High Plains Drifter. Judging by his shoulder/collar bone definition I'd say he was a very keen swimmer.
Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
Cranberries says on 6/Aug/12
@Xhavier: Shaq has a 48-inch inseam.
Also, I have those "perfect proportions" you speak of at 6'4" and my legs are too short I think. Despite being a muscular 18 yo 6'4" 220, my short bones and small frame make me look smaller.
Also, I think Clint was not particularly leggy but average for his height.
Clint has longer legs than Tim Robbins and has the legs of a 6'6" man. He always looked leggy in my opinion but he worked out a lot through his career and whilst thin build (an ecto) he was actually quite broad, see his shoulders in High Plains Drifter for instance.
Cranberries says on 6/Aug/12
@Xhavier: Shaq has a 48-inch inseam.
Also, I have those "perfect proportions" you speak of at 6'4" and my legs are too short I think. Despite being a muscular 18 yo 6'4" 220, my short bones and small frame make me look smaller.
Also, I think Clint was not particularly leggy but average for his height.
Clint has longer legs than Tim Robbins and has the legs of a 6'6" man. He always looked leggy in my opinion but he worked out a lot through his career and whilst thin build (an ecto) he was actually quite broad, see his shoulders in High Plains Drifter for instance.
Shaun said on 11/Aug/12
@Cranberries "Despite being a muscular 18 yo 6'4" 220, my short bones and small frame make me look smaller." Short bones and small frame at 6'4" and 220 pounds? Eh? One would describe a 6'4" 220 pound guy as nothing but solid, long bones, solid frame like Tom Brady etc. I don't know how you could be as tall as 6'4" and as heavy as 220 pounds and not be a big guy!! You mean you're naturally an ecto with thin bone structure and are a hard gainer I think. A 6'4" guy would never have short bones, quite the opposite LOL! I wouldn't mind being built like an Olympic swimmer or something at that sort of height and weight I love that long lean look but I'm not exactly hard done by with my own frame, if a little top heavy.
@Cranberries "Despite being a muscular 18 yo 6'4" 220, my short bones and small frame make me look smaller." Short bones and small frame at 6'4" and 220 pounds? Eh? One would describe a 6'4" 220 pound guy as nothing but solid, long bones, solid frame like Tom Brady etc. I don't know how you could be as tall as 6'4" and as heavy as 220 pounds and not be a big guy!! You mean you're naturally an ecto with thin bone structure and are a hard gainer I think. A 6'4" guy would never have short bones, quite the opposite LOL! I wouldn't mind being built like an Olympic swimmer or something at that sort of height and weight I love that long lean look but I'm not exactly hard done by with my own frame, if a little top heavy.
Mark said on 7/Aug/12
Wingnut...if people didn't question heights for conversation's sake, sites like this wouldn't exist. That aside, and purely for conversation's sake, I have known many people in my life who claim to be a height I know they can't possibly be, based on my own height. And, I've met famous people who are often at least 2 inches lower than their stated height. And, if we're not talking Eastwood's peak height, but more recent height, he still claims 6'4, in interviews, which is clearly not the case. And so, it's open for conversation. I'm sure he was around 6'4 at one point. But, this is a dsicussion site. I'm 47, and still an inch taller out of bed. Add a gel cushion and arch support to my shoes, and I have 2 more inches. That makes me, a 6 footer, 6'3 in the morning if I go out. But, I'm really nowhere near 6'3, barefoot and by day's end (6 ft). So if this is a fun site to shoot the bull on, was Eastwood measured early in the day? Was he rounded up, even then? Who knows.
Wingnut...if people didn't question heights for conversation's sake, sites like this wouldn't exist. That aside, and purely for conversation's sake, I have known many people in my life who claim to be a height I know they can't possibly be, based on my own height. And, I've met famous people who are often at least 2 inches lower than their stated height. And, if we're not talking Eastwood's peak height, but more recent height, he still claims 6'4, in interviews, which is clearly not the case. And so, it's open for conversation. I'm sure he was around 6'4 at one point. But, this is a dsicussion site. I'm 47, and still an inch taller out of bed. Add a gel cushion and arch support to my shoes, and I have 2 more inches. That makes me, a 6 footer, 6'3 in the morning if I go out. But, I'm really nowhere near 6'3, barefoot and by day's end (6 ft). So if this is a fun site to shoot the bull on, was Eastwood measured early in the day? Was he rounded up, even then? Who knows.
EdgarHernandez said on 7/Aug/12
Hob: Inseam is related alot with height, if you know someone proportions, you can guess better his height, clint was a long fellow, but unlike prowse, who is big bones and big(and was huge when young), clint was a long fellow with long legs and thin bone structure, one of the reasons he seldom apered imposing.
Hob: Inseam is related alot with height, if you know someone proportions, you can guess better his height, clint was a long fellow, but unlike prowse, who is big bones and big(and was huge when young), clint was a long fellow with long legs and thin bone structure, one of the reasons he seldom apered imposing.
wingnut said on 7/Aug/12
Why does anybody guestion this guys height?
All his life-if you read about him-he's stated 6'4".
If he stated he was 6' people on this site would
claim he was only 5'9-5'10.
It makes me laugh.Why would anyboby claim to be
this very tall height if they were'nt.
Sure if you were 5'10-5'11 I can understand you might
want to bump it up to 6'.But if somebody who says
they are 6'4"-especially when famous-they usually are.
Why does anybody guestion this guys height?
All his life-if you read about him-he's stated 6'4".
If he stated he was 6' people on this site would
claim he was only 5'9-5'10.
It makes me laugh.Why would anyboby claim to be
this very tall height if they were'nt.
Sure if you were 5'10-5'11 I can understand you might
want to bump it up to 6'.But if somebody who says
they are 6'4"-especially when famous-they usually are.
Mark said on 6/Aug/12
Some men may shrink with age, but big men still always look tall. With Eastwood, as when he is on talk shows or briefly on his wife's reality show, he just doesn't look imposing. Not saying he looks short, but just not like a man who was once a full 6 feet four inches. At that height, you can almost see over the top of the head of a six-footer. I never saw that in Esatwood, and certainly don't now. I do, however, think he, like Mike Farrell of MASH, has all his height in his legs. I've seen both men run, and they do it with that lanky, my long legs are in business for themselves stride. But, that means nothing in terms of height. My neighbor is 81, and is all legs. But, he's about 5'9. Looks tall, if standing alone.
Some men may shrink with age, but big men still always look tall. With Eastwood, as when he is on talk shows or briefly on his wife's reality show, he just doesn't look imposing. Not saying he looks short, but just not like a man who was once a full 6 feet four inches. At that height, you can almost see over the top of the head of a six-footer. I never saw that in Esatwood, and certainly don't now. I do, however, think he, like Mike Farrell of MASH, has all his height in his legs. I've seen both men run, and they do it with that lanky, my long legs are in business for themselves stride. But, that means nothing in terms of height. My neighbor is 81, and is all legs. But, he's about 5'9. Looks tall, if standing alone.
Hob said on 6/Aug/12
lol. why people here keep talking about inseam. it was not quite relate to height chat..
lol. why people here keep talking about inseam. it was not quite relate to height chat..
Cranberries said on 6/Aug/12
@Xhavier: Shaq has a 48-inch inseam.
Also, I have those "perfect proportions" you speak of at 6'4" and my legs are too short I think. Despite being a muscular 18 yo 6'4" 220, my short bones and small frame make me look smaller.
Also, I think Clint was not particularly leggy but average for his height.
@Xhavier: Shaq has a 48-inch inseam.
Also, I have those "perfect proportions" you speak of at 6'4" and my legs are too short I think. Despite being a muscular 18 yo 6'4" 220, my short bones and small frame make me look smaller.
Also, I think Clint was not particularly leggy but average for his height.
Xhavier said on 5/Aug/12
I have noticed that leg length/inseam seems to be part of this thread for some reason.
A note on that:
Full inseam = Distance from crotch bone to ground
Pants inseam = Distance from bottom of where things hangs (roughly) to ground
A perfectly proportional 6ft 4in man would have:
Full inseam: 36.5 inches
Pants inseam: 33.5 inches
The average 6ft 4in man has the following:
Full inseam: 38 inches
Pants inseam: 35 inches
A 38 inch pants inseam would be regular for a perfectly proportional 6ft 10in man, and it is average for a 7ft 1in man.
So either way with a 36in pants inseam, Clint is a leggy fellow.
I have noticed that leg length/inseam seems to be part of this thread for some reason.
A note on that:
Full inseam = Distance from crotch bone to ground
Pants inseam = Distance from bottom of where things hangs (roughly) to ground
A perfectly proportional 6ft 4in man would have:
Full inseam: 36.5 inches
Pants inseam: 33.5 inches
The average 6ft 4in man has the following:
Full inseam: 38 inches
Pants inseam: 35 inches
A 38 inch pants inseam would be regular for a perfectly proportional 6ft 10in man, and it is average for a 7ft 1in man.
So either way with a 36in pants inseam, Clint is a leggy fellow.
Henrik said on 2/Aug/12
A full 6'4" at his peak. 6'3 1/2" is the lowest I'd go with.
A full 6'4" at his peak. 6'3 1/2" is the lowest I'd go with.
Hob said on 31/Jul/12
if he really 6'4 peak i think he is still 6'1.5 now. other hand he was 6'4 in shoe at peak so he is 6'0.5 now much believable.
if he really 6'4 peak i think he is still 6'1.5 now. other hand he was 6'4 in shoe at peak so he is 6'0.5 now much believable.
bill said on 27/Jul/12
190 cm at peak and 185 cm now
190 cm at peak and 185 cm now
EdgarHernandez said on 26/Jul/12
care to explain diamonddave7.............how you came to that conclusion?
care to explain diamonddave7.............how you came to that conclusion?
diamonddave7 said on 23/Jul/12
Eastwood has never been more than 6'2". He looks tall because of his build, tree trunk straight. Probably 6' 0.5" now like the editor says.
Eastwood has never been more than 6'2". He looks tall because of his build, tree trunk straight. Probably 6' 0.5" now like the editor says.
Hob said on 13/Jun/12
maybe he did not lost 4.5", he look this lost because he drop his posture as he get older now. i bet he lost a max 2.5"
maybe he did not lost 4.5", he look this lost because he drop his posture as he get older now. i bet he lost a max 2.5"
Danimal said on 8/Jun/12
Edgar_Hernandez says on 6/Jun/12
Click Here
a very famous photo, if you look this you notice that clint is close enought that his shoulder is touching rock hudson shoulder, they have the same shoulder level, lee marvin even with the advantaje of being the one closer still looks noticiable shorter than both rock and clint, by the way the photo is full of big guys.
You can already see in that group photo that Clint is already standing with his hips forward and neck and back arched. That was 1969. In other words, his horrible posture started as early as the late 60's, which is when height loss (while minimal) probably started to occur (when he was in his late 30's). The bones didn't calcify probably until a decade later when height loss started to become a little noticeable. As he got older and continued stand with that God awful posture (shoulders slumped forward, hips pushed forward and upper back arched over), it started to harden and the height loss started to set in and increase as he grew older. Even if he stood as straight as he could humanly possibly try to these days, the way his upper torso has crippled, he couldn't even hit 6'1" today. I would be surprised if he's just over a flat 6'0" today, headed for 5'11" by the time he hits 90 years old.
Edgar_Hernandez says on 6/Jun/12
Click Here
a very famous photo, if you look this you notice that clint is close enought that his shoulder is touching rock hudson shoulder, they have the same shoulder level, lee marvin even with the advantaje of being the one closer still looks noticiable shorter than both rock and clint, by the way the photo is full of big guys.
You can already see in that group photo that Clint is already standing with his hips forward and neck and back arched. That was 1969. In other words, his horrible posture started as early as the late 60's, which is when height loss (while minimal) probably started to occur (when he was in his late 30's). The bones didn't calcify probably until a decade later when height loss started to become a little noticeable. As he got older and continued stand with that God awful posture (shoulders slumped forward, hips pushed forward and upper back arched over), it started to harden and the height loss started to set in and increase as he grew older. Even if he stood as straight as he could humanly possibly try to these days, the way his upper torso has crippled, he couldn't even hit 6'1" today. I would be surprised if he's just over a flat 6'0" today, headed for 5'11" by the time he hits 90 years old.
Edgar_Hernandez said on 7/Jun/12
another thing that i see clint doing alot is the way how he does weights, wich maybe have something to do with his height lost, first look this one:
Click Here
if you notice he push his hip inside his head is pushed to the front and he cleary is bent, he is not standing straight(wich is the proper way to do it)
Click Here
the last one was from the alcatraz movie, in that movie has in pretty good shape but he already have a noticiable bend in his back here is the evolution of clints back:
Click Here clint as a child, notice the long legs
Click Here clint back show a natural pronunced bent(reminicent to his actual state).
this article found here: Click Here
states that clint reached his full height at 16, and there was just one kid taller, at 6ft 5, kids wich such big grown spurt at early age, tend to be very lanky. The article states that clint disliked beibng forced to sports just for being tall.
clint posture reminded straight for years
1961: Click Here
1963: Click Here
1966: the full dollar trylogi clint maintains great posture, specialy in the good the bad and the ugly in the walk from the desert, where he pulls off a very pround and straight posture(very in character).
1966-1969: not much changed, still good posture.
1970: Click Here a slightly bend appears.
1974: Click Here the posture that clint would use for much of his life is complety set, slopped shoulders, hips pushed to the front, and head looking to the front(see the fullm movie of lightfoot and thunderbolt and you se it).
1978: Click Here clint bend is more pronunced but he still can straighted up if he wish(like in bronco billy).
1979-1984: not much has changed
1986: Click Here clint posture improves alot thanks to the fact that he played a militar and he pushed his posture alot, posible tha last time clint could reach his foul height if he forces his posture as much as he could.
1988: Click Here the bend becomes permanet and he no longer could straighted up complety, posible 6ft 3.5 in "good posture" and 6ft 2.5 or 3 in regular one.
1988-94: huge period with no changes, clint hasn't lost any height still taller than gene hackman who has good posture.
1995: Click Here
Click Here clint bend is more pronunced, wich makes his torso to look a big deal shorter than his legs, by this point is safe to said that clint pase from being solid 6ft 3 to just 6ft 3(althought photo grafic evidence show that he could look just 6ft 2 at thimes).
1996: Click Here
Click Here
Click Here clint bend is bad enough that he now is the same height of donal sutherland who he had advantaje of .5 in to 1 in kellys heros, and he no longer looks close to a head taller than eli walsh, he still held his oun with liam nesson despite nesson big camera advantaje.
1997 to 2001: not big changes.
2002: Click Here clint bend is cleary noticiable and by this point is complety safe to said that he no longer reach 6ft 3 forcing posture, 6ft 2 posible.
2003: Click Here the bent in his back puts clint in the are of 6ft 2 to 6ft 2.5(maybe) tim robbins looks in some photos of the event to be 2 to 2.5 inches taller.
2004: Click Here clint bent is worse, probably 6ft 2 if forced.
2007: Click Here clint bend makes him bi this point to reach 6ft 2 in a good day and 6ft 1.5 normaly.
2012: Click Here a huge hunch is noticiabke in his back, he no longer can stand straight, is body is complety disproporcional, his jacked suits like a trench coat, if you follow this time line you will see that 3.5 inches lost is not imposible.
another thing that i see clint doing alot is the way how he does weights, wich maybe have something to do with his height lost, first look this one:
Click Here
if you notice he push his hip inside his head is pushed to the front and he cleary is bent, he is not standing straight(wich is the proper way to do it)
Click Here
the last one was from the alcatraz movie, in that movie has in pretty good shape but he already have a noticiable bend in his back here is the evolution of clints back:
Click Here clint as a child, notice the long legs
Click Here clint back show a natural pronunced bent(reminicent to his actual state).
this article found here: Click Here
states that clint reached his full height at 16, and there was just one kid taller, at 6ft 5, kids wich such big grown spurt at early age, tend to be very lanky. The article states that clint disliked beibng forced to sports just for being tall.
clint posture reminded straight for years
1961: Click Here
1963: Click Here
1966: the full dollar trylogi clint maintains great posture, specialy in the good the bad and the ugly in the walk from the desert, where he pulls off a very pround and straight posture(very in character).
1966-1969: not much changed, still good posture.
1970: Click Here a slightly bend appears.
1974: Click Here the posture that clint would use for much of his life is complety set, slopped shoulders, hips pushed to the front, and head looking to the front(see the fullm movie of lightfoot and thunderbolt and you se it).
1978: Click Here clint bend is more pronunced but he still can straighted up if he wish(like in bronco billy).
1979-1984: not much has changed
1986: Click Here clint posture improves alot thanks to the fact that he played a militar and he pushed his posture alot, posible tha last time clint could reach his foul height if he forces his posture as much as he could.
1988: Click Here the bend becomes permanet and he no longer could straighted up complety, posible 6ft 3.5 in "good posture" and 6ft 2.5 or 3 in regular one.
1988-94: huge period with no changes, clint hasn't lost any height still taller than gene hackman who has good posture.
1995: Click Here
Click Here clint bend is more pronunced, wich makes his torso to look a big deal shorter than his legs, by this point is safe to said that clint pase from being solid 6ft 3 to just 6ft 3(althought photo grafic evidence show that he could look just 6ft 2 at thimes).
1996: Click Here
Click Here
Click Here clint bend is bad enough that he now is the same height of donal sutherland who he had advantaje of .5 in to 1 in kellys heros, and he no longer looks close to a head taller than eli walsh, he still held his oun with liam nesson despite nesson big camera advantaje.
1997 to 2001: not big changes.
2002: Click Here clint bend is cleary noticiable and by this point is complety safe to said that he no longer reach 6ft 3 forcing posture, 6ft 2 posible.
2003: Click Here the bent in his back puts clint in the are of 6ft 2 to 6ft 2.5(maybe) tim robbins looks in some photos of the event to be 2 to 2.5 inches taller.
2004: Click Here clint bent is worse, probably 6ft 2 if forced.
2007: Click Here clint bend makes him bi this point to reach 6ft 2 in a good day and 6ft 1.5 normaly.
2012: Click Here a huge hunch is noticiabke in his back, he no longer can stand straight, is body is complety disproporcional, his jacked suits like a trench coat, if you follow this time line you will see that 3.5 inches lost is not imposible.
Edgar_Hernandez said on 6/Jun/12
i agree with james, in the orangutan films he was probably 6ft 3.5, not to mention that he bulked up alot for that films:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
the photos above are from the first orangutan film, "any wich way you can".
clint peak weight is said to be 216 pouns and to be honest he look this weight, just look that bicep, for a guy with long limbs to get a noticiable big bicep takes alot of efort.
I would said that clint was 6ft 4 since he was 19(whe he took weightlifting) to posible 1975 or late 70s.
his first wife maggie was abaut 5ft 4 or 3, and he always looks to be at his shoulder level, not big boots, just very confortable low heeled shoes:
Click Here
here both barefoot and clint looking bulkier than usual:
Click Here
a very famous photo, if you look this you notice that clint is close enought that his shoulder is touching rock hudson shoulder, they have the same shoulder level, lee marvin even with the advantaje of being the one closer still looks noticiable shorter than both rock and clint, by the way the photo is full of big guys.
Click Here
also while searching the series rawhide, i saw that some of the regulars were big guys or close to clint height, wich would make him look more average as a cowboy, and make his height not a distraction for the audience(unlike clint walker in the show of cheyenne, where is height is a runing gang).
i agree with james, in the orangutan films he was probably 6ft 3.5, not to mention that he bulked up alot for that films:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
the photos above are from the first orangutan film, "any wich way you can".
clint peak weight is said to be 216 pouns and to be honest he look this weight, just look that bicep, for a guy with long limbs to get a noticiable big bicep takes alot of efort.
I would said that clint was 6ft 4 since he was 19(whe he took weightlifting) to posible 1975 or late 70s.
his first wife maggie was abaut 5ft 4 or 3, and he always looks to be at his shoulder level, not big boots, just very confortable low heeled shoes:
Click Here
here both barefoot and clint looking bulkier than usual:
Click Here
a very famous photo, if you look this you notice that clint is close enought that his shoulder is touching rock hudson shoulder, they have the same shoulder level, lee marvin even with the advantaje of being the one closer still looks noticiable shorter than both rock and clint, by the way the photo is full of big guys.
Click Here
also while searching the series rawhide, i saw that some of the regulars were big guys or close to clint height, wich would make him look more average as a cowboy, and make his height not a distraction for the audience(unlike clint walker in the show of cheyenne, where is height is a runing gang).
Jon said on 5/Jun/12
Actually, check out "Million Dollar Baby" ...he's well short of Morgan Freeman (6'2") ...So he must of shrunk a whole bunch!!
Actually, check out "Million Dollar Baby" ...he's well short of Morgan Freeman (6'2") ...So he must of shrunk a whole bunch!!
James said on 14/Feb/12
in the orng-utan films he was clearly 6'3 1/2 :)
In 1988
Liam Neeson 6'4.25 (194cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'3 (191cm)
in the orng-utan films he was clearly 6'3 1/2 :)
In 1988
Liam Neeson 6'4.25 (194cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'3 (191cm)
Henrik said on 14/Feb/12
Mustangford says on 13/Feb/12
Realistically192cm at peak in shoes. Yeah, I think 189,to a weak stretch to 190cms. Clints around 180-183cm today. Liam neeson appeared to be 4cm taller than clint in the dead pooPeru deadpool. clint may have been 189 centimetres or 190 centimetres tall. so that means that liam neeson may have been 193cm or 194,we can clearly see atleast 4cms difference. so in conclusion Pp poit is not impossible to cite eastwood at the 190 centimetres height range. let's not forget that eastwood was in his mid 50s so it is possible that he had lost 1 centimetre in height
Clint was in The Dead Pool, as you say, about 6'3". But at the time, he had already lost about an inch of his height.
I thought that Liam Neeson gave more of a 6'5" impression in that movie, by the way. He looked to be edging Jim Carrey quite good.
Mustangford says on 13/Feb/12
Realistically192cm at peak in shoes. Yeah, I think 189,to a weak stretch to 190cms. Clints around 180-183cm today. Liam neeson appeared to be 4cm taller than clint in the dead pooPeru deadpool. clint may have been 189 centimetres or 190 centimetres tall. so that means that liam neeson may have been 193cm or 194,we can clearly see atleast 4cms difference. so in conclusion Pp poit is not impossible to cite eastwood at the 190 centimetres height range. let's not forget that eastwood was in his mid 50s so it is possible that he had lost 1 centimetre in height
Clint was in The Dead Pool, as you say, about 6'3". But at the time, he had already lost about an inch of his height.
I thought that Liam Neeson gave more of a 6'5" impression in that movie, by the way. He looked to be edging Jim Carrey quite good.
Mustangford said on 13/Feb/12
Realistically192cm at peak in shoes. Yeah, I think 189,to a weak stretch to 190cms. Clints around 180-183cm today. Liam neeson appeared to be 4cm taller than clint in the dead pooPeru deadpool. clint may have been 189 centimetres or 190 centimetres tall. so that means that liam neeson may have been 193cm or 194,we can clearly see atleast 4cms difference. so in conclusion Pp poit is not impossible to cite eastwood at the 190 centimetres height range. let's not forget that eastwood was in his mid 50s so it is possible that he had lost 1 centimetre in height
Realistically192cm at peak in shoes. Yeah, I think 189,to a weak stretch to 190cms. Clints around 180-183cm today. Liam neeson appeared to be 4cm taller than clint in the dead pooPeru deadpool. clint may have been 189 centimetres or 190 centimetres tall. so that means that liam neeson may have been 193cm or 194,we can clearly see atleast 4cms difference. so in conclusion Pp poit is not impossible to cite eastwood at the 190 centimetres height range. let's not forget that eastwood was in his mid 50s so it is possible that he had lost 1 centimetre in height
wingnut said on 13/Feb/12
In the orang-utan films he was clearly 6'4".
In the orang-utan films he was clearly 6'4".
James said on 10/Feb/12
he would have been 6'4 all day at his peak.... i guess maybe after a long day on his feet at his absolute low at night he might have measured 6'3.75 (192cm) although maybe not?
he would have been 6'4 all day at his peak.... i guess maybe after a long day on his feet at his absolute low at night he might have measured 6'3.75 (192cm) although maybe not?
Henrik said on 10/Feb/12
James says on 9/Feb/12
he could have been 194cm range in the morning at his peak and i don't think he would drop under 193cm in the evening..... i think by 1976 he would have defenintly measured 6'3.5 (192cm) in the evening though.
Well, a person usually shrinks 2cm or 0.75 inches during the day. So 193cm or 6'4" flat in the evening would mean 195cm (6'4.75") in the morning, which I suppose isn't impossible.
It's of course possible that he used to shrink less than the average, though.
James says on 9/Feb/12
he could have been 194cm range in the morning at his peak and i don't think he would drop under 193cm in the evening..... i think by 1976 he would have defenintly measured 6'3.5 (192cm) in the evening though.
Well, a person usually shrinks 2cm or 0.75 inches during the day. So 193cm or 6'4" flat in the evening would mean 195cm (6'4.75") in the morning, which I suppose isn't impossible.
It's of course possible that he used to shrink less than the average, though.
Danimal said on 9/Feb/12
Col says on 7/Feb/12
Eastwood documented as 6'5" in a biography.In Dirty Harry, he looked a tall guy against a standard 6'6" door height...probably 6'3" to 6'4" in his heyday....maybe an inch or two shorter now.
An inch or two shorter now? hahaha... He's barely 6'0" FLAT today and there is PLENTY of proof of that.
Col says on 7/Feb/12
Eastwood documented as 6'5" in a biography.In Dirty Harry, he looked a tall guy against a standard 6'6" door height...probably 6'3" to 6'4" in his heyday....maybe an inch or two shorter now.
An inch or two shorter now? hahaha... He's barely 6'0" FLAT today and there is PLENTY of proof of that.
James said on 9/Feb/12
he could have been 194cm range in the morning at his peak and i don't think he would drop under 193cm in the evening..... i think by 1976 he would have defenintly measured 6'3.5 (192cm) in the evening though.
he could have been 194cm range in the morning at his peak and i don't think he would drop under 193cm in the evening..... i think by 1976 he would have defenintly measured 6'3.5 (192cm) in the evening though.
Henrik said on 9/Feb/12
I got it wrong on the second. It was supposed to be 6'4", not 192cm.
193cm (6'4") in the mid-day.
I got it wrong on the second. It was supposed to be 6'4", not 192cm.
193cm (6'4") in the mid-day.
Henrik said on 9/Feb/12
I think this was his peak:
194cm (6'4.25") in the morning.
193cm (192cm) in the mid-day.
192cm (6'3.5") in the evening.
I think this was his peak:
194cm (6'4.25") in the morning.
193cm (192cm) in the mid-day.
192cm (6'3.5") in the evening.
James said on 8/Feb/12
he was not 6'5. the most he could have been is 6'4.25 (194cm)
he was not 6'5. the most he could have been is 6'4.25 (194cm)
Tommy said on 8/Feb/12
I am sure he claimed 6'3 himself at one point. Maybe someone else remembers that being on this page. I can't find the quote. I think that at least suggests he wasn't a full 6'4 at his peak.
I am sure he claimed 6'3 himself at one point. Maybe someone else remembers that being on this page. I can't find the quote. I think that at least suggests he wasn't a full 6'4 at his peak.
Col said on 7/Feb/12
Eastwood documented as 6'5" in a biography.In Dirty Harry, he looked a tall guy against a standard 6'6" door height...probably 6'3" to 6'4" in his heyday....maybe an inch or two shorter now.
Eastwood documented as 6'5" in a biography.In Dirty Harry, he looked a tall guy against a standard 6'6" door height...probably 6'3" to 6'4" in his heyday....maybe an inch or two shorter now.
Danimal said on 2/Feb/12
avi says on 29/Jan/12
nah he was never over 6'3
yAh, he was
avi says on 29/Jan/12
nah he was never over 6'3
yAh, he was
Danimal said on 2/Feb/12
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?
James used to say 6'2" for Clint for his prime height and then he went up to 6'5".. He's ALL over the place!
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?
James used to say 6'2" for Clint for his prime height and then he went up to 6'5".. He's ALL over the place!
James said on 1/Feb/12
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Liam Neeson 6'4.25 (194cm)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Liam Neeson 6'4.25 (194cm)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 31/Jan/12
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?
James how tall would you say a prime Clint
Eastwood would match up against Liam Neeson?
James said on 30/Jan/12
defo more 6'4 than 6'3
defo more 6'4 than 6'3
Silent d said on 29/Jan/12
Solid 6 footer. Some short actors are bad ass.
Solid 6 footer. Some short actors are bad ass.
avi said on 29/Jan/12
nah he was never over 6'3
nah he was never over 6'3
James said on 29/Jan/12
5'9 is not really short but maybe at the lower end of average these days
5'9 is not really short but maybe at the lower end of average these days
Danimal said on 29/Jan/12
avi says on 5/Jan/12
there is no way he should lose this much height. he had to be 6'3 peak and strong 6'1 now.
haha... Strong 6'1"??? He hasn't seen 6'1" in a long time. He was still a little over 6'0" up until a few years ago.. YES, he HAS lost this much height. Curvature (severe osteoporosis) of the spinal column and advanced age (in his 80's) makes people lose INCHES in height. There is MEDICAL PROOF to back this up. All you do is make yourself sound ignorant when you just don't like the idea of him having lost as much height as he did and continues to do so (well over 3")..
avi says on 5/Jan/12
there is no way he should lose this much height. he had to be 6'3 peak and strong 6'1 now.
haha... Strong 6'1"??? He hasn't seen 6'1" in a long time. He was still a little over 6'0" up until a few years ago.. YES, he HAS lost this much height. Curvature (severe osteoporosis) of the spinal column and advanced age (in his 80's) makes people lose INCHES in height. There is MEDICAL PROOF to back this up. All you do is make yourself sound ignorant when you just don't like the idea of him having lost as much height as he did and continues to do so (well over 3")..
Jack said on 29/Jan/12
I class myself as short 5'9" and am sure Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris were taller than me. Yes I was a Charles Bronson fan he looked part, but a lot of so called tough looking duds in the movies today look sissies compared to Eastwood, Wayne and co. Being tall certainly helps!
I class myself as short 5'9" and am sure Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris were taller than me. Yes I was a Charles Bronson fan he looked part, but a lot of so called tough looking duds in the movies today look sissies compared to Eastwood, Wayne and co. Being tall certainly helps!
EdgarHernandez said on 28/Jan/12
charles bronson was beliable as a thought, all around badass guy because he looked like he was carved in rock, then burn with fire and exposed to the elements. Not to mention that he was a purple heart award guy for his militar times, also, he was working in mines at 10 years old, he was a badass playing basicaly himself.
charles bronson was beliable as a thought, all around badass guy because he looked like he was carved in rock, then burn with fire and exposed to the elements. Not to mention that he was a purple heart award guy for his militar times, also, he was working in mines at 10 years old, he was a badass playing basicaly himself.
Mark said on 28/Jan/12
Short tough guy; Robert Conrad. His height never made a difference to me in watching Wild Wild West. Regarding Eastwood; if you're 6'3, you can claim 6'4 because in shoes, sneakers or out of bed you probably are. But Eastwood bever looked like a solid 6'4 guy, who would then be 6'5 out of bed. If he filmed western scenes soon after a nap or within a reasonable ammount of time after getting up early, add boots and you would have a potential 6'7 Eastwood on film in early westerns. That's madness. 6'3-ish in the old days, 3-ish inches shorter, now.
Short tough guy; Robert Conrad. His height never made a difference to me in watching Wild Wild West. Regarding Eastwood; if you're 6'3, you can claim 6'4 because in shoes, sneakers or out of bed you probably are. But Eastwood bever looked like a solid 6'4 guy, who would then be 6'5 out of bed. If he filmed western scenes soon after a nap or within a reasonable ammount of time after getting up early, add boots and you would have a potential 6'7 Eastwood on film in early westerns. That's madness. 6'3-ish in the old days, 3-ish inches shorter, now.
Henrik said on 27/Jan/12
Jack says on 27/Jan/12
Well.... would you take a short tough guy seriously, come on you small man syndrome guys, get real, Clint Eastwood is 6'4." Do you imagine Tom Cruise as Dirty Harry, come on even if he was standing on a box he wouldn't look right would he?
Well, people seemed to like Charles Bronson and take him seriously in the Death Wish series. And there are of course Bruce Lee, Van Damme and Chuck Norris.
Jack says on 27/Jan/12
Well.... would you take a short tough guy seriously, come on you small man syndrome guys, get real, Clint Eastwood is 6'4." Do you imagine Tom Cruise as Dirty Harry, come on even if he was standing on a box he wouldn't look right would he?
Well, people seemed to like Charles Bronson and take him seriously in the Death Wish series. And there are of course Bruce Lee, Van Damme and Chuck Norris.
Jack said on 27/Jan/12
Well.... would you take a short tough guy seriously, come on you small man syndrome guys, get real, Clint Eastwood is 6'4." Do you imagine Tom Cruise as Dirty Harry, come on even if he was standing on a box he wouldn't look right would he?
Well.... would you take a short tough guy seriously, come on you small man syndrome guys, get real, Clint Eastwood is 6'4." Do you imagine Tom Cruise as Dirty Harry, come on even if he was standing on a box he wouldn't look right would he?
Silent d said on 26/Jan/12
I'll say 6 foot considering his age and posture.
I'll say 6 foot considering his age and posture.
EdgarHernandez said on 25/Jan/12
exacly 2 or 2.5 in the minute 1:28 of diference, and clint alredy have a very sloppy posture for all the scene.
exacly 2 or 2.5 in the minute 1:28 of diference, and clint alredy have a very sloppy posture for all the scene.
Henrik said on 25/Jan/12
But yes, it probably is due what you wrote.
But yes, it probably is due what you wrote.
Henrik said on 25/Jan/12
wingnut says on 24/Jan/12
Henrik i think his torso looks longer simply because he has his shirt hanging
out over his waist.In fact if you look at eastwood he always tucks his tops
into his trousers making his legs appear longer.
The last picture, I wrote. He is sitting there.
wingnut says on 24/Jan/12
Henrik i think his torso looks longer simply because he has his shirt hanging
out over his waist.In fact if you look at eastwood he always tucks his tops
into his trousers making his legs appear longer.
The last picture, I wrote. He is sitting there.
James said on 25/Jan/12
Henrik says on 24/Jan/12
With listed 6'1.5" (though not on this site) Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, 1979:
Click Here
Do you think he was shorter than 6'4" in that movie, James?
In Escape from Alcatraz clint eastwood was 6'3 so yes.
Henrik says on 24/Jan/12
With listed 6'1.5" (though not on this site) Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, 1979:
Click Here
Do you think he was shorter than 6'4" in that movie, James?
In Escape from Alcatraz clint eastwood was 6'3 so yes.
wingnut said on 24/Jan/12
Henrik i think his torso looks longer simply because he has his shirt hanging
out over his waist.In fact if you look at eastwood he always tucks his tops
into his trousers making his legs appear longer.
Henrik i think his torso looks longer simply because he has his shirt hanging
out over his waist.In fact if you look at eastwood he always tucks his tops
into his trousers making his legs appear longer.
Henrik said on 24/Jan/12
With listed 6'1.5" (though not on this site) Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, 1979:
Click Here
Do you think he was shorter than 6'4" in that movie, James?
With listed 6'1.5" (though not on this site) Paul Benjamin in Escape from Alcatraz, 1979:
Click Here
Do you think he was shorter than 6'4" in that movie, James?
James said on 23/Jan/12
he was 6'4 up unitll the mid too late 1970's
he was 6'4 up unitll the mid too late 1970's
Henrik said on 21/Jan/12
You might of course be right, wingnut. But his torso seem to cannot help looking extremely long in my last picture.
You might of course be right, wingnut. But his torso seem to cannot help looking extremely long in my last picture.
Henrik said on 20/Jan/12
Mark says on 19/Jan/12
...in another 10 years, Eastwood will be a set of skinny legs with a head on top of them. Even ratio looks best, regarding this lengthy discussion about leg or torso height. I could care less about a woman's leg length. Overly long legs on a guy, IMO, do not look all that masculine.
Well, the study I referred to stated that people found excessively long legs less attractive, on both sexes. Still, I would personally easily choose Rock Hudson's leggy build over for instance Tom Brady's long torso build of similar height.
Hudson, a quite leggy 6'5":
Click Here
Long torso 6'5"-6'6":
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Mark says on 19/Jan/12
...in another 10 years, Eastwood will be a set of skinny legs with a head on top of them. Even ratio looks best, regarding this lengthy discussion about leg or torso height. I could care less about a woman's leg length. Overly long legs on a guy, IMO, do not look all that masculine.
Well, the study I referred to stated that people found excessively long legs less attractive, on both sexes. Still, I would personally easily choose Rock Hudson's leggy build over for instance Tom Brady's long torso build of similar height.
Hudson, a quite leggy 6'5":
Click Here
Long torso 6'5"-6'6":
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Mark said on 19/Jan/12
...in another 10 years, Eastwood will be a set of skinny legs with a head on top of them. Even ratio looks best, regarding this lengthy discussion about leg or torso height. I could care less about a woman's leg length. Overly long legs on a guy, IMO, do not look all that masculine.
...in another 10 years, Eastwood will be a set of skinny legs with a head on top of them. Even ratio looks best, regarding this lengthy discussion about leg or torso height. I could care less about a woman's leg length. Overly long legs on a guy, IMO, do not look all that masculine.
Henrik said on 18/Jan/12
2nd truth, you seem to suffer of Napoleon complex, and not just a little. We all know that Clint was never the epitome of masulinity and that he had very "few" ladies in his life. But whatever.
I guess all the teenagers who wear the pants as low as possible are much more "masculine and powerful" than Sean Connery in a suit? Haha. Saying that having long legs is "feminine" makes no sense, as females and males have clearly differently shaped legs.
"According to Swami et al., this can be explained by the
fact that since women have higher leg-to-body ratio (LBR)
than men, sexual selection over time should promote
women with higher LBR (increased femininity) and men
with lower LBR (higher masculinity). However, it is
questionable whether women have higher LBR than men,
throwing this explanation into doubt. Many studies show
either that there is no sexual dimorphism in relative leg
length within many human populations (Flugel, Greil, &
Sommer 1983; Martin & Saller, 1958) or that 17-year-old
boys (Martorell, Malina, Castillo, Mendoza, & Pawson,
1988) and adult men (Eveleth, 1978) have relatively longer
legs and shorter trunks than women. More recently,
Dangour, Schilg, Hulse, & Cole (2002) have shown that
18-year-old boys from Southeast England have relatively
longer legs than girls."
Click Here
"One hundred men and 118 women were asked to assess the previous termattractivenessnext term of the silhouettes using a seven-point scale. We found that male and female pictures with shorter than average legs were perceived as less attractive by both sexes. Although longer legs appeared to be more attractive, this was true only for the slight (5%) leg length increase; excessively long legs decreased body previous termattractivenessnext term for both sexes."
Click Here
2nd truth, you seem to suffer of Napoleon complex, and not just a little. We all know that Clint was never the epitome of masulinity and that he had very "few" ladies in his life. But whatever.
I guess all the teenagers who wear the pants as low as possible are much more "masculine and powerful" than Sean Connery in a suit? Haha. Saying that having long legs is "feminine" makes no sense, as females and males have clearly differently shaped legs.
"According to Swami et al., this can be explained by the
fact that since women have higher leg-to-body ratio (LBR)
than men, sexual selection over time should promote
women with higher LBR (increased femininity) and men
with lower LBR (higher masculinity). However, it is
questionable whether women have higher LBR than men,
throwing this explanation into doubt. Many studies show
either that there is no sexual dimorphism in relative leg
length within many human populations (Flugel, Greil, &
Sommer 1983; Martin & Saller, 1958) or that 17-year-old
boys (Martorell, Malina, Castillo, Mendoza, & Pawson,
1988) and adult men (Eveleth, 1978) have relatively longer
legs and shorter trunks than women. More recently,
Dangour, Schilg, Hulse, & Cole (2002) have shown that
18-year-old boys from Southeast England have relatively
longer legs than girls."
Click Here
"One hundred men and 118 women were asked to assess the previous termattractivenessnext term of the silhouettes using a seven-point scale. We found that male and female pictures with shorter than average legs were perceived as less attractive by both sexes. Although longer legs appeared to be more attractive, this was true only for the slight (5%) leg length increase; excessively long legs decreased body previous termattractivenessnext term for both sexes."
Click Here
James said on 18/Jan/12
Anything less than 6'4 (193cm) is out of the question.
Anything less than 6'4 (193cm) is out of the question.
EdgarHernandez said on 16/Jan/12
the funny thing 2nd truth, is that for nearly a century, being a tall guy, with long legs, broand shoulders and thick build, was the ultimate masculine ideal, and for be honest it look like still kind of is. as fr height, is pretty foolish at this point to put clint as low as 6ft 3 flat(6ft 3.5-.75 could be his lowest).
the funny thing 2nd truth, is that for nearly a century, being a tall guy, with long legs, broand shoulders and thick build, was the ultimate masculine ideal, and for be honest it look like still kind of is. as fr height, is pretty foolish at this point to put clint as low as 6ft 3 flat(6ft 3.5-.75 could be his lowest).
2nd truth said on 16/Jan/12
he had to have been
6 and half to 6 foot 2
in his prime i doubt
a flat 6 3 for him
i mean he has long legs short torso
that is very not masculine at all
not to hate but longer torso and short legs
are pretty nice in their own way
b pitt for exmaple long torso short legs
dolfph is no way a lady killer i am 5 8
and i pull off gorgoues girls that dolf
would have dreamed of
i am sorry height had nothing to do with human exisitence
for all i no is this guy might never even been a solid 6 footer
just enjoy life
i have swept about 10 girls offf their feet
in front of their 6 foot 2 boyfriends and im
5 9 to 5 foot 10 in shoes
belive me if life was about being perfect
we would not EXIST
and i have notice as a male when i dont
wash my face with no soap or products
women just jump over my face because i
dont clean it
so fellas you have to up your game in diffrent
ways
he had to have been
6 and half to 6 foot 2
in his prime i doubt
a flat 6 3 for him
i mean he has long legs short torso
that is very not masculine at all
not to hate but longer torso and short legs
are pretty nice in their own way
b pitt for exmaple long torso short legs
dolfph is no way a lady killer i am 5 8
and i pull off gorgoues girls that dolf
would have dreamed of
i am sorry height had nothing to do with human exisitence
for all i no is this guy might never even been a solid 6 footer
just enjoy life
i have swept about 10 girls offf their feet
in front of their 6 foot 2 boyfriends and im
5 9 to 5 foot 10 in shoes
belive me if life was about being perfect
we would not EXIST
and i have notice as a male when i dont
wash my face with no soap or products
women just jump over my face because i
dont clean it
so fellas you have to up your game in diffrent
ways
James said on 12/Jan/12
rock hudson was 6'5 or a fraction less
rock hudson was 6'5 or a fraction less
Jimmy L said on 11/Jan/12
Rock Hudson was 6"6 people. It is in his biography (1.98m), the guy had those long legs, Clint at peak was a solid 1,93m / 1,94m
Rock Hudson was 6"6 people. It is in his biography (1.98m), the guy had those long legs, Clint at peak was a solid 1,93m / 1,94m
James said on 9/Jan/12
in play misty for me looked a solid 6'4
in play misty for me looked a solid 6'4
avi said on 5/Jan/12
there is no way he should lose this much height. he had to be 6'3 peak and strong 6'1 now.
there is no way he should lose this much height. he had to be 6'3 peak and strong 6'1 now.
James said on 4/Jan/12
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Rock Hudson 6'4.75 (195cm)
George Kennedy 6'4 (193cm)
David Soul 6'0.5 (184cm)
Reni Santino 6'1 or 6'2? Not sure because clint only had 2 inhces on him in diry harrty but maybe that was just cause of his posture making him 6'3?
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Rock Hudson 6'4.75 (195cm)
George Kennedy 6'4 (193cm)
David Soul 6'0.5 (184cm)
Reni Santino 6'1 or 6'2? Not sure because clint only had 2 inhces on him in diry harrty but maybe that was just cause of his posture making him 6'3?
James said on 3/Jan/12
dave says on 3/Jan/12
James you are forgeting Stroud was not bear foot in that film,he was also wearing cowboy boots.If Clint was only 6f2 then how come he was the same hight as George Kennedy.
I am not saying he is 6'2 because with david soul he looked a legit 6'4.
dave says on 3/Jan/12
James you are forgeting Stroud was not bear foot in that film,he was also wearing cowboy boots.If Clint was only 6f2 then how come he was the same hight as George Kennedy.
I am not saying he is 6'2 because with david soul he looked a legit 6'4.
dave said on 3/Jan/12
James you are forgeting Stroud was not bear foot in that film,he was also wearing cowboy boots.If Clint was only 6f2 then how come he was the same hight as George Kennedy.
James you are forgeting Stroud was not bear foot in that film,he was also wearing cowboy boots.If Clint was only 6f2 then how come he was the same hight as George Kennedy.
Shaun said on 3/Jan/12
LOL so we're back to 6'2" for Clint. LOL James sorry but I'm not going back into that one again. Its a New Year. This is my last post on the Clint page.
LOL so we're back to 6'2" for Clint. LOL James sorry but I'm not going back into that one again. Its a New Year. This is my last post on the Clint page.
James said on 2/Jan/12
Rob its interesting that shaun mentioned that clint eastwood had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2 don stroud in coogans bluff.... in those big heeled shoes he wore in that film gave him a 2 inch height boost and if he was 6'4 and wore 2 inches boots surely he would have had 4 inches on Stroud. anyway i don't really think clint eastwood looked 6'6 in those 2 inch heels he wore throughout the whole film.
In Dirty Harry as well clint only had 2 inches on Reni Santoni who I M D B have down at 6ft (183cm). if reni was only 6' then again clint only looked a strong 6'2 in comparison.
do you think maybe i could be into something here Rob? I know quite a few people belive clint eastwood stood no taller than 6'2 peak. A peak of 6'2.25 (189cm) seems unlikely for clint but who knows?
Rob its interesting that shaun mentioned that clint eastwood had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2 don stroud in coogans bluff.... in those big heeled shoes he wore in that film gave him a 2 inch height boost and if he was 6'4 and wore 2 inches boots surely he would have had 4 inches on Stroud. anyway i don't really think clint eastwood looked 6'6 in those 2 inch heels he wore throughout the whole film.
In Dirty Harry as well clint only had 2 inches on Reni Santoni who I M D B have down at 6ft (183cm). if reni was only 6' then again clint only looked a strong 6'2 in comparison.
do you think maybe i could be into something here Rob? I know quite a few people belive clint eastwood stood no taller than 6'2 peak. A peak of 6'2.25 (189cm) seems unlikely for clint but who knows?
Silent d said on 30/Dec/11
183cm because of his old age and above it says he lost at least 3 inches and developed a dowagers hump.
183cm because of his old age and above it says he lost at least 3 inches and developed a dowagers hump.
James said on 30/Dec/11
Shaun says on 29/Dec/11
Considering he had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film...
Like i said he was 6'4 but looked shorter
Shaun says on 29/Dec/11
Considering he had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film...
Like i said he was 6'4 but looked shorter
Shaun said on 29/Dec/11
Considering he had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film...
Considering he had 2-2.5 inches on 6'2" Don Stroud in that film...
James said on 28/Dec/11
Shaun says on 28/Dec/11
Voight actually looks 2 inches shorter than Eastwood did in my opinion. Certainly his legs are shorter. And I can't think of a single minute of Coogan's Bluff where he looked anything under 6'4". That was one of his "tallest" films.
disagree i thought he looked no taller than 6'3 in that movie.
Shaun says on 28/Dec/11
Voight actually looks 2 inches shorter than Eastwood did in my opinion. Certainly his legs are shorter. And I can't think of a single minute of Coogan's Bluff where he looked anything under 6'4". That was one of his "tallest" films.
disagree i thought he looked no taller than 6'3 in that movie.
Shaun said on 28/Dec/11
Voight actually looks 2 inches shorter than Eastwood did in my opinion. Certainly his legs are shorter. And I can't think of a single minute of Coogan's Bluff where he looked anything under 6'4". That was one of his "tallest" films.
Voight actually looks 2 inches shorter than Eastwood did in my opinion. Certainly his legs are shorter. And I can't think of a single minute of Coogan's Bluff where he looked anything under 6'4". That was one of his "tallest" films.
EdgarHernandez said on 27/Dec/11
james, i naver have sugest tht clint was 6ft 5, i will the last person to do that, i think 6ft 4 was fine for him
james, i naver have sugest tht clint was 6ft 5, i will the last person to do that, i think 6ft 4 was fine for him
Gus said on 27/Dec/11
Click Here
To me 190cm Voight looked in the same measure on screen as Eastwood as a 1960s cowboy.
Click Here
To me 190cm Voight looked in the same measure on screen as Eastwood as a 1960s cowboy.
James said on 27/Dec/11
last night i saw some of coogans bluff and i thought clint eastwood looked 6'2ish or 6'3 in that film not 6'4.
edgar u suggesting clint eastwood was 6'5?
last night i saw some of coogans bluff and i thought clint eastwood looked 6'2ish or 6'3 in that film not 6'4.
edgar u suggesting clint eastwood was 6'5?
EdgarHernandez said on 27/Dec/11
R. my friend you are a very bad case. ok lets first look at this single picture, just this one:
Click Here
clint is closer to 6ft 5 rock hudson, sure you can say rock is just 6ft 3(wich is very unlikle for not to say BS) but there is 6ft 2 michael cain in the same line that he is, draw a line and you will see that there is at last 3 inches in diference between the 2, dont belive in caine being 6ft 2?, try 6ft 2 lee marvin who is next to clint and is at last 2 inches shorter(taking in acount that he is one step from clint), you try to call BS in those 2 heights?, lets see james stewart who is a very well know 6ft 3(for most of his life and sure he was at the time of this photo) and makes those 3 guys heights seem consistent.
dont belive yet? lets see stewart whit john wayne:
Click Here
john with his tipical dont care pose, hip relaxed head tild while stewart is more straight look the same as each other. you can call bs in one, maybe 2 of the guys who apear in that photo, but you cant call that on all of them.
R. my friend you are a very bad case. ok lets first look at this single picture, just this one:
Click Here
clint is closer to 6ft 5 rock hudson, sure you can say rock is just 6ft 3(wich is very unlikle for not to say BS) but there is 6ft 2 michael cain in the same line that he is, draw a line and you will see that there is at last 3 inches in diference between the 2, dont belive in caine being 6ft 2?, try 6ft 2 lee marvin who is next to clint and is at last 2 inches shorter(taking in acount that he is one step from clint), you try to call BS in those 2 heights?, lets see james stewart who is a very well know 6ft 3(for most of his life and sure he was at the time of this photo) and makes those 3 guys heights seem consistent.
dont belive yet? lets see stewart whit john wayne:
Click Here
john with his tipical dont care pose, hip relaxed head tild while stewart is more straight look the same as each other. you can call bs in one, maybe 2 of the guys who apear in that photo, but you cant call that on all of them.
James said on 26/Dec/11
looks 6'1 with james cromwell
looks 6'1 with james cromwell
R. said on 25/Dec/11
Yall are all idiots clint eastwood is 6 foot 1 john wayne 6 foot 2 and they both wore 1 to 2 inch cowboy boots, so they looked taller but they are not in truth.
Yall are all idiots clint eastwood is 6 foot 1 john wayne 6 foot 2 and they both wore 1 to 2 inch cowboy boots, so they looked taller but they are not in truth.
James said on 25/Dec/11
i did originally think that clint eastwood was between 6'4-6'5 becuase of david souls original 6'1 listing on this site.
like i said obviously the way he carried himself in some parts of dirty harry made him look a flat 6'3.
i did originally think that clint eastwood was between 6'4-6'5 becuase of david souls original 6'1 listing on this site.
like i said obviously the way he carried himself in some parts of dirty harry made him look a flat 6'3.
James said on 24/Dec/11
Shaun says on 23/Dec/11
Soul looked 6'-6'1" I think. More chance Clint was 194 than 191 if you do the comparisons. Taller than Sutherland for example who I believe was 192cm.
Well i don't think clint eastwood look over 193cm with david soul. and didn't u say that sutherland had 2 inches on sean connery?
Shaun says on 23/Dec/11
Soul looked 6'-6'1" I think. More chance Clint was 194 than 191 if you do the comparisons. Taller than Sutherland for example who I believe was 192cm.
Well i don't think clint eastwood look over 193cm with david soul. and didn't u say that sutherland had 2 inches on sean connery?
Shaun said on 23/Dec/11
I 'll agree though that he could often look 6'4" in the boots as opposed to legit though..
I 'll agree though that he could often look 6'4" in the boots as opposed to legit though..
Shaun said on 23/Dec/11
I think if you were to have measured Clint in cowboy boots in the 60s he'd have been somewhere around 6'5.5".
I think if you were to have measured Clint in cowboy boots in the 60s he'd have been somewhere around 6'5.5".
Shaun said on 23/Dec/11
Soul looked 6'-6'1" I think. More chance Clint was 194 than 191 if you do the comparisons. Taller than Sutherland for example who I believe was 192cm.
Soul looked 6'-6'1" I think. More chance Clint was 194 than 191 if you do the comparisons. Taller than Sutherland for example who I believe was 192cm.
James said on 23/Dec/11
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women. I mean Grace Jones is not exactly your average woman...
Like the guy in guy from underseige 2 dolph lundgren has got a very intimidating looking facing/build. lundgren is a guy i REALLY would not want to piss off and he would probably kick my 5'9 ass. Even though i am very muscular and work out he would own me in a fight LOL.
i heard that some robbers tried too steal from his house but when they saw a picture of dolph and realised it was his home they fled immediatley.
on a sidenote if reni santoni is 6'1 then i would say that clint eastwoods posture perhaps made him appear 190cm range in dirty harry and probably 193cm if he stood up straight which he rarely did.
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women. I mean Grace Jones is not exactly your average woman...
Like the guy in guy from underseige 2 dolph lundgren has got a very intimidating looking facing/build. lundgren is a guy i REALLY would not want to piss off and he would probably kick my 5'9 ass. Even though i am very muscular and work out he would own me in a fight LOL.
i heard that some robbers tried too steal from his house but when they saw a picture of dolph and realised it was his home they fled immediatley.
on a sidenote if reni santoni is 6'1 then i would say that clint eastwoods posture perhaps made him appear 190cm range in dirty harry and probably 193cm if he stood up straight which he rarely did.
Vegas said on 22/Dec/11
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women.
_________
Click Here
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women.
_________
Click Here
Shaun said on 22/Dec/11
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women. I mean Grace Jones is not exactly your average woman...
Lundgren would be too big and powerful for a lot of women. I mean Grace Jones is not exactly your average woman...
James said on 22/Dec/11
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Tman says on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!
The chances of Clint Eastwood measuring shorter than volunteer #13 in his prime are very slim. Don't know Jame,s Challenger #13 is close to 6'4" and doesn't look as big as Nick Brimble either but he does look very tall range.
Shaun do you think david soul could have been under 184cm?
Shaun says on 22/Dec/11
Tman says on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!
The chances of Clint Eastwood measuring shorter than volunteer #13 in his prime are very slim. Don't know Jame,s Challenger #13 is close to 6'4" and doesn't look as big as Nick Brimble either but he does look very tall range.
Shaun do you think david soul could have been under 184cm?
Shaun said on 22/Dec/11
Tman says on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!
The chances of Clint Eastwood measuring shorter than volunteer #13 in his prime are very slim. Don't know Jame,s Challenger #13 is close to 6'4" and doesn't look as big as Nick Brimble either but he does look very tall range.
Tman says on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!
The chances of Clint Eastwood measuring shorter than volunteer #13 in his prime are very slim. Don't know Jame,s Challenger #13 is close to 6'4" and doesn't look as big as Nick Brimble either but he does look very tall range.
Gus said on 22/Dec/11
Naa Lundgren was just scary looking,rocky 4 for Godsake,not sure women would go for that,his wallet on the other hand ! Its unfair to say Clint looks 6'1 range in dirty Harry,bearing in mind Reni Santoni was probably 6'1 and he had two inches on him.
Naa Lundgren was just scary looking,rocky 4 for Godsake,not sure women would go for that,his wallet on the other hand ! Its unfair to say Clint looks 6'1 range in dirty Harry,bearing in mind Reni Santoni was probably 6'1 and he had two inches on him.
Tman said on 22/Dec/11
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!
Im not really convinced that a peak Eastwood would attract more women than a peak Dolf Lundgren(1.93m 245lbs max),Lundgren looked like some sort of Aryan Godly athlete that Adolf hitler would have scouted to be his main guard,Eastwood(191.5cm 210lbs) peak on the other hand looked like 'some silent tough guy' who could beat the sh*t out of you!
James said on 20/Dec/11
well edgar here;s a better reference scene
Click Here
seriously if i did not know clint eastwoods height i would have guessed him at 6'1 range in the dirty harry police station scene above. a huge contrast too how tall he looks compared too how tall nick brimble looks thats for sure.
dolph lundgren as well in big trouble in little tokyo looked much bigger than clint eastwood.
well edgar here;s a better reference scene
Click Here
seriously if i did not know clint eastwoods height i would have guessed him at 6'1 range in the dirty harry police station scene above. a huge contrast too how tall he looks compared too how tall nick brimble looks thats for sure.
dolph lundgren as well in big trouble in little tokyo looked much bigger than clint eastwood.
EdgarHernandez said on 20/Dec/11
clint, is put far away in that clip james, he is at las 2 meters away from the old bald guy, the guy in withe suit is to close to the camera, in fact clint show his height as soon as the guy walt towards to clint. Clint is the kind of guy who dont look his height unless he is standing with one guy to compare himself, i meet a guy like that in my university, he was solid 6ft, but alot of people thought that i was taller than him, but as soon as i stod side by side, it was oviusly an inch of diference between the 2.
clint, is put far away in that clip james, he is at las 2 meters away from the old bald guy, the guy in withe suit is to close to the camera, in fact clint show his height as soon as the guy walt towards to clint. Clint is the kind of guy who dont look his height unless he is standing with one guy to compare himself, i meet a guy like that in my university, he was solid 6ft, but alot of people thought that i was taller than him, but as soon as i stod side by side, it was oviusly an inch of diference between the 2.
James said on 19/Dec/11
lol shaun i mean come on compare my clips of nick brimble in the bill police station scene
Click Here
too how tall clint eastwood looks in the diry hary police station scene
go too 1:58
Click Here
seriously clint just looks 'tall' wheare brimble looks exceptional/super tall. i'd say nick give a 1.5 inch taller impression than eastwood and that is what 6'4 is suppoused too look like. i notice as well that nick has broad shoulders whereas clint has kinda sloping shoulders like arnold schawanneger.
hard too believe nick brimble and clint eastwood would have been the same height in reality.
lol shaun i mean come on compare my clips of nick brimble in the bill police station scene
Click Here
too how tall clint eastwood looks in the diry hary police station scene
go too 1:58
Click Here
seriously clint just looks 'tall' wheare brimble looks exceptional/super tall. i'd say nick give a 1.5 inch taller impression than eastwood and that is what 6'4 is suppoused too look like. i notice as well that nick has broad shoulders whereas clint has kinda sloping shoulders like arnold schawanneger.
hard too believe nick brimble and clint eastwood would have been the same height in reality.
James said on 19/Dec/11
Shaun says on 18/Dec/11
On an added note, thanks James for that nostalgia clip!!! I love cult British TV and seeing all those cars I used to see in my childhood made it cool!!!
come on shaun you have too admit clint eastwood has never looked as big or as imposing as the 6'4 guy in my clip.
Shaun says on 18/Dec/11
On an added note, thanks James for that nostalgia clip!!! I love cult British TV and seeing all those cars I used to see in my childhood made it cool!!!
come on shaun you have too admit clint eastwood has never looked as big or as imposing as the 6'4 guy in my clip.
Shaun said on 18/Dec/11
On an added note, thanks James for that nostalgia clip!!! I love cult British TV and seeing all those cars I used to see in my childhood made it cool!!!
On an added note, thanks James for that nostalgia clip!!! I love cult British TV and seeing all those cars I used to see in my childhood made it cool!!!
Shaun said on 18/Dec/11
Yeah I recognized him as a younger version of the height page picture we have. I can always spot how a legit 6'4" looks on screen, they are usually broad shouldered and really look imposing and he looked every bit of it. But in my opinion Clint Eastwood could look that way in a lot of his Dirty Harry movies. Coogan's Bluff he looked the full 6'4" in frame regardless of boots. Remember that often a lot of his costars were tall themselves. I have watched Dirty Harry many times like Magnum Force and Clint to me did look close to 6'4". You may be right that he looked more 6'3" a lot of the time.
Yeah I recognized him as a younger version of the height page picture we have. I can always spot how a legit 6'4" looks on screen, they are usually broad shouldered and really look imposing and he looked every bit of it. But in my opinion Clint Eastwood could look that way in a lot of his Dirty Harry movies. Coogan's Bluff he looked the full 6'4" in frame regardless of boots. Remember that often a lot of his costars were tall themselves. I have watched Dirty Harry many times like Magnum Force and Clint to me did look close to 6'4". You may be right that he looked more 6'3" a lot of the time.
James said on 18/Dec/11
Shaun says on 17/Dec/11
Either way though James I think he was genuinely close enough to claim to be 6 ft 4. He had the two "lanky inches" beyond normal tall guys on screen like Van Cleef etc
Well like i have said in the past clint eastwood really looked like a regular tall guy on screen or maybe upper end of regular and never really looked exceptionally big like tim robbins but don't get me wrong clint defenintly looked well over 6ft. 6'4 is out of the realms of your average tall guy.
too me on screen he looked like a 6'3 guy a lot of the time granted he could look super tall like in coogans bluff but that was just becaue he was in cowboy boots. i think he was a 6'4 guy but could look 6'3 because of the way he carried himself and also his head was quite narrow and not very wide or prominent.
for example this is a text book example of a big looking 6'4 man... go too 8:02, 8:39 and 16:52 in the youtube clip too see what i mean. clint eastwood has never really given that type of tall impression on screen unlike this 6'4 man. the big guy in the video i posted has a pic with rob on this site and if you want too find him his name is "nick brimble."
Click Here
too be fair though if you look at at photo of this guy unlike clint he looks too have a mesomorphic body type, like broad shoulders and very wide and more prominent facial features such as a very sqaure jaw etc just like dolph lundgren. don't get me wrong clint had very strong and masculine feature but his head was not very big.
Click Here
Click Here
6'4 mesomorphic types will always look massive and in clint eastwoods defense at least he could pull more women than dolph lundgren and nick brimble LOL.
on a last note too me 5'11.5-6'3 is your typicall tall guy range.
Shaun says on 17/Dec/11
Either way though James I think he was genuinely close enough to claim to be 6 ft 4. He had the two "lanky inches" beyond normal tall guys on screen like Van Cleef etc
Well like i have said in the past clint eastwood really looked like a regular tall guy on screen or maybe upper end of regular and never really looked exceptionally big like tim robbins but don't get me wrong clint defenintly looked well over 6ft. 6'4 is out of the realms of your average tall guy.
too me on screen he looked like a 6'3 guy a lot of the time granted he could look super tall like in coogans bluff but that was just becaue he was in cowboy boots. i think he was a 6'4 guy but could look 6'3 because of the way he carried himself and also his head was quite narrow and not very wide or prominent.
for example this is a text book example of a big looking 6'4 man... go too 8:02, 8:39 and 16:52 in the youtube clip too see what i mean. clint eastwood has never really given that type of tall impression on screen unlike this 6'4 man. the big guy in the video i posted has a pic with rob on this site and if you want too find him his name is "nick brimble."
Click Here
too be fair though if you look at at photo of this guy unlike clint he looks too have a mesomorphic body type, like broad shoulders and very wide and more prominent facial features such as a very sqaure jaw etc just like dolph lundgren. don't get me wrong clint had very strong and masculine feature but his head was not very big.
Click Here
Click Here
6'4 mesomorphic types will always look massive and in clint eastwoods defense at least he could pull more women than dolph lundgren and nick brimble LOL.
on a last note too me 5'11.5-6'3 is your typicall tall guy range.
Shaun said on 17/Dec/11
Either way though James I think he was genuinely close enough to claim to be 6 ft 4. He had the two "lanky inches" beyond normal tall guys on screen like Van Cleef etc
Either way though James I think he was genuinely close enough to claim to be 6 ft 4. He had the two "lanky inches" beyond normal tall guys on screen like Van Cleef etc
James said on 16/Dec/11
no 6'4 (193cm) peak
no 6'4 (193cm) peak
maio said on 16/Dec/11
peak 6 ft 3.5 in/192 cm, nowadays, according with rob, he's 6 ft 0.5-0.75 in...
peak 6 ft 3.5 in/192 cm, nowadays, according with rob, he's 6 ft 0.5-0.75 in...
James said on 14/Dec/11
Clint Eastwood MIGHT have measured at 6'3.75 (192cm) before bed at his peak its not impossible and would have been 6'4 (193cm) in the afternoon and 6'4.5 (194cm) in the morning. Basically still a solid 6'4 anyway. d
in the old photo with arnie he looks 6'2 (188cm).
Clint Eastwood MIGHT have measured at 6'3.75 (192cm) before bed at his peak its not impossible and would have been 6'4 (193cm) in the afternoon and 6'4.5 (194cm) in the morning. Basically still a solid 6'4 anyway. d
in the old photo with arnie he looks 6'2 (188cm).
Henrik said on 13/Dec/11
I too think he was a solid 6'4".
I too think he was a solid 6'4".
EdgarHernandez said on 13/Dec/11
Julian, i think clint at his higest was a solid 6ft 4, and technically, dowager hump is just the ordinary name to kyphosis, for that mater, clint could opt for the operation(he got the money plus the healt), the operation is percutaneous vertebroplasty, basicaly the inject cement between the disks to fix the bend as much as posible, so the pacient regains some height, clint got that option. But maybe he would opt for a body brace and streching exercises.
Julian, i think clint at his higest was a solid 6ft 4, and technically, dowager hump is just the ordinary name to kyphosis, for that mater, clint could opt for the operation(he got the money plus the healt), the operation is percutaneous vertebroplasty, basicaly the inject cement between the disks to fix the bend as much as posible, so the pacient regains some height, clint got that option. But maybe he would opt for a body brace and streching exercises.
Julian said on 12/Dec/11
I think Clint Eastwood height is 6'1 respectively at the present.
Click Here or Click Here
Furthermore, if Clint Eastwood really has dowagers hump or hyper-kyphosis how much does a person really lose?
So how can anyone of you predict his peak? He could have been 6'3-6'6, for that matter? Anyone?
I think Clint Eastwood height is 6'1 respectively at the present.
Click Here or Click Here
Furthermore, if Clint Eastwood really has dowagers hump or hyper-kyphosis how much does a person really lose?
So how can anyone of you predict his peak? He could have been 6'3-6'6, for that matter? Anyone?
James said on 5/Dec/11
I saw the film 'Where Eagles Dare' last night and i thought clint eastwood looked under 6'4 in that film. could look 6'3 at times in that film but not 6'4 at all.
I saw the film 'Where Eagles Dare' last night and i thought clint eastwood looked under 6'4 in that film. could look 6'3 at times in that film but not 6'4 at all.
James said on 4/Dec/11
i still think he was a legit 193cm unless david soul was under 184cm?
i still think he was a legit 193cm unless david soul was under 184cm?
Tman said on 3/Dec/11
191,5cm peak!
191,5cm peak!
EdgarHernandez said on 3/Dec/11
gus, proportions have alot to do with height, an the leng of a leg is a very good guess to proyect an aproximation of the heigh of someone.
gus, proportions have alot to do with height, an the leng of a leg is a very good guess to proyect an aproximation of the heigh of someone.
Henrik said on 2/Dec/11
Gus says on 2/Dec/11
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:
1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care?
Well firstly,thankyou for sparing me the insults. Secondly Ive come on here to look into Clint Eastwoods height-not to see about Reeves inseam.Anyway its all light hearted banter !
Then simply don't read my posts. Was it that hard? I suppose so.
Gus says on 2/Dec/11
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:
1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care?
Well firstly,thankyou for sparing me the insults. Secondly Ive come on here to look into Clint Eastwoods height-not to see about Reeves inseam.Anyway its all light hearted banter !
Then simply don't read my posts. Was it that hard? I suppose so.
Gus said on 2/Dec/11
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:
1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care?
Well firstly,thankyou for sparing me the insults. Secondly Ive come on here to look into Clint Eastwoods height-not to see about Reeves inseam.Anyway its all light hearted banter !
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:
1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care?
Well firstly,thankyou for sparing me the insults. Secondly Ive come on here to look into Clint Eastwoods height-not to see about Reeves inseam.Anyway its all light hearted banter !
James said on 2/Dec/11
Shaun says on 1/Dec/11
Yes Reeves and Eastwood are comparable in terms of height and build both natural ectomorphs who worked out like a trojan to reach 215 pounds and get broad shoulders. Hugh Jackman in my opinion now has the chest and shoulders of a classic mesomorph when he is actually an ecto too. Its hard to believe but all I know know is that Jackman has to work extremely hard to look like that and probably takes tons of supplements to get "jacked", he's a hard gainer by his own admission. Maybe some like Jackman and Arnie are split ectos and mesos, a combination of ecto and meso which is in my opinion the chance of obtaining a perfect physique! I saw The Eiger Sanction th e other night and Clint was stood next to the door in an office and genuinely looked 6'4" I thought.
David Beckham must be an ectomorph as well even though he's only a weak 6ft
Shaun says on 1/Dec/11
Yes Reeves and Eastwood are comparable in terms of height and build both natural ectomorphs who worked out like a trojan to reach 215 pounds and get broad shoulders. Hugh Jackman in my opinion now has the chest and shoulders of a classic mesomorph when he is actually an ecto too. Its hard to believe but all I know know is that Jackman has to work extremely hard to look like that and probably takes tons of supplements to get "jacked", he's a hard gainer by his own admission. Maybe some like Jackman and Arnie are split ectos and mesos, a combination of ecto and meso which is in my opinion the chance of obtaining a perfect physique! I saw The Eiger Sanction th e other night and Clint was stood next to the door in an office and genuinely looked 6'4" I thought.
David Beckham must be an ectomorph as well even though he's only a weak 6ft
EdgarHernandez said on 1/Dec/11
gus my friend, that was a great jerk act.
gus my friend, that was a great jerk act.
Shaun said on 1/Dec/11
Yes Reeves and Eastwood are comparable in terms of height and build both natural ectomorphs who worked out like a trojan to reach 215 pounds and get broad shoulders. Hugh Jackman in my opinion now has the chest and shoulders of a classic mesomorph when he is actually an ecto too. Its hard to believe but all I know know is that Jackman has to work extremely hard to look like that and probably takes tons of supplements to get "jacked", he's a hard gainer by his own admission. Maybe some like Jackman and Arnie are split ectos and mesos, a combination of ecto and meso which is in my opinion the chance of obtaining a perfect physique! I saw The Eiger Sanction th e other night and Clint was stood next to the door in an office and genuinely looked 6'4" I thought.
Yes Reeves and Eastwood are comparable in terms of height and build both natural ectomorphs who worked out like a trojan to reach 215 pounds and get broad shoulders. Hugh Jackman in my opinion now has the chest and shoulders of a classic mesomorph when he is actually an ecto too. Its hard to believe but all I know know is that Jackman has to work extremely hard to look like that and probably takes tons of supplements to get "jacked", he's a hard gainer by his own admission. Maybe some like Jackman and Arnie are split ectos and mesos, a combination of ecto and meso which is in my opinion the chance of obtaining a perfect physique! I saw The Eiger Sanction th e other night and Clint was stood next to the door in an office and genuinely looked 6'4" I thought.
Henrik said on 1/Dec/11
Gus says on 30/Nov/11
In the nicest possible way-nobody cares.
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:
1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care?
Gus says on 30/Nov/11
In the nicest possible way-nobody cares.
That's a nice comment from you. I'll be nice and spare you the insults.But I just want to ask two questions:
1. What are you doing on this site, about height (body parts are part of the height), if you don't care?
2. Why would you write this useless "answer" if you didn't care?
Gus said on 30/Nov/11
Henrik says on 29/Nov/11
I agree on it's probable that Reeve had a 36" inseam. He was very ectomorphic as you pointed out, and I think the natural ectomorphs indeed are those who come as the most long-legged. The funny thing is, when bulked up, Reeve looked anything but "genetically slender" (ectomorph).
In the nicest possible way-nobody cares.
Henrik says on 29/Nov/11
I agree on it's probable that Reeve had a 36" inseam. He was very ectomorphic as you pointed out, and I think the natural ectomorphs indeed are those who come as the most long-legged. The funny thing is, when bulked up, Reeve looked anything but "genetically slender" (ectomorph).
In the nicest possible way-nobody cares.
Henrik said on 29/Nov/11
I agree on it's probable that Reeve had a 36" inseam. He was very ectomorphic as you pointed out, and I think the natural ectomorphs indeed are those who come as the most long-legged. The funny thing is, when bulked up, Reeve looked anything but "genetically slender" (ectomorph).
Except for the shoulders, I believe Clint could have pulled it off. The arms for instance look quite in proportion.
I agree on it's probable that Reeve had a 36" inseam. He was very ectomorphic as you pointed out, and I think the natural ectomorphs indeed are those who come as the most long-legged. The funny thing is, when bulked up, Reeve looked anything but "genetically slender" (ectomorph).
Except for the shoulders, I believe Clint could have pulled it off. The arms for instance look quite in proportion.
James said on 29/Nov/11
EdgarHernandez says on 28/Nov/11
well james, clint as far as i know was becoming tired of his, "heroic-badass" imagen, so he decided to play goffy movies just for the fun of making movies(and money dont forget money) in fact the 2 orangutan movies were at the time his biggest box hits, and lets just say that the 80s clint was pretty much in self parody mode.
I guess as well he's not the best actor in the world either is he?
EdgarHernandez says on 28/Nov/11
well james, clint as far as i know was becoming tired of his, "heroic-badass" imagen, so he decided to play goffy movies just for the fun of making movies(and money dont forget money) in fact the 2 orangutan movies were at the time his biggest box hits, and lets just say that the 80s clint was pretty much in self parody mode.
I guess as well he's not the best actor in the world either is he?
EdgarHernandez said on 29/Nov/11
henrik i think christopher lee is very much proportioned like clint eastwood, the only, mayor diference between the 2( apart from the facial features) is that reeve have very massive shoulders. here in this one clip you can see christopher exersicing, he looks legit tall, with long legs(is very noticiable when he is doing dips), so is very probable that he had a 36 one, also like clint reeves was naturaly slender build(he described himself as looking like jimmy stewart when he first auditioned).
Click Here
Click Here
this is quite amusing since clint was considered for the part but he was very busy, but tell me henrik, do you think that clint, if he bulked up(he was 216 at his heaviest, the same that reeves was in the first superman film) even more, you think that he could have filled the part, at last phisically?
Click Here
henrik i think christopher lee is very much proportioned like clint eastwood, the only, mayor diference between the 2( apart from the facial features) is that reeve have very massive shoulders. here in this one clip you can see christopher exersicing, he looks legit tall, with long legs(is very noticiable when he is doing dips), so is very probable that he had a 36 one, also like clint reeves was naturaly slender build(he described himself as looking like jimmy stewart when he first auditioned).
Click Here
Click Here
this is quite amusing since clint was considered for the part but he was very busy, but tell me henrik, do you think that clint, if he bulked up(he was 216 at his heaviest, the same that reeves was in the first superman film) even more, you think that he could have filled the part, at last phisically?
Click Here
EdgarHernandez said on 28/Nov/11
well james, clint as far as i know was becoming tired of his, "heroic-badass" imagen, so he decided to play goffy movies just for the fun of making movies(and money dont forget money) in fact the 2 orangutan movies were at the time his biggest box hits, and lets just say that the 80s clint was pretty much in self parody mode.
well james, clint as far as i know was becoming tired of his, "heroic-badass" imagen, so he decided to play goffy movies just for the fun of making movies(and money dont forget money) in fact the 2 orangutan movies were at the time his biggest box hits, and lets just say that the 80s clint was pretty much in self parody mode.
Henrik said on 28/Nov/11
Edgar, what inseam do you think Christopher Reeve had?
Edgar, what inseam do you think Christopher Reeve had?
James said on 27/Nov/11
Shaun says on 26/Nov/11
I feel a little hurt by what Gaga said about me on the general pages. All I've been saying is that I can't help wishing I looked more like darker guys I think look great at 6'4" or 6'5" and that I think 135 pounds at 6 ft 3 would be dreadfully underweight!! Obviously I struck a nerve, of course there are very skinny guys who wished they could be more muscular, didn't think of that. Am I being a complete egotistical a-hole? Sorry. Sigh. Yes James some of Clint's films in the late 70s and 80s I did not like, the best by far were 1964-1975. Play Misty for Me and that are great films though, although like you the westerns and Dirty Harry are the best.
Yeah but seriously there were A LOT of goofy redkneck characters in some of his movies like 'cadilac' amongst many others. really just tedious how over the top some of the characters were in those films.
Shaun says on 26/Nov/11
I feel a little hurt by what Gaga said about me on the general pages. All I've been saying is that I can't help wishing I looked more like darker guys I think look great at 6'4" or 6'5" and that I think 135 pounds at 6 ft 3 would be dreadfully underweight!! Obviously I struck a nerve, of course there are very skinny guys who wished they could be more muscular, didn't think of that. Am I being a complete egotistical a-hole? Sorry. Sigh. Yes James some of Clint's films in the late 70s and 80s I did not like, the best by far were 1964-1975. Play Misty for Me and that are great films though, although like you the westerns and Dirty Harry are the best.
Yeah but seriously there were A LOT of goofy redkneck characters in some of his movies like 'cadilac' amongst many others. really just tedious how over the top some of the characters were in those films.
Henrik said on 27/Nov/11
the shredder says on 27/Nov/11
I think Clint was 6'3 and John Wayne 6'2 .
Robert Mitchum supposedly said that Wayne was a little over 6'3" barefoot, indicating that Wayne was a weak 6'4" (measuring 6'4" in the morning, that is). Wayne's high school records stated 6'3", and college records stated 6'4" after that. Both of them just can't be wrong.
the shredder says on 27/Nov/11
I think Clint was 6'3 and John Wayne 6'2 .
Robert Mitchum supposedly said that Wayne was a little over 6'3" barefoot, indicating that Wayne was a weak 6'4" (measuring 6'4" in the morning, that is). Wayne's high school records stated 6'3", and college records stated 6'4" after that. Both of them just can't be wrong.
the shredder said on 27/Nov/11
I think Clint was 6'3 and John Wayne 6'2 .
I think Clint was 6'3 and John Wayne 6'2 .
EdgarHernandez said on 26/Nov/11
shaun i dessagre with you in the fact of john wayne as lift usser, more with 4 inch lifts, i mean, shaun, have you tried to walk with boots, not just that but run?, i have boots, and belive me, i cant stand boots with more than 2 inches heel(i prefer boots with 1 inch or 1.5), if john wayne use boots plus 4 inches lifts my friend, he would have make ladies jealous with his control of equilibrium with his 6 inches raise.
shaun i dessagre with you in the fact of john wayne as lift usser, more with 4 inch lifts, i mean, shaun, have you tried to walk with boots, not just that but run?, i have boots, and belive me, i cant stand boots with more than 2 inches heel(i prefer boots with 1 inch or 1.5), if john wayne use boots plus 4 inches lifts my friend, he would have make ladies jealous with his control of equilibrium with his 6 inches raise.
Shaun said on 26/Nov/11
I feel a little hurt by what Gaga said about me on the general pages. All I've been saying is that I can't help wishing I looked more like darker guys I think look great at 6'4" or 6'5" and that I think 135 pounds at 6 ft 3 would be dreadfully underweight!! Obviously I struck a nerve, of course there are very skinny guys who wished they could be more muscular, didn't think of that. Am I being a complete egotistical a-hole? Sorry. Sigh. Yes James some of Clint's films in the late 70s and 80s I did not like, the best by far were 1964-1975. Play Misty for Me and that are great films though, although like you the westerns and Dirty Harry are the best.
I feel a little hurt by what Gaga said about me on the general pages. All I've been saying is that I can't help wishing I looked more like darker guys I think look great at 6'4" or 6'5" and that I think 135 pounds at 6 ft 3 would be dreadfully underweight!! Obviously I struck a nerve, of course there are very skinny guys who wished they could be more muscular, didn't think of that. Am I being a complete egotistical a-hole? Sorry. Sigh. Yes James some of Clint's films in the late 70s and 80s I did not like, the best by far were 1964-1975. Play Misty for Me and that are great films though, although like you the westerns and Dirty Harry are the best.
James said on 26/Nov/11
Shaun says on 26/Nov/11
John Wayne wore 4 inch lifts in his boots to look taller that's why!!
i take it you don't belive he's 6'4 then?
Shaun says on 26/Nov/11
John Wayne wore 4 inch lifts in his boots to look taller that's why!!
i take it you don't belive he's 6'4 then?
Shaun said on 26/Nov/11
Conan o Brien wears 38 inch inseams which would be normal on a 6 ft 10 guy.
Conan o Brien wears 38 inch inseams which would be normal on a 6 ft 10 guy.
Shaun said on 26/Nov/11
John Wayne wore 4 inch lifts in his boots to look taller that's why!!
John Wayne wore 4 inch lifts in his boots to look taller that's why!!
James said on 25/Nov/11
on a sidenote i like clint eastwood in his westerns and dirty harry films although besides that a lot of his other films in the late 70's and 80's are just trailer trash and redkneck material such as pink cadelac, anyway which you lose, anyway which you can amongst others
would u guys agree? i did like his work in gran torino and in the line of fire even though i am not a huge fan of his movies really.
on a sidenote i like clint eastwood in his westerns and dirty harry films although besides that a lot of his other films in the late 70's and 80's are just trailer trash and redkneck material such as pink cadelac, anyway which you lose, anyway which you can amongst others
would u guys agree? i did like his work in gran torino and in the line of fire even though i am not a huge fan of his movies really.
Henrik said on 25/Nov/11
I did a Google search, both in English and in Swedish (my native language) on 6'4" and inseam. It seemed that 34 was the most common to get as result. So you're probably right, Edgar.
I did a Google search, both in English and in Swedish (my native language) on 6'4" and inseam. It seemed that 34 was the most common to get as result. So you're probably right, Edgar.
Henrik said on 25/Nov/11
Doesn't Dolph have a 36" inseam? It would be odd that some guys on this site said he was starting to get "unproportionate" if he is shrinking from a strong (?) 6'4" with an inseam of 34".
Doesn't Dolph have a 36" inseam? It would be odd that some guys on this site said he was starting to get "unproportionate" if he is shrinking from a strong (?) 6'4" with an inseam of 34".
James said on 25/Nov/11
Well dolph always gave of a taller impression on screen than clint eastwood ever did. in fact john wayne also looked taller than clint did in his westenrs.
i have no problem seeing 6'4 for john wayne.
Well dolph always gave of a taller impression on screen than clint eastwood ever did. in fact john wayne also looked taller than clint did in his westenrs.
i have no problem seeing 6'4 for john wayne.
EdgarHernandez said on 24/Nov/11
this is how a 6ft 4 guy wit a 34 inseam looks like:
Click Here
(dont let the high waist pants fool you, you can see his inseam)
Click Here
(in his one you can see the leg ws torso lengt)
that was john wayne, now lets see dolph proportions:
Click Here
(to me that is a 34 inseam)
Click Here
(his leg to torso proportions match alot the ones of john wayne)
and, james is weird but i think that dolph looks more proporcional know thatn before. And to the tim robbins one:
i not a fashion consultand, but is ovvius that tim has a long torso, not helped by the long suits:
Click Here
Click Here
(this is one long torso)
Click Here
fortunate tim has the luck of being born with natural good posture and a thick back, otherwise, he had all the lements to look short with a little sluch.
clint in other hand is the complety opositive of tim, small boned, very long legged and more lean:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
I only know 2 more guys who are not 7ft and have legs longer than clint:
Click Here
Click Here
(conan already is very odd proportionated, so...how he would look at clint age?)
Click Here
Click Here
then again, from james cromwell is to be expected that kind of long legs.
i know alot of tall actor who have 34 legs, i can count in the fingers of my hand the ones with 36(is very rare have legs that long specialy if you are not 6ft 6 or 6ft 7), like clint walker, rock hudson, and jimmy stewart.
this is how a 6ft 4 guy wit a 34 inseam looks like:
Click Here
(dont let the high waist pants fool you, you can see his inseam)
Click Here
(in his one you can see the leg ws torso lengt)
that was john wayne, now lets see dolph proportions:
Click Here
(to me that is a 34 inseam)
Click Here
(his leg to torso proportions match alot the ones of john wayne)
and, james is weird but i think that dolph looks more proporcional know thatn before. And to the tim robbins one:
i not a fashion consultand, but is ovvius that tim has a long torso, not helped by the long suits:
Click Here
Click Here
(this is one long torso)
Click Here
fortunate tim has the luck of being born with natural good posture and a thick back, otherwise, he had all the lements to look short with a little sluch.
clint in other hand is the complety opositive of tim, small boned, very long legged and more lean:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
I only know 2 more guys who are not 7ft and have legs longer than clint:
Click Here
Click Here
(conan already is very odd proportionated, so...how he would look at clint age?)
Click Here
Click Here
then again, from james cromwell is to be expected that kind of long legs.
i know alot of tall actor who have 34 legs, i can count in the fingers of my hand the ones with 36(is very rare have legs that long specialy if you are not 6ft 6 or 6ft 7), like clint walker, rock hudson, and jimmy stewart.
Henrik said on 23/Nov/11
Shaun says on 23/Nov/11
How do you know Clint's? I've said all along he definitely has 36 inseams maybe even 37. Dunno you'd expect Robbins to have around 36 inseams too but his legs are clearly an inch or two shorter than Clints.
There's no legitimate source as far as I know. I found it written on a bike forum that claimed it was his "posted measurements". It sounds believable to me, anyway.
Shaun says on 23/Nov/11
How do you know Clint's? I've said all along he definitely has 36 inseams maybe even 37. Dunno you'd expect Robbins to have around 36 inseams too but his legs are clearly an inch or two shorter than Clints.
There's no legitimate source as far as I know. I found it written on a bike forum that claimed it was his "posted measurements". It sounds believable to me, anyway.
James said on 23/Nov/11
Shaun - dolph lundgren like clint is starting too get a bit out of proportion these days.
Shaun - dolph lundgren like clint is starting too get a bit out of proportion these days.
Shaun said on 23/Nov/11
Currently Clint has the torso length of a 5 ft 8 guy with the legs of a 6 ft 6 guy. Which is why he ends up being somewhere near 6'1!!
Currently Clint has the torso length of a 5 ft 8 guy with the legs of a 6 ft 6 guy. Which is why he ends up being somewhere near 6'1!!
Shaun said on 23/Nov/11
Henrik says on 22/Nov/11
Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Anyone have any idea of Tim Robbins' inseam? Clint's is supposed to be 36.6.
How do you know Clint's? I've said all along he definitely has 36 inseams maybe even 37. Dunno you'd expect Robbins to have around 36 inseams too but his legs are clearly an inch or two shorter than Clints.
Henrik says on 22/Nov/11
Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Anyone have any idea of Tim Robbins' inseam? Clint's is supposed to be 36.6.
How do you know Clint's? I've said all along he definitely has 36 inseams maybe even 37. Dunno you'd expect Robbins to have around 36 inseams too but his legs are clearly an inch or two shorter than Clints.
Henrik said on 22/Nov/11
Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Anyone have any idea of Tim Robbins' inseam? Clint's is supposed to be 36.6.
Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Anyone have any idea of Tim Robbins' inseam? Clint's is supposed to be 36.6.
EdgarHernandez said on 22/Nov/11
the may problem julian, is that clint is not average person, the minimun at prime was 6ft 3.5, and that was probably after a hard day filming and he just go to sleep at 11 pm.
the may problem julian, is that clint is not average person, the minimun at prime was 6ft 3.5, and that was probably after a hard day filming and he just go to sleep at 11 pm.
James said on 22/Nov/11
well just by looking at him in his early films 6'4 can seem hard too believe.
well just by looking at him in his early films 6'4 can seem hard too believe.
jfm said on 22/Nov/11
I met clint eastwood at agym in Boston in 2002 while he was filming the movie Mystic River. I'm 6'3' and Clint was about an inch or so shorther than me. His posture wasn't that good so I put Clint at barely 6'2' back in 2002.
I met clint eastwood at agym in Boston in 2002 while he was filming the movie Mystic River. I'm 6'3' and Clint was about an inch or so shorther than me. His posture wasn't that good so I put Clint at barely 6'2' back in 2002.
Julian said on 21/Nov/11
Clint Eastwood's height currently stands at 6'1, period! In his prime he may have been 6'2 or 6'3. I think that would be the average one would lose as a person ages.
Check out:
Click Here
Clint Eastwood's height currently stands at 6'1, period! In his prime he may have been 6'2 or 6'3. I think that would be the average one would lose as a person ages.
Check out:
Click Here
James said on 20/Nov/11
Hey guys do you agree that dolph lundgren who was also 6'4 like clint eastwood can give of a much taller impression on screen?
I was watching big trouble in little tokyo last night and dolph looks huge much bigger than clint looked in his films. i think dolph has much broader shoulders and a more masculine and square face than clint eastwood. i mean if you see the dirty harry police station scene it just laughable too think he is the same height as big dolph.
Clint on screen gaves of that tall and lanky impression but lundgren really does give that 'super tall' impression that clint never really did unless he wore cowboy boots like in the ending scene of a fistul of dollars or how he looked in coogans bluff. the ending scene in that film was one of the few times that clint eastwood could give of that super tall impression like some 6'4 and 6'5 guys can do but most of hte time even in his westerns he just gives of that 'regular tall guy' vibe.
Dolph Lundgren really was a true example of a mesomorph whereas clint eastwood was an ectomorph so there is a big difference in there body types. very tall mesomorphic men like lundgren and ralf moller can look gigantic becuase of there height and body types.
Hey guys do you agree that dolph lundgren who was also 6'4 like clint eastwood can give of a much taller impression on screen?
I was watching big trouble in little tokyo last night and dolph looks huge much bigger than clint looked in his films. i think dolph has much broader shoulders and a more masculine and square face than clint eastwood. i mean if you see the dirty harry police station scene it just laughable too think he is the same height as big dolph.
Clint on screen gaves of that tall and lanky impression but lundgren really does give that 'super tall' impression that clint never really did unless he wore cowboy boots like in the ending scene of a fistul of dollars or how he looked in coogans bluff. the ending scene in that film was one of the few times that clint eastwood could give of that super tall impression like some 6'4 and 6'5 guys can do but most of hte time even in his westerns he just gives of that 'regular tall guy' vibe.
Dolph Lundgren really was a true example of a mesomorph whereas clint eastwood was an ectomorph so there is a big difference in there body types. very tall mesomorphic men like lundgren and ralf moller can look gigantic becuase of there height and body types.
James said on 20/Nov/11
didn't clint eastwood have 4 inches on Lee Marvin in the Paint your Wagon weddings scene? What would that make Clint? 6'6? LOL.
didn't clint eastwood have 4 inches on Lee Marvin in the Paint your Wagon weddings scene? What would that make Clint? 6'6? LOL.
James said on 20/Nov/11
here is some evidence Gus
Click Here
Click Here
Also Beckhams dad is also bald.
here is some evidence Gus
Click Here
Click Here
Also Beckhams dad is also bald.
EdgarHernandez said on 19/Nov/11
well, to be fair with you mike, my grandfather had his hip remplacement in the very early 80s.
well, to be fair with you mike, my grandfather had his hip remplacement in the very early 80s.
Mike said on 18/Nov/11
EdgarHernandez....I repeat, my cousin does knee replacements. If it's done right, you lose zero height.
EdgarHernandez....I repeat, my cousin does knee replacements. If it's done right, you lose zero height.
thebad7 said on 18/Nov/11
@Gus: You're right about THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT. It's Eastwood's most underrated performance as an actor and one of my personal favorites of all his work. It was filmed in the summer of '73 in Great Bend, Montana and several other places thereabout. The ending especially kills me every time I watch it--nobody conveys that weary sadness (even through a pair of shades) the way Eastwood does.
I agree with you: when Eastwood stands with good posture, he has an easy 2"+ on Bridges, and he looks the same height as George Kennedy, with both men wearing similar shoes.
tb7
@Gus: You're right about THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT. It's Eastwood's most underrated performance as an actor and one of my personal favorites of all his work. It was filmed in the summer of '73 in Great Bend, Montana and several other places thereabout. The ending especially kills me every time I watch it--nobody conveys that weary sadness (even through a pair of shades) the way Eastwood does.
I agree with you: when Eastwood stands with good posture, he has an easy 2"+ on Bridges, and he looks the same height as George Kennedy, with both men wearing similar shoes.
tb7
Gus said on 18/Nov/11
James says on 17/Nov/11
its funny yo mention hairstlyes as well Gus because both beckham and c.ronaldo are already losing there hair on top
Ive never noticed that,any pics to show ?
Bale is the same mould yer,I cant see why they dont get him in for James Bond tbh.
Shaun says on 17/Nov/11
Click Here
Yeah quite a difference in skin and features.
Not really though Shaun,the only difference is a simple haircut,stuble and a tan,and obviously a few years older DBeckham.
James says on 17/Nov/11
its funny yo mention hairstlyes as well Gus because both beckham and c.ronaldo are already losing there hair on top
Ive never noticed that,any pics to show ?
Bale is the same mould yer,I cant see why they dont get him in for James Bond tbh.
Shaun says on 17/Nov/11
Click Here
Yeah quite a difference in skin and features.
Not really though Shaun,the only difference is a simple haircut,stuble and a tan,and obviously a few years older DBeckham.
James said on 18/Nov/11
Shaun u agree that christian bale with a shaven head looks just look david beckham?
Shaun u agree that christian bale with a shaven head looks just look david beckham?
EdgarHernandez said on 17/Nov/11
mike, my grandfather for father side had one hip remplacement, and he lost height from being remarcable taller than my dad he past to be just 2 inches taller, is just that sometimes, like david prowse say: " the pice was shorter than the original", wich happens most of the time.
mike, my grandfather for father side had one hip remplacement, and he lost height from being remarcable taller than my dad he past to be just 2 inches taller, is just that sometimes, like david prowse say: " the pice was shorter than the original", wich happens most of the time.
James said on 17/Nov/11
You see i also think christian bale has that male model type material that ronaldo and beckham possess like chiseled cheeckbones. would u agree guys?
Bale actually looks like david beckham as well and is roughly the same height as him
Click Here
sorry i know thats a bit random lol.
You see i also think christian bale has that male model type material that ronaldo and beckham possess like chiseled cheeckbones. would u agree guys?
Bale actually looks like david beckham as well and is roughly the same height as him
Click Here
sorry i know thats a bit random lol.
James said on 17/Nov/11
its funny yo mention hairstlyes as well Gus because both beckham and c.ronaldo are already losing there hair on top
its funny yo mention hairstlyes as well Gus because both beckham and c.ronaldo are already losing there hair on top
James said on 17/Nov/11
Gus says on 16/Nov/11
James says on 16/Nov/11
i remeber this person in the media who knew david said that before david beckham started getting fake tans and a makeover that he was just an average looking bloke.
I dont think so,makeup etc can only do so much-ie all the makeup on the planet wouldnt turn Geoffrey Rush in to C Ronaldo.Beckham had something,hairstyles,tans and weight lifting etc just adds to the base. Clint when he was younger was like Beckham in physiognomy,not look alikes but the same idea,tanned skin,good chisled cheekbones,sandy hair..etc male model materials.
Yeah i always thought the resemblence between clint eastwood and david beckham was exzaggerated because more often than not they did not lookalike.
Gus says on 16/Nov/11
James says on 16/Nov/11
i remeber this person in the media who knew david said that before david beckham started getting fake tans and a makeover that he was just an average looking bloke.
I dont think so,makeup etc can only do so much-ie all the makeup on the planet wouldnt turn Geoffrey Rush in to C Ronaldo.Beckham had something,hairstyles,tans and weight lifting etc just adds to the base. Clint when he was younger was like Beckham in physiognomy,not look alikes but the same idea,tanned skin,good chisled cheekbones,sandy hair..etc male model materials.
Yeah i always thought the resemblence between clint eastwood and david beckham was exzaggerated because more often than not they did not lookalike.
Mike said on 16/Nov/11
Hip or knee surgery does not shorten your legs, or anything else. Anything they take out, they replace. If anything, you're a hair taller. My cousin does knee replacements.
Hip or knee surgery does not shorten your legs, or anything else. Anything they take out, they replace. If anything, you're a hair taller. My cousin does knee replacements.
Gus said on 16/Nov/11
James says on 16/Nov/11
i remeber this person in the media who knew david said that before david beckham started getting fake tans and a makeover that he was just an average looking bloke.
I dont think so,makeup etc can only do so much-ie all the makeup on the planet wouldnt turn Geoffrey Rush in to C Ronaldo.Beckham had something,hairstyles,tans and weight lifting etc just adds to the base. Clint when he was younger was like Beckham in physiognomy,not look alikes but the same idea,tanned skin,good chisled cheekbones,sandy hair..etc male model materials.
James says on 16/Nov/11
i remeber this person in the media who knew david said that before david beckham started getting fake tans and a makeover that he was just an average looking bloke.
I dont think so,makeup etc can only do so much-ie all the makeup on the planet wouldnt turn Geoffrey Rush in to C Ronaldo.Beckham had something,hairstyles,tans and weight lifting etc just adds to the base. Clint when he was younger was like Beckham in physiognomy,not look alikes but the same idea,tanned skin,good chisled cheekbones,sandy hair..etc male model materials.
James said on 16/Nov/11
Shaun says on 15/Nov/11
Eeesh, Beckham seems to have been extremely lucky with his looks, his parents are not exactly what you'd call remarkable....
it also works the other way round
Click Here
Shaun says on 15/Nov/11
Eeesh, Beckham seems to have been extremely lucky with his looks, his parents are not exactly what you'd call remarkable....
it also works the other way round
Click Here
James said on 16/Nov/11
Shaun says on 15/Nov/11
Eeesh, Beckham seems to have been extremely lucky with his looks, his parents are not exactly what you'd call remarkable....
i remeber this person in the media who knew david said that before david beckham started getting fake tans and a makeover that he was just an average looking bloke.
Shaun says on 15/Nov/11
Eeesh, Beckham seems to have been extremely lucky with his looks, his parents are not exactly what you'd call remarkable....
i remeber this person in the media who knew david said that before david beckham started getting fake tans and a makeover that he was just an average looking bloke.
Danimal said on 15/Nov/11
Josh B says on 12/Nov/11
@James look how much his torso has shrunk, jez. His trousers are the same height as the guy to his left yet he's a good few inches shorter. Similar to David Prowse i'd say, he has a high trouser line and a massively shrunken torso.
Arnold S.'s upper torso also has that compressed look while his legs still look long. It's always the upper torso that goes first, unless you have hip, or knee surgery, which shortens the lower body too (as in Hulk Hogan).
Josh B says on 12/Nov/11
@James look how much his torso has shrunk, jez. His trousers are the same height as the guy to his left yet he's a good few inches shorter. Similar to David Prowse i'd say, he has a high trouser line and a massively shrunken torso.
Arnold S.'s upper torso also has that compressed look while his legs still look long. It's always the upper torso that goes first, unless you have hip, or knee surgery, which shortens the lower body too (as in Hulk Hogan).
Shaun said on 15/Nov/11
Eeesh, Beckham seems to have been extremely lucky with his looks, his parents are not exactly what you'd call remarkable....
Eeesh, Beckham seems to have been extremely lucky with his looks, his parents are not exactly what you'd call remarkable....
Shaun said on 15/Nov/11
LOL Gus, eh, looks nothing like her!
LOL Gus, eh, looks nothing like her!
James said on 15/Nov/11
Gus says on 15/Nov/11
"david beckhams mother looked very much like diana actually"
lol she'd be turning in her grave if she heard that
Well an uglier version LOL
Gus says on 15/Nov/11
"david beckhams mother looked very much like diana actually"
lol she'd be turning in her grave if she heard that
Well an uglier version LOL
Gus said on 15/Nov/11
"david beckhams mother looked very much like diana actually"
lol she'd be turning in her grave if she heard that
"david beckhams mother looked very much like diana actually"
lol she'd be turning in her grave if she heard that
James said on 15/Nov/11
Shaun says on 14/Nov/11
Diana actually reminds me a lot of my own mother facially, similar coloring, not height though..
david beckhams mother looked very much like diana actually
Click Here
Shaun says on 14/Nov/11
Diana actually reminds me a lot of my own mother facially, similar coloring, not height though..
david beckhams mother looked very much like diana actually
Click Here
Shaun said on 14/Nov/11
Diana actually reminds me a lot of my own mother facially, similar coloring, not height though..
Diana actually reminds me a lot of my own mother facially, similar coloring, not height though..
Shaun said on 14/Nov/11
Perhaps Diana used to wake him up before he go-go?
Perhaps Diana used to wake him up before he go-go?
James said on 14/Nov/11
Shaun says on 13/Nov/11
Diana would reach about 6'1" in heels so yeah looks 6'3". Is it me though or can you sense a strong attraction between Clint and Diana James?.
yeah i can see a bit of an attraction.. although i think diana had more of a thing for George Michael clearly judging by these pics :)
Click Here
Click Here
Shaun says on 13/Nov/11
Diana would reach about 6'1" in heels so yeah looks 6'3". Is it me though or can you sense a strong attraction between Clint and Diana James?.
yeah i can see a bit of an attraction.. although i think diana had more of a thing for George Michael clearly judging by these pics :)
Click Here
Click Here
Shaun said on 13/Nov/11
I think Armie Hammer is more 6'4.5". Clint can often look a full 6'1" still if stood straight.
I think Armie Hammer is more 6'4.5". Clint can often look a full 6'1" still if stood straight.
Shaun said on 13/Nov/11
Diana would reach about 6'1" in heels so yeah looks 6'3". Is it me though or can you sense a strong attraction between Clint and Diana James?.
Diana would reach about 6'1" in heels so yeah looks 6'3". Is it me though or can you sense a strong attraction between Clint and Diana James?.
James said on 13/Nov/11
EdgarHernandez says on 13/Nov/11
then again james, thatmakes clint a solid 6ft 1 in the pics of you.
do u agree that armmie is under 6'5?
EdgarHernandez says on 13/Nov/11
then again james, thatmakes clint a solid 6ft 1 in the pics of you.
do u agree that armmie is under 6'5?
EdgarHernandez said on 13/Nov/11
then again james, thatmakes clint a solid 6ft 1 in the pics of you.
then again james, thatmakes clint a solid 6ft 1 in the pics of you.
James said on 13/Nov/11
i think that armmie photo kinda shows that clint eastwoods height loss has been exzaggerated. too me clint looks 6'1 1/2 if Armmie Hammer is actually 6'5.. given that hammer stands with great posture i don't think he looks 6'5. armmie looks more than just 1cm shorter than a guy like ralf moller and does not give of the same impression than neil flynn... heck armmie does not even look quite as tall as tim robbins.
its likely that a peak clint eastwood was shorter than armmie hammer so if you stood a 1973 clint eastwood next too a 2011 clint perhaps the height gap would not be big?
shaun- here is a far better photo too judge how tall clint eastwood looks with princess diana. he actually does look 6'3 here taking all things into consideration and there looks maybe a 3 inch difference?
Click Here
in the article i think diana says like how clint eastwood would be the tallest man at the after party which would not be true for a 6'3 man.
silent d diana was 5'10 of course women can give of a taller impression than men do at certain heights. diana with her slim build would have no problem pulling of looking 6ft. i knew a 5'9 lady that was guessed at 6'0 by a lot of people.
i think that armmie photo kinda shows that clint eastwoods height loss has been exzaggerated. too me clint looks 6'1 1/2 if Armmie Hammer is actually 6'5.. given that hammer stands with great posture i don't think he looks 6'5. armmie looks more than just 1cm shorter than a guy like ralf moller and does not give of the same impression than neil flynn... heck armmie does not even look quite as tall as tim robbins.
its likely that a peak clint eastwood was shorter than armmie hammer so if you stood a 1973 clint eastwood next too a 2011 clint perhaps the height gap would not be big?
shaun- here is a far better photo too judge how tall clint eastwood looks with princess diana. he actually does look 6'3 here taking all things into consideration and there looks maybe a 3 inch difference?
Click Here
in the article i think diana says like how clint eastwood would be the tallest man at the after party which would not be true for a 6'3 man.
silent d diana was 5'10 of course women can give of a taller impression than men do at certain heights. diana with her slim build would have no problem pulling of looking 6ft. i knew a 5'9 lady that was guessed at 6'0 by a lot of people.
James said on 13/Nov/11
EdgarHernandez says on 12/Nov/11
james the second one dicaprio(who for my point of view is 5ft 11.5 or a strong 5ft 11) looks 2 solid inches shorter maybe 2.5, wich make clint look like a strong 6ft 1, maybe 6f 2 pushing a little, and the diference with hammer of 3 inches makes this clint between solid 6ft 1 or weak 6ft 2, james do you agree that that second photo is the tallest that clint has pull of looking in recent years?
i think higher chance that hammer is a weak 6'5
EdgarHernandez says on 12/Nov/11
james the second one dicaprio(who for my point of view is 5ft 11.5 or a strong 5ft 11) looks 2 solid inches shorter maybe 2.5, wich make clint look like a strong 6ft 1, maybe 6f 2 pushing a little, and the diference with hammer of 3 inches makes this clint between solid 6ft 1 or weak 6ft 2, james do you agree that that second photo is the tallest that clint has pull of looking in recent years?
i think higher chance that hammer is a weak 6'5
dmeyer said on 13/Nov/11
looks 6 ft alot but if he stand fully tall he will measures 6 ft 0.5-0.75 in he bit brad pitt in cubans
looks 6 ft alot but if he stand fully tall he will measures 6 ft 0.5-0.75 in he bit brad pitt in cubans
Josh B said on 12/Nov/11
@James look how much his torso has shrunk, jez. His trousers are the same height as the guy to his left yet he's a good few inches shorter. Similar to David Prowse i'd say, he has a high trouser line and a massively shrunken torso.
@James look how much his torso has shrunk, jez. His trousers are the same height as the guy to his left yet he's a good few inches shorter. Similar to David Prowse i'd say, he has a high trouser line and a massively shrunken torso.
EdgarHernandez said on 12/Nov/11
james the second one dicaprio(who for my point of view is 5ft 11.5 or a strong 5ft 11) looks 2 solid inches shorter maybe 2.5, wich make clint look like a strong 6ft 1, maybe 6f 2 pushing a little, and the diference with hammer of 3 inches makes this clint between solid 6ft 1 or weak 6ft 2, james do you agree that that second photo is the tallest that clint has pull of looking in recent years?
james the second one dicaprio(who for my point of view is 5ft 11.5 or a strong 5ft 11) looks 2 solid inches shorter maybe 2.5, wich make clint look like a strong 6ft 1, maybe 6f 2 pushing a little, and the diference with hammer of 3 inches makes this clint between solid 6ft 1 or weak 6ft 2, james do you agree that that second photo is the tallest that clint has pull of looking in recent years?
James said on 11/Nov/11
hey guys would u agree armmie hammer looks 6'4 (193cm) with clint eastwood?
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
One thing is for sure he does not look the 6'5 he is listed at on this site. heck robbins looked taller next too clint than armmie did and clint was slightly taller back in 2005.
hey guys would u agree armmie hammer looks 6'4 (193cm) with clint eastwood?
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
One thing is for sure he does not look the 6'5 he is listed at on this site. heck robbins looked taller next too clint than armmie did and clint was slightly taller back in 2005.
James said on 11/Nov/11
Bridges was 187cm so 6'4 makes sense for Eastwood in 74.
Bridges was 187cm so 6'4 makes sense for Eastwood in 74.
Gus said on 10/Nov/11
I dont know why more people dont refer to Eastwood in Thunderbolt and lighfoot-1974,filmed probably in '73,so Eastwood at near enough prime.Bridges is widely regarded as anything between 185-188cm,I go for 186 myself. With his usual posture clint had no more than an inch or so on Bridges-so presumably 6'2.5...however when Eastwood flexed his back out,had an easy 2.5 inches on Bridges,three at a push.Which means for me,if Bridges was 185cm,means Clint was 191/192cm with good posture,if Bridges was 187cm like some claim,Eastwood was a comfortable 6'4.
I dont know why more people dont refer to Eastwood in Thunderbolt and lighfoot-1974,filmed probably in '73,so Eastwood at near enough prime.Bridges is widely regarded as anything between 185-188cm,I go for 186 myself. With his usual posture clint had no more than an inch or so on Bridges-so presumably 6'2.5...however when Eastwood flexed his back out,had an easy 2.5 inches on Bridges,three at a push.Which means for me,if Bridges was 185cm,means Clint was 191/192cm with good posture,if Bridges was 187cm like some claim,Eastwood was a comfortable 6'4.
Shaun said on 10/Nov/11
The Diana and Eastwood pics show the photo was taken from a low level and off centre so it gives the illusion of Diana being taller.
The Diana and Eastwood pics show the photo was taken from a low level and off centre so it gives the illusion of Diana being taller.
Shaun said on 10/Nov/11
First pic is horrible angle though but yes Princess Diana looks extremely tall for a woman next to him and her heels aren't that big either. He doesn't look more than 6'2" there no, but most pics show him about 6'3" in 1992 like he was in the Unforgiven. Goldblum actually looks near 6'6" there as I think the other tall guy further down is 6'9" Michael Crichton but that's because he's close to the camera and Crichton is further down the hall. But yes, Goldblum does look a lot taller I agree.
First pic is horrible angle though but yes Princess Diana looks extremely tall for a woman next to him and her heels aren't that big either. He doesn't look more than 6'2" there no, but most pics show him about 6'3" in 1992 like he was in the Unforgiven. Goldblum actually looks near 6'6" there as I think the other tall guy further down is 6'9" Michael Crichton but that's because he's close to the camera and Crichton is further down the hall. But yes, Goldblum does look a lot taller I agree.
James said on 9/Nov/11
shaun you mentioned about how clint eastwoods posture can make him look shorter than he really is....
here is a photo of him with princes diana from 1993. in heels she wore too that even diana would have been like what? 6'1?
with bad posture next too the princess clint looks about 6'2?
in 1993 i would imagne clint eastwood would have stood at 6'3 (191cm)?
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
now compare how 6'4 or 6'4.5 jeff goldblum looks near princess diana the same year
Click Here
its like how he could look taller next too leonardo dicaprio. with princes diana though clint defenintly did not look anywhere near 6'4.
shaun you mentioned about how clint eastwoods posture can make him look shorter than he really is....
here is a photo of him with princes diana from 1993. in heels she wore too that even diana would have been like what? 6'1?
with bad posture next too the princess clint looks about 6'2?
in 1993 i would imagne clint eastwood would have stood at 6'3 (191cm)?
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
now compare how 6'4 or 6'4.5 jeff goldblum looks near princess diana the same year
Click Here
its like how he could look taller next too leonardo dicaprio. with princes diana though clint defenintly did not look anywhere near 6'4.
Shaun said on 8/Nov/11
Even as a baby LOL. But look at that picture of him with the gun and his leg proportion. Just like today. He looked bad ass though even as a baby!!
Even as a baby LOL. But look at that picture of him with the gun and his leg proportion. Just like today. He looked bad ass though even as a baby!!
jtm said on 8/Nov/11
he is 1.5 taller despite dicaprio being closer to the camera so eastwood is really 2.5 taller than him.i am more convince than ever that dicaprio is 5'10.
he is 1.5 taller despite dicaprio being closer to the camera so eastwood is really 2.5 taller than him.i am more convince than ever that dicaprio is 5'10.
James said on 8/Nov/11
Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Shaun here is a pic of clint eastwood as a kid lying on a beach
Click Here
would u not agree his legs looked very long even back then? how old was he in the pic?
Shaun says on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Shaun here is a pic of clint eastwood as a kid lying on a beach
Click Here
would u not agree his legs looked very long even back then? how old was he in the pic?
Mike said on 7/Nov/11
Met Stroud in 83, in Hollywood. 6'1.
Met Stroud in 83, in Hollywood. 6'1.
Shaun said on 7/Nov/11
Click Here
If you put Robbin's torso on Clint's legs you'd have 6'6"-6'7" guy.
Click Here
If you put Robbin's torso on Clint's legs you'd have 6'6"-6'7" guy.
Shaun said on 7/Nov/11
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Clint has the legs of a guy near 6 ft 6. They're not just long legs but super long legs. His legs even today are longer than Tim Robbin's. His legs haven't lost any height though obviously. His torso looks very short today in proportion, you can see where the extreme height loss came from. His back.
Shaun said on 7/Nov/11
LOL, Yes James we are friends, my comment was a groan that you are again coming up with the "6'4" really?" and going round in full circles!!! For once i think LAN Jiao is correct!
LOL, Yes James we are friends, my comment was a groan that you are again coming up with the "6'4" really?" and going round in full circles!!! For once i think LAN Jiao is correct!
LAN Jiao said on 6/Nov/11
just skip scene on Magnum Force clint does look huge. 6'4 on dot 6'2.5-6'3 slouch.
just skip scene on Magnum Force clint does look huge. 6'4 on dot 6'2.5-6'3 slouch.
James said on 6/Nov/11
Shaun says on 5/Nov/11
James you weirdo you were only saying 194cm was possible a few weeks ago!! Steve Jones from T4 is the shortest 6'4". Eastwood looked 6'4" to me.
WOW Shaun i thought we were friends on this site weren't we? I did think he could have been 194cm if David Soul was 185cm but then recently he was downgraded too 184cm so i rethinked the 194cm for Clint eastwood. Overall if David was 6'0 1/2 then 6'4 flat seems on target for clint.
shaun you can get 6'4 or 6'4 1/2 men that can look 6'3 like randy orton for example. its like how danny glover who peaked at 6'3 1/2 could look 6'2 1/2 becuase of his build.
Shaun says on 5/Nov/11
James you weirdo you were only saying 194cm was possible a few weeks ago!! Steve Jones from T4 is the shortest 6'4". Eastwood looked 6'4" to me.
WOW Shaun i thought we were friends on this site weren't we? I did think he could have been 194cm if David Soul was 185cm but then recently he was downgraded too 184cm so i rethinked the 194cm for Clint eastwood. Overall if David was 6'0 1/2 then 6'4 flat seems on target for clint.
shaun you can get 6'4 or 6'4 1/2 men that can look 6'3 like randy orton for example. its like how danny glover who peaked at 6'3 1/2 could look 6'2 1/2 becuase of his build.
Danimal said on 6/Nov/11
jervis says on 4/Nov/11
6ft4 bear foot peak for Clint Eastwood?There is an actor called Hal Halbrook,he was in Magnum Force with Clint,there were plenty of scens with the two actors together,it seemed to my eye that Clint had about 3 inches hight over Hallbrook m aking him about 6ft1 if Clint was 6ft4.But just recently there was a film on tv with Hallbrook and a very young Alac Baldwin,there was a scean were both actors were face too face,now given to my mind Hallbrook was 6ft1 ,if you compear him to Clint in Magnum Force,you would expect him to be about 1 inch taller than Baldwin,but in fact it was Baldwin who was 1 inch taller than him.The film was made in i think 1983 which would make Hallbrook about 58 years old.Unless Hallbrook shrank 2 inches in 10 years since Mangumn Force,or Baldwin is 6ft2 it leves a question mark over weather Hallbrook was 6ft1,it also leves a question mark over Clints hight of 6ft4.On the subject of Don Stroud,Tim Mathison and Lee van Cleef,all been 6ft2 and Clint been 2 inches taller than them all.There are no clear imiges of Clint and Van cleef that i ever saw to prove that.Mathison was in a film with the 6ft2 and a half listed Ryan Renyolds and he was about 2 inches shorter,i think the film was called Van wilder or something.Stroud was in a episode of nightrider,and Hoff was about 3 inches taller making Stroud 6ft1 not 6ft2.So i dont think Stroud and Mathisons hights are not 6ft2 more like 6ft1.As for David Soul his hight is not very clear,i would say between 5ft11 and 6ft1,to my eye Clint had at most 3inches on soul and at least 2inches.As for Van Cleef,there is a clip of him and George Kennedy,face too face and Kennedy is about 1inch taller,that would make Kennedy 6ft3,the same hight as Clint in both films they stared in together,making Clint 6ft3 too.
Watch Fletch with Chevy Chase. Chevy was minimum 6'4" barefoot at that time and there were multiple scenes (full body shots) of the 2 standing side by side and Tim was every bit 6'2". I think Clint was 6'4" in his younger days and then 6'3" as early as the late 70's/early 80'... Today..well, he can look as low as 5'11". I think if he stood fully straight today he'd be slightly over a flat 6'0". It would be amazing to see a YOUNG Clint stand next to an OLD Clint for comparison. I think everyone would be shocked at how drastic of a difference it would be. I wonder what it would feel like to be 6'4" and tower over everyone and then to slowly shrink inch by inch.. I wonder if he notices it, or it's so gradual that he doesn't?
jervis says on 4/Nov/11
6ft4 bear foot peak for Clint Eastwood?There is an actor called Hal Halbrook,he was in Magnum Force with Clint,there were plenty of scens with the two actors together,it seemed to my eye that Clint had about 3 inches hight over Hallbrook m aking him about 6ft1 if Clint was 6ft4.But just recently there was a film on tv with Hallbrook and a very young Alac Baldwin,there was a scean were both actors were face too face,now given to my mind Hallbrook was 6ft1 ,if you compear him to Clint in Magnum Force,you would expect him to be about 1 inch taller than Baldwin,but in fact it was Baldwin who was 1 inch taller than him.The film was made in i think 1983 which would make Hallbrook about 58 years old.Unless Hallbrook shrank 2 inches in 10 years since Mangumn Force,or Baldwin is 6ft2 it leves a question mark over weather Hallbrook was 6ft1,it also leves a question mark over Clints hight of 6ft4.On the subject of Don Stroud,Tim Mathison and Lee van Cleef,all been 6ft2 and Clint been 2 inches taller than them all.There are no clear imiges of Clint and Van cleef that i ever saw to prove that.Mathison was in a film with the 6ft2 and a half listed Ryan Renyolds and he was about 2 inches shorter,i think the film was called Van wilder or something.Stroud was in a episode of nightrider,and Hoff was about 3 inches taller making Stroud 6ft1 not 6ft2.So i dont think Stroud and Mathisons hights are not 6ft2 more like 6ft1.As for David Soul his hight is not very clear,i would say between 5ft11 and 6ft1,to my eye Clint had at most 3inches on soul and at least 2inches.As for Van Cleef,there is a clip of him and George Kennedy,face too face and Kennedy is about 1inch taller,that would make Kennedy 6ft3,the same hight as Clint in both films they stared in together,making Clint 6ft3 too.
Watch Fletch with Chevy Chase. Chevy was minimum 6'4" barefoot at that time and there were multiple scenes (full body shots) of the 2 standing side by side and Tim was every bit 6'2". I think Clint was 6'4" in his younger days and then 6'3" as early as the late 70's/early 80'... Today..well, he can look as low as 5'11". I think if he stood fully straight today he'd be slightly over a flat 6'0". It would be amazing to see a YOUNG Clint stand next to an OLD Clint for comparison. I think everyone would be shocked at how drastic of a difference it would be. I wonder what it would feel like to be 6'4" and tower over everyone and then to slowly shrink inch by inch.. I wonder if he notices it, or it's so gradual that he doesn't?
thebad7 said on 5/Nov/11
@Shaun: Agreed about Don Stroud. He was 2" shorter than Clint Eastwood in '68 for COOGAN'S BLUFF. Also, Don Stroud played a stuntman alongside William "Big Bill" Smith in 1976 for Smith's semi-autobiographical biker film HOLLYWOOD MAN. Stroud was the same height as Big Bill at 6'2". Stroud isn't under 6'2".
tb7
@Shaun: Agreed about Don Stroud. He was 2" shorter than Clint Eastwood in '68 for COOGAN'S BLUFF. Also, Don Stroud played a stuntman alongside William "Big Bill" Smith in 1976 for Smith's semi-autobiographical biker film HOLLYWOOD MAN. Stroud was the same height as Big Bill at 6'2". Stroud isn't under 6'2".
tb7
Shaun said on 5/Nov/11
Don Stroud was the same height as Robert Davi who is not under 6'2".
Don Stroud was the same height as Robert Davi who is not under 6'2".
Shaun said on 5/Nov/11
James you weirdo you were only saying 194cm was possible a few weeks ago!! Steve Jones from T4 is the shortest 6'4". Eastwood looked 6'4" to me.
James you weirdo you were only saying 194cm was possible a few weeks ago!! Steve Jones from T4 is the shortest 6'4". Eastwood looked 6'4" to me.
thebad7 said on 5/Nov/11
@Shaun: No worries. A side-by-side comparison of Eastwood and Sampson would have been good evidence to assist in solving this mystery.
tb7
@Shaun: No worries. A side-by-side comparison of Eastwood and Sampson would have been good evidence to assist in solving this mystery.
tb7
Mike said on 4/Nov/11
Jervis has it right on Eastwood, in my opinion, with an emphasis on 5'11 for Soul. I never thought Stroud was a full 6'2.
Jervis has it right on Eastwood, in my opinion, with an emphasis on 5'11 for Soul. I never thought Stroud was a full 6'2.
James said on 4/Nov/11
clint had at least 3 inches on David Soul but at the same time maybe not quite 4 inches on him.
i think clint eastwoods, posture and sloping shoulders make him look more 6'3 Dirty Harry and Magnum Force.
i have no problems picturing 6'3 when i think of clint eastwood but 6'4 does seem an exzaggeration. maybe if he carried himself better he would have looked 6'4?
clint had at least 3 inches on David Soul but at the same time maybe not quite 4 inches on him.
i think clint eastwoods, posture and sloping shoulders make him look more 6'3 Dirty Harry and Magnum Force.
i have no problems picturing 6'3 when i think of clint eastwood but 6'4 does seem an exzaggeration. maybe if he carried himself better he would have looked 6'4?
jervis said on 4/Nov/11
6ft4 bear foot peak for Clint Eastwood?There is an actor called Hal Halbrook,he was in Magnum Force with Clint,there were plenty of scens with the two actors together,it seemed to my eye that Clint had about 3 inches hight over Hallbrook m aking him about 6ft1 if Clint was 6ft4.But just recently there was a film on tv with Hallbrook and a very young Alac Baldwin,there was a scean were both actors were face too face,now given to my mind Hallbrook was 6ft1 ,if you compear him to Clint in Magnum Force,you would expect him to be about 1 inch taller than Baldwin,but in fact it was Baldwin who was 1 inch taller than him.The film was made in i think 1983 which would make Hallbrook about 58 years old.Unless Hallbrook shrank 2 inches in 10 years since Mangumn Force,or Baldwin is 6ft2 it leves a question mark over weather Hallbrook was 6ft1,it also leves a question mark over Clints hight of 6ft4.On the subject of Don Stroud,Tim Mathison and Lee van Cleef,all been 6ft2 and Clint been 2 inches taller than them all.There are no clear imiges of Clint and Van cleef that i ever saw to prove that.Mathison was in a film with the 6ft2 and a half listed Ryan Renyolds and he was about 2 inches shorter,i think the film was called Van wilder or something.Stroud was in a episode of nightrider,and Hoff was about 3 inches taller making Stroud 6ft1 not 6ft2.So i dont think Stroud and Mathisons hights are not 6ft2 more like 6ft1.As for David Soul his hight is not very clear,i would say between 5ft11 and 6ft1,to my eye Clint had at most 3inches on soul and at least 2inches.As for Van Cleef,there is a clip of him and George Kennedy,face too face and Kennedy is about 1inch taller,that would make Kennedy 6ft3,the same hight as Clint in both films they stared in together,making Clint 6ft3 too.
6ft4 bear foot peak for Clint Eastwood?There is an actor called Hal Halbrook,he was in Magnum Force with Clint,there were plenty of scens with the two actors together,it seemed to my eye that Clint had about 3 inches hight over Hallbrook m aking him about 6ft1 if Clint was 6ft4.But just recently there was a film on tv with Hallbrook and a very young Alac Baldwin,there was a scean were both actors were face too face,now given to my mind Hallbrook was 6ft1 ,if you compear him to Clint in Magnum Force,you would expect him to be about 1 inch taller than Baldwin,but in fact it was Baldwin who was 1 inch taller than him.The film was made in i think 1983 which would make Hallbrook about 58 years old.Unless Hallbrook shrank 2 inches in 10 years since Mangumn Force,or Baldwin is 6ft2 it leves a question mark over weather Hallbrook was 6ft1,it also leves a question mark over Clints hight of 6ft4.On the subject of Don Stroud,Tim Mathison and Lee van Cleef,all been 6ft2 and Clint been 2 inches taller than them all.There are no clear imiges of Clint and Van cleef that i ever saw to prove that.Mathison was in a film with the 6ft2 and a half listed Ryan Renyolds and he was about 2 inches shorter,i think the film was called Van wilder or something.Stroud was in a episode of nightrider,and Hoff was about 3 inches taller making Stroud 6ft1 not 6ft2.So i dont think Stroud and Mathisons hights are not 6ft2 more like 6ft1.As for David Soul his hight is not very clear,i would say between 5ft11 and 6ft1,to my eye Clint had at most 3inches on soul and at least 2inches.As for Van Cleef,there is a clip of him and George Kennedy,face too face and Kennedy is about 1inch taller,that would make Kennedy 6ft3,the same hight as Clint in both films they stared in together,making Clint 6ft3 too.
James said on 4/Nov/11
clint is possibly the shortest looking 6'4er ever.
clint is possibly the shortest looking 6'4er ever.
Shaun said on 4/Nov/11
My apologies, |Eastwood and Sampson never stood next to each other it was on horseback calling a truce.
My apologies, |Eastwood and Sampson never stood next to each other it was on horseback calling a truce.
thebad7 said on 3/Nov/11
@Vegas: It's funny you mention that because CUCKOO is one of the few Nicholson films I have not seen, but it's in my queue. You are right: Sampson is a giant, especially if you see him in THE WHITE BUFFALO!
tb7
@Vegas: It's funny you mention that because CUCKOO is one of the few Nicholson films I have not seen, but it's in my queue. You are right: Sampson is a giant, especially if you see him in THE WHITE BUFFALO!
tb7
LAN Jiao said on 3/Nov/11
Shortest looking 6'4er titled have goes to...clint eastwood.
Shortest looking 6'4er titled have goes to...clint eastwood.
Vegas said on 3/Nov/11
thebad7, sampson is in one flew over the cuckoo's nest (a truly wonderful movie if you haven't seen it btw) looks massively in that movie, makes jack nicholson look like a child, eastwood wasnt that tall standing next to nicholson in the 1980s
thebad7, sampson is in one flew over the cuckoo's nest (a truly wonderful movie if you haven't seen it btw) looks massively in that movie, makes jack nicholson look like a child, eastwood wasnt that tall standing next to nicholson in the 1980s
thebad7 said on 3/Nov/11
@Shaun: You are right about the advantage between Eastwood and Sutherland. Sutherland was a tall guy, and he still is today, but when they were young and in their peaks, Clint had the advantage by a hair. Eastwood hit 6'4" in his younger days, and Sutherland was a strong 6'3"--6'3 1/2" for sure. Sutherland also had/has a loose posture, so that may have an effect especially in still shots or in the films themselves.
Also: Will Sampson, the actor playing Ten Bears in 1976's THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES was supposedly 6'5" (I have seen him listed as high as 6'6"). I have only ever seen Sampson--as I recall--in one other film; he starred alongside Charles Bronson in 1977's THE WHITE BUFFALO, and Sampson was definitely tall--I can buy 6'5" for him, wearing only moccasins. In regards to Sampson and Eastwood, there was never a side-by-side comparison between the two in TOJW (both sat on horseback).
tb7
@Shaun: You are right about the advantage between Eastwood and Sutherland. Sutherland was a tall guy, and he still is today, but when they were young and in their peaks, Clint had the advantage by a hair. Eastwood hit 6'4" in his younger days, and Sutherland was a strong 6'3"--6'3 1/2" for sure. Sutherland also had/has a loose posture, so that may have an effect especially in still shots or in the films themselves.
Also: Will Sampson, the actor playing Ten Bears in 1976's THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES was supposedly 6'5" (I have seen him listed as high as 6'6"). I have only ever seen Sampson--as I recall--in one other film; he starred alongside Charles Bronson in 1977's THE WHITE BUFFALO, and Sampson was definitely tall--I can buy 6'5" for him, wearing only moccasins. In regards to Sampson and Eastwood, there was never a side-by-side comparison between the two in TOJW (both sat on horseback).
tb7
James said on 3/Nov/11
thats funny i always pictured sutherland as being broad and bulkier than clint eastwood.
thats funny i always pictured sutherland as being broad and bulkier than clint eastwood.
EdgarHernandez said on 2/Nov/11
i suport shaun, also, sutherland is not bulkier than eastwood, donald sutherland is what clint would look like if he never had lifted weights, sutherland have a very scrawny body, just look at him:
Click Here
is the one in the left
he became much more skinnier by the end of the 70s.
i suport shaun, also, sutherland is not bulkier than eastwood, donald sutherland is what clint would look like if he never had lifted weights, sutherland have a very scrawny body, just look at him:
Click Here
is the one in the left
he became much more skinnier by the end of the 70s.
James said on 2/Nov/11
Shaun says on 1/Nov/11
James he looked 6'4" to me in Outlaw Josey Wales, looked same height as the 6'4" listed native Indian in it. In fact in the bar scene he actually looked 6'6". Did he look under 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz James, can't remember?
Shaun says on 1/Nov/11
James he looked 6'4" to me in Outlaw Josey Wales, looked same height as the 6'4" listed native Indian in it. In fact in the bar scene he actually looked 6'6". Did he look under 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz James, can't remember?
Yes he looked 6'3ish in Escape from Alcatraz and could even look 6'2 with bad posture at times.
As for the outlaw josey wales- well its not like you can tell apart 6'3 1/2 and 6'4 that easily since its only a 1cm difference. too be fair he may have not started too dip under 6'4 until 1977 so he might have still be roughly around 6'4 in 1976.
How do u know the native american man was 6'4 shaun?
Shaun says on 1/Nov/11
James he looked 6'4" to me in Outlaw Josey Wales, looked same height as the 6'4" listed native Indian in it. In fact in the bar scene he actually looked 6'6". Did he look under 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz James, can't remember?
Shaun says on 1/Nov/11
James he looked 6'4" to me in Outlaw Josey Wales, looked same height as the 6'4" listed native Indian in it. In fact in the bar scene he actually looked 6'6". Did he look under 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz James, can't remember?
Yes he looked 6'3ish in Escape from Alcatraz and could even look 6'2 with bad posture at times.
As for the outlaw josey wales- well its not like you can tell apart 6'3 1/2 and 6'4 that easily since its only a 1cm difference. too be fair he may have not started too dip under 6'4 until 1977 so he might have still be roughly around 6'4 in 1976.
How do u know the native american man was 6'4 shaun?
Shaun said on 2/Nov/11
No James, Eastwood was taller than Sutherland, not an illusion.
No James, Eastwood was taller than Sutherland, not an illusion.
Shaun said on 1/Nov/11
James he looked 6'4" to me in Outlaw Josey Wales, looked same height as the 6'4" listed native Indian in it. In fact in the bar scene he actually looked 6'6". Did he look under 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz James, can't remember?
James he looked 6'4" to me in Outlaw Josey Wales, looked same height as the 6'4" listed native Indian in it. In fact in the bar scene he actually looked 6'6". Did he look under 6'4" in Escape from Alcatraz James, can't remember?
James said on 1/Nov/11
Eastwood could have been 6'3.5 or 6'3.25 in Pale Rider since he was taller than Michael Mortiarty who i think is just under 6'3. Eastwood was a bit under 6'4 in the mid or late 70's.
shaun that women next too the 6'10 guy must be tall.
i think most people would not belive 6'4 1/2 for clint eastwood so i think most likely donald sutherland and eastwood were exactley the same height its just that clint eastwood was much more skinner and lanky than sutherland... hence why he pulled off looking taller.
Eastwood could have been 6'3.5 or 6'3.25 in Pale Rider since he was taller than Michael Mortiarty who i think is just under 6'3. Eastwood was a bit under 6'4 in the mid or late 70's.
shaun that women next too the 6'10 guy must be tall.
i think most people would not belive 6'4 1/2 for clint eastwood so i think most likely donald sutherland and eastwood were exactley the same height its just that clint eastwood was much more skinner and lanky than sutherland... hence why he pulled off looking taller.
Shaun said on 31/Oct/11
@Jervis, Eastwood began losing height around 1980 I think. He was 6'3.5" range by Pale Rider and 6'3.25" probably by Dead Pool in 1988. Neeson had him by an inch,
@Jervis, Eastwood began losing height around 1980 I think. He was 6'3.5" range by Pale Rider and 6'3.25" probably by Dead Pool in 1988. Neeson had him by an inch,
Shaun said on 31/Oct/11
jervis says on 29/Oct/11
In dead pool he was not as tall as Liam Neeson,who is also listed at 6ft4,so he was not 6ft4.You cant use the bad postur arguement because Neeson has even worse postur than Clint and he is still taller.Clint was only 58 at the time and looked very fit in that film.The thing with Clint is because of his build he can look taller than he is,he can look 6ft4, but when he is beside real 6ft4 guys he is clearly not as tall.Yes he has lost some hight from his peak of 6ft3,but thats normal at 81 years old,but he was never 6ft4.The same hight as Eric Fleming in rawhide Fleming was 6ft3 Clint was not taller than Fleming so how could he have been 6ft4?
Eastwood was taller than Donald Sutherland who had 2 inches on Sean Connery, Eastwood had two inches on Tim Matheson, Lee Van Cleef and Don Stroud. 3.5 on David Soul etc. Are you trying to tell me Matheson, Cleef and Stroud's heights are somehow all wrong too?
jervis says on 29/Oct/11
In dead pool he was not as tall as Liam Neeson,who is also listed at 6ft4,so he was not 6ft4.You cant use the bad postur arguement because Neeson has even worse postur than Clint and he is still taller.Clint was only 58 at the time and looked very fit in that film.The thing with Clint is because of his build he can look taller than he is,he can look 6ft4, but when he is beside real 6ft4 guys he is clearly not as tall.Yes he has lost some hight from his peak of 6ft3,but thats normal at 81 years old,but he was never 6ft4.The same hight as Eric Fleming in rawhide Fleming was 6ft3 Clint was not taller than Fleming so how could he have been 6ft4?
Eastwood was taller than Donald Sutherland who had 2 inches on Sean Connery, Eastwood had two inches on Tim Matheson, Lee Van Cleef and Don Stroud. 3.5 on David Soul etc. Are you trying to tell me Matheson, Cleef and Stroud's heights are somehow all wrong too?
James said on 31/Oct/11
Shaun says on 28/Oct/11
He would have been 6'4" James from 1945 to at least 1980. He started in 1954, so for a good 25 years of his career he was that height.
No 6'4 from 1945 too 1975.
Edgar i would agree and i noticed the reason why clint eastwood did not give a 6'4 impression is because he had really bad posture a lot and slouched. a lot of guys like you mention who are 6'4 carry themselves better than clint eastwood did and are more proud too be that height whereas clint was always self conciouss about it. also i notice his voice is not that deep or commanding which can also give the impression that he is shorter.
jervis- stand a 1966 clint eastwood next too liam neeson and they would have been exactley the same height. by the deadpool clint already lost 1 inch from his peak.
Shaun says on 28/Oct/11
He would have been 6'4" James from 1945 to at least 1980. He started in 1954, so for a good 25 years of his career he was that height.
No 6'4 from 1945 too 1975.
Edgar i would agree and i noticed the reason why clint eastwood did not give a 6'4 impression is because he had really bad posture a lot and slouched. a lot of guys like you mention who are 6'4 carry themselves better than clint eastwood did and are more proud too be that height whereas clint was always self conciouss about it. also i notice his voice is not that deep or commanding which can also give the impression that he is shorter.
jervis- stand a 1966 clint eastwood next too liam neeson and they would have been exactley the same height. by the deadpool clint already lost 1 inch from his peak.
EdgarHernandez said on 29/Oct/11
i a little agree with james also, shaun i have notice that all 6ft 4 guys who give the big impression have broad shoulders, even christopher reeve who was decrive as looking like james steuwart before he bulked up had acording to his friends very broad shoulders, john wayne have them, tim robbins have them, clint have sloppy sholders(always had), i have see that sloppy shoulder make you look shorter because you shoulder hang wich makes you look more short framed, just look clint when he is in militar posture(with his shoulders squared) and when he is in his usual bend sloppy posture, with his neck bended and relaxed way.
i a little agree with james also, shaun i have notice that all 6ft 4 guys who give the big impression have broad shoulders, even christopher reeve who was decrive as looking like james steuwart before he bulked up had acording to his friends very broad shoulders, john wayne have them, tim robbins have them, clint have sloppy sholders(always had), i have see that sloppy shoulder make you look shorter because you shoulder hang wich makes you look more short framed, just look clint when he is in militar posture(with his shoulders squared) and when he is in his usual bend sloppy posture, with his neck bended and relaxed way.
jervis said on 29/Oct/11
In dead pool he was not as tall as Liam Neeson,who is also listed at 6ft4,so he was not 6ft4.You cant use the bad postur arguement because Neeson has even worse postur than Clint and he is still taller.Clint was only 58 at the time and looked very fit in that film.The thing with Clint is because of his build he can look taller than he is,he can look 6ft4, but when he is beside real 6ft4 guys he is clearly not as tall.Yes he has lost some hight from his peak of 6ft3,but thats normal at 81 years old,but he was never 6ft4.The same hight as Eric Fleming in rawhide Fleming was 6ft3 Clint was not taller than Fleming so how could he have been 6ft4?When he was 70 he was down to 6ft2 now he is 6ft1.6ft3 up until mid sixties then started to lose hight.
In dead pool he was not as tall as Liam Neeson,who is also listed at 6ft4,so he was not 6ft4.You cant use the bad postur arguement because Neeson has even worse postur than Clint and he is still taller.Clint was only 58 at the time and looked very fit in that film.The thing with Clint is because of his build he can look taller than he is,he can look 6ft4, but when he is beside real 6ft4 guys he is clearly not as tall.Yes he has lost some hight from his peak of 6ft3,but thats normal at 81 years old,but he was never 6ft4.The same hight as Eric Fleming in rawhide Fleming was 6ft3 Clint was not taller than Fleming so how could he have been 6ft4?When he was 70 he was down to 6ft2 now he is 6ft1.6ft3 up until mid sixties then started to lose hight.
Shaun said on 28/Oct/11
He would have been 6'4" James from 1945 to at least 1980. He started in 1954, so for a good 25 years of his career he was that height.
He would have been 6'4" James from 1945 to at least 1980. He started in 1954, so for a good 25 years of his career he was that height.
James said on 28/Oct/11
shaun i think 6'4 is not easy too picture for clint eastwood because he was only that height briefly in his carrier.
shaun i think 6'4 is not easy too picture for clint eastwood because he was only that height briefly in his carrier.
Shaun said on 27/Oct/11
Click Here
Look at the legs and frame. That's how a legit 6'4" guy should look to me. Although Theakston might me a hair under 6'5" and downgrading as he himself said 6'5" is freak height. I must admit I always thought he was 6'5" when he used to do Saturday morning TV. Theakston looks about Robbins's height. But as we can see the perception of how big a true 6'4" really looks seems to range wildly.
Click Here
Look at the legs and frame. That's how a legit 6'4" guy should look to me. Although Theakston might me a hair under 6'5" and downgrading as he himself said 6'5" is freak height. I must admit I always thought he was 6'5" when he used to do Saturday morning TV. Theakston looks about Robbins's height. But as we can see the perception of how big a true 6'4" really looks seems to range wildly.
James said on 27/Oct/11
When i picture clint eastwood even 6'3 1/2 is belivable but the proper 6'4 (193cm) seems hard too buy just by looking at him in some off his early films. overall 6'4 does seem extreme for clint but you could say that about plenty off other 6'4 guys.. even jeff goldblum who can give more off a 6'3 impression at times on screen and in photos.
When i picture clint eastwood even 6'3 1/2 is belivable but the proper 6'4 (193cm) seems hard too buy just by looking at him in some off his early films. overall 6'4 does seem extreme for clint but you could say that about plenty off other 6'4 guys.. even jeff goldblum who can give more off a 6'3 impression at times on screen and in photos.
Shaun said on 27/Oct/11
Click Here
James, how tall does this guy look judging by his proportions? I'd guess 6'1" or 6'2" max. He is actually 6 ft 4 (somehow), it baffles me.
Click Here
James, how tall does this guy look judging by his proportions? I'd guess 6'1" or 6'2" max. He is actually 6 ft 4 (somehow), it baffles me.
James said on 26/Oct/11
Shaun says on 26/Oct/11
Diamon Dallas Page definitely looks more 6'2". Darius always looks like he is close to 6'5".
Would u say orton looks somewhere between 6'2 and 6'4 like 6'3 '190cm' in pics?
Darius like tim robbins looks near 6'5 in photos.
Shaun says on 26/Oct/11
Diamon Dallas Page definitely looks more 6'2". Darius always looks like he is close to 6'5".
Would u say orton looks somewhere between 6'2 and 6'4 like 6'3 '190cm' in pics?
Darius like tim robbins looks near 6'5 in photos.
Shaun said on 26/Oct/11
Diamon Dallas Page definitely looks more 6'2". Darius always looks like he is close to 6'5".
Diamon Dallas Page definitely looks more 6'2". Darius always looks like he is close to 6'5".
James said on 25/Oct/11
When you picture clint eastwood you think he's a tall guy who is over 6ft but you don't really picture 'super tall' at the same time... some scenes in magnum force when he is walking through the airport he just looked like a tall above average height guy not really 'huge' or very tall like a 6'4 guy would look. Likewise at the start off dirty harry in the police station he really did not look 6'4 at all and he just looked 'tall' like a 6'2 guy would. maybe they hired tall extras in his movies too make him look normal? they did this with steven seagal but he still gave off that 6'4 vibe never the less. All you have too do is take one look at seagal and 6'4 immediatley clicks, not so with clint eastwood in my opinion.
Randy Orton for instance could be a strong 6'4 guy yet his build and proportions make him look more like 6'3.
Click Here
Diamon Dallas Page as well is another example off a 6'4 guy who gives off a shorter impression like 6'2
Click Here
You would never believe darius danesh DDPD and Orton were the same height would you???
Click Here
Just look how much bigger darius looks then the previous 2 6'4 guys above.
Another thing as well is that clint eastwood did not have a very deep voice like a lot off guy who are in the 6'4 range do. and also he did not have big hands either.
Maybe clint was just a short looking 6'4 man?
When you picture clint eastwood you think he's a tall guy who is over 6ft but you don't really picture 'super tall' at the same time... some scenes in magnum force when he is walking through the airport he just looked like a tall above average height guy not really 'huge' or very tall like a 6'4 guy would look. Likewise at the start off dirty harry in the police station he really did not look 6'4 at all and he just looked 'tall' like a 6'2 guy would. maybe they hired tall extras in his movies too make him look normal? they did this with steven seagal but he still gave off that 6'4 vibe never the less. All you have too do is take one look at seagal and 6'4 immediatley clicks, not so with clint eastwood in my opinion.
Randy Orton for instance could be a strong 6'4 guy yet his build and proportions make him look more like 6'3.
Click Here
Diamon Dallas Page as well is another example off a 6'4 guy who gives off a shorter impression like 6'2
Click Here
You would never believe darius danesh DDPD and Orton were the same height would you???
Click Here
Just look how much bigger darius looks then the previous 2 6'4 guys above.
Another thing as well is that clint eastwood did not have a very deep voice like a lot off guy who are in the 6'4 range do. and also he did not have big hands either.
Maybe clint was just a short looking 6'4 man?
Larc 6 ft 1.75 in said on 25/Oct/11
Looks 5'11.75 in the recent pics, he was for sure at least 6'3.5 at his peak...almost 4inches of loss...old age is an ugly beast.
Looks 5'11.75 in the recent pics, he was for sure at least 6'3.5 at his peak...almost 4inches of loss...old age is an ugly beast.
LAN Jiao said on 24/Oct/11
in 2002 blood work 5'10 listed Dylan Walsh was full 3inch shorter than "6-4" clint eastwood had an inch on "6-3" jeff daniels who had an inch on "6-2" jim carrey.
Dylan Walsh is 48years old so he is "6-1" now then since clint "6-4" 9years ago.
in 1965 For a Few Dollars More, clint was same height as 6'2 listed Lee Van Cleef supposed Lee was "6-4" as well.
in 2002 directing mystic river clint was 5inch top "5-11" sean penn whose shorter than "6-1" kevin bacon and on mystic river premiere clint 4.5" shorter than "6-8.5" tim robbins and abit taller than "6-3" lawrence fishburne.
clint best friend "6-4" donald sutherland downplay abit, sutherland is
"6-5" and son rossif is "6-8.5" tallish as tim robbins..
nowadays jeff goldblum would't mind to say: hey im still "6-8" , thanks to my fellow "6-4" senior friend clint.
in 2002 blood work 5'10 listed Dylan Walsh was full 3inch shorter than "6-4" clint eastwood had an inch on "6-3" jeff daniels who had an inch on "6-2" jim carrey.
Dylan Walsh is 48years old so he is "6-1" now then since clint "6-4" 9years ago.
in 1965 For a Few Dollars More, clint was same height as 6'2 listed Lee Van Cleef supposed Lee was "6-4" as well.
in 2002 directing mystic river clint was 5inch top "5-11" sean penn whose shorter than "6-1" kevin bacon and on mystic river premiere clint 4.5" shorter than "6-8.5" tim robbins and abit taller than "6-3" lawrence fishburne.
clint best friend "6-4" donald sutherland downplay abit, sutherland is
"6-5" and son rossif is "6-8.5" tallish as tim robbins..
nowadays jeff goldblum would't mind to say: hey im still "6-8" , thanks to my fellow "6-4" senior friend clint.
Shaun said on 24/Oct/11
At 15 or 16 kids who were 5'11"-6'1" were generally amongst the tallest in the year and considered real tall and the few that reached 6'2" to 6'7" really regarded as the lanky gits. A few reached 6'- 6'1" range by about 13 or 14 and never grew again and they were always known by things like "big Jase (Jason)" and things like that and towered most of us myself included at that age! I remember one massive kid who was a year above me and I remember at lunch time in primary school in Grade 5 I think, he was in Grade 6 the height chart went up to 5'0 and he measured 5'6" at age 11 and the second tallest in his year measured 5'3". Well I know both of them now and the 5'6" kid at 11 grew to 6'4" by about 14 and reached about 6'5" eventually, built a lot like Stephen Fry actually and he's gay too! and the other Richie is now 6'3"-6'4" range but his mother is really tall about 5'11" I think. But I noticed that the majority of the very tall ones were always very tall.
At 15 or 16 kids who were 5'11"-6'1" were generally amongst the tallest in the year and considered real tall and the few that reached 6'2" to 6'7" really regarded as the lanky gits. A few reached 6'- 6'1" range by about 13 or 14 and never grew again and they were always known by things like "big Jase (Jason)" and things like that and towered most of us myself included at that age! I remember one massive kid who was a year above me and I remember at lunch time in primary school in Grade 5 I think, he was in Grade 6 the height chart went up to 5'0 and he measured 5'6" at age 11 and the second tallest in his year measured 5'3". Well I know both of them now and the 5'6" kid at 11 grew to 6'4" by about 14 and reached about 6'5" eventually, built a lot like Stephen Fry actually and he's gay too! and the other Richie is now 6'3"-6'4" range but his mother is really tall about 5'11" I think. But I noticed that the majority of the very tall ones were always very tall.
EdgarHernandez said on 24/Oct/11
i support shaun, the tallest guy in the high school were i was was 6ft 4, in my class room it was a 6ft 3 but then again in my class room there were only 10 men, 5 at 5ft 10-11 range(me in that place) 3 of 5ft 9 and 1 of low as 5ft 4 and the guy of 6ft3.
As for manuel who proposed the marfan syndrome, and i will said that ther is a huge posibility of that, alot of the simptons and characteristics are to similar with clint body, long limbs(clint have very long arms and legs), i dont need a photo to re asert that, also points that an anormal curvature of the spine is not uncomon, and that the condition gets worse as the person age, also it gives early osteoporosis, the only thing that clint dont present is cardio vascular problems, then again the informations that i got said that the simptons varies from patint to patient, so is is very probable clint may have some degress of that condition.
i support shaun, the tallest guy in the high school were i was was 6ft 4, in my class room it was a 6ft 3 but then again in my class room there were only 10 men, 5 at 5ft 10-11 range(me in that place) 3 of 5ft 9 and 1 of low as 5ft 4 and the guy of 6ft3.
As for manuel who proposed the marfan syndrome, and i will said that ther is a huge posibility of that, alot of the simptons and characteristics are to similar with clint body, long limbs(clint have very long arms and legs), i dont need a photo to re asert that, also points that an anormal curvature of the spine is not uncomon, and that the condition gets worse as the person age, also it gives early osteoporosis, the only thing that clint dont present is cardio vascular problems, then again the informations that i got said that the simptons varies from patint to patient, so is is very probable clint may have some degress of that condition.
James said on 24/Oct/11
Shaun says on 23/Oct/11
In a school of 1600 odd I can count maybe 5 or 6 who were 6'4"-6'7" by 18. Generally each year from age 15 up had one guy near 6'7" the real lanky git everybody laughed at and maybe one or two 6'4"-6'5". The few 6'4"-6'5" rangers were usually the really athletic types who would probably now be PE teachers or fitness instructors. There were a few lanky dorks 6'2"-6'6" too.
in my old college off 2,960 16-19 year old student there were NO 6'7ers and i think the tallest kid in college was 6'5 range.
on a sidenote even 192cm is out off the question for clint when you see him with david soul.
Shaun says on 23/Oct/11
In a school of 1600 odd I can count maybe 5 or 6 who were 6'4"-6'7" by 18. Generally each year from age 15 up had one guy near 6'7" the real lanky git everybody laughed at and maybe one or two 6'4"-6'5". The few 6'4"-6'5" rangers were usually the really athletic types who would probably now be PE teachers or fitness instructors. There were a few lanky dorks 6'2"-6'6" too.
in my old college off 2,960 16-19 year old student there were NO 6'7ers and i think the tallest kid in college was 6'5 range.
on a sidenote even 192cm is out off the question for clint when you see him with david soul.
Shaun said on 23/Oct/11
In a school of 1600 odd I can remember maybe 5 or 6 who were 6'4"-6'7" by 18. And i mean that over 3-4 years of school not that there were 5 or 6 that height in every year...
In a school of 1600 odd I can remember maybe 5 or 6 who were 6'4"-6'7" by 18. And i mean that over 3-4 years of school not that there were 5 or 6 that height in every year...
Shaun said on 23/Oct/11
In a school of 1600 odd I can count maybe 5 or 6 who were 6'4"-6'7" by 18. Generally each year from age 15 up had one guy near 6'7" the real lanky git everybody laughed at and maybe one or two 6'4"-6'5". The few 6'4"-6'5" rangers were usually the really athletic types who would probably now be PE teachers or fitness instructors. There were a few lanky dorks 6'2"-6'6" too.
In a school of 1600 odd I can count maybe 5 or 6 who were 6'4"-6'7" by 18. Generally each year from age 15 up had one guy near 6'7" the real lanky git everybody laughed at and maybe one or two 6'4"-6'5". The few 6'4"-6'5" rangers were usually the really athletic types who would probably now be PE teachers or fitness instructors. There were a few lanky dorks 6'2"-6'6" too.
Shaun said on 23/Oct/11
James says on 21/Oct/11
how could a 15 year old who stands at 6ft4 have someone in the class who is taller than him? My guess is when he was 15 he was more like 190cm.
There was one guy taller than him in the school at 6 ft 5. How is that possible? LOL James he was the second tallest kid in the school at 6'4". Not hard to believe. Tallest in my year was 6 ft 5 too, although the two years above me had two 6'7" guys in either year, one 6'6 and two 6'5" ers in either year. Meaning there was one 6'7" guy in the year above and another two years above me and the same with 6'5", not that there were two 6'7" dudes in each year LOL!
James says on 21/Oct/11
how could a 15 year old who stands at 6ft4 have someone in the class who is taller than him? My guess is when he was 15 he was more like 190cm.
There was one guy taller than him in the school at 6 ft 5. How is that possible? LOL James he was the second tallest kid in the school at 6'4". Not hard to believe. Tallest in my year was 6 ft 5 too, although the two years above me had two 6'7" guys in either year, one 6'6 and two 6'5" ers in either year. Meaning there was one 6'7" guy in the year above and another two years above me and the same with 6'5", not that there were two 6'7" dudes in each year LOL!
Shaun said on 23/Oct/11
James says on 21/Oct/11
how could a 15 year old who stands at 6ft4 have someone in the class who is taller than him? My guess is when he was 15 he was more like 190cm.
There was one guy taller than him in the school at 6 ft 5. How is that possible? LOL James he was the second tallest kid in the school at 6'4". Not hard to believe. Tallest in my year was 6 ft 5 too, although the two years above me had two 6'7" guys in either year, one 6'6 and two 6'5" ers in either year.
James says on 21/Oct/11
how could a 15 year old who stands at 6ft4 have someone in the class who is taller than him? My guess is when he was 15 he was more like 190cm.
There was one guy taller than him in the school at 6 ft 5. How is that possible? LOL James he was the second tallest kid in the school at 6'4". Not hard to believe. Tallest in my year was 6 ft 5 too, although the two years above me had two 6'7" guys in either year, one 6'6 and two 6'5" ers in either year.
Tony G. said on 23/Oct/11
Yeah, it would be interesting to know how tall Clint was when he was still in his teens. I read that Dan Blocker was already 6' tall and 200 lbs when he was only 12 years old.
Yeah, it would be interesting to know how tall Clint was when he was still in his teens. I read that Dan Blocker was already 6' tall and 200 lbs when he was only 12 years old.
dmeyer said on 22/Oct/11
clint was 6 ft 3.5-4 peak and now 6 ft 0-0.5 so so 8-9cm loss he is 80 people loose just 5cm at 80 he drop serious height
clint was 6 ft 3.5-4 peak and now 6 ft 0-0.5 so so 8-9cm loss he is 80 people loose just 5cm at 80 he drop serious height
LAN Jiao said on 22/Oct/11
Lol.. parker thinks clint a head taller than 5'7.5 steven spielberg which he not even look 4"taller. He probably is 5'11.25 now. My grandpa cousin who turn 80out this year was a legit 6'2 and was 6'3 in youth. Lol people really believe a healthy old men clint lost over 4inch..
Honestly he did't look a hair plus cowboy boots 1.5-2" at 6'7 for a legit 6'4 should look on screen at peak. He is only 6'2 in prime. I can keep argue he did not pass max 189cm peak as he was 2-3cm shorter than 6'3 donald sutherland who was full inch under 6'4 jeff goldblum.
6'4 peak i don know what to say.. hmm.. maybe jeff goldblum was 6'6 and tommy tune 6'8 peak. Lol..
Lol.. parker thinks clint a head taller than 5'7.5 steven spielberg which he not even look 4"taller. He probably is 5'11.25 now. My grandpa cousin who turn 80out this year was a legit 6'2 and was 6'3 in youth. Lol people really believe a healthy old men clint lost over 4inch..
Honestly he did't look a hair plus cowboy boots 1.5-2" at 6'7 for a legit 6'4 should look on screen at peak. He is only 6'2 in prime. I can keep argue he did not pass max 189cm peak as he was 2-3cm shorter than 6'3 donald sutherland who was full inch under 6'4 jeff goldblum.
6'4 peak i don know what to say.. hmm.. maybe jeff goldblum was 6'6 and tommy tune 6'8 peak. Lol..
jervis said on 22/Oct/11
Not a very convincing 6ft4,did not look 6ft4,looked about 6ft3.I think the 6ft4 peak hight is wrong.Did not look 6ft4 in any films,today he looks about 6ft looks to have lost up to 3 inches in hight.People use George Kennedy and say Clint was the same hight so he must have been 6ft4.I would put Kennedy at 6ft3 he was about 1 inch taller than Lee Van Cleef face to face.No more than 2 inches taller than Jeff Bridges.Clint dose not even look 6ft3 with Sheen in the ROOKIE.No way was he ever 6ft4,maybe only in shoes but not bear foot.Segal,Neeson,Roobins all taller, all 6ft4 too 6ft5 all clearly taller than Clint ever was.I think 3 inches hight loss is a lot 4inches is unlikely.
Not a very convincing 6ft4,did not look 6ft4,looked about 6ft3.I think the 6ft4 peak hight is wrong.Did not look 6ft4 in any films,today he looks about 6ft looks to have lost up to 3 inches in hight.People use George Kennedy and say Clint was the same hight so he must have been 6ft4.I would put Kennedy at 6ft3 he was about 1 inch taller than Lee Van Cleef face to face.No more than 2 inches taller than Jeff Bridges.Clint dose not even look 6ft3 with Sheen in the ROOKIE.No way was he ever 6ft4,maybe only in shoes but not bear foot.Segal,Neeson,Roobins all taller, all 6ft4 too 6ft5 all clearly taller than Clint ever was.I think 3 inches hight loss is a lot 4inches is unlikely.
Danimal said on 21/Oct/11
thebad7 says on 19/Oct/11
He's an easy 6'4" in 1973's MAGNUM FORCE. That's a texbook example of a 6'4" man. He has 2" on Robert Urich and Tim Matheson; likewise he has 3 1/2" - 4" on David Soul and Hal Holbrook.
Holbrook was a 6'1" man in his day, so Clint would have had 3" on him in Magnum Force. He did definitely have an easy 2" on Robert Urich and Tim Matheson though.
thebad7 says on 19/Oct/11
He's an easy 6'4" in 1973's MAGNUM FORCE. That's a texbook example of a 6'4" man. He has 2" on Robert Urich and Tim Matheson; likewise he has 3 1/2" - 4" on David Soul and Hal Holbrook.
Holbrook was a 6'1" man in his day, so Clint would have had 3" on him in Magnum Force. He did definitely have an easy 2" on Robert Urich and Tim Matheson though.
Mike said on 21/Oct/11
What an actor "claims" means nothing. I know many guys who claim 6'0 (friends) and some are taller than me, some shorter. astwood could have been measured early in the day, or, like the way they do at some doc's offices, in his shoes. 6'4 out of bed, 6'3-ish, mostly...peak.
What an actor "claims" means nothing. I know many guys who claim 6'0 (friends) and some are taller than me, some shorter. astwood could have been measured early in the day, or, like the way they do at some doc's offices, in his shoes. 6'4 out of bed, 6'3-ish, mostly...peak.
James said on 21/Oct/11
oh yeah i guess at 15 he was in high school so off course there may have been some guys taller than him but then again this is the 1940's we are talking about were the average sized guy was 5'8 or less.....the tallest kid in my school for 11-16 years olds was 6'4.
oh yeah i guess at 15 he was in high school so off course there may have been some guys taller than him but then again this is the 1940's we are talking about were the average sized guy was 5'8 or less.....the tallest kid in my school for 11-16 years olds was 6'4.
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.