Add a Comment5615 comments
Average Guess (457 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.82in (182.4cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.82in (182.4cm)
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.
James said on 21/Oct/11
Shaun says on 20/Oct/11
Joe Manganiello James never looks 6 ft 5 in photographs either. He can often give a 6'2"-6'3" impression. There are some 6'4"-6'5" guys like Tim Robbins and Seagal who look massive and others who really don't look in the "super tall" range.
Robbins is more 6'5 than 6'4 and seagal can look very tall and big but not really massive.
Clint Eastwood has never looked massive on screen but at the same time he looks well over 6ft.
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.
Shaun says on 20/Oct/11
Joe Manganiello James never looks 6 ft 5 in photographs either. He can often give a 6'2"-6'3" impression. There are some 6'4"-6'5" guys like Tim Robbins and Seagal who look massive and others who really don't look in the "super tall" range.
Robbins is more 6'5 than 6'4 and seagal can look very tall and big but not really massive.
Clint Eastwood has never looked massive on screen but at the same time he looks well over 6ft.
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.
Shaun said on 21/Oct/11
The last film I saw him in, Gran Torino, couple of years ago he still looked a 6 footer to me. Quite rare to see a 6' 80 year old man actually.
Bill Gate's father is likely same age range as Clint and looks 6 ft 6. range. Now that's rare for an 80 year old guy!!
The last film I saw him in, Gran Torino, couple of years ago he still looked a 6 footer to me. Quite rare to see a 6' 80 year old man actually.
Bill Gate's father is likely same age range as Clint and looks 6 ft 6. range. Now that's rare for an 80 year old guy!!
Parker said on 21/Oct/11
I really don't think there's any debate about Clint's peak height. I read an interview with him many years ago in which he stated he was 6'4 at 15 with only one guy taller in his class - He also said he was turned down for some parts in his early career because he was too tall - why would he lie about being 6'4? Also, as many posters have pointed out he looked an easy 6'4 against Robert Urich and Tim Matheson in Magnum Force.
This pic from 3 years ago he still has a half head on a 5'7-5'8 man.
Click Here
The last film I saw him in, Gran Torino, couple of years ago he still looked a 6 footer to me. Quite rare to see a 6' 80 year old man actually.
I really don't think there's any debate about Clint's peak height. I read an interview with him many years ago in which he stated he was 6'4 at 15 with only one guy taller in his class - He also said he was turned down for some parts in his early career because he was too tall - why would he lie about being 6'4? Also, as many posters have pointed out he looked an easy 6'4 against Robert Urich and Tim Matheson in Magnum Force.
This pic from 3 years ago he still has a half head on a 5'7-5'8 man.
Click Here
The last film I saw him in, Gran Torino, couple of years ago he still looked a 6 footer to me. Quite rare to see a 6' 80 year old man actually.
Legend said on 20/Oct/11
he was 6'4 max peak. Now could be 5'11
he was 6'4 max peak. Now could be 5'11
Manuel said on 20/Oct/11
He has a long arms and legs structure.similar to Marffan Syndrome people.i mean more long arms and legs than normal.he also looks taller in the youth films because in the last decades the middle heigh has grown in the actors.i think he was about 6'4" minimum at the beginning and maybe a bit less actually.probably his big weight change during his actors life give us different impressions of his really height
He has a long arms and legs structure.similar to Marffan Syndrome people.i mean more long arms and legs than normal.he also looks taller in the youth films because in the last decades the middle heigh has grown in the actors.i think he was about 6'4" minimum at the beginning and maybe a bit less actually.probably his big weight change during his actors life give us different impressions of his really height
Danimal said on 20/Oct/11
Shaun says on 20/Oct/11
Yes today he can look as low as 5'11" and can still look as high as 6'1.5" at times. I think he'd measure 185cm at some point in the day.
No way is he over 6'0 3/4" at any point during the day these days. Yes, he can look 5'11" these days, next to Will Smith, Morgan Freeman and so many others. Anything 6'1" or over is out of the question.
Shaun says on 20/Oct/11
Yes today he can look as low as 5'11" and can still look as high as 6'1.5" at times. I think he'd measure 185cm at some point in the day.
No way is he over 6'0 3/4" at any point during the day these days. Yes, he can look 5'11" these days, next to Will Smith, Morgan Freeman and so many others. Anything 6'1" or over is out of the question.
EdgarHernandez said on 20/Oct/11
I just fund this video of a young christopher reeve training for suoerman, and for be honest, he kind of look exactly build like a young clint eastwood, down right even for the very long legs(also kind of skinny ones, like clint):
Click Here
(it begins at the 2:14)
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
christopher reeve a solid(for me) 6ft 4 looks nearly identical build as clint eastwood in his very youth, the only mayor diference is that clint lacks the naturaly broad shoulders of reeves, clint have something between narrow to proportional, but all is similar, legs, chets(in the last pick they show similar chest size), muscle tone, so is not weird that clint once was reeve size, maybe even similar in size, after all is said that clint was 216 pound at his biggest build and reeve 215 in the first film(he bulked up more to other films), so is not surprise that he was considered for the part.
Also suporting shaun, is true not all 6ft 4 guys give right on the impresion of being big, also people fail to see that even with big shoes(like boots) 6ft 4 and 6ft 5 guys will not give always the 6ft 6 or 6ft 7 impresion because those guys have very peculiar proportions.
I just fund this video of a young christopher reeve training for suoerman, and for be honest, he kind of look exactly build like a young clint eastwood, down right even for the very long legs(also kind of skinny ones, like clint):
Click Here
(it begins at the 2:14)
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
christopher reeve a solid(for me) 6ft 4 looks nearly identical build as clint eastwood in his very youth, the only mayor diference is that clint lacks the naturaly broad shoulders of reeves, clint have something between narrow to proportional, but all is similar, legs, chets(in the last pick they show similar chest size), muscle tone, so is not weird that clint once was reeve size, maybe even similar in size, after all is said that clint was 216 pound at his biggest build and reeve 215 in the first film(he bulked up more to other films), so is not surprise that he was considered for the part.
Also suporting shaun, is true not all 6ft 4 guys give right on the impresion of being big, also people fail to see that even with big shoes(like boots) 6ft 4 and 6ft 5 guys will not give always the 6ft 6 or 6ft 7 impresion because those guys have very peculiar proportions.
Shaun said on 20/Oct/11
Click Here
Manganiello does he look 6 ft 6 in those shoes by proportions? To me casual glance he looks 189-190 cm range like Eric Bana sort of range. I'm not doubting that he is actually around 6'5" but he really just doesn't look it.
Click Here
Manganiello does he look 6 ft 6 in those shoes by proportions? To me casual glance he looks 189-190 cm range like Eric Bana sort of range. I'm not doubting that he is actually around 6'5" but he really just doesn't look it.
Shaun said on 20/Oct/11
Joe Manganiello James never looks 6 ft 5 in photographs either. He can often give a 6'2"-6'3" impression. There are some 6'4"-6'5" guys like Tim Robbins and Seagal who look massive and others who really don't look in the "super tall" range.
Joe Manganiello James never looks 6 ft 5 in photographs either. He can often give a 6'2"-6'3" impression. There are some 6'4"-6'5" guys like Tim Robbins and Seagal who look massive and others who really don't look in the "super tall" range.
LAN Jiao said on 20/Oct/11
Peak 6'5 in cowboy boots added full 3cm hair. 6'0 now.
Peak 6'5 in cowboy boots added full 3cm hair. 6'0 now.
Shaun said on 20/Oct/11
Well James if you don't think Clint ever looked 6'4" check out my link on the Gary Lightbody page. Lightbody as tall as Jamie Theakston and Conan O Brien? Absolutely no chance..
Well James if you don't think Clint ever looked 6'4" check out my link on the Gary Lightbody page. Lightbody as tall as Jamie Theakston and Conan O Brien? Absolutely no chance..
James said on 20/Oct/11
Shaun says on 19/Oct/11
Well, 6'4" does seem the higher end of what you could claim for him. He could look 6'2.5"-6'3" in his films a lot. If you actually look into it he actually was 6'4" range as he had 2-3 inches on 6'1"-6'2" guys. 2 inches on Tim Matheson for instance.
clint eastwood is very masculine 'a man's man' and has that classic tough guy personality yet for some reason on screen he still does not give off that 6'4 impression that guys like steven segal do.
Shaun says on 19/Oct/11
Well, 6'4" does seem the higher end of what you could claim for him. He could look 6'2.5"-6'3" in his films a lot. If you actually look into it he actually was 6'4" range as he had 2-3 inches on 6'1"-6'2" guys. 2 inches on Tim Matheson for instance.
clint eastwood is very masculine 'a man's man' and has that classic tough guy personality yet for some reason on screen he still does not give off that 6'4 impression that guys like steven segal do.
Shaun said on 20/Oct/11
Yes today he can look as low as 5'11" and can still look as high as 6'1.5" at times. I think he'd measure 185cm at some point in the day.
Yes today he can look as low as 5'11" and can still look as high as 6'1.5" at times. I think he'd measure 185cm at some point in the day.
thebad7 said 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. The scene in which Harry meets the rookie cops at the indoor pistol range is very telling; the rookies (pay close attention to Urich & Matheson as both are 6'2") are wearing Red Wing style boots with 1" - 1 1/2" heel and Clint is in flat sneakers with less than 1" of heel. Despite the footwear advantage, the younger actors are still noticeably shorter than Clint.
@Shaun: Your post from 17 October 2011 is spot on. I do agree with you that at times he looks much shorter than what he is--as low as 5'11"--but I think that on a good day when he's stretched out properly he is still 6'1" - 6'1 1/2" range. He took photos recently with Morgan Freeman and Sidney Poitier, both of whom still look to be in the 6'2" range, and Clint looked shorter by 1/2" minimum/1" maximum.
tb7
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. The scene in which Harry meets the rookie cops at the indoor pistol range is very telling; the rookies (pay close attention to Urich & Matheson as both are 6'2") are wearing Red Wing style boots with 1" - 1 1/2" heel and Clint is in flat sneakers with less than 1" of heel. Despite the footwear advantage, the younger actors are still noticeably shorter than Clint.
@Shaun: Your post from 17 October 2011 is spot on. I do agree with you that at times he looks much shorter than what he is--as low as 5'11"--but I think that on a good day when he's stretched out properly he is still 6'1" - 6'1 1/2" range. He took photos recently with Morgan Freeman and Sidney Poitier, both of whom still look to be in the 6'2" range, and Clint looked shorter by 1/2" minimum/1" maximum.
tb7
Shaun said on 19/Oct/11
Well, 6'4" does seem the higher end of what you could claim for him. He could look 6'2.5"-6'3" in his films a lot. If you actually look into it he actually was 6'4" range as he had 2-3 inches on 6'1"-6'2" guys. 2 inches on Tim Matheson for instance.
Well, 6'4" does seem the higher end of what you could claim for him. He could look 6'2.5"-6'3" in his films a lot. If you actually look into it he actually was 6'4" range as he had 2-3 inches on 6'1"-6'2" guys. 2 inches on Tim Matheson for instance.
James said on 18/Oct/11
Shaun says on 17/Oct/11
Well he looked a clear 6'4" to me in Magnum Force. In his 80s films though he definitely generally looked more 6'3-6'3.5".
Yeah 6'4 is clearly evident for clint eastwood in that film when you see him next too david soul.. although i don't think he looked over 6'4 in that film.
but still shaun would u agree that you don't always associate 6'4 with clint eastwood?
Shaun says on 17/Oct/11
Well he looked a clear 6'4" to me in Magnum Force. In his 80s films though he definitely generally looked more 6'3-6'3.5".
Yeah 6'4 is clearly evident for clint eastwood in that film when you see him next too david soul.. although i don't think he looked over 6'4 in that film.
but still shaun would u agree that you don't always associate 6'4 with clint eastwood?
Shaun said on 17/Oct/11
Remember Rob did have him as low as 6' flat a year or two ago. I still think if he said as upright as possible and straightened out he could measure around 185 barefoot. He can look as low as 5'11 at times with bad posture.
Remember Rob did have him as low as 6' flat a year or two ago. I still think if he said as upright as possible and straightened out he could measure around 185 barefoot. He can look as low as 5'11 at times with bad posture.
Shaun said on 17/Oct/11
Well he looked a clear 6'4" to me in Magnum Force. In his 80s films though he definitely generally looked more 6'3-6'3.5".
Well he looked a clear 6'4" to me in Magnum Force. In his 80s films though he definitely generally looked more 6'3-6'3.5".
James said on 15/Oct/11
well yeah he could be 6ft today
well yeah he could be 6ft today
Terry said on 15/Oct/11
Hate to burst your bubble folks but Clint is only about 6'. I met him on a set and although still an imposing man was just my height.
Hate to burst your bubble folks but Clint is only about 6'. I met him on a set and although still an imposing man was just my height.
James said on 14/Oct/11
EdgarHerandez i belive clint was 6'4 but do you agree that when you picture clint eastwood even in his early films you don't immediatly think in your head "he's 6'4" unlike actors such as steven seagal, jeff goldblum, liam neeson and dolph lundgren.
i just don't think clint eastwood gives off that big imposing vibe like other 6'4 men do... don't get me wrong either he looks well over 6ft but sometimes when you assocaite 6'4 with clint eastwood it does seem kinda hard too believe.
Mind you he really did look 6'4 in the ending scene off the film magnum force and various parts off the movie but he didn't look 6'4 more like 6'3 in Dirty Harry.
EdgarHerandez i belive clint was 6'4 but do you agree that when you picture clint eastwood even in his early films you don't immediatly think in your head "he's 6'4" unlike actors such as steven seagal, jeff goldblum, liam neeson and dolph lundgren.
i just don't think clint eastwood gives off that big imposing vibe like other 6'4 men do... don't get me wrong either he looks well over 6ft but sometimes when you assocaite 6'4 with clint eastwood it does seem kinda hard too believe.
Mind you he really did look 6'4 in the ending scene off the film magnum force and various parts off the movie but he didn't look 6'4 more like 6'3 in Dirty Harry.
EdgarHernandez said on 13/Oct/11
clint couldnt be any shorter than 6ft 3.5 at worst in his younger days(more like 6ft 4), in the photo of shaun clint is(as always) looking down, that, whit a guy who have a long neck takes of you easily 1 to 2 inches, in other scene he is in straight posture and he is a very solid head taller than her( an even bigger diference, and he already have a curve in his back)
clint couldnt be any shorter than 6ft 3.5 at worst in his younger days(more like 6ft 4), in the photo of shaun clint is(as always) looking down, that, whit a guy who have a long neck takes of you easily 1 to 2 inches, in other scene he is in straight posture and he is a very solid head taller than her( an even bigger diference, and he already have a curve in his back)
James said on 13/Oct/11
Nope 6'4 since he was almost 4 inches taller than 6'0.5 David Soul and taller than 6'2 Lee Van Cleef.
Nope 6'4 since he was almost 4 inches taller than 6'0.5 David Soul and taller than 6'2 Lee Van Cleef.
LAN Jiao said on 12/Oct/11
Clint had great voice at youth. Handsome than many hollywood co star he work with. Nowadays he develope a husky voice n what rob say dowagers hump. 6'4 listing was bs. Donald sutherland was clearly 2-3cm shorter than solid 6'4peak jeff goldblum, sutherland claim 6'4 yet proven him with goldblum he is 6'3 then clint was shorter than sutherland 1.5-2cm , that keep in mind sutherland 190-191 and clint was 189 fraction up or down.
Clint had great voice at youth. Handsome than many hollywood co star he work with. Nowadays he develope a husky voice n what rob say dowagers hump. 6'4 listing was bs. Donald sutherland was clearly 2-3cm shorter than solid 6'4peak jeff goldblum, sutherland claim 6'4 yet proven him with goldblum he is 6'3 then clint was shorter than sutherland 1.5-2cm , that keep in mind sutherland 190-191 and clint was 189 fraction up or down.
Mike said on 12/Oct/11
Truthman has it right.
Truthman has it right.
James said on 11/Oct/11
looked signifigantly taller than lee van cleef
looked signifigantly taller than lee van cleef
Tman said on 9/Oct/11
with 1,91m listed Eric fleming he does n't apear taller when angles or ground dont favour him here Click Here and his footwear looks like it might be a bit thicker than that or Eric...he was 1,91meters at his peak and no more!
with 1,91m listed Eric fleming he does n't apear taller when angles or ground dont favour him here Click Here and his footwear looks like it might be a bit thicker than that or Eric...he was 1,91meters at his peak and no more!
James said on 6/Oct/11
Clint eastwood would for sure have 2 inches on a peak sean connery.
shaun that photo was taken in 1976 when clint eastwood shrink 1cm from his peak off 6'4.
Clint eastwood would for sure have 2 inches on a peak sean connery.
shaun that photo was taken in 1976 when clint eastwood shrink 1cm from his peak off 6'4.
Shaun said on 2/Oct/11
EdgarHernandez says on 28/Sep/11
the problem with the 6ft 1.5 claim is that we had not other proff that the word of the bond tailors who are not willing to give an answerd to the details of the measurament, also, connery will not be the only person to give a wrong height for his wole life(robert mitchum give 6ft as his height his wole life, even when that was laughable), he was measure 2 times, one in bodybuilding and other in the "bond tailors", the bond tailors sound still to fishy for me, i trusth more th body building one.
Connery claimed to be 6'1.5"!!!!!!!
EdgarHernandez says on 28/Sep/11
the problem with the 6ft 1.5 claim is that we had not other proff that the word of the bond tailors who are not willing to give an answerd to the details of the measurament, also, connery will not be the only person to give a wrong height for his wole life(robert mitchum give 6ft as his height his wole life, even when that was laughable), he was measure 2 times, one in bodybuilding and other in the "bond tailors", the bond tailors sound still to fishy for me, i trusth more th body building one.
Connery claimed to be 6'1.5"!!!!!!!
James said on 30/Sep/11
adam 2 says on 29/Sep/11
James, Sutherland was shorter than Goldblum. In Invasion Of The Body Snatcher it is obvious that Goldblum is taller. So that means at least an inch difference.
Goldblum might have been 6'4 1/2 and i did see a pic where they both looked similar in height. anyway....
in the invasion off the body snatchers
Jeff Goldblum 6'4.5 (194cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'4 (193cm)
i could imagine a peak clint eastwood would have been very similar in height too goldblum.
adam 2 says on 29/Sep/11
James, Sutherland was shorter than Goldblum. In Invasion Of The Body Snatcher it is obvious that Goldblum is taller. So that means at least an inch difference.
Goldblum might have been 6'4 1/2 and i did see a pic where they both looked similar in height. anyway....
in the invasion off the body snatchers
Jeff Goldblum 6'4.5 (194cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'4 (193cm)
i could imagine a peak clint eastwood would have been very similar in height too goldblum.
adam 2 said on 29/Sep/11
James, Sutherland was shorter than Goldblum. In Invasion Of The Body Snatcher it is obvious that Goldblum is taller. So that means at least an inch difference.
James, Sutherland was shorter than Goldblum. In Invasion Of The Body Snatcher it is obvious that Goldblum is taller. So that means at least an inch difference.
James said on 29/Sep/11
i think connery was a legit 6'2
i think connery was a legit 6'2
EdgarHernandez said on 28/Sep/11
the problem with the 6ft 1.5 claim is that we had not other proff that the word of the bond tailors who are not willing to give an answerd to the details of the measurament, also, connery will not be the only person to give a wrong height for his wole life(robert mitchum give 6ft as his height his wole life, even when that was laughable), he was measure 2 times, one in bodybuilding and other in the "bond tailors", the bond tailors sound still to fishy for me, i trusth more th body building one.
the problem with the 6ft 1.5 claim is that we had not other proff that the word of the bond tailors who are not willing to give an answerd to the details of the measurament, also, connery will not be the only person to give a wrong height for his wole life(robert mitchum give 6ft as his height his wole life, even when that was laughable), he was measure 2 times, one in bodybuilding and other in the "bond tailors", the bond tailors sound still to fishy for me, i trusth more th body building one.
James said on 28/Sep/11
sutherland could look 6'4 with jeff godlblum
sutherland could look 6'4 with jeff godlblum
Shaun said on 28/Sep/11
I have Sutherland as 6'3.5" peak.
I have Sutherland as 6'3.5" peak.
adam 2 said on 27/Sep/11
Bill Duke is at least 6-5. Seagal was near 6-5 in his prime.
Easrwood was six foot four in his prime. No more no less.
Stallone could be 5-8, Shaun. But no more than that.
Connery himself claimed 6-1½. He himself stated that.
Donald Sutherland has been described as six foot three frequently.
Bill Duke is at least 6-5. Seagal was near 6-5 in his prime.
Easrwood was six foot four in his prime. No more no less.
Stallone could be 5-8, Shaun. But no more than that.
Connery himself claimed 6-1½. He himself stated that.
Donald Sutherland has been described as six foot three frequently.
James said on 26/Sep/11
Seagal could have lost a tiny amount off height whe starred alongside bill duke
Seagal could have lost a tiny amount off height whe starred alongside bill duke
Shaun said on 26/Sep/11
adam2 says on 26/Sep/11
6-4 and nothing more. Seagal is six foot five by the way. Or was in his prime. Robbins is six foot five as well. Sean Connery was 6-1½ prime as he himself stated. Donald Sutherland is 6-3 and maybe some change.
Sly Stallone is 5-7.
Seagal was shorter than 6'4.5" Bill Duke. 6'5" you say?
adam2 says on 26/Sep/11
6-4 and nothing more. Seagal is six foot five by the way. Or was in his prime. Robbins is six foot five as well. Sean Connery was 6-1½ prime as he himself stated. Donald Sutherland is 6-3 and maybe some change.
Sly Stallone is 5-7.
Seagal was shorter than 6'4.5" Bill Duke. 6'5" you say?
Shaun said on 26/Sep/11
Stallone is 5'8"-5'8.5" not 5'7".
Stallone is 5'8"-5'8.5" not 5'7".
James said on 26/Sep/11
Seagal was never 6'5 closer too 6'4. robbins at 6'5 i can belive though cause he is defenintly closer too the 6'5 mark than 6'4.
Connery was a solid 6'2, stallone is 5'8-5'9 and donald sutherland wasat 6'4.
as for eastwood maybe 6'4 and some change? although he could have just been 6'4.
Seagal was never 6'5 closer too 6'4. robbins at 6'5 i can belive though cause he is defenintly closer too the 6'5 mark than 6'4.
Connery was a solid 6'2, stallone is 5'8-5'9 and donald sutherland wasat 6'4.
as for eastwood maybe 6'4 and some change? although he could have just been 6'4.
adam2 said on 26/Sep/11
6-4 and nothing more. Seagal is six foot five by the way. Or was in his prime. Robbins is six foot five as well. Sean Connery was 6-1½ prime as he himself stated. Donald Sutherland is 6-3 and maybe some change.
Sly Stallone is 5-7.
6-4 and nothing more. Seagal is six foot five by the way. Or was in his prime. Robbins is six foot five as well. Sean Connery was 6-1½ prime as he himself stated. Donald Sutherland is 6-3 and maybe some change.
Sly Stallone is 5-7.
James said on 24/Sep/11
6ft6 is ridicolous for clint eastwood
6ft6 is ridicolous for clint eastwood
Burt said on 23/Sep/11
I played tennis next a court on which Clint Eastwood was playing at the Pebble Beach Country Club. I am 6 feet 2 and 1/2 inches. I went over to him to give him a ball that had come over onto my court. He was clearly talled than me - I would say at least 6 ft. 5 inches or perhaps 6 ft. 6 inches.
I played tennis next a court on which Clint Eastwood was playing at the Pebble Beach Country Club. I am 6 feet 2 and 1/2 inches. I went over to him to give him a ball that had come over onto my court. He was clearly talled than me - I would say at least 6 ft. 5 inches or perhaps 6 ft. 6 inches.
James said on 23/Sep/11
Well Shaun the fact that eastwood edged out sutherland might indicate maybe that he was a strong 6'4 like 194cm but maybe eastwood might have had footware advantage who knows?
i don't buy just 187cm for connery because he looked more than that with harrison ford.
i think if a peak clint stood with millitary posture he might measure a fraction over 6'4?
Well Shaun the fact that eastwood edged out sutherland might indicate maybe that he was a strong 6'4 like 194cm but maybe eastwood might have had footware advantage who knows?
i don't buy just 187cm for connery because he looked more than that with harrison ford.
i think if a peak clint stood with millitary posture he might measure a fraction over 6'4?
EdgarHernandez said on 23/Sep/11
shaun, do you notice that the angle of that picture is horrible?
shaun, do you notice that the angle of that picture is horrible?
jervis said on 23/Sep/11
I taught Jimmy Kimmel was 6ft1.The photo with Neeson he looks about 2 inches shorter.Has anybody ever seen Segal or Robbins or Freeman stand with the same bad posture as Clint.Peak height 6ft3 and a half in very good posture, normal posture 6ft2 and a half,now in very good posture 6ft1 and a half, normal posture 6ft.I think Clint can look up to 1 and a half inches shorter bacause of very bad posture , he can still look 6ft in bad posture but thats not his real hight, his real hight is when he stands up with his back stright not bent and twisted like it is in most of the photos lately.Clint Eastwood current hight 6ft1 and a half standing with stright back,aged 81 lost 2 inches because of old age,can look 6ft only because of very bad posture.
I taught Jimmy Kimmel was 6ft1.The photo with Neeson he looks about 2 inches shorter.Has anybody ever seen Segal or Robbins or Freeman stand with the same bad posture as Clint.Peak height 6ft3 and a half in very good posture, normal posture 6ft2 and a half,now in very good posture 6ft1 and a half, normal posture 6ft.I think Clint can look up to 1 and a half inches shorter bacause of very bad posture , he can still look 6ft in bad posture but thats not his real hight, his real hight is when he stands up with his back stright not bent and twisted like it is in most of the photos lately.Clint Eastwood current hight 6ft1 and a half standing with stright back,aged 81 lost 2 inches because of old age,can look 6ft only because of very bad posture.
Shaun said on 23/Sep/11
Click Here
That's easily two inches. A 6'2.5" Connery would equal at least a 6'4.5" Sutherland and a 6'5" Eastwood.
Click Here
That's easily two inches. A 6'2.5" Connery would equal at least a 6'4.5" Sutherland and a 6'5" Eastwood.
Shaun said on 23/Sep/11
EdgarHernandez says on 22/Sep/11
shaun lets speak like rasonable people. Bond tailors, is regard by alot of people as joke, also james(that pointed out this in a polite form) said that he got nothing from them, and i suspect that that height stimatiom was just that, and stimation based just in his body proportions, second, bodybuilding measurament for connery will be the best of the bunch to take because, i pretty sure it was barefoot(in a big deal of bodybuilding contest that i have see in vide is always barefoot), also it was in the 50s when i am sure connery was more than in his prime, and finally, connery at just 6ft 1.5 dont make sence, because that is the same height as roger moore, and he is always shorer than connery for at last one inch, also he is always taller than michal cain(well marginaly taller) and he makes every person not over 6ft(even 6ft guys) look patethic when they are in the same room that him.
Donald Sutherland had no less than 2 inches on Connery. Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Are you suggesting Eastwood was in fact nearer 6'5" then if Connery was 6'2" - 6'2.5"?
EdgarHernandez says on 22/Sep/11
shaun lets speak like rasonable people. Bond tailors, is regard by alot of people as joke, also james(that pointed out this in a polite form) said that he got nothing from them, and i suspect that that height stimatiom was just that, and stimation based just in his body proportions, second, bodybuilding measurament for connery will be the best of the bunch to take because, i pretty sure it was barefoot(in a big deal of bodybuilding contest that i have see in vide is always barefoot), also it was in the 50s when i am sure connery was more than in his prime, and finally, connery at just 6ft 1.5 dont make sence, because that is the same height as roger moore, and he is always shorer than connery for at last one inch, also he is always taller than michal cain(well marginaly taller) and he makes every person not over 6ft(even 6ft guys) look patethic when they are in the same room that him.
Donald Sutherland had no less than 2 inches on Connery. Eastwood edged out Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes. Are you suggesting Eastwood was in fact nearer 6'5" then if Connery was 6'2" - 6'2.5"?
EdgarHernandez said on 22/Sep/11
shaun lets speak like rasonable people. Bond tailors, is regard by alot of people as joke, also james(that pointed out this in a polite form) said that he got nothing from them, and i suspect that that height stimatiom was just that, and stimation based just in his body proportions, second, bodybuilding measurament for connery will be the best of the bunch to take because, i pretty sure it was barefoot(in a big deal of bodybuilding contest that i have see in vide is always barefoot), also it was in the 50s when i am sure connery was more than in his prime, and finally, connery at just 6ft 1.5 dont make sence, because that is the same height as roger moore, and he is always shorer than connery for at last one inch, also he is always taller than michal cain(well marginaly taller) and he makes every person not over 6ft(even 6ft guys) look patethic when they are in the same room that him.
shaun lets speak like rasonable people. Bond tailors, is regard by alot of people as joke, also james(that pointed out this in a polite form) said that he got nothing from them, and i suspect that that height stimatiom was just that, and stimation based just in his body proportions, second, bodybuilding measurament for connery will be the best of the bunch to take because, i pretty sure it was barefoot(in a big deal of bodybuilding contest that i have see in vide is always barefoot), also it was in the 50s when i am sure connery was more than in his prime, and finally, connery at just 6ft 1.5 dont make sence, because that is the same height as roger moore, and he is always shorer than connery for at last one inch, also he is always taller than michal cain(well marginaly taller) and he makes every person not over 6ft(even 6ft guys) look patethic when they are in the same room that him.
adam2 said on 22/Sep/11
Wow has Clint aged badly. In the late 80s he already looked about 70. Poitier, Connery, Caine, Hackman and others have aged a lot better. But Clint is a mean, aggressive, petty man in real life. A narcissus.
Wow has Clint aged badly. In the late 80s he already looked about 70. Poitier, Connery, Caine, Hackman and others have aged a lot better. But Clint is a mean, aggressive, petty man in real life. A narcissus.
Shaun said on 22/Sep/11
Don't get me wrong, Connery looked 188-89cm peak, I agree, But remember Connery claimed to be 6'1.5" barefoot.
Don't get me wrong, Connery looked 188-89cm peak, I agree, But remember Connery claimed to be 6'1.5" barefoot.
James said on 20/Sep/11
Shaun i agree with you on a lot off your estiamtes but i think your wrong about 6'1.5 for connery.
in 1989 he looked a solid 6'2 with 6'0.5 Harrison Ford. Also as well looked a strong 6'2 with 184cm Nicholas Cage in photos in the 90's and even in recent times he still looked 1-1.5 inches taller than nicholas cage.
Shaun i agree with you on a lot off your estiamtes but i think your wrong about 6'1.5 for connery.
in 1989 he looked a solid 6'2 with 6'0.5 Harrison Ford. Also as well looked a strong 6'2 with 184cm Nicholas Cage in photos in the 90's and even in recent times he still looked 1-1.5 inches taller than nicholas cage.
James said on 20/Sep/11
Shaun says on 19/Sep/11
Coogan's Bluff is probably the tallest I ever saw Clint look. Could pass for 6'5" in that film.
cause he wore heels and had a cow boy hat on
Shaun says on 19/Sep/11
Coogan's Bluff is probably the tallest I ever saw Clint look. Could pass for 6'5" in that film.
cause he wore heels and had a cow boy hat on
James said on 19/Sep/11
i emailed the bond tailors a few months ago asking about connerys 6'1.5 measurement they refused too give me any details on it :(
at the moment i am not sure if clint eastwood was 193cm or 194cm peak? Maybe 193cm might be a safer bet judging by how much taller he appeared than 184cm david soul in magnun force.
So possibly.........
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.75 (192cm)
Sean Connery 6'2 (188cm)
i emailed the bond tailors a few months ago asking about connerys 6'1.5 measurement they refused too give me any details on it :(
at the moment i am not sure if clint eastwood was 193cm or 194cm peak? Maybe 193cm might be a safer bet judging by how much taller he appeared than 184cm david soul in magnun force.
So possibly.........
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.75 (192cm)
Sean Connery 6'2 (188cm)
Shaun said on 19/Sep/11
Coogan's Bluff is probably the tallest I ever saw Clint look. Could pass for 6'5" in that film.
Coogan's Bluff is probably the tallest I ever saw Clint look. Could pass for 6'5" in that film.
The Horse of FUNK said on 19/Sep/11
Here we go again with that "Bond tailors" crap.
Here we go again with that "Bond tailors" crap.
jake, 1.82 m said on 18/Sep/11
Eastwood towered (5ft11?) Lee J. Cobb in Coogan's Bluff, he looked a legit 6ft4 even allowing for any footwear advantage.
Eastwood towered (5ft11?) Lee J. Cobb in Coogan's Bluff, he looked a legit 6ft4 even allowing for any footwear advantage.
James said on 18/Sep/11
Shaun says on 18/Sep/11
More like
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (187cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm) maybe??????
Anyway
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (188cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Remember Connery was measured barefoot at 6'1.5" by the Bond tailors and this is also what he claimed.
But he was measured in bodybuilding at 189cm.
Shaun says on 18/Sep/11
More like
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (187cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm) maybe??????
Anyway
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (188cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Remember Connery was measured barefoot at 6'1.5" by the Bond tailors and this is also what he claimed.
But he was measured in bodybuilding at 189cm.
Shaun said on 18/Sep/11
More like
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (187cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm) maybe??????
Anyway
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (188cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Remember Connery was measured barefoot at 6'1.5" by the Bond tailors and this is also what he claimed.
More like
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (187cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm) maybe??????
Anyway
Sean Connery 6'1.5 (188cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.5 (192cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4 (193cm)
Remember Connery was measured barefoot at 6'1.5" by the Bond tailors and this is also what he claimed.
Mike said on 17/Sep/11
Just happened to catch Dirty Harry (It was on, I didn't put it on, to watch, over and over). Since we're basing Eastwood's height on other actor's listed heights, if Harry Guardino was a legit 5'10, yeah...Eastwood was alot taller...but not by 6 inches. More like by 4 or 5, tops. If Guardino was 5'10, and Eastwood a legit 6'4, he'd have MORE than towered over Guardino. At 6 inches taller, your eyes are well over a 5'10 guys' head. Looking over past posts, it's true; Guys like Chuck Connors looked "big" and "lean". Eastwood looks tall and skinny. I really have to move on from this. lol
Just happened to catch Dirty Harry (It was on, I didn't put it on, to watch, over and over). Since we're basing Eastwood's height on other actor's listed heights, if Harry Guardino was a legit 5'10, yeah...Eastwood was alot taller...but not by 6 inches. More like by 4 or 5, tops. If Guardino was 5'10, and Eastwood a legit 6'4, he'd have MORE than towered over Guardino. At 6 inches taller, your eyes are well over a 5'10 guys' head. Looking over past posts, it's true; Guys like Chuck Connors looked "big" and "lean". Eastwood looks tall and skinny. I really have to move on from this. lol
James said on 17/Sep/11
Would u guys agree that clint eastwood looked an easy 6'4 with donald sutehrland in kellys hearoes?
Sutherland can't be under 193cm when you see him next too 188cm sean Connery.
in the pic with then 194cm liam neeson clint eastwood looks 6'2.75 (190cm) or maybe a bit more if he stood better.
Maybe theres a chance that morgan freeman might be more 187cm today?
Would u guys agree that clint eastwood looked an easy 6'4 with donald sutehrland in kellys hearoes?
Sutherland can't be under 193cm when you see him next too 188cm sean Connery.
in the pic with then 194cm liam neeson clint eastwood looks 6'2.75 (190cm) or maybe a bit more if he stood better.
Maybe theres a chance that morgan freeman might be more 187cm today?
EdgarHernandez said on 16/Sep/11
Click Here
james said some time ago that there is a small chanse that clint could be 6ft 2 if he forces posture as much he can, well, the last photo is from this year, and clint for a big part of the pictures is not forcing posture and actually looking shorter than morgan freeman, but in this one clint look just .5 less than freeman and in match with sidney poiter, so, i not say that 6ft 2 is sure, but 6ft 1.5 is posible.
then again, his body is cartoonish looking, i mean...WTH:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
this one with clint deciding to look his tallest while facing kevin spacey:
Click Here
kevin is listen here as 5ft 9.75, clint looks like 3 inches over him, also,this photos are from 3 years ago:
Click Here
Click Here
i chose this 2 pictures bacause we see a clear shot of clint full back. Notice that is one of the few, if no the only times were clint have a gut,also, notice that his back, is very straight in the top, his rib cage is very straight looking, but look close tho the lower back, it looks "colapsed" wich let me with the irony that he is losing height like charlton heston, if you notice heston, he losed height like his hips and lower back just fused togeter and crumble at the same time, same with clint, if clint have done streching exercises and ab workouts this could have been avoided.
Click Here
james said some time ago that there is a small chanse that clint could be 6ft 2 if he forces posture as much he can, well, the last photo is from this year, and clint for a big part of the pictures is not forcing posture and actually looking shorter than morgan freeman, but in this one clint look just .5 less than freeman and in match with sidney poiter, so, i not say that 6ft 2 is sure, but 6ft 1.5 is posible.
then again, his body is cartoonish looking, i mean...WTH:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
this one with clint deciding to look his tallest while facing kevin spacey:
Click Here
kevin is listen here as 5ft 9.75, clint looks like 3 inches over him, also,this photos are from 3 years ago:
Click Here
Click Here
i chose this 2 pictures bacause we see a clear shot of clint full back. Notice that is one of the few, if no the only times were clint have a gut,also, notice that his back, is very straight in the top, his rib cage is very straight looking, but look close tho the lower back, it looks "colapsed" wich let me with the irony that he is losing height like charlton heston, if you notice heston, he losed height like his hips and lower back just fused togeter and crumble at the same time, same with clint, if clint have done streching exercises and ab workouts this could have been avoided.
thebad7 said on 16/Sep/11
1973's MAGNUM FORCE should put to rest any of this "peak 6'2"/peak 6'3"" crap regarding Eastwood. He had several 6'2" actors by 2"; likewise, in '74 and '75 he did THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT and THE EIGER SANCTION back to back. He looked the same height as legit 6'4" actors George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott. He was a tall, lanky guy in his younger days.
tb7
1973's MAGNUM FORCE should put to rest any of this "peak 6'2"/peak 6'3"" crap regarding Eastwood. He had several 6'2" actors by 2"; likewise, in '74 and '75 he did THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT and THE EIGER SANCTION back to back. He looked the same height as legit 6'4" actors George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott. He was a tall, lanky guy in his younger days.
tb7
Tony said on 16/Sep/11
Shaun says on 16/Sep/11
Click Here
Looks an easy 6'4" next to 6'1" David Soul
And also in that same movie, he appears about 2" taller than 6'2" Robert Urich and Tim Matheson.
Shaun says on 16/Sep/11
Click Here
Looks an easy 6'4" next to 6'1" David Soul
And also in that same movie, he appears about 2" taller than 6'2" Robert Urich and Tim Matheson.
Mike said on 16/Sep/11
Thank you, Danimal. Finally, some sanity regarding Eastwood's weight. Danimal, what's your opinion of David Soul's height, as that seems to be the standardbearer around here upon which to base Eastwood's. None of any of this really matters, but it's good for kicks. Soul, to me, was never 6'1...unless in his platform shoes.
Thank you, Danimal. Finally, some sanity regarding Eastwood's weight. Danimal, what's your opinion of David Soul's height, as that seems to be the standardbearer around here upon which to base Eastwood's. None of any of this really matters, but it's good for kicks. Soul, to me, was never 6'1...unless in his platform shoes.
James said on 16/Sep/11
shaun you do realise that david soul was downgraded from 185cm too 184cm?
Anyway
Sean Connery 6'2 (188cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'4 (193cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm) maybe??????
shaun you do realise that david soul was downgraded from 185cm too 184cm?
Anyway
Sean Connery 6'2 (188cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'4 (193cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm) maybe??????
Shaun said on 16/Sep/11
Whenever anybody comes up with the 6'2" rant just respond with the Sean Connery vs Donald Sutherland vs CLint Eastwood showdown. A 6'2" peak Eastwood would equal a 5'11.5" Sean Connery LOL.
Whenever anybody comes up with the 6'2" rant just respond with the Sean Connery vs Donald Sutherland vs CLint Eastwood showdown. A 6'2" peak Eastwood would equal a 5'11.5" Sean Connery LOL.
thebad7 said on 15/Sep/11
@James: Good work on the shots of Clint with Carl Lewis. Too bad we can't tell if the ground the men are standing on is level, or what kind of shoes they're wearing. Lewis has better posture; Clint's a bit more loose with legs slightly spread. I think if he was standing at military attention--as Lewis basically is--I'd give Clint no more than 6'1" flat today in 2011 at age 81.
tb7
@James: Good work on the shots of Clint with Carl Lewis. Too bad we can't tell if the ground the men are standing on is level, or what kind of shoes they're wearing. Lewis has better posture; Clint's a bit more loose with legs slightly spread. I think if he was standing at military attention--as Lewis basically is--I'd give Clint no more than 6'1" flat today in 2011 at age 81.
tb7
James said on 15/Sep/11
LAN Jiao says on 15/Sep/11
clint eastwood was never 6ft4. i watch quite number of his hey day show he look legitmate 6ft2. nowadays heading down 6ft.
Looked a legit 6'4 in Magnun Force
LAN Jiao says on 15/Sep/11
clint eastwood was never 6ft4. i watch quite number of his hey day show he look legitmate 6ft2. nowadays heading down 6ft.
Looked a legit 6'4 in Magnun Force
James said on 15/Sep/11
Shaun says on 15/Sep/11
Remember the Le di Caprio pics were also taken in 2011 and he looked 2-3 inches taller so 6'0 flat I doubt.
But what about with 6'2 Carl Lewis he dosen't really look over 6'0 next too him.
Shaun says on 15/Sep/11
Remember the Le di Caprio pics were also taken in 2011 and he looked 2-3 inches taller so 6'0 flat I doubt.
But what about with 6'2 Carl Lewis he dosen't really look over 6'0 next too him.
LAN Jiao said on 15/Sep/11
clint eastwood was never 6ft4. i watch quite number of his hey day show he look legitmate 6ft2. nowadays heading down 6ft.
clint eastwood was never 6ft4. i watch quite number of his hey day show he look legitmate 6ft2. nowadays heading down 6ft.
James said on 15/Sep/11
clint eastwood looked kinda broad in the deadpool
clint eastwood looked kinda broad in the deadpool
Shaun said on 15/Sep/11
Remember the Le di Caprio pics were also taken in 2011 and he looked 2-3 inches taller so 6'0 flat I doubt.
Remember the Le di Caprio pics were also taken in 2011 and he looked 2-3 inches taller so 6'0 flat I doubt.
Danimal said on 15/Sep/11
havoc 72 says on 14/Sep/11
Mike! lean, not skinny dumbass. with a 12% bodyfat I'm 240-260lbs, because I've a much thicker torso and hips the clint ,I would be heavier, but clint was packin some decent guns in his day so 215 -220lbs would not be out of line, and a toothpick like you ot a base wiegt of under 170 wouldn't have a clue what those extra inches would weigh
Clint was not 215-220 pounds back in the day. He was 190 pounds soaking wet.
havoc 72 says on 14/Sep/11
Mike! lean, not skinny dumbass. with a 12% bodyfat I'm 240-260lbs, because I've a much thicker torso and hips the clint ,I would be heavier, but clint was packin some decent guns in his day so 215 -220lbs would not be out of line, and a toothpick like you ot a base wiegt of under 170 wouldn't have a clue what those extra inches would weigh
Clint was not 215-220 pounds back in the day. He was 190 pounds soaking wet.
Mike said on 14/Sep/11
Well, now. It appears we have the group that insists Eastwood was at least 6'5, peak, if not 7 foot, and we have the 6'3.5 peak, with a lighter weight (more reasonable), and then the 365 pound, oversensitive types who can't control their anger.lol All this over an 81 year old's former height. The guy was tall and skinny. Even with big arms for a couple of movies, his legs were pencils. And he's got those long, veiny arms that "look" muscular, but aren't as big as you think.
Well, now. It appears we have the group that insists Eastwood was at least 6'5, peak, if not 7 foot, and we have the 6'3.5 peak, with a lighter weight (more reasonable), and then the 365 pound, oversensitive types who can't control their anger.lol All this over an 81 year old's former height. The guy was tall and skinny. Even with big arms for a couple of movies, his legs were pencils. And he's got those long, veiny arms that "look" muscular, but aren't as big as you think.
Mark said on 14/Sep/11
Uhm, Havok, is it? Thanks for the kind, mature words. Maybe you didn't read my post, clearly; "How the heck can a 365 pound guy know that his "lean" self is the same as Eastwood's "lean" self?" It still stands. Eastwood has always been "sknny", lean or not. I'm currently 205. Next to a 365 pound, fat man, everyone is a toothpick. As for my not having a clue, I've been working out longer than you've been alive, likely, have a degree in exercise nutrition and can still press over 300. You clearly didn't like my reaction in a previous post, to your absurd assumption, because your recent post is just a series of name calling over-reactions.lol Eastwood was aways "skinny", even when his arms were bigger. Alot of hero worship here, with the guy. That could be due to any number of problems with feeling inadequate. I just like his movies, and USED to think he was a solid 6'4.
Uhm, Havok, is it? Thanks for the kind, mature words. Maybe you didn't read my post, clearly; "How the heck can a 365 pound guy know that his "lean" self is the same as Eastwood's "lean" self?" It still stands. Eastwood has always been "sknny", lean or not. I'm currently 205. Next to a 365 pound, fat man, everyone is a toothpick. As for my not having a clue, I've been working out longer than you've been alive, likely, have a degree in exercise nutrition and can still press over 300. You clearly didn't like my reaction in a previous post, to your absurd assumption, because your recent post is just a series of name calling over-reactions.lol Eastwood was aways "skinny", even when his arms were bigger. Alot of hero worship here, with the guy. That could be due to any number of problems with feeling inadequate. I just like his movies, and USED to think he was a solid 6'4.
wingnut said on 14/Sep/11
eastwood was never skinny.long limbed sure.James stewart was skinny and he was 6'3" and a half
eastwood was never skinny.long limbed sure.James stewart was skinny and he was 6'3" and a half
James said on 14/Sep/11
he was muscular for sure but he was no hugh jackman
he was muscular for sure but he was no hugh jackman
jervis said on 14/Sep/11
Lewis looks about an inch taller.
Lewis looks about an inch taller.
havoc 72 said on 14/Sep/11
Mike! lean, not skinny dumbass. with a 12% bodyfat I'm 240-260lbs, because I've a much thicker torso and hips the clint ,I would be heavier, but clint was packin some decent guns in his day so 215 -220lbs would not be out of line, and a toothpick like you ot a base wiegt of under 170 wouldn't have a clue what those extra inches would weigh
Mike! lean, not skinny dumbass. with a 12% bodyfat I'm 240-260lbs, because I've a much thicker torso and hips the clint ,I would be heavier, but clint was packin some decent guns in his day so 215 -220lbs would not be out of line, and a toothpick like you ot a base wiegt of under 170 wouldn't have a clue what those extra inches would weigh
James said on 13/Sep/11
Shaun maybe 6'0 (183cm) now in 2011?
I know its remarkable how he's lost so many inches because he was a legit 6'4 up untill the mid 1970's.
Shaun maybe 6'0 (183cm) now in 2011?
I know its remarkable how he's lost so many inches because he was a legit 6'4 up untill the mid 1970's.
Shaun said on 13/Sep/11
The Carl Lewis photo has at least convinced he aint anyway near 6'2" any longer even with immaculate posture. Its crazy how much height he has lost.
The Carl Lewis photo has at least convinced he aint anyway near 6'2" any longer even with immaculate posture. Its crazy how much height he has lost.
Shaun said on 13/Sep/11
Jusging by the background there is a slope and Lewis is on higher ground. Still though Eastwoo'd legs are 2-3 inches longer than Lewis's If Eastwood had Lewis's torso he'd be 6'6" range. I am yet to see anybody photographed with Clint with longer legs.
Jusging by the background there is a slope and Lewis is on higher ground. Still though Eastwoo'd legs are 2-3 inches longer than Lewis's If Eastwood had Lewis's torso he'd be 6'6" range. I am yet to see anybody photographed with Clint with longer legs.
Shaun said on 13/Sep/11
Clint comes across as more grumpy on screen than bad ass I'd say.
Clint comes across as more grumpy on screen than bad ass I'd say.
James said on 11/Sep/11
Take a look at these very recent pics of him with 6'2 (188cm) Carl Lewis
Click Here
Click Here
Granted Carl is a little closer too the camera and the ground might be uneven compared too him Clint Eastwood looks 182 or 183cm.
Rob do you think possibly clint might be under 184cm today judging by the photos with carl? or do you think like shaun said his posture might have something too do with him not looking his tallest?
Editor Rob
Take a look at these very recent pics of him with 6'2 (188cm) Carl Lewis
Click Here
Click Here
Granted Carl is a little closer too the camera and the ground might be uneven compared too him Clint Eastwood looks 182 or 183cm.
Rob do you think possibly clint might be under 184cm today judging by the photos with carl? or do you think like shaun said his posture might have something too do with him not looking his tallest?
Editor Rob he could be still near it when measured
James said on 10/Sep/11
Shaun would u not agree like steven seagal and vinnie jones clint eastwood is another badass guy who plays himself on screen?
I agree Shaun that clint eastwood comes across as very haughty and aloof. even at 81 he hasn't changed much but i suppouse compared too when he younger he has become a bit more nice than in the past.
Shaun would u not agree like steven seagal and vinnie jones clint eastwood is another badass guy who plays himself on screen?
I agree Shaun that clint eastwood comes across as very haughty and aloof. even at 81 he hasn't changed much but i suppouse compared too when he younger he has become a bit more nice than in the past.
James said on 10/Sep/11
Shaun says on 10/Sep/11
James says on 7/Sep/11
guys would u agree that a young clint eastwood looked like hugh jackman?
You mean do you think Hugh Jackman looks like a young Clint Eastwood? Facially they are similar I guess, especially if he has a beard but Jackman has darker coloring and has less chiselled features than Clint had in his prime.
remember hugh jackman as wolverine in x men 1? he looked just like clint eastwood did in dirty harry esspecially when his hair was all buffed up.
anyway hugh jackman and clint eastwood are constantly on the look a likes list.
type into google "clint eastwood lookalike" and u will see what i mean.
Shaun says on 10/Sep/11
James says on 7/Sep/11
guys would u agree that a young clint eastwood looked like hugh jackman?
You mean do you think Hugh Jackman looks like a young Clint Eastwood? Facially they are similar I guess, especially if he has a beard but Jackman has darker coloring and has less chiselled features than Clint had in his prime.
remember hugh jackman as wolverine in x men 1? he looked just like clint eastwood did in dirty harry esspecially when his hair was all buffed up.
anyway hugh jackman and clint eastwood are constantly on the look a likes list.
type into google "clint eastwood lookalike" and u will see what i mean.
Shaun said on 10/Sep/11
Click Here
Not to mention completely different personalities. Jackman is a nice guy but Clint I really think can be quite rude and intolerant.
Click Here
Not to mention completely different personalities. Jackman is a nice guy but Clint I really think can be quite rude and intolerant.
Shaun said on 10/Sep/11
Click Here
Not really much similarity really. Notice how Clint's jaw and profile is much stronger and even more masculine than Jackman.
Click Here
Not really much similarity really. Notice how Clint's jaw and profile is much stronger and even more masculine than Jackman.
Shaun said on 10/Sep/11
James says on 7/Sep/11
guys would u agree that a young clint eastwood looked like hugh jackman?
You mean do you think Hugh Jackman looks like a young Clint Eastwood? Facially they are similar I guess, especially if he has a beard but Jackman has darker coloring and has less chiselled features than Clint had in his prime.
James says on 7/Sep/11
guys would u agree that a young clint eastwood looked like hugh jackman?
You mean do you think Hugh Jackman looks like a young Clint Eastwood? Facially they are similar I guess, especially if he has a beard but Jackman has darker coloring and has less chiselled features than Clint had in his prime.
James said on 9/Sep/11
6'4ish prime.
Like Steven Seagal he was never a really a big guy in terms of build.
6'4ish prime.
Like Steven Seagal he was never a really a big guy in terms of build.
Mike said on 8/Sep/11
How the heck can a 365 pound guy know that his "lean" self is the same as Eastwood's "lean" self? My "lean" self has been everything from 148, to 170, to 190, to 205. Nobody can look as narrow as Eastwood always did, and not be skinny. 6'3-ish for his prime years, and 190-plus.
How the heck can a 365 pound guy know that his "lean" self is the same as Eastwood's "lean" self? My "lean" self has been everything from 148, to 170, to 190, to 205. Nobody can look as narrow as Eastwood always did, and not be skinny. 6'3-ish for his prime years, and 190-plus.
James said on 7/Sep/11
guys would u agree that a young clint eastwood looked like hugh jackman?
guys would u agree that a young clint eastwood looked like hugh jackman?
Legend said on 6/Sep/11
jake says on 4/Sep/11
Legend only says 'DiCaprio is 5'10.25' because he really wants him to be close in height to himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could care less actually. He's probably just barely taller than me. My guess is he's in the middle 5'10 range, not 5'11.
jake says on 4/Sep/11
Legend only says 'DiCaprio is 5'10.25' because he really wants him to be close in height to himself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I could care less actually. He's probably just barely taller than me. My guess is he's in the middle 5'10 range, not 5'11.
James said on 6/Sep/11
Yeah i notice how long clint eastwoods legs were in the good, the bad and the ugly. also in diry harry when he's walking too a diner at the start of the film his legs looked super long.
Yeah i notice how long clint eastwoods legs were in the good, the bad and the ugly. also in diry harry when he's walking too a diner at the start of the film his legs looked super long.
thebad7 said on 5/Sep/11
@Shaun: I think it was you who observed just how long Eastwood's legs were/are a few months back, and I agree with you on that point. Eastwood had the legs of a 6'5" - 6'6" man, and this is especially noticeable in Sergio Leone's Dollars Films. He was a long, lanky guy.
tb7
@Shaun: I think it was you who observed just how long Eastwood's legs were/are a few months back, and I agree with you on that point. Eastwood had the legs of a 6'5" - 6'6" man, and this is especially noticeable in Sergio Leone's Dollars Films. He was a long, lanky guy.
tb7
havoc 72 said on 5/Sep/11
lots of people dissing the 200 to 220 lbs wieght as possible! I'm 6'4" and as lean as eastwood I'd be 240lbs Im currently a 50" waist and a 56" chest and wieght 365 lbs so yes its possible
lots of people dissing the 200 to 220 lbs wieght as possible! I'm 6'4" and as lean as eastwood I'd be 240lbs Im currently a 50" waist and a 56" chest and wieght 365 lbs so yes its possible
jake said on 4/Sep/11
Legend only says 'DiCaprio is 5'10.25' because he really wants him to be close in height to himself.
Legend only says 'DiCaprio is 5'10.25' because he really wants him to be close in height to himself.
James said on 4/Sep/11
Robbins is barely 6'5 at 195cm.
In Kellys Hearoes Clint Eastwood appeared a strong 6'4 cause he edged out Donald Sutherland.
As for Dicaprio i have heard 6'1 a lot for him.
Robbins is barely 6'5 at 195cm.
In Kellys Hearoes Clint Eastwood appeared a strong 6'4 cause he edged out Donald Sutherland.
As for Dicaprio i have heard 6'1 a lot for him.
Shaun said on 4/Sep/11
Click Here
Yet barely looks over 6' here next to Robbins and Penn. His height seems to fluctuate a lot.
Click Here
Yet barely looks over 6' here next to Robbins and Penn. His height seems to fluctuate a lot.
Shaun said on 4/Sep/11
Click Here
Looks 6'2" range here easily next to Robbins and Bacon, This was taken 2008 I think?.
Click Here
Looks 6'2" range here easily next to Robbins and Bacon, This was taken 2008 I think?.
Shaun said on 4/Sep/11
His legs give the game away that he used to be very tall. Nobody looks that out of proportion unless they've lost some seirious height form their torso. And you look at Clint's proportion in Kelly's Heroes or something walking down the street and his torso almost matches his legs. But those legs are really similar length to a legit 6'5"- 6'6" guy. If you've seen some of the side by side photos with Tim Robbins Eastwood actually has longer legs than him by an inch or two and Robbins is a legit 6'5".
His legs give the game away that he used to be very tall. Nobody looks that out of proportion unless they've lost some seirious height form their torso. And you look at Clint's proportion in Kelly's Heroes or something walking down the street and his torso almost matches his legs. But those legs are really similar length to a legit 6'5"- 6'6" guy. If you've seen some of the side by side photos with Tim Robbins Eastwood actually has longer legs than him by an inch or two and Robbins is a legit 6'5".
Shaun said on 4/Sep/11
LThe reason why Di Caprio is not under 5'11" is because he is at least two inches taller than Gisele Bundchen in barefoot beach photos. Bundchen is NOT under 5'9".
LThe reason why Di Caprio is not under 5'11" is because he is at least two inches taller than Gisele Bundchen in barefoot beach photos. Bundchen is NOT under 5'9".
Shaun said on 4/Sep/11
Legend says on 3/Sep/11
LOL Dicaprio is 5'10.25, not 5'11.5, that is a joke.
Easily two inches taller than Gisele Bundchen in barefoot beach photos, why is that a joke?
Legend says on 3/Sep/11
LOL Dicaprio is 5'10.25, not 5'11.5, that is a joke.
Easily two inches taller than Gisele Bundchen in barefoot beach photos, why is that a joke?
Legend said on 3/Sep/11
LOL Dicaprio is 5'10.25, not 5'11.5, that is a joke.
LOL Dicaprio is 5'10.25, not 5'11.5, that is a joke.
thebad7 said on 3/Sep/11
@James: I don't have a problem with 6'1 1/2" for him in '05. The problem with him is that defined curve in his upper back. Sometimes he looks taller, and sometimes he looks shorter depending on how much he can stretch himself out. I just watched MILLION DOLLAR BABY--2004 shoot, late '04/early '05 release--and he looked about the same as 6'2" Morgan Freeman, or just a bit shorter, so I'd go for 6'1 1/2" - 6'2" range.
tb7
@James: I don't have a problem with 6'1 1/2" for him in '05. The problem with him is that defined curve in his upper back. Sometimes he looks taller, and sometimes he looks shorter depending on how much he can stretch himself out. I just watched MILLION DOLLAR BABY--2004 shoot, late '04/early '05 release--and he looked about the same as 6'2" Morgan Freeman, or just a bit shorter, so I'd go for 6'1 1/2" - 6'2" range.
tb7
James said on 3/Sep/11
Shaun maybe his posture is fooling us into into thinknig he is only 6ft range?
Either that or dicaprio is 5'10 (178cm) like some say he is which unlikely.
Shaun maybe his posture is fooling us into into thinknig he is only 6ft range?
Either that or dicaprio is 5'10 (178cm) like some say he is which unlikely.
Shaun said on 3/Sep/11
Click Here
Good grief, looks at how disproportionate his legs are to his torso. His legs still look like that of a 6'5"-6'6" guy but his torso looks like that of a 5'8" guy. That's where he's lost all his height.
Click Here
Good grief, looks at how disproportionate his legs are to his torso. His legs still look like that of a 6'5"-6'6" guy but his torso looks like that of a 5'8" guy. That's where he's lost all his height.
Shaun said on 3/Sep/11
Click Here
Even stopping here, again Clint looks a good 6'2" next to DiCaprio. Rob is there any chance that if Clint actually stood up straight today and straightened his back he could measure 6'2"? Because he can still look around that height at times.
Editor Rob
Click Here
Even stopping here, again Clint looks a good 6'2" next to DiCaprio. Rob is there any chance that if Clint actually stood up straight today and straightened his back he could measure 6'2"? Because he can still look around that height at times.
Editor Rob I think his spine is curved a fair bit, like some men he could always measure an inch more than he generally looks, but I'm not sure 6ft 2 though
Shaun said on 3/Sep/11
James see this 2011 photo
Click Here
With 5'11.5" Leo di Caprio. Even accouting for road slope Eastwood actually looks 6'2" range. Looks a good 3 inches taller than DiCaprio. Perhaps we can better assess it at the Premiere for the latest movie and see how they compare.
James see this 2011 photo
Click Here
With 5'11.5" Leo di Caprio. Even accouting for road slope Eastwood actually looks 6'2" range. Looks a good 3 inches taller than DiCaprio. Perhaps we can better assess it at the Premiere for the latest movie and see how they compare.
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.