Add a Comment5634 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)
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.
Shaun said on 3/Sep/11
He can still look 6'1" range at times even today.
He can still look 6'1" range at times even today.
James said on 2/Sep/11
I read up earlier in this article that princess diana met clint eastwood at the fugetive premier in 1993 and before attending the premier after party with clint eastwood she joked about his height, and said roughly along the lines off "I will not have too look hard too find you since you will be the tallest man at the party"
I will have too upload the article sometime.
I read up earlier in this article that princess diana met clint eastwood at the fugetive premier in 1993 and before attending the premier after party with clint eastwood she joked about his height, and said roughly along the lines off "I will not have too look hard too find you since you will be the tallest man at the party"
I will have too upload the article sometime.
Danimal said on 2/Sep/11
James says on 1/Sep/11
A strong 6'4 peak like 6'4.25 is fair. maybe not quite a proper 6'4.5.
6'4.25 (194cm) peak it is no more and no less.
And you claimed he was 6'2" peak at one point kid. You exaggerate in both directions kid.
James says on 1/Sep/11
A strong 6'4 peak like 6'4.25 is fair. maybe not quite a proper 6'4.5.
6'4.25 (194cm) peak it is no more and no less.
And you claimed he was 6'2" peak at one point kid. You exaggerate in both directions kid.
James said on 2/Sep/11
looks a good 6'2 if clint eastwood was 6'1 in 08.
looks a good 6'2 if clint eastwood was 6'1 in 08.
Shaun said on 2/Sep/11
Click Here
This was taken in 2008. Clint is a little nearer to the camera but no way is Kyle 6'4". 6'2" looks the max he could possibly be.
Click Here
This was taken in 2008. Clint is a little nearer to the camera but no way is Kyle 6'4". 6'2" looks the max he could possibly be.
Shaun said on 2/Sep/11
Kyle Eastwood Clint's son is also listed at 6'4" but he does not look it. Looks 6'2".
Kyle Eastwood Clint's son is also listed at 6'4" but he does not look it. Looks 6'2".
James said on 1/Sep/11
A strong 6'4 peak like 6'4.25 is fair. maybe not quite a proper 6'4.5.
6'4.25 (194cm) peak it is no more and no less.
A strong 6'4 peak like 6'4.25 is fair. maybe not quite a proper 6'4.5.
6'4.25 (194cm) peak it is no more and no less.
James said on 1/Sep/11
thebad7 says on 31/Aug/11
@James: I'm using the first two photos as reference. The third photo is a bit weird, especially with the lens being right on top of Sean Penn. If Robbins is 6'5"--which I believe him to be--Clint looks about 3" shorter to my eye, so I'm going to stick with roughly 6'2" at that time. Today, 6'1" for Clint.
tb7
Maybe more 6'1 1/2 in 2005?
thebad7 says on 31/Aug/11
@James: I'm using the first two photos as reference. The third photo is a bit weird, especially with the lens being right on top of Sean Penn. If Robbins is 6'5"--which I believe him to be--Clint looks about 3" shorter to my eye, so I'm going to stick with roughly 6'2" at that time. Today, 6'1" for Clint.
tb7
Maybe more 6'1 1/2 in 2005?
thebad7 said on 31/Aug/11
@James: I'm using the first two photos as reference. The third photo is a bit weird, especially with the lens being right on top of Sean Penn. If Robbins is 6'5"--which I believe him to be--Clint looks about 3" shorter to my eye, so I'm going to stick with roughly 6'2" at that time. Today, 6'1" for Clint.
tb7
@James: I'm using the first two photos as reference. The third photo is a bit weird, especially with the lens being right on top of Sean Penn. If Robbins is 6'5"--which I believe him to be--Clint looks about 3" shorter to my eye, so I'm going to stick with roughly 6'2" at that time. Today, 6'1" for Clint.
tb7
James said on 31/Aug/11
Legend and that is why most people don't picture clint eastwood as a big 6'4 man because he was only briefly that height. esspecially th younger generation.
his film carrier only really properly took off in the late 1950's and even then people were not that familiar with him. he only became a househould name and very well known in 1964 when he did a fistul off dollars and became even better known when he did the good the bad and the ugly.
this could be hte reason why people see clint eastwood as being 6'2 or 6'3.
Legend and that is why most people don't picture clint eastwood as a big 6'4 man because he was only briefly that height. esspecially th younger generation.
his film carrier only really properly took off in the late 1950's and even then people were not that familiar with him. he only became a househould name and very well known in 1964 when he did a fistul off dollars and became even better known when he did the good the bad and the ugly.
this could be hte reason why people see clint eastwood as being 6'2 or 6'3.
Legend said on 30/Aug/11
He peaked very briefly at 6'4. It went downhill pretty fast though and he now stands 5'11.5 range as he has lost an abnormal amount of height throughout the years.
He peaked very briefly at 6'4. It went downhill pretty fast though and he now stands 5'11.5 range as he has lost an abnormal amount of height throughout the years.
James said on 29/Aug/11
thebad7 says on 29/Aug/11
@James: That clip you posted is from 1978's EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE. No, that's not George Kennedy.
As for 2005, yes: roughly 6'2". He was about the same, or just a fraction shorter than Morgan Freeman. But if we differ on that, we differ.
tb7
Well he dosen't look it with tim robbins
thebad7 says on 29/Aug/11
@James: That clip you posted is from 1978's EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE. No, that's not George Kennedy.
As for 2005, yes: roughly 6'2". He was about the same, or just a fraction shorter than Morgan Freeman. But if we differ on that, we differ.
tb7
Well he dosen't look it with tim robbins
James said on 29/Aug/11
EdgarHernandez says on 29/Aug/11
james, that guy look nothing like george kennedy, not even talks like kennedy.
looks too the same height as kennedy though.
in the clip i uploaded of clint eastwood in that film i estimate eastwood would have been 6'3 by that stage.
EdgarHernandez says on 29/Aug/11
james, that guy look nothing like george kennedy, not even talks like kennedy.
looks too the same height as kennedy though.
in the clip i uploaded of clint eastwood in that film i estimate eastwood would have been 6'3 by that stage.
thebad7 said on 29/Aug/11
@James: That clip you posted is from 1978's EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE. No, that's not George Kennedy.
As for 2005, yes: roughly 6'2". He was about the same, or just a fraction shorter than Morgan Freeman. But if we differ on that, we differ.
tb7
@James: That clip you posted is from 1978's EVERY WHICH WAY BUT LOOSE. No, that's not George Kennedy.
As for 2005, yes: roughly 6'2". He was about the same, or just a fraction shorter than Morgan Freeman. But if we differ on that, we differ.
tb7
EdgarHernandez said on 29/Aug/11
james, that guy look nothing like george kennedy, not even talks like kennedy.
james, that guy look nothing like george kennedy, not even talks like kennedy.
James said on 29/Aug/11
the bad7- 6'2 in 2005? I don't think so
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
In thunderbolt and lightfoot might have just been 6'4 (193cm) flat by that stage.
guys is this george kennedy eastwood is fighting in this scene?
Click Here
the bad7- 6'2 in 2005? I don't think so
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
In thunderbolt and lightfoot might have just been 6'4 (193cm) flat by that stage.
guys is this george kennedy eastwood is fighting in this scene?
Click Here
EdgarHernandez said on 28/Aug/11
I suport james in the fact that clint was at one time a broad guy(when he workout enought) first let see one interesthing video:
Click Here
that is charlton heston at 1:22, charlton hesto was neither skinny nor small, in fact heston was legendary for his heroic build with massive chest and shoulders, wich are very noticeable in the planet of the apes were he is nearly the full movie shirtless and easily looking like twice as broad as the whole cast:
Click Here
the ground i awful, wich makes hesto look like he is the same height as roddy mcdowall, but just looking at heston proporcions and build make one realize that the guy was huge. Look the video, clint nearly mach heston in muscular level, and he looks abaut 1 to 1.5 inch taller, heston at the lowest that i imagine him is at 6ft 2.5 maybe more like 6ft 2.75, and the higest at 6ft 3.25, in fact there are alot of curius shots of heston and george kennedy, a guy who cant be argue that he was anything less than 6ft 4
Click Here
heston and kennedy are walking side by side in airport and they look nearly matched in size.
Click Here
in this shot from earthquake he and kennedy are nearly the same in height(kennedy with a edge in heston by maybe an 1, skip to 9:20 to see it)
clint shows the same height diference between george and heston, george is a legit 6ft 4 or at last he was that height for a very long time and he dont drop that height until very recent times, but in the 70s he was still a trong 6ft4, and it shows in how little heigh diference there is between him and heston( a guy who i belive was 6ft 3), the central point in this is george kennedy, a guy who was build like john wayne(they boot have alot of phisical similaritys and oddly they both used to be football players), they boot show th same height diference from heston, the only thing that dont match is clint body who is
complety diferen of the 2 who are big and broad.
Click Here
that last clip is from lightfoot and thunderbolt, clint fights george kennedy and they are match in height but they look complety the opositive in body tipes.
I suport james in the fact that clint was at one time a broad guy(when he workout enought) first let see one interesthing video:
Click Here
that is charlton heston at 1:22, charlton hesto was neither skinny nor small, in fact heston was legendary for his heroic build with massive chest and shoulders, wich are very noticeable in the planet of the apes were he is nearly the full movie shirtless and easily looking like twice as broad as the whole cast:
Click Here
the ground i awful, wich makes hesto look like he is the same height as roddy mcdowall, but just looking at heston proporcions and build make one realize that the guy was huge. Look the video, clint nearly mach heston in muscular level, and he looks abaut 1 to 1.5 inch taller, heston at the lowest that i imagine him is at 6ft 2.5 maybe more like 6ft 2.75, and the higest at 6ft 3.25, in fact there are alot of curius shots of heston and george kennedy, a guy who cant be argue that he was anything less than 6ft 4
Click Here
heston and kennedy are walking side by side in airport and they look nearly matched in size.
Click Here
in this shot from earthquake he and kennedy are nearly the same in height(kennedy with a edge in heston by maybe an 1, skip to 9:20 to see it)
clint shows the same height diference between george and heston, george is a legit 6ft 4 or at last he was that height for a very long time and he dont drop that height until very recent times, but in the 70s he was still a trong 6ft4, and it shows in how little heigh diference there is between him and heston( a guy who i belive was 6ft 3), the central point in this is george kennedy, a guy who was build like john wayne(they boot have alot of phisical similaritys and oddly they both used to be football players), they boot show th same height diference from heston, the only thing that dont match is clint body who is
complety diferen of the 2 who are big and broad.
Click Here
that last clip is from lightfoot and thunderbolt, clint fights george kennedy and they are match in height but they look complety the opositive in body tipes.
thebad7 said on 28/Aug/11
@James: You're correct about Eastwood in BLOOD WORK. He looked to be about 6'2" in that film, and he looked to be about 6'2" a few years later in MILLION DOLLAR BABY. For his last acting gig--to date--in GRAN TORINO, he looked just a bit under 6'2". Today, about 6'1" for an 81 year old Eastwood.
Eastwood was unique in the sense that he played tough guys that carried these layers of emotional baggage--his characters either suffer a terrible loss, or they are plagued by guilt and placed into a situation where they are given a chance to redeem themselves. No doubt--his characters are tough, and self-reliant. Also, they have a sense of right from wrong--they will play dirty if necessary, but they never go out of their way to hurt innocents, and I've always liked that about the Eastwood persona. I disagree completely with the idea of John Wayne playing Harry Callahan. First of all, Wayne was too old for the role--never mind the fact that the original Harry Callahan was meant to be a man in his late 50/early 60s. Second, Clint brought that emotional complexity to the Harry Callahan character and made him a real person--not some unrealistic, cartoonish, invincible Superman. You'll see this especially in the first film when he speaks to Chico Gonzalez' (Reni Santoni) wife about how he lost his wife to a drunk driver and how Chico ought to quit the force as it's no life for them--a young and in love married couple. The sadness that Clint projects from behind those Ray Ban Baloramas is complete--and a testament to his ability as an actor. So, no--Clint Eastwood IS Harry Callahan, and nobody else could have done it better.
As a young man, there's no doubt Eastwood was tall, and 6'4" sounds right for him. Not 6'4 1/2" or 6'5"--just plain ol' flat 6'4" for most of the day. In fact, his body type back then reminds me of Liam Neeson--himself a 6'4" man. Just look at his work in the '60s: he has strong 6'2" Lee Van Cleef by a inch and some change; likewise, in the '70s, he looked exactly the same height as George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott, both of whom were 6'4" as well. By '92, he looked to be a strong 6'3"--he was noticeably taller than legit 6'2" actors Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman in UNFORGIVEN. By 2005, he looked to be hovering around 6'2"--about the same or just a hair shorter than Freeman. Today, he looks to be about 6'1".
tb7
@James: You're correct about Eastwood in BLOOD WORK. He looked to be about 6'2" in that film, and he looked to be about 6'2" a few years later in MILLION DOLLAR BABY. For his last acting gig--to date--in GRAN TORINO, he looked just a bit under 6'2". Today, about 6'1" for an 81 year old Eastwood.
Eastwood was unique in the sense that he played tough guys that carried these layers of emotional baggage--his characters either suffer a terrible loss, or they are plagued by guilt and placed into a situation where they are given a chance to redeem themselves. No doubt--his characters are tough, and self-reliant. Also, they have a sense of right from wrong--they will play dirty if necessary, but they never go out of their way to hurt innocents, and I've always liked that about the Eastwood persona. I disagree completely with the idea of John Wayne playing Harry Callahan. First of all, Wayne was too old for the role--never mind the fact that the original Harry Callahan was meant to be a man in his late 50/early 60s. Second, Clint brought that emotional complexity to the Harry Callahan character and made him a real person--not some unrealistic, cartoonish, invincible Superman. You'll see this especially in the first film when he speaks to Chico Gonzalez' (Reni Santoni) wife about how he lost his wife to a drunk driver and how Chico ought to quit the force as it's no life for them--a young and in love married couple. The sadness that Clint projects from behind those Ray Ban Baloramas is complete--and a testament to his ability as an actor. So, no--Clint Eastwood IS Harry Callahan, and nobody else could have done it better.
As a young man, there's no doubt Eastwood was tall, and 6'4" sounds right for him. Not 6'4 1/2" or 6'5"--just plain ol' flat 6'4" for most of the day. In fact, his body type back then reminds me of Liam Neeson--himself a 6'4" man. Just look at his work in the '60s: he has strong 6'2" Lee Van Cleef by a inch and some change; likewise, in the '70s, he looked exactly the same height as George Kennedy and Gregory Walcott, both of whom were 6'4" as well. By '92, he looked to be a strong 6'3"--he was noticeably taller than legit 6'2" actors Morgan Freeman and Gene Hackman in UNFORGIVEN. By 2005, he looked to be hovering around 6'2"--about the same or just a hair shorter than Freeman. Today, he looks to be about 6'1".
tb7
James said on 28/Aug/11
truthman says on 27/Aug/11
Clint looks skinny on James photos. And nowhere near 6'5. He doesn't give me impression of a big guy like Jared Padalecki or Adam Baldwin does
Could pass for 6'5 in the photos i posted. i don't think clint eastwood is 6'5 by the way.
Clint Eastwood and Steven Seagal were probably the same height.
truthman says on 27/Aug/11
Clint looks skinny on James photos. And nowhere near 6'5. He doesn't give me impression of a big guy like Jared Padalecki or Adam Baldwin does
Could pass for 6'5 in the photos i posted. i don't think clint eastwood is 6'5 by the way.
Clint Eastwood and Steven Seagal were probably the same height.
James said on 28/Aug/11
adam2 says on 27/Aug/11
James, you are delusional. Six foot five is for people like Steven Seagal and Tim Robbins.
Im now watching Machete. Seagal, at the age of 57 and about 300lbs still looks huge. In his opening scene he looks much more towering than Eastwood ever did. And he is also listed at 6-4. To me it is obvious that Seagal in his prime was at least an inch taller than Eastwood. And Seagal is listed as 6-4. He could be more.
Tim Robbins looked huge in Shawshank Redemption. MUCH more taller than Clinton ever did. And he is supposedly "only" 6-4½. He looks about two inches taller than Clint ever did.
6-4 I can buy. 6-5 is ridiculous. Mike and Terryman, I agree with you.
Seagal was never a proper 6'5. Robbins is virtually around the 6'5 mark and at least 194cm. Difference is Seagal and Robbins have much better posture than eastwood because there proud of being so tall.
adam2 says on 27/Aug/11
James, you are delusional. Six foot five is for people like Steven Seagal and Tim Robbins.
Im now watching Machete. Seagal, at the age of 57 and about 300lbs still looks huge. In his opening scene he looks much more towering than Eastwood ever did. And he is also listed at 6-4. To me it is obvious that Seagal in his prime was at least an inch taller than Eastwood. And Seagal is listed as 6-4. He could be more.
Tim Robbins looked huge in Shawshank Redemption. MUCH more taller than Clinton ever did. And he is supposedly "only" 6-4½. He looks about two inches taller than Clint ever did.
6-4 I can buy. 6-5 is ridiculous. Mike and Terryman, I agree with you.
Seagal was never a proper 6'5. Robbins is virtually around the 6'5 mark and at least 194cm. Difference is Seagal and Robbins have much better posture than eastwood because there proud of being so tall.
James said on 27/Aug/11
In Bloodwork looked a legit 6'2
In Bloodwork looked a legit 6'2
truthman said on 27/Aug/11
Clint looks skinny on James photos. And nowhere near 6'5. He doesn't give me impression of a big guy like Jared Padalecki or Adam Baldwin does
Clint looks skinny on James photos. And nowhere near 6'5. He doesn't give me impression of a big guy like Jared Padalecki or Adam Baldwin does
Mark said on 27/Aug/11
...ok, took a break, but nothing new to sway me one way or the other. I'm 6 even, and can see over the top of the head of someone 5'7. So, if Eastwood was 6'4...for most of the time and not just out of bed, his eyes would be over anyone 5'11. I do not see that tall a man in him, ever. He's tall, but not 6'4 tall. Over 6'4 is ludicrous. I don't know why, because I've been an Eastwood fan for decades. But the more I watch other tough guy movies, like John Wayne ones or The Rifleman TV series, the less I care for the type of character Eastwood always played. I still like his movies, but, like Mike said, there's a certain degree of character missing from his characters. Just my opinion.
...ok, took a break, but nothing new to sway me one way or the other. I'm 6 even, and can see over the top of the head of someone 5'7. So, if Eastwood was 6'4...for most of the time and not just out of bed, his eyes would be over anyone 5'11. I do not see that tall a man in him, ever. He's tall, but not 6'4 tall. Over 6'4 is ludicrous. I don't know why, because I've been an Eastwood fan for decades. But the more I watch other tough guy movies, like John Wayne ones or The Rifleman TV series, the less I care for the type of character Eastwood always played. I still like his movies, but, like Mike said, there's a certain degree of character missing from his characters. Just my opinion.
James said on 27/Aug/11
Nonsense Clint Eastwood was a very big guy (not in terms of broadness) vertically.
Anything over 6'3 is very big. At 6'4 you can look massive if you have an impsosing build. if your fat at 6'3 1/2 or 6'4 you will look really big but not massive.
Nonsense Clint Eastwood was a very big guy (not in terms of broadness) vertically.
Anything over 6'3 is very big. At 6'4 you can look massive if you have an impsosing build. if your fat at 6'3 1/2 or 6'4 you will look really big but not massive.
adam2 said on 27/Aug/11
James, you are delusional. Six foot five is for people like Steven Seagal and Tim Robbins.
Im now watching Machete. Seagal, at the age of 57 and about 300lbs still looks huge. In his opening scene he looks much more towering than Eastwood ever did. And he is also listed at 6-4. To me it is obvious that Seagal in his prime was at least an inch taller than Eastwood. And Seagal is listed as 6-4. He could be more.
Tim Robbins looked huge in Shawshank Redemption. MUCH more taller than Clinton ever did. And he is supposedly "only" 6-4½. He looks about two inches taller than Clint ever did.
6-4 I can buy. 6-5 is ridiculous. Mike and Terryman, I agree with you.
James, you are delusional. Six foot five is for people like Steven Seagal and Tim Robbins.
Im now watching Machete. Seagal, at the age of 57 and about 300lbs still looks huge. In his opening scene he looks much more towering than Eastwood ever did. And he is also listed at 6-4. To me it is obvious that Seagal in his prime was at least an inch taller than Eastwood. And Seagal is listed as 6-4. He could be more.
Tim Robbins looked huge in Shawshank Redemption. MUCH more taller than Clinton ever did. And he is supposedly "only" 6-4½. He looks about two inches taller than Clint ever did.
6-4 I can buy. 6-5 is ridiculous. Mike and Terryman, I agree with you.
James said on 27/Aug/11
anything less than 6'4 for clint eastwood is out off the quesiton
anything less than 6'4 for clint eastwood is out off the quesiton
Mike said on 26/Aug/11
...Not 6'2 barefoot, but not a full 6'4, either, unless right out of bed. Again, 6'3.5. As an aside, I read John Wayne was considered for Dirty Harry, but turned it down. I never thought I'd say this, even though I like Wayne and have liked Eastwood movies, but I wish Wayne had done it. Maybe not with that 70's toupee, but his 1960 one, and he'd have brought a certain degree of character to the role, that Eastwood did not. Back to Eastwood's height; Anyone who's ever met any stars in person, knows that 90% of them are not qute as tall or big as they look on screen. That aside, all the comparisons to other actors (Soul was never 6'1) show Eastwood to be tall, but not big, big guy tall. 6'4 P-E-A-K....barely scraping.
...Not 6'2 barefoot, but not a full 6'4, either, unless right out of bed. Again, 6'3.5. As an aside, I read John Wayne was considered for Dirty Harry, but turned it down. I never thought I'd say this, even though I like Wayne and have liked Eastwood movies, but I wish Wayne had done it. Maybe not with that 70's toupee, but his 1960 one, and he'd have brought a certain degree of character to the role, that Eastwood did not. Back to Eastwood's height; Anyone who's ever met any stars in person, knows that 90% of them are not qute as tall or big as they look on screen. That aside, all the comparisons to other actors (Soul was never 6'1) show Eastwood to be tall, but not big, big guy tall. 6'4 P-E-A-K....barely scraping.
James said on 26/Aug/11
lol sorry here the pics.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
he looks 6'4-6'5 range too me in these photos.
6'5 or maybe more in the morning depending on if he lost more than average in height during the day?
he would have been considered a borderline giant back in his day.
lol sorry here the pics.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
he looks 6'4-6'5 range too me in these photos.
6'5 or maybe more in the morning depending on if he lost more than average in height during the day?
he would have been considered a borderline giant back in his day.
James said on 26/Aug/11
just look how tall he looks in these photos from the 1950's.
too me he looks like a guy who is a strong 6'4 in these pics. 6'5 is always up for debate even though its more likely he was 6'4 1/2. so probably nothing over 194cm in his prime.
6'4.5 peak could be on the money.
In 77 he was 6'3.
just look how tall he looks in these photos from the 1950's.
too me he looks like a guy who is a strong 6'4 in these pics. 6'5 is always up for debate even though its more likely he was 6'4 1/2. so probably nothing over 194cm in his prime.
6'4.5 peak could be on the money.
In 77 he was 6'3.
thebad7 said on 26/Aug/11
@AZMink: Right. Eastwood at 6'2" barefoot in his younger days? That's as good as the tripe you posted on John Wayne's page about The Duke being 6'1" barefoot. You must be trolling.
In '77 when Eastwood did THE GAUNTLET, he was more muscular than what he was ten years earlier, but he still had that lanky look. He was still about 6'4" at the time.
tb7
@AZMink: Right. Eastwood at 6'2" barefoot in his younger days? That's as good as the tripe you posted on John Wayne's page about The Duke being 6'1" barefoot. You must be trolling.
In '77 when Eastwood did THE GAUNTLET, he was more muscular than what he was ten years earlier, but he still had that lanky look. He was still about 6'4" at the time.
tb7
James said on 26/Aug/11
1,95m max peak.
1,95m max peak.
Hansen said on 26/Aug/11
i think a stretch clint can still be 6ft1. can apear 5ft11.25 with a bad slouch. in prime he look more like 6ft2.5 never 6ft4.
i think a stretch clint can still be 6ft1. can apear 5ft11.25 with a bad slouch. in prime he look more like 6ft2.5 never 6ft4.
Rob, said on 25/Aug/11
Rob, why do people lose height as they age..I've heard of old people losing 1inch but 3inches? Why does that happen..and can one prevent it? I mean Eastwood is a very healthy man?
Editor Rob
Rob, why do people lose height as they age..I've heard of old people losing 1inch but 3inches? Why does that happen..and can one prevent it? I mean Eastwood is a very healthy man?
Editor Rob bone loss, spine discs deterioration.
James said on 25/Aug/11
A 1973 clint eastwood would have been identical in height too guys like jeff goldblum and liam neeson. he would have been only a fraction shorter than guys like tim robbins and vince vaughn. difference is guys like vince and tim hold good posture and have a different build.
at peak only 1-2cm shorter than tim robbins and 2-3cm shorter than vince vaughn.
In the pics with hackman by that time would have already a good 1 inch in height in height for sure.
Legit very tall man in his day.
A 1973 clint eastwood would have been identical in height too guys like jeff goldblum and liam neeson. he would have been only a fraction shorter than guys like tim robbins and vince vaughn. difference is guys like vince and tim hold good posture and have a different build.
at peak only 1-2cm shorter than tim robbins and 2-3cm shorter than vince vaughn.
In the pics with hackman by that time would have already a good 1 inch in height in height for sure.
Legit very tall man in his day.
Shaun said on 25/Aug/11
AZmink says on 24/Aug/11
Well, all this really sounds good, but not to burst your bubble, I was working in Phoenix across the street from where he was filming Gauntlet, he knocked me over and picked up my books and said I'm sorry. The guy is not over 6'2" in tennis shoes. I have seen him 7 times at the Monterey Jazz Festiful as well. The all say they are teller than they are.
OK Eastwood 6'2", Donald Sutherland 6'1.5" and Sean Connery 5'11.5" then. And I highly doubt you'd travel from Phoenix to Monterey seven times and have bumped into him that many times.
AZmink says on 24/Aug/11
Well, all this really sounds good, but not to burst your bubble, I was working in Phoenix across the street from where he was filming Gauntlet, he knocked me over and picked up my books and said I'm sorry. The guy is not over 6'2" in tennis shoes. I have seen him 7 times at the Monterey Jazz Festiful as well. The all say they are teller than they are.
OK Eastwood 6'2", Donald Sutherland 6'1.5" and Sean Connery 5'11.5" then. And I highly doubt you'd travel from Phoenix to Monterey seven times and have bumped into him that many times.
James said on 25/Aug/11
6'4.25 peak
6'0.5 now
6'4.25 peak
6'0.5 now
AZmink said on 24/Aug/11
Well, all this really sounds good, but not to burst your bubble, I was working in Phoenix across the street from where he was filming Gauntlet, he knocked me over and picked up my books and said I'm sorry. The guy is not over 6'2" in tennis shoes. I have seen him 7 times at the Monterey Jazz Festiful as well. The all say they are teller than they are.
Well, all this really sounds good, but not to burst your bubble, I was working in Phoenix across the street from where he was filming Gauntlet, he knocked me over and picked up my books and said I'm sorry. The guy is not over 6'2" in tennis shoes. I have seen him 7 times at the Monterey Jazz Festiful as well. The all say they are teller than they are.
James said on 24/Aug/11
possibly a hair over 193cm when younger
possibly a hair over 193cm when younger
Larc 6 ft 1.75 in said on 24/Aug/11
He was a strong 6'3.
Looked always taller than legit 6'2 Gene Hackman in the pics posted by James, he was 63y at that time so he might have still losed a small fraction.
6'3.5 at peak isn't out of question, he was a very tall man indeed, he towered over pretty much everyone in his old movies, but I don't buy the full 6'4.
He looked even taller than 6'3.5 because of his lanky frame, I have his same build so I know what I'm talking about.
6'3.5 peak
6'0.5 now
He was a strong 6'3.
Looked always taller than legit 6'2 Gene Hackman in the pics posted by James, he was 63y at that time so he might have still losed a small fraction.
6'3.5 at peak isn't out of question, he was a very tall man indeed, he towered over pretty much everyone in his old movies, but I don't buy the full 6'4.
He looked even taller than 6'3.5 because of his lanky frame, I have his same build so I know what I'm talking about.
6'3.5 peak
6'0.5 now
adam2 said on 24/Aug/11
Chuck Connors had about half a foot on Garner. Garner was about 6-1 and maybe some change prime. Clinton at the age of 65 was a couple of inches shorter than Seagal.
In The Dollar flicks he was pretty much even with Lee Van Cleef. Maybe an inch taller, I cant remember any signicant difference. In Escape From Alcatraz Clinton was the same height as the 6-3 listed Wolf.
Clinton was clearly a tall tall man in his prime. At least six foot three and probably an inch or so more. But forget James that dumb praise talk. This man is a colossal egotist and a lousy @@shole.
Chuck Connors had about half a foot on Garner. Garner was about 6-1 and maybe some change prime. Clinton at the age of 65 was a couple of inches shorter than Seagal.
In The Dollar flicks he was pretty much even with Lee Van Cleef. Maybe an inch taller, I cant remember any signicant difference. In Escape From Alcatraz Clinton was the same height as the 6-3 listed Wolf.
Clinton was clearly a tall tall man in his prime. At least six foot three and probably an inch or so more. But forget James that dumb praise talk. This man is a colossal egotist and a lousy @@shole.
Mike said on 23/Aug/11
I've seen that Eastwood/Garner footage, before. No good comparisan shots. And, like others here, I think Garner was 6'1 to 6'1.5...and that's based on his 1960's movies. In the above-mentioned clip, Eastwood may edge out garner, but looks like a twig.
I've seen that Eastwood/Garner footage, before. No good comparisan shots. And, like others here, I think Garner was 6'1 to 6'1.5...and that's based on his 1960's movies. In the above-mentioned clip, Eastwood may edge out garner, but looks like a twig.
James said on 23/Aug/11
he shrunk a good 1 inch in his mid too late 40's. then lost half an inch in 1994.
he shrunk a good 1 inch in his mid too late 40's. then lost half an inch in 1994.
James said on 23/Aug/11
Shaun says on 23/Aug/11
James, and I'm sure Rob can vouch for this is is rare to lose any height at all under the age of 50. A few mm is possible in your forties but Eastwood seriously did not begin to lose height until his early fifties. I mean he was still a strong 6'3" even ten years later.
well clint eastwoods height loss is remarkable so its very much possible that he started shrinking in his 40's. he did manage too hang on too 6'3 range for almost 20 years.
Shaun says on 23/Aug/11
James, and I'm sure Rob can vouch for this is is rare to lose any height at all under the age of 50. A few mm is possible in your forties but Eastwood seriously did not begin to lose height until his early fifties. I mean he was still a strong 6'3" even ten years later.
well clint eastwoods height loss is remarkable so its very much possible that he started shrinking in his 40's. he did manage too hang on too 6'3 range for almost 20 years.
Shaun said on 23/Aug/11
James you are obsessed with people losing height.
James you are obsessed with people losing height.
Shaun said on 23/Aug/11
James, and I'm sure Rob can vouch for this is is rare to lose any height at all under the age of 50. A few mm is possible in your forties but Eastwood seriously did not begin to lose height until his early fifties. I mean he was still a strong 6'3" even ten years later.
James, and I'm sure Rob can vouch for this is is rare to lose any height at all under the age of 50. A few mm is possible in your forties but Eastwood seriously did not begin to lose height until his early fifties. I mean he was still a strong 6'3" even ten years later.
Shaun said on 23/Aug/11
Even accounting for hair I think Clint looks minimum 1.5" inches taller than Hackman who I suspect was 6'1.5" at that time from a peak 6'2".
Even accounting for hair I think Clint looks minimum 1.5" inches taller than Hackman who I suspect was 6'1.5" at that time from a peak 6'2".
Shaun said on 23/Aug/11
James says on 22/Aug/11
how could anyone think clint eastwood was just 6'2 is beyond me?
You used to. And if he was that height James in this sixties you see how absurd it is that people think he was just 6'2" in his twenties LOL.
James says on 22/Aug/11
how could anyone think clint eastwood was just 6'2 is beyond me?
You used to. And if he was that height James in this sixties you see how absurd it is that people think he was just 6'2" in his twenties LOL.
James said on 22/Aug/11
in the early 90's i presume gene hackman was in his early 60's. so would have been 187cm by that time right?
Clint Eastwood does look a solid 6'3 in comparison
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
how could anyone think clint eastwood was just 6'2 is beyond me?
in the early 90's i presume gene hackman was in his early 60's. so would have been 187cm by that time right?
Clint Eastwood does look a solid 6'3 in comparison
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
how could anyone think clint eastwood was just 6'2 is beyond me?
James said on 22/Aug/11
EdgarHernandez says on 22/Aug/11
Clint eastwood looks solid 2 inches on garner but you will notice how diferent his bodies are, clint is very skinny and long legged while garner is incredible broad.
Shows that height dosen't matter does not matter in fighting
EdgarHernandez says on 22/Aug/11
Clint eastwood looks solid 2 inches on garner but you will notice how diferent his bodies are, clint is very skinny and long legged while garner is incredible broad.
Shows that height dosen't matter does not matter in fighting
EdgarHernandez said on 22/Aug/11
Clint eastwood looks solid 2 inches on garner but you will notice how diferent his bodies are, clint is very skinny and long legged while garner is incredible broad.
Clint eastwood looks solid 2 inches on garner but you will notice how diferent his bodies are, clint is very skinny and long legged while garner is incredible broad.
adam2 said on 22/Aug/11
James Garner was never ever 6-2. He claimed six foot three but was in reality about 6-1 or so. Chuck Connors who was six foot six had 5-6 inches on him.
James Garner was never ever 6-2. He claimed six foot three but was in reality about 6-1 or so. Chuck Connors who was six foot six had 5-6 inches on him.
James said on 20/Aug/11
adam 2 says on 20/Aug/11 James, give it up. Theres no need to go to the big five section with Clinton. That goes for guys like Vince Vaughn, Christopher Lee and Tim Robbins. In 1967 (or so) article Clint was described as "lanky six foot three" or so. Yes, he was most likely taller by about an inch but lets leave it there. A lean, long-limbed 6-3½ - 6-4 guy can easily give an illusion of a much taller man. Have you seen him with david soul in the video i posted? And so what if he was described as 6'3. If I recall Vince Vaugh was described as 6'3 once as well.
adam 2 says on 20/Aug/11 James, give it up. Theres no need to go to the big five section with Clinton. That goes for guys like Vince Vaughn, Christopher Lee and Tim Robbins. In 1967 (or so) article Clint was described as "lanky six foot three" or so. Yes, he was most likely taller by about an inch but lets leave it there. A lean, long-limbed 6-3½ - 6-4 guy can easily give an illusion of a much taller man. Have you seen him with david soul in the video i posted? And so what if he was described as 6'3. If I recall Vince Vaugh was described as 6'3 once as well.
adam 2 said on 20/Aug/11
James, give it up. Theres no need to go to the big five section with Clinton. That goes for guys like Vince Vaughn, Christopher Lee and Tim Robbins. In 1967 (or so) article Clint was described as "lanky six foot three" or so. Yes, he was most likely taller by about an inch but lets leave it there. A lean, long-limbed 6-3½ - 6-4 guy can easily give an illusion of a much taller man.
James, give it up. Theres no need to go to the big five section with Clinton. That goes for guys like Vince Vaughn, Christopher Lee and Tim Robbins. In 1967 (or so) article Clint was described as "lanky six foot three" or so. Yes, he was most likely taller by about an inch but lets leave it there. A lean, long-limbed 6-3½ - 6-4 guy can easily give an illusion of a much taller man.
James said on 19/Aug/11
Closer too 6'5 than 6'3 peak. And NO i don't mean he was 'litterally' 6'5 becasue he probably was not but you get the picture? Defenintly 6'5 in the morning in his younger days. 6'4 morning in 1988.
Closer too 6'5 than 6'3 peak. And NO i don't mean he was 'litterally' 6'5 becasue he probably was not but you get the picture? Defenintly 6'5 in the morning in his younger days. 6'4 morning in 1988.
James said on 19/Aug/11
go too 4:50 Click Here 6'4-6'5 range with David Soul. Maybe not quite 6'5 but close when you see him in the video there. 6'3 peak? psshhh ridicolous
go too 4:50 Click Here 6'4-6'5 range with David Soul. Maybe not quite 6'5 but close when you see him in the video there. 6'3 peak? psshhh ridicolous
James said on 19/Aug/11
Sorry shaun but he was a strong 6'4 throughout the 50's 60's and early 70's and then his ostreoporis kinda started in 1974 or 1975 where he shrunk down too 6'3 range. his height loss did begin in the early too mid 70's. In thunderbolt and lightfoot his posture was very bad but there is a chance eastwood might have dipped down from 193cm too 194cm by the time off that movie. He was a 6'4 range for only 2-3 decades really. can i point out as well that after 35 you start too kinda lose bone mass and its all downhill from there. 35 is when you reach your peak off bone mass. hence why clint eastwood looked at his peak off fitness and strength in the good the bad and the ugly and for a few dollars more. clint eastwood was obviously quite prone too ostreoporis so its not unreasnable at all the idea off him losing height in his mid 40's In the enforcer possibly 6'3 1/2 (192cm) on the nose. In Sudden Impact and Deadpool 6'3.25 (191-192cm). Overall at his peak he was a 194cm guy who could look no higher than 190cm because off posture and proportions. Stand a peak liam neeson and clint eastwood next too each other and i assure you they would been identical in height. when you see clint eastwood next too neeson in deadpool that gives you a good idea off how much height he already lost by 1988.
Sorry shaun but he was a strong 6'4 throughout the 50's 60's and early 70's and then his ostreoporis kinda started in 1974 or 1975 where he shrunk down too 6'3 range. his height loss did begin in the early too mid 70's. In thunderbolt and lightfoot his posture was very bad but there is a chance eastwood might have dipped down from 193cm too 194cm by the time off that movie. He was a 6'4 range for only 2-3 decades really. can i point out as well that after 35 you start too kinda lose bone mass and its all downhill from there. 35 is when you reach your peak off bone mass. hence why clint eastwood looked at his peak off fitness and strength in the good the bad and the ugly and for a few dollars more. clint eastwood was obviously quite prone too ostreoporis so its not unreasnable at all the idea off him losing height in his mid 40's In the enforcer possibly 6'3 1/2 (192cm) on the nose. In Sudden Impact and Deadpool 6'3.25 (191-192cm). Overall at his peak he was a 194cm guy who could look no higher than 190cm because off posture and proportions. Stand a peak liam neeson and clint eastwood next too each other and i assure you they would been identical in height. when you see clint eastwood next too neeson in deadpool that gives you a good idea off how much height he already lost by 1988.
Mike said on 19/Aug/11
Jmaes Garner, though I love him in most things, is not a good judge of height, regarding Eastwood. Garner claimed, on the Tonight Show, he used to be 6'4, but was down to 6'2 or less, in the 70's. If he was 6'4, then not only did he only work with giants, but Carson had to have been 6'2, which is crazy. Garner and Carson were shown together many times, particularly on a Laugh-In installment, and Garner looked maybe an inch and a half or two inches taller than the 5'10 to 5'11 Carson. Back to Garner, he's a good 3 to 4 inches shorter than 6'5 Chuck Connors in Move Over Darling (1963), and a good 3 to 4 inches shorter than Tom Selleck in Rockford Files. No way he was ever 6'4, and clearly not a good judge of height,as truly is the case with most people. When I see my reflection outside of a store window, I look really bulky and muscular. Once inside, say in a mirror, it's like I lose 30 pounds. Lighting, being on film, etc, all twist things around a bit. I wish we could all go back in time and go up to Eastwood and just measure the guy barefoot. Solve alot of trivial problems.
Jmaes Garner, though I love him in most things, is not a good judge of height, regarding Eastwood. Garner claimed, on the Tonight Show, he used to be 6'4, but was down to 6'2 or less, in the 70's. If he was 6'4, then not only did he only work with giants, but Carson had to have been 6'2, which is crazy. Garner and Carson were shown together many times, particularly on a Laugh-In installment, and Garner looked maybe an inch and a half or two inches taller than the 5'10 to 5'11 Carson. Back to Garner, he's a good 3 to 4 inches shorter than 6'5 Chuck Connors in Move Over Darling (1963), and a good 3 to 4 inches shorter than Tom Selleck in Rockford Files. No way he was ever 6'4, and clearly not a good judge of height,as truly is the case with most people. When I see my reflection outside of a store window, I look really bulky and muscular. Once inside, say in a mirror, it's like I lose 30 pounds. Lighting, being on film, etc, all twist things around a bit. I wish we could all go back in time and go up to Eastwood and just measure the guy barefoot. Solve alot of trivial problems.
James said on 19/Aug/11
Shaun says on 19/Aug/11 James says on 17/Aug/11 He fell down from 193-194cm too 191-192cm between 1973-1977. Would u guys not agree that clint looked broad and muscular in the good the bad and the ugly? In a fistful of dollars still looked quite skinny and lanky. he was probably 6'4 flat if not a fraction more in his prime. 191cm in 1979? Sorry James you're wrong. See him next to the door frame in the Sudden Impact in 1983. Was a STRONG 6'3" in the early 80s 6'3.5" possible. Hell he even looked 6'3"-6'3.5" in 1988. I really do not think he dipped under 6'4" until his early 50s. 1980-1982 period. I think he was the full 6'4" throughout the entire 50s, 60s and 70s. In 79 6'3.25 (191cm) which is pushing 192cm.
Shaun says on 19/Aug/11 James says on 17/Aug/11 He fell down from 193-194cm too 191-192cm between 1973-1977. Would u guys not agree that clint looked broad and muscular in the good the bad and the ugly? In a fistful of dollars still looked quite skinny and lanky. he was probably 6'4 flat if not a fraction more in his prime. 191cm in 1979? Sorry James you're wrong. See him next to the door frame in the Sudden Impact in 1983. Was a STRONG 6'3" in the early 80s 6'3.5" possible. Hell he even looked 6'3"-6'3.5" in 1988. I really do not think he dipped under 6'4" until his early 50s. 1980-1982 period. I think he was the full 6'4" throughout the entire 50s, 60s and 70s. In 79 6'3.25 (191cm) which is pushing 192cm.
Shaun said on 19/Aug/11
James says on 17/Aug/11 He fell down from 193-194cm too 191-192cm between 1973-1977. Would u guys not agree that clint looked broad and muscular in the good the bad and the ugly? In a fistful of dollars still looked quite skinny and lanky. he was probably 6'4 flat if not a fraction more in his prime. 191cm in 1979? Sorry James you're wrong. See him next to the door frame in the Sudden Impact in 1983. Was a STRONG 6'3" in the early 80s 6'3.5" possible. Hell he even looked 6'3"-6'3.5" in 1988. I really do not think he dipped under 6'4" until his early 50s. 1980-1982 period. I think he was the full 6'4" throughout the entire 50s, 60s and 70s.
James says on 17/Aug/11 He fell down from 193-194cm too 191-192cm between 1973-1977. Would u guys not agree that clint looked broad and muscular in the good the bad and the ugly? In a fistful of dollars still looked quite skinny and lanky. he was probably 6'4 flat if not a fraction more in his prime. 191cm in 1979? Sorry James you're wrong. See him next to the door frame in the Sudden Impact in 1983. Was a STRONG 6'3" in the early 80s 6'3.5" possible. Hell he even looked 6'3"-6'3.5" in 1988. I really do not think he dipped under 6'4" until his early 50s. 1980-1982 period. I think he was the full 6'4" throughout the entire 50s, 60s and 70s.
adam 2 said on 19/Aug/11
Thats what you keep saying, James. But theres no proof for 6-4½ other than that he was taller than Donald Sutherland who was by the way about two inches shorter than Jeff Goldblum and who looked about 6-3 most of his career. 6-5: Robbins, Vaughn, Hudson, Hayden 6-4½: Goldblum, Seagal, Neeson, O`Brien 6-4: Eastwood, Baldwin, Ryan
Thats what you keep saying, James. But theres no proof for 6-4½ other than that he was taller than Donald Sutherland who was by the way about two inches shorter than Jeff Goldblum and who looked about 6-3 most of his career. 6-5: Robbins, Vaughn, Hudson, Hayden 6-4½: Goldblum, Seagal, Neeson, O`Brien 6-4: Eastwood, Baldwin, Ryan
wayne ayotte said on 18/Aug/11
years ago i saw james garner on tv talking about eastwoods bio. he put clint at 6ft.5.5 inches
years ago i saw james garner on tv talking about eastwoods bio. he put clint at 6ft.5.5 inches
James said on 18/Aug/11
6'4 or 6'4.5 during the day at his peak
6'4 or 6'4.5 during the day at his peak
adam2 said on 18/Aug/11
Mike, agreed. In HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER Clinton looked very thin and flat-chested. Edgar, thanks for your post, excellent as usual.
Mike, agreed. In HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER Clinton looked very thin and flat-chested. Edgar, thanks for your post, excellent as usual.
Mike said on 17/Aug/11
Legend and Adam2 have it as close to reality as you'll get. Regarding my confusing things, I'm sorry, but I've confused nothing. Today, I saw a guy outside, sun on him, and his arms looked super muscular. Once in the store and up close, he didn't look nearly as big, or muscular. Outdoor lighting and being on film add size and make muscle stand out, as was the case with Eastwood in alot of his bare arms scenes. I bulked up to 205 (around 6 feet), benching 275, last year, and a pic my wife took of me outside made me look like I was this huge, stocky guy, around 250. I don't dispute Eastwood's muscle or strength, but even in High Plains Drifter, he looked skinny as a rail, with or without a coat on, shoulders included. Alot of guys I know claim 6 feet. Some are taller than me, some are shorter. It's the same with 6'4. Eastwood was a weak 6'4, effected by hair and maybe a body stretched out by a night's sleep. Generally 6'3 to 6'3.5, in the day. If you want to dispute all the 70's and 80's move magazines that I read that said weight 190, no sweat. But, those claims ar as legit as anything else in print. Look up what a skinny guy of 6'3 to 6'4 should weigh, with no body fat, and toss in a few pounds for muscle, depending on time of career.
Legend and Adam2 have it as close to reality as you'll get. Regarding my confusing things, I'm sorry, but I've confused nothing. Today, I saw a guy outside, sun on him, and his arms looked super muscular. Once in the store and up close, he didn't look nearly as big, or muscular. Outdoor lighting and being on film add size and make muscle stand out, as was the case with Eastwood in alot of his bare arms scenes. I bulked up to 205 (around 6 feet), benching 275, last year, and a pic my wife took of me outside made me look like I was this huge, stocky guy, around 250. I don't dispute Eastwood's muscle or strength, but even in High Plains Drifter, he looked skinny as a rail, with or without a coat on, shoulders included. Alot of guys I know claim 6 feet. Some are taller than me, some are shorter. It's the same with 6'4. Eastwood was a weak 6'4, effected by hair and maybe a body stretched out by a night's sleep. Generally 6'3 to 6'3.5, in the day. If you want to dispute all the 70's and 80's move magazines that I read that said weight 190, no sweat. But, those claims ar as legit as anything else in print. Look up what a skinny guy of 6'3 to 6'4 should weigh, with no body fat, and toss in a few pounds for muscle, depending on time of career.
James said on 17/Aug/11
He fell down from 193-194cm too 191-192cm between 1973-1977. Would u guys not agree that clint looked broad and muscular in the good the bad and the ugly? In a fistful of dollars still looked quite skinny and lanky. he was probably 6'4 flat if not a fraction more in his prime.
He fell down from 193-194cm too 191-192cm between 1973-1977. Would u guys not agree that clint looked broad and muscular in the good the bad and the ugly? In a fistful of dollars still looked quite skinny and lanky. he was probably 6'4 flat if not a fraction more in his prime.
Legend said on 17/Aug/11
He was 6'4 flat peak. But his peak ended quickly and he has lost a lot of height. He was 6'3 for most of his career as a result and is about 5'11.5 now days.
He was 6'4 flat peak. But his peak ended quickly and he has lost a lot of height. He was 6'3 for most of his career as a result and is about 5'11.5 now days.
EdgarHernandez said on 17/Aug/11
Mike, you are confusing things, first, muscle is havier and ocupes less espace than fat, for example, my father is for all person who know him a slim guy, wears 34 waist pants(and some times that is to big for him) and weights 178 pounds. Lets see, acording to what i search clint peaked in weight in every wich you can but lose, in this clip he ended shirtless and looking the broadest that i have ever see him, also he looks pretty tall(6ft 3.5 i am stimate): Click Here have little to no fat, the only thing that he dont got is abs but for any other thing he looks ripped. Know the duke, is listend as 225 at his peak(i think when he was a star football player) and during big part of his carer, before he gained to much weight. The reason is that most people asume big weight eaquals being fat or being arnold huge, wich is not the case, because alot of persons have to deal with small bone structure, just compare their phics in their very very yount: clint eastwood: Click Here this is john wayne in his very yount: Click Here you can see, clint is proportioned very diferent from John wayne, clint have very long legs(wich have avoid to him for the moment to drop below his actual height) while john wayne have proportional legs, also clint have a very small bone structure, so for him to look the way he looks he need to work hard to put muscle over him, while john wayne just have to exersice once a while and keep his weight low. John wayne no matter the weight or the time always have a very big bone structure wich could have been a big part of his weight, clint is one of the perfects example of an extomorph who work hard to get his mucles, john wayne is an mesomorph who gained weight for age and normal self idulgence. If you want to put a kinny example of a tall guy go with jimmy stewart who have one of the scrawniest bodies i ever seen, he even was aware of this: Click Here
Mike, you are confusing things, first, muscle is havier and ocupes less espace than fat, for example, my father is for all person who know him a slim guy, wears 34 waist pants(and some times that is to big for him) and weights 178 pounds. Lets see, acording to what i search clint peaked in weight in every wich you can but lose, in this clip he ended shirtless and looking the broadest that i have ever see him, also he looks pretty tall(6ft 3.5 i am stimate): Click Here have little to no fat, the only thing that he dont got is abs but for any other thing he looks ripped. Know the duke, is listend as 225 at his peak(i think when he was a star football player) and during big part of his carer, before he gained to much weight. The reason is that most people asume big weight eaquals being fat or being arnold huge, wich is not the case, because alot of persons have to deal with small bone structure, just compare their phics in their very very yount: clint eastwood: Click Here this is john wayne in his very yount: Click Here you can see, clint is proportioned very diferent from John wayne, clint have very long legs(wich have avoid to him for the moment to drop below his actual height) while john wayne have proportional legs, also clint have a very small bone structure, so for him to look the way he looks he need to work hard to put muscle over him, while john wayne just have to exersice once a while and keep his weight low. John wayne no matter the weight or the time always have a very big bone structure wich could have been a big part of his weight, clint is one of the perfects example of an extomorph who work hard to get his mucles, john wayne is an mesomorph who gained weight for age and normal self idulgence. If you want to put a kinny example of a tall guy go with jimmy stewart who have one of the scrawniest bodies i ever seen, he even was aware of this: Click Here
thebad7 said on 17/Aug/11
Eastwood had a sinewy, lanky build--this is especially evident in the '50s & '60s--as a Universal contract player, then through his first success with RAWHIDE, and on to his breakouts in the Dollars Films. Even in the early '70s, Clint retained that lanky look. To my eye, it wasn't until about the mid 1970s that Clint really started to bulk up--you can see it in his arms, chest, and shoulders. I think he really got serious about heavy weight training at this time--though he'd been doing weight training for years; there are pictures of him in the '50s working with archaic cable machines available on the Internet. If you look at him in 1975's THE EIGER SANCTION, the two "Clyde" films from 1978 and 1980, and 1979's ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ, there is a noticeable, marked difference in him then compared to the beginning of that decade--by the end of the '70s he had a thicker build. This continued well into the 1980s and 1990s. Just last night HEARTBREAK RIDGE was on Encore, and last week, 1990's THE ROOKIE--he was lean, but noticeably muscular in those films. For a man then in his late 50s/early 60s, Clint was in terrific shape, and even today at 81, he's still looking very good. @Shaun: You're spot on with your comment on Clint's body weight. I can buy Clint at 190 - 200 lbs. circa 1967 and THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. Fast forward ten years to 1977, I can see Clint at 210 - 220 lbs. and very convincingly on a (then) 6'4" frame. And yes--muscle weighs more than fat. tb7
Eastwood had a sinewy, lanky build--this is especially evident in the '50s & '60s--as a Universal contract player, then through his first success with RAWHIDE, and on to his breakouts in the Dollars Films. Even in the early '70s, Clint retained that lanky look. To my eye, it wasn't until about the mid 1970s that Clint really started to bulk up--you can see it in his arms, chest, and shoulders. I think he really got serious about heavy weight training at this time--though he'd been doing weight training for years; there are pictures of him in the '50s working with archaic cable machines available on the Internet. If you look at him in 1975's THE EIGER SANCTION, the two "Clyde" films from 1978 and 1980, and 1979's ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ, there is a noticeable, marked difference in him then compared to the beginning of that decade--by the end of the '70s he had a thicker build. This continued well into the 1980s and 1990s. Just last night HEARTBREAK RIDGE was on Encore, and last week, 1990's THE ROOKIE--he was lean, but noticeably muscular in those films. For a man then in his late 50s/early 60s, Clint was in terrific shape, and even today at 81, he's still looking very good. @Shaun: You're spot on with your comment on Clint's body weight. I can buy Clint at 190 - 200 lbs. circa 1967 and THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY. Fast forward ten years to 1977, I can see Clint at 210 - 220 lbs. and very convincingly on a (then) 6'4" frame. And yes--muscle weighs more than fat. tb7
James said on 17/Aug/11
In Hearbreak Ridge and the Deadpool robbins would have been 1-1.5 inches taller than clint eastwood. you have too admit in the good, the ugly and the ugly clint eastwood looked rather broad shouldered in that film. he defenintly quite big but then again i think his clothing might have made him look bigger?
In Hearbreak Ridge and the Deadpool robbins would have been 1-1.5 inches taller than clint eastwood. you have too admit in the good, the ugly and the ugly clint eastwood looked rather broad shouldered in that film. he defenintly quite big but then again i think his clothing might have made him look bigger?
adam2 said on 17/Aug/11
Clinton never weighed 225lbs. That is rubbish. He has narrowish shoulders and zero fat. He was about 6-3½ of sinew. In Playboy Interview 1973 he is described as 6-4 and 197 lbs which certainly sounds bang on. He was never over 6-4. Nor did he have huge shoulders. Nor did he weigh well over 200 lbs. John Wayne was often listed as 6-4 and 225lbs and he looked FAR more bigger and broader than Clinton.
Clinton never weighed 225lbs. That is rubbish. He has narrowish shoulders and zero fat. He was about 6-3½ of sinew. In Playboy Interview 1973 he is described as 6-4 and 197 lbs which certainly sounds bang on. He was never over 6-4. Nor did he have huge shoulders. Nor did he weigh well over 200 lbs. John Wayne was often listed as 6-4 and 225lbs and he looked FAR more bigger and broader than Clinton.
jervis said on 16/Aug/11
I dont think Everett Mcgill was 6ft5 i find it hard to belive that Mcgill was the same hight as John Cleese and Tim Robbins.Clint was the same hight as him in Heart Break Ridge,but if you look at Clint with Robbins its hard to belive that if you put the current hight Clint next to the Clint in 1985 there would be such a big hight difference of up to 4 inches.If you watch the film White Hunter Black Hart i think its from 1990,there is an english actor called Clive Mantel in it,he is listed as 6ft5 and a half and has at least 3 inches on Clint,he also towers Jeff Fathy who is listed at 6ft by a lot more than Clint in that film.Clint in the film aged 60 looks about 6ft2 and a half max.3 inches on Burt in City Heat 4 inches on Sheen in the Rookie.I also notice with Clint he looks a very tall man on his own in sceans and you expect him to tower average hight actors such as Sheen but he never seems to look 6 or 7 inches taller as he should he only looks 4 or 5 inches,not convincing as 6ft4 to me.As for Wolcott and Kennedy 6ft3 max for both.Kennedy in Bonanza with Blocker same hight, Blocker 3 inches shorter than Clint Walker in photo i saw on this sight befor.Kennedy 1 inch taller than 6ft2 Lee Van Cleef in clip i saw on this sight when they were face to face.This also leaves the chance that Clint was 6ft2 and a half peak because he could have been half an inch shorter than both Wolcott and Kennedy.So Clint has lost about 1 or 1 and ahalf inches from his peak is now 6ft1ish and can look shorter or taller depending on posture it makes a lot more sence than a loss of 4inches.
I dont think Everett Mcgill was 6ft5 i find it hard to belive that Mcgill was the same hight as John Cleese and Tim Robbins.Clint was the same hight as him in Heart Break Ridge,but if you look at Clint with Robbins its hard to belive that if you put the current hight Clint next to the Clint in 1985 there would be such a big hight difference of up to 4 inches.If you watch the film White Hunter Black Hart i think its from 1990,there is an english actor called Clive Mantel in it,he is listed as 6ft5 and a half and has at least 3 inches on Clint,he also towers Jeff Fathy who is listed at 6ft by a lot more than Clint in that film.Clint in the film aged 60 looks about 6ft2 and a half max.3 inches on Burt in City Heat 4 inches on Sheen in the Rookie.I also notice with Clint he looks a very tall man on his own in sceans and you expect him to tower average hight actors such as Sheen but he never seems to look 6 or 7 inches taller as he should he only looks 4 or 5 inches,not convincing as 6ft4 to me.As for Wolcott and Kennedy 6ft3 max for both.Kennedy in Bonanza with Blocker same hight, Blocker 3 inches shorter than Clint Walker in photo i saw on this sight befor.Kennedy 1 inch taller than 6ft2 Lee Van Cleef in clip i saw on this sight when they were face to face.This also leaves the chance that Clint was 6ft2 and a half peak because he could have been half an inch shorter than both Wolcott and Kennedy.So Clint has lost about 1 or 1 and ahalf inches from his peak is now 6ft1ish and can look shorter or taller depending on posture it makes a lot more sence than a loss of 4inches.
James said on 16/Aug/11
He was a 6'4.25 (194cm) ectomorph. He's no dolph lundgren or Hugh Jackman in terms of muscle.
He was a 6'4.25 (194cm) ectomorph. He's no dolph lundgren or Hugh Jackman in terms of muscle.
Shaun said on 16/Aug/11
Sorry Mike but you are underestimating how much muscle weighs. A guy who is as high as 6 ft 4 inches with broad shoulders and muscle tone will easily weigh 210. OK, Eastwood didn't have an ounce of fat on him but muscle weighs more than fat. I personally would have estimated him 200-210.
Sorry Mike but you are underestimating how much muscle weighs. A guy who is as high as 6 ft 4 inches with broad shoulders and muscle tone will easily weigh 210. OK, Eastwood didn't have an ounce of fat on him but muscle weighs more than fat. I personally would have estimated him 200-210.
Mike said on 15/Aug/11
... I was a firm believer in 6'4 for Eastwood, up until like a year ago (in his prime). But, seriously, based on many comments here, I believe there is a "desire" for Eastwood to be at least 6'4, if not impossibly taller. Terry; You can't look at one scene to compare heights. You have to look at as many scenes as possible, with the same two actors, and from as many movies as possible. In both Joe Kidd and The Eiger Sanction, Wolcott is generally bigger and slightly taller looking than Eastwood. As for Eastwood's weight, Eastwood at 215 in '73 is absurd. I doubt he weighed 200, soaking wet. I always read 190, long before the internet. Others can go with numbers they find, but I go with 190 average, "maybe" 200 to 210 peak. Not a pound more. Hardly a rail? Are we watching the same movies?
... I was a firm believer in 6'4 for Eastwood, up until like a year ago (in his prime). But, seriously, based on many comments here, I believe there is a "desire" for Eastwood to be at least 6'4, if not impossibly taller. Terry; You can't look at one scene to compare heights. You have to look at as many scenes as possible, with the same two actors, and from as many movies as possible. In both Joe Kidd and The Eiger Sanction, Wolcott is generally bigger and slightly taller looking than Eastwood. As for Eastwood's weight, Eastwood at 215 in '73 is absurd. I doubt he weighed 200, soaking wet. I always read 190, long before the internet. Others can go with numbers they find, but I go with 190 average, "maybe" 200 to 210 peak. Not a pound more. Hardly a rail? Are we watching the same movies?
James said on 15/Aug/11
must have walked around at 187-188cm in Escape from Alecatraz with his terrible posture.
191-192cm range if he straightend up in Escape from Alcatraz.
must have walked around at 187-188cm in Escape from Alecatraz with his terrible posture.
191-192cm range if he straightend up in Escape from Alcatraz.
Terryman said on 15/Aug/11
this is the tallest I've ever seen Clint eastwood appear in recent years(does anyone know how much height the sohoes he's wearing give?) Click Here;-CLINT-EASTWOOD,-SIDNEY-POITIER-AMONG-THOSE-PAYING-TRIBUTE.html
this is the tallest I've ever seen Clint eastwood appear in recent years(does anyone know how much height the sohoes he's wearing give?) Click Here;-CLINT-EASTWOOD,-SIDNEY-POITIER-AMONG-THOSE-PAYING-TRIBUTE.html
EdgarHernandez said on 15/Aug/11
is pretty safe to say that clint weight 216 lbs at his peak, just look him:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
And acording the training article that i read clint must be almost pure ectomorph, because it says that clint is nearly all the time in 10% of body fat or less.
allso here is with sandra locke, looking a full foot taller(boot have same heel, and sandra is straight wille clint sluches.)
Click Here
is pretty safe to say that clint weight 216 lbs at his peak, just look him:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
And acording the training article that i read clint must be almost pure ectomorph, because it says that clint is nearly all the time in 10% of body fat or less.
allso here is with sandra locke, looking a full foot taller(boot have same heel, and sandra is straight wille clint sluches.)
Click Here
Tea said on 15/Aug/11
how much do'es the camera put on? They say about 10 lbs i think
how much do'es the camera put on? They say about 10 lbs i think
Terryman said on 15/Aug/11
1,91.5m peak 6 feet3 inches.
1,91.5m peak 6 feet3 inches.
Shaun said on 15/Aug/11
Crouch is pushing 6'9" in dress shoes, no wonder he looks massive!
Crouch is pushing 6'9" in dress shoes, no wonder he looks massive!
Terry said on 15/Aug/11
Jervis: Everett McGill is 6'5" & Clint was a whisker shorter than him.
Mike: The scene with Walcott where they are nose to nose & about to have a ruck they are the same height of 6'4".
His awful posture can be seen in Alcatraz where the bend in his spine is obvious, both forwards & to the side. No wonder he has lost 2-3 inches in height!
Jervis: Everett McGill is 6'5" & Clint was a whisker shorter than him.
Mike: The scene with Walcott where they are nose to nose & about to have a ruck they are the same height of 6'4".
His awful posture can be seen in Alcatraz where the bend in his spine is obvious, both forwards & to the side. No wonder he has lost 2-3 inches in height!
James said on 15/Aug/11
WOW Crouch is massive
WOW Crouch is massive
James said on 14/Aug/11
Shaun says on 13/Aug/11
Mike says on 12/Aug/11
THe Eiger Sanction was, indeed, on the other day (on demand). That guy, last name Wolcott...he's listed as 6'4, and was clearly taller than Eastwood, just like he was in Joe Kidd. If we're going to go by heights listed on another site, which for whatever reason have now been limited in terms of being mentioned, and Wolcott was 6'4, Eastwood was under that by at least half an inch. Also, to look skinny..not thin, but skinny on film, do you know how thin you have to be in real life? Eastwood must have been and still be a rail.
Eastwood reportedly weighed 225 pounds in Every which way but loose and 216 pounds in 1973. Sorry I would hardly call that rail thin. His skinny legs and chiselled jawline may have given you that impression but if you actually see his physique in say High Plains Drifter in the bathtub he has surprisingly broad shoulders and muscle tone. Of course he is naturally an ecto and slender built but he had more muscle and broadness than you give him credit for. And at 6 ft 4 215 is fair, much like it was with Christopher Reeve, still slender muscle tone. A rail thin is Peter Crouch who is pushing 6 ft 8 and 170 pounds.
I think Clint Eastwodo had too work hard for his muscle. Hugh Jackman is similar in appearene tooo Clint Eastwod except he can build way easier. Don't think it has much too do with the fact he was 2 inches shorter than eastwood.
Hugh Jackman is a more mesomorphic of a young clint eastwood.
Shaun says on 13/Aug/11
Mike says on 12/Aug/11
THe Eiger Sanction was, indeed, on the other day (on demand). That guy, last name Wolcott...he's listed as 6'4, and was clearly taller than Eastwood, just like he was in Joe Kidd. If we're going to go by heights listed on another site, which for whatever reason have now been limited in terms of being mentioned, and Wolcott was 6'4, Eastwood was under that by at least half an inch. Also, to look skinny..not thin, but skinny on film, do you know how thin you have to be in real life? Eastwood must have been and still be a rail.
Eastwood reportedly weighed 225 pounds in Every which way but loose and 216 pounds in 1973. Sorry I would hardly call that rail thin. His skinny legs and chiselled jawline may have given you that impression but if you actually see his physique in say High Plains Drifter in the bathtub he has surprisingly broad shoulders and muscle tone. Of course he is naturally an ecto and slender built but he had more muscle and broadness than you give him credit for. And at 6 ft 4 215 is fair, much like it was with Christopher Reeve, still slender muscle tone. A rail thin is Peter Crouch who is pushing 6 ft 8 and 170 pounds.
I think Clint Eastwodo had too work hard for his muscle. Hugh Jackman is similar in appearene tooo Clint Eastwod except he can build way easier. Don't think it has much too do with the fact he was 2 inches shorter than eastwood.
Hugh Jackman is a more mesomorphic of a young clint eastwood.
James said on 13/Aug/11
No less than 191-192cm range in Heartbreak Ridge and would have probably had nearly 1 inch on Everett McGill.
In Deadpool still 191-192cm range since he was 1 inch shorter than 194cm Neeson. Giving off a 188-189cm illusion with his arched back. his spine must have been a wreck by the time of Deadpool.
i think he may have been 194cm at his peak appearing shorter like 6'3 cause of his proportions and posture. Possibly 194cm up untill 1974 or 1975.
Only 1 inch shorter than Neeson who was a strong 6'4 back then so he was still 6'3 in 1988 and was that height up untill 1994.
No less than 191-192cm range in Heartbreak Ridge and would have probably had nearly 1 inch on Everett McGill.
In Deadpool still 191-192cm range since he was 1 inch shorter than 194cm Neeson. Giving off a 188-189cm illusion with his arched back. his spine must have been a wreck by the time of Deadpool.
i think he may have been 194cm at his peak appearing shorter like 6'3 cause of his proportions and posture. Possibly 194cm up untill 1974 or 1975.
Only 1 inch shorter than Neeson who was a strong 6'4 back then so he was still 6'3 in 1988 and was that height up untill 1994.
Shaun said on 13/Aug/11
Mike says on 12/Aug/11
THe Eiger Sanction was, indeed, on the other day (on demand). That guy, last name Wolcott...he's listed as 6'4, and was clearly taller than Eastwood, just like he was in Joe Kidd. If we're going to go by heights listed on another site, which for whatever reason have now been limited in terms of being mentioned, and Wolcott was 6'4, Eastwood was under that by at least half an inch. Also, to look skinny..not thin, but skinny on film, do you know how thin you have to be in real life? Eastwood must have been and still be a rail.
Eastwood reportedly weighed 225 pounds in Every which way but loose and 216 pounds in 1973. Sorry I would hardly call that rail thin. His skinny legs and chiselled jawline may have given you that impression but if you actually see his physique in say High Plains Drifter in the bathtub he has surprisingly broad shoulders and muscle tone. Of course he is naturally an ecto and slender built but he had more muscle and broadness than you give him credit for. And at 6 ft 4 215 is fair, much like it was with Christopher Reeve, still slender muscle tone. A rail thin is Peter Crouch who is pushing 6 ft 8 and 170 pounds.
Mike says on 12/Aug/11
THe Eiger Sanction was, indeed, on the other day (on demand). That guy, last name Wolcott...he's listed as 6'4, and was clearly taller than Eastwood, just like he was in Joe Kidd. If we're going to go by heights listed on another site, which for whatever reason have now been limited in terms of being mentioned, and Wolcott was 6'4, Eastwood was under that by at least half an inch. Also, to look skinny..not thin, but skinny on film, do you know how thin you have to be in real life? Eastwood must have been and still be a rail.
Eastwood reportedly weighed 225 pounds in Every which way but loose and 216 pounds in 1973. Sorry I would hardly call that rail thin. His skinny legs and chiselled jawline may have given you that impression but if you actually see his physique in say High Plains Drifter in the bathtub he has surprisingly broad shoulders and muscle tone. Of course he is naturally an ecto and slender built but he had more muscle and broadness than you give him credit for. And at 6 ft 4 215 is fair, much like it was with Christopher Reeve, still slender muscle tone. A rail thin is Peter Crouch who is pushing 6 ft 8 and 170 pounds.
Shaun said on 13/Aug/11
James, Patricia Clarkson who appeared opposite Eastwood in the Dead Pool looked about a foot shorter than him right. She's listed on i m d b as 5'5". I think its BS. I estimate her at 5'3". No way is she 5'5", see the scene when she walks into the room and mention the charges against Callaghan. 5'2"-5'3" range. Eastwood looked a solid 6'3" I thought, 6'3"-6'3.5" compared to a 6'4.25 Neeson
James, Patricia Clarkson who appeared opposite Eastwood in the Dead Pool looked about a foot shorter than him right. She's listed on i m d b as 5'5". I think its BS. I estimate her at 5'3". No way is she 5'5", see the scene when she walks into the room and mention the charges against Callaghan. 5'2"-5'3" range. Eastwood looked a solid 6'3" I thought, 6'3"-6'3.5" compared to a 6'4.25 Neeson
James said on 13/Aug/11
Rmemeber clint eastwood had an edge on donald sutherland in kellys hearoes
Rmemeber clint eastwood had an edge on donald sutherland in kellys hearoes
jervis said on 13/Aug/11
AHe was the same hight as Evrett Magill in heart break ridge,and Magill is listed as 6ft2 and a half,that was in 1985 when he was 55 years old.To me he looked about max 6ft3 now about 6ft1.I also heard of George Kennedy listed at 6ft3 that would account for Clint and him looking the same hight.Also I never saw any clear clips of Clint and Sutherland in Kellys Heros to show Clint to be slightly taller,but i did see Space Cowboys and 65 year old Sutherland looked a good inch taller than 69 year old Eastwood,piticularly in the seen were they were all bear foot having a medcial.To me he looks to have lost too much hight if he was 6ft4 peak.I think the last film he was in were you can see he real peak hight was Dead Pool with Neeson in witch he looked about 1 inch shorter than 6ft4 Neeson when he was 58 years old.I think that was what height he was in his youth 6ft3.
AHe was the same hight as Evrett Magill in heart break ridge,and Magill is listed as 6ft2 and a half,that was in 1985 when he was 55 years old.To me he looked about max 6ft3 now about 6ft1.I also heard of George Kennedy listed at 6ft3 that would account for Clint and him looking the same hight.Also I never saw any clear clips of Clint and Sutherland in Kellys Heros to show Clint to be slightly taller,but i did see Space Cowboys and 65 year old Sutherland looked a good inch taller than 69 year old Eastwood,piticularly in the seen were they were all bear foot having a medcial.To me he looks to have lost too much hight if he was 6ft4 peak.I think the last film he was in were you can see he real peak hight was Dead Pool with Neeson in witch he looked about 1 inch shorter than 6ft4 Neeson when he was 58 years old.I think that was what height he was in his youth 6ft3.
Mike said on 12/Aug/11
THe Eiger Sanction was, indeed, on the other day (on demand). That guy, last name Wolcott...he's listed as 6'4, and was clearly taller than Eastwood, just like he was in Joe Kidd. If we're going to go by heights listed on another site, which for whatever reason have now been limited in terms of being mentioned, and Wolcott was 6'4, Eastwood was under that by at least half an inch. Also, to look skinny..not thin, but skinny on film, do you know how thin you have to be in real life? Eastwood must have been and still be a rail.
THe Eiger Sanction was, indeed, on the other day (on demand). That guy, last name Wolcott...he's listed as 6'4, and was clearly taller than Eastwood, just like he was in Joe Kidd. If we're going to go by heights listed on another site, which for whatever reason have now been limited in terms of being mentioned, and Wolcott was 6'4, Eastwood was under that by at least half an inch. Also, to look skinny..not thin, but skinny on film, do you know how thin you have to be in real life? Eastwood must have been and still be a rail.
James said on 12/Aug/11
If you think about it Donald Sutherland being 2 inches than 188-189cm Sean Connery would put Sutherland at 6'4.25 (194cm) and clint eastwood having an edge on Sutherland in Kellys Hearoes would mean Eastwood 6'4.75 (195cm) for clint eastwood.
this would be the case IF Connery was still 6'2.25 (189cm) in 1979 which he may have not been? I have a hard time seeing clint eastwood as being 195cm though. If Connery was not over 188cm in the late 70's and if sutherland was not over 193cm that would still put eastwood at 194cm.
If you think about it Donald Sutherland being 2 inches than 188-189cm Sean Connery would put Sutherland at 6'4.25 (194cm) and clint eastwood having an edge on Sutherland in Kellys Hearoes would mean Eastwood 6'4.75 (195cm) for clint eastwood.
this would be the case IF Connery was still 6'2.25 (189cm) in 1979 which he may have not been? I have a hard time seeing clint eastwood as being 195cm though. If Connery was not over 188cm in the late 70's and if sutherland was not over 193cm that would still put eastwood at 194cm.
James said on 12/Aug/11
sams right. Clint was 194cm in his prime.
sams right. Clint was 194cm in his prime.
Sam said on 11/Aug/11
To all who claim Clint was under 6'4" at his peak just watch The Eiger Sanction and with multiple camera angles and on even ground see how he is the same exact height as 6'4" George Kennedy.
To all who claim Clint was under 6'4" at his peak just watch The Eiger Sanction and with multiple camera angles and on even ground see how he is the same exact height as 6'4" George Kennedy.
verastegui said on 11/Aug/11
Clint Eastwood's 188 always seemed to me
Clint Eastwood's 188 always seemed to me
James said on 9/Aug/11
Maybe just leave it at 6'4 (193cm) for Clint Eastwoods peak. The chances are he was not under 193cm untill 1975.
Maybe just leave it at 6'4 (193cm) for Clint Eastwoods peak. The chances are he was not under 193cm untill 1975.
James said on 7/Aug/11
Terryman says on 7/Aug/11
1,91m tall peak,the guy is very intimidating if he was 6'4 he would have been even more intimidating. For some strange reason he's height never realy got a big mention in his career people probably overlooked it because he was too good of an actor!
Don't know about intimidating? Intimidating big guys would be dolph lundgren and steven seagal.
Terryman says on 7/Aug/11
1,91m tall peak,the guy is very intimidating if he was 6'4 he would have been even more intimidating. For some strange reason he's height never realy got a big mention in his career people probably overlooked it because he was too good of an actor!
Don't know about intimidating? Intimidating big guys would be dolph lundgren and steven seagal.
Terryman said on 7/Aug/11
1,91m tall peak,the guy is very intimidating if he was 6'4 he would have been even more intimidating. For some strange reason he's height never realy got a big mention in his career people probably overlooked it because he was too good of an actor!
1,91m tall peak,the guy is very intimidating if he was 6'4 he would have been even more intimidating. For some strange reason he's height never realy got a big mention in his career people probably overlooked it because he was too good of an actor!
James said on 6/Aug/11
well remember mike even though his hair was high with David Soul clint eastwood stood with a bit of a stoop next too him.
i think he was 6'4 guy that might have carried himself around at 6'3 with bad slouching posture. Tim Robbins is a 6'4-6'5 guy who is proud off being very tall and has a lot of confidence hence why he can pull off looking taller just by the way he carries himself.
6'4 guys like liam neeson and clint eastwood walk around at 6'3 because there not so secure or confident about there height. as for jeff goldblum he does not really slouch but i don't really think jeff is as tall as 194cm.
well remember mike even though his hair was high with David Soul clint eastwood stood with a bit of a stoop next too him.
i think he was 6'4 guy that might have carried himself around at 6'3 with bad slouching posture. Tim Robbins is a 6'4-6'5 guy who is proud off being very tall and has a lot of confidence hence why he can pull off looking taller just by the way he carries himself.
6'4 guys like liam neeson and clint eastwood walk around at 6'3 because there not so secure or confident about there height. as for jeff goldblum he does not really slouch but i don't really think jeff is as tall as 194cm.
James said on 5/Aug/11
remember he was only 1 or 1.5 inches shorter than 193-194cm liam neeson in the deadpool. So either 6'3 or 6'3.5 in that film.
remember he was only 1 or 1.5 inches shorter than 193-194cm liam neeson in the deadpool. So either 6'3 or 6'3.5 in that film.
Mike said on 5/Aug/11
...Truthman has it better than most. More and more, and after looking at all posted photos and many not on this site, I just don't go for a 6'4 Eastwood, despite the desire, for some, to have him that height..or taller. 6'3 makes much more sense, and explains not only his height..relative to other actors, but how he could be the height he is, today. A 6'3 guy in his 40's could be measured within a few minutes of getting out of bed, or right after lounging on something like a recliner, on a movie set, and be up to an inch taller. "I'M" an inch taller in the morning. So, yeah, I'm sure at some point, Eastwood could claim 6'4. But, on average, 6'3 makes much more sense. He's super skinny. Makes him look taller, on film. Kennedy's shoulders were much higher than Eastwoods, as were Wolcott's. And I love how there is such certainty that other actors listed heights are actual, when using them to make a judgement about Eastwoods height.
...Truthman has it better than most. More and more, and after looking at all posted photos and many not on this site, I just don't go for a 6'4 Eastwood, despite the desire, for some, to have him that height..or taller. 6'3 makes much more sense, and explains not only his height..relative to other actors, but how he could be the height he is, today. A 6'3 guy in his 40's could be measured within a few minutes of getting out of bed, or right after lounging on something like a recliner, on a movie set, and be up to an inch taller. "I'M" an inch taller in the morning. So, yeah, I'm sure at some point, Eastwood could claim 6'4. But, on average, 6'3 makes much more sense. He's super skinny. Makes him look taller, on film. Kennedy's shoulders were much higher than Eastwoods, as were Wolcott's. And I love how there is such certainty that other actors listed heights are actual, when using them to make a judgement about Eastwoods height.
Truthman said on 5/Aug/11
James says on 5/Aug/11
3.5 inches taller than david soul
Unsure about 3.5 inches. I watched this movie recently. It's looks like he was 6'4 with hairs, 6'3 without. 6'3 isn't silly James, take into account he was 5 inches shorter than 6'7-6'7.5 Magic Johnson in 1980
James says on 5/Aug/11
3.5 inches taller than david soul
Unsure about 3.5 inches. I watched this movie recently. It's looks like he was 6'4 with hairs, 6'3 without. 6'3 isn't silly James, take into account he was 5 inches shorter than 6'7-6'7.5 Magic Johnson in 1980
James said on 5/Aug/11
he was a legit 6'4 man. 6'3 is really silly.
he was a legit 6'4 man. 6'3 is really silly.
Patrick said on 5/Aug/11
Truthman, where on earth, did you see Clint as high as Marvin ? I know very well that famous picture. He looks terribly tall there! The same with tall stars as G. Kennedy.
Truthman, where on earth, did you see Clint as high as Marvin ? I know very well that famous picture. He looks terribly tall there! The same with tall stars as G. Kennedy.
James said on 5/Aug/11
Truthman says on 4/Aug/11
He was never over 6'3. You fanboys don't have ANY proof of 6'4 Eastwood. All your proof is stupid photos when Clint Eastwood have huge camera advantage. Show me only 1 photo of Eastwood looks same height as 6'4 guy with normal angle and similar position from camera and i would buy 6'4 for him. Not a photo with Hudson when Eastwood clearly about foot closer to camera (on same photo he looks same height as 6'2 Lee Marvin with similar camera disadvantage as Hudson has compared to Eastwood).
3.5 inches taller than david soul
Truthman says on 4/Aug/11
He was never over 6'3. You fanboys don't have ANY proof of 6'4 Eastwood. All your proof is stupid photos when Clint Eastwood have huge camera advantage. Show me only 1 photo of Eastwood looks same height as 6'4 guy with normal angle and similar position from camera and i would buy 6'4 for him. Not a photo with Hudson when Eastwood clearly about foot closer to camera (on same photo he looks same height as 6'2 Lee Marvin with similar camera disadvantage as Hudson has compared to Eastwood).
3.5 inches taller than david soul
Gus said on 5/Aug/11
Truthman says on 4/Aug/11
He was never over 6'3. You fanboys don't have ANY proof of 6'4 Eastwood. All your proof is stupid photos when Clint Eastwood have huge camera advantage. Show me only 1 photo of Eastwood looks same height as 6'4 guy with normal angle and similar position from camera and i would buy 6'4 for him. Not a photo with Hudson when Eastwood clearly about foot closer to camera (on same photo he looks same height as 6'2 Lee Marvin with similar camera disadvantage as Hudson has compared to Eastwood).
Give us some proof he was 6'3 then.
Truthman says on 4/Aug/11
He was never over 6'3. You fanboys don't have ANY proof of 6'4 Eastwood. All your proof is stupid photos when Clint Eastwood have huge camera advantage. Show me only 1 photo of Eastwood looks same height as 6'4 guy with normal angle and similar position from camera and i would buy 6'4 for him. Not a photo with Hudson when Eastwood clearly about foot closer to camera (on same photo he looks same height as 6'2 Lee Marvin with similar camera disadvantage as Hudson has compared to Eastwood).
Give us some proof he was 6'3 then.
Truthman said on 4/Aug/11
He was never over 6'3. You fanboys don't have ANY proof of 6'4 Eastwood. All your proof is stupid photos when Clint Eastwood have huge camera advantage. Show me only 1 photo of Eastwood looks same height as 6'4 guy with normal angle and similar position from camera and i would buy 6'4 for him. Not a photo with Hudson when Eastwood clearly about foot closer to camera (on same photo he looks same height as 6'2 Lee Marvin with similar camera disadvantage as Hudson has compared to Eastwood).
He was never over 6'3. You fanboys don't have ANY proof of 6'4 Eastwood. All your proof is stupid photos when Clint Eastwood have huge camera advantage. Show me only 1 photo of Eastwood looks same height as 6'4 guy with normal angle and similar position from camera and i would buy 6'4 for him. Not a photo with Hudson when Eastwood clearly about foot closer to camera (on same photo he looks same height as 6'2 Lee Marvin with similar camera disadvantage as Hudson has compared to Eastwood).
James said on 3/Aug/11
Gus says on 3/Aug/11
James says on 2/Aug/11
In Escape from Alcatraz did not appear over 191cm.
Yer I watched that,good film,yer id say he looked 6'3 in the film,but I noticed his posture was awful,especially with his top off you could see the bend in the top of his back,would have probably taken 1.5 inches of height off him with that posture.
At times in that film just looked normal tall as opposed too very tall.
Gus says on 3/Aug/11
James says on 2/Aug/11
In Escape from Alcatraz did not appear over 191cm.
Yer I watched that,good film,yer id say he looked 6'3 in the film,but I noticed his posture was awful,especially with his top off you could see the bend in the top of his back,would have probably taken 1.5 inches of height off him with that posture.
At times in that film just looked normal tall as opposed too very tall.
Gus said on 3/Aug/11
James says on 2/Aug/11
In Escape from Alcatraz did not appear over 191cm.
Yer I watched that,good film,yer id say he looked 6'3 in the film,but I noticed his posture was awful,especially with his top off you could see the bend in the top of his back,would have probably taken 1.5 inches of height off him with that posture.
James says on 2/Aug/11
In Escape from Alcatraz did not appear over 191cm.
Yer I watched that,good film,yer id say he looked 6'3 in the film,but I noticed his posture was awful,especially with his top off you could see the bend in the top of his back,would have probably taken 1.5 inches of height off him with that posture.
James said on 2/Aug/11
In Escape from Alcatraz did not appear over 191cm.
In Escape from Alcatraz did not appear over 191cm.
Tea said on 2/Aug/11
the thought of eastwood wearing lifts is laughable.I read in a biography about him that he was insecure about his height when he was young hence the slouching to try and look shorter.And if you look at him when he stands still he always leans his weight on one leg again making him appear shorter and adding to his bad posture.
the thought of eastwood wearing lifts is laughable.I read in a biography about him that he was insecure about his height when he was young hence the slouching to try and look shorter.And if you look at him when he stands still he always leans his weight on one leg again making him appear shorter and adding to his bad posture.
James said on 2/Aug/11
yeah eastwood only looked slightly shorter than neeson
yeah eastwood only looked slightly shorter than neeson
Mark said on 1/Aug/11
Uhm..Gus? You are still assimuning that Soul, stilts or not, was exactly 6'1 in Magnum Force, or at any other time in his life. Please cite the proof.
Uhm..Gus? You are still assimuning that Soul, stilts or not, was exactly 6'1 in Magnum Force, or at any other time in his life. Please cite the proof.
thebad7 said on 1/Aug/11
Two points to keep in mind about Eastwood today:
1. The man is 81 years old: at peak, he was 6'4", and he used to tower over just about everyone in Hollywood. He held his own against tall actors like George Kennedy and Lee Van Cleef early in his career; and Liam Neeson, Kevin Cosnter and Morgan Freeman later in his career. Today, Eastwood looks at the most to be around 6'1" - 6'1 1/2". I just saw some photos recently of Eastwood together with Morgan Freeman and Sidney Poitier. Freeman and Poitier look to be around 6'2" today, and Eastwood looks just a bit shorter than them--perhaps a difference of 0.5" - 1". I believe the men had similar footwear (dress shoes to complement tuxedos/suits).
2. I've seen a good many recent photos of him (2007-present) and in many of these photos, he is pictured with people like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, etc. The common denominator between those three is that they are all under six feet tall, and it seems that they like elevator shoes, platforms, etc. If these actors--all of whom are in the 5'10" - 5'11" range--are wearing shoes that give them 2" or 3", then they're going to look even with non-peak Eastwood.
I don't believe that Clint Eastwood ever wore lifts in his career, and I don't think that he would start now. Even now as an older man, he's still a tall guy.
tb7
Two points to keep in mind about Eastwood today:
1. The man is 81 years old: at peak, he was 6'4", and he used to tower over just about everyone in Hollywood. He held his own against tall actors like George Kennedy and Lee Van Cleef early in his career; and Liam Neeson, Kevin Cosnter and Morgan Freeman later in his career. Today, Eastwood looks at the most to be around 6'1" - 6'1 1/2". I just saw some photos recently of Eastwood together with Morgan Freeman and Sidney Poitier. Freeman and Poitier look to be around 6'2" today, and Eastwood looks just a bit shorter than them--perhaps a difference of 0.5" - 1". I believe the men had similar footwear (dress shoes to complement tuxedos/suits).
2. I've seen a good many recent photos of him (2007-present) and in many of these photos, he is pictured with people like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, etc. The common denominator between those three is that they are all under six feet tall, and it seems that they like elevator shoes, platforms, etc. If these actors--all of whom are in the 5'10" - 5'11" range--are wearing shoes that give them 2" or 3", then they're going to look even with non-peak Eastwood.
I don't believe that Clint Eastwood ever wore lifts in his career, and I don't think that he would start now. Even now as an older man, he's still a tall guy.
tb7
James said on 1/Aug/11
Rob why would clint eastwood need a wheelchair just because off lost height?
Editor Rob
Rob why would clint eastwood need a wheelchair just because off lost height?
Editor Rob his back if he loses 2 more inches might be in a state where he needs one to get around in!
thebad7 said on 1/Aug/11
@Danimal: Wrong. He did not start losing height until the early 1990s when he was in his early 60s. Having looked at recent photos of him with Morgan Freeman and Sidney Poitier, 6'1" is about right for him--he does stack closely to Freeman and Poitier. 6'0" flat today? Try again. He's lost height but he's not six flat.
tb7
@Danimal: Wrong. He did not start losing height until the early 1990s when he was in his early 60s. Having looked at recent photos of him with Morgan Freeman and Sidney Poitier, 6'1" is about right for him--he does stack closely to Freeman and Poitier. 6'0" flat today? Try again. He's lost height but he's not six flat.
tb7
James said on 1/Aug/11
he began losing height in the 70's not the 90's LOL.
Rob why would clint eastwood need a wheelchair?
he began losing height in the 70's not the 90's LOL.
Rob why would clint eastwood need a wheelchair?
Danimal said on 31/Jul/11
thebad7 on Clint Eastwood
Some people had mentioned Reni Santoni from DIRTY HARRY, and that's something that I'm curious about, too. Personally, I think that Santoni was more 6'1" than he was 6'0" flat. In '71 for DH, Eastwood was still at 6'4".
@James: I really wonder why you post so incessantly here on Eastwood's thread. As I recall, you don't even like the man as an actor: you're a Harrison Ford fan, aren't you? Also, the sudden switch from peak 6'2" Eastwood to 6'4"+ peak Eastwood is bewildering. Eastwood as a young man and at his peak stood 6'4" flat. He didn't start to lose height until the early 1990s--about 1992, after UNFORGIVEN was completed. He looked 6'3" throughout the '90s, and it was about the time of MILLION DOLLAR BABY in late 2004/early 2005 that he looked about 6'2". Today, at age 81, I'd say he's between 6'1" and 6'2" depending on time of day.
This isn't accurate. Eastwood began losing height much earlier than the 1990's and he is not between 6'1" and 6'2" today. He's barely a flat 6'0" today.
thebad7 on Clint Eastwood
Some people had mentioned Reni Santoni from DIRTY HARRY, and that's something that I'm curious about, too. Personally, I think that Santoni was more 6'1" than he was 6'0" flat. In '71 for DH, Eastwood was still at 6'4".
@James: I really wonder why you post so incessantly here on Eastwood's thread. As I recall, you don't even like the man as an actor: you're a Harrison Ford fan, aren't you? Also, the sudden switch from peak 6'2" Eastwood to 6'4"+ peak Eastwood is bewildering. Eastwood as a young man and at his peak stood 6'4" flat. He didn't start to lose height until the early 1990s--about 1992, after UNFORGIVEN was completed. He looked 6'3" throughout the '90s, and it was about the time of MILLION DOLLAR BABY in late 2004/early 2005 that he looked about 6'2". Today, at age 81, I'd say he's between 6'1" and 6'2" depending on time of day.
This isn't accurate. Eastwood began losing height much earlier than the 1990's and he is not between 6'1" and 6'2" today. He's barely a flat 6'0" today.
Shaun said on 31/Jul/11
Gus says on 29/Jul/11
Theres absolutely no evidance of santoni being 183cm,the guys hardly famous so his height is just as debatable as anyones,you cant trust what a certain other unreliable website says as being correct,more likelt Santoni was 185cm,while Clint poor posture meant he was 190/191cm. Clint-1960s,good posture-6'4 flat,1970s normal,poor posture-6'3,also imo Eastwood was exactly the same height as Freeman(189cm) in '92 Unforgiven,having watched the film at not one point is there an accurate angle in the film of them standing together,from what we do see they look a similar height,about 6'2.5.
i m d b once had Matt Damon at 6', Vin Diesel at 6'4", Tom Cruise at 5'5" and Everett McGill at 6'5". If
Gus says on 29/Jul/11
Theres absolutely no evidance of santoni being 183cm,the guys hardly famous so his height is just as debatable as anyones,you cant trust what a certain other unreliable website says as being correct,more likelt Santoni was 185cm,while Clint poor posture meant he was 190/191cm. Clint-1960s,good posture-6'4 flat,1970s normal,poor posture-6'3,also imo Eastwood was exactly the same height as Freeman(189cm) in '92 Unforgiven,having watched the film at not one point is there an accurate angle in the film of them standing together,from what we do see they look a similar height,about 6'2.5.
i m d b once had Matt Damon at 6', Vin Diesel at 6'4", Tom Cruise at 5'5" and Everett McGill at 6'5". If
Maximus Meridius said on 31/Jul/11
Rob is there a chance Clint Eastwood will go down to the 5ft 10in mark anytime soon.
Editor Rob
Rob is there a chance Clint Eastwood will go down to the 5ft 10in mark anytime soon.
Editor Rob if he reaches 95 and loses more height he'll probably need a wheelchair to get around.
James said on 31/Jul/11
i guess if David Soul was only 6'0.5 184cm peak then that would mean clint eastwood was no more than 6'4 (193cm) in comparison not 6'4.5 (194cm). 6'4.25 not impossible though?
i guess if David Soul was only 6'0.5 184cm peak then that would mean clint eastwood was no more than 6'4 (193cm) in comparison not 6'4.5 (194cm). 6'4.25 not impossible though?
James said on 31/Jul/11
David Souls peak height has been downgraded too 184cm now........ i guess the 'strong' 6'4 for Clint Eastwood is starting too seem a bit more improbable but still in Magnum Force maybe it could have been that clint eastwood had dodgy posture.
I think there is still a chance that david soul was 6'1 as well.
David Souls peak height has been downgraded too 184cm now........ i guess the 'strong' 6'4 for Clint Eastwood is starting too seem a bit more improbable but still in Magnum Force maybe it could have been that clint eastwood had dodgy posture.
I think there is still a chance that david soul was 6'1 as well.
Gus said on 31/Jul/11
Mark says on 30/Jul/11
...may I please see the indisputable proff that David Soul was or is 6'1, since he seems to be who Eastwood is comapred against, so often? I wish I'd saved ever teen mag I had as a kid (for pictures of Kristy McNichol), which said, repeatedly, Soul was 5'11. He wore HUGE heels on Starsky and Hutch. I do not see a 6'1 guy in him. Just thin and average.
Well it doesnt matter how he got to 6'1,could have been 5ft in stilts to be 6'1,Eastwood was still 3 inches taller than a 6'1 figure-lifts or not.
Mark says on 30/Jul/11
...may I please see the indisputable proff that David Soul was or is 6'1, since he seems to be who Eastwood is comapred against, so often? I wish I'd saved ever teen mag I had as a kid (for pictures of Kristy McNichol), which said, repeatedly, Soul was 5'11. He wore HUGE heels on Starsky and Hutch. I do not see a 6'1 guy in him. Just thin and average.
Well it doesnt matter how he got to 6'1,could have been 5ft in stilts to be 6'1,Eastwood was still 3 inches taller than a 6'1 figure-lifts or not.
Gus said on 30/Jul/11
Look at The moment Al wins the oscar in the crowd Clint is,along from him is tim robbins,robbins looks about 2 inches taller roughly...this is '93 I think...its between 1 minute 35 and 1 minute 40...
Click Here
Don strouds listed at 6'2
Click Here
Look at The moment Al wins the oscar in the crowd Clint is,along from him is tim robbins,robbins looks about 2 inches taller roughly...this is '93 I think...its between 1 minute 35 and 1 minute 40...
Click Here
Don strouds listed at 6'2
Click Here
Mark said on 30/Jul/11
...may I please see the indisputable proff that David Soul was or is 6'1, since he seems to be who Eastwood is comapred against, so often? I wish I'd saved ever teen mag I had as a kid (for pictures of Kristy McNichol), which said, repeatedly, Soul was 5'11. He wore HUGE heels on Starsky and Hutch. I do not see a 6'1 guy in him. Just thin and average.
...may I please see the indisputable proff that David Soul was or is 6'1, since he seems to be who Eastwood is comapred against, so often? I wish I'd saved ever teen mag I had as a kid (for pictures of Kristy McNichol), which said, repeatedly, Soul was 5'11. He wore HUGE heels on Starsky and Hutch. I do not see a 6'1 guy in him. Just thin and average.
James said on 30/Jul/11
In Dirty Harry
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm) Reni Santoni 6'1.5 (187cm)
Unforgiven
Clint Eastwood 6'3.5 (192cm)
Morgan Freeman 6'2.5 (189cm)?
In Dirty Harry
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm) Reni Santoni 6'1.5 (187cm)
Unforgiven
Clint Eastwood 6'3.5 (192cm)
Morgan Freeman 6'2.5 (189cm)?
James said on 29/Jul/11
higher chance clint eastwood was 194cm than 192cm. Between 6'5-6'6 straight out of bed in his prime after 9 hours sleep lying on his back. Probably lost more height than average throughout the day like 3 or 4cm because he was a legit very tall man and had bad posture. might have measured 193cm before bed at his peak? At his peak if clint eastwood got under 7 hours sleep would probably not meaure over 6'5 out of bed.
higher chance clint eastwood was 194cm than 192cm. Between 6'5-6'6 straight out of bed in his prime after 9 hours sleep lying on his back. Probably lost more height than average throughout the day like 3 or 4cm because he was a legit very tall man and had bad posture. might have measured 193cm before bed at his peak? At his peak if clint eastwood got under 7 hours sleep would probably not meaure over 6'5 out of bed.
Gus said on 29/Jul/11
Theres absolutely no evidance of santoni being 183cm,the guys hardly famous so his height is just as debatable as anyones,you cant trust what a certain other unreliable website says as being correct,more likelt Santoni was 185cm,while Clint poor posture meant he was 190/191cm. Clint-1960s,good posture-6'4 flat,1970s normal,poor posture-6'3,also imo Eastwood was exactly the same height as Freeman(189cm) in '92 Unforgiven,having watched the film at not one point is there an accurate angle in the film of them standing together,from what we do see they look a similar height,about 6'2.5.
Theres absolutely no evidance of santoni being 183cm,the guys hardly famous so his height is just as debatable as anyones,you cant trust what a certain other unreliable website says as being correct,more likelt Santoni was 185cm,while Clint poor posture meant he was 190/191cm. Clint-1960s,good posture-6'4 flat,1970s normal,poor posture-6'3,also imo Eastwood was exactly the same height as Freeman(189cm) in '92 Unforgiven,having watched the film at not one point is there an accurate angle in the film of them standing together,from what we do see they look a similar height,about 6'2.5.
thebad7 said on 29/Jul/11
@James: Fine. We're just going to have to leave it at that. I admire your tenacity. I am sorry if I sounded smartassed in my previous post--I didn't intend to come across that way.
tb7
P.S.--You are spot on with Hudson's height. Rock Hudson was a straight-up 6'5".
@James: Fine. We're just going to have to leave it at that. I admire your tenacity. I am sorry if I sounded smartassed in my previous post--I didn't intend to come across that way.
tb7
P.S.--You are spot on with Hudson's height. Rock Hudson was a straight-up 6'5".
James said on 28/Jul/11
Clint Eastwood started losing height in the 1970's actually where he shrunk from a legit 6'4 too 6'3 just like Dolph Lundgren. was 6'3 up untill 1994 or 1995 when he started shrinking again. By 1998 no more than 6'2 probably.
I did orginally say clint eastwood was 6'2 flat but then i thought he was more than that after seeing more evidence like him being minimum 3 inches taller than david soul.
Hudson 6'5. Clint Eastwood 6'4-6'4 1/2.
Clint Eastwood started losing height in the 1970's actually where he shrunk from a legit 6'4 too 6'3 just like Dolph Lundgren. was 6'3 up untill 1994 or 1995 when he started shrinking again. By 1998 no more than 6'2 probably.
I did orginally say clint eastwood was 6'2 flat but then i thought he was more than that after seeing more evidence like him being minimum 3 inches taller than david soul.
Hudson 6'5. Clint Eastwood 6'4-6'4 1/2.
adam 2 said on 28/Jul/11
Hudson was about 6-5 and 225 peak. Eastwood 6-3½-6-4 and 210.
Hudson was about 6-5 and 225 peak. Eastwood 6-3½-6-4 and 210.
thebad7 said on 28/Jul/11
Some people had mentioned Reni Santoni from DIRTY HARRY, and that's something that I'm curious about, too. Personally, I think that Santoni was more 6'1" than he was 6'0" flat. In '71 for DH, Eastwood was still at 6'4".
@James: I really wonder why you post so incessantly here on Eastwood's thread. As I recall, you don't even like the man as an actor: you're a Harrison Ford fan, aren't you? Also, the sudden switch from peak 6'2" Eastwood to 6'4"+ peak Eastwood is bewildering. Eastwood as a young man and at his peak stood 6'4" flat. He didn't start to lose height until the early 1990s--about 1992, after UNFORGIVEN was completed. He looked 6'3" throughout the '90s, and it was about the time of MILLION DOLLAR BABY in late 2004/early 2005 that he looked about 6'2". Today, at age 81, I'd say he's between 6'1" and 6'2" depending on time of day.
tb7
Some people had mentioned Reni Santoni from DIRTY HARRY, and that's something that I'm curious about, too. Personally, I think that Santoni was more 6'1" than he was 6'0" flat. In '71 for DH, Eastwood was still at 6'4".
@James: I really wonder why you post so incessantly here on Eastwood's thread. As I recall, you don't even like the man as an actor: you're a Harrison Ford fan, aren't you? Also, the sudden switch from peak 6'2" Eastwood to 6'4"+ peak Eastwood is bewildering. Eastwood as a young man and at his peak stood 6'4" flat. He didn't start to lose height until the early 1990s--about 1992, after UNFORGIVEN was completed. He looked 6'3" throughout the '90s, and it was about the time of MILLION DOLLAR BABY in late 2004/early 2005 that he looked about 6'2". Today, at age 81, I'd say he's between 6'1" and 6'2" depending on time of day.
tb7
Larc 6 ft 1.75 in said on 28/Jul/11
I think he was 6'3 (191cm) at peak, a very tall man for sure, he looked even above 6'4 because of his lanky frame.
Today he is 6'0.5-6'0.75.
But there's a possibility that he was really 6'4 when younger, we have to remember that very tall people seems to lose more height when they age.
I think he was 6'3 (191cm) at peak, a very tall man for sure, he looked even above 6'4 because of his lanky frame.
Today he is 6'0.5-6'0.75.
But there's a possibility that he was really 6'4 when younger, we have to remember that very tall people seems to lose more height when they age.
James said on 28/Jul/11
he's a few inches taller than 6'2 Michael Caine in the photo.
he's a few inches taller than 6'2 Michael Caine in the photo.
MIke said on 27/Jul/11
..those photos of Eastwood at Wayne's party, and with Nemoy, are distorted. Look at Fred McMurray...he looks utterly tiny, but wasn't. And look how large Shatner looks, with his back to us, compared to Eastwood. With the right camera and camera angle, someone standing even 2 inches closer to the camera can look taller than they are, in the final photo. Hudson was a bit taller than Wayne. This photo suggests Eastwood may have been taller than Hudson. Insanity. He'd have been huge, and wasn't. Just a tall, skinny guy. 6'3.5, now much shorter
..those photos of Eastwood at Wayne's party, and with Nemoy, are distorted. Look at Fred McMurray...he looks utterly tiny, but wasn't. And look how large Shatner looks, with his back to us, compared to Eastwood. With the right camera and camera angle, someone standing even 2 inches closer to the camera can look taller than they are, in the final photo. Hudson was a bit taller than Wayne. This photo suggests Eastwood may have been taller than Hudson. Insanity. He'd have been huge, and wasn't. Just a tall, skinny guy. 6'3.5, now much shorter
James said on 27/Jul/11
that photo of clint eastwood and lenord might have been taken in like the late 70's or early 80's when clint eastwood was 6'3 1/2 as opposed to 6'4 perhaps?
that photo of clint eastwood and lenord might have been taken in like the late 70's or early 80's when clint eastwood was 6'3 1/2 as opposed to 6'4 perhaps?
James said on 27/Jul/11
Yeah true Andrea. Neither are really standing at there tallest in the photo.
Still though Eastwood was 3-4 inches taller than David Soul. so 193 or 194cm seems on target for his peak.
Yeah true Andrea. Neither are really standing at there tallest in the photo.
Still though Eastwood was 3-4 inches taller than David Soul. so 193 or 194cm seems on target for his peak.
ANDREA[ITA] said on 27/Jul/11
Well next to 184 cm Lenord Nemoy, counting that clint is also closer to the camera, i see no more than 7 cms!
Well next to 184 cm Lenord Nemoy, counting that clint is also closer to the camera, i see no more than 7 cms!
Shaun said on 27/Jul/11
Now you see James how ridiculous your Eastwood looks 6'2" claims are.
Now you see James how ridiculous your Eastwood looks 6'2" claims are.
James said on 26/Jul/11
ANDREA[ITA] says on 26/Jul/11
Sorry James, its the first time im looking clint eastwood's page. Im just wondering how he lost 3.5 inches! I agree that he's about 184 today but how can you say he's 6ft4? I mean... You have some photos? Some proofs?
probably lost virtually around 4 inches.
here's the proof
Click Here
194cm Clint Eastwood vs 184cm Lenord Nemoy
Click Here
ANDREA[ITA] says on 26/Jul/11
Sorry James, its the first time im looking clint eastwood's page. Im just wondering how he lost 3.5 inches! I agree that he's about 184 today but how can you say he's 6ft4? I mean... You have some photos? Some proofs?
probably lost virtually around 4 inches.
here's the proof
Click Here
194cm Clint Eastwood vs 184cm Lenord Nemoy
Click Here
ANDREA[ITA] said on 26/Jul/11
Sorry James, its the first time im looking clint eastwood's page. Im just wondering how he lost 3.5 inches! I agree that he's about 184 today but how can you say he's 6ft4? I mean... You have some photos? Some proofs?
Sorry James, its the first time im looking clint eastwood's page. Im just wondering how he lost 3.5 inches! I agree that he's about 184 today but how can you say he's 6ft4? I mean... You have some photos? Some proofs?
James said on 26/Jul/11
if Santoni was only 183cm then Clint Eastwood should have been 4-5 inches taller than him.
if Santoni was only 183cm then Clint Eastwood should have been 4-5 inches taller than him.
James said on 26/Jul/11
correction he would measure at 196 or 195cm in the morning at his peak. 193cm before bed at his peak.
correction he would measure at 196 or 195cm in the morning at his peak. 193cm before bed at his peak.
James said on 26/Jul/11
Even though i hate to admit, it is true goldblum still looked 1 inch taller than sutherland even with bad postuer and a slouch in a photo i have just seen of them.
Even though i hate to admit, it is true goldblum still looked 1 inch taller than sutherland even with bad postuer and a slouch in a photo i have just seen of them.
James said on 26/Jul/11
yep but 3-4 inches taller than david soul in magum foce. that would indicate that he might have a hair over 6'4.
yep but 3-4 inches taller than david soul in magum foce. that would indicate that he might have a hair over 6'4.
Shaun said on 26/Jul/11
Compared to most he looked a legit 6'4". Looked that height next to George Kennedy, Don Stroud, Charlton Heston etc. I admit though he didn't look 3 or 4 inches taller than Santoni in Dirty Harry, more like 2 inches.
Compared to most he looked a legit 6'4". Looked that height next to George Kennedy, Don Stroud, Charlton Heston etc. I admit though he didn't look 3 or 4 inches taller than Santoni in Dirty Harry, more like 2 inches.
Shaun said on 26/Jul/11
Lillo thomas says on 25/Jul/11
Gus James claimed that Clint Eastwood was 6-2.5 to 6-3 at best in his peak many times .
He did yes but then I think he really that actually he was underestimating him because he realised that 6'5" Rock Hudson was barely taller, he was the same height as George Kennedy and that he was even taller than Donald Sutherland who had two inches minimum on Sean Connery who at one point in the day measured 6'2" peak. SO I think that's where his 6'4.5" is coming from. I can imagine Eastwood measuring 194cm in the morning in his prime. Certainly 6'4" in my view, although 6'3.5" at some point in the day possible. I think Rob is right that you can argue both 192 and 194 cm for his peak. 6'4" is fair.
Lillo thomas says on 25/Jul/11
Gus James claimed that Clint Eastwood was 6-2.5 to 6-3 at best in his peak many times .
He did yes but then I think he really that actually he was underestimating him because he realised that 6'5" Rock Hudson was barely taller, he was the same height as George Kennedy and that he was even taller than Donald Sutherland who had two inches minimum on Sean Connery who at one point in the day measured 6'2" peak. SO I think that's where his 6'4.5" is coming from. I can imagine Eastwood measuring 194cm in the morning in his prime. Certainly 6'4" in my view, although 6'3.5" at some point in the day possible. I think Rob is right that you can argue both 192 and 194 cm for his peak. 6'4" is fair.
adam 2 said on 26/Jul/11
Eastwood was never OVER 6-4. So lets clear that one up.
Sutherland has been stated 6-3 before. In many a films he looks that height. He is a sloucher, remember that.
Lee Van Cleef was 6-2 prime. Eastwood had close to two inches on him. Eastwood was maybe slightly taller than Sutherland who himself was about two inches shorter than Goldblum.
Then there is the pic where Robbins has about half a foot on Clint....
Eastwood was never OVER 6-4. So lets clear that one up.
Sutherland has been stated 6-3 before. In many a films he looks that height. He is a sloucher, remember that.
Lee Van Cleef was 6-2 prime. Eastwood had close to two inches on him. Eastwood was maybe slightly taller than Sutherland who himself was about two inches shorter than Goldblum.
Then there is the pic where Robbins has about half a foot on Clint....
James said on 25/Jul/11
i changed my mind because i saw more phots of clint eastwood with guys like Rock Hudson.
Also i saw magnum force and he looked quite a lot taller than david soul. that is why i changed my mind on 6'2-6'3 peak for clint eastwood.
Lillo I never said tht eastwood was 6'2-6'3 at best.
i changed my mind because i saw more phots of clint eastwood with guys like Rock Hudson.
Also i saw magnum force and he looked quite a lot taller than david soul. that is why i changed my mind on 6'2-6'3 peak for clint eastwood.
Lillo I never said tht eastwood was 6'2-6'3 at best.
Lillo thomas said on 25/Jul/11
Gus James claimed that Clint Eastwood was 6-2.5 to 6-3 at best in his peak many times .
Gus James claimed that Clint Eastwood was 6-2.5 to 6-3 at best in his peak many times .
James said on 25/Jul/11
George Kennedy and Clint Eastwood probably in the 6'4-6'4.5 range.
George Kennedy and Clint Eastwood probably in the 6'4-6'4.5 range.
Lillo thomas said on 25/Jul/11
James is hilarious . Downgrading everyone for months and now he is giving the max height posible . For example arguing to death that Clint Eastwood was 6-2 range in his prime . Now he is saying that Clint was 6-4 range in his prime. lol
James is hilarious . Downgrading everyone for months and now he is giving the max height posible . For example arguing to death that Clint Eastwood was 6-2 range in his prime . Now he is saying that Clint was 6-4 range in his prime. lol
Sam said on 25/Jul/11
I did catch a bit of The Eiger Sanction on TV the other day and its clear that George Kennedy and he are the same height: 6'4". In a hotel lobby they are on even ground and were eyeball to eyeball and much taller than the other actors.
I did catch a bit of The Eiger Sanction on TV the other day and its clear that George Kennedy and he are the same height: 6'4". In a hotel lobby they are on even ground and were eyeball to eyeball and much taller than the other actors.
James said on 25/Jul/11
I doubt sutherland was that much shorter than 6'4 at his peak
I doubt sutherland was that much shorter than 6'4 at his peak
Gus said on 24/Jul/11
Danimal says on 24/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.
He was NOT 6'5" in the morning kid. You realize you have gone from 6'2" to 6'5" for him. Try and give the site a rest for a bit. It's the summer. You post on this page EVERYDAY. Not healthy for a 20 year old kid.
Clearly nobody has said Clint was 6'2,not even James,im sure James used to say 6'3 not 6'2.
Danimal says on 24/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.
He was NOT 6'5" in the morning kid. You realize you have gone from 6'2" to 6'5" for him. Try and give the site a rest for a bit. It's the summer. You post on this page EVERYDAY. Not healthy for a 20 year old kid.
Clearly nobody has said Clint was 6'2,not even James,im sure James used to say 6'3 not 6'2.
James said on 24/Jul/11
Danimal says on 24/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.
He was NOT 6'5" in the morning kid. You realize you have gone from 6'2" to 6'5" for him. Try and give the site a rest for a bit. It's the summer. You post on this page EVERYDAY. Not healthy for a 20 year old kid.
Why is it not healthy danimal?
Editor Rob
Danimal says on 24/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.
He was NOT 6'5" in the morning kid. You realize you have gone from 6'2" to 6'5" for him. Try and give the site a rest for a bit. It's the summer. You post on this page EVERYDAY. Not healthy for a 20 year old kid.
Why is it not healthy danimal?
Editor Rob I think James does change his opinions, but everyone can guess what they want, within reason.
I've been reading about heights a few hours a day for nearly 7 years, I've not quite gone insane yet ;)
I've been reading about heights a few hours a day for nearly 7 years, I've not quite gone insane yet ;)
Danimal said on 24/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.
He was NOT 6'5" in the morning kid. You realize you have gone from 6'2" to 6'5" for him. Try and give the site a rest for a bit. It's the summer. You post on this page EVERYDAY. Not healthy for a 20 year old kid.
James says on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.
He was NOT 6'5" in the morning kid. You realize you have gone from 6'2" to 6'5" for him. Try and give the site a rest for a bit. It's the summer. You post on this page EVERYDAY. Not healthy for a 20 year old kid.
adam2 said on 24/Jul/11
Ridiculous estimates. Robbins would be at least an inch taller.
And dont trust on one or two films. Yes Sutherland was two inches taller than Connery and Eastwood had a slight edge on Sutherland but remember THE OTHER films.
In DR TERRORS HOUSE OF HORRORS Sutherland is two inches shorter than Christopher Lee. In INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS Sutherland is clearly close to two inches shorter than Jeff Goldblum. In THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE Sutherland looks about 6-3. In THE DIRTY DOZEN Sutherland is about four inches shorter than 6-6 Clint Walker. etc etc....
Eastwood doesnt look anything over 6-4. Never.
Ridiculous estimates. Robbins would be at least an inch taller.
And dont trust on one or two films. Yes Sutherland was two inches taller than Connery and Eastwood had a slight edge on Sutherland but remember THE OTHER films.
In DR TERRORS HOUSE OF HORRORS Sutherland is two inches shorter than Christopher Lee. In INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS Sutherland is clearly close to two inches shorter than Jeff Goldblum. In THE EYE OF THE NEEDLE Sutherland looks about 6-3. In THE DIRTY DOZEN Sutherland is about four inches shorter than 6-6 Clint Walker. etc etc....
Eastwood doesnt look anything over 6-4. Never.
James said on 24/Jul/11
jake says on 23/Jul/11
James, how tall are you again?
176cm
jake says on 23/Jul/11
James, how tall are you again?
176cm
jake said on 23/Jul/11
James, how tall are you again?
James, how tall are you again?
James said on 22/Jul/11
Guys can i also point out that in Arlington Road Jeff Bridges might have been a fraction shorter than he was in thunderbolt and lightfoot so that is why he might have a appeared a little shorter next too robbins. so in 1974 bridges might have been 187cm and in 1999 186cm.
But yeah i would agree i think there is a chance a peak tim robbins would have had an edge on a peak clint eastwood. the difference may have even looked greater if clint eastwood had posture.
Guys can i also point out that in Arlington Road Jeff Bridges might have been a fraction shorter than he was in thunderbolt and lightfoot so that is why he might have a appeared a little shorter next too robbins. so in 1974 bridges might have been 187cm and in 1999 186cm.
But yeah i would agree i think there is a chance a peak tim robbins would have had an edge on a peak clint eastwood. the difference may have even looked greater if clint eastwood had posture.
James said on 22/Jul/11
If Robbins is 6'5 then yes Clint Eastwood a fraction shorter at his peak.
Robbins unlike Clint Eastwood stands with very good posture and has broader shoulders and different proportions.
If Robbins is 6'5 then yes Clint Eastwood a fraction shorter at his peak.
Robbins unlike Clint Eastwood stands with very good posture and has broader shoulders and different proportions.
James said on 22/Jul/11
Vegas says on 21/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
eastwood might have been the same or 'almost' the same height as tim robbins at his peak.
____________
same height no, robbins is noticeably taller next to jeff bridges in arlington road compared to eastwood in thunderbolt and lightfoot
shaun, glover was about an inch shorter than adam baldwin in predator 2
but robbins has very very much better posture than eastwood.
Vegas says on 21/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
eastwood might have been the same or 'almost' the same height as tim robbins at his peak.
____________
same height no, robbins is noticeably taller next to jeff bridges in arlington road compared to eastwood in thunderbolt and lightfoot
shaun, glover was about an inch shorter than adam baldwin in predator 2
but robbins has very very much better posture than eastwood.
adam2 said on 22/Jul/11
Eastwood as tall as Tim Robbins at his peak? Ridiculous.
Robbins I think is 6-5. A solid 6-5. Eastwood doesnt tower like a 6-5 man. More likely a weak 6-4 man with a bad posture.
Eastwood as tall as Tim Robbins at his peak? Ridiculous.
Robbins I think is 6-5. A solid 6-5. Eastwood doesnt tower like a 6-5 man. More likely a weak 6-4 man with a bad posture.
Vegas said on 21/Jul/11
James says on 21/Jul/11
eastwood might have been the same or 'almost' the same height as tim robbins at his peak.
____________
same height no, robbins is noticeably taller next to jeff bridges in arlington road compared to eastwood in thunderbolt and lightfoot
shaun, glover was about an inch shorter than adam baldwin in predator 2
James says on 21/Jul/11
eastwood might have been the same or 'almost' the same height as tim robbins at his peak.
____________
same height no, robbins is noticeably taller next to jeff bridges in arlington road compared to eastwood in thunderbolt and lightfoot
shaun, glover was about an inch shorter than adam baldwin in predator 2
James said on 21/Jul/11
at least 6'4 flat peak
at least 6'4 flat peak
Lillo Thomas said on 21/Jul/11
Clint Eastwood was 6-4 flat in his prime nothing more.
Clint Eastwood was 6-4 flat in his prime nothing more.
James said on 21/Jul/11
eastwood might have been the same or 'almost' the same height as tim robbins at his peak.
In 1974 by the time of thunderbolt and lightfoot clint eastwood might have started too dip just a tiny amount under 194cm or he could have still been 6'4.25 (194cm) by the time of that film or just 6'4 (193cm). his posture in that film was starting too get worse and you could kinda notice the arch in his back more.
Was 6'3.25 or 6'3.5 from 1977 up untill 1993 maybe?
eastwood might have been the same or 'almost' the same height as tim robbins at his peak.
In 1974 by the time of thunderbolt and lightfoot clint eastwood might have started too dip just a tiny amount under 194cm or he could have still been 6'4.25 (194cm) by the time of that film or just 6'4 (193cm). his posture in that film was starting too get worse and you could kinda notice the arch in his back more.
Was 6'3.25 or 6'3.5 from 1977 up untill 1993 maybe?
James said on 21/Jul/11
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.
In Fistul of Dollars would have measured at 6'4.25 (194cm) miday with good posture.
Shaun said on 21/Jul/11
Danny Glover was 6'3.5", had about two inches on Robert Davi actually.
Danny Glover was 6'3.5", had about two inches on Robert Davi actually.
Shaun said on 21/Jul/11
Well Yao Ming was 11 pounds at birth, Eastwood was 11 and a half pounds. As I said his birth weight and size was that of a baby which would grow into a giant man! Although he was clearly never a giant lol 6'4" is still very tall range.
Well Yao Ming was 11 pounds at birth, Eastwood was 11 and a half pounds. As I said his birth weight and size was that of a baby which would grow into a giant man! Although he was clearly never a giant lol 6'4" is still very tall range.
Gus said on 20/Jul/11
Well what does it for me is,Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. Numerous great shots,whole body shots,of Clint and Bridges,Jeff Bridges who I consider a sure thing 186cm guy,with poor posture Clint looked no more than a strong 6'2 next to him,but on 2/3 occasions where he does extend his back out,possibly has as much as 3 inches on Bridges-obviously backing the 6'4 theory..IMO if you measured Eastwood during fistfull of dollars time,midday with good posture-would have been a flat 6'4,trouble was his lazy back,often hung around the 191cm mark.
Well what does it for me is,Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. Numerous great shots,whole body shots,of Clint and Bridges,Jeff Bridges who I consider a sure thing 186cm guy,with poor posture Clint looked no more than a strong 6'2 next to him,but on 2/3 occasions where he does extend his back out,possibly has as much as 3 inches on Bridges-obviously backing the 6'4 theory..IMO if you measured Eastwood during fistfull of dollars time,midday with good posture-would have been a flat 6'4,trouble was his lazy back,often hung around the 191cm mark.
James said on 20/Jul/11
Dirty Harry 6'4.25 (194cm)
Magnum Force 6'4.25 (194cm)
The Enforcer 6'4 (193cm)
Any Which Way You can 6'3.5 (192cm)
Unforgiven 6'3.5 (192cm)
In The Line of Fire 6'3 (191cm)
Bridges of Madison County 6'2.5 (189cm)
In his 20's on his best day might have even measured at 6'4.5 (194cm).
Dirty Harry 6'4.25 (194cm)
Magnum Force 6'4.25 (194cm)
The Enforcer 6'4 (193cm)
Any Which Way You can 6'3.5 (192cm)
Unforgiven 6'3.5 (192cm)
In The Line of Fire 6'3 (191cm)
Bridges of Madison County 6'2.5 (189cm)
In his 20's on his best day might have even measured at 6'4.5 (194cm).
James said on 20/Jul/11
aun says on 20/Jul/11
James where is the evidence he began losing height in the early 70s? He didn't really look any shorter until the early 80s. He looked a strong 6'3" in the late 80s next to Neeson. And as thebad says which I 100% agree with he still looked an easy 6'3" in Unforgiven. In In the line of Fire looked a solid 6'3" and looked this height next to Arnie around this time. I don't believe he dipped under 6'3" until 1994-1995 when he appeared to be more a strong 6'2" in Bridges of Madison County, I'd have guessed 6'2.5" around that time.
not early but mid to late 70's i think he lost just about 1 inch. Maybe 6'3.75 (192cm) or 6'4 (193cm) in the Enforcer and 6'4.25 or 6'4.5 in Magnum Force?
I think by 1977 was no taller than a strong 6'3 like 192cm. so between 1973-1975 dropped from 6'4.25 (194cm) to 6'4 (193cm) and from 1975-1977 dipped down more to 6'3.5 (192cm).
6'3.5 in Any Which Way You can and could have still been 6'3 1/2 in the Deadpool.
In the early 90's i think shrunk from 6'3.5 too 6'3 flat. so around 6'3 flat by the time of line of fire. he looked very similar in height to danny glover in 1992 as well.
i agree shaun he started to go under 6'3 in 1994 or 1995.
aun says on 20/Jul/11
James where is the evidence he began losing height in the early 70s? He didn't really look any shorter until the early 80s. He looked a strong 6'3" in the late 80s next to Neeson. And as thebad says which I 100% agree with he still looked an easy 6'3" in Unforgiven. In In the line of Fire looked a solid 6'3" and looked this height next to Arnie around this time. I don't believe he dipped under 6'3" until 1994-1995 when he appeared to be more a strong 6'2" in Bridges of Madison County, I'd have guessed 6'2.5" around that time.
not early but mid to late 70's i think he lost just about 1 inch. Maybe 6'3.75 (192cm) or 6'4 (193cm) in the Enforcer and 6'4.25 or 6'4.5 in Magnum Force?
I think by 1977 was no taller than a strong 6'3 like 192cm. so between 1973-1975 dropped from 6'4.25 (194cm) to 6'4 (193cm) and from 1975-1977 dipped down more to 6'3.5 (192cm).
6'3.5 in Any Which Way You can and could have still been 6'3 1/2 in the Deadpool.
In the early 90's i think shrunk from 6'3.5 too 6'3 flat. so around 6'3 flat by the time of line of fire. he looked very similar in height to danny glover in 1992 as well.
i agree shaun he started to go under 6'3 in 1994 or 1995.
lillo thomas said on 20/Jul/11
Insisting to death that he was 6-2.5 and 6-3 at best for months and now saying that he is 6-4 and change peak . LOL.
Insisting to death that he was 6-2.5 and 6-3 at best for months and now saying that he is 6-4 and change peak . LOL.
James said on 20/Jul/11
maybe i was being a bit hastey saying clint eastwood was only a flat 6'3 in the late 70's/early 80's so probably in 1977 and 1980 6'3 1/2 (192cm).
i think in the 70's shrunk from 6'4-6'5 too 6'3-6'4.
Not sure if he was as tall as 6'3 1/2 in the deadpool? In the Line of Fire probably was not over 6'3.
maybe i was being a bit hastey saying clint eastwood was only a flat 6'3 in the late 70's/early 80's so probably in 1977 and 1980 6'3 1/2 (192cm).
i think in the 70's shrunk from 6'4-6'5 too 6'3-6'4.
Not sure if he was as tall as 6'3 1/2 in the deadpool? In the Line of Fire probably was not over 6'3.
Shaun said on 20/Jul/11
James where is the evidence he began losing height in the early 70s? He didn't really look any shorter until the early 80s. He looked a strong 6'3" in the late 80s next to Neeson. And as thebad says which I 100% agree with he still looked an easy 6'3" in Unforgiven. In In the line of Fire looked a solid 6'3" and looked this height next to Arnie around this time. I don't believe he dipped under 6'3" until 1994-1995 when he appeared to be more a strong 6'2" in Bridges of Madison County, I'd have guessed 6'2.5" around that time.
James where is the evidence he began losing height in the early 70s? He didn't really look any shorter until the early 80s. He looked a strong 6'3" in the late 80s next to Neeson. And as thebad says which I 100% agree with he still looked an easy 6'3" in Unforgiven. In In the line of Fire looked a solid 6'3" and looked this height next to Arnie around this time. I don't believe he dipped under 6'3" until 1994-1995 when he appeared to be more a strong 6'2" in Bridges of Madison County, I'd have guessed 6'2.5" around that time.
James said on 20/Jul/11
his height loss became an issue in the late 70's when he shrunk to 6'3.
No taller than 6'3 flat in the Deadpool as well. He also had at least 3 inches on David Soul so he was still at least 6'4 in Magnum Force.
throughout the 70's he lost a good 1 inch in height.
his height loss became an issue in the late 70's when he shrunk to 6'3.
No taller than 6'3 flat in the Deadpool as well. He also had at least 3 inches on David Soul so he was still at least 6'4 in Magnum Force.
throughout the 70's he lost a good 1 inch in height.
thebad7 said on 20/Jul/11
6'4" is correct for Eastwood as a young man. I don't believe height loss became an issue for him until around the time he did UNFORGIVEN in 1992.
Consider it from these perspectives:
1. The Dollars Films: As a young man (mid 30s), he starred alongside Western Legend Lee Van Cleef in the final two Dollars films. Van Cleef was a legitimate 6'2" and there are plenty of scenes in both FAFDM and GBU in which the two actors stand face-to-face with good posture. Eastwood had about 1.5"-2" on Van Cleef, pointing to 6'4" for Eastwood. Also note that both actors were wearing cowboy boots with similar heels (1"-1.5" heel).
2. MAGNUM FORCE: I always like to use this as a reference since it ought to put to bed any notions that Clint was shorter than 6'4" at peak. Clint holds his own against several 6'1"+ actors in this film: he has 6'2" actors Robert Urich and Tim Matheson by 2", and this with Urich and Matheson having footwear advantage (1" combat boots vs. flat-soled sneakers for Eastwood). Eastwood also has David Soul, Hal Holbrook, and Mitchell Ryan (all of whom are approx. 6'0"-6'1" tall) by 3".
3. THE DEAD POOL: There is a good scene in this film in which a then 58 year old Eastwood stands face-to-face with a young (early 30s) Liam Neeson. Neeson has Eastwood by a hair (hair = 1"). Assuming that Neeson is minimum 6'4", which he was, and some change to go along with it, Eastwood was at the bare minimum 6'3 1/2" tall.
4. UNFORGIVEN: Everybody is wearing cowboy boots with similar heels. Eastwood has 1"-1.5" on legit 6'2" actors Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman. Still 6'3"+ at this stage.
5. MILLION DOLLAR BABY: Standing next to Morgan Freeman, Eastwood looked about even, and in some shots, a bit shorter. 6'2" approximately at this point.
Also, Eastwood did several mid-70s pictures with legit 6'4" George Kennedy--a man who towered over practically everybody in Hollywood at that time--and in particular, in 1974's THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT, Eastwood looks to be the same height as Kennedy with no discernable difference between the two men.
Today, however, is a different story. Age catches up to everybody--even Hollywood legends. Eastwood is a great actor and a great director, and I love his films. I also admire that he's always been very health conscious, and he looks very good for an 81 year old man. At best, he's probably no taller than 6'1"-6'1 1/2" at the most today.
tb7
6'4" is correct for Eastwood as a young man. I don't believe height loss became an issue for him until around the time he did UNFORGIVEN in 1992.
Consider it from these perspectives:
1. The Dollars Films: As a young man (mid 30s), he starred alongside Western Legend Lee Van Cleef in the final two Dollars films. Van Cleef was a legitimate 6'2" and there are plenty of scenes in both FAFDM and GBU in which the two actors stand face-to-face with good posture. Eastwood had about 1.5"-2" on Van Cleef, pointing to 6'4" for Eastwood. Also note that both actors were wearing cowboy boots with similar heels (1"-1.5" heel).
2. MAGNUM FORCE: I always like to use this as a reference since it ought to put to bed any notions that Clint was shorter than 6'4" at peak. Clint holds his own against several 6'1"+ actors in this film: he has 6'2" actors Robert Urich and Tim Matheson by 2", and this with Urich and Matheson having footwear advantage (1" combat boots vs. flat-soled sneakers for Eastwood). Eastwood also has David Soul, Hal Holbrook, and Mitchell Ryan (all of whom are approx. 6'0"-6'1" tall) by 3".
3. THE DEAD POOL: There is a good scene in this film in which a then 58 year old Eastwood stands face-to-face with a young (early 30s) Liam Neeson. Neeson has Eastwood by a hair (hair = 1"). Assuming that Neeson is minimum 6'4", which he was, and some change to go along with it, Eastwood was at the bare minimum 6'3 1/2" tall.
4. UNFORGIVEN: Everybody is wearing cowboy boots with similar heels. Eastwood has 1"-1.5" on legit 6'2" actors Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman. Still 6'3"+ at this stage.
5. MILLION DOLLAR BABY: Standing next to Morgan Freeman, Eastwood looked about even, and in some shots, a bit shorter. 6'2" approximately at this point.
Also, Eastwood did several mid-70s pictures with legit 6'4" George Kennedy--a man who towered over practically everybody in Hollywood at that time--and in particular, in 1974's THUNDERBOLT & LIGHTFOOT, Eastwood looks to be the same height as Kennedy with no discernable difference between the two men.
Today, however, is a different story. Age catches up to everybody--even Hollywood legends. Eastwood is a great actor and a great director, and I love his films. I also admire that he's always been very health conscious, and he looks very good for an 81 year old man. At best, he's probably no taller than 6'1"-6'1 1/2" at the most today.
tb7
Candace said on 19/Jul/11
I met him in his pre-Dirty Harry days. I am 5'7" and I didn't come to his shoulder. He was definitely at least 6'4". And he had on golf shoes, not boots so it was all him. What really struck me however was how incredibly skinny he was.
I met him in his pre-Dirty Harry days. I am 5'7" and I didn't come to his shoulder. He was definitely at least 6'4". And he had on golf shoes, not boots so it was all him. What really struck me however was how incredibly skinny he was.
James said on 19/Jul/11
Legit/Strong 6'4 barefoot
Legit/Strong 6'5 in shoes
Legit/Strong 6'4 barefoot
Legit/Strong 6'5 in shoes
James said on 19/Jul/11
Danimal I never said he was 6'5 but since very tall people loose more height during the day he could have measured at 6'5 out of bed or maybe 6'5.25.
A strong 6'4 he was NOT 6'5.
By the time of the Enfrocer he was between 6'3-6'4.
Danimal I never said he was 6'5 but since very tall people loose more height during the day he could have measured at 6'5 out of bed or maybe 6'5.25.
A strong 6'4 he was NOT 6'5.
By the time of the Enfrocer he was between 6'3-6'4.
James said on 19/Jul/11
He was never a proper 6'5 but he might have been 194cm. I think at peak closer to 6'4 than 6'5 for sure. 6'3 with bad posture in his prime.
He was never a proper 6'5 but he might have been 194cm. I think at peak closer to 6'4 than 6'5 for sure. 6'3 with bad posture in his prime.
Shaun said on 19/Jul/11
Click Here
If you look how high the top of his head is compared to everybody else and how high his head looks above the street in the following clip of The Enforcer to me he most certainly looks a solid 6'4". I can always tell the difference between a 6'2" guy and a 6'4" guy on screen .
Click Here
If you look how high the top of his head is compared to everybody else and how high his head looks above the street in the following clip of The Enforcer to me he most certainly looks a solid 6'4". I can always tell the difference between a 6'2" guy and a 6'4" guy on screen .
Shaun said on 19/Jul/11
Yeah I think he looked the tallest in The Enforcer in all the Dirty Harry films, followed by Magnum Force.
Yeah I think he looked the tallest in The Enforcer in all the Dirty Harry films, followed by Magnum Force.
Danimal said on 18/Jul/11
James says on 17/Jul/11
if a 1950's clint eastwood got out of bed after his best nights sleep he would measure at 6'7 in timberland shoes.
And you used to have him at 6'2" and now he's 6'5" peak?
James says on 17/Jul/11
if a 1950's clint eastwood got out of bed after his best nights sleep he would measure at 6'7 in timberland shoes.
And you used to have him at 6'2" and now he's 6'5" peak?
Mark said on 18/Jul/11
At 5 inches taller, you can just see over someone's head. Yeah, Eastwood was clearly a few inches over Guardino. But a true 6'4 guy would DWARF a 5'10-ish guy. That wasn't the case. I agree with myself when I say that Eastwood was probably 6'3 to 6'3.5 on an average day (after any extra bed height went away), and I agree with Mike when he says Eastwood "over" 6'4...at any point, barefoot, is just too hard to swallow. I'm 6 foot, and know 6'5 guys. Eastwood was never, ever 6'5. 99% of all of this is speculation. But I'd bet my life on that.
At 5 inches taller, you can just see over someone's head. Yeah, Eastwood was clearly a few inches over Guardino. But a true 6'4 guy would DWARF a 5'10-ish guy. That wasn't the case. I agree with myself when I say that Eastwood was probably 6'3 to 6'3.5 on an average day (after any extra bed height went away), and I agree with Mike when he says Eastwood "over" 6'4...at any point, barefoot, is just too hard to swallow. I'm 6 foot, and know 6'5 guys. Eastwood was never, ever 6'5. 99% of all of this is speculation. But I'd bet my life on that.
James said on 18/Jul/11
Funny how in Magnum Force and Dirty Harry Clint Eastwood might have been around 194cm and yet in those films he looked shorter than he did in the enforcer. by the time of the enforcer was starting too dip below 6'4.
He seemed a solid 6'3 in Escape Alcatraz and Any Which Way you Can and even in the line of fire still looked around the 6'3 mark.
Shaun I never said he looked 6'2.5 max in the Enforcer. I thought he actually looked around a flat 6'4 in that movie even though he might have been more like 6'3 1/2 by that stage.
Funny how in Magnum Force and Dirty Harry Clint Eastwood might have been around 194cm and yet in those films he looked shorter than he did in the enforcer. by the time of the enforcer was starting too dip below 6'4.
He seemed a solid 6'3 in Escape Alcatraz and Any Which Way you Can and even in the line of fire still looked around the 6'3 mark.
Shaun I never said he looked 6'2.5 max in the Enforcer. I thought he actually looked around a flat 6'4 in that movie even though he might have been more like 6'3 1/2 by that stage.
James said on 18/Jul/11
By the time of the Enforcer probably was 192cm. he lost a good 1 inch of height throughout the 70's.
I also saw the Line of Fire last night and thought Clint Eastwood looked 6'3 (191cm) in that film. By 1995 he was 6'2 and change.
By the time of the Enforcer probably was 192cm. he lost a good 1 inch of height throughout the 70's.
I also saw the Line of Fire last night and thought Clint Eastwood looked 6'3 (191cm) in that film. By 1995 he was 6'2 and change.
James said on 18/Jul/11
1,94 meteres is not impossible for his peak
1,94 meteres is not impossible for his peak
James said on 17/Jul/11
if a 1950's clint eastwood got out of bed after his best nights sleep he would measure at 6'7 in timberland shoes.
if a 1950's clint eastwood got out of bed after his best nights sleep he would measure at 6'7 in timberland shoes.
Shaun said on 17/Jul/11
As I said the Connery vs Sutherland and Eastwood vs Sutherland is proof enough for me he was 6'4". I watched The Enforcer last night and I personally thought he looked like a legit 6'4". I know you've seen it James and said he looked 6'2.5" max but he did have 5 or 6 inches on 5'10" Harry Guardino.
As I said the Connery vs Sutherland and Eastwood vs Sutherland is proof enough for me he was 6'4". I watched The Enforcer last night and I personally thought he looked like a legit 6'4". I know you've seen it James and said he looked 6'2.5" max but he did have 5 or 6 inches on 5'10" Harry Guardino.
Terryman said on 17/Jul/11
1,93 meters is a bit generous for clint
1,93 meters is a bit generous for clint
James said on 16/Jul/11
Mike says on 15/Jul/11
We just seem to be going back and forth with the same posters, here, with an unreal trend among some towards suggesting Eastwood was even "taller" than 6'4, which, in itself is stretching it, to me. I'll be back on when some other opinions surface, perhaps with facts or photos to back them up. Eastwood was a tall skinny guy. But 6'3 to 6'3.5 is far more believable than bordering on 6'5. I don't know if some "want" him to have been that tall, or what. But that's no 6'5 guy walking around in the movies in the 60's and 70's. And shots with Eastwood and Rock Hudson are hardly in proportion, if that's cited as evidence to back up a taller Eastwood.
3-4 inches taller than 6'1 David Soul in Magnum Force, slightly taller than Donald Sutherland and for sure looked taller than 6'2 Lee Van Cleef. Could walk around shorter in his movies like 6'3 cause of his of his posture and proportions.
the guy has lost a remarkable amount of height from his peak cuase out of bed in 1973 could have measured a fraction over 6'5.
Mike says on 15/Jul/11
We just seem to be going back and forth with the same posters, here, with an unreal trend among some towards suggesting Eastwood was even "taller" than 6'4, which, in itself is stretching it, to me. I'll be back on when some other opinions surface, perhaps with facts or photos to back them up. Eastwood was a tall skinny guy. But 6'3 to 6'3.5 is far more believable than bordering on 6'5. I don't know if some "want" him to have been that tall, or what. But that's no 6'5 guy walking around in the movies in the 60's and 70's. And shots with Eastwood and Rock Hudson are hardly in proportion, if that's cited as evidence to back up a taller Eastwood.
3-4 inches taller than 6'1 David Soul in Magnum Force, slightly taller than Donald Sutherland and for sure looked taller than 6'2 Lee Van Cleef. Could walk around shorter in his movies like 6'3 cause of his of his posture and proportions.
the guy has lost a remarkable amount of height from his peak cuase out of bed in 1973 could have measured a fraction over 6'5.
Mike said on 15/Jul/11
We just seem to be going back and forth with the same posters, here, with an unreal trend among some towards suggesting Eastwood was even "taller" than 6'4, which, in itself is stretching it, to me. I'll be back on when some other opinions surface, perhaps with facts or photos to back them up. Eastwood was a tall skinny guy. But 6'3 to 6'3.5 is far more believable than bordering on 6'5. I don't know if some "want" him to have been that tall, or what. But that's no 6'5 guy walking around in the movies in the 60's and 70's. And shots with Eastwood and Rock Hudson are hardly in proportion, if that's cited as evidence to back up a taller Eastwood.
We just seem to be going back and forth with the same posters, here, with an unreal trend among some towards suggesting Eastwood was even "taller" than 6'4, which, in itself is stretching it, to me. I'll be back on when some other opinions surface, perhaps with facts or photos to back them up. Eastwood was a tall skinny guy. But 6'3 to 6'3.5 is far more believable than bordering on 6'5. I don't know if some "want" him to have been that tall, or what. But that's no 6'5 guy walking around in the movies in the 60's and 70's. And shots with Eastwood and Rock Hudson are hardly in proportion, if that's cited as evidence to back up a taller Eastwood.
James said on 15/Jul/11
I think clint was between 6'4-6'5 peak and started to loose height in the early to mid 70's.
I think clint was between 6'4-6'5 peak and started to loose height in the early to mid 70's.
Shaun said on 13/Jul/11
Eastwood was almost 12 lbs at birth. Usually babies born that weight end up being giant sized adults. Lots of the 7' basketball players are that sort of weight at birth
Eastwood was almost 12 lbs at birth. Usually babies born that weight end up being giant sized adults. Lots of the 7' basketball players are that sort of weight at birth
Gus said on 10/Jul/11
James never said Eastwood was 6'2,said he may have been 6'2.5 with bad posture,its obvious Clint wasnt 6'2,thats common sense,but definately not over 6'4,ive always thought 192cm with good posture myself.
James never said Eastwood was 6'2,said he may have been 6'2.5 with bad posture,its obvious Clint wasnt 6'2,thats common sense,but definately not over 6'4,ive always thought 192cm with good posture myself.
Mike said on 9/Jul/11
Eastwood was not ever..ever, just under 6'5. Laughable.
Eastwood was not ever..ever, just under 6'5. Laughable.
Danimal said on 8/Jul/11
James says on 6/Jul/11
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.75 (192cm)
Rock Hudson 6'5 (196cm)
So, you've gone from 6'2" peak to 6'4.25" for Eastwood?
James says on 6/Jul/11
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.75 (192cm)
Rock Hudson 6'5 (196cm)
So, you've gone from 6'2" peak to 6'4.25" for Eastwood?
James said on 8/Jul/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 7/Jul/11
James, Eastwood was never 194cm
Not impossible he was not a big amount shorter than 6'7 James Arness and nearly as tall as rock hudson. in the same photo with hudson looked more than 2 inches taller than Michael Caine.
Clint Eastwoods in some ways is like Keanu Reeves for example small head, kinda scrawy and not very wide shoulders so that is probably why he looked shorter. unlike robbins he was not broad shoulderd or big boned.
with his bad posture and build he would give of a 189-190cm illusion on screen in his early films. basicly he was a weak 6'4 1/2 guy so really virtually he was over the 6'4 193cm mark by only a very small fraction not even signifigant. Of course though he was not 195cm or 196cm.
Like Brad said "Legit/strong 6'4 guy peak"
I am off too New York for one week so looking forward to debating more with you guys when i get back :)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 7/Jul/11
James, Eastwood was never 194cm
Not impossible he was not a big amount shorter than 6'7 James Arness and nearly as tall as rock hudson. in the same photo with hudson looked more than 2 inches taller than Michael Caine.
Clint Eastwoods in some ways is like Keanu Reeves for example small head, kinda scrawy and not very wide shoulders so that is probably why he looked shorter. unlike robbins he was not broad shoulderd or big boned.
with his bad posture and build he would give of a 189-190cm illusion on screen in his early films. basicly he was a weak 6'4 1/2 guy so really virtually he was over the 6'4 193cm mark by only a very small fraction not even signifigant. Of course though he was not 195cm or 196cm.
Like Brad said "Legit/strong 6'4 guy peak"
I am off too New York for one week so looking forward to debating more with you guys when i get back :)
James said on 8/Jul/11
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 7/Jul/11
James, Eastwood was never 194cm
Not impossible he was not a big amount shorter than 6'7 James Arness and nearly as tall as rock. in the same photo with hudson looked more than 2 inches taller than Michael Caine.
Clint Eastwoods in some ways is like Keanu Reeves for example small head, kinda scrawy and not very wide shoulders so that is probably why he looked shorter.
I am off too New York for one week so looking forward to debating more with you guys when i get back :)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover says on 7/Jul/11
James, Eastwood was never 194cm
Not impossible he was not a big amount shorter than 6'7 James Arness and nearly as tall as rock. in the same photo with hudson looked more than 2 inches taller than Michael Caine.
Clint Eastwoods in some ways is like Keanu Reeves for example small head, kinda scrawy and not very wide shoulders so that is probably why he looked shorter.
I am off too New York for one week so looking forward to debating more with you guys when i get back :)
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 7/Jul/11
James, Eastwood was never 194cm
James, Eastwood was never 194cm
Mike said on 7/Jul/11
lol..Eastwood was now OVER 6'4, peak? Not in a million years.
lol..Eastwood was now OVER 6'4, peak? Not in a million years.
James said on 6/Jul/11
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.75 (192cm)
Rock Hudson 6'5 (196cm)
Clint Eastwood 6'4.25 (194cm)
Donald Sutherland 6'3.75 (192cm)
Rock Hudson 6'5 (196cm)
James said on 6/Jul/11
Yeah i agree he didn't look 6'4 but he really was though there is evidense to suppourt it. that and in the 1960's and early 70's films were not shot in the same way they are today making the actors not look taller then they really are perhaps.
Yeah i agree he didn't look 6'4 but he really was though there is evidense to suppourt it. that and in the 1960's and early 70's films were not shot in the same way they are today making the actors not look taller then they really are perhaps.
T said on 5/Jul/11
thats sheb whooley standing next to clint not fleming
thats sheb whooley standing next to clint not fleming
jtm said on 5/Jul/11
matt damon is 5'8 but i agree that eric fleming was 6'3.
matt damon is 5'8 but i agree that eric fleming was 6'3.
Terryman said on 5/Jul/11
in the pic by vegas eric fleming looks as though he could edge eastwood if he were to stand at his tallest! Again just shows that 193cm is bull for clint eastwood peak.
in the pic by vegas eric fleming looks as though he could edge eastwood if he were to stand at his tallest! Again just shows that 193cm is bull for clint eastwood peak.
Terryman said on 5/Jul/11
1,91-2 meters peak,6'4 is madness for his peak he just never ever looked over 6'3 no matter how thin he was at times!
1,91-2 meters peak,6'4 is madness for his peak he just never ever looked over 6'3 no matter how thin he was at times!
Vegas said on 4/Jul/11
photos... i watched multiple episodes and they looked the same height, look same height in this shot too Click Here
photos... i watched multiple episodes and they looked the same height, look same height in this shot too Click Here
Shaun said on 4/Jul/11
@Vegas, no Eastwood was a good inch taller than Fleming, see the photos.
@Vegas, no Eastwood was a good inch taller than Fleming, see the photos.
Shaun said on 4/Jul/11
Actually Eric Fleming was once listed as 6' on i m d b as was Matt Damon! In reality Fleming was 6'3" and Matt Damon 5'9".5"
Actually Eric Fleming was once listed as 6' on i m d b as was Matt Damon! In reality Fleming was 6'3" and Matt Damon 5'9".5"
James said on 3/Jul/11
193-194cm barefoot peak and over 6'5 in a decent pair of cow boy boots.
In the late 70's 191cm.
193-194cm barefoot peak and over 6'5 in a decent pair of cow boy boots.
In the late 70's 191cm.
Danimal said on 3/Jul/11
Shaun says on 2/Jul/11
The shower scene. I believe he was the same height as another 6'4" without clothes James.
Again, that actor has also been listed at 6'3" on i m d b, as well as 6'3". Safe to say that Clint was somewhere between those 2 heights in the late 70's.
Shaun says on 2/Jul/11
The shower scene. I believe he was the same height as another 6'4" without clothes James.
Again, that actor has also been listed at 6'3" on i m d b, as well as 6'3". Safe to say that Clint was somewhere between those 2 heights in the late 70's.
James said on 2/Jul/11
Shaun says on 2/Jul/11
The shower scene. I believe he was the same height as another 6'4" without clothes James.
wasn;t he also shorter than a 6'3 guy in the shower scene?
Danimal says on 2/Jul/11
James says on 1/Jul/11
Strong 6'4 peak
????? You went from 6'2" to strong 6'4" for his peak height?? Wow do you change your mind all the time.
I saw teh photos of him near rock hudson.
Shaun says on 2/Jul/11
The shower scene. I believe he was the same height as another 6'4" without clothes James.
wasn;t he also shorter than a 6'3 guy in the shower scene?
Danimal says on 2/Jul/11
James says on 1/Jul/11
Strong 6'4 peak
????? You went from 6'2" to strong 6'4" for his peak height?? Wow do you change your mind all the time.
I saw teh photos of him near rock hudson.
Shaun said on 2/Jul/11
The shower scene. I believe he was the same height as another 6'4" without clothes James.
The shower scene. I believe he was the same height as another 6'4" without clothes James.
James said on 2/Jul/11
Truthman says on 1/Jul/11
James
Goldblum was noticable taller than Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"
Sutherland was 2 inches taller than sean connery
Truthman says on 1/Jul/11
James
Goldblum was noticable taller than Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"
Sutherland was 2 inches taller than sean connery
Danimal said on 2/Jul/11
James says on 1/Jul/11
Strong 6'4 peak
????? You went from 6'2" to strong 6'4" for his peak height?? Wow do you change your mind all the time.
James says on 1/Jul/11
Strong 6'4 peak
????? You went from 6'2" to strong 6'4" for his peak height?? Wow do you change your mind all the time.
Danimal said on 2/Jul/11
Shaun says on 1/Jul/11
Eastwood was the same height as the 6'4" listed actor in 1979's Escape from Alcatraz.
The actor your speaking of has also been listed as 6'3".
Shaun says on 1/Jul/11
Eastwood was the same height as the 6'4" listed actor in 1979's Escape from Alcatraz.
The actor your speaking of has also been listed as 6'3".
James said on 1/Jul/11
Eastwood was 6'3 in Escape from Alcatraz. Might have looked taller becuase of the clothing he had on etc.....
Eastwood was 6'3 in Escape from Alcatraz. Might have looked taller becuase of the clothing he had on etc.....
Truthman said on 1/Jul/11
James
Goldblum was noticable taller than Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"
James
Goldblum was noticable taller than Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"
James said on 1/Jul/11
Strong 6'4 peak
Strong 6'4 peak
Shaun said on 1/Jul/11
Eastwood was the same height as the 6'4" listed actor in 1979's Escape from Alcatraz.
Eastwood was the same height as the 6'4" listed actor in 1979's Escape from Alcatraz.
Mark said on 30/Jun/11
Like Eastwood (maybe 6'4 at the extreme peak, in my opinion), most guys who I know who are 6'3 to 6'5, hunch a bit more every year. One guy, about age 57, always claimed 6'4, but between his slouch and my good posture, his 6'4 is barely over my 6 foot. If memory serves, he appeared taller 10 years ago.
Like Eastwood (maybe 6'4 at the extreme peak, in my opinion), most guys who I know who are 6'3 to 6'5, hunch a bit more every year. One guy, about age 57, always claimed 6'4, but between his slouch and my good posture, his 6'4 is barely over my 6 foot. If memory serves, he appeared taller 10 years ago.
James said on 30/Jun/11
a possibily clint shrunk from 6'4 to 6'3 between 1973-1977. a lot can happen in 4 years since its a long time.
EdgarHernandez says on 28/Jun/11
James you are 22, i am just 2 years younger(when you had 22, i still just one year yunger). but seriusly james i also surprised, what phot, fact changed your mind?
cause clint was slightly taller than donald sutherland
a possibily clint shrunk from 6'4 to 6'3 between 1973-1977. a lot can happen in 4 years since its a long time.
EdgarHernandez says on 28/Jun/11
James you are 22, i am just 2 years younger(when you had 22, i still just one year yunger). but seriusly james i also surprised, what phot, fact changed your mind?
cause clint was slightly taller than donald sutherland
James said on 30/Jun/11
EdgarHernandez says on 28/Jun/11
James you are 22, i am just 2 years younger(when you had 22, i still just one year yunger). but seriusly james i also surprised, what phot, fact changed your mind?
i am still 21 but i will be 22 in a few months.
True Lillo Thomas
Shaun Brad said on this page that in 1977 clint eastwood was 6'3. clint i think began losing height in the mid to late 70's.
EdgarHernandez says on 28/Jun/11
James you are 22, i am just 2 years younger(when you had 22, i still just one year yunger). but seriusly james i also surprised, what phot, fact changed your mind?
i am still 21 but i will be 22 in a few months.
True Lillo Thomas
Shaun Brad said on this page that in 1977 clint eastwood was 6'3. clint i think began losing height in the mid to late 70's.
lillo thomas said on 29/Jun/11
James you can spot 6-2 and 6-4 guys easy in large crowds like concerts , malls etc. 2 inches isn't a big difference . Big diference is anything over 4 inches . 6-6 6-7 guys are rare even in large crowds ; concerts malls . etc. At best I see 1 6-7 guy in malls very few times a year.
James you can spot 6-2 and 6-4 guys easy in large crowds like concerts , malls etc. 2 inches isn't a big difference . Big diference is anything over 4 inches . 6-6 6-7 guys are rare even in large crowds ; concerts malls . etc. At best I see 1 6-7 guy in malls very few times a year.
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.