Add a Comment5615 comments
Average Guess (457 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.82in (182.4cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.82in (182.4cm)
Frank2 said on 16/Aug/08
How come 5'10" Lee J. Cobb was three inches shorter than 5'11" Bill Holden in GOLDEN BOY? Then, later on when they appeared together in THE DARK PAST, they were the exact, same height. Tell me why it is that Kirk Douglas was the same height as 5'9" Tony Curtis in SPARTACUS yet Douglas at his peak was only 5'8"? Why is it that in the TV series BATMAN, 6'2" Adam West was at least five inches shorter than Alan Napier? Why is it that in A KISS BEFORE DYING (1956), 5'11" Robert Wagner was two inches taller than 6' Jeff Hunter? Then, in the 1958 film IN LOVE AND WAR, Hunter was an inch taller.
Answer:
THESE ARE MOVIES where make believe is common place. It's not real life.
I've met Ebson. He was 6'3". No doubt in my mind that he was at least four inches taller than me.
Check him out with 5'10" Dean Martin (wearing lifts) in Martin's old variety show:
Click Here
Then tell me he wasn't 6'3". Hell, he might have even been 6'4" back when he first started as a dancer in Hollywood.
Eastwood was 6'4" in his prime.
How come 5'10" Lee J. Cobb was three inches shorter than 5'11" Bill Holden in GOLDEN BOY? Then, later on when they appeared together in THE DARK PAST, they were the exact, same height. Tell me why it is that Kirk Douglas was the same height as 5'9" Tony Curtis in SPARTACUS yet Douglas at his peak was only 5'8"? Why is it that in the TV series BATMAN, 6'2" Adam West was at least five inches shorter than Alan Napier? Why is it that in A KISS BEFORE DYING (1956), 5'11" Robert Wagner was two inches taller than 6' Jeff Hunter? Then, in the 1958 film IN LOVE AND WAR, Hunter was an inch taller.
Answer:
THESE ARE MOVIES where make believe is common place. It's not real life.
I've met Ebson. He was 6'3". No doubt in my mind that he was at least four inches taller than me.
Check him out with 5'10" Dean Martin (wearing lifts) in Martin's old variety show:
Click Here
Then tell me he wasn't 6'3". Hell, he might have even been 6'4" back when he first started as a dancer in Hollywood.
Eastwood was 6'4" in his prime.
JW said on 15/Aug/08
Frank2--Since you insist that Buddy Ebsen was 6'3", how do you explain him being so much smaller than the actors that I mentioned? For your claim to be valid, Tom Lester would have to be 6'7"; Fess Parker and Alan Napier 6'8"; and James Arness 6'9".
Getting back to Clint Eastwood. On an episode of Maverick he did not appear very tall. He was slightly taller than Eric Fleming on Rawhide but that doesn't prove anything. Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height and neither of them were 6'4".
Frank2--Since you insist that Buddy Ebsen was 6'3", how do you explain him being so much smaller than the actors that I mentioned? For your claim to be valid, Tom Lester would have to be 6'7"; Fess Parker and Alan Napier 6'8"; and James Arness 6'9".
Getting back to Clint Eastwood. On an episode of Maverick he did not appear very tall. He was slightly taller than Eric Fleming on Rawhide but that doesn't prove anything. Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height and neither of them were 6'4".
Yaspaa said on 15/Aug/08
So you did measure him?
So you did measure him?
adam said on 14/Aug/08
Yes, that`s true. Eastwood surely was a legit 6-4 peak, no question about that. But John Wayne.. I dont believe he hit 6-4 in his prime.
Yes, that`s true. Eastwood surely was a legit 6-4 peak, no question about that. But John Wayne.. I dont believe he hit 6-4 in his prime.
Frank2 said on 13/Aug/08
I dion't know about Adam, but when I've seen Eastwood he's always towered over most everyone. I don't carry a tape measure with me. I go by what I see. He was tall enough that composer John Williams who's 5'10" came up to Eastwood's nose.
I dion't know about Adam, but when I've seen Eastwood he's always towered over most everyone. I don't carry a tape measure with me. I go by what I see. He was tall enough that composer John Williams who's 5'10" came up to Eastwood's nose.
Yaspaa said on 13/Aug/08
You measured him did you Adam?
You measured him did you Adam?
Frank2 said on 12/Aug/08
Well, Buddy WAS 6'3". I met him and he towered over me. Just look how tall he is next to Dean Martin on his variety show which there are clips available on youtube. Martin was 5'10", wore lifts and Ebson still towers over him.
Well, Buddy WAS 6'3". I met him and he towered over me. Just look how tall he is next to Dean Martin on his variety show which there are clips available on youtube. Martin was 5'10", wore lifts and Ebson still towers over him.
adam said on 12/Aug/08
Eastwood was a legit 6-4 prime. No doubts. He didn`t/doesn`t wear any kinds of lifts or anything like that... unlike our dear buddy, mr. Duke.
Eastwood: 6-4 to 6-4
Eastwood was a legit 6-4 prime. No doubts. He didn`t/doesn`t wear any kinds of lifts or anything like that... unlike our dear buddy, mr. Duke.
Eastwood: 6-4 to 6-4
Frank2 said on 11/Aug/08
Buddy Ebsen was 6'3". I saw him several times, once on the set of THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES. No way was he 6'1". Fess was closer to 6'6" in his prime. Met him too. Now, he's one of the nicest people, period.
Buddy Ebsen was 6'3". I saw him several times, once on the set of THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES. No way was he 6'1". Fess was closer to 6'6" in his prime. Met him too. Now, he's one of the nicest people, period.
JW said on 10/Aug/08
Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height. There is a photograph of them when they appeared on the Danny Kaye show during the 1960s. Fess Parker (6'5") is in the same picture and is a few inches taller than both of them even though he is not even standing up straight. There is no way that Clint Eastwood could have ever been 6'4". About 6'1" would be a more reasonable estimate.
Clint Eastwood and Buddy Ebsen were the same height. There is a photograph of them when they appeared on the Danny Kaye show during the 1960s. Fess Parker (6'5") is in the same picture and is a few inches taller than both of them even though he is not even standing up straight. There is no way that Clint Eastwood could have ever been 6'4". About 6'1" would be a more reasonable estimate.
Yaspaa said on 9/Aug/08
I'm going to attract more scorn here but I never like John Wayne the big lumbering oaf never instigated any excitement in me whatsoever so I won't be purchasing the book. 6'4 for Wayne though.
I'm going to attract more scorn here but I never like John Wayne the big lumbering oaf never instigated any excitement in me whatsoever so I won't be purchasing the book. 6'4 for Wayne though.
Frank2 said on 9/Aug/08
I met Clint on the Universal scoring stage when John Williams was recording his score for THE EIGER SANCTION. Clint was a tall guy. When he walked on, he towered over everyone. He was a man of few words so he only said "hello" and that was it. And I subsequently saw Eastwood at events such as the Academy Awards. Didn't speak to him there. He just walked by me and he was at least 6'3". His claim of 6'4" is not at all out of hand.
I met Clint on the Universal scoring stage when John Williams was recording his score for THE EIGER SANCTION. Clint was a tall guy. When he walked on, he towered over everyone. He was a man of few words so he only said "hello" and that was it. And I subsequently saw Eastwood at events such as the Academy Awards. Didn't speak to him there. He just walked by me and he was at least 6'3". His claim of 6'4" is not at all out of hand.
Yaspaa said on 9/Aug/08
Thanks for the welcome mike c,I predict many arguements in the future lol,but thats what I like. Now was George Kennedy 6'4 or 6'4 in shoes,all americans give their height in shoes especially movie stars so comparing Van Cleef and Kennedy is a moot point. Marvin doesn't look 6'2 with 5'10 Keenan Wynn or with Paul Newman posted earlier.
AAAA,yeah I've seen that shot but it's not convincing enough.
Thanks for the welcome mike c,I predict many arguements in the future lol,but thats what I like. Now was George Kennedy 6'4 or 6'4 in shoes,all americans give their height in shoes especially movie stars so comparing Van Cleef and Kennedy is a moot point. Marvin doesn't look 6'2 with 5'10 Keenan Wynn or with Paul Newman posted earlier.
AAAA,yeah I've seen that shot but it's not convincing enough.
Height Tracker said on 9/Aug/08
Frank2 so did you actually ever meet Clint Eastwood in person? I know you've met a lot of the stars and it would surprise me if you've never met this icon.
Frank2 so did you actually ever meet Clint Eastwood in person? I know you've met a lot of the stars and it would surprise me if you've never met this icon.
AAAA said on 8/Aug/08
Yassappa .....
A lot of his cowboy movies are hard to get good still off of. Leone was notorious for his setup of camera work, and those who follwed in directing followed suit. Simply put... he shot at stange angles for dramatic effect. FEw and far pictures exist and I have seen about 3 but they are HARD to find. And people had a tendency to shoot clint from low angles anyway. That, combined with his height made him absolutely looming in a lot of his early films. Look at Click Here
Daniels and Eastwood in 2002 "Bloodwork". Daniels has bad posture and Clint has definitly shrunk some by now. I think if they straightend out Daniels would be a bit taller. Rob has him at 6'3. Clint must have been at least 6'3 to shrink and still appear this tall in his early 70's at this point. My opinion. I know it isn't a full body shot, but their bodies look to matvh up to me from what is displayed. Hope to hear you all soon
Yassappa .....
A lot of his cowboy movies are hard to get good still off of. Leone was notorious for his setup of camera work, and those who follwed in directing followed suit. Simply put... he shot at stange angles for dramatic effect. FEw and far pictures exist and I have seen about 3 but they are HARD to find. And people had a tendency to shoot clint from low angles anyway. That, combined with his height made him absolutely looming in a lot of his early films. Look at Click Here
Daniels and Eastwood in 2002 "Bloodwork". Daniels has bad posture and Clint has definitly shrunk some by now. I think if they straightend out Daniels would be a bit taller. Rob has him at 6'3. Clint must have been at least 6'3 to shrink and still appear this tall in his early 70's at this point. My opinion. I know it isn't a full body shot, but their bodies look to matvh up to me from what is displayed. Hope to hear you all soon
Frank2 said on 8/Aug/08
Lee Marvin was most definitely 6'2". I know since I once had the pleasure of meeting him at a screening back in the mid-1970s. I looked up at him and I'm 5'11". He was at least three inches taller than me. David Carradine is now about 6' or was the last time I saw him in person which was several years ago. Don't know how tall he was when he was younger, but I suspect he was 6'1". James Mason was 5'11" in his prime and didn't appear to lose height as he got older. I saw him many times since he and my dad were good friends.
In his prime, Clint was a tall man. At least 6'3". No doubt he could have been 6'4". But these days he's lost some height. After all, he's closing in on 80.
Lee Marvin was most definitely 6'2". I know since I once had the pleasure of meeting him at a screening back in the mid-1970s. I looked up at him and I'm 5'11". He was at least three inches taller than me. David Carradine is now about 6' or was the last time I saw him in person which was several years ago. Don't know how tall he was when he was younger, but I suspect he was 6'1". James Mason was 5'11" in his prime and didn't appear to lose height as he got older. I saw him many times since he and my dad were good friends.
In his prime, Clint was a tall man. At least 6'3". No doubt he could have been 6'4". But these days he's lost some height. After all, he's closing in on 80.
mike c said on 8/Aug/08
Yaspaa. Welcome aboard. Do yourself a favor and buy The Duke, A Life in Pictures. It's loaded with vintage photos of the Duke. There's a picture of Clint with Marvin, Hudson, Wayne, Stewart, Borgnine, et.al ..clearly shows Clint's and Marvin's footwear. Tell us Marvin was never 6'2"..Clint was still at his best height....6'4"..Let us know. mike c ps. Saw a commercial with Van Cleef and George Kennedy (6'4") and Lee is about 2 inches shorter..
Yaspaa. Welcome aboard. Do yourself a favor and buy The Duke, A Life in Pictures. It's loaded with vintage photos of the Duke. There's a picture of Clint with Marvin, Hudson, Wayne, Stewart, Borgnine, et.al ..clearly shows Clint's and Marvin's footwear. Tell us Marvin was never 6'2"..Clint was still at his best height....6'4"..Let us know. mike c ps. Saw a commercial with Van Cleef and George Kennedy (6'4") and Lee is about 2 inches shorter..
Yaspaa said on 8/Aug/08
Lee Van Cleef was never 6'2,he's a smidge taller than David Carradine and 2" taller than James Mason,6'1 max. Lee Marvin was also never 6'2 more 6'0 as the pic with a 5'10 guy shows on the Marvin page.
All this so called evidence on the net I simply can't find,footwear is obscured or the angle is no good and I'll say it again,there is no way Clint was close to 6'6 in his boots.
Patrick,where are these pics you mention?,are they recent or vintage?
Lee Van Cleef was never 6'2,he's a smidge taller than David Carradine and 2" taller than James Mason,6'1 max. Lee Marvin was also never 6'2 more 6'0 as the pic with a 5'10 guy shows on the Marvin page.
All this so called evidence on the net I simply can't find,footwear is obscured or the angle is no good and I'll say it again,there is no way Clint was close to 6'6 in his boots.
Patrick,where are these pics you mention?,are they recent or vintage?
Gonzalo said on 8/Aug/08
Are you kidding, Daniel? you don
Are you kidding, Daniel? you don
Daniel said on 7/Aug/08
Who's the guy beside Clint, and how tall is he?
Who's the guy beside Clint, and how tall is he?
mike c said on 7/Aug/08
Thanks, Patrick. I missed your post....didn't scroll down enough. This post and that of Wayne are tough....it seems some people can't accept the obvious. Clint was at least 2" taller than Lee Van Cleef (6'2") in their movies yet people still insist Clint was not tall at all. That's the beauty of the internet..all the proof is there for the asking..you just have to know where to look. Take care.
Thanks, Patrick. I missed your post....didn't scroll down enough. This post and that of Wayne are tough....it seems some people can't accept the obvious. Clint was at least 2" taller than Lee Van Cleef (6'2") in their movies yet people still insist Clint was not tall at all. That's the beauty of the internet..all the proof is there for the asking..you just have to know where to look. Take care.
Patrick said on 6/Aug/08
Yes Mike C you are right...as usual!
Nobody answered about what I wrote on 18/07/08! I thought it was quite interesting yet and checkable by anyone easily!
Yes Mike C you are right...as usual!
Nobody answered about what I wrote on 18/07/08! I thought it was quite interesting yet and checkable by anyone easily!
sf said on 4/Aug/08
You are right, mike c...
You are right, mike c...
Roger said on 3/Aug/08
There are now photos of Clint actually being shorter than Arnold Schwarzenegger - Clint cannot possibly be even 6'2'' anymore, not even standing erect.
There are now photos of Clint actually being shorter than Arnold Schwarzenegger - Clint cannot possibly be even 6'2'' anymore, not even standing erect.
mike c said on 2/Aug/08
Guys, I've said twice before on this site. My grandfather was 6' when in his early twenties. He died at age 102 and was my height 5'6"..he had curvature of the spine and walked humped over. So, it's possible to lose more than 1 inch as you get older. Clint, 6'4" in prime and now 6'2" when he stands erect.mike c
Guys, I've said twice before on this site. My grandfather was 6' when in his early twenties. He died at age 102 and was my height 5'6"..he had curvature of the spine and walked humped over. So, it's possible to lose more than 1 inch as you get older. Clint, 6'4" in prime and now 6'2" when he stands erect.mike c
sf said on 30/Jul/08
No, that's an "average" height lost. Some people will lose more, and some less. Many men will lose at least a few inches, because of old age and continued lack of exercise. People don't realize how important exercise is to your height, as well. Just building muscle supports and reinforces your skeletal structure. However, Clint has exercised, but always seems to have had issues with his back/posture.
No, that's an "average" height lost. Some people will lose more, and some less. Many men will lose at least a few inches, because of old age and continued lack of exercise. People don't realize how important exercise is to your height, as well. Just building muscle supports and reinforces your skeletal structure. However, Clint has exercised, but always seems to have had issues with his back/posture.
.... said on 30/Jul/08
u only loose about an inch max throughout ur whole life, i read up about growth and losing height...
u only loose about an inch max throughout ur whole life, i read up about growth and losing height...
john mikey said on 28/Jul/08
Hi all,
this mikey.i am 87. earlier 60s i was the only personal manager for actor clint.i knew his profile very well. his height aslong as 6.1 dont waste your time.
Hi all,
this mikey.i am 87. earlier 60s i was the only personal manager for actor clint.i knew his profile very well. his height aslong as 6.1 dont waste your time.
Mazon said on 27/Jul/08
Isn't 3 inches too much for someone to lose, even in late 70's?
Isn't 3 inches too much for someone to lose, even in late 70's?
sf said on 23/Jul/08
Maz - don't know if your info is correct, but it sure backs up the video. No way is that dude 5'10".
Clint is one of the few dudes I've seen from 10 feet away, wearing tennis shoes. He was in his early 60's and 6'2" to 6'3".
Maz - don't know if your info is correct, but it sure backs up the video. No way is that dude 5'10".
Clint is one of the few dudes I've seen from 10 feet away, wearing tennis shoes. He was in his early 60's and 6'2" to 6'3".
Yaspaa said on 21/Jul/08
Phil tells porkies obviously. 5'8 for Humphrys,so in reality 5'7.5,that would make Clint 6'3,I wonder what footwear was being worn?
Phil tells porkies obviously. 5'8 for Humphrys,so in reality 5'7.5,that would make Clint 6'3,I wonder what footwear was being worn?
Maz said on 21/Jul/08
Phil: John Humphrys quoted himself at 5`8" in an interview a few years ago. Maybe that will solve the argument. Clint still looks very lanky in that film though
Phil: John Humphrys quoted himself at 5`8" in an interview a few years ago. Maybe that will solve the argument. Clint still looks very lanky in that film though
Yaspaa said on 21/Jul/08
If Clint was 6'4 he would have been close to 6'6 in his cowboy boots,come on,no way.
If Clint was 6'4 he would have been close to 6'6 in his cowboy boots,come on,no way.
sf said on 21/Jul/08
Well, he's not 5'10" in that video, that's all I can say. Not trying to be negative, but don't think the other guy is barely taller than 5'7" to 5'8". You must have seen him in his elevator shoes...
Well, he's not 5'10" in that video, that's all I can say. Not trying to be negative, but don't think the other guy is barely taller than 5'7" to 5'8". You must have seen him in his elevator shoes...
Yaspaa said on 20/Jul/08
Holy **** Height Tracker you are right,sorry my brain fart,thats 5'11-6'0 Carmen Argenziano even so however I don't see 4-5". Clint peak 6'4 in his boots. I'm going to watch a maverick episode with Clint in tonight so I may have a different opinion later. Dan Hedaya lol
Holy **** Height Tracker you are right,sorry my brain fart,thats 5'11-6'0 Carmen Argenziano even so however I don't see 4-5". Clint peak 6'4 in his boots. I'm going to watch a maverick episode with Clint in tonight so I may have a different opinion later. Dan Hedaya lol
mike c said on 19/Jul/08
I agree with Height Tracker. Rent the video for the complete cast of Sudden Impact. I don't see Dan Hedaya..maybe I'm wrong! mike c
I agree with Height Tracker. Rent the video for the complete cast of Sudden Impact. I don't see Dan Hedaya..maybe I'm wrong! mike c
Height Tracker said on 18/Jul/08
Dan Hedaya was not in Sudden Impact Yaspaa nor is he in any of your pictures.
Dan Hedaya was not in Sudden Impact Yaspaa nor is he in any of your pictures.
Phil said on 18/Jul/08
Sf: don't forget the quiff!!! It really adds to the illusion of being taller. I had a decent one when I was about 18 & it added a good 1" or so to me. How I wish I still had it & not the very bare look I now sport! Trust me, Humph is 5'10".
Sf: don't forget the quiff!!! It really adds to the illusion of being taller. I had a decent one when I was about 18 & it added a good 1" or so to me. How I wish I still had it & not the very bare look I now sport! Trust me, Humph is 5'10".
Anonymous said on 18/Jul/08
Clint towers over the guy in the interview. OK the interviewer isn't a big guy but Eastwood looks very tall. I've never really understood the debate about Clint's height in that he's always looked about 6'4''. With age he has lost some height I agree.
Clint towers over the guy in the interview. OK the interviewer isn't a big guy but Eastwood looks very tall. I've never really understood the debate about Clint's height in that he's always looked about 6'4''. With age he has lost some height I agree.
patrick said on 18/Jul/08
I still don't understand you don
I still don't understand you don
Yaspaa said on 18/Jul/08
The top of Humphrys head is just below Clint's nose,so we are talking 7-7.5 inches which would make Clint 6'5.5 plus Humphrys doesn't look to have the frame of a 5'10 guy. I respect your opinion but I'm not convinced.
The top of Humphrys head is just below Clint's nose,so we are talking 7-7.5 inches which would make Clint 6'5.5 plus Humphrys doesn't look to have the frame of a 5'10 guy. I respect your opinion but I'm not convinced.
sf said on 18/Jul/08
I'm with Yaspaa - if Clint's 6'4", the other dude's only 5'8", tops...No can trust that Jon Humprys is 5'10" in that - not even close.
I'm with Yaspaa - if Clint's 6'4", the other dude's only 5'8", tops...No can trust that Jon Humprys is 5'10" in that - not even close.
Phil said on 17/Jul/08
That must make me 6'1" and, as much I wish I was, I am not!! Remember, Clint has an "Elvis quiff" in that clip so he will look taller. Trust me, Jon Humphrys is a notch over 5'10", making Mr E 6'4".
That must make me 6'1" and, as much I wish I was, I am not!! Remember, Clint has an "Elvis quiff" in that clip so he will look taller. Trust me, Jon Humphrys is a notch over 5'10", making Mr E 6'4".
Yaspaa said on 17/Jul/08
He's not 5'10 that would put Clint closer to 6'5.
He's not 5'10 that would put Clint closer to 6'5.
mike c said on 16/Jul/08
great job, Phil! Love the interview...6'4" easily!!
great job, Phil! Love the interview...6'4" easily!!
Phil said on 15/Jul/08
Here's an interview clip from 1967 of Clint with the UK's Jon Humphrys. Check out the height difference. Jon is a shade over 5'10" & I know that is accurate as I have stood next to him & I am exactly 6'0".
The big guy is easily 6'4", end of story, all you naysayers!!
Click Here
Here's an interview clip from 1967 of Clint with the UK's Jon Humphrys. Check out the height difference. Jon is a shade over 5'10" & I know that is accurate as I have stood next to him & I am exactly 6'0".
The big guy is easily 6'4", end of story, all you naysayers!!
Click Here
Yaspaa said on 14/Jul/08
He is pictured with 5'9 (at best) Dan Hedaya,Clint just doesn't look like a 6'4 guy. It's from Sudden Impact Click Here
He is pictured with 5'9 (at best) Dan Hedaya,Clint just doesn't look like a 6'4 guy. It's from Sudden Impact Click Here
Yaspaa said on 14/Jul/08
If Tyson stood up straight there,the top of his head would be at Clint's eyeline making Clint around 4.5" taller.
If Tyson stood up straight there,the top of his head would be at Clint's eyeline making Clint around 4.5" taller.
AAAA said on 13/Jul/08
He was the same height, If not taller than Jeff Daniels in Bloodwork and Daniels is a 6'3 man. clint looked 6'4 to me in his younger days. And that pic I posted of him and Tyson together in the 80's, if Iron mike is really only 5'9.5, clint still looked 6'4 next to him then.
Here is the pic I found like 2 yrs ago. It has been posted again and again from time to time. Click Here
If tyson is only 5'9.5 Clint looks 6'4. If tyson is taller, clint looks taller
He was the same height, If not taller than Jeff Daniels in Bloodwork and Daniels is a 6'3 man. clint looked 6'4 to me in his younger days. And that pic I posted of him and Tyson together in the 80's, if Iron mike is really only 5'9.5, clint still looked 6'4 next to him then.
Here is the pic I found like 2 yrs ago. It has been posted again and again from time to time. Click Here
If tyson is only 5'9.5 Clint looks 6'4. If tyson is taller, clint looks taller
Erkki Junkkarinen said on 13/Jul/08
In For a few dollars more Clint seemed to be at least an inch taller than Lee Van Cleef, maybe even 2 inches. I'd say he was something between 6'3 and 6'4 in his prime.
In For a few dollars more Clint seemed to be at least an inch taller than Lee Van Cleef, maybe even 2 inches. I'd say he was something between 6'3 and 6'4 in his prime.
Danimal said on 11/Jul/08
Why is Glenn's pic still up?
Why is Glenn's pic still up?
Yaspaa said on 10/Jul/08
he didn't look 6.5" taller than Burt Reynolds in 'City Heat',more 4.5".
he didn't look 6.5" taller than Burt Reynolds in 'City Heat',more 4.5".
Yaspaa said on 9/Jul/08
5'0 is a very large Orangutan,they do have 8'0 arm spans though.
5'0 is a very large Orangutan,they do have 8'0 arm spans though.
adam said on 9/Jul/08
No way in hell was he ever taller or the same height as Rock Hudson who was at least 6-5.
No way in hell was he ever taller or the same height as Rock Hudson who was at least 6-5.
Brad said on 8/Jul/08
6' 4" peak. Even with massive heel, Burt Reynolds had to look up at him in '84.
6' 4" peak. Even with massive heel, Burt Reynolds had to look up at him in '84.
Yaspaa said on 7/Jul/08
You beat me to the punch there sf,he doesn't sound like he's screwing around. " Do you know who that was,Cwint Eastwood".
You beat me to the punch there sf,he doesn't sound like he's screwing around. " Do you know who that was,Cwint Eastwood".
sf said on 7/Jul/08
Now I'm starting to wonder if Ant is just plain being sarcastic and screwing with us...what do you think, Yaspaa?
Now I'm starting to wonder if Ant is just plain being sarcastic and screwing with us...what do you think, Yaspaa?
sf said on 5/Jul/08
Ant - are you joking? Those Chinese guys "mistook" Paul Hogan for Clint Eastwood because they were paid to do so, in a movie, called Crocodile Dundee. It's not real. I'd also like to see this orangutan that's 6 feet tall, especially the one in the other movie that isn't even close to 6 feet tall.
Ant - are you joking? Those Chinese guys "mistook" Paul Hogan for Clint Eastwood because they were paid to do so, in a movie, called Crocodile Dundee. It's not real. I'd also like to see this orangutan that's 6 feet tall, especially the one in the other movie that isn't even close to 6 feet tall.
clark said on 5/Jul/08
Maximum height of a male Orangutan is about five feet.
Maximum height of a male Orangutan is about five feet.
Ant said on 4/Jul/08
Apparently some chinese guys once mistook Paul Hogan for clint eastwood so Clint can't be 6ft 4!! Come on watch his films some of them are from an era when we weren't all so height obsessed and he was and is a tall man. Plus he towers over the monkey (orangutan I know) who must be at least 6ft tall!! Have you seen one of those orange blighters up close? Massive!!
Apparently some chinese guys once mistook Paul Hogan for clint eastwood so Clint can't be 6ft 4!! Come on watch his films some of them are from an era when we weren't all so height obsessed and he was and is a tall man. Plus he towers over the monkey (orangutan I know) who must be at least 6ft tall!! Have you seen one of those orange blighters up close? Massive!!
Yaspaa said on 4/Jul/08
The shot is misleading ,but we aren't talking about a single inch. Lee's heels aren't visible,lucky for you guys.
Clint is at LEAST 6'4?,come on 6'4 is absolute maximum and I doubt Clint would have wanted to look small next to Rock Hudson,there's the lifts. Gregg Henry is 5'10.5,but they made him look 6'2 om Gilmore Girls next to Edward Herrmann.
The shot is misleading ,but we aren't talking about a single inch. Lee's heels aren't visible,lucky for you guys.
Clint is at LEAST 6'4?,come on 6'4 is absolute maximum and I doubt Clint would have wanted to look small next to Rock Hudson,there's the lifts. Gregg Henry is 5'10.5,but they made him look 6'2 om Gilmore Girls next to Edward Herrmann.
Anonymous said on 4/Jul/08
Yaspaa, that phot of Lee Marvin with Paul Newman is misleading. Newman has on cowboy boots and Marvin is badly slouching to say the least. Marvin was 6'2'' without a doubt. Glenn who I believe has been barred said that he met Clint in the late 80s early 90s and he looked at least 6'4''. I've got a Clint doc on dvd in which he has a bit part in a Rock Hudson film and he is approx the same height as Hudson. Hudson was 6'4'' to 6'5''.
Yaspaa, that phot of Lee Marvin with Paul Newman is misleading. Newman has on cowboy boots and Marvin is badly slouching to say the least. Marvin was 6'2'' without a doubt. Glenn who I believe has been barred said that he met Clint in the late 80s early 90s and he looked at least 6'4''. I've got a Clint doc on dvd in which he has a bit part in a Rock Hudson film and he is approx the same height as Hudson. Hudson was 6'4'' to 6'5''.
patrick said on 4/Jul/08
Mark, If ever such pain was so easy to cure, that for sure would be the death of all the physicians of this world!
Drinking (water) helps anyway to keep you in better health but that
Mark, If ever such pain was so easy to cure, that for sure would be the death of all the physicians of this world!
Drinking (water) helps anyway to keep you in better health but that
Yaspaa said on 3/Jul/08
Mark,just make sure you eat correctly and you will reach your maximum height.
Mark,just make sure you eat correctly and you will reach your maximum height.
Mark said on 2/Jul/08
"I repeat that inter vertebrae
"I repeat that inter vertebrae
Yaspaa said on 2/Jul/08
Patrick ,you know me,I just like to argue.
Patrick ,you know me,I just like to argue.
Jason said on 1/Jul/08
I don't think he was 6'4'', either, but I could certainly buy 6'3''.
I don't think he was 6'4'', either, but I could certainly buy 6'3''.
patrick said on 1/Jul/08
Yaspaa, for once my opinion really diverges from yours ; I
Yaspaa, for once my opinion really diverges from yours ; I
Yaspaa said on 1/Jul/08
6'2 my arse.
6'2 my arse.
Yaspaa said on 30/Jun/08
Lee Marvin was never anywhere near 6'2 Click Here doesn't look it next to Paul Newman,Marvin was probably 6'0.
Lee Marvin was never anywhere near 6'2 Click Here doesn't look it next to Paul Newman,Marvin was probably 6'0.
Anonymous said on 30/Jun/08
He's nearly 80 so it's not surprising he's a lot smaller than in his prime. Look at Paint Your Wagon. Eastwood is definitely taller than Lee Marvin and Marvin was a legit 6'2'' plus.
He's nearly 80 so it's not surprising he's a lot smaller than in his prime. Look at Paint Your Wagon. Eastwood is definitely taller than Lee Marvin and Marvin was a legit 6'2'' plus.
Yaspaa said on 29/Jun/08
I'm going to stick my neck out here,hung drawn and quartered I may be, yet I feel the yearning to voice my doubt over Clint's 6'4 height. He always looked like a 6'2 guy to me. If you think of Dolph Lundgren,Clint never had that very very tall look about him. He is still capable of good posture and is able to stand up straight. Where has the height gone? He has lost an inch at most. Bring it on!
I'm going to stick my neck out here,hung drawn and quartered I may be, yet I feel the yearning to voice my doubt over Clint's 6'4 height. He always looked like a 6'2 guy to me. If you think of Dolph Lundgren,Clint never had that very very tall look about him. He is still capable of good posture and is able to stand up straight. Where has the height gone? He has lost an inch at most. Bring it on!
Joe said on 26/Jun/08
how can he lose 3 inches? he's not a hulk hogan.
how can he lose 3 inches? he's not a hulk hogan.
Danimal said on 26/Jun/08
Going to miss ya Glenn! Been on this site even before you came around, but you were always fun and patient. Hope you still post every now and then!
Going to miss ya Glenn! Been on this site even before you came around, but you were always fun and patient. Hope you still post every now and then!
glenn said on 24/Jun/08
danimal-im surprised you didnt know i have a crystal ball.
danimal-im surprised you didnt know i have a crystal ball.
Ant said on 23/Jun/08
Whats he like Glenn? I always imagined him to be pretty cool. Any one who doubts his 6ft 4 height watch Dirty Harry or Paint Your wagon. he was a big fellah, even then he had rounded shoulders and slight curvature of his back. Similar in build to Hugh Jackman but Jackmans posture is better, different era but both tall well built men. Makes me sick lol
Whats he like Glenn? I always imagined him to be pretty cool. Any one who doubts his 6ft 4 height watch Dirty Harry or Paint Your wagon. he was a big fellah, even then he had rounded shoulders and slight curvature of his back. Similar in build to Hugh Jackman but Jackmans posture is better, different era but both tall well built men. Makes me sick lol
Robroy said on 23/Jun/08
I read years ago in the 80s that Clint was 6'4". I understand what you're saying about Eli Wallach, but it's common practice in movies to shoot from altered angles to make actors look taller, or use mechanical devices (heels, raised flooring, etc.,) to make two actors with divergent heights appear closer, in most cases to be able to fit them into scenes together. As for back issues, I was 6'2" all of my adult life, until 5 years ago when I had a vertebra fused. I lost a full inch in height, now having to stretch pretty hard on a good day just to hit 6'1". This is VERY common for people with severe back problems.
I read years ago in the 80s that Clint was 6'4". I understand what you're saying about Eli Wallach, but it's common practice in movies to shoot from altered angles to make actors look taller, or use mechanical devices (heels, raised flooring, etc.,) to make two actors with divergent heights appear closer, in most cases to be able to fit them into scenes together. As for back issues, I was 6'2" all of my adult life, until 5 years ago when I had a vertebra fused. I lost a full inch in height, now having to stretch pretty hard on a good day just to hit 6'1". This is VERY common for people with severe back problems.
Danimal said on 23/Jun/08
miko says on 30/May/08
Glenn is below 6"0 barefoot possible now? Or possible in the future?
Let me get this straight. You're asking Glenn (who of course is a licensed doctor/fortune teller), to predict whether Clint will lose even more height?
miko says on 30/May/08
Glenn is below 6"0 barefoot possible now? Or possible in the future?
Let me get this straight. You're asking Glenn (who of course is a licensed doctor/fortune teller), to predict whether Clint will lose even more height?
patrick said on 23/Jun/08
Dear Gonzalo, once more, you're absloutely right: Clint looks and is clearly taller by about 2 inches than Lee Van Cleef.I complain those who cannot see that! He wore cow boy boots? Yes...as all of the others!
Dear Gonzalo, once more, you're absloutely right: Clint looks and is clearly taller by about 2 inches than Lee Van Cleef.I complain those who cannot see that! He wore cow boy boots? Yes...as all of the others!
Gonzalo said on 18/Jun/08
Mark, Eastwood looked 4-5 cms taller than Van Cleef in Leone
Mark, Eastwood looked 4-5 cms taller than Van Cleef in Leone
glenn said on 17/Jun/08
he was 6-4.enough bull.
he was 6-4.enough bull.
Mark said on 12/Jun/08
I'm not convinced that Clint was ever 6'4 at his peak. He certainly didn't look a whopping 9 inches taller then 5'7 Eli Wallach in "The Good the Bad and the Ugly." Likewise I didn't notice much difference between him and 6'2 Lee Van Cleef. Also I find it hard to believe someone could lose 3 inches in height through age unless through major spinal deformation or severe hunchback. In the picture above however his posture seems quite solid and straight for a man in his 70's. My guess is that Clint Eastwood's current height is around 6'1, and peak height was around 6'2 1/2.
I'm not convinced that Clint was ever 6'4 at his peak. He certainly didn't look a whopping 9 inches taller then 5'7 Eli Wallach in "The Good the Bad and the Ugly." Likewise I didn't notice much difference between him and 6'2 Lee Van Cleef. Also I find it hard to believe someone could lose 3 inches in height through age unless through major spinal deformation or severe hunchback. In the picture above however his posture seems quite solid and straight for a man in his 70's. My guess is that Clint Eastwood's current height is around 6'1, and peak height was around 6'2 1/2.
Daniel said on 5/Jun/08
For Clint Eastwood, 6'4'' peak and 6'+ now sounds very reasonable to me. As some of the guys said before, he looked visibly shorter than Freeman in Million Dollar Baby. Yes, I think it's possible he lost 3 inches or even a bit more. Even a not so tall guy, like US bluesman Johnny Winter (who I think wasn't less than 6 feet in his youth), looks 5'8'' nowadays at 60+ years old, because of a very bad health condition and weakness, I guess.
For Clint Eastwood, 6'4'' peak and 6'+ now sounds very reasonable to me. As some of the guys said before, he looked visibly shorter than Freeman in Million Dollar Baby. Yes, I think it's possible he lost 3 inches or even a bit more. Even a not so tall guy, like US bluesman Johnny Winter (who I think wasn't less than 6 feet in his youth), looks 5'8'' nowadays at 60+ years old, because of a very bad health condition and weakness, I guess.
patrick said on 4/Jun/08
Once more, I agree Glenn who, I remind you, saw Clint (as the others!) many times.
First Clint was never ever
Once more, I agree Glenn who, I remind you, saw Clint (as the others!) many times.
First Clint was never ever
Mike said on 3/Jun/08
Clint was 6'3.5 to 6'4.5 for his peak today 6'0.5, lost 3 inches id say
Clint was 6'3.5 to 6'4.5 for his peak today 6'0.5, lost 3 inches id say
John said on 3/Jun/08
I agree with anonymous, I think he was 6-3 tops on his prime. He was very thin so he can looks even taller than he really was. Today he looks the same height as Schwarzenegger (6-0), and 1 inch over Brad Pitt. Or he had terrible back issues.
I agree with anonymous, I think he was 6-3 tops on his prime. He was very thin so he can looks even taller than he really was. Today he looks the same height as Schwarzenegger (6-0), and 1 inch over Brad Pitt. Or he had terrible back issues.
Anonymous said on 30/May/08
i met clint 4 years go he looked 185 186 cm he migh have lost another 0.5 to 1 cm by now 6 ft 1 is not bad for a 77 years old
i met clint 4 years go he looked 185 186 cm he migh have lost another 0.5 to 1 cm by now 6 ft 1 is not bad for a 77 years old
miko said on 30/May/08
Glenn is below 6"0 barefoot possible now? Or possible in the future?
Glenn is below 6"0 barefoot possible now? Or possible in the future?
Anonymous said on 29/May/08
I dont think Clint was ever 6'4. I would say 6'3 in his Prime.
I dont think Clint was ever 6'4. I would say 6'3 in his Prime.
glenn said on 28/May/08
clint was 6-4.he is barely 6-1 now.with the illusion of 6ft.
clint was 6-4.he is barely 6-1 now.with the illusion of 6ft.
A.RAY said on 28/May/08
clint is 6'4" tall & it goes well with his personality. It is like a brand logo or symbol that is pasted with his name.
clint is 6'4" tall & it goes well with his personality. It is like a brand logo or symbol that is pasted with his name.
dmeyer said on 27/May/08
clint is no taller than 6 ft 1 in today and he looks 1.5 to 2 in taller than pitt in cannes festival pics and brad has high cut footwear 99 percent elevator wish means he dosnt even look 6 ft with elevators on that could give estimates of 5 ft 10 to 5 ft 10.5 for him
clint is no taller than 6 ft 1 in today and he looks 1.5 to 2 in taller than pitt in cannes festival pics and brad has high cut footwear 99 percent elevator wish means he dosnt even look 6 ft with elevators on that could give estimates of 5 ft 10 to 5 ft 10.5 for him
Gonzalo said on 22/May/08
I saw him yesterday in this movie with George Kennedy and they looked identical in height. Kennedy was really tall, around 1`93-94
I saw him yesterday in this movie with George Kennedy and they looked identical in height. Kennedy was really tall, around 1`93-94
Bob H. said on 19/May/08
Watched "Million Dollar Baby" last night. 77 year old Clint is now a couple inches shorter than Morgan Freeman. While no longer the tough looking guy he was, it's still great to see Clint in a movie.
Watched "Million Dollar Baby" last night. 77 year old Clint is now a couple inches shorter than Morgan Freeman. While no longer the tough looking guy he was, it's still great to see Clint in a movie.
Clark said on 16/May/08
Clint was definetly taller than David letterman in his day.
Clint was definetly taller than David letterman in his day.
Clark said on 16/May/08
Chris 175...yes people can lose a lot of height with age and illness. Rock Hudson was close to 6'5" at his peak and had lost over 3-4 inches in height with his illness. He died weighing about 120 pounds.
Chris 175...yes people can lose a lot of height with age and illness. Rock Hudson was close to 6'5" at his peak and had lost over 3-4 inches in height with his illness. He died weighing about 120 pounds.
Anonymous said on 12/May/08
James, I've got a book in which a young Clint stands next to a young Roger Moore. Clint is a fair bit taller. Moore was 6ft plus. Eastwood was about 6'4'' in his youth.
James, I've got a book in which a young Clint stands next to a young Roger Moore. Clint is a fair bit taller. Moore was 6ft plus. Eastwood was about 6'4'' in his youth.
mee said on 10/May/08
there is picture,where are brad pitt (180 cm) and Clint Eastwood posing,and brad was like one inch taller...
there is picture,where are brad pitt (180 cm) and Clint Eastwood posing,and brad was like one inch taller...
Hugh said on 10/May/08
He is 6ft1 and no less. I find that very hard to beleive thant anyone could lose 4 inches.
He is 6ft1 and no less. I find that very hard to beleive thant anyone could lose 4 inches.
clark said on 8/May/08
I will see if I can find out about height loss. It can vary with diff ethnic groups ,bone density, lifestyle, etc. But as a general rule: you can start to notice about the age of 60. The human body is a marvel of engineering, but cannot maintain that optimum physique forever. Interesting how some shorter people have a better posture even when they start to lose height.
I will see if I can find out about height loss. It can vary with diff ethnic groups ,bone density, lifestyle, etc. But as a general rule: you can start to notice about the age of 60. The human body is a marvel of engineering, but cannot maintain that optimum physique forever. Interesting how some shorter people have a better posture even when they start to lose height.
Anonymous said on 5/May/08
Eastwood must be well into his 70s. Give the guy a break. There's no way he can be the superb physical specimen he was in his younger days.
Eastwood must be well into his 70s. Give the guy a break. There's no way he can be the superb physical specimen he was in his younger days.
TNTinCA said on 2/May/08
I am curious: does anyone know what the statistical average height loss is for the average male? I know height loss due to age is mentioned frequently on this site and I was curious if anyone had any reference data to offer.
I am curious: does anyone know what the statistical average height loss is for the average male? I know height loss due to age is mentioned frequently on this site and I was curious if anyone had any reference data to offer.
Hugh said on 29/Apr/08
6ft1.5 maybe?
6ft1.5 maybe?
cm / inches said on 29/Apr/08
He dosn't look 185 cm at all , in that pic maybe more 178 cm !? but anyway , I wouldn' believe him was 192 cm or 193 it's ridiculus , maybe more 187 cm !!?
He dosn't look 185 cm at all , in that pic maybe more 178 cm !? but anyway , I wouldn' believe him was 192 cm or 193 it's ridiculus , maybe more 187 cm !!?
glenn said on 24/Apr/08
this is the only time i dont agree with hugh.clint is 6-1 tops now,giving the illusion of 6ft.
this is the only time i dont agree with hugh.clint is 6-1 tops now,giving the illusion of 6ft.
Ray said on 22/Apr/08
He looked less than 2 inches taller than Jay Leno (5'11")on the Space cowboys DVD extras. I'd say nowadays he's 6'1" at best. Losing 3 inches in height still amazes me though...
He looked less than 2 inches taller than Jay Leno (5'11")on the Space cowboys DVD extras. I'd say nowadays he's 6'1" at best. Losing 3 inches in height still amazes me though...
Hugh said on 21/Apr/08
I think Clint Eastwood was a solid 193cm in his youth and his now around 6ft2.
I think 6ft1 is ridiculous. And James, 6ft4 onwards is giant.
I think Clint Eastwood was a solid 193cm in his youth and his now around 6ft2.
I think 6ft1 is ridiculous. And James, 6ft4 onwards is giant.
Dollar said on 7/Apr/08
James - 6'4 is pretty giant to me at 5'7. The different between 6'6 and 6'4 is unnoticeable to us 5'10 and under crowd, and Clint was definitely considered a giant by most in his hay day when the average height of Americans was close to mine.
James - 6'4 is pretty giant to me at 5'7. The different between 6'6 and 6'4 is unnoticeable to us 5'10 and under crowd, and Clint was definitely considered a giant by most in his hay day when the average height of Americans was close to mine.
Mattiew_- said on 5/Apr/08
Clint shrunk a lot in the recent years ...
He was at least as tall if not taller than Freeman in "Unforgiven" .
Prime Clint --> 6'4
Unforgiven Clint --> around 6'3.25
Nowadays ---> about 6'0.75-6'1
Clint shrunk a lot in the recent years ...
He was at least as tall if not taller than Freeman in "Unforgiven" .
Prime Clint --> 6'4
Unforgiven Clint --> around 6'3.25
Nowadays ---> about 6'0.75-6'1
thecynther said on 4/Apr/08
easily 6'3 or 6'4 in his prime.he towers over everyone in his movies from the 60s,and more so because he had a 'twig' like figure (shoulder and waist the same width lol), which made him look even taller.cool guy.the western movies couldnt have had a better icon.
easily 6'3 or 6'4 in his prime.he towers over everyone in his movies from the 60s,and more so because he had a 'twig' like figure (shoulder and waist the same width lol), which made him look even taller.cool guy.the western movies couldnt have had a better icon.
Hugh said on 28/Mar/08
Definately 6ft4 at his peak. A giant infact. I think he's around the 6ft2 range nowadays.
Definately 6ft4 at his peak. A giant infact. I think he's around the 6ft2 range nowadays.
patrick said on 27/Mar/08
Mike c, will you be surprised if I agree with you? Kevint, "why" and what are you basing on your statement:
Mike c, will you be surprised if I agree with you? Kevint, "why" and what are you basing on your statement:
Gonzalo said on 26/Mar/08
Clint looking very similar in height to Lou Gosset Jr, listed here 1`92
Click Here
Clint looking clearly taller than Spanish opera singer Pl
Clint looking very similar in height to Lou Gosset Jr, listed here 1`92
Click Here
Clint looking clearly taller than Spanish opera singer Pl
mike c said on 25/Mar/08
Well said, Kevint, but I refer you to John Wayne, A Life in Pictures....has a full length shot of Clint and Lee Marvin (both dressed in suits and dress shoes) with Wayne, Hudson, and of course Stewart...buy the book or at least look at the photo and then we'll talk about Clint never being 6'4". Go to the Wayne page and see the album put together by my buddy Gonzalo...it has this classic photo..trust me, the discussion is over on Clint. No doubt 6'4". Mike C ps. I course you would have to know that Stewart was 6'3", Hudson was 6'5", and Wayne, at that time, was down a tad from his 6'4.5 in prime...
Well said, Kevint, but I refer you to John Wayne, A Life in Pictures....has a full length shot of Clint and Lee Marvin (both dressed in suits and dress shoes) with Wayne, Hudson, and of course Stewart...buy the book or at least look at the photo and then we'll talk about Clint never being 6'4". Go to the Wayne page and see the album put together by my buddy Gonzalo...it has this classic photo..trust me, the discussion is over on Clint. No doubt 6'4". Mike C ps. I course you would have to know that Stewart was 6'3", Hudson was 6'5", and Wayne, at that time, was down a tad from his 6'4.5 in prime...
Kevint said on 24/Mar/08
Very few actors in Hollywood have ever been 6' 4", although many have claimed that as a publicity height. In my opinion, only James Arness and Clint Walker were 6' 4" or taller, at least among real movie stars (sports stars who made movies, like Michael Jordan, being disqualified).
So I don't buy Clint as 6' 4" even in his youthful prime; most actors are well under six feet, and any actor that height would loom over most cast members, something that Eastwood rarely did.
Comparing his height to other actors who were also supposedly the same size doesn't make any difference.
I think there's less "height upgrading" in modern Hollywood but in the classic 20th century cinema, with publicists, no actor was under six feet tall and no actress was over 125 pounds.
Very few actors in Hollywood have ever been 6' 4", although many have claimed that as a publicity height. In my opinion, only James Arness and Clint Walker were 6' 4" or taller, at least among real movie stars (sports stars who made movies, like Michael Jordan, being disqualified).
So I don't buy Clint as 6' 4" even in his youthful prime; most actors are well under six feet, and any actor that height would loom over most cast members, something that Eastwood rarely did.
Comparing his height to other actors who were also supposedly the same size doesn't make any difference.
I think there's less "height upgrading" in modern Hollywood but in the classic 20th century cinema, with publicists, no actor was under six feet tall and no actress was over 125 pounds.
Jim said on 22/Mar/08
Just been watching "Joe Kidd". Clint is the same height as 6'4" Greg Walcott in several scenes on flat floors. Mr E also has 2" on 6'2" Don Stroud in one scene. He was easily 6'4" in his prime. He is very "slouchy" even then, though. Hence, his shrunke look now.
Just been watching "Joe Kidd". Clint is the same height as 6'4" Greg Walcott in several scenes on flat floors. Mr E also has 2" on 6'2" Don Stroud in one scene. He was easily 6'4" in his prime. He is very "slouchy" even then, though. Hence, his shrunke look now.
mike c said on 20/Mar/08
NO Height Tracker, but I saw and heard the interview.I'm not talking 1970, I'm talking last year, maybe a tad longer. I wish I could have recorded it, but it took me by surprise. Both he and Bill are seated...wide camera view...a blind man can see they're both around the same height. Maybe someone has it or has at least a picture of both Bill and Clint. I don't need a measuring tape to use common sense and see what's in front of me...two very tall guys, albeit Clint on the decline....respect your opinion, though.
NO Height Tracker, but I saw and heard the interview.I'm not talking 1970, I'm talking last year, maybe a tad longer. I wish I could have recorded it, but it took me by surprise. Both he and Bill are seated...wide camera view...a blind man can see they're both around the same height. Maybe someone has it or has at least a picture of both Bill and Clint. I don't need a measuring tape to use common sense and see what's in front of me...two very tall guys, albeit Clint on the decline....respect your opinion, though.
Chris175 said on 20/Mar/08
i dont think he has lost 3 inches thats rediculus, my grandad was 183cm on his army cert when he was 19 and he is no less than 180 now, people shrink yes but not by 3 inches, i think the tallest he ever made it was 6-2.5 to 6-3 and he has shrunk a bit
i dont think he has lost 3 inches thats rediculus, my grandad was 183cm on his army cert when he was 19 and he is no less than 180 now, people shrink yes but not by 3 inches, i think the tallest he ever made it was 6-2.5 to 6-3 and he has shrunk a bit
Height Tracker said on 20/Mar/08
mike c do you have the video to this interview?
mike c do you have the video to this interview?
mike c said on 19/Mar/08
Bill is 6'4" and Clint was just about his height in spite of years he has on Bill.....look at the interview when they're facing each other, albeit seated.
Bill is 6'4" and Clint was just about his height in spite of years he has on Bill.....look at the interview when they're facing each other, albeit seated.
Clark said on 16/Mar/08
Bill O Reilly--like him or not, stated that he interviwed Eastwood. And that they were about the same height. Bill O reilly is still a VERY tall man.
But that was in the late 70's!!!
Bill O Reilly--like him or not, stated that he interviwed Eastwood. And that they were about the same height. Bill O reilly is still a VERY tall man.
But that was in the late 70's!!!
Clark said on 16/Mar/08
Bill O Reilly--like him or not, stated that he interviwed Eastwood. And that they were about the same height. Bill O reilly is still a VERY tall man.
Bill O Reilly--like him or not, stated that he interviwed Eastwood. And that they were about the same height. Bill O reilly is still a VERY tall man.
miko said on 9/Mar/08
I think Clint was probably a little under 6"4 at his peak (maybe 6"3.75), but nowadays he's looking about 6"0.
I think Clint was probably a little under 6"4 at his peak (maybe 6"3.75), but nowadays he's looking about 6"0.
glenn said on 7/Mar/08
thanks patrick and james for understanding im not trying to be a dick and rule house here.my point is to keep all options open, especially those that havnt met celebs.im wrong sometimes at gauging.not on certain names though.
thanks patrick and james for understanding im not trying to be a dick and rule house here.my point is to keep all options open, especially those that havnt met celebs.im wrong sometimes at gauging.not on certain names though.
patrick said on 6/Mar/08
glenn: I understand what you try to say in all these pages and I trust you, definitely. It is not easy for you I imagine to have to defend one's point of you, you whom saw "them", while others, basing themselves upon just "their
glenn: I understand what you try to say in all these pages and I trust you, definitely. It is not easy for you I imagine to have to defend one's point of you, you whom saw "them", while others, basing themselves upon just "their
glenn said on 2/Mar/08
nothing is too high for spacey or matthew.they both 5-11.unless he had it higher.you think rob is accurate,and he is for the most part.but theres alot more mistakes on the site than a few.id say a dozen important names.but out of a thousands of names in general,thats great.as for how he estimates half inches,has my head scratching.i always got a kick out of mel gibson 5-9.5.hell,who knows,maybe he is right.
nothing is too high for spacey or matthew.they both 5-11.unless he had it higher.you think rob is accurate,and he is for the most part.but theres alot more mistakes on the site than a few.id say a dozen important names.but out of a thousands of names in general,thats great.as for how he estimates half inches,has my head scratching.i always got a kick out of mel gibson 5-9.5.hell,who knows,maybe he is right.
mike c said on 2/Mar/08
Thank you, Danimal....great video. You're right on...Clint at minimum 6'3", down a bit from 6'4"..I suspect that if he could straighten himself out, he'd be taller than McMahon. But, they do seem to be about the same height. Mike C
Thank you, Danimal....great video. You're right on...Clint at minimum 6'3", down a bit from 6'4"..I suspect that if he could straighten himself out, he'd be taller than McMahon. But, they do seem to be about the same height. Mike C
dmeyer said on 29/Feb/08
rob is increadibly accurate ,exept for very few guys like spacey and mccaunoghey they were too high at some point
rob is increadibly accurate ,exept for very few guys like spacey and mccaunoghey they were too high at some point
Danimal said on 29/Feb/08
Here's Clint in 1992 on The Tonight Show standing up next to 6'2" Dave Letterman and an aging 6'3.5" Ed McMahon. Clint was still at least 6'3" at this stage and what appeared to be in GREAT physical shape: Click Here
Here's Clint in 1992 on The Tonight Show standing up next to 6'2" Dave Letterman and an aging 6'3.5" Ed McMahon. Clint was still at least 6'3" at this stage and what appeared to be in GREAT physical shape: Click Here
glenn said on 28/Feb/08
rob does what he wants.6-1 for clint isnt as inaccurate as other listings here.the very few that is.rob does good overall.
rob does what he wants.6-1 for clint isnt as inaccurate as other listings here.the very few that is.rob does good overall.
Jake Is Back said on 28/Feb/08
Its hard to picture a man who was once 6'4" looking up to Brad Pitt. Maybe this is actually the case with Eastwood, but he looks 5'11", 6' tops next to Pitt and Jolie.
Its hard to picture a man who was once 6'4" looking up to Brad Pitt. Maybe this is actually the case with Eastwood, but he looks 5'11", 6' tops next to Pitt and Jolie.
glenn said on 27/Feb/08
ive been saying clint was 6ft for the last 5 years, for ages.
ive been saying clint was 6ft for the last 5 years, for ages.
patrick said on 25/Feb/08
For those who doubt how "shrunk" a man can get because of age, back problem etc.: have you recently seen Jerry Lewis? He was indeed, far shorter than Clint but not short at all and arguably taller than Dean Martin. (The latter had to wear some kind of lifts to look as tall or taller). Now, Jerry Lewis is most probably less than 5
For those who doubt how "shrunk" a man can get because of age, back problem etc.: have you recently seen Jerry Lewis? He was indeed, far shorter than Clint but not short at all and arguably taller than Dean Martin. (The latter had to wear some kind of lifts to look as tall or taller). Now, Jerry Lewis is most probably less than 5
Gramps said on 23/Feb/08
Danimal: you beat me to the punch! Go man!
Danimal: you beat me to the punch! Go man!
Danimal said on 23/Feb/08
Robert Vodak says on 23/Feb/08
When Clint was shooting the westerns in the 60's he was 6'3". I'm sure the cowboy boots made a big hieght difference.
And you state this as a FACT because you were his personal assistant who measured him during that era? Give me a break.
Robert Vodak says on 23/Feb/08
When Clint was shooting the westerns in the 60's he was 6'3". I'm sure the cowboy boots made a big hieght difference.
And you state this as a FACT because you were his personal assistant who measured him during that era? Give me a break.
Anonymous said on 23/Feb/08
Lee Van Cleef and Lee Marvin were over 6ft and Eastwood was visibly taller than either. Eastwood like John Wayne was about 6'4''.
Lee Van Cleef and Lee Marvin were over 6ft and Eastwood was visibly taller than either. Eastwood like John Wayne was about 6'4''.
Robert Vodak said on 23/Feb/08
When Clint was shooting the westerns in the 60's he was 6'3". I'm sure the cowboy boots made a big hieght difference.
When Clint was shooting the westerns in the 60's he was 6'3". I'm sure the cowboy boots made a big hieght difference.
Gramps said on 22/Feb/08
Tim: two thoughts: 1) Perhaps the scoliosis has taken away that 3/4". My sister has it and she had to have major surgery to straighten her spine, along with steel rods for a while; and 2) If your recent doctor visit came later in the day, your spine had probably settled some. I suppose you don't really remember now just what time of day your volleyball measurement was.
Tim: two thoughts: 1) Perhaps the scoliosis has taken away that 3/4". My sister has it and she had to have major surgery to straighten her spine, along with steel rods for a while; and 2) If your recent doctor visit came later in the day, your spine had probably settled some. I suppose you don't really remember now just what time of day your volleyball measurement was.
tim said on 21/Feb/08
when i was 18 i was marked at exactly 6'4 3/4 in the doctors office for a physical required for highschool volleyball. 6'5 was an assumption of others and myself. i have had lower back problems and scoliosis since the age of 16. 3 months ago i was measured at 6'4 flat at the doctors office for another physical for a job. BUT i completely understand your doubt.
when i was 18 i was marked at exactly 6'4 3/4 in the doctors office for a physical required for highschool volleyball. 6'5 was an assumption of others and myself. i have had lower back problems and scoliosis since the age of 16. 3 months ago i was measured at 6'4 flat at the doctors office for another physical for a job. BUT i completely understand your doubt.
TNTinCA said on 21/Feb/08
Is it possible Clint had some vertebrae fused or something? A loss of height of that magnitude is usually not attributed to simply age. 3 inches?
And I don't think his 6'4" height at his peak is inaccurate. He ALWAYS looked that tall in his movies.
Is it possible Clint had some vertebrae fused or something? A loss of height of that magnitude is usually not attributed to simply age. 3 inches?
And I don't think his 6'4" height at his peak is inaccurate. He ALWAYS looked that tall in his movies.
G-MANN said on 21/Feb/08
Perhaps Tim overestimated his height when he was younger. People don't normally lose height that young, unless something is wrong with them.
Perhaps Tim overestimated his height when he was younger. People don't normally lose height that young, unless something is wrong with them.
Gramps said on 21/Feb/08
Tim: Wow! Losing an inch by age 33 is VERY unusual barring medical issues. I would venture a guess that one of the two measurements was performed incorrectly, and maybe both. Unless you yourself have specifically noticed getting that much shorter (like versus a brother or best friend), I can't believe you could have lost an inch. I turned 60 last year and have lost no more than 1/4 inch, despite 40 years of lower back problems. I'm not doubting YOU, just the underlying facts.
Tim: Wow! Losing an inch by age 33 is VERY unusual barring medical issues. I would venture a guess that one of the two measurements was performed incorrectly, and maybe both. Unless you yourself have specifically noticed getting that much shorter (like versus a brother or best friend), I can't believe you could have lost an inch. I turned 60 last year and have lost no more than 1/4 inch, despite 40 years of lower back problems. I'm not doubting YOU, just the underlying facts.
tim said on 21/Feb/08
i agree with patrick, clint stands at least 2 or 3 inches taller than the 6'2 don stroud. Unfortainly he is wearing cowboy boots the entire movie which can add at least 2 or 3 inches. I say clint is 6'4 in this movie.
I reached the height of 6'5 at the age of 19, and i am now right at 6'4 at the age of 33. Although i am not exactly sure when i came down one inch.
i agree with patrick, clint stands at least 2 or 3 inches taller than the 6'2 don stroud. Unfortainly he is wearing cowboy boots the entire movie which can add at least 2 or 3 inches. I say clint is 6'4 in this movie.
I reached the height of 6'5 at the age of 19, and i am now right at 6'4 at the age of 33. Although i am not exactly sure when i came down one inch.
mike c said on 20/Feb/08
gramps, of course glenn could not possibly be referring to transexual..remember, let's keep it g fellows. Clint, just as the Duke, 6'4+ in prime. mike c
gramps, of course glenn could not possibly be referring to transexual..remember, let's keep it g fellows. Clint, just as the Duke, 6'4+ in prime. mike c
w said on 20/Feb/08
I agree with 6 ft 1, just look at Million Dollar Baby and see that he is of 1-2 inches shorter than Morgan Freeman, and I think that your peak was not more than 6 ft 3, it does not seem to have diminished much.
I agree with 6 ft 1, just look at Million Dollar Baby and see that he is of 1-2 inches shorter than Morgan Freeman, and I think that your peak was not more than 6 ft 3, it does not seem to have diminished much.
Manitobaboy said on 18/Feb/08
George H:
I believe that not everyone loses (significant) height but it is more obvious in those who are taller. Both Garner and Eastwood lived active lives and were hard on their frames.
The human spine shrinks as one gets older: anatomy and physiology 101. Whether it shrinks by an inch or four inches is going to depend on the depth of cushioning between the vertebrae and the person's original height... along with individual factors like diet and general health. Some people begin to lose height in their 60's, others not til they're 80 but everyone loses some height.
George H:
I believe that not everyone loses (significant) height but it is more obvious in those who are taller. Both Garner and Eastwood lived active lives and were hard on their frames.
The human spine shrinks as one gets older: anatomy and physiology 101. Whether it shrinks by an inch or four inches is going to depend on the depth of cushioning between the vertebrae and the person's original height... along with individual factors like diet and general health. Some people begin to lose height in their 60's, others not til they're 80 but everyone loses some height.
patrick said on 18/Feb/08
I agree Anonymous. In Coogan's bluff, the very good 6'2 Don Stroud, 13 year younger, always looks visibly more than 2 inches shorter than Clint; I would say 3 inches. As for the dead pool, Liam looks taller, that is true. I remember having been surprised!
I agree Anonymous. In Coogan's bluff, the very good 6'2 Don Stroud, 13 year younger, always looks visibly more than 2 inches shorter than Clint; I would say 3 inches. As for the dead pool, Liam looks taller, that is true. I remember having been surprised!
Anonymous said on 18/Feb/08
TJ I agree. Eastwood was slightly shorter than Neeson in the Dead Pool. I don't know why there is any argument about Estwood's height though. Until the last few year he has always looked about 6'4''. I mean it's not like Arnie where sometimes he looks tall and other times not so tall. Clint always appeared tall.
TJ I agree. Eastwood was slightly shorter than Neeson in the Dead Pool. I don't know why there is any argument about Estwood's height though. Until the last few year he has always looked about 6'4''. I mean it's not like Arnie where sometimes he looks tall and other times not so tall. Clint always appeared tall.
Anonymous said on 17/Feb/08
Hey Glenn. Been busy with other "stuff."
Hey Glenn. Been busy with other "stuff."
TJ said on 17/Feb/08
Er, I meant slouch a little in shots, not in shorts :-)
Er, I meant slouch a little in shots, not in shorts :-)
TJ said on 16/Feb/08
He didn't look taller than Liam Neeson in the Dead Pool. If anything, he looked the same or slightly shorter. In any case, I remember an interview from the time where Neeson said he had been asked to slouch a little in shorts to ensure the hero of the movie wasn't shorter.
He didn't look taller than Liam Neeson in the Dead Pool. If anything, he looked the same or slightly shorter. In any case, I remember an interview from the time where Neeson said he had been asked to slouch a little in shorts to ensure the hero of the movie wasn't shorter.
Mark D. said on 15/Feb/08
Definitely shorter now than Liam Neeson, he probably had lifts on or they
put him up on an incline to not look that much shorter, I would estimate.
Definitely shorter now than Liam Neeson, he probably had lifts on or they
put him up on an incline to not look that much shorter, I would estimate.
patrick said on 15/Feb/08
Do agree with you monik!
Do agree with you monik!
JOSH said on 15/Feb/08
He still looked a touch taller than 6ft 4 liam neeson in the dead pool and he was nearly 60 then. So when he was younger he was over 6ft 4 but now not as tall but still over 6feet.
He still looked a touch taller than 6ft 4 liam neeson in the dead pool and he was nearly 60 then. So when he was younger he was over 6ft 4 but now not as tall but still over 6feet.
monik said on 14/Feb/08
he looks as mario brega in the westerns 1.93 he was very tall he was the best actor and most handsome ever men in the world
he looks as mario brega in the westerns 1.93 he was very tall he was the best actor and most handsome ever men in the world
patrick said on 12/Feb/08
He certainly have George H.
When much younger, it was visible his
He certainly have George H.
When much younger, it was visible his
George H. said on 11/Feb/08
Manitobaboy, not everybody shrinks as they get older. I know plenty of older guys in real life, the oldest one reached the awesome age of 93, who barely
lost 1 inch over the course of their lives. Eastwood may have some medical condition or injury effects that caused his relatively big height loss.
Manitobaboy, not everybody shrinks as they get older. I know plenty of older guys in real life, the oldest one reached the awesome age of 93, who barely
lost 1 inch over the course of their lives. Eastwood may have some medical condition or injury effects that caused his relatively big height loss.
patrick said on 11/Feb/08
Hello mike (c)! Happy to find you here too and, once more, sharing with Glenn and many others, the 6'4 Clint's height at least until nineties.
It is obvious Clint has lost a lot of height while that not being so visible, I mean in his posture, his way of walking etc.
To tell the truth, I barely had noticed he had shrunk in space cow boys though having seen he was shorter than Donald Sutherland.
He nevertheless looked at the time, not that shorter than the
Hello mike (c)! Happy to find you here too and, once more, sharing with Glenn and many others, the 6'4 Clint's height at least until nineties.
It is obvious Clint has lost a lot of height while that not being so visible, I mean in his posture, his way of walking etc.
To tell the truth, I barely had noticed he had shrunk in space cow boys though having seen he was shorter than Donald Sutherland.
He nevertheless looked at the time, not that shorter than the
glenn said on 10/Feb/08
how ya been gramps? i hear you mike c."dont talk,shoot".
how ya been gramps? i hear you mike c."dont talk,shoot".
Gramps said on 10/Feb/08
Absolutely 6'4" back in the day.
Absolutely 6'4" back in the day.
m.caez said on 9/Feb/08
Glenn, you can lead a horse to water, but....you know. Clint 6'4" without a doubt...mike c
Glenn, you can lead a horse to water, but....you know. Clint 6'4" without a doubt...mike c
Ivan 6'2.25 said on 6/Feb/08
maybe 6'3 at his peak, losing 3 inches is enormous normaly is 1 inches.
maybe 6'3 at his peak, losing 3 inches is enormous normaly is 1 inches.
Manitobaboy said on 3/Feb/08
The taller you are, the more likely you will lose significant height as the cushioned spaces between your vertebrae will shrink more. Clint, James Garner, Jimmy Stewart - all tall guys who shrank a lot. My father was a hair over 6'1" for most of his adult life - he died at 80 and was barely 5'11".
The taller you are, the more likely you will lose significant height as the cushioned spaces between your vertebrae will shrink more. Clint, James Garner, Jimmy Stewart - all tall guys who shrank a lot. My father was a hair over 6'1" for most of his adult life - he died at 80 and was barely 5'11".
miko said on 3/Feb/08
Rob, it is possible Cliff could ever drop below 6"0?
Rob, it is possible Cliff could ever drop below 6"0?
john said on 31/Jan/08
max: 6-1, min:6-0
max: 6-1, min:6-0
glenn said on 7/Jan/08
he seems 6ft to me and looks that in my friends pics too. a 6-1 friend at that.but most people agree and see 6-1.i understand 6ft is an illusion i guess.
he seems 6ft to me and looks that in my friends pics too. a 6-1 friend at that.but most people agree and see 6-1.i understand 6ft is an illusion i guess.
dmeyer said on 7/Jan/08
glenn are you sure you saw clint 6'0 flat since i saw him at 6'1
glenn are you sure you saw clint 6'0 flat since i saw him at 6'1
glenn said on 7/Jan/08
well i saw him 6-4 in the early 90s and 6ft in the last 4 years.i never knew age can shrink someone like that,but it did.its real.im glad i saw the tall eastwood.cause i would doubt now.
well i saw him 6-4 in the early 90s and 6ft in the last 4 years.i never knew age can shrink someone like that,but it did.its real.im glad i saw the tall eastwood.cause i would doubt now.
Viper said on 7/Jan/08
Eastwood is the far exception to the rule by far.
Eastwood is the far exception to the rule by far.
VierMae said on 6/Jan/08
It's unbelievable: from 6'4 to 6'1 but both heights I'm sure are accurate...the fact is how it is possible??I mean I'm 18 and a solid 6' foot and don't want to become 5'9 at the age of 65
It's unbelievable: from 6'4 to 6'1 but both heights I'm sure are accurate...the fact is how it is possible??I mean I'm 18 and a solid 6' foot and don't want to become 5'9 at the age of 65
glenn said on 5/Jan/08
no need for pics.he was 6-4.i witnessed it.
no need for pics.he was 6-4.i witnessed it.
Yaspaa said on 5/Jan/08
I always thought Clint was around 6'2 when he was younger . Does anyone have any pictures to prove me wrong
I always thought Clint was around 6'2 when he was younger . Does anyone have any pictures to prove me wrong
mike c said on 11/Dec/07
EK, you're having a bad hair day...do you're homework, then we'll talk. 6'4" without a doubt and I can prove it!!
EK, you're having a bad hair day...do you're homework, then we'll talk. 6'4" without a doubt and I can prove it!!
Anonymous said on 11/Dec/07
Kyle looks about 2 inches taller than his father in the photo. I've read they are both 6'4''. This would tally with Clint's documented height loss. I don' doubt that Clint was about 6'4'' when young. He always looked that height in old movies or photos.
Kyle looks about 2 inches taller than his father in the photo. I've read they are both 6'4''. This would tally with Clint's documented height loss. I don' doubt that Clint was about 6'4'' when young. He always looked that height in old movies or photos.
Ejel Khan said on 11/Dec/07
Never 6'4" peak height 6'1" now he's 6'. appeared on Parkinson (UK) was an an inch taller than 5'11" Parkinson
Never 6'4" peak height 6'1" now he's 6'. appeared on Parkinson (UK) was an an inch taller than 5'11" Parkinson
AAAA said on 19/Nov/07
For those curious about his son Kyle, here is a pic from about 3 weeks ago.
Click Here
this is the best one I could find. Any thoughts, his son seems like a tall guy too.
For those curious about his son Kyle, here is a pic from about 3 weeks ago.
Click Here
this is the best one I could find. Any thoughts, his son seems like a tall guy too.
AAAA said on 18/Nov/07
I found this pic a long, time ago, before the use of tinyurl and it got delted, and someone else has posted it as well once.
Clint still looked toweringly big here with tyson and jackson
Click Here
I found this pic a long, time ago, before the use of tinyurl and it got delted, and someone else has posted it as well once.
Clint still looked toweringly big here with tyson and jackson
Click Here
Pete said on 15/Nov/07
clint is clint and always be clint. hes bigger than life. he was hansdome strong tough succesful talented etc etc. danimal, this type of men have the confidence and nothing is gonna blow it.
clint is clint and always be clint. hes bigger than life. he was hansdome strong tough succesful talented etc etc. danimal, this type of men have the confidence and nothing is gonna blow it.
sf said on 15/Nov/07
Hey Doc- I've always noticed Clint's extremly curved spine (even in earlier movies) and wondered about it. Makes sense why he could lose so much height.
Hey Doc- I've always noticed Clint's extremly curved spine (even in earlier movies) and wondered about it. Makes sense why he could lose so much height.
Dr Ed Michaels, UK said on 15/Nov/07
Hi Tubbs. Mr Eastwood could, if he "stood tall", still conceivably reach 6`3" or so. However, at the age of 77 & an almost lifelong problem of postural defects, he would find it too painful. Remember, his whole musculature has adapted to his spinal curvature over the years. The condition is certainly not as uncommon as people think. Having it for years from a young age, as Mr Eastwood clearly has, will naturaly cause problems with posture.
Hi Tubbs. Mr Eastwood could, if he "stood tall", still conceivably reach 6`3" or so. However, at the age of 77 & an almost lifelong problem of postural defects, he would find it too painful. Remember, his whole musculature has adapted to his spinal curvature over the years. The condition is certainly not as uncommon as people think. Having it for years from a young age, as Mr Eastwood clearly has, will naturaly cause problems with posture.
Danimal said on 15/Nov/07
He doesn't look 6'2" anymore. Dream on.
He doesn't look 6'2" anymore. Dream on.
tubbs said on 15/Nov/07
I doubt that he's lost 4", and I doubt someone Clint's age is that bothered about his height anymore, either way he's still a tall guy. With decent posture, considering his condition he still looks near 6'2".
I doubt that he's lost 4", and I doubt someone Clint's age is that bothered about his height anymore, either way he's still a tall guy. With decent posture, considering his condition he still looks near 6'2".
glenn said on 15/Nov/07
he is 77 years old.what does one expect in the elderly? hercules?
he is 77 years old.what does one expect in the elderly? hercules?
Danimal said on 15/Nov/07
Do you think this 4" height loss has hit the man's confidence at all? After all, he was known for his tough guy image and now he's looking like a feather can blow him over.
Do you think this 4" height loss has hit the man's confidence at all? After all, he was known for his tough guy image and now he's looking like a feather can blow him over.
tubbs said on 14/Nov/07
Curvature of the spine, scroll down and read the comments from Dr Ed Michaels, he's a back specialist, pretty informative stuff.
Curvature of the spine, scroll down and read the comments from Dr Ed Michaels, he's a back specialist, pretty informative stuff.
Anonymous said on 13/Nov/07
How did Eastwood lose 3 inches in height and go from 6"4" to 6"1" That is a BIG difference. Does anyone have an answer?
How did Eastwood lose 3 inches in height and go from 6"4" to 6"1" That is a BIG difference. Does anyone have an answer?
l0ck n l0ad said on 13/Nov/07
Does anyone know how tall his son Kyle Eastwood is?
Does anyone know how tall his son Kyle Eastwood is?
Anonymous said on 8/Nov/07
I think he was about 6'4 still in Heartbreak Ridge '85, Bo Svenson who was about 6'6+, was only about 2.5 inches taller than Mario Van Peeples than Clint was, so Clint was real close to 6'4. Also the big Swedish guy he beats up was 6'4 and Clint was all but the same height as him.
I think he was about 6'4 still in Heartbreak Ridge '85, Bo Svenson who was about 6'6+, was only about 2.5 inches taller than Mario Van Peeples than Clint was, so Clint was real close to 6'4. Also the big Swedish guy he beats up was 6'4 and Clint was all but the same height as him.
tubbs said on 8/Nov/07
I find what Dr Ed has to say very interesting. I have a friend who has the same condition as Clint with regards to scoliosis. He is a 6'1 guy ,who describes how the lower lumbar region 'collapses' on occassion, and tells me how it bends like a banana (sorry for the non technical terms) and when it does he looks around 5'11.5 at the most. However, when his back is in good shape, and he stands tall he is no doubt 6'1". My question is Dr Ed, could Clint still look 6'3", 6'4" if he stood straight, albeit in some considerable discomfort, or are there too many factors contributing to his loss of height to get up in the 6'4" region. Personally Clint still looks 6'1.5" to me.
I find what Dr Ed has to say very interesting. I have a friend who has the same condition as Clint with regards to scoliosis. He is a 6'1 guy ,who describes how the lower lumbar region 'collapses' on occassion, and tells me how it bends like a banana (sorry for the non technical terms) and when it does he looks around 5'11.5 at the most. However, when his back is in good shape, and he stands tall he is no doubt 6'1". My question is Dr Ed, could Clint still look 6'3", 6'4" if he stood straight, albeit in some considerable discomfort, or are there too many factors contributing to his loss of height to get up in the 6'4" region. Personally Clint still looks 6'1.5" to me.
sam said on 7/Nov/07
In a 1974 Playboy interview in a new book of director interviews, the journalist says Clint was 6'4" and 197 pounds.
In a 1974 Playboy interview in a new book of director interviews, the journalist says Clint was 6'4" and 197 pounds.
l0ck n l0ad said on 5/Nov/07
Watching the Dollars Trilogy films, Eastwood was between 34 - 36 years old. Take into factor that in every scene he's wearing big thick boots, he looked me somewhere between 6'3" and 6'4". I don't think he could been anything under 6'3" in his prime, not a chance.
Watching the Dollars Trilogy films, Eastwood was between 34 - 36 years old. Take into factor that in every scene he's wearing big thick boots, he looked me somewhere between 6'3" and 6'4". I don't think he could been anything under 6'3" in his prime, not a chance.
al said on 30/Oct/07
When he was young in the spaghetti westerns and the first 3 dirty harry films he looked a solid 6ft 4. He has lost a few inches of height over the years but is still over 6 feet to me.
When he was young in the spaghetti westerns and the first 3 dirty harry films he looked a solid 6ft 4. He has lost a few inches of height over the years but is still over 6 feet to me.
dmeyer said on 22/Oct/07
he looked to be solid 1.5 in unfder freeman in milion.. so 6'0.75 in he did look 185 cm range when i met him
he looked to be solid 1.5 in unfder freeman in milion.. so 6'0.75 in he did look 185 cm range when i met him
Braden.R. said on 22/Oct/07
I may be only 15 but it doesnt matter if he has lost a couple of inches really he is still about 6'2" Im only 5'8".
I may be only 15 but it doesnt matter if he has lost a couple of inches really he is still about 6'2" Im only 5'8".
George H. said on 15/Oct/07
AshnarLynx: yeah and I believe Jackie posted a couple of pictures in which Beatty was barely an inch shorter than Freeman, so by now he really is taller than Eastwood which I'm positive wasn't always the case. I think Eastwood may be one of those guys who lose about as much height as older women due to osteoporosis (sp)
AshnarLynx: yeah and I believe Jackie posted a couple of pictures in which Beatty was barely an inch shorter than Freeman, so by now he really is taller than Eastwood which I'm positive wasn't always the case. I think Eastwood may be one of those guys who lose about as much height as older women due to osteoporosis (sp)
George H. said on 15/Oct/07
AAAA: ROFLMAO you're right, Beatty's got an unusually large head, also huge hands. I checked other pictures of this event and all the tall guys (Eastwood, Reiner and Beatty) are all wearing thick soled shoes as do shorties Douglas and Crystal, but definitely no lifts like Stallone.
AAAA: ROFLMAO you're right, Beatty's got an unusually large head, also huge hands. I checked other pictures of this event and all the tall guys (Eastwood, Reiner and Beatty) are all wearing thick soled shoes as do shorties Douglas and Crystal, but definitely no lifts like Stallone.
AAAA said on 15/Oct/07
Well to be fair to clint, I think he is at the back of the half circle there, so betty may be getting some perspective boost. Beatty still looks tallish, but i still say it is mostly because of his head. The man has one sizeable noggin
Well to be fair to clint, I think he is at the back of the half circle there, so betty may be getting some perspective boost. Beatty still looks tallish, but i still say it is mostly because of his head. The man has one sizeable noggin
dmeyer said on 14/Oct/07
beatty is looking taller than 6 feet 2 rob reiner i met him 188 cm
beatty is looking taller than 6 feet 2 rob reiner i met him 188 cm
AshnarLynx said on 14/Oct/07
He has shrunk definitely. In Million Dollar Baby he looked shorter than Freeman by two inches at least. So he's probably just 6 feet now, if that's possible.
He has shrunk definitely. In Million Dollar Baby he looked shorter than Freeman by two inches at least. So he's probably just 6 feet now, if that's possible.
ed said on 13/Oct/07
clint was 6'4 but with all the back problems and getting older he has shrunk now to like 6'1.5 or 6'2 nowadays
clint was 6'4 but with all the back problems and getting older he has shrunk now to like 6'1.5 or 6'2 nowadays
Dr Ed Michaels, UK said on 13/Oct/07
Hi Catsman - The pelvis problem he appears to be suffering from will cause some shrinkage and he also has curvature of the spine. Both of these will contribute to Mr Eastwood`s significant height loss. His postural problems have been evident from his youth. If you are able to see old episodes of Rawhide it is a problem even then and it will be exacerbated by old age.
Hi Catsman - The pelvis problem he appears to be suffering from will cause some shrinkage and he also has curvature of the spine. Both of these will contribute to Mr Eastwood`s significant height loss. His postural problems have been evident from his youth. If you are able to see old episodes of Rawhide it is a problem even then and it will be exacerbated by old age.
sam said on 11/Oct/07
Warren Beatty actually looks slightly taller than Eastwood in Rob's photo, but Clint has clearly lost all those inches. Back in the 60s, I would guess that Warren would have been looking up at Clint.
Warren Beatty actually looks slightly taller than Eastwood in Rob's photo, but Clint has clearly lost all those inches. Back in the 60s, I would guess that Warren would have been looking up at Clint.
Catsman said on 9/Oct/07
Dr Ed - are you saying that the angle of the pelvis results in a curved upper spine? That is interesting. Who else have you seen with that posture?
Dr Ed - are you saying that the angle of the pelvis results in a curved upper spine? That is interesting. Who else have you seen with that posture?
patrick said on 9/Oct/07
Ed. Rob: what "Kurt" on the pic? "Kirk" yes, but Kurt...
Anyway, that feels bizarre to see them so...
I am sure what Dr Ed syas about Clint is right all th emore since because I always saw what he is talking about: scoliosis and "bad posture" du to a back problem. He pelvis is very wide and fortunately, Clint is broad shouldered or else...
He is not the same man than before for sure and that is normal! Look at my so dear Kirk Douglas! I find him great in that picture, above all considering he is 91!!!
Ed. Rob: what "Kurt" on the pic? "Kirk" yes, but Kurt...
Anyway, that feels bizarre to see them so...
I am sure what Dr Ed syas about Clint is right all th emore since because I always saw what he is talking about: scoliosis and "bad posture" du to a back problem. He pelvis is very wide and fortunately, Clint is broad shouldered or else...
He is not the same man than before for sure and that is normal! Look at my so dear Kirk Douglas! I find him great in that picture, above all considering he is 91!!!
Jim said on 8/Oct/07
He doesn't look like 185 to me..i think is more like 182/3 same height as leo d.
Editor Rob
He doesn't look like 185 to me..i think is more like 182/3 same height as leo d.
Editor Rob They dragged out all the old legends recently. Kurt is around Billy Crystal height now, Beatty looks tall there actually...Here
mike c said on 6/Oct/07
Thank you Dr. Ed...you bring intelligent discourse and facts to this debate...
Thank you Dr. Ed...you bring intelligent discourse and facts to this debate...
Dr Ed Michaels, UK said on 3/Oct/07
I added a comment on hear a few months ago about Mr Eastwood`s posture. For those newcomers, I have seen examples of his type of posture before in my role as a back specialist. Even in his younger days, you can see his pelvic girdle "leaning" or "slanting" to the right as he is standing or walking. This becomes more pronounced in his later films; for example, you can really notice it in the fims with the orang-utan, when he has his top off. Also, note the way he walks & you will clearly see this effect. This type of postural defect is a form of scoliosis and I can tell you from my experiences that this can cause a significant reduction in height. One of you mentioned Heartbreak Ridge and, funnily enough, this was on in the UK a few weeks ago. I noticed that Mr Eastwood had to "stand tall & straight" in playing a military officer and he looked close to the height of the officer played by Everett Martin who, I have read, is 6`5" tall. In his regular, everyday life, he would not be able to keep that "stand tall" posture up as it would produce some discomfort and, with his advanced years, he will clearly be shorter than in his prime by quite a surprising margin. I hope this is of interest to his fans & everyone who is contributing to this very entertaining site. Kind regards Dr Ed Michaels
I added a comment on hear a few months ago about Mr Eastwood`s posture. For those newcomers, I have seen examples of his type of posture before in my role as a back specialist. Even in his younger days, you can see his pelvic girdle "leaning" or "slanting" to the right as he is standing or walking. This becomes more pronounced in his later films; for example, you can really notice it in the fims with the orang-utan, when he has his top off. Also, note the way he walks & you will clearly see this effect. This type of postural defect is a form of scoliosis and I can tell you from my experiences that this can cause a significant reduction in height. One of you mentioned Heartbreak Ridge and, funnily enough, this was on in the UK a few weeks ago. I noticed that Mr Eastwood had to "stand tall & straight" in playing a military officer and he looked close to the height of the officer played by Everett Martin who, I have read, is 6`5" tall. In his regular, everyday life, he would not be able to keep that "stand tall" posture up as it would produce some discomfort and, with his advanced years, he will clearly be shorter than in his prime by quite a surprising margin. I hope this is of interest to his fans & everyone who is contributing to this very entertaining site. Kind regards Dr Ed Michaels
mike c said on 2/Oct/07
welcome aboard, Russ..
welcome aboard, Russ..
Russ said on 2/Oct/07
I didn't mean anything with my comment about obsession. I know it's all for fun. That's why I came back ;)
I didn't mean anything with my comment about obsession. I know it's all for fun. That's why I came back ;)
glenn said on 1/Oct/07
he was 6-4 in the early 90s.i witnessed a freakishly tall man walking about at parties and events, taller than anyone in the crowd.by far.
he was 6-4 in the early 90s.i witnessed a freakishly tall man walking about at parties and events, taller than anyone in the crowd.by far.
mike c said on 1/Oct/07
Russ, it isn't an obsession...it good clean dialogue/fun...better than all the crap that's out there. Respect your opinion.
Russ, it isn't an obsession...it good clean dialogue/fun...better than all the crap that's out there. Respect your opinion.
dmeyer said on 1/Oct/07
i agree too i aint sure he was a full 6'4 at peak more like 6'3
i agree too i aint sure he was a full 6'4 at peak more like 6'3
Height Tracker said on 1/Oct/07
I agree with Russ's 6'3" estimate. Clint always looked a tall guy in his early films but he never seemed quite the towering 6'4". 6'3" prime height fits well for him.
I agree with Russ's 6'3" estimate. Clint always looked a tall guy in his early films but he never seemed quite the towering 6'4". 6'3" prime height fits well for him.
Viper said on 1/Oct/07
You can tell sometimes that 6-4 could be a stretch, If you really know how tall 6-4 looks.
You can tell sometimes that 6-4 could be a stretch, If you really know how tall 6-4 looks.
Russ said on 30/Sep/07
It was the early 80's. Probably 1981 when I held the door open for Clint Eastwood and his gal pal. If you want to beleive that Clint was 6'4" at that time, then so be it. Maybe he was. I was 5'9" at the time and he was considerably taller than me. But, 7 inches taller? It's hard to tell at a glance. I stumbled across this site by accident. It's amusing how people can be obsessed by a person's height. Oh well. Have fun.
It was the early 80's. Probably 1981 when I held the door open for Clint Eastwood and his gal pal. If you want to beleive that Clint was 6'4" at that time, then so be it. Maybe he was. I was 5'9" at the time and he was considerably taller than me. But, 7 inches taller? It's hard to tell at a glance. I stumbled across this site by accident. It's amusing how people can be obsessed by a person's height. Oh well. Have fun.
m.caez said on 28/Sep/07
Russ, you do realize that 1 inch is the thickness of a man's thumb....how could you say that 6'4" is stretching it?
Russ, you do realize that 1 inch is the thickness of a man's thumb....how could you say that 6'4" is stretching it?
Height Tracker said on 28/Sep/07
What year was this Russ?
What year was this Russ?
Russ said on 27/Sep/07
When I was on a camping trip in California, I held the door open for Clint as he and his female companian were walking out of a sporting goods store. He was quite tall. My guess: 6' 3". 6 feet four is stretching it.
When I was on a camping trip in California, I held the door open for Clint as he and his female companian were walking out of a sporting goods store. He was quite tall. My guess: 6' 3". 6 feet four is stretching it.
mike c said on 26/Sep/07
Yes, Viper..he's lost about 1.5 inches in height. Given the age of the man, the way he holds his head with the shoulders hunched, and curvature of the spine I would say 1.5...if he were to straighten up 6'2.5"/.25" easily. I think I've said it abot three times in the last yr and a half..my grandfather was 6' in his youth..at 90, when I last saw him he was my height...5'6"...hunched over,bad curvature of the spine, etc. Just look at Clint's stance and walk in movies like Hearbreak Ridge..by the way, I think Stan is correct. Great action movie, I saw it again last night and Stan is right on the money...Viper, let's see who among the contributors has the balls to ask Clint to strip so we can get a good look at his back.....and yes, he can't help his poor posture.
Yes, Viper..he's lost about 1.5 inches in height. Given the age of the man, the way he holds his head with the shoulders hunched, and curvature of the spine I would say 1.5...if he were to straighten up 6'2.5"/.25" easily. I think I've said it abot three times in the last yr and a half..my grandfather was 6' in his youth..at 90, when I last saw him he was my height...5'6"...hunched over,bad curvature of the spine, etc. Just look at Clint's stance and walk in movies like Hearbreak Ridge..by the way, I think Stan is correct. Great action movie, I saw it again last night and Stan is right on the money...Viper, let's see who among the contributors has the balls to ask Clint to strip so we can get a good look at his back.....and yes, he can't help his poor posture.
Viper said on 26/Sep/07
So Mike, If thats the case then Clint has only lost a little over an inch in height.
So Mike, If thats the case then Clint has only lost a little over an inch in height.
stan said on 24/Sep/07
He was 6'4 in heartbreak ridge, that swede guy that he beats up in the begining was a tight end for the kc cheifs and was measured at the NFL combine at 6'3 1/2 257. When he stands right next to clint, clint is just a little taller, about a half inch. I think clint might have been pushing about 220 also.
He was 6'4 in heartbreak ridge, that swede guy that he beats up in the begining was a tight end for the kc cheifs and was measured at the NFL combine at 6'3 1/2 257. When he stands right next to clint, clint is just a little taller, about a half inch. I think clint might have been pushing about 220 also.
Bad Radio said on 22/Sep/07
wow ..he lost 3 inches..is that possible?
wow ..he lost 3 inches..is that possible?
l0ck n l0ad said on 22/Sep/07
Years ago, about 5 or 6, I read in a few articles that Eastwood was already 6 feet by the time he was 13 and fully grown to 6'4" at 15! Did anyone else hear about this? Being 6'4" at the age of 15 must have been a darn giant for his time.
Years ago, about 5 or 6, I read in a few articles that Eastwood was already 6 feet by the time he was 13 and fully grown to 6'4" at 15! Did anyone else hear about this? Being 6'4" at the age of 15 must have been a darn giant for his time.
mike c said on 5/Sep/07
AAAA, I believe that if Clint were to straighten out completely, he would be 6'2.5 at the very least. Just study pics of him with Hackman and other co-stars...I don't think he can help the poor posture....
AAAA, I believe that if Clint were to straighten out completely, he would be 6'2.5 at the very least. Just study pics of him with Hackman and other co-stars...I don't think he can help the poor posture....
AAAA said on 5/Sep/07
Thats what I meant. I wonder how much he has actually shrunk, and how much is just an old man with horrendous posture
Thats what I meant. I wonder how much he has actually shrunk, and how much is just an old man with horrendous posture
J.R. Ewing said on 4/Sep/07
Height always made Eastwood a mysterious figure in many of his films. His thin weight along with his height - good combination in his earlier films.
Height always made Eastwood a mysterious figure in many of his films. His thin weight along with his height - good combination in his earlier films.
mike c said on 28/Aug/07
AAAA, sooooo that would put CE at ~ 6'2" now or a tad taller!!!I don't think Clint is down to 6'+ now...look at your great pic.!!! Always heard SP was 6'3"+.
AAAA, sooooo that would put CE at ~ 6'2" now or a tad taller!!!I don't think Clint is down to 6'+ now...look at your great pic.!!! Always heard SP was 6'3"+.
AAAA said on 26/Aug/07
I think he is around 6'2.5-6'3. Hell he could have been 6'3 and a bit when he was younger. I thik he is pushing 80 now, so he may have lost an inch
I think he is around 6'2.5-6'3. Hell he could have been 6'3 and a bit when he was younger. I thik he is pushing 80 now, so he may have lost an inch
mike c said on 25/Aug/07
AAAA, isn't Sydney 6'3" or a tad less...?
AAAA, isn't Sydney 6'3" or a tad less...?
AAAA said on 25/Aug/07
Maybe CLint just rarley stands up straight anymore.
Still looking 6'2 in a 2007 photo with Sydney Poiteir
Click Here
Maybe CLint just rarley stands up straight anymore.
Still looking 6'2 in a 2007 photo with Sydney Poiteir
Click Here
mike c said on 19/Aug/07
Good eye, Sam! I agree. At most 1/2 of an inch....when filmed, he was on his way down a tad, heightwise..6'4" firm in his prime. Just like the Duke. mike c
Good eye, Sam! I agree. At most 1/2 of an inch....when filmed, he was on his way down a tad, heightwise..6'4" firm in his prime. Just like the Duke. mike c
JO said on 17/Aug/07
i think clint was 6ft5 when he was young.with lee van cleef or lee marvin he looks like taller...lee marvin was 190 cm
i think clint was 6ft5 when he was young.with lee van cleef or lee marvin he looks like taller...lee marvin was 190 cm
miko said on 2/Aug/07
Think he may have slipped to 6-0.5 looking a recent pictures.
Think he may have slipped to 6-0.5 looking a recent pictures.
Height Tracker said on 31/Jul/07
Yeah sam they looked very similiar in height in that movie
Yeah sam they looked very similiar in height in that movie
sam said on 31/Jul/07
Just saw about 20 minutes of The Dead Pool on TV and saw Eastwood looking at most an inch (more likely half an inch) under Liam Neeson. The height difference was imperceptible at moments.
Just saw about 20 minutes of The Dead Pool on TV and saw Eastwood looking at most an inch (more likely half an inch) under Liam Neeson. The height difference was imperceptible at moments.
JanJ said on 31/Jul/07
eastwood was in early 90's about 6'4. In 2004 he was about 6'2, now he's 6ft 1
Click Here
with 6'2 hackman [1993]
Click Here
with 6'2.5 freeman in million dollar baby [2004]
eastwood was in early 90's about 6'4. In 2004 he was about 6'2, now he's 6ft 1
Click Here
with 6'2 hackman [1993]
Click Here
with 6'2.5 freeman in million dollar baby [2004]
Mike said on 30/Jul/07
Clint looks over 6 under 6'1 with Glenn if you look at the top of their heads/ or eye levels
Clint looks over 6 under 6'1 with Glenn if you look at the top of their heads/ or eye levels
Anonymous said on 28/Jul/07
I have read you can regain lost height by using The Alexander Technique, A 77 year old woman regain the 2 inches she lost over the years by using this technique!.....something for Mr Eastwood to consider?
I have read you can regain lost height by using The Alexander Technique, A 77 year old woman regain the 2 inches she lost over the years by using this technique!.....something for Mr Eastwood to consider?
dmeyer said on 24/Jul/07
in unforgiven 15 years ago he seems similar height with freeman and hakman so 6'2ish but if he realy was 6 ft 4 then he already lost aleast 1.5 to 2 in at 62 years old wish is impressive or maybe he was 6'3.5 at peakthen in million dollar he seems 1.5 in under freeman so 6'1
in unforgiven 15 years ago he seems similar height with freeman and hakman so 6'2ish but if he realy was 6 ft 4 then he already lost aleast 1.5 to 2 in at 62 years old wish is impressive or maybe he was 6'3.5 at peakthen in million dollar he seems 1.5 in under freeman so 6'1
tubbs said on 24/Jul/07
In Magnum force he looks to have 3 maybe 4 inches on David Soul, maybe it's to do with the way it is shot, that makes other actors look taller. I have a feeling that the actors in the Dirty Harry films were mostly pretty big guys. Just check out The Dead Pool filmed in 1988, Clint in some scenes has an inch on 6'4" Neeson. In Million Dollar Baby, it did look like he had shrunk down to around the 6'1.5" region.
In Magnum force he looks to have 3 maybe 4 inches on David Soul, maybe it's to do with the way it is shot, that makes other actors look taller. I have a feeling that the actors in the Dirty Harry films were mostly pretty big guys. Just check out The Dead Pool filmed in 1988, Clint in some scenes has an inch on 6'4" Neeson. In Million Dollar Baby, it did look like he had shrunk down to around the 6'1.5" region.
mike c said on 16/Jul/07
Guys, one more time!!!! Go on the John Wayne site and look at the photos Gonzalo posted...May 21, I think. Clint is standing next to Lee Marvin (6'2")in dress shoes and a suit. Clint's more than 2" taller....Mike C
Guys, one more time!!!! Go on the John Wayne site and look at the photos Gonzalo posted...May 21, I think. Clint is standing next to Lee Marvin (6'2")in dress shoes and a suit. Clint's more than 2" taller....Mike C
Brad said on 15/Jul/07
But I thought he worked out and was about 5' 11". Hmmmm, I'll check on that.
But I thought he worked out and was about 5' 11". Hmmmm, I'll check on that.
Anonymous said on 14/Jul/07
I'm probably gonna catch hell for this but I just watched the first two Dirty Harry movies and Clint really doesn't look like a genuine 6'4 guy. He looks tall, don't get me wrong, but a real 6'4 guy usually looks like Godzilla in movies. He looks 6'2.5 or 6'3 to me. Either that or the whole cast is 6'+.
I'm probably gonna catch hell for this but I just watched the first two Dirty Harry movies and Clint really doesn't look like a genuine 6'4 guy. He looks tall, don't get me wrong, but a real 6'4 guy usually looks like Godzilla in movies. He looks 6'2.5 or 6'3 to me. Either that or the whole cast is 6'+.
Melvin said on 14/Jul/07
Stallone uses growth hormone and huge shoes.
Stallone uses growth hormone and huge shoes.
Brad said on 13/Jul/07
6' 4" for many years. In cowboy boots with Spain/Rome central casting he got away with murder in the Leone films looking really big. He cast short around himself for years.
6' 4" for many years. In cowboy boots with Spain/Rome central casting he got away with murder in the Leone films looking really big. He cast short around himself for years.
Anonymous said on 13/Jul/07
What about Stallone then? He's 60 and doesn't appear to have lost height. My guess is that Clint wasn't quite 6'4 in his prime. Probably like 6'3.5" and is maybe 6'1.5" now. I mean, losing 5 cm by the age of 77 isn't that abnormal. Especially for a tall guy.
What about Stallone then? He's 60 and doesn't appear to have lost height. My guess is that Clint wasn't quite 6'4 in his prime. Probably like 6'3.5" and is maybe 6'1.5" now. I mean, losing 5 cm by the age of 77 isn't that abnormal. Especially for a tall guy.
Melvin said on 13/Jul/07
Exactly the example I was looking for of a guy who has lifted weights his whole life and has a dowager's hump. He has had it since the 80s when he was doing those orangutan movies.
Exactly the example I was looking for of a guy who has lifted weights his whole life and has a dowager's hump. He has had it since the 80s when he was doing those orangutan movies.
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.