How tall is Clint Eastwood - Page 3

Tall In The Saddle said on 25/Jun/21
@Arch

Whoa! Redmond is only 36 yo but looks a lot older. A shame. Besides all else, he's lived a pretty hard life, including heroin use and jail time. I don't believe in people blaming their parents for what they become. At some point, you take the reins on your own life, assume responsibility and navigate your own course. I mean, the parents can reach back too and blame it on their own upbringing. Such lack of accountability would never stop and only serve to excuse negative repetition. For some, early life hardships in fact turn them into better people. Having said that, I don't think Ryan O'Neal would've ever been considered for Father of the Year. I mean, he's been estranged from most of his children at one time or another and they all seem to point to psychological scarring from their childhoods, underscored by O'Neal's chronic cheating. Ryan O'Neal always struck me as a non charitable, totally self centered, egotistical individual for whom children were a mere by product. I think both Tatum and Griffin were born to Joanna Moore who wasn't a bad looker in her day. Redmond of course was born to Farrah Fawcett who I personally didn't find particularly attractive but I know millions did and good luck to her for that. Out of the Angels, I was a Jaclyn Smith fan, she was beautiful but even she is looking a bit" not of this earth" these days. Too much knife work.

Tall In The Saddle said on 25/Jun/21
@Hong

Yeah, some photos are confusing. I don't think it just comes down to angles with a regular lens. It seems, for the sake of creativity and/or fitting in to frame, they use semi fish eye lens' or what not, creating surreal framing and presentation. Clearly, photographers and video makers are not on board with or interested in our goals to estimate height. LOL.
At least during and since UNFORGIVEN, Clint might've been shorter than Morgan. They were never framed in the above movie to allow for a realistic estimate though some still shots could make them either appear equal or give Morgan the edge.

The movie SPACE COWBOYS was replayed the other night. Interesting to see, while the actors held their position and the camera rotated, the illusory change in apparent height advantages or disadvantages. Watching the film overall, you could get a fair impression of their heights but in any given moment, if a still photo was taken or you paused the video, you could easily get a false perception. We're sort of mainly confined to still pics on this forum and we try to offer reasonably true camera views as single points in time evidence. However, I personally find live vision of reasonable duration as a better source for estimations.

Having said that, in SPACE COWBOYS, my memory had Clint notably shorter than Sutherland. Upon seeing the film again, Clint wasn't standing too badly though Sutherland did manage to out slouch Clint. No mean feat. Anyway, it seemed at different times they shared either equal advantage or disadvantage while otherwise they appeared quite comparable.

Hong said on 24/Jun/21
Click Here @Rob,yeah Here's a pic from the same event,now Morgan is taller.

Hong said on 23/Jun/21
Click Here @Rob this pic always puzzles me,at the time it was taken Morgan always seemed to have about an inch on Clint,but in this one it is reversed,I would be interested to know your opinion on this.

Arch Stanton said on 23/Jun/21
Agreed, many celebrities tend to be much better looking than their children though we tend to forget how much surgery or pampering they've had to look that good, David Beckham is a good example. Some celebs who were very good looking couples sometimes even have very average to ugly children. Ryan O'Neal and Farrah Fawcett's son Click Here looks like a carpet fitter from Pontypridd LOL.

Tall In The Saddle said on 21/Jun/21
On the flip side, sometimes the good looking genes of celebrity parents don’t necessarily pass down or combine for equally good looking offspring. Sometimes, the kids don’t even come close.

Then there are those kids born to already heavily faced lifted celebrity and parents, including perfectly tweaked noses. They might be like, “Where the hell did I get this huge proboscis from?”

Hong said on 19/Jun/21
I think the article saying he's 6ft3 was the truth.

Hong said on 17/Jun/21
@Pierre,the John Wayne pic is just not a good pic for height comparison unfortunately,but I do agree that Wayne would have been closer to 6ft4 at peak than Clint,who was more a in the 6ft3 range.

Arch Stanton said on 16/Jun/21
I wouldn't have been able to guess those were Clint's parents from a photo though. Doesn't look much like them at all. Clint's dad looks more like Bing Crosby! Some celebs I've noticed have been extremely lucky and end up much better looking than you'd expect from a set of genes.

Hong said on 16/Jun/21
@Tall In The Saddle,Yeah the perants don't seem to impressed by the whole Hollywood thing.

Pierre said on 15/Jun/21
Pics on 19/May/21 = In this famous pic Clint /John Wayne ,even if probably John stands closer to the camera than Clint you can see Clint is looking up to talk to John while John is looking down,then imo very probably John had Clint by a good inch here.John was probably in cow boy boots next to Clint but also very probably same thing next to Rock Hudson, who still loks comfortably taller than John in this pics.

James B 171.5 said on 15/Jun/21
David Beckhams parents are not the most glamorous of people either and he look how he turned out.

Weird genetics

Tall In The Saddle said on 15/Jun/21
@Hong

LOL, yeah, looks like Clint got an optimum combo of his parents features. I can’t say he looks more like either one but I can see him in both parents.. Good point re his Dad’s height. Very solid 6 footer at the least. Funny how legendary Ginger Rogers is standing at the end as if she is no one of great importance while the parents look somewhat underwhelmed standing alongside a Hollywood great. Their expressions seem to suggest a very practical, no nonsense couple.

Hong said on 15/Jun/21
Lucky Clint didn't inherit his dads ears😄,both his perants aren't exactly the most glamorous of individuals,his Dad looks very serious also he looks like a solid 6footer which was tall for his generation.

Tall In The Saddle said on 13/Jun/21
@Hong

Got to say it again. You get your hands own some great, less frequently seen photos. Clint’s dad was a very serious looking dude. LOL.

Hong said on 11/Jun/21
Click Here Here's a rare pic of Clint with his perants and Ginger Rogers.

Slim 6'1.5 said on 9/Jun/21
191-191.5 for peak 192 is too high and 190 is too low

👍

Slim 6'1.5 said on 9/Jun/21
Below 6ft current

These days he’d be 181-182

Hong said on 7/Jun/21
Click Here Clint was 73 years old in this pic with 5ft11 Sting,he looks about 6ft1.5 in comparison,he wouldn't have lost much more than a inch at that stage.

Lava said on 4/Jun/21
193.3-193.4 cm. out of bed. 191.3-191.4 cm. before bed. peak. 185 cm. out of bed. 183 cm. before bed. now.

Hong said on 2/Jun/21
Click Here Here's Santoni next to an actor named Arthur Hill,he's listed as 6ft3 on line also Lee Majors who's around 5ft11.I don't know much about Arthur Hill except he towerd Paul Newman in, I think the movie was Harper?He looked a tall guy anyway.

Hong said on 2/Jun/21
Santoni at 6ft1 puts Clint into the 6ft3 range Rob,he didn't look over 2 inches taller than Santoni.

Hong said on 31/May/21
Clint's 91 today,so happy birthday Mr Eastwood,6ft3.25 peak and now 5ft11.25,four inches lost.

Sinclair said on 31/May/21
Rob, how tall would you say Reni Santoni was?

I would say at least 6’1”, maybe 6’1.5”, he only seemed an inch or two shorter than Eastwood in Dirty Harry. And Happy 91st Birthday, Clint.

Hong said on 24/May/21
Click Here @JamesB171.5cm,Here's Clint looking a more convincing 6ft3 with Holbrook,but your right sometimes he was looking under 6ft3 particularly in walking scenes in comparison to Holbrook.

Hotspots said on 22/May/21
6-3 minimum peak. Probably 6.3.5. Now weak 6-0

Tall In The Saddle said on 22/May/21
@Hong

Oh I agree with your rationale. My core point was, at least imo, in the scene with Hudson. Clint was def. standing taller than his true height. For sure a bit player, Clint wasn’t even credited in that film so there was no deference to Clint himself or star power to speak of. I entertained two possibilities. On the outside chance they might’ve had Clint boosted just for the sake of framing. True, unlikely as Clint’s actual height would’ve had him standing sufficiently tall. Otherwise, Clint self boosted to ensure he stood near on par with an actor of even more uncommon height, something Clint wouldn’t have encountered too often.

The Wayne Eastwood photo is interesting. Taken on the set of the Shootist 1976. In that film, even in cowboy boots Wayne could appear to be edged by costar James Stewart who wore dress shoes. So Wayne def. has too much height on Clint in that photo. So yeah, cowboy boots vs Clint in flats might explain it in part but I also have a hunch that Wayne is standing on slightly raised flooring with a small step up to same, not uncommon on the era related set. Finally, Wayne is of course closer to camera and Clint’s posture is inferior.
All things equal, by 1976, given how well Stewart stood next to Wayne, I think Clint might’ve also had the edge on a height shrunken Wayne.

Hong said on 21/May/21
@Tall In The Saddle,with the greatest respect,at the time of the movie with Rock,Clint was an unknown bit player actor I doubt if they would have engineered that scene around Clint's height as to make him look similar in height to Hudson,if anything Clint may have worn bigger heeld shoe's so as to look as tall as Rock.My own opinion is even in that scene if both guy's were standing beside each other, Rock would be the taller guy,it's not a great scene for compering their heights.If anything it just demonstrates Clint was a tall guy and has indeed lost a lot of height because people are even debating weather he was the same height as Rock Hudson,the same debate now with 90 year old Clint being as tall as, say Vince Vaughan would be laughable.@Pirre,the John Wayne Clint pic is not the best for compering Clint and Wayne's height.Wayne looks to be in his full Western costume which no doubt includes cowboy boots,Clint is more than likely in flat or normal footwear,but Wayne would have edged Clint anyway,but in that pic Clint is looking around 6ft1.5 in comparison? which I doubt he was,because he looked to be a similar height difference betweent Clint and Lee Marvin in Paint Your Wagon compered to Wayne and Lee Marvin in Donovan Reef.

James B 171.5cm said on 20/May/21
Rob how tall do you think clint looks here compared to 6ft listed Hal Halbrook? Click Here

Tall In The Saddle said on 19/May/21
In respect of Clint's appearance on screen alongside Rock Hudson I think we can confidently say that is at least one time Clint's height was given a bit of boost for whatever motive(s). Clint appears nearly on par with Rock and photos otherwise suggest that was not the case. I also don't believe Clint was prone to "lifting" so I think it unlikley (though possible that one time to maintain the status quo since Clint was widely touted as 6'4" himself) that Clint appearing to be virtually the same height as Rock was driven by personal ego or such, rather, possibly just for filming aesthetics etc. and under direction.

Height_Guesser said on 19/May/21
6’ 3 1/2” (192 cm) peak and now is 5’ 11 1/2” (182 cm). A 4 inch height loss. I think Clint was at his peak height until the late 1980s. I think by the late 80s he was a little over 6’ 3” flat. By the mid 90s he was around 6’ 2 1/2” and by the late 90s he was about 6’ 2” flat. By the late 2000s he was around 6’ 3/4” and by the mid 2010s he dipped to just 6’ flat and now in 2021 is in the 5’ 11 1/2” range.

Pierre said on 19/May/21
Click Here Here is Rock Hudson next to John Wayne

Click Here = John Wayne slouching in this pic.

Click Here Click Here Clint/John

Hong said on 17/May/21
@Parker Clint did look to have the edge on Heston,and Rock at the end credits looked near 6ft5 in comparison to 6ft2 Michael caine.

Parker said on 17/May/21
@Hong

I've seen a number of interviews with Rock Hudson where he is complaining of being too tall at 6'5. I also note from a quote from an actor on his page that he (the actor) felt Rock was underplaying his height at 6'5.

Good clip you posted of the 73 Oscars on the Hudson page. I noticed Clint looking taller than Charlton Heston in that.

Hong said on 17/May/21
@Rory,Your right about Palmer,I've not researched Palmers height,I've seen a few pics of him and he looks an average sized guy to me,and of course the angel not great and Clint's posture.But your wrong I actually guessed Clint's peak as 6ft3.25,but sometimes I just think he looks under 6ft3,but in general he looks around the 6ft3 mark.

Hong said on 16/May/21
Click Here @Meltdown,do you mean this one?

Hong said on 15/May/21
@Parker Here's a pic of Clint and Rock I posted earlier,as I said befor Rock is listed from 6ft3.5 to as tall as 6ft6,if he was 6ft5 then Clint does indeed look 6ft3.5 in comparison,but IMO Rock was 6ft4.5.The Clip of Urich and Matheson,Clint looks a bit taller if those two guys were 6ft2 Clint looks about 6ft3 in comparison Click Here

Rory said on 15/May/21
@Hong

Yh but you have to understand a picture of two people walking in mid stride, at an obscure angle, on an uneven surface like grass, and with one of the men, Clint, with his head down isnt great for height comparisons to say the least. Not to mention the fact I doubt youve researched Arnold Palmers height in any detail? Look, I get the impression you think Clint was a 6ft2.75 guy peak, fair enough, I dont happen to think that. I think Clint was minimum 6ft3.25 with this 6ft3.5 listing also reasonable.

Parker said on 14/May/21
Posted before, but again at ~ 1 minute Clint and Rock Hudson
Click Here

Clint as listed IMO

Parker said on 14/May/21
I know this clip has been posted before, but clearly looking taller than 6'2 listed Robert Urich and Tim Matheson towards the end of the scene,

Click Here

@Rob - Guess doesn't allow 6'2 peak height.

Hong said on 14/May/21
@Rory I respect your opinion,but I'd guess 6ft3 max for Clint's peak,he could have measured near 6ft4 out of bed in his youth.In that pic with Arnold Palmer Clint is 45 years old,Palmer is listed 5ft10 in height,I don't even know if that's accurate,he could have been taller or shorter,but if he was 5ft10 Clint looks about 6ft2 in comparison,allowing for some discrepancies like camera angles ground level posture,Clint definitely does not look more than 6ft3.

Rory said on 13/May/21
Stop talking nonsense, Clint wasn't 6ft2 range at all. 6ft3 bare minimum.

Meltdown said on 12/May/21
I saw a picture of Clint Eastwood and Mel Gibson and he was maybe 2 inches taller. Might want to downgrade to peak 6ft 3 ½, current 5ft 11 ½.

Hong said on 12/May/21
@ Chris Robinson,I don't think the images were flawed,I think some of his fellow actors and celebs were maybe over listed? Clint wasn't a lift wearer and only wore cowboy boots in westerns.He may have been more 6ft2 to 3 range and had his hight inflated because of his image as the tall hero type.Still 6ft2 or 3 was still pretty tall for guy of his generation,probably around the equivalent of a 6ft4 guy today.

Chris Robinson said on 10/May/21
Clint was my first big childhood hero. Pictures with other actors at his peek suggest a height of around 6-3 but he seems to have lost more height with age than anyone else I know. Seeing him on chat shows and interviews I'd be pushed to suggest he's above 6 ft these days. That seems a huge loss and makes me wonder if those original images were flawed.

Hong said on 10/May/21
Click Here Here's Clint at the same event as the Kobe pic,he's with 5ft7.25 listed Christop Waltz,he's looking around 6ft in comparison.

Hong said on 7/May/21
Click Here I still can't believe that there was only 1 inch between these two guys if you compared them both at peak.Clint at 6ft3.7 and Kobe at 6ft4.75,it just seems to unbelievable.Clint was either shorter than his listed height or Kobe is 6ft6 . Here's Clint with 5ft10 listed Arnold Palmer,Clint is in his 40s and would be still at his peak,he looks 6ft2 in comparison.I think he can look 6ft3 usually,but sometimes he kinda doesn't.
Click Here

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 6/May/21
6ft3½ overall is still a safe middle ground for Clint with a fraction either side of that a distinct possibility. He had to have cleared 6ft3 but maybe didn't quite make it to the 6ft4 mark.

I agree with Arch, he was still hovering around 6ft3 in the 80's

Tall In The Saddle said on 4/May/21
@Hong

I've said it before but it drives me nuts that 43 yo Eastwood's walk in for his 1973 appearance on Carson has been edited out on YouTube.

Seriously, Carson introduces Clint and then they immediately cut to Eastwood taking his seat. If I wasn't reasonably minded I might guess that there is a conspiracy in play, as if to rob us of a quality comparisons for Clint, particularly with sidekick McMahon. I mean, there are so many other Carson clips in which the guest's full walk on, shaking of hands etc. has been included. Clint's has been "mysteriously" omitted. LOL. Certainly, Clint's later appearance on Carson in 1992 shows Clint shaking hands with McMahon and Clint is a bit shorter.

The full version must be out there and IMO it would provide a comparison just as revealing as Clint's 60s television appearance alongside Buddy Ebsen, Fess Parker and Danny Kaye. My guess is that 43 yo would only break even with McMahon at best, otherwise he would be a touch shorter.

Hong said on 14/Apr/21
Agreed Tall In The Saddle,Hudson was more 6ft4.5 not the full 6ft5,Clint looking about 1.5 inches shorter would make him 6ft3.

Tall In The Saddle said on 14/Apr/21
I see about up to 1 1/2" difference between Clint and Rock. If Rock is standing 6'5" in those photos, then I would see Clint as approximately 6'3 1/2". Otherwise, it's about 1/2" less for both guys which I tend to think is perhaps closer to the truth.

Rory said on 13/Apr/21
First picture i think Hudson looks 1 inch taller, the second picture id say he looks about 1.5 inches taller. General consensus on Hudson is that he was a 6ft4.5-5 guy.

Hong said on 13/Apr/21
Some people have Rock as 6ft4 and others 6ft5,there was a 6ft3.5 opinion out there to,even 6ft6,I myself believe he was in the 6ft4 to 6ft5 range,somewhere in the middle.In the second pic with the angle changed Clint looks a bit shorter in comparison.

Hong said on 13/Apr/21
Click Here

Rory said on 12/Apr/21
Depends how tall you have Rock Hudson at, i dont personally see much more than an inch difference there but obviously one picture alone tells us little.

Hong said on 12/Apr/21
Click Here Clint and Rock Hudson.Hudson clearly taller,Clint looks 6ft3 range in comparison to Hudson,Hudson was IMO looked around 6ft4.5.

Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Apr/21
@Hong

Nice find. It must've been written into Newman's contract, all other actors holding distinct height advantage over him being legally required to drop several inches for any photo shoots. Maybe Paul should've gunned for shorter actors like Hoffman, Pacino, etc.

Hong said on 9/Apr/21
Click Here Here Clint looks 6ft2 next to 6ft5.5 listed Ralph Moeller?It's a fairly recent pic by the look of Clint.

Hong said on 8/Apr/21
Click Here @Tall In The Saddle,Here's Newman with 6ft1 range Lee Marvin, and as you can see the same technique is being used in order to make Newman appear similar in height too Marvin,also Newman is wearing a cowboy boots.

Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Apr/21
@Hong

Yeah, so as to not dwarf Newman that whole Eastwood Newman photo shoot had Clint deliberately losing inches in every shot through various declined postures. LOL, I’m surprised they didn’t have Clint do the full splits. Strange to imagine today’s Clint standing alongside peak Newman. Not so much in it.

Tall In The Saddle said on 7/Apr/21
@Hong

I agree exactly with your assessment of the Wayne Eastwood photo. Advantage for Wayne in cowboy boot heel (on set for the movie THE SHOOTIST) and he's also closer to camera. We might assume level ground but we can't confirm. It's only one of two photos that I know of with both Wayne and Clint in the same shot. By virtue of all other comparisons I also agree that, all things equal, Wayne would edge Clint. However, in THE SHOOTIST, I do recall Wayne, even in cowboy boots, struggling to stand on par with Jimmy Stewart in dress shoes. So, determining exactly how tall 69 yo Wayne stood in cowboy boots as at the time of THE SHOOTIST, 1976, would be interesting. Let's remember also that Clint is 46 yo in that photo.

BTW, nice how Clint's shirt blends in so well with the design on the wall behind him.

Whether one has peak Clint at 6'3", 6'4" or somewhere in between, he's still a legitimate poster boy for substantial height loss, his longevity providing a better than average window for observation of same. There are many who have not been as fortunate to have lived as long as Clint has.

Hong said on 5/Apr/21
@Pierre,Clint stand with the same posture as Newman,he would gain an inch,he's deliberately dropping height in those Newman pics from that famous photoshoot,I think it's because he was instructed by the photographer not to make Newmam look to short by comparison?but that is just my opinion.I have seen so many pics of Clint now and am of an opinion he was somewhere in the 6ft2.5 to 6ft3.25 range,depending on posture and footwear,too me 6ft2.75 would not be out of the question with 6ft2.5 at an absolute low.As for the Wayne pic, I would bet my house that he is wearing a substantial cowboy boot heel there.Wayne was probably at peak slightly taller than Clint anyway.@Danimal you could be right,but I still think he is losing a couple of inches because of his inability to stand his tallest because of his advanced age, plus a few of actual lost inches is making him appear shorter.

Danimal 5'9 5/8 said on 3/Apr/21
Hong said on 23/Feb/21
At almost 91 and with old man posture he is looking 5ft11 thease days.

Imo, he looks under 5'11" today (refer to my post of him next to 5'11" and change Tank Abbott from 2020). He's easily lost 5" since his prime.

JamesFreakingBond said on 3/Apr/21
Solid 6'3 in his prime, and possibly a flat 6'4. He certainly looked taller at times because he was lanky and lean. Today he looks maybe 6'0 flat, a little over or under that at times.

Pierre said on 1/Apr/21
Old pic Clint/Paul Newman listed 5"9.5' Click Here

Paul Newman/Robert Redford listed 5"10.5' peak = Click Here

Pierre said on 31/Mar/21
Click Here Here next to an old John Wayne .(Maybe John had an advantage of heel...)

Hong said on 13/Mar/21
Click Here The angel is not great but he looks pretty tall in this pic with 6ft Neil Diamond.

Beau said on 27/Feb/21
Sorry to go off topic, just wanted to put in a comment about Pacino's looks. Pacino during his rise of course was a very different actor to how he was later in his career... understated, not bombastic at all.

His face, and particularly his eyes, were incredibly expressive. In Serpico in particular, which was saddled by somewhat poor acting in several of the supporting staff, he really stood out. And of course as Michael Corleone, he projected an incredible amount of power and fear in an understated way.

10 years ago I was friends w/ guy who was a spitting image of a young Pacino, about the same height at 5'6" too, large expressive eyes, winning personality. His family was wealthy so that led to some of his confidence, but he was a good guy who just had an aura that drew people to him, he stands out to me as a unique character in my life.

Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Feb/21
@Hong
That photo of Clint with Momoa really punctuates the height loss. Even relative to the kids in the photo, Clint’s shrinkage is very noticeable.

Re Rob Reiner. Some believe he might’ve been 6’1” peak. I perused photos from the same event and there are instance in which Clint can look even with Reiner and even a touch shorter. But true, the angles can be very deceiving.

Hong said on 24/Feb/21
Click Here Here's 60 year old Clint with 43 year old Rob Reiner who's listed as 6ft2,the angel is in Clint's favour but I still think he would be taller if he was on Reiner's side.He could still look 6ft3 at 60.I don't believe he started losing height until his late 50s ,at 58 he looked maybe an inch short of solid 6ft4 Liam Neeson,or a tad bit more?definitely no less than 6ft2.5 at that age.

Hong said on 23/Feb/21
Click Here This is a good example how much Clint has shrunk,he was once a similar height to Momoa,at 6ft3 about 1inch shorter? it's really hard to believe,but true.

Hong said on 23/Feb/21
At almost 91 and with old man posture he is looking 5ft11 thease days.

Danimal 176.7 said on 23/Feb/21
A broken down Tank Abbott (original UFC fighter) who used to get listed at 6'0" flat back in the 90's but always looked shorter than that is edging out Clint Eastwood here in this in 2020 picture: Click Here

Hong said on 22/Feb/21
@Tall In The Saddle,in the scene they share together its on level ground inside a cabin,Clint is stooped a little so he could be dropping a bit of height,but there looks to be more that 2 inches between them.

Tall In The Saddle said on 20/Feb/21
@Hong
I haven’t had the chance to scan through the RH ep with Nielsen. However, I already had Nielsen pegged at 6’ 1/2” so, if there is a 2 1/2” difference, I’m not trying to falsely reduce Nielsen’s height in order to reconcile Clint to 6’3”. Anyway, not surprising that Clint could appear 6’3 1/2” at times. A legit 6’3” is still tall and while we can estimate reasonably, we don’t have the perfect vision or internal judgment ability to deny him an extra 1/2” which he might’ve been in all possibility. I just don’t think it is likely.

Hong said on 18/Feb/21
Looking again at the rawhide episode I posted with Leslie Nielsen Clint looks more 6ft3.5 compared to Nielsen's 6ft1 but I've always taught that Nielsen looked more 6ft.5 than 6ft1.

Hong said on 18/Feb/21
Click Here Here's Clint in rawhide again,compared to 6ft1 Leslie Nielsen, and 6ft2 Martin Landou,between 28.30mins and 30mims there is a good comparison especially between Clint and Nielsen,Clint is looking a good 2 inches taller and once again more 6ft3 in comparison.

Talk In The Saddle said on 18/Feb/21
@Chaos

No one pulled off the disagreeable donkey look as well as Clint did.

Daffyd Beckham clearly went out of his way to emulate the Clint look. Not a bad effort either. However, then imagine Daffyd blurting “Go ahead, make my day”. Antagonist immediately drops weapon in a fit of laughter. Posh who is there only because she heard there would be cameras, quickly scoops up the gun on Dadffyd’s behalf. Same result achieved as Dirty Harry minus the machismo.

Tall In The Saddle said on 17/Feb/21
Sure, sourcing an estimate from multiple comparisons is the most ideal but the quality of one comparison to another will vary and sometimes the quality of one can outweigh the quality of numerous examples offered previously. Personally I think the Davis example is of very good quality with Davis’ 6’ 2 1/2” listing reasonably justified. Even allowing Davis up to 6’3”, Clint still stood no taller. There is also the Ebsen comparison which seems to reconcile with the Davis example for a conclusion of 6’3” flat.

Chaos Control 6'2.5 said on 17/Feb/21
Is anyone else going to acknowledge how badass his picture looks?

Hong said on 17/Feb/21
@Rory if you watch from 33min to 34min there are some good comparisons between the two,I think good enough to conclude that if Davis was his listed height of 6ft2.5 that by comparison Clint looks very similar in height,he does not look a full inch taller for sure.

Rory said on 15/Feb/21
I wouldnt read too much in to his comparison with Davis. Hes just one guy in a sea of other comparisons you can make with other people for Clint. Firstly Davis is listed as being 6ft2.5 but who says he was? He could have been more or even less than that. Also was there really any good comparisons between the two of them in that episode? They appeared on screen together yes, but i wouldn't say there was any clear cut scenes where you could see them side by side, stood stll, to come to a definite conclusion. Rawhide isnt really the best thing to watch for gaging heights imo. Why? Because cowboy boots, cowboy hats and filming often on uneven ground make it hard to accurately guess and compare heights.

Hong said on 15/Feb/21
@Tall In The Saddle,Agreed 6ft3 max peak for Clint with the possibility of 6ft2.75.

James B 172cm said on 15/Feb/21
rob his instagram username is magickal warlock

Tall In The Saddle said on 15/Feb/21
@Hong
Previously I've allowed up to 1/4" over 6'3" for Clint, absolute max. but the true ceiling may well be 6'3" flat. Particularly when examples exist, including those with Davis, suggesting that Clint could've even been a touch under 6'3". RAWHIDE provides for a lot of comparisons. 6'4" Woody Strode appeared an episode but unfortunately comparisons with Clint didn't present. He did however stand alongside Eric Fleming and appeared an easy 1" taller. So, if Clint's height was inflated even at 6'3 1/2", I would say Fleming's height was exaggerated also.

James B 171.5 said on 14/Feb/21
Lol rob I see Glenn still claims to be 5ft8 on Instagram

Hong said on 13/Feb/21
The only saving grace for Clint is his posture in general,it's very relaxed and he never stands to his full potential,I think if he was standing for a measurement he could look taller and indeed measure taller than he generally looks on screen and in pics,thats why I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his peak height,and give him 6ft3 peak listing,but with his usual posture he can look in the 6ft2 range.Now he can look 5ft11 range but maybe able to stretch up to 6ft.

Hong said on 12/Feb/21
@Tall In The Saddle I have to agree,I've rarely seen two guys look so similar in height to each other as Davis and Clint,in every scene they shared there is nothing in it,if Davis was 6ft2.5,Clint looks nothing more than that in comparison.

Hong said on 12/Feb/21
@Tall In The Saddle,also in that episode with Jim Davis,there is 6ft.5 listed Ralph Bellamy,at the time Bellamy was aged 60 and could have lost bit of height,even if he didn't, Clint still only looked a couple of inches taller.Being objective and forgetting about Clints height listing on this site of 6ft3.5 and of course his official listing of 6ft4,which is looking very unlikely at this stage,I would not rule out a peak height of 189cm or 190cm for Clints peak,but I definitely think he was no more than 6ft3 peak.

Hong said on 12/Feb/21
Click Here @Rob,What do you think of these pics with Neeson?.They look like there from the mid 90s.Clint looks like he is around 6ft.5 in comparison to 6ft4 Neeson,do youthink its the angles of the pics making Neeson look so much taller.?

Tall In The Saddle said on 10/Feb/21
@Hong

Yes, I've seen those comparisons before, particularly Jim Davis, who presents as an excellent yard stick, much like Buddy Ebsen. Unfortunately, uneven ground is inherent with Westerns. I still think the snippet with Dehner is reasonable for estimation, like wise with Dick York. As I said, there are other scenes available to compare them. I just picked a couple. Again, to be fair on Clint, I'm not sure that John Dehner was just a flat 6'2". Perhaps more in the realm of Jim Davis' height. I only base that assumption on the fact that he was clearly taller than 6'2" listed Jack Carson. When I say clearly, I mean by up to 1".

Notably, Jim Davis stood very tall right up to the days of DALLAS. Click Here

Duffy is listed here as 6'2". Elsewhere, he is sometimes listed as 6' 1 1/2". At least early in the DALLAS series, Davis was at least equal to Duffy if not in fact holding a slight edge.

On one hand we could possibly credit the likes of John Dehner and Jim Davis with a bit more height than they were given credit for due to comparisons with the likes of Eastwood. On the other hand however, they may be exceptions to the rule, being guys who were in fact listed exactly at their true heights and who, by comparison to other celebrities, again such as Clint, show up the other celebrities as having obvious inflated listings.

Clint would want to hope that Jim Davis was actually at least 6'3" and not 6'2 1/2" because in at least one of those scenes, on even ground, Davis appears at the very least equal to Clint in height.

Just want to say again, I really appreciate your objectivity, methodology and the evidence you provide in tow. Too often some people are prone to bluntly stating celebrity X is this tall, end of story. Nothing else. LOL. I'm like, show me the money! Haha.

Hong said on 9/Feb/21
Click Here @Tall On The Saddle,I tend to agree there's not much between 6ft2 Dehner and Clint,it's a pity the scene you picked for comparison was on uneven ground also the angle for comparison was not great.The scene with,Dick York was also at a bad angle for comparison,but Clint was clearly the taller.Ive posted another rawhide episode which includes good comparisons with 6ft2.5 Jim Davis,6ft.5 Ralph Bellamy and 6ft1 John Ireland,if you watch from 27mins to 33mins you can see Clint is looking very similar to Davis.

Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Feb/21
Well known character actor John Dehner appearing in RAWHIDE. Got to 16:20 for a comparison between he and Clint. Click Here

There are other opportunities to compare him with both Clint and Eric Fleming throughout the episode. For mine, Dehner is basically equal in height. Dehner is listed as 188 cm, 6'2". To be fair, I think Dehner might've been a bit taller than that. He also appeared on television opposite reliable 6'2" Jack Carson and appeared to be holding up to 1" advantage on Carson so perhaps Dehner was more like 6'3".

Another cool clip. 6' 1/2" Dick York appearing in a 1963 episode of RAWHIDE along with Barbara "Genie" Eden. Go to about 2:20 to compare Clint with Dick.

Click Here


Clint appears to be standing around 6'3" relative Dick York. If he was any taller, it would only be a touch, like an extra 1/4". If you can't deduce anything from this clip at least you get to see a young Barbara Eden!! :) For mine, Clint ever firming as no more than 6'3 1/4".

Hong said on 8/Feb/21
Click Here Here's Clint standing beside Rock Hudson,he looks only a tad Shorter than Rock,Clint is looking 6ft3.5 next to 6ft5 listed Hudson there,even if Rock was 6ft4.5 Clint still looks over 6ft3 in comparison.

Tall In The Saddle said on 5/Feb/21
@Hong

Excellent provision of height documentation on Stewart from Ed Rob but I’ll still take Jimmy to be at least 6’3” peak all day long. Unless of course there’s far more unidentified inflation among the comparative heights we rely on. I tend to think not but, as you alluded to, Stewart’s own varied listings suggest a very loose, uneven methods in measurement. Also, as they might’ve simply cut Jimmy some slack to satisfy the minimum height/weight ratio for enlistment. Just as they well they did, his contribution to the war effort was considerable. Talk about a quiet achiever.

Hong said on 1/Feb/21
On the James Stewart page there are 5 different examples of Stewart's height 2 at 6ft3,1 at 6ft4,1 at 6ft2 and 1 at,wait for it 6ft1.75?This has left me a bit confused so many different heights for the same person,it would make you doubt any of the heights listed of actors from that generation,and the next which includes Clint,maybe in the future a 6ft2 measurement for Clint from his army physical may surface,and explain his apparent excess shrinkage in later life.

Hong said on 31/Jan/21
Click Here @TALL In The Saddle,Here's Silva only 6 years later, using a walking frame,aged 84,still 9 years after this pic he is still alive.I think if he straightened himself up he would have been close enough to 6ft,in the pic I posted with Clint,who at that stage was, in comparison to 6ft2 Morgan Freeman,looking in the 6ft1 range,sometimes 6ft1.5 depending on posture.

Tall In The Saddle said on 30/Jan/21
Hong said on 27/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Clint with Henry Silva, it's from 2007, Clint 76 Silva 78,Silva has a peak height listing of 6ft2,it looks like he has shrunk too.

Wow. I know the Clint photo is a few years old but I didn't know Henry Silva was still alive. Older than Clint. A Jack Palance look a like and at one time did a parody of Ripley's Believe or Not hosted by Jack Palance. He might've shrunk somewhat but there is another photo of him embracing Clint and Silva doesn't appear to be dropping as much height.

Too bad the photo with Busey isn't full length. On face value, Silva appears to be dropping a lot to 6' peak Busey, something like 2 + ", putting him at a touch less than 5'10". In all possibility, they may not have been standing on equal ground, otherwise some decent loss if Silva stood a solid 6'2" peak and there is fair evidence to suggest that he did stand that tall at peak.

Hong said on 27/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Clint with Henry Silva,it's from 2007,Clint 76 Silva 78,Silva has a peak height listing of 6ft2,it looks like he has shrunk too.

Hong said on 24/Jan/21
Click Here Here's one of Clint and arnold from 93.

Hong said on 24/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Clint looking a comfortable 6ft3 next to 6ft1.5 James Coburn,both guys are young and at peak,this is a good example of Clint looking his listed height here.

Hong said on 24/Jan/21
Click Here Clint aged 70,James Cromwell 6ft6,rules out 6ft for Clint aged 70,he looks a comfortable 6ft2 in comparison.The old Clint does look under 6ft next to Hanks I agree but I put that down to posture,but Clint by his mid sixties only 6ft.5 I disagree.Clint still looked in the 6ft2 range at that stage.

Hong said on 24/Jan/21
Click Here Here's an example of Clint's posture,good posture?

Hong said on 24/Jan/21
@Pierre everybody else wore cowboy boots in westerns,so Clint didn't have an unfair advantage.Also Clints posture is appalling.

Hong said on 24/Jan/21
Click Here Here's 77 year old Clint looking equal to 6ft2 John Cusack.

Hong said on 24/Jan/21
Click Here @Pierre,What hight do you think the 63 year old Hackman looks in comparison to Clint? if Clint was 6ft.5,Hackman would be struggling with 5ft11.

Pierre said on 23/Jan/21
Probably nothing above 6"3' peak and even a bit less than this mark,like around 6"2'.Advantageous cow boy boots in lots of movie plus his slim body probably made him bigger than the reality(and 6"2' in 1950 was very tall for a guy)In the years 90s next to Arnold ,Clint in his 65s was looking around same height as him (Arnold absolute max 6"0' Clint around this mark or maybe 6"0.5') then I really doubt in his 65s he lost more than 2 inches from his peak.Now he looks a bit shorter or max same height as 5"11' Tom Hanks.Hard to me to believe a 6"3.5' guy can reduce to around 5"11' ,particularly because his posture still looks good this days.

Tall In The Saddle said on 21/Jan/21
@Chaos Control

Yeah, the old 300, I believe they were artificially tanned for the Greek skin tone which also allowed them to utilise different nuances of shading to highlight and exaggerate the muscles, particularly the abs. A stark, high contrast filming effect was also used for additional highlight. The actors were said to be already in readied shape but the director acknowledged the make up and filming advantages.

Rory said on 18/Jan/21
It's surprising there's not more height quotes/descriptions about or from Clint. You'd think when Clint was young a guy like him who was well over six foot would have been frequently asked about his height in interviews etc.

I couldn't go to 6ft3 flat for Clint, but I wouldn't rule out 6ft3.25. Then again though, I struggle to see him being shorter than Donald Sutherland. In the last scenes of Kelly's heroes Clint definitely didn't look shorter than Sutherland who certainly wasn't under 6ft3. Some might think 191 for both back then. I'm still happy with 6ft3.5 overall though with a chance of 3.25.

ChaosControl 6'2 1/2 said on 17/Jan/21
@Tall In The Saddle true they do alter stuff. Didn’t they edit people’s muscles in 300?

slim 6'1 said on 17/Jan/21
I’d take the quarter inch for current

Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Jan/21
Hong said on 13/Jan/21
Click Here The two guys either side of Clint are listed as 6ft2.

I've seen the full scene referenced above with Tim Matheson, Clint and Robert Urich. The GIF in question depicts Clint looking his shortest in that scene, perhaps not standing his best and the angle is somewhat deceiving. Elsewhere in the scene I would give Clint up to 1.5" advantage over Matheson. However, I'm not sure Matheson himself was a full 6'2", possibly more like 6'1.75" based on other comparisons. Also, as per the full scene, Urich appeared that bit shorter than Matheson, putting him at 6'1.5" tops IMO.

I'll stay with 6'3.25" for Clint but he often presents as one of the more tricky height estimates.

Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Jan/21
Well, just IMO, subject to sexual orientation, one might not judge male and female looks in exactly the same way.

Put it this way, as I am predisposed, hetero, good looks in women I know, feel, can often be attracted to and compelled toward in varying degrees. Good looks in men I understand in abstract terms, sans the elements of true attraction and associated appreciation as per orientation.

Al Pacino, Man of the Moment. LOL. Not to pile on but I agree that Pacino was not plain or ordinary. A reasonably unique look, at least to me. As I understand, he possessed sufficient features to be considered good looking. Perhaps lead actors require the majority to perceive them to be good looking but, more importantly, they stand out more when they possess unique features which still add up to good looking.

Even given some of the most beautiful actresses seen on screen, I could walk past at least one woman in a day who was arguably more beautiful and feature perfect than any of them. They're not uncommon and that, in itself, is part of the reason their beauty won't necessarily be a stand out on screen. Ogling stars on the big screen can be an entirely different animal to one's real life tastes. As far as the stars go, there's also plastic surgery, make up, flattering lighting, angles etc. to be getting on with, so they're not necessarily all what they seem to be.

Ian C.. said on 14/Jan/21
Well of course, Rory, Pacino is not an ordinary man. He was a movie star, which means that he had personal qualities that caused people to buy tickets to his movies. I just don't think that great good looks had much to do with his appeal. If you look at the faces of most of the classic male movie stars, without having seen them in any movies, you notice right away that they were unusually handsome. And that was a large part of their talent. Think guys like Cary Grant or Gary Cooper or Clark Gable. Those boys had faces, although they also had compelling personalities.

Why did Elvis Presley become a movie star, but Bob Dylan and Roy Orbison and even the Beatles, who were also phenomenally successful as musicians, did not? Well, Elvis was handsome, and you could reasonably argue that fifty percent of his (extraordinary) talent was due to his unusual good looks. (Although Elvis might have been one of the very few people who were successful in show business who had a less-than-average I.Q.)

Clint Eastwood really had movie star good looks, although he never even tried being a romantic lead. In a few of the Dirty Harry movies he kisses a girl, but those scenes have a dropped-in quality, and have nothing to do with his characters or the plots of his movies. His specialty was righteous violence.

Hong said on 14/Jan/21
@Rory.I saw Magnum Force many times,and I imagined Holbrook to be a solid 6ft1 guy,in comparison to Clint's 6ft4,this was at the time I believed Clint was 6ft4,but was surprised to discover Holbrook was just 6ft,this made me reconsider my opinion of Clint's height.The logical thing for me was to reduce Clint to 6ft3,there is a scene in the movie,Clint and Holbrook are walking side by side in a corridor and they seem even closer in height.But considering Clint's rather relaxed posture in general,I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.To me Clint had the look of a typical 6ft3,an inch shy of 6ft4 and an inch above 6ft2.

Rory said on 14/Jan/21
@Ian C. No idea how you've come to the conclusion that Pacino looks ordinary. Very distinctive looking imo Pale skin, black hair and large black eyes. It's partly his face, and the character in his face which made him the great actor he is. I'd say Steve Mcqueen or Ryan O'neal are maybe two male leads who look fairly ordinary, whereas I can't recall seeing many people who look like Pacino does.
@Hong,I think you'd have to watch Magnum force really. In the film Clint could look 3 inches taller than Holbrook at times but his posture in it was pretty relaxed. Also in that scene with the pictures of the two alleged 6ft2 guys, those guys are in 1-1.5 inch range boots and Clint was in fairly thin looking sneakers and yet still looked 1+ inches taller. Clint also had roughly 3 inches on David Soul in that film. I'd say maybe 6ft3.25 in Magnum force, didn't really look under 6ft3 if you watch it.

Ian C. said on 13/Jan/21
Maybe "plain" is the wrong word for Pacino. I mean, he looks ordinary. There is nothing about his face or figure that would make you notice him he weren't a movie star. He's not Paul Newman or Clint Eastwood, for example. There are in fact quite a few movie stars who have played leading roles in movies who are physically ordinary. Dustin Hoffman, Donald and Kiefer Sutherland come to mind. Kevin Costner and Jim Carrey are kind of borderline ordinary-looking. Fred Astaire is the perfect example of an ordinary-looking man who was usually paired romantically with women far outside his range in the looks department.

Hong said on 13/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Holbrook with 5ft11.5 listed Alac Baldwin,Holbrook was 61 years old and my be a bit under peak height?I don't disagree with Holbrook at 6ft but Clint was definitely not 3.5 inches taller than him.

Hong said on 13/Jan/21
Click Here Rob you have Hal Holbrook listed as 6ft peak,if that was the case Clint looked in some scenes with him like 6ft2 max,in the pic I posted he looks no more than 6ft3 in comparison to Holbrook.

Hong said on 13/Jan/21
Click Here The two guys either side of Clint are listed as 6ft2.

Hong said on 13/Jan/21
Click Here "Hi Rob",here's some scenes of Clint and Carol Channing together in the movie,it's from 1956,although Channing is a tall woman at5ft8.5 and with a reasonable heel should could be as as tall as 5ft11,Clint still looks max 6 ft3 in comparison, maybe even a bit less?

Hong said on 12/Jan/21
Click Here Thanks Rob,I've posted a pic of the footwear Carol wore on the movie,It could have been the same as in the pic of Carol and Clint I posted.If it was how tall do you think Clint looks in comparison?

Rory said on 12/Jan/21
Young Al pacino was clearly a good looking guy, not plain. At least as good looking if not better looking than any others in your list.

James B 172cm said on 12/Jan/21
Actually Al Pacino when he was younger was considered very good looking (no homo(

Ian C. said on 10/Jan/21
When I gauge anyone's looks it's just a binary choice: Either people are good looking or they're not. Male good looks come in many varieties. John Goodman is a good-looking guy, even though he's obese. Al Pacino is a plain man. It doesn't have much to do with isolated details.

Who are the all time champions of male beauty (which is distinct from good looks)? Here's my short list: Sean Connery, Yul Brynner, Craig Stevens (who played TV's Peter Gunn) and Robert Conrad. Two on the list are tall and two are short, but all are strikingly beautiful, such that it's the first thing you notice about them. Some beautiful men, like Roger Moore and Errol Flynn, seem smug in their beauty, and I just don't like them.

My favourite movie stars are people with compelling faces. Here is that list: Boris Karloff, Jack Palance, Charles Bronson and Lee Marvin. Interestingly, all those men had good careers playing villains.

Rising174cm said on 10/Jan/21
slim 6'1 said on 8/Jan/21
191 peak is good, probably 182 current 👍

@Slim: You could be spot on regarding both peak and current. In addition to the 1988 article describing Clint as 6'3" above, he was listed at 6'3" in this 1993 NY Times article: Click Here Note that the article lists Charlie Sheen and Sly Stallone at 5'10" and 5'10.5", respectively, which both claimed to the NY Times. They also have Arnold at his claimed height of 6'2". This suggests to me that Clint may have claimed 6'3" around the late 80s/early 90s or his listing may have been revised down to 6'3" in the late 80s/early 90s.

James B 172cm said on 10/Jan/21
rory my legs are short and stubby but there muscular at the same time.

ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 10/Jan/21
@Ian this is why rugby is better than football. Any body type, height and build is useful in rugby!

Tall In The Saddle said on 10/Jan/21
@Chaos

Nah, you typed it out fine. Just me, just clarifying myself.

Hong said on 9/Jan/21
Click Here Rob,this is a young peak height Clint next to,5ft8.5 listed, "by you" Carol Channing,how tall do you think Clint looks in comparison,taking into account footwear and Carol's posture,do you think Clint looks 6ft3.5 in comparison?If not how tall do you think Clint looks?Also I think you should seriously consider a slight downgrade to 6ft3.25 at least for Clint's peak,6ft3 flat would IMO be more accurate.

Ian C. said on 9/Jan/21
I'm a true believer in the validity of genetic endowments in ectomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy because I'm an extreme ectomorph. Ecotmorphs have very little capacity to change their overall body shapes. We can't grow fat by stuffing ourselves, and we can't grow muscle by lifting weights.

When I was 20 I was six foot four and 165 pounds. Now, at nearly seventy, I'm still six foot four, and maybe 180 pounds. A weight gain of 15 pounds on a man my height is barely noticeable. I'm still the skinny guy, except with a small paunch.

Everybody who plays professional football, with the possible exceptions of the kickers, is a polar mesomorph. You have to be born with that kind of talent. You can't develop it, no matter how hard you train. Clint Eastwood, who is superior in strength to the average man, could never have played professional football. He's just too small. Even Charlton Heston, who was enormously strong, would have been too small to play football beyond the college level.

Natural born endomorphs actually have a biologic advantage. They have superior digestive systems and capacities for storing excess calories. The Pima Indians in the United States, who are a desert people, are now plagued with obesity and the diseases that attend it. Unfortunately, modern societies that produce ample food have condemned the modern Pima, with their desert-ready digestive systems, to population-wide obesity. Once again, this is genetic. It isn't cultural, except in the sense that the Pima can now buy food in supermarkets.

ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 9/Jan/21
@Tall In The Saddle my comment about the volleyball was a joke, admittedly not as funny typed out as it was in my head. I will tell the truth and say I usually judge overweight people for their habits. I don’t really believe in comfort foods, I prefer to exercise to blow off steam and honestly I think intuitive eating should be treated as an addiction (If I shot heroin every time I was upset they’d put me away)

Rory said on 9/Jan/21
I think average to long legs for your height is perfect for a man. Very long looks disproportionate and a bit effeminate, short looks look a bit stubby. 35 inseam is probably perfect for a 6ft3-4 guy.

James B 172cm said on 9/Jan/21
ian C- speaking of physiques do you think long legs on men are considered more attractive?

I know Clint eastwood has very long legs

ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 9/Jan/21
@Ian if you’re so sceptical of BMI, surely you’d realise that the endo/ecto/mesomorph isn’t real either, and it’s just nonsensical bro-science used to gatekeep physique. Body shape and fat mass are much easier to control than you’re making out. Difficult yes, but not THAT hard. I eat well below my recommended daily calories (an active 6’2.5 208lb guy should be eating 2500+ according to calculator.net and I get 2000-2200) yet I’m technically overweight for my height. In terms of physical capacity I’m certainly strong, and I look mesomorphic, yet my 50” chest measurement would imply I’m an endomorph, even though I’m 11%bf and didn’t struggle too much losing weight.

Ian C. said on 9/Jan/21
Congratulations on your weight loss Chaos. I do think, though, that most of us must accept natural, genetically defined limits on how are bodies can look or perform. Most fat people eventually give up trying to make themselves thinner and accept that they look as they do, and I believe it unfair that they are insulted and scorned for something that is mostly beyond their control.

I'm an ectomorph, tall and thin, and when I was in my teens I fell for the bogus claim that bodybuilding could turn me into a mesomorph. This just wasn't so. I lifted weights, ate at least 4000 calories a day, and succeeded only in making myself tired all the time. By the time I turned twenty, I had just said, forget it, this is my body. Of course, it's a lot easier to accept your body if you're thin than if you're fat, and I would never compare my own struggles with body transformation to your own.

And of course, many people are just physically gifted. Eastwood was in that category and, even if he hadn't pursued bodybuilding, would still have had an impressive physique. In fact, most people who are successful in the movies are physically gifted, because audiences want to watch strong, beautiful people. How many people do you see in movies, even in supporting roles who are fat, or even were glasses?

ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 8/Jan/21
@Tall In The Saddle yeah... you’ll watch it to call them out on it... riiiight...

slim 6'1 said on 8/Jan/21
191 peak is good, probably 182 current 👍

Hong said on 7/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Clint with Arnold,he's looking a bit taller than Arnold who's around 5 ft11 now,so 90 year old Clint still close to 6ft.

Tall In The Saddle said on 6/Jan/21
Comparing height to weight isn't a great analogy because one can alter their weight but not their height. That's not to suggest that anyone has to alter their weight for anyone else but themselves. We can at least "own" our bodies and do with them as we wish.

As far as a publication like Men's Health goes, well it's understood at least by me that these guys are into high end fitness, not really being passed off as average and simply representing a benchmark only to be "approached" by the masses. If one believed them to be average I would suggest they purchase a new and improved critical thinking cap. Your whole day would be spent honing and sculpting such physiques with sufficient time set aside for the indispensable, self adoring "mirror" work out, very real and practiced in every gym I've been to, involving infinity reps. So then that leaves little time to actually go out and earn a living or enjoy life as it should be enjoyed. LOL. Those magazines also employ illusory photo shopping and muscle defining shading (shout out to the movies 300 and, more so, Meet The Spartans, ahah). With all that, that's not to say such physiques are necessarily ideal in aesthetic terms, at least IMO. For both men and women, a physique or figure that reflects natural exercise, laboring or specific physical application is naturally appealing, particularly since it is underscored by its potency. As far as women go, I find all types of fit and practically applied bodies attractive, be it the swimmer, the gymnast, the runner, the beach volleyballer, etc. Okay, that last one might be a bit gratuitous but I completely own it. Due to secret signalling, the cameramen always has an excuse to zoom right in on their derrieres, purely to gain insight into their next "strategic play". Appalling. And I'll watch it each and every time just to call them out on it. As to the exact rules of the game, I'll have to get back to you on that.

Rory said on 6/Jan/21
Yh I'd say Clint with Arnie there looks an inch taller, but he's standing slightly behind arnie so could well have been more like 1.5 inches. Looks I'd guess around 1985-87 time. When Clint looked near 6ft3 then.

Ian C. said on 6/Jan/21
Well, Chaos, I wouldn't call myself a fat acceptor (if that's a term), but I'm certainly a fat tolerater. I know lots of people who are fat, and I don't think it's their fault, Although some people, like Marlon Brando or Gerard Depardieu or Elvis Presley, are/were obviously guilty of uncontrolled gluttony, most fat people cannot be fairly condemned for a moral failing.

Everybody on this Earth gains weight as he ages, unless he is actually sick. Even extremely thin people, like James Stewart or Frank Sinatra, develop paunches in middle age. People who are high in endomorphy can gain forty pounds from early youth to middle age, and there really isn't much they can do about it, short of starving themselves. Gaining weight as you age is no more an indicator of moral failure than going bald.

I am suspicious of the term "overweight," because implicit in it is an unfair moral opprobrium. Are tall people "overheight?" I don't think so.

And the obesity epidemic was a false moral panic. Go to a schoolyard in the middle of the day, and look at the children on it Very few are fat, and they mostly run around screaming and yelling, just as we did when we were children. Or go to a shopping mall on a Sunday afternoon, and look at the people. It is just not true that 60 percent of the hundreds of people you will see are fat, as any reasonable person would define that term.

Much of what people consider normal nowadays is a media invention. One of the more odious publications you can buy is Men's Health. (Which would be more accurately called, "Men's Beauty," which is its real subject.) On the cover of a typical issue of Men's Health will be a shirtless model who is about 26, and who is physically blessed, and who works out every day of his life in a gym. We are asked to believe that this an average man, and we can all look like him if we really, really try. And that ain't so. I'm annoyed by that kind of dishonesty.

stiggles said on 5/Jan/21
I think Clint's peak height was a half inch under 6ft 2..

RR said on 5/Jan/21
Here's an interesting photo of Arnie, Clint Eastwood and Sven-Ole Thorsen I found online. My guess is it must've been taken from the late 80s. Who knows the kind of footwear they each had.

Click Here

Anyone have any insights?

Hong said on 5/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Clint in a recent pic with 6ft5.5 listed Ralph Miller.

ChaosControl 6'2.5 said on 5/Jan/21
@Ian if you weren’t a 6’4 180-pound male (I remember you said it somewhere) you’d fit right in with the fat acceptance movement

Ian C. said on 4/Jan/21
Don 't get me started on BMI, James. Oops. Too late. I'm started. BMI is a flawed tool for declaring overweight, and is essentially superfluous for personal diagnosis anyway, as any doctor can tell an overweight patient at a glance, without recourse to a scale and a calculator. BMI is moderately useful as a population indicator of the general incidence of overweight and obesity. Unfortunately it has been politicized to create a phony obesity epidemic, so that government busybodies can go around telling citizens what they may and may not eat.

Grr, grr. A few years ago, when we still had the luxury to invent public health crises, we had an "obesity epidemic" that was ostensibly ubiquitous and would lead to mass illness and death. And it was nonsense. I'm 68 and I don't think that people are any fatter now in the general case in Canada than when I was 20. If I hadn't read in the papers that we were in the throes of an obesity epidemic, I wouldn't have noticed.

Back to Clint Eastwood. (Keeping to the general topic of Celebrity Heights, which for me is a welcome change.) Eastwood was very conscientious about maintaining his physical fitness, so in his case you've got a man with superior general health and strength, who also had the discipline and personal resources to stay fit. Even so, Eastwood did grow thicker in the waist as he passed into late middle age. He is now jettisoning body weight which, in the aged is a harbinger of approaching death. It will be interesting to see if he lives to be a hundred, which is all but unheard of in a man so tall.

Who might make it to a hundred? Woody Allen, who is small and strong and rich and physically well-disciplined.

James B 172cm said on 4/Jan/21
Ian C- I take it you dont believe in BMI- body mass index since it does not take into account muscle mass?

Hong said on 4/Jan/21
Click Here Here's Clint with Lee Marvin on the set of Paint your wagon,if you pause at4min15 there is a good bit,Clint and Lee are right beside each other,on level ground,Lee who is now listed at 6ft1 looks max 3 inches shorter than Clint.Marvin's footwear can bee seen during clip. Clint was wearing,boots during the movie but they looked like a regular heel,not the cowboy type heel,but givin all that, Clint does look close to 6ft4, definitely a solid 6ft3 peak.

Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Jan/21
@Hong, yeah I understood the boots were from the movie but I've never seen the movie. I now understand that Clint played a rural Sheriff so his footwear was in the context of the role. Otherwise, true that Clint's heel was generally normal aside from certain footwear specific to the given role.

Hong said on 31/Dec/20
Clint can look shorter than 6ft now sometimes as low as 5ft10,but that is down to extreme bad posture Click Here

Lins 5'11.25 said on 31/Dec/20
So, by the time Clint Eastwood will have celebrated his 100th birthday, he should be at 4'11''. Maybe? Lol

Hong said on 31/Dec/20
@Tall In The Saddle,The boots he's wearing are from the movie,but these are more typical of Clint's footwear, he did wear more normal too flat shoes in general.Click Here

Soda machine said on 30/Dec/20
Watching him to a legit 6-2 Cleef Clint wasn’t under 6-3.5. Possible weak 6-4 peak.

Hong said on 29/Dec/20
Looked about 2 inches taller than now revised 6ft1 inch Lee Marvin,making him 6ft3 peak Click Here

Tall In The Saddle said on 29/Dec/20
@Hong
The image of Clint's heel in Coogan's Bluff is quite the revelation. Aside from Westerns, I assumed Clint generally wore a moderate, average heel. Great find.

Slim 6'1" said on 29/Dec/20
Could dip to 182cm today

Rising174cm said on 26/Dec/20
I can buy the 6'3.5" peak although he was more like 6'3" flat by the Dead Pool with Liam Neeson and probably more like 190 cm by In The Line of Fire. However, he's now 90 and no more than 5'11.5". It wouldn't surprise me if he was only 5'11" now.

Height_Guesser said on 25/Dec/20
6’ 3” (190.5 cm) flat peak and now is 5’ 11.5” (181.5 cm). A picture with president Reagan (who was a little under 6’ 0”) in 1987. He looks 3 inches taller than Reagan in that photo when you take in account Reagan is closer to the camera.

Hong said on 24/Dec/20
Click Here Rob,Here's Clint's heels in Coogan's Bluff,what height, in your opinion are the heels?in the movie someone comments he has 2 inch heels,do you think they are as high as that?

James B 172cm said on 23/Dec/20
Rob do you think he was 6'3 flat by 1980?

James B 172cm said on 19/Dec/20
Yeah rampage he looked taller in the 1950s for sure

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 18/Dec/20
James, he looked more 6ft3 flat in the 70’s-80’s. Peak though was no less than what Rob has. I think for some of the day he was 6ft4

cmillz said on 17/Dec/20
Thought he looked taller in Alcatraz than Dirty Harry tbh

Genau said on 16/Dec/20
6ft3.75 peak 5ft11.5 now

Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 14/Dec/20
In Dirty Harry i find that Clint can pull off 6'4.

James B 172cm said on 13/Dec/20
Was he a flat 6’3 in escape from alacatraz?

Hong said on 12/Dec/20
Click Here In this one Clint looks a bit taller,it's down to posture and Clints ability to drop a lot of height in more relaxed posture.but he was IMO still a 6 ft3 guy to Selleck's 6 ft4 even at peak.

James B 172c, said on 11/Dec/20
Rob in an interview with Parkinson Clint said the reason he squints is because he has very sensitive eyes especially in the sunlight.....

James B 172c, said on 10/Dec/20
Arch- So hankin could have been 6’3.25 then if Eastwood was 6’3 flat in 1979?

Hong said on 10/Dec/20
Click Here @Arch Stanton,Hankin and Selleck did look similar next to Schwimmer,and that would make you think Clint and Selleck, a genuine 6ft4 IMO would be in return similar too,but when you see pics like this one it makes you doubt if Clint was even 6 ft2 flat.Selleck looks a good bit taller than Diana in comparison to Clint.It could be something to do with posture,Clint in his mid fifties may have lost a fraction in height.

Arch Stanton said on 9/Dec/20
Hong, Halkin there looks the same height next to Schwimmer as Tom Selleck did. Now Schwimmer could be 6'0.5-75 but Halkin and Eastwood were very similar, maybe Halkin slight edge.

Soda machine said on 7/Dec/20
6-3 legit no doubts. 5-11.75 maybe now.

James B 172c, said on 6/Dec/20
Rob is a flat 5’11 possible for Clint now or do you think he could still measure 6ft if stood straight?

Hong said on 4/Dec/20
Click Here Clint looked very similar in height to Hankin in that movie,here is the older Halkin with 6 ft1 is Ross in friends.

Funder_69 said on 4/Dec/20
Tad over 6’ 3” at peak and a tad under 6’ now. By the time somebody is 80 they likely lose 1.5-2 inches. Eastwood is 90 currently so losing 3 inches or even a little more is no surprise.

James B 172c, said on 2/Dec/20
Here is Clint near 6’4 listed Larry Hankin in escape from Alcatraz

Click Here


Click Here




Click Here

Slim 6'1" said on 30/Nov/20
190.5-191cm peak

Slim 6'1" said on 30/Nov/20
I not mentioned Clint’s steroid use as to explain why he went through such a great height loss 👍

Hong said on 29/Nov/20
Click Here @cmillz,Here's 79 year old Clint with Baron Cohen,by this age Clint was looking in the 6 ft1 range,I think his looking still tall next to Baron Cohen,as a young man and in comparison to his contempries Clint looked a solid 6 ft3 guy too me,and IMO he would have been similar to Baron Cohen,I disagree with 6 ft3.5 for his peak and would guess 6ft3 flat is more like his peak height.

cmillz said on 28/Nov/20
Peak Eastwood edging out Sacha Baron Cohen by a half inch? No chance of that IMO.

Weak 6’3 suits him better for his peak height.

Vincent Caleb said on 20/Nov/20
Clint was likely a person who lost a small fraction in his 50s

Roby Italy said on 11/Nov/20
Rob, i think he is on the 190 lbs in the past, how do you think?

Slim 6'1" said on 7/Nov/20
Canson, Uve got a good point

Tall In The Saddle said on 7/Nov/20
Great question as to when Clint began losing height. At least on averages, the onset of some height loss could be guessed as early as 1980 when Clint turned 50.

As per this Carson clip, by 1992, 62 yo Clint, IMO, was close but still clearly shorter than Ed McMahon though if you freeze the intro at some points, Clint can appear that much closer in height. Clint also appeared on Carson in 1973, with excerpts of his appearance available on YouTube. Unfortunately the ALL important intro hasn't been uploaded.

It would be very interesting to see how Clint measured up next to McMahon in 1973 vs 1992.

@Hong, you're good at finding the more rare clips, perhaps you could dig for the 1973 appearance, intro included? :)

Clint's appearance on Carson 1992 Click Here

Hong said on 7/Nov/20
That's Don Rickles, not Rickets,funny guy🤣

Hong said on 7/Nov/20
Click Here Here's a short clip of Clint with Don Rickets.Clint is looking very tall in comparison,but I think Don was a bit on the short side anyway.

Vincent Caleb said on 6/Nov/20
@Chris Junior: A-B imo.

Rory said on 6/Nov/20
I think he he first started to lose height in the late 1970s,if not certainly by the 80s. I'd wager somewhere between 1978-1982 the first few mm gone and then by late 80s a solid half inch gone.

Chris Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 6/Nov/20
Anyone roughly know which is the year Clint started to lost height?

A. 1985-1988

B. 1989-1992

C. 1993-1995

Hong said on 5/Nov/20
Click Here Here's a rare clip of Clint and Eric from 1962,both guys looking very tall.

Canson said on 5/Nov/20
@Tall in the Saddle: agreed! And you made a good point about proof that he used roids. I’ve never heard that about him. It’s very hard to believe as he was a very good build but not the same as someone of similar size like Lou Ferrigno lol

Canson said on 4/Nov/20
It still amazes me that he’s lost this much height. I could see 2” but 3+? He wasn’t a wrestler like Hogan. But if he was claiming 6’3 in 1988, chances are he wasn’t a full 6’4 peak nor was he 6’3.5. Maybe 6’3.25 is the better fit for him

Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Nov/20
@Vincent Caleb

My bad. You’re correct. Apologies for that. In my mind I fused Slim and James together. The beauty of forums. They make for instant transcripts to look back on. :)

Vincent Caleb said on 2/Nov/20
@Tall In The Saddle:
I thought slim suggested it also, but I may be wrong.

Hong said on 1/Nov/20
@Pierre.At that time Arnold could easily pull off looking 6ft2 in a good tick pair of shoes,Clint is leaning slightly dropping a bit of height.To put Clint at 6ft.05 to 6ft1 at 65 is a bit low,he looks around 6ft3.25 in shoes compared to Arnold's 6 ft2 in shoes.Clint by aged 65 was still around 6 ft2.5 about half an inch off peak.Clint was a good 6 ft3 peak IMO and Arnold around 6 ft.75,but that's just my opinion,I could be wrong I haven't got proof.

Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Nov/20
@Vincent Caleb

Just for clarity it’s only James B 172 who has suggested steroid use, no one else.

Vincent Caleb said on 1/Nov/20
@James B 172: I was referring to his muscularity in comparison to steroid users, which some commenters are accusing him of taking. Yes his height may have been considered very very tall at the time though.

Pierre said on 31/Oct/20
peak 6"3' first time in the morning so strong 6"2' range peak
in his 65 around 6"0.5'/6"1' (here next to around 5"11.5' Arnold) = Click Here Click Here
Now around 5"11' range = Click Here

James B 172c, said on 31/Oct/20
Vincent Caleb- Certainly his height of 6’3 1/2 ‘stood out’

Vincent Caleb said on 29/Oct/20
@Tall in the saddle:
While it is not impossible, it is unlikely that he did. Nothing about his physicality ever stood out. He lost a lot of height cause he is 90 and has a bad spine.

Hong said on 27/Oct/20
@Slim6'1"" You seem very confident in your opinion Clint took roids,and are you of the opinion because of his abuse of this drug he has lost more height than average?

Tall In The Saddle said on 27/Oct/20
Clint on roids? Pale Roider? Say it ain't so, Joe!

Never heard that one before. Never saw any physical evidence of same. Just saw a Clint who appeared a bit more built up, as much as one would reasonably expect from some degree of dedicated weight training.

Bobadob said on 18/Oct/20
Legit tall in youth. 5-11.5 now imo

Hyper said on 17/Oct/20
I don’t think he’s under 6’3”. He looked visibly taller than 6’2.5” Muhammad Ali.

Muhammad Ali even alluded to Clint being taller.

In comparison, Ali stated George Foreman is the same height as him (Ali).

Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Oct/20
@Hong
Re pic of Newman and Malden. Karl is perhaps standing on slightly higher ground (step?)and appearing that much taller than Newman than one might've guessed. However, while I haven't technically addressed Newman's height before, I didn't get the general impression that he was 5'9.5". More in the realm of 5'8.5" max. and quite possibly a bit less.

Newman's Naval Enlistment photo might've lent itself to an exaggerated impression of his height. He joined in 1943 so he was 18 yo.

If backed right up against the height chart it is possible to imagine Newman hitting the 5'8" to 5'8.5" mark. Also note that Newman's eye level is aligned with about 5'3" but the top of his head, hair included, appears to reach the 5'10" mark due to angle deception. Otherwise, we'd be talking a 6" to 7" forehead, LOL, which was clearly not the case.

Click Here

Here's another pic of Newman in Naval Uniform in front of height chart involving a deceptive angle, to say the least. Possibly he grew a bit more since enlistment but technically, the value of the second photo as a ref. to height isn't very good, the first photo being somewhat better IMO.

Click Here

Arch Stanton said on 15/Oct/20
I've seen the earliest films from even the late 1880s and 1890s! When you've watched a wide range of cinema, when you think about it chronologically in context, 1979 is relatively more recent. I tend to think in terms of silent period, Golden Hollywood and aftermath, the Golden period for me ended in around 1963-4. Cleopatra I think was one of the last pictures from the Golden Period.

Hong said on 14/Oct/20
Click Here @Tall In The Saddle,Here's a pic of Malden with 5 ft9.5 listed Paul Newman.Newman is dropping a bit of height but if he was at his tallest Malden would still have a good 4 inches on him.Newman and Michael Douglas are both listed 5ft9.5 peak.

Hong said on 13/Oct/20
@Arch Stanton,To a young person 41 years ago is a very long time ago,similar to a young person in 1979 would think 1938 was a long time ago and a movie from 1938 would seem like ancient history.

Arch Stanton said on 12/Oct/20
Slim 6'1" said on 2/Oct/20
I hate old movies but really enjoyed escape from Alcatraz

Guessing you're a teenager. Black and white is boring LOL. I don't think of Escape from Alcatraz as an old movie, 1979. "Old" for me is pre 1965 but then I'm old enough to remember when the late 60s was only 20 years ago.

Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Oct/20
@Hong
Karl Malden is an excellent example of legitimate and substantial height loss. He is also among the small percentage of people to reach nonagenarian status, a percentage that is increasing as time goes by but still a category of peoples very much in the minority.

In other words, the majority of the population will never realize the potential degree of height loss we actually see come to pass in many 90+ yo people.

I will say that Malden had a more severely bowed neck than Clint but his overall height loss was still apparent. For comparison, here is a shot of Madlen and Douglas from their time in THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO. Click Here
I think peak Malden was a legit 6'1". Here's a pic of Malden standing with Gregory Peck. Click Here

Hong said on 6/Oct/20
Click Here Here's a good example of how much a person can shrink over their life.Karl Malden was 6ft1 peak,Kirk Douglas was 5ft9,Michael Douglas listed here as 5ft9.5 and aged 60 at the time of this photo and probably still at peak maybe a fraction shorter? Malden is 92 there,Kirk is 88,both old guys look 4 inches of there peak.Clint can look 4 inches shorter now aged 90 it's not so unusual.

TheDon1528 said on 6/Oct/20
6'3.5" peak

Slim 6'1" said on 2/Oct/20
I hate old movies but really enjoyed escape from Alcatraz

Tommy174 said on 1/Oct/20
@Rob another reason I can't believe he was 216 pounds is that he was about 6'3 so I can guess 200-205 pounds. But on the other hand why he would inflate his weight? He has always been a slim guy not a big guy with not so much muscle mass and fat. I know all his movies and the heaviest he probably was in 1980 in "Any Which Way You Can" but he looks barely over 205 pounds there.

Hong said on 30/Sep/20
Click Here Here's a pic of Clint with Burt,Burt wore pretty tick heels in that movie and looked a solid 6footer,Clint looks a solid 6ft4 in his normal heeled shoes in comparison.Clint in his early 50s looked no less than 6 ft3.

Hong said on 27/Sep/20
Click Here Clint looks very tall here.

Bobadob said on 24/Sep/20
6-3.5 peak no less. Genuine tall in his youth.

cmillz said on 22/Sep/20
6’3 flat is really the most I can buy for him at peak, and I don’t rule out 6’2.5-6’2.75. Never felt like he gave off a near 6’4 impression to me.

James B 172cm said on 19/Sep/20
Rob I am still of the opinion that Clint looked no taller than 6’3 flat in Dirty Harry.

Who knows though was getting worse at that point but a case could be made for 6ft3 3/8 in his early 40s and a solid 6ft3.5 in the 1950s.

Hong said on 18/Sep/20
That would make sense Rob as by his mid sixties Clint was looking in the 6ft2 range.

Bora said on 18/Sep/20
In the movie called Play Misty For Me, he looks like a strong 6'2"

James Brett 172cm said on 17/Sep/20
looked at least 6'3 in play misty

Hong said on 17/Sep/20
Click Here Rob ,What is your opinion on this pic of Clint and Neeson? It's from 95,Clint would have been 65 years old,do you think the angel is in Clint or Neeson's favour,how much height do you think Neeson has on Clint?

Sinclair said on 6/Sep/20
Rob, how tall do you think Eric Fleming was in Rawhide?

Eastwood and Fleming looked very similar in height, but one usually looked taller than the other. I'd estimate 6'3.5" for Fleming and 6'3.75" for Eastwood.

Hong said on 18/Aug/20
Click Here Clint and Lee Marvin probably some time in the mid egities,remember Marvin was only 6 years older than Clint,and he died aged just 63,although he looked much older.

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 11/Aug/20
Rob, is 6ft3¾ still arguable?

Hong said on 9/Aug/20
Here's Clint with 5ft10 listed Alan Young,it's a full length shot,Young's posture is not great but he is wearing cowboy boots,and Clint just normal dress shoes.
Click Here

Slim 6'1" said on 9/Aug/20
191 prime is good
183 today

Hong said on 8/Aug/20
Wow Rob in that pic with Ross,Wogan and Moyles he looks taller than I would expect,he could have been 5ft10 in 1967 afterall.And that would make Clint a definite 6 ft3.5 or dare I say it the full 6 ft4 in comparison.

Hotpots said on 8/Aug/20
Minimum of 1.5 inches on lee van cleef. Had to be 6-3 absolute min. Close to 6-4 imo peak young.

Hong said on 7/Aug/20
Click Here In the pic you sent with 6ft.05 listed Cameron,Humphrys looks about 4 inches shorter putting him in the 5ft8 range,allowing for ageing it's possible the 24 year old Humphrys was 5ft9 at the time of the Clint interview,Clint looks to have around 6 or 7 inches of height on Humphrys,so that would make Clint in the 6ft3 to 6 ft4 range in comparison, so some were in the middle 6ft3.5 my be correct.I posted a pic of Humphrys with 5 ft11.75 listed Tony Blair,and Humphrys looks in the 5 ft10 range in comparison to Blair,maybe it's just posture of footwear advantage.

Rory said on 6/Aug/20
Humphrys looks 5ft9 with 6ft0.5 Cameron but I think Camerons at a disadvantage standing further back so he'd probably have more like 4 inches on him I'd say in reality. So I'd say Humphrys looks 5ft8-8.5 by then in his seventies and say 5ft9 peak in 1967, Clint looks I'd say 6/7 inches taller.

So my guess from the video in 1967 would be John Humphrys 5ft9 and Clint Eastwood 6ft3.5 we can't see the ground or footwear though. Seeing as those figures kind of correspond with how both men look elsewhere though you'd imagine ground and footwear was similar.

Sinclair said on 4/Aug/20
Maybe Eastwood could have scraped the full 6'4" first thing in the morning in his 20s and 30s, but he did not look as tall as some other 6'4" listed actors, like George Kennedy or Gregory Walcott in the Eiger Sanction. In some of the photos with Eric Fleming barefoot, Eastwood does seem to have the edge, but I feel Fleming gave a taller presence in Rawhide. Thus, this 6'3.5" listing seems a great shout, 6'3.75" could have been accurate too. Today, I don't think Clint would be any taller than a flat 6'0".

Hong said on 3/Aug/20
Click Here Clint looks very much a 6 ft3.05 guy here with John Humphrys,now if only we knew how tall Humphrys Was?Do you have any idea how tall Humphrys was Rob,because I've searched high and low for his height and have come up empty handed?

Tall In The Saddle said on 30/Jul/20
@Hong

Perfect description. The Holy Grail of photos.
Celebrities are the most visually recorded people on the planet so it's funny that the Holy Grail photo can still prove more than elusive. A 100% legit barefoot 6'3.25" low is still tall enough. Rest assured there have been plenty of actors before, during and after Clint's time who have over claimed, creating a false perception of what a true 6'2", 6'3", 6'4" etc. really looks like. Clint fulfilled Hollywood's version of 6'4" and it's still a fact that he stood above the majority of the acting population. IMHO, if peak Clint appeared on say Conan O'Brien I would expect to see him equal in height. Possibly even shading Conan's own Hollywood version of 6'4" in all possibility. LOL.

Arch Stanton said on 29/Jul/20
Hard to think seeing him with Momoa he was once close in height!! Seems impossible, the incredible shrinking man! I think he could scrape 5'11 range if stood his best but 6ft is optimistic now Rob, he's 90 now.

Hong said on 28/Jul/20
@Tall In The Saddle,thanks I'm always looking for the holy grail of Clint photos,I really wanted him to be 6ft4 Peak but I've accepted he was not,it took a long time,but 6 ft3.25 is more honest, it's a pity he looks so short now in pics,it's hard to believe he was almost as tall as Momoa at peak.

Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Jul/20
@Hong

I really appreciate the photos you bring to the table. Good stuff to chew over.

Clint looking very shrunken in that shot. I mean, there are young kids there of roughly assumed age and height. Clint would've towered them at peak. Not so now. I'd be surprised that Clint is only losing 2" of his current potential. The line of his body is compromised at so many diff. points. You might've tried to replicate this too but I think Clint often stands with bent and bowed legs now which can't be seen in the photo. I get the impression that Clint only stands momentarily, semi erect for such shots before sitting down again. And why not? Dude is 90 years old. I think the pics he does pose for now must be quite the effort with some discomfort involved. Even if one had Clint as low as 6'2.5" peak (I don't of course), that's still quite a drop down to his current standing height.

Hong said on 24/Jul/20
Hi Rob,your point about how Clint measures is a very important and sometimes overlooked point.I have a stadiometer and measured myself this morning just up from 8 hours sleep,standing my tallest on stadiometer I measured 1m81cm,but then I measured myself standing with very bad posture slouching,standing with similar posture as Clint I dropped down to 1m75.5 that's 5.5 cm or 2 inches less.If Clint could stand his full height for measurment he could be still 6ft

Hong said on 22/Jul/20
@ Tall In The Saddle,I've also watched the Ali clip many times and can see Clint as 6ft3.25 max in comparison.

Hong said on 22/Jul/20
Thanks Rob, judging form how he looks with Momoa,even if he stood his tallest I can't see Clint at 6 ft,5ft11 more like it.

Canson said on 22/Jul/20
@Tall in the Saddle: agreed. I could see that strong 6’3 range 6’3.25 maybe .5” max

@Arch: I could see him measuring 6’4 out of bed maybe throughout the first hour at best

Hong said on 20/Jul/20
Click Here Clint looks 5ft10 here with Momoa,what do you think ,Rob under 6ft now?max 5ft11 IMO.

Tall In The Saddle said on 20/Jul/20
I know it's been mentioned a lot previously but we can still return to the vision of Ali and Eastwood on Frost.
When I first saw that vision I might've given Clint up to 1" adv. over 6'2.5" Ali. Readdressing the vision several more times, all things considered, I see a definite edge but only perhaps a slight edge to Clint, which I guess would have to be at least .5" to even be discernible. So at least as I see it, Clint definitely no less than 6'3" and possible up to 6'3.5", but as Canson stated, I think 6'3.25" could be closest as he didn't appear to have a full 1" on Ali.
Unless he was standing his best, 6'2.5" Ali could look even with 6'2" Jim Brown. Otherwise, at best, Ali only appeared to hold the slightest advantage over Brown. Clint's own advantage over Ali was that little bit better than Ali's over Brown I think.

Hong said on 19/Jul/20
He has been described as 6ft3 in a few articles I've read,but he himself has claimed 6ft4,on numerous occasions.I don't know if he was asked his height by the interviewer and said 6 ft3 or they just guessed it.He would have only been 6ft4 morning height and more 6ft3.25 from afternoon.

Arch Stanton said on 19/Jul/20
And with Jeff Bridges...

Arch Stanton said on 19/Jul/20
Canson, did you not see him with Donald Sutherland, Hal Holbrook, David Soul and Tim Matheson in the 70s? He was very close to 6'4, it consistently adds up even if I agree at times he didn't look it. I have no doubt he'd have genuinely measured it earlier in the day. I've seen virtually every film of his and I don't think he looked as low as 6'3.-6'3.25 until the late 80s. Sudden Impact, around 1983 was when he started to look shorter I think, he was around 53 then.

Rory said on 18/Jul/20
Did he claim 6ft3 though or was he described as being 6ft3? I understand he was described as being 6ft3 which is different.

Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Jul/20
@Rory

Agree, not 6'4". Just me personally, I wouldn't go as high as 6'3.75" either but I think it's a fair and reasonable upper limit to suggest and certainly not impossible. Suffice to say, even if unlikely to me, I wouldn't be willing to bet my house that he wasn't 6'3.75".