Clint Eastwood's Height
5ft 11 (180.3 cm)
Peak height was 6ft 3 ½ (191.8 cm)
American actor and Director best known for films such as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Dirty Harry films, Unforgiven, Every Which Way But Loose, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Million Dollar Baby, Escape from Alcatraz, Space Cowboys and Gran Torino. In a racquetball website he stated he was "6ft 4" and in a 1988 article it mentioned his weight: "At 6- 3 and 216 pounds".
60's Publicity Photo, via Wikimedia Commons
When you're a new kid in town, you always have to punch it out with the other kids the first day or so. Kids always seem to pick on tall kids too, and I was six feet tall at the age of 13.
At school, I was never the one in my class to make things go. In the first place, I was about a foot taller than the rest of the kids. There were even occasions when I'd have lopped myself off at the knees if that had been possible.
[on basketball team] There was one guy taller than me at six-five.
You May Be Interested
Scott Eastwood
5ft 10 ¾ (180 cm)
5ft 10 ¾ (180 cm)
Gene Hackman
6ft 2 (188 cm)
6ft 2 (188 cm)
John Wayne
6ft 3 ¾ (192 cm)
6ft 3 ¾ (192 cm)
Lee Van Cleef
6ft 2 (188 cm)
6ft 2 (188 cm)
Add a Comment5634 comments
Average Guess (457 Votes)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.82in (182.4cm)
Peak: 6ft 3.36in (191.4cm)
Current: 5ft 11.82in (182.4cm)
reachjtm said on 5/Dec/24
crazy how short he looks with Momoa even if we assume Momoa is really 6'4
crazy how short he looks with Momoa even if we assume Momoa is really 6'4
Scotto said on 4/Dec/24
No less than 6-3 peak. In the Dirty Harry film he’s legit minimum of 6-3. Lost loads of height but that’s to be expected.
No less than 6-3 peak. In the Dirty Harry film he’s legit minimum of 6-3. Lost loads of height but that’s to be expected.
Duhon said on 3/Dec/24
@Hogn well, most most 94 year olds measure 6' below ground, so he's not doing too shabby.
@Hogn well, most most 94 year olds measure 6' below ground, so he's not doing too shabby.
Hong said on 2/Dec/24
Click Here Look how small Clint looks here, it's hard to believe he was even close in height to Mamoa at any stage.
Click Here Look how small Clint looks here, it's hard to believe he was even close in height to Mamoa at any stage.
Gerald S said on 29/Nov/24
6’3.25” peak; same as Eric Fleming.
6’3.25” peak; same as Eric Fleming.
reachjtm said on 26/Nov/24
Heston 6'2 and Eastwood 6'3.5 peak seems about right to me.
Heston 6'2 and Eastwood 6'3.5 peak seems about right to me.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Nov/24
Less than 6ft3 is unlikely for Clint but for some reason I sense that a guy like Sterling Hayden would eviscerate his claim to 6ft4 if they were to appear together (No scenes of them in The Wild West which they were both in).....unless of course Sterling really was 6ft5 and rounded down which as we know was a common thing for very tall actors to do.
Less than 6ft3 is unlikely for Clint but for some reason I sense that a guy like Sterling Hayden would eviscerate his claim to 6ft4 if they were to appear together (No scenes of them in The Wild West which they were both in).....unless of course Sterling really was 6ft5 and rounded down which as we know was a common thing for very tall actors to do.
181cmguy said on 25/Nov/24
@Arch Stanton,
yeah I find I am a lot more patient towards elderly people now than I was a few years back. Living with and caring for my grandmother (who is in her 90s and has dementia) has helped me to become more considerate of others, though there is still room for improvement!
@Arch Stanton,
yeah I find I am a lot more patient towards elderly people now than I was a few years back. Living with and caring for my grandmother (who is in her 90s and has dementia) has helped me to become more considerate of others, though there is still room for improvement!
Arch Stanton said on 24/Nov/24
It is sad 181cm, but I think it's amazing that Clint and Van Dyke are still with us and Clint still active. He is still said to be very sharp, though has lost more weight and height in recent years. Clint has been finding it increasingly difficult in Hollywood recently due to his conservative views, I'm sure he's disgusted with the way things have gone. You can't cancel a guy like Clint Eastwood though!
It is sad 181cm, but I think it's amazing that Clint and Van Dyke are still with us and Clint still active. He is still said to be very sharp, though has lost more weight and height in recent years. Clint has been finding it increasingly difficult in Hollywood recently due to his conservative views, I'm sure he's disgusted with the way things have gone. You can't cancel a guy like Clint Eastwood though!
Arch Stanton said on 24/Nov/24
Clint said there was only one guy taller than him in school at 6 ft 5, not that he was that himself..
Clint said there was only one guy taller than him in school at 6 ft 5, not that he was that himself..
Arch Stanton said on 24/Nov/24
There is a video from around 1972 at an awards ceremony where Clint looks a good inch taller than Heston. Some people see him at 6 ft 3 but 6'2.5" to me seems spot on.
There is a video from around 1972 at an awards ceremony where Clint looks a good inch taller than Heston. Some people see him at 6 ft 3 but 6'2.5" to me seems spot on.
Hong said on 22/Nov/24
Click Here Here's an example of a prime Clint looking tall with Heston and Wayne,two talk men,Clint slightly edging 6ft2.5 listed Heston.
Editor Rob
Click Here Here's an example of a prime Clint looking tall with Heston and Wayne,two talk men,Clint slightly edging 6ft2.5 listed Heston.
Editor RobHe looks taller than Charlton.
Henrik said on 22/Nov/24
So Clint made a six-five claim at one point, huh? He was always tall in his movies, but I don't think that I ever would have taken him to be that tall. I'd have assumed six-two even before six-five.
Editor Rob
So Clint made a six-five claim at one point, huh? He was always tall in his movies, but I don't think that I ever would have taken him to be that tall. I'd have assumed six-two even before six-five.
Editor RobI believe he meant there was a 6ft 5 guy on the team taller than himself.
181cmguy said on 22/Nov/24
I can't help but feel a bit saddened, having grown up seeing these guys when they were young (even though some were already getting on when I was watching their earlier films), to now seeing them all frail and hunched over.
I saw a recent clip of Dick Van Dyke (who is almost 99) and hearing him say he's just praying that he makes it when asked what his birthday plans were was quite sad ;-;
I can't help but feel a bit saddened, having grown up seeing these guys when they were young (even though some were already getting on when I was watching their earlier films), to now seeing them all frail and hunched over.
I saw a recent clip of Dick Van Dyke (who is almost 99) and hearing him say he's just praying that he makes it when asked what his birthday plans were was quite sad ;-;
Hong said on 20/Nov/24
Click Here Here's Clint with Fleming,in this pic Clint is looking taller all be it he's in flat footwear and Fleming is barefoot,but still agreed they both looked very similar in rawhide, I'd give a strong 6ft3 range for both guys at peak.
Click Here Here's Clint with Fleming,in this pic Clint is looking taller all be it he's in flat footwear and Fleming is barefoot,but still agreed they both looked very similar in rawhide, I'd give a strong 6ft3 range for both guys at peak.
Hong said on 20/Nov/24
Click Here Clint with Toni Collette, he's looking a couple of inches taller max,I know he's not standing upright but he's definitely looking 5ft10 range these days.
Click Here Clint with Toni Collette, he's looking a couple of inches taller max,I know he's not standing upright but he's definitely looking 5ft10 range these days.
Hong said on 20/Nov/24
Click Here Another pic of Clint and Hoult,Clint looking frail and around 5ft10 range.
Click Here Another pic of Clint and Hoult,Clint looking frail and around 5ft10 range.
Gerald S said on 18/Nov/24
Rob, can you add his RAWHIDE co-star, Eric Fleming?
6ft 3 minimum- good chance of a fraction over 6’3” actually. In Rawhide (Click Here, Fleming seemingly edged out Eastwood more times than not, but Fleming’s posture was often superior. I’d therefore suggest putting both men at 6’3.25” peak; inseparable in height.
Editor Rob
Rob, can you add his RAWHIDE co-star, Eric Fleming?
6ft 3 minimum- good chance of a fraction over 6’3” actually. In Rawhide (Click Here, Fleming seemingly edged out Eastwood more times than not, but Fleming’s posture was often superior. I’d therefore suggest putting both men at 6’3.25” peak; inseparable in height.
Editor RobThey could be within 1/4 inch of each other.
Mark Simmons said on 1/Oct/24
Looking at Clint Eastwoods recent photos I see on Facebook in particular pics I see of him stood next to his son Kyle and other guys over 6ft tall I would say Clint Eastwood currently stands at approximately 5ft 9 inches tall. I have read years ago Clint Eastwood states his height loss over the years is due to back problems. I would say in his prime he's around 6ft 2 to 6ft 3
Looking at Clint Eastwoods recent photos I see on Facebook in particular pics I see of him stood next to his son Kyle and other guys over 6ft tall I would say Clint Eastwood currently stands at approximately 5ft 9 inches tall. I have read years ago Clint Eastwood states his height loss over the years is due to back problems. I would say in his prime he's around 6ft 2 to 6ft 3
Epik said on 24/Sep/24
Wow 5ft 11 now! Rob, is 4.5 inches of height loss a greater amount than the average in his age group? Conparing someone like Donald Sutherland, his height loss was 2.5 inches, both around the same age.
Editor Rob
Wow 5ft 11 now! Rob, is 4.5 inches of height loss a greater amount than the average in his age group? Conparing someone like Donald Sutherland, his height loss was 2.5 inches, both around the same age.
Editor RobIt's more than average, but for men who are over 6ft 3, it might not be that much more than typical.
Gaevin said on 23/Sep/24
Rob, do you think he still has a chance of solid 5ft 11, or do you think he may have dipped under today?
Editor Rob
Rob, do you think he still has a chance of solid 5ft 11, or do you think he may have dipped under today?
Editor RobIt can be harder to tell with some elderly people, whether they have an extra bit of height in reserve.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Apr/24
Yeah he's looking nearer 5 ft 10 with his posture now, but maybe can still scrape 5'11 for a measurement. When you see him with 6 ft 4 guys now it's hard to imagine he was ever even near that height.
Yeah he's looking nearer 5 ft 10 with his posture now, but maybe can still scrape 5'11 for a measurement. When you see him with 6 ft 4 guys now it's hard to imagine he was ever even near that height.
James B 172cm said on 22/Apr/24
5ft11 now rob?
Editor Rob
5ft11 now rob?
Editor RobSeeing recent photos, hard to pinpoint exactly but it's more than likely he isn't over it now.
Hong said on 2/Dec/23
Click Here Then you see Clint Eastwood with George Kennedy and you think "is Leo 6ft4?"It's probably very confusing for your average person with no particular interest in the heights of celebrities.
Click Here Then you see Clint Eastwood with George Kennedy and you think "is Leo 6ft4?"It's probably very confusing for your average person with no particular interest in the heights of celebrities.
Hong said on 2/Dec/23
Click Here Imagine if you just presumed Clint was 6ft4 and Leo was 6ft because you saw their heights on a standard article that doesn't take into account height loss in old age etc,this pic would be a bit confusing because both guys look the same height.
Click Here Imagine if you just presumed Clint was 6ft4 and Leo was 6ft because you saw their heights on a standard article that doesn't take into account height loss in old age etc,this pic would be a bit confusing because both guys look the same height.
Leone_Fan said on 30/Nov/23
Thanks for the clip of the Eiger Sanction. Although its usually considered one of Eastwood's lesser movies I absolutely love it. The social attitudes on display would be considered outdated by many I guess but its a movie and shouldn't be take too seriously. Eastwood's character is a Professor of Art History who also happens to be a world class mountaineer and government agency hitman which is completely nuts of itself. So really it's not meant to be anything other than a piece of entertainment.
With that clip/trailer below we see Gregory Walcott and George Kennedy alongside Clint Eastwood. I think both of this pair are a little taller than Clint more genuine 6'4'' type guys. Although there is a fairly well known photo of Clint and George standing next to each other in climbing gear and they look the exact same height. This photo appears in the background of the movie. There is also a German actor seen who looks taller than both Clint and George Kennedy in that scene together. So it was a movie with a lot of tall guys.
Thanks for the clip of the Eiger Sanction. Although its usually considered one of Eastwood's lesser movies I absolutely love it. The social attitudes on display would be considered outdated by many I guess but its a movie and shouldn't be take too seriously. Eastwood's character is a Professor of Art History who also happens to be a world class mountaineer and government agency hitman which is completely nuts of itself. So really it's not meant to be anything other than a piece of entertainment.
With that clip/trailer below we see Gregory Walcott and George Kennedy alongside Clint Eastwood. I think both of this pair are a little taller than Clint more genuine 6'4'' type guys. Although there is a fairly well known photo of Clint and George standing next to each other in climbing gear and they look the exact same height. This photo appears in the background of the movie. There is also a German actor seen who looks taller than both Clint and George Kennedy in that scene together. So it was a movie with a lot of tall guys.
James B 172cm said on 27/Nov/23
I’d say in the early 90s he was no less than 6’2 1/2
I’d say in the early 90s he was no less than 6’2 1/2
Hong said on 27/Nov/23
Leone_fan I think it's mainly down to Aspel being more 5ft8 range and Clint is closer to the camera.I would not say Clint wore lifts,he IMO he was around 6ft3 range peak not 6ft4 and by the 90s dropped a bit of height and was more 6ft2.5 range early 90s, and down to a flat 6ft2 by the end of the 90s, sometimes times looking 6ft1.5 due to slouchy posture.
Leone_fan I think it's mainly down to Aspel being more 5ft8 range and Clint is closer to the camera.I would not say Clint wore lifts,he IMO he was around 6ft3 range peak not 6ft4 and by the 90s dropped a bit of height and was more 6ft2.5 range early 90s, and down to a flat 6ft2 by the end of the 90s, sometimes times looking 6ft1.5 due to slouchy posture.
Henrik said on 27/Nov/23
Clint and 6ft 4 George Kennedy:
Click Here
Clint and 6ft 1.5 Jeff Bridges:
Click Here
Clint and 6ft 4 George Kennedy:
Click Here
Clint and 6ft 1.5 Jeff Bridges:
Click Here
Leone_Fan said on 27/Nov/23
Looking again at the video of Clint on the Aspel show I am still surprised how tall he looks. He does look 6'4'' here and as someone said he never usually looks this tall. When he stands next to genuine 6'4'' or thereabout guys like Harve Presnell or Ed Mcmahon from the Johnny Carson Show Clint usually looks shorter. It seems unlikley but I wonder if there was any possibility Clint was wearing lifts in his footwear. I don't think so but I'm shocked how tall he looks here. Although he was standing nearer the camera than Aspel. From the 1990s onwards he looked 6'2''at best I think.
Looking again at the video of Clint on the Aspel show I am still surprised how tall he looks. He does look 6'4'' here and as someone said he never usually looks this tall. When he stands next to genuine 6'4'' or thereabout guys like Harve Presnell or Ed Mcmahon from the Johnny Carson Show Clint usually looks shorter. It seems unlikley but I wonder if there was any possibility Clint was wearing lifts in his footwear. I don't think so but I'm shocked how tall he looks here. Although he was standing nearer the camera than Aspel. From the 1990s onwards he looked 6'2''at best I think.
Parker said on 27/Sep/23
@Hong
'I googled the actress he's with in the pic I posted and she's listed as 5ft6 inches'
You have posted far better evidence than this showing Clint is over 6'3. I wouldn't trust any site other than this one on height listings
I mean here's that same actress with 6'3 listed Michael Rennie
Click Here
Not a great pic I admit, but I wouldn't have guessed her at 5'6 if they are on level ground
@Hong
'I googled the actress he's with in the pic I posted and she's listed as 5ft6 inches'
You have posted far better evidence than this showing Clint is over 6'3. I wouldn't trust any site other than this one on height listings
I mean here's that same actress with 6'3 listed Michael Rennie
Click Here
Not a great pic I admit, but I wouldn't have guessed her at 5'6 if they are on level ground
Hong said on 27/Sep/23
I agree Leone_Fan morning height of 6ft4 for Clint's peak is possible,but he was closer to 6ft3 most of the day.Also on the subject of Presnell if you watch the David Frost show interview with Clint, Ali and Presnell you can clearly see Presnell is the taller of the two.
I agree Leone_Fan morning height of 6ft4 for Clint's peak is possible,but he was closer to 6ft3 most of the day.Also on the subject of Presnell if you watch the David Frost show interview with Clint, Ali and Presnell you can clearly see Presnell is the taller of the two.
Leone_Fan said on 26/Sep/23
In Paint Your Wagon Clint was noticeably taller than Lee Marvin but looked slightly shorter than Harve Presnell. Although with the latter there perhaps weren't any really good scenes to compare. The strange thing was that Marvin seemed to stack up better against Presnell than against Eastwood. I think Clint was probably no shorter than 6'3'' but maybe a weak 6'4'' morning height at best.
In Paint Your Wagon Clint was noticeably taller than Lee Marvin but looked slightly shorter than Harve Presnell. Although with the latter there perhaps weren't any really good scenes to compare. The strange thing was that Marvin seemed to stack up better against Presnell than against Eastwood. I think Clint was probably no shorter than 6'3'' but maybe a weak 6'4'' morning height at best.
Hong said on 24/Sep/23
Click Here It's an interesting if not bizarre role for Clint,his dancing in particular was very bad and amateurish,but away from that and back to the subject of height,I googled the actress he's with in the pic I posted and she's listed as 5ft6 inches,if you add an extra 3 for heels,Clint is not looking much over 6ft in comparison,which is a bit strange,and as you said he's certainly not looking anywhere near 6ft4, that's why I think 6ft3 peak is more than generous for his height.
Click Here It's an interesting if not bizarre role for Clint,his dancing in particular was very bad and amateurish,but away from that and back to the subject of height,I googled the actress he's with in the pic I posted and she's listed as 5ft6 inches,if you add an extra 3 for heels,Clint is not looking much over 6ft in comparison,which is a bit strange,and as you said he's certainly not looking anywhere near 6ft4, that's why I think 6ft3 peak is more than generous for his height.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Sep/23
Eastwood fans may not have seen him in Le Streghe in such an offbeat role. I think it was shot in Italy in 65 in between filming or after filming the Dollars films. It's in Italian, I watched it yesterday and understood a fair bit of it. Click Here Clint comes in at 1hr 23 and certainly in an offbeat role. He certainly looks different with his hair slicked like that (like it was in Pink Cadillac). Doesn't look like a 6 ft 4 guy in it.
Eastwood fans may not have seen him in Le Streghe in such an offbeat role. I think it was shot in Italy in 65 in between filming or after filming the Dollars films. It's in Italian, I watched it yesterday and understood a fair bit of it. Click Here Clint comes in at 1hr 23 and certainly in an offbeat role. He certainly looks different with his hair slicked like that (like it was in Pink Cadillac). Doesn't look like a 6 ft 4 guy in it.
Hong said on 9/Sep/23
Click Here Rory here's a pic from that same show you can get a good look at all the footwear on show,btw 6ft3.25 for Clint's peak could be more like it but 6ft3.5 seems a little bit of a stretch.
Click Here Rory here's a pic from that same show you can get a good look at all the footwear on show,btw 6ft3.25 for Clint's peak could be more like it but 6ft3.5 seems a little bit of a stretch.
Rory said on 8/Sep/23
Hong, I'm not sure on Parkers shoes though. You've assumed they're only 1 inch, but I'm doubtful about that because to me they look like quite bulky shoes. Ignoring footwear I'd say there looked 2.5 inches between Parker and Eastwood. I've got Eastwood at 6ft3.25 prime btw.
Hong, I'm not sure on Parkers shoes though. You've assumed they're only 1 inch, but I'm doubtful about that because to me they look like quite bulky shoes. Ignoring footwear I'd say there looked 2.5 inches between Parker and Eastwood. I've got Eastwood at 6ft3.25 prime btw.
Arch Stanton said on 8/Sep/23
I mean Clint was even in a film with Richard Kiel and stood next to him on a slope LOL!
I mean Clint was even in a film with Richard Kiel and stood next to him on a slope LOL!
Hong said on 8/Sep/23
Ok Rory let's look at it this way,so Clint was 6ft3.5 + 1.25 to 1.5 inch boot heels puts Clint pretty close to 6ft5,now in comparison we have Parker 6ft5.5 and for arguments sake 1 inch heel?that would leave him at 6f6.5 that's around 1.5 inches difference.Also both guys have poor posture,Clint tends to slouch and Parker tends to stoop,so taken that into account I still see more than 1.5 inches height difference more like 2.5 leaving Clint looking no more than 6ft3 flat.
Ok Rory let's look at it this way,so Clint was 6ft3.5 + 1.25 to 1.5 inch boot heels puts Clint pretty close to 6ft5,now in comparison we have Parker 6ft5.5 and for arguments sake 1 inch heel?that would leave him at 6f6.5 that's around 1.5 inches difference.Also both guys have poor posture,Clint tends to slouch and Parker tends to stoop,so taken that into account I still see more than 1.5 inches height difference more like 2.5 leaving Clint looking no more than 6ft3 flat.
Rory said on 7/Sep/23
Hong,you've posted that many times before lol,I'm saying he looks taller than ebsen there for me when he stands well but 6ft3 flat compared to Fess Parker I'd say,not quite 3 inches. Does he have footwear advantage on Fess ? I wouldn't swear by that,those shoes Fess have on look pretty unconventional and chunky. I'd agree though on that particular show,he looked 6ft3 flat.
Hong,you've posted that many times before lol,I'm saying he looks taller than ebsen there for me when he stands well but 6ft3 flat compared to Fess Parker I'd say,not quite 3 inches. Does he have footwear advantage on Fess ? I wouldn't swear by that,those shoes Fess have on look pretty unconventional and chunky. I'd agree though on that particular show,he looked 6ft3 flat.
Hong said on 7/Sep/23
Click Here In this he looks about 3 inches shorter than Fess Parker at times,he also has footwear advantage,and looks similar to the older Buddy Ebsen.
Click Here In this he looks about 3 inches shorter than Fess Parker at times,he also has footwear advantage,and looks similar to the older Buddy Ebsen.
Leone_Fan said on 5/Sep/23
Yes it's possible that it wasn't Clint who wanted Neeson to look shorter but someone else concerned about his image such as the director or studio executives. Everything will be done to make the star look good and not be overshadowed by a supporting actor.
Yes it's possible that it wasn't Clint who wanted Neeson to look shorter but someone else concerned about his image such as the director or studio executives. Everything will be done to make the star look good and not be overshadowed by a supporting actor.
Rory said on 4/Sep/23
Not necessarily,it may have even have been asked for by the director for the purposes of the camera shot. I'd personally be surprised if Clint,at that point 190cm tall,kicked up a fuss about Neesons height. It's not like Neeson towered him on flat ground,the difference was like 3 or 4cm max. Let's not forget Clint was a powerful film star, if he'd had a problem acting with tall people then they wouldn't have been in the movie with him, so I think that's nonsense.
Not necessarily,it may have even have been asked for by the director for the purposes of the camera shot. I'd personally be surprised if Clint,at that point 190cm tall,kicked up a fuss about Neesons height. It's not like Neeson towered him on flat ground,the difference was like 3 or 4cm max. Let's not forget Clint was a powerful film star, if he'd had a problem acting with tall people then they wouldn't have been in the movie with him, so I think that's nonsense.
Hong said on 4/Sep/23
Your correct Leone_Fan as you can read in the post I sent on 6th of June,this says too me that Clint was indeed very aware of his height next to his co stars and was fully aware that he was beginning to lose height at that stage of his life.
Your correct Leone_Fan as you can read in the post I sent on 6th of June,this says too me that Clint was indeed very aware of his height next to his co stars and was fully aware that he was beginning to lose height at that stage of his life.
Leone_Fan said on 3/Sep/23
In Dead Pool Liam Neeson was made to stand on lower ground than Clint so he didn't look taller. Which was stupid I think. Liam did look taller in some scenes though.
In Dead Pool Liam Neeson was made to stand on lower ground than Clint so he didn't look taller. Which was stupid I think. Liam did look taller in some scenes though.
Rory said on 3/Sep/23
I think young Clint would have easily hit 6ft4 out of bed,probably on a good day 6ft4.25 straight out and then at night down to maybe 6ft3.25. Solid 193 range is out seeing as he was edged by Walcott,Kennedy and Gavin, likewise 189/190 range is out seeing as he was taller than ulrick and Matheson whilst in flat shoes. 191.5 is a good bet for Dollars era Clint.
I think young Clint would have easily hit 6ft4 out of bed,probably on a good day 6ft4.25 straight out and then at night down to maybe 6ft3.25. Solid 193 range is out seeing as he was edged by Walcott,Kennedy and Gavin, likewise 189/190 range is out seeing as he was taller than ulrick and Matheson whilst in flat shoes. 191.5 is a good bet for Dollars era Clint.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 2/Sep/23
Yeah the full 6ft4 always seemed to be a slight stretch. Early morning would have hit it surely. Flat 6ft3 I think should be off the menu as well for Clint's peak though.
In Dead Pool still looked around the 6ft3 mark
Yeah the full 6ft4 always seemed to be a slight stretch. Early morning would have hit it surely. Flat 6ft3 I think should be off the menu as well for Clint's peak though.
In Dead Pool still looked around the 6ft3 mark
Arch Stanton said on 1/Sep/23
It's one of those quite rare instances where Clint actually looks a genuine solid 6 ft 4. In some scenes in Blood Work I thought Clint actually looked a bit taller than Jeff Daniels, and did look about 6 ft 3. Which is odd as it was 2003 and he started looking more 6 ft 2 range by around 1993! I can believe 6'4" in the morning peak Parker, and that he dropped to mid 6'3" range. I think he looked too lanky to be the 6'2.5-6'3 some people say.
It's one of those quite rare instances where Clint actually looks a genuine solid 6 ft 4. In some scenes in Blood Work I thought Clint actually looked a bit taller than Jeff Daniels, and did look about 6 ft 3. Which is odd as it was 2003 and he started looking more 6 ft 2 range by around 1993! I can believe 6'4" in the morning peak Parker, and that he dropped to mid 6'3" range. I think he looked too lanky to be the 6'2.5-6'3 some people say.
Parker said on 1/Sep/23
Arch Stanton said on 30/Aug/23
Even if Aspel is under 5'9, Clint physically proportionally looks easily 6 ft 4 in that video to me!
100% agree mate. Minimum solid 6'3 as he looked in Magnum Force. I've upgraded my peak guess to 6'4. He's claimed it, why would you lie at that height.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Aug/23
Even if Aspel is under 5'9, Clint physically proportionally looks easily 6 ft 4 in that video to me!
100% agree mate. Minimum solid 6'3 as he looked in Magnum Force. I've upgraded my peak guess to 6'4. He's claimed it, why would you lie at that height.
Leone_Fan said on 31/Aug/23
Really surprised how tall Eastwood looks in the video with Michael Aspel. Looks like a 6'4'' or 6'3'' guy on that show. Clint was in his mid 50s then so I guess still close to his peak height and looked great overall, still the picture of the handsome movie star.
Looking at an older Eastwood from the 2000's onwards its hard to see a 6'4'' guy. At times you question whether he was ever really 6'4'' to begin with, such as when you see him towered by Tim Robbins who some claim is 6'7'' but is probably 6'5''. Clint looks like he was a legitimately tall guy who has lost several inches due to the effects of ageing.
On a side note I was a bit concerned that the site was going under due to it not accepting comments for a while. I appreciate it said was due to technical issues but was concerned maybe Rob the site owner had blown his bank balance on running the site or something. No offence Rob. Glad to see it's up and running and going strong.
Editor Rob
Really surprised how tall Eastwood looks in the video with Michael Aspel. Looks like a 6'4'' or 6'3'' guy on that show. Clint was in his mid 50s then so I guess still close to his peak height and looked great overall, still the picture of the handsome movie star.
Looking at an older Eastwood from the 2000's onwards its hard to see a 6'4'' guy. At times you question whether he was ever really 6'4'' to begin with, such as when you see him towered by Tim Robbins who some claim is 6'7'' but is probably 6'5''. Clint looks like he was a legitimately tall guy who has lost several inches due to the effects of ageing.
On a side note I was a bit concerned that the site was going under due to it not accepting comments for a while. I appreciate it said was due to technical issues but was concerned maybe Rob the site owner had blown his bank balance on running the site or something. No offence Rob. Glad to see it's up and running and going strong.
Editor RobDoing conventions was by far the biggest expense of running this site.
Arch Stanton said on 30/Aug/23
Even if Aspel is under 5'9, Clint physically proportionally looks easily 6 ft 4 in that video to me!
Even if Aspel is under 5'9, Clint physically proportionally looks easily 6 ft 4 in that video to me!
Rory said on 30/Aug/23
In fairness I think Parkinson is underlisted at 5ft10, he could pull off 10.5 quite a bit I feel and I wouldn't go under 10.25 for him. Aspel 8.25/8.5 and Parkinson 10.25/10.5 is likely and I think Clint by 1985 was 6ft3 how much he'd lost in height by then is unknowable,but probably less than half inch.
In fairness I think Parkinson is underlisted at 5ft10, he could pull off 10.5 quite a bit I feel and I wouldn't go under 10.25 for him. Aspel 8.25/8.5 and Parkinson 10.25/10.5 is likely and I think Clint by 1985 was 6ft3 how much he'd lost in height by then is unknowable,but probably less than half inch.
Hong said on 30/Aug/23
Agreed Rory,I think Aspel was closer to 5ft8 than 9 putting Clint in the strong 6ft3 range.
Agreed Rory,I think Aspel was closer to 5ft8 than 9 putting Clint in the strong 6ft3 range.
Rory said on 29/Aug/23
Click Here
You can see Aspel with 6ft1.75 Caine in the first 30 seconds here looking a good 5 inches shorter. Also in the episode with Clint he seemed a bit shorter than 5ft9ish Dennis Waterman so I'd say Aspel was at best 5ft8.5 and possibly as low as 5ft8.25. Clint looked 7-8 inches taller but was slightly nearer to the camera so he probably wasn't much more than 7 inches taller than Aspel in reality.
Click Here
You can see Aspel with 6ft1.75 Caine in the first 30 seconds here looking a good 5 inches shorter. Also in the episode with Clint he seemed a bit shorter than 5ft9ish Dennis Waterman so I'd say Aspel was at best 5ft8.5 and possibly as low as 5ft8.25. Clint looked 7-8 inches taller but was slightly nearer to the camera so he probably wasn't much more than 7 inches taller than Aspel in reality.
James B 172cm said on 29/Aug/23
Arch-Maybe Clint was 6’3.25 in the mid 80s?
Arch-Maybe Clint was 6’3.25 in the mid 80s?
Hong said on 29/Aug/23
Click Here Here's Aspel with 5ft10 listed Michael Parkinson, he's looking a couple of inches shorter,so maybe closer to 5ft 8 would be more like Aspels height at the time?
Click Here Here's Aspel with 5ft10 listed Michael Parkinson, he's looking a couple of inches shorter,so maybe closer to 5ft 8 would be more like Aspels height at the time?
Arch Stanton said on 29/Aug/23
Clint oddly looks proportionally like a legit 6 ft 4 in that clip from 1985! and the legs of a guy nearer 6 ft 6. I thought Clint edged out 6'3" Michael Moriarty in Pale Rider James!
Clint oddly looks proportionally like a legit 6 ft 4 in that clip from 1985! and the legs of a guy nearer 6 ft 6. I thought Clint edged out 6'3" Michael Moriarty in Pale Rider James!
James B 172cm said on 29/Aug/23
Rob assuming Clint was not over 6ft3 in 1985 do you agree that Aspel looks 5ft8 in comparison?
Editor Rob
Rob assuming Clint was not over 6ft3 in 1985 do you agree that Aspel looks 5ft8 in comparison?
Editor RobBetween 5ft 8 and 9
James B 172cm said on 29/Aug/23
Maybe Michael Aspel is more 5ft8?
Maybe Michael Aspel is more 5ft8?
Hong said on 28/Aug/23
Click Here Here's Clint and Eric,as you can see Eric is barefoot and Clint has shoes on but Clint looks to have the edge even taken that in to account.In general in Rawhide I do think both guys look quite similar in height,but with the often uneven ground level in the outside scenes it's pretty hard to get a good comparison.
Click Here Here's Clint and Eric,as you can see Eric is barefoot and Clint has shoes on but Clint looks to have the edge even taken that in to account.In general in Rawhide I do think both guys look quite similar in height,but with the often uneven ground level in the outside scenes it's pretty hard to get a good comparison.
Hong said on 28/Aug/23
Click Here look at this video from the Michael Aspel show in 1985, Aspel is listed as 5ft9 and is completely towerd by Clint, it's one of those occasions in which Clint actually looks 6ft4.
Click Here look at this video from the Michael Aspel show in 1985, Aspel is listed as 5ft9 and is completely towerd by Clint, it's one of those occasions in which Clint actually looks 6ft4.
Gerald S said on 28/Aug/23
Rob, I know it's a toss up, but who do you think might have been a stronger 6'3.5" out of Eric Fleming and Eastwood on Rawhide?
Editor Rob
Rob, I know it's a toss up, but who do you think might have been a stronger 6'3.5" out of Eric Fleming and Eastwood on Rawhide?
Editor RobWould have said Clint might have had the edge.
James B 172cm said on 27/Aug/23
6'3-6'3.5 peak
6'3-6'3.5 peak
Slamm said on 27/Aug/23
6-3.5 peak now 5-11.75
6-3.5 peak now 5-11.75
Hong said on 7/Jun/23
Click Here Here's Paul Newman's military physical results,as you can see his height is listed as 69.25 inches which is 5ft9 and a quarter.
Click Here Here's Paul Newman's military physical results,as you can see his height is listed as 69.25 inches which is 5ft9 and a quarter.
Hong said on 7/Jun/23
But still Arch 6 inches?I don't think so.
But still Arch 6 inches?I don't think so.
Hong said on 6/Jun/23
Click Here In this article Liam Neeson mentions how he was deliberately made look shorter than Clint in the dead pool.
Click Here In this article Liam Neeson mentions how he was deliberately made look shorter than Clint in the dead pool.
Hong said on 6/Jun/23
Just got Newman's military service documents and posted them to Newman's page, it has Newman's height as 5ft9.25.
Just got Newman's military service documents and posted them to Newman's page, it has Newman's height as 5ft9.25.
Arch Stanton said on 3/Jun/23
Newman is stood on one leg which can often make you look taller and Clint is clearly dropping height with his legs apart though Hong. His legs are more than slightly far apart.
Newman is stood on one leg which can often make you look taller and Clint is clearly dropping height with his legs apart though Hong. His legs are more than slightly far apart.
Hong said on 3/Jun/23
Click Here I've managed to get a closer still of Clint and Newman in which Newman's legs are straight and Clint in in a pisition where his legs are more together.
Click Here I've managed to get a closer still of Clint and Newman in which Newman's legs are straight and Clint in in a pisition where his legs are more together.
Hong said on 3/Jun/23
Click Here A 60 year old Clint with 6ft5.5 listed Clive Mantel,Clint is looking about 6ft2 in comparison.
Click Here A 60 year old Clint with 6ft5.5 listed Clive Mantel,Clint is looking about 6ft2 in comparison.
Hong said on 2/Jun/23
Click Here Here's a still of all the pics of Clint and Newman from that photo shoot.
Click Here Here's a still of all the pics of Clint and Newman from that photo shoot.
Hong said on 2/Jun/23
Click Here Both Eastwood at Newman in their 40s still at peak,I don't see a 6inch height difference.I know Clint's legs are slightly spread but Newman isn't exactly standing great either, also Clint's hair is very high.In this pic I see about max 5 inches,I would be interested to know your opinion Rob,do you think Clint looks 6 inches taller?
Click Here Both Eastwood at Newman in their 40s still at peak,I don't see a 6inch height difference.I know Clint's legs are slightly spread but Newman isn't exactly standing great either, also Clint's hair is very high.In this pic I see about max 5 inches,I would be interested to know your opinion Rob,do you think Clint looks 6 inches taller?
Hong said on 31/May/23
The guy beside Clint is actually listed as 5ft8,Clint doesn't look much taller.
The guy beside Clint is actually listed as 5ft8,Clint doesn't look much taller.
Gerald S said on 31/May/23
Happy 93rd birthday, Clint.
Clint surprisingly had several inches on once six feet Dwight Yoakam in Cry Macho. Clint was wearing cowboy boots at the time though. I doubt Clint is over 5’11” now, Tom Hanks is noticeably taller these days.
Happy 93rd birthday, Clint.
Clint surprisingly had several inches on once six feet Dwight Yoakam in Cry Macho. Clint was wearing cowboy boots at the time though. I doubt Clint is over 5’11” now, Tom Hanks is noticeably taller these days.
Arch Stanton said on 31/May/23
My Granddad was 5'9 and a half in his early 90s barefoot, I remember measuring him as a kid. In his prime he was "a hair over 6 ft", tall for a man born in 1900. So he lost almost 3 inches. I'm pretty sure Clint has lost more than 3 inches!!!
My Granddad was 5'9 and a half in his early 90s barefoot, I remember measuring him as a kid. In his prime he was "a hair over 6 ft", tall for a man born in 1900. So he lost almost 3 inches. I'm pretty sure Clint has lost more than 3 inches!!!
Arch Stanton said on 31/May/23
Happy 93rd Birthday Clint! He's now the age my Grandad was when he died. Hopefully he has many years left in the tank still!
Happy 93rd Birthday Clint! He's now the age my Grandad was when he died. Hopefully he has many years left in the tank still!
Hong said on 31/May/23
Happy birthday Mr Eastwood,93 years old today,6ft 3.25 peak 5ft11.25 at 93,4 inch loss in total.
Happy birthday Mr Eastwood,93 years old today,6ft 3.25 peak 5ft11.25 at 93,4 inch loss in total.
James B 5ft8 said on 21/May/23
He looks like he’s lost a lot of weight and is very hunched Click Here
He looks like he’s lost a lot of weight and is very hunched Click Here
Cold Water said on 20/May/23
1979: 191 cm
1988: 190 cm
1995: 187 cm
2003: 185 cm
2023: 180 cm
1979: 191 cm
1988: 190 cm
1995: 187 cm
2003: 185 cm
2023: 180 cm
Arch Stanton said on 15/May/23
Turns out it is complete BS and clickbait that he's been ill, one of his representatives said he's fine but has been preparing for a new film which is due to begin shooting shortly.
Turns out it is complete BS and clickbait that he's been ill, one of his representatives said he's fine but has been preparing for a new film which is due to begin shooting shortly.
Jtm said on 13/May/23
i hope he's at least able to do his next film
i hope he's at least able to do his next film
James B 5ft8 said on 11/May/23
Arch I wonder if Clint will make it to 100?
Arch I wonder if Clint will make it to 100?
Arch Stanton said on 11/May/23
He was looking very thin, even thinner than normal the last I saw, hope he doesn't have cancer or something. He would be the sort of guy who would keep quiet about something like that.
He was looking very thin, even thinner than normal the last I saw, hope he doesn't have cancer or something. He would be the sort of guy who would keep quiet about something like that.
Hong said on 10/May/23
Click Here Here's an interesting article on Clint's absence from the limelight,it also mentions Clint may be suffering from osteoporosis which would make sense.
Click Here Here's an interesting article on Clint's absence from the limelight,it also mentions Clint may be suffering from osteoporosis which would make sense.
James B 5ft8 said on 9/May/23
I fear for Clint Eastwood health since he has not been seen in public for over a year now
I fear for Clint Eastwood health since he has not been seen in public for over a year now
Hong said on 8/May/23
Click Here @Siamo this is the video of that episode of the David Frost Show,people can make up their own mind's weather Clint looks a full inch taller than Ali,"but in my opinion no matter what Ali said", Clint does not look that much taller than Ali,in fact there is not any clear shots of the two guys standing next to each other to compare their height's properly.
Click Here @Siamo this is the video of that episode of the David Frost Show,people can make up their own mind's weather Clint looks a full inch taller than Ali,"but in my opinion no matter what Ali said", Clint does not look that much taller than Ali,in fact there is not any clear shots of the two guys standing next to each other to compare their height's properly.
Slamo said on 8/May/23
On Parkinson with Ali Clint looked 6-3.5 absolutely. Ali even commented on him being smaller than Clint.
On Parkinson with Ali Clint looked 6-3.5 absolutely. Ali even commented on him being smaller than Clint.
Hong said on 2/May/23
Click Here In this pic taken at the same event Clint looks more 6ft1 range than a flat 6ft as he did in the in the earlier pic I posted,it just goes to show how angles and posture can effect the way you can judge people's height's in photos.
Click Here In this pic taken at the same event Clint looks more 6ft1 range than a flat 6ft as he did in the in the earlier pic I posted,it just goes to show how angles and posture can effect the way you can judge people's height's in photos.
Hong said on 2/May/23
Click Here this is the Japanese actor I was talking about,as you can see in the pic I posted he Clint is very similar looking in height to a 6ft guy aged in his mid seventies.
Click Here this is the Japanese actor I was talking about,as you can see in the pic I posted he Clint is very similar looking in height to a 6ft guy aged in his mid seventies.
Hong said on 2/May/23
The guy I said was listed every where I checked as 6ft1 was actually 6ft my mistake, I typed 6ft1 by mistake.
The guy I said was listed every where I checked as 6ft1 was actually 6ft my mistake, I typed 6ft1 by mistake.
James B 5ft8 said on 1/May/23
Leone_Fan said on 30/Apr/23
Clint Eastwood is usually given as 6'4'' in his prime. The older Clint is much smaller sub 6ft. Looking at him standing next to guys like Tim Robbins it is difficult to see how Clint could have once been more or less the same height. Clint looks a good 4 or 5 inches smaller and this was like 20 years ago. On the Robert Ryan page a guy claims to have met Eastwood in the 70s and puts him just under 6'2''. If this is is genuine then this would explain why Eastwood looks so much smaller today. On the other hand a young Clint can look very tall at times.
Clint was probably a solid 1.5 inches shorter than Robbins even at his peak
Leone_Fan said on 30/Apr/23
Clint Eastwood is usually given as 6'4'' in his prime. The older Clint is much smaller sub 6ft. Looking at him standing next to guys like Tim Robbins it is difficult to see how Clint could have once been more or less the same height. Clint looks a good 4 or 5 inches smaller and this was like 20 years ago. On the Robert Ryan page a guy claims to have met Eastwood in the 70s and puts him just under 6'2''. If this is is genuine then this would explain why Eastwood looks so much smaller today. On the other hand a young Clint can look very tall at times.
Clint was probably a solid 1.5 inches shorter than Robbins even at his peak
Hong said on 1/May/23
Click Here The guy beside Clint is listed everywhere I checked as 6ft1,Clint in his mid 70s is looking similar of maybe a bit taller? Judging from all the pics I've seen Clint from age 70 was looking no more than 6ft1 in general, with a few exceptions he was looking maybe 6ft1.5 at most.He looks to have shrunk 2 inches by age 70 and now about 4.5 to 5 inches aged almost 93,so it's perfectly understandable to see why some people would be sceptical of his peak listing of 6ft3.5, because now he's just looking like an averaged height guy.He did look 6ft3 range in his younger days compared to his contemporaries but that could have been down to over inflated height claims on their behalf?it has been known to happen,and there have been already some examples of this on this website,Lee Marvin for example originally listed as 6ft2 now down to 6ft1 and his military records say 6ft.5 so he could have been even that low.I no Clint was originally listed here as 6ft4 and was reduced to 6ft3.5 but I still think there is a good argument for an other reduction? definitely now because he's still active his current height should be reduced to 5ft11.
Click Here The guy beside Clint is listed everywhere I checked as 6ft1,Clint in his mid 70s is looking similar of maybe a bit taller? Judging from all the pics I've seen Clint from age 70 was looking no more than 6ft1 in general, with a few exceptions he was looking maybe 6ft1.5 at most.He looks to have shrunk 2 inches by age 70 and now about 4.5 to 5 inches aged almost 93,so it's perfectly understandable to see why some people would be sceptical of his peak listing of 6ft3.5, because now he's just looking like an averaged height guy.He did look 6ft3 range in his younger days compared to his contemporaries but that could have been down to over inflated height claims on their behalf?it has been known to happen,and there have been already some examples of this on this website,Lee Marvin for example originally listed as 6ft2 now down to 6ft1 and his military records say 6ft.5 so he could have been even that low.I no Clint was originally listed here as 6ft4 and was reduced to 6ft3.5 but I still think there is a good argument for an other reduction? definitely now because he's still active his current height should be reduced to 5ft11.
Hong said on 1/May/23
Click Here This one is making Clint at the age of 78 look no more than 6ft with Robbins, basically Clint was looking like he was a couple of inches short of 6ft3.5 at 70 years of age and by his late 70s under 6ft1.
Click Here This one is making Clint at the age of 78 look no more than 6ft with Robbins, basically Clint was looking like he was a couple of inches short of 6ft3.5 at 70 years of age and by his late 70s under 6ft1.
Hong said on 1/May/23
Click Here Here's Clint from the same photo shoot looking 6ft2? next to at the time a prime 6ft guy Larry Fishbourne.
Click Here Here's Clint from the same photo shoot looking 6ft2? next to at the time a prime 6ft guy Larry Fishbourne.
Hong said on 1/May/23
Click Here Clint and Robbins,both guys with similar posture,Clint looking max 6ft1 in comparison aged early 70s,that's over 2 inches less than peak height.
Click Here Clint and Robbins,both guys with similar posture,Clint looking max 6ft1 in comparison aged early 70s,that's over 2 inches less than peak height.
Hong said on 1/May/23
Click Here @Parker yes he does look sub 6ft in that pic I agree,here's Clint next to Tim Robbins listed 6ft4.75,as you can see the height difference looks less because of Robbins posture,Clint is looking 6ft3 range.
Click Here @Parker yes he does look sub 6ft in that pic I agree,here's Clint next to Tim Robbins listed 6ft4.75,as you can see the height difference looks less because of Robbins posture,Clint is looking 6ft3 range.
Parker said on 30/Apr/23
There seems to be good agreement on celebheights of Ben Stiller being a 5'6 guy
Here he is with Clint who had just turned 87. I would guess Clint at 5'10/11 here, would you agree Hong?
Click Here
In Magnum Force I thought Clint looked a solid 6'3 against listed 6'2 guys Tim Mathieson and Robert Urich
There seems to be good agreement on celebheights of Ben Stiller being a 5'6 guy
Here he is with Clint who had just turned 87. I would guess Clint at 5'10/11 here, would you agree Hong?
Click Here
In Magnum Force I thought Clint looked a solid 6'3 against listed 6'2 guys Tim Mathieson and Robert Urich
Leone_Fan said on 30/Apr/23
Clint Eastwood is usually given as 6'4'' in his prime. The older Clint is much smaller sub 6ft. Looking at him standing next to guys like Tim Robbins it is difficult to see how Clint could have once been more or less the same height. Clint looks a good 4 or 5 inches smaller and this was like 20 years ago. On the Robert Ryan page a guy claims to have met Eastwood in the 70s and puts him just under 6'2''. If this is is genuine then this would explain why Eastwood looks so much smaller today. On the other hand a young Clint can look very tall at times.
Clint Eastwood is usually given as 6'4'' in his prime. The older Clint is much smaller sub 6ft. Looking at him standing next to guys like Tim Robbins it is difficult to see how Clint could have once been more or less the same height. Clint looks a good 4 or 5 inches smaller and this was like 20 years ago. On the Robert Ryan page a guy claims to have met Eastwood in the 70s and puts him just under 6'2''. If this is is genuine then this would explain why Eastwood looks so much smaller today. On the other hand a young Clint can look very tall at times.
Parker said on 28/Apr/23
Hong said on 28/Apr/23
Click Here At this stage in his 80s Clint is significantly shorter than Neeson.
Think that might be the angle of the photograph Hong - Here is another Click Here
Hong said on 28/Apr/23
Click Here At this stage in his 80s Clint is significantly shorter than Neeson.
Think that might be the angle of the photograph Hong - Here is another Click Here
Hong said on 28/Apr/23
Click Here At this stage in his 80s Clint is significantly shorter than Neeson.
Click Here At this stage in his 80s Clint is significantly shorter than Neeson.
Hong said on 28/Apr/23
Click Here Here's Clint with 6ft4.25 listed Steven Seagal,Clint is looking almost 2 inches shorter at aged 65.
Click Here Here's Clint with 6ft4.25 listed Steven Seagal,Clint is looking almost 2 inches shorter at aged 65.
Hong said on 28/Apr/23
In the pic with Neeson it has a date of 2004 that would make Clint 74,I don't know if that's the year the pic was taken.
In the pic with Neeson it has a date of 2004 that would make Clint 74,I don't know if that's the year the pic was taken.
Slamo said on 25/Apr/23
Watched Any which way you can with William smith fighting Clint at the end. Smith is a genuine 6-2 guy. Clint has an inch minimum on him. Both have flat sneakers on. Peak I’d say 6-3.5. Now 5-11.75.
Watched Any which way you can with William smith fighting Clint at the end. Smith is a genuine 6-2 guy. Clint has an inch minimum on him. Both have flat sneakers on. Peak I’d say 6-3.5. Now 5-11.75.
Hong said on 24/Apr/23
Click Here Here's Clint looking similar to Morgan Freeman back in 92,Clint aged 62 and Freeman 55.
Click Here Here's Clint looking similar to Morgan Freeman back in 92,Clint aged 62 and Freeman 55.
Rory said on 18/Apr/23
Yh a guy like Clint can have no complaints about anything. He's lucked out his while life with his career,looks,height,longevity,health etc I wouldn't be letting some height loss get to me if I was him.
Yh a guy like Clint can have no complaints about anything. He's lucked out his while life with his career,looks,height,longevity,health etc I wouldn't be letting some height loss get to me if I was him.
Arch Stanton said on 16/Apr/23
Astounding how he still has the energy and mental clarity to make films at 93 Holt. Of course his super efficient directing style helps but it's still a massive undertaking making a film!
Astounding how he still has the energy and mental clarity to make films at 93 Holt. Of course his super efficient directing style helps but it's still a massive undertaking making a film!
5'7 and a fraction said on 15/Apr/23
Sandy Cowell said on 30/Mar/23
It’s rather sad that Clint has lost 3 1/2 inches.
There's nothing to be sad about loosing 3 1/2 inches by 90+. It's all perfectly natural and part of aging. My Great Gran went from 5'10 to looking no more than 5'4 and she got along just fine. Height isn't everything at the end of the day.
Sandy Cowell said on 30/Mar/23
It’s rather sad that Clint has lost 3 1/2 inches.
There's nothing to be sad about loosing 3 1/2 inches by 90+. It's all perfectly natural and part of aging. My Great Gran went from 5'10 to looking no more than 5'4 and she got along just fine. Height isn't everything at the end of the day.
Hong said on 15/Apr/23
I've heard he's going to be directing a movie with Nicholas Holt in it,if so it will be interesting to compare Clint's current height next to a 6ft2.5 listed guy like Holt.In my Opinion Clint would have been slightly taller at peak than Holt so it would be a good indicator of how the young Clint would have looked standing alongside the elderly shrunken Clint.
I've heard he's going to be directing a movie with Nicholas Holt in it,if so it will be interesting to compare Clint's current height next to a 6ft2.5 listed guy like Holt.In my Opinion Clint would have been slightly taller at peak than Holt so it would be a good indicator of how the young Clint would have looked standing alongside the elderly shrunken Clint.
Hong said on 5/Apr/23
10 years ago he was looking 6ft range next to Bradley Cooper and Leonardo DiCaprio,but now he's definitely under that measurement.
10 years ago he was looking 6ft range next to Bradley Cooper and Leonardo DiCaprio,but now he's definitely under that measurement.
James B 5ft8 said on 31/Mar/23
I find It very hard to believe he’s still 6ft.
6ft is actually a tall height for a man and Clint no longer looks tall
I find It very hard to believe he’s still 6ft.
6ft is actually a tall height for a man and Clint no longer looks tall
Sandy Cowell said on 30/Mar/23
It’s rather sad that Clint has lost 3 1/2 inches.
It’s rather sad that Clint has lost 3 1/2 inches.
Arch Stanton said on 29/Mar/23
Glad we're in agreement Hong. There's always some baffling height anomalies!
Glad we're in agreement Hong. There's always some baffling height anomalies!
Hong said on 29/Mar/23
Click Here @Rory I would say Clint looked somewhere between 6ft1 and 6ft2 in that meeting movie, Woods was in my opinion a weak 5ft11 and Leary around 6ft1 range.
Click Here @Rory I would say Clint looked somewhere between 6ft1 and 6ft2 in that meeting movie, Woods was in my opinion a weak 5ft11 and Leary around 6ft1 range.
Rory said on 27/Mar/23
Clint was definitely looking over 6ft1 in '99. I seem to remember him looking about 3 inches taller than James Woods in the film so I'd say at least 6ft1.75 at that time. I think he lost around 2cms during the 90s, started off 189.5 and finished 187.5.
Clint was definitely looking over 6ft1 in '99. I seem to remember him looking about 3 inches taller than James Woods in the film so I'd say at least 6ft1.75 at that time. I think he lost around 2cms during the 90s, started off 189.5 and finished 187.5.
Hong said on 27/Mar/23
Also I forgot to mention, in true crime Clint only looked a few inches taller than 5ft9.25 listed Bernard Hill also.
Also I forgot to mention, in true crime Clint only looked a few inches taller than 5ft9.25 listed Bernard Hill also.
Hong said on 25/Mar/23
I'm not saying Clint was below 6ft3 at peak I'm just saying in the pic with Douglas Clint looks far short of 6ft3 and has the tendency to look shorter than 6ft3 in some pics, in fact in his early sixties looked no more than 6ft2 and sub 6ft2 in his late sixties, for example compared to James Woods and Dennis Leary in true crime,he was marginally taller than Leary and had a couple of inches on Woods. Throughout that movie he was looking around 6ft1 range and that was at the time of the pic I posted with Douglas.
I'm not saying Clint was below 6ft3 at peak I'm just saying in the pic with Douglas Clint looks far short of 6ft3 and has the tendency to look shorter than 6ft3 in some pics, in fact in his early sixties looked no more than 6ft2 and sub 6ft2 in his late sixties, for example compared to James Woods and Dennis Leary in true crime,he was marginally taller than Leary and had a couple of inches on Woods. Throughout that movie he was looking around 6ft1 range and that was at the time of the pic I posted with Douglas.
Arch Stanton said on 22/Mar/23
Hong, Douglas looks like 5 ft 11 in that photo. In reality he was 5 ft 9 range. You can't use one photo to justify the height of the person and than find a photo of the other person looking shorter than normal elsewhere and use that as justification for somebody being shorte in another photo!! Anybody who has seen all of Clint's films can't seriously think he was under 6 ft 3, otherwise everybody else is overlisted.
Hong, Douglas looks like 5 ft 11 in that photo. In reality he was 5 ft 9 range. You can't use one photo to justify the height of the person and than find a photo of the other person looking shorter than normal elsewhere and use that as justification for somebody being shorte in another photo!! Anybody who has seen all of Clint's films can't seriously think he was under 6 ft 3, otherwise everybody else is overlisted.
Hong said on 20/Mar/23
Click Here Michael Douglas is not a tall man here he is looking similar to Sean Penn, he's not even looking 5ft9 there.
Click Here Michael Douglas is not a tall man here he is looking similar to Sean Penn, he's not even looking 5ft9 there.
Hong said on 13/Mar/23
Click Here In this pic taken in 1998 Clint at 68 is looking max 6ft1 next to 5ft10ish Michael Douglas and that's taking in to account his more relaxed posture.
Click Here In this pic taken in 1998 Clint at 68 is looking max 6ft1 next to 5ft10ish Michael Douglas and that's taking in to account his more relaxed posture.
Hong said on 10/Mar/23
Click Here Here's a copy of one of the id cards used in one of the dirty harry movies, it's interesting his height is listed as 6ft2,also Harry was 10 years younger than Clint.
Click Here Here's a copy of one of the id cards used in one of the dirty harry movies, it's interesting his height is listed as 6ft2,also Harry was 10 years younger than Clint.
Arch Stanton said on 6/Mar/23
LOL. Beckham wishes he looked like Clint and Steve McQueen more like! In the early 2010s Beckham's hair and beard and squint was reminiscent of Clint in the Dollars films but they're nothing alike really. Beck's face looks puffy these days and those awful tattoos.... He'd have gone bald at least five times if it wasn't for the hair plants!
LOL. Beckham wishes he looked like Clint and Steve McQueen more like! In the early 2010s Beckham's hair and beard and squint was reminiscent of Clint in the Dollars films but they're nothing alike really. Beck's face looks puffy these days and those awful tattoos.... He'd have gone bald at least five times if it wasn't for the hair plants!
James.B 172cm said on 1/Mar/23
Nah Arch I think Clint bears more resemblance to David Beckham
Nah Arch I think Clint bears more resemblance to David Beckham
Rory said on 28/Feb/23
It really isn't that rare to lose several inches when you get to 90+,losing only 1 inch by that age group would be rare. Look at prince Phillip, he was no less than 6ft peak and possibly a strong one but by the end he was 5ft9 at most and there's a guy who has had the best of everything in life in terms of food/health care. People need to get over the fact elderly people lose height and often a fair bit of it. It's not uncommon. Clint has probably lost nearly 4 inches by now.
It really isn't that rare to lose several inches when you get to 90+,losing only 1 inch by that age group would be rare. Look at prince Phillip, he was no less than 6ft peak and possibly a strong one but by the end he was 5ft9 at most and there's a guy who has had the best of everything in life in terms of food/health care. People need to get over the fact elderly people lose height and often a fair bit of it. It's not uncommon. Clint has probably lost nearly 4 inches by now.
Arch Stanton said on 28/Feb/23
More like was almost 6 ft 4 and now barely over 5 ft 10! Nah I think he could measure around 5 ft 11 now, 6 ft seems a bit generous currently, even with his posture. Marez people typically lose an inch a decade on average after the age of 60. You could expect a 6'3.5 peak guy to be barely over 6 ft now by the age of 93. Clint obviously has problems with his back which could account for more than average loss.
Jackman has a slight resemblance to Clint when he has a beard, mainly the hair, beard and around the eyes I think, but not really. Jackman certainly has a better physique than Clint but looks a bit washed out in the face and at times doesn't look well, I don't know if that's skin cancer he had at those times or something.
More like was almost 6 ft 4 and now barely over 5 ft 10! Nah I think he could measure around 5 ft 11 now, 6 ft seems a bit generous currently, even with his posture. Marez people typically lose an inch a decade on average after the age of 60. You could expect a 6'3.5 peak guy to be barely over 6 ft now by the age of 93. Clint obviously has problems with his back which could account for more than average loss.
Jackman has a slight resemblance to Clint when he has a beard, mainly the hair, beard and around the eyes I think, but not really. Jackman certainly has a better physique than Clint but looks a bit washed out in the face and at times doesn't look well, I don't know if that's skin cancer he had at those times or something.
MareZ said on 28/Feb/23
Folks, but how is it possible to lose so much height? He was a solid 6'3 or even more and now 6'0. It's about 3 inches. I understand losing two cm but so much..
Folks, but how is it possible to lose so much height? He was a solid 6'3 or even more and now 6'0. It's about 3 inches. I understand losing two cm but so much..
Hong said on 26/Feb/23
I meant Hackman.
I meant Hackman.
Rory said on 26/Feb/23
Yh but that's just an anomalous picture Hong. Most other photos of Hackman and Freeman from around that time tell us they were within an inch of each other. I think in 2000 Freeman may well not have lost anything by then,he held his height well and probably still was 6ft2.25, whilst I think Hackman had gone from 6ft1.75/6ft2 peak to 6ft1.25 by then at 70.
Yh but that's just an anomalous picture Hong. Most other photos of Hackman and Freeman from around that time tell us they were within an inch of each other. I think in 2000 Freeman may well not have lost anything by then,he held his height well and probably still was 6ft2.25, whilst I think Hackman had gone from 6ft1.75/6ft2 peak to 6ft1.25 by then at 70.
Jtm said on 25/Feb/23
Rory said on 23/Feb/23
Marvin definitely wasn't under 6ft1, he only looks slightly shorter than Gene Hackman who was at worst 6ft1.75..look from 1.20 onwards
Click Here
6ft1.25 is more likely than 6ft0.5 for Marvin. Please don't say Hackman was 6ft1. Please.
he actually tried to argue 6'0 for hackman. i would accept that if he has the guts to claim warren beatty wasn't over 5'11 peak.
Rory said on 23/Feb/23
Marvin definitely wasn't under 6ft1, he only looks slightly shorter than Gene Hackman who was at worst 6ft1.75..look from 1.20 onwards
Click Here
6ft1.25 is more likely than 6ft0.5 for Marvin. Please don't say Hackman was 6ft1. Please.
he actually tried to argue 6'0 for hackman. i would accept that if he has the guts to claim warren beatty wasn't over 5'11 peak.
Hong said on 24/Feb/23
@Rory,Marvin at 6ft1 is believable,as I said Clint was in my opinion 2 inches taller than Marvin,but Clint at 6ft3.25 is not out of the question either. It's kind of difficult to judge .25 of an inch difference between people.
@Rory,Marvin at 6ft1 is believable,as I said Clint was in my opinion 2 inches taller than Marvin,but Clint at 6ft3.25 is not out of the question either. It's kind of difficult to judge .25 of an inch difference between people.
Rory said on 23/Feb/23
Marvin definitely wasn't under 6ft1, he only looks slightly shorter than Gene Hackman who was at worst 6ft1.75..look from 1.20 onwards
Click Here
6ft1.25 is more likely than 6ft0.5 for Marvin. Please don't say Hackman was 6ft1. Please.
Marvin definitely wasn't under 6ft1, he only looks slightly shorter than Gene Hackman who was at worst 6ft1.75..look from 1.20 onwards
Click Here
6ft1.25 is more likely than 6ft0.5 for Marvin. Please don't say Hackman was 6ft1. Please.
James.B 172cm said on 22/Feb/23
When you see Clint in Hang ‘Em High at times anywhere near 6ft4 just seems impossible
When you see Clint in Hang ‘Em High at times anywhere near 6ft4 just seems impossible
Hong said on 22/Feb/23
@Rory The fact at Clint's legs appear the same length as Robbins legs is probably down to Close Clint's trousers bring higher waisted,his trousers seem to be pulled up very high where as Robbins trousers are more around his hip area.Marvin was originally listed as 6ft2 and it was reduced to 6ft1 because an old army measurement had him at 6ft.5 aged 18 so he was given an extra half an inch to allow for a bit of growth from 18 to full adult height,Marvin may not have even grown and may actually have been 6ft.5 all his career.Clint always looked a couple if inches taller than Marvin In my opinion.As for Van Cleef Clint looked a bit taller sometimes it was difficult to notice any significant difference between them,and for Kennedy I posted a video of him with 6ft5.5 Fess Parker and he was struggling with 6ft4 with Parker,it's just below I posted it 23 of January.I do take in to account Clint's posture with Robbins but Robbins it's exactly stand straight either.
@Rory The fact at Clint's legs appear the same length as Robbins legs is probably down to Close Clint's trousers bring higher waisted,his trousers seem to be pulled up very high where as Robbins trousers are more around his hip area.Marvin was originally listed as 6ft2 and it was reduced to 6ft1 because an old army measurement had him at 6ft.5 aged 18 so he was given an extra half an inch to allow for a bit of growth from 18 to full adult height,Marvin may not have even grown and may actually have been 6ft.5 all his career.Clint always looked a couple if inches taller than Marvin In my opinion.As for Van Cleef Clint looked a bit taller sometimes it was difficult to notice any significant difference between them,and for Kennedy I posted a video of him with 6ft5.5 Fess Parker and he was struggling with 6ft4 with Parker,it's just below I posted it 23 of January.I do take in to account Clint's posture with Robbins but Robbins it's exactly stand straight either.
Rory said on 22/Feb/23
Hong, yh I'd say with Robbins he looked 6ft1-1.5 generally in most of their pictures. The thing is though is in your seventies your posture isn't as good, and so its quite feasible for a measurement he could have stretched to 6ft1.5-2 and then suddenly that's only 1.5 inches lost from peak which isn't unheard of at all for a tall guy in his seventies, interestingly too their legs look the same length which indicates at peak they wouldn't have been dissimilar. I don't really think you can make the assumption everyone inflated their height therefore we'll knock an inch off everyone which leaves Clint at nearer 6ft2. That doesn't seem sensible. As for the Newman pictures their postures all over the place so it's unusable imo. When I think of Clint with guys like Lee Marvin,Van Cleef,Bridges,Kennedy,Heston,Nimoy etc etc I just think it's impossible to say under 6ft3. 6ft3.25 peak for me.
Hong, yh I'd say with Robbins he looked 6ft1-1.5 generally in most of their pictures. The thing is though is in your seventies your posture isn't as good, and so its quite feasible for a measurement he could have stretched to 6ft1.5-2 and then suddenly that's only 1.5 inches lost from peak which isn't unheard of at all for a tall guy in his seventies, interestingly too their legs look the same length which indicates at peak they wouldn't have been dissimilar. I don't really think you can make the assumption everyone inflated their height therefore we'll knock an inch off everyone which leaves Clint at nearer 6ft2. That doesn't seem sensible. As for the Newman pictures their postures all over the place so it's unusable imo. When I think of Clint with guys like Lee Marvin,Van Cleef,Bridges,Kennedy,Heston,Nimoy etc etc I just think it's impossible to say under 6ft3. 6ft3.25 peak for me.
Parker said on 22/Feb/23
@Hong - Are you playing Devil's Advocate?
I agree with Rory, you have provided some of the best evidence of Clint over 6'3 prime, and I know you have seen the youtube clip with Mohammed Ali. You also posted a clip showing him looking clearly taller than Charlton Heston
Here's another old pic with 6-6'1 David Janssen (Janssen's wife claims 6'2 for him in his biography,he wasn't that but certainly a strong 6 footer)
Click Here
In terms of height loss - I watched 'The Mule' last night. Not sure when it was filmed, but I guess Clint was close to 90 in it. I would have guessed him ~5'10 in the film, altho his posture was poor - not surprising for a 90 year old man - still looking good tho!!!
@Hong - Are you playing Devil's Advocate?
I agree with Rory, you have provided some of the best evidence of Clint over 6'3 prime, and I know you have seen the youtube clip with Mohammed Ali. You also posted a clip showing him looking clearly taller than Charlton Heston
Here's another old pic with 6-6'1 David Janssen (Janssen's wife claims 6'2 for him in his biography,he wasn't that but certainly a strong 6 footer)
Click Here
In terms of height loss - I watched 'The Mule' last night. Not sure when it was filmed, but I guess Clint was close to 90 in it. I would have guessed him ~5'10 in the film, altho his posture was poor - not surprising for a 90 year old man - still looking good tho!!!
Hong said on 21/Feb/23
Click Here I know Clint is standing with more loose posture tan Newman,but taking in to account Newman was in the 5ft9 to 10 range Clint is not looking anywhere near 6ft3.5 in comparison, it's pics like this that leave me doubting Clint was as tall as his listed height and because of that also it makes me doubt the billed heights of other guys of their generation too.
Click Here I know Clint is standing with more loose posture tan Newman,but taking in to account Newman was in the 5ft9 to 10 range Clint is not looking anywhere near 6ft3.5 in comparison, it's pics like this that leave me doubting Clint was as tall as his listed height and because of that also it makes me doubt the billed heights of other guys of their generation too.
Hong said on 21/Feb/23
@Rory,my issue is not strictly with Clint's height I'm just not convinced that the actors he stared along with were the height's they claimed, or were billed.I just find it a bit difficult to believe that Clint lost so much height from peak,I mean he's looking nearly 5 inches off 6ft3.5 in some pics these days.I just think in the past people could get away with exaggerating their hights more, whereas today it's more difficult to lie and for example like the Rock has to admit he was only 6ft3 not his billed height of 6ft5.I guarantee you if The Rock was famous back in the fifties his fake height claim would still be his listed height and any shrinking would be put down to old age and injuries or something else.
Here's an interesting pic with 6ft4.75 or more a strong 6ft5 in my opinion,Tim Robbins,Clint aged 73 is looking 6ft1 range in comparison that's aged 73 around 2.5 inches height loss from peak?I find that a bit difficult to believe.He should be still around 6ft2.5 or maybe 6ft2 at that stage.It is a lot of height to lose for an aperantly fit and healthy man with no obvious health issues.
Click Here
@Rory,my issue is not strictly with Clint's height I'm just not convinced that the actors he stared along with were the height's they claimed, or were billed.I just find it a bit difficult to believe that Clint lost so much height from peak,I mean he's looking nearly 5 inches off 6ft3.5 in some pics these days.I just think in the past people could get away with exaggerating their hights more, whereas today it's more difficult to lie and for example like the Rock has to admit he was only 6ft3 not his billed height of 6ft5.I guarantee you if The Rock was famous back in the fifties his fake height claim would still be his listed height and any shrinking would be put down to old age and injuries or something else.
Here's an interesting pic with 6ft4.75 or more a strong 6ft5 in my opinion,Tim Robbins,Clint aged 73 is looking 6ft1 range in comparison that's aged 73 around 2.5 inches height loss from peak?I find that a bit difficult to believe.He should be still around 6ft2.5 or maybe 6ft2 at that stage.It is a lot of height to lose for an aperantly fit and healthy man with no obvious health issues.
Click Here
Rory said on 21/Feb/23
Hong always seems to produce evidence Clint was 6ft3+ himself but then bizarrely suggests clint was between 6ft2 and 3 based on looking at....Hugh Jackman. Strange. Anything less than 6ft3 for a 30 year old Clint isn't really a serious guess imo. I think on the whole the average guess here of 191.4 for his peak looks pretty good to me. I'd completely rule out say 6ft2.5 and 6ft4 as options, I think the argument is 6ft3-3.5 region.
Hong always seems to produce evidence Clint was 6ft3+ himself but then bizarrely suggests clint was between 6ft2 and 3 based on looking at....Hugh Jackman. Strange. Anything less than 6ft3 for a 30 year old Clint isn't really a serious guess imo. I think on the whole the average guess here of 191.4 for his peak looks pretty good to me. I'd completely rule out say 6ft2.5 and 6ft4 as options, I think the argument is 6ft3-3.5 region.
Hong said on 21/Feb/23
@Parker,yes Clint still looks around 6ft with Jackman,but to think he was around 1.5 inches taller than Jackman at his peak, and is at 84 2 inches shorter? is a bit of a stretch.Clint did edge out the likes of Matheson and Urich but I'm not convinced either of those guys were strong a Strong 6ft2,and at times he
barely looked 2 inches taller than 6ft Hal Holbrook.Im just not convinced enough about Clint's height being over 6ft3 at peak, I'd guess him 6ft3 max and nudging 6ft4 in shoes.
@Parker,yes Clint still looks around 6ft with Jackman,but to think he was around 1.5 inches taller than Jackman at his peak, and is at 84 2 inches shorter? is a bit of a stretch.Clint did edge out the likes of Matheson and Urich but I'm not convinced either of those guys were strong a Strong 6ft2,and at times he
barely looked 2 inches taller than 6ft Hal Holbrook.Im just not convinced enough about Clint's height being over 6ft3 at peak, I'd guess him 6ft3 max and nudging 6ft4 in shoes.
Parker said on 21/Feb/23
@Hong
Still looked a strong six footer at 84 with Jackman Click Here
In terms of his height, taller than Ali, noticeably taller than 6'2 guys Tim Matheson and Robert Urich in Magnum Force. Min 6'3 IMO, maybe not the full 6'4 but has always claimed it.
@Hong
Still looked a strong six footer at 84 with Jackman Click Here
In terms of his height, taller than Ali, noticeably taller than 6'2 guys Tim Matheson and Robert Urich in Magnum Force. Min 6'3 IMO, maybe not the full 6'4 but has always claimed it.
Hong said on 20/Feb/23
Click Here Here's Old Clint well into his 80s looking a couple of inches shorter than Jackman.
Click Here Here's Old Clint well into his 80s looking a couple of inches shorter than Jackman.
Hong said on 19/Feb/23
I'm just looking at Hugh Jackman on the Graham Norton Show,Jackman always reminds me of Eastwood,he seems very similar in proportion to Eastwood size Wise,Jackman was a solid 6ft2 guy at peak and sometimes I think that Eastwood could have been at peak more close to Jackman in height rather than someone like say Conan O'Brien, definitely not 6ft4 for Eastwood peak I think somewhere between 6ft2 and 3 personally but I could be wrong.
I'm just looking at Hugh Jackman on the Graham Norton Show,Jackman always reminds me of Eastwood,he seems very similar in proportion to Eastwood size Wise,Jackman was a solid 6ft2 guy at peak and sometimes I think that Eastwood could have been at peak more close to Jackman in height rather than someone like say Conan O'Brien, definitely not 6ft4 for Eastwood peak I think somewhere between 6ft2 and 3 personally but I could be wrong.
Hong said on 19/Feb/23
Click Here In this clip with 6ft5 listed Bill Travers he's looking similar although he of course has heel advantage, weather Travers was 6ft5 that's another question,also because there both moving around a lot it's kind of difficult to compare their heights.
Click Here In this clip with 6ft5 listed Bill Travers he's looking similar although he of course has heel advantage, weather Travers was 6ft5 that's another question,also because there both moving around a lot it's kind of difficult to compare their heights.
James.B 172cm said on 26/Jan/23
6’3.25 is possible for Clint’s peak as well
6’3.25 is possible for Clint’s peak as well
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 26/Jan/23
Grant struggled with 6ft in Charade. Definitely looked more than an inch below Coburn as well…
Grant struggled with 6ft in Charade. Definitely looked more than an inch below Coburn as well…
Hong said on 25/Jan/23
Click Here ,Yes Arch here's a pic from that scene with Grant,and yes Kennedy looks enormous,6ft5 range? if Grant was 6ft1?But that just leaves one question was Kennedy wearing lifts to make his character even more intimidating? it's a possibility In my opinion. In the video with Parker, too me it looks clear cut that Kennedy was not 6ft5 so how he managed to pull it off next to Grant is a mystery,because with 6ft5.5 Parker he's struggling with a flat 6ft4.Also there was an excellent video from the Danny Kaye show which I posted a while back with Parker Buddy Ebson and Clint,in the video Parker with less heel than Clint made Clint look max 6ft4 in his boots and Clint was looking similar to the much older Ebson, unfortunately that video seems to have disappeared so I can't repost it.
Click Here ,Yes Arch here's a pic from that scene with Grant,and yes Kennedy looks enormous,6ft5 range? if Grant was 6ft1?But that just leaves one question was Kennedy wearing lifts to make his character even more intimidating? it's a possibility In my opinion. In the video with Parker, too me it looks clear cut that Kennedy was not 6ft5 so how he managed to pull it off next to Grant is a mystery,because with 6ft5.5 Parker he's struggling with a flat 6ft4.Also there was an excellent video from the Danny Kaye show which I posted a while back with Parker Buddy Ebson and Clint,in the video Parker with less heel than Clint made Clint look max 6ft4 in his boots and Clint was looking similar to the much older Ebson, unfortunately that video seems to have disappeared so I can't repost it.
Malcolm Oliver said on 25/Jan/23
Yeah, he’d edge out guys like Cooper, Stewart, and Peck
At peak, definitely 6’4 in the morning
Yeah, he’d edge out guys like Cooper, Stewart, and Peck
At peak, definitely 6’4 in the morning
Arch Stanton said on 24/Jan/23
You always get comparisons like that which don't seem to add up Hong! Check out the lift scene in Charade with Cary Grant Hong, Kennedy actually looked 6'4.5 in comparison!! He does look 4 inches taller than Cary in that film.
You always get comparisons like that which don't seem to add up Hong! Check out the lift scene in Charade with Cary Grant Hong, Kennedy actually looked 6'4.5 in comparison!! He does look 4 inches taller than Cary in that film.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Jan/23
I doubt Clint was a genuine afternoon 6ft4 but I wouldn’t go under 6ft3½ either. You could make a case for 6ft3¾. As Arch expertly pointed out, he was always noticeably taller than men ranging from 6ft to 6ft2. Flat 6ft3 is a bit low, I’d put him above Cooper, Stewart and Palance and on par with Wayne, Robert Ryan and Jeff Chandler (not convinced he was a true 6ft4 either)
Now George Kennedy was a textbook solid 6ft4, possibly even a littler over that. Edged Clint in Thunderbolt & Lightfoot and had a good 3in over Jeff Bridges (solid 6ft1½ then).
I doubt Clint was a genuine afternoon 6ft4 but I wouldn’t go under 6ft3½ either. You could make a case for 6ft3¾. As Arch expertly pointed out, he was always noticeably taller than men ranging from 6ft to 6ft2. Flat 6ft3 is a bit low, I’d put him above Cooper, Stewart and Palance and on par with Wayne, Robert Ryan and Jeff Chandler (not convinced he was a true 6ft4 either)
Now George Kennedy was a textbook solid 6ft4, possibly even a littler over that. Edged Clint in Thunderbolt & Lightfoot and had a good 3in over Jeff Bridges (solid 6ft1½ then).
Hong said on 23/Jan/23
At 13.8 minutes on the video Kennedy is face to face with Parker and looks more than 1.5 inches shorter In my opinion
At 13.8 minutes on the video Kennedy is face to face with Parker and looks more than 1.5 inches shorter In my opinion
Hong said on 23/Jan/23
Click Here Agreed Arch,Clint and Kennedy looked pretty similar in Height,and if Kennedy was 6ft4 as listed that would leave Clint over 6ft3,but if you look at the video I posted featuring 6ft5.5 Fess Parker, Kennedy is not looking the full 6ft 4 in comparison In my opinion.
Click Here Agreed Arch,Clint and Kennedy looked pretty similar in Height,and if Kennedy was 6ft4 as listed that would leave Clint over 6ft3,but if you look at the video I posted featuring 6ft5.5 Fess Parker, Kennedy is not looking the full 6ft 4 in comparison In my opinion.
Bradley said on 22/Jan/23
Yes, 6 flat today.
Yes, 6 flat today.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Jan/23
Compare George Kennedy to Cary Grant in Charade and he was easily 6'4.
Compare George Kennedy to Cary Grant in Charade and he was easily 6'4.
Arch Stanton said on 21/Jan/23
Clint looked too tall with 6 ft 1-6 ft 2 guys in his films to only be 190cm Hong. Clint was very similar height to legit George Kennedy in Eiger Sanction, I think Kennedy would have had the edge if stood his best. 192 cm barefoot seems the best shout.
Clint looked too tall with 6 ft 1-6 ft 2 guys in his films to only be 190cm Hong. Clint was very similar height to legit George Kennedy in Eiger Sanction, I think Kennedy would have had the edge if stood his best. 192 cm barefoot seems the best shout.
Rory said on 20/Jan/23
I think 6ft3 max is harsh,I don't think Clint was only marginally taller than 6ft2 guys, I think he was comfortably taller than guys that range peak,had them by 1+ inches. For me either 6ft3.25 or 6ft3.5 at best prime.
I personally think 60s Clint was 6ft3.25 so if measured in cowboy boots I'd expect him to be 6ft5 as they usually give about 2 inches or a bit less.
I think 6ft3 max is harsh,I don't think Clint was only marginally taller than 6ft2 guys, I think he was comfortably taller than guys that range peak,had them by 1+ inches. For me either 6ft3.25 or 6ft3.5 at best prime.
I personally think 60s Clint was 6ft3.25 so if measured in cowboy boots I'd expect him to be 6ft5 as they usually give about 2 inches or a bit less.
Hong said on 10/Jan/23
About 190cm peak is my guess,around 6ft3 max and slightly over 6ft4 in cowboy boots.Now he's looking under 6ft around 5ft11 range, sometimes a bit less because of posture.
About 190cm peak is my guess,around 6ft3 max and slightly over 6ft4 in cowboy boots.Now he's looking under 6ft around 5ft11 range, sometimes a bit less because of posture.
5'7 and a fraction said on 10/Jan/23
I think, if he could stand up straight under the stadiometer, 6'0 would his absolute max today.
I think, if he could stand up straight under the stadiometer, 6'0 would his absolute max today.
berta said on 2/Jan/23
time for a new current height. He struggling to look over 5´11. Peak are all over the place. sometimes could look 6´4 with cowboy boots other time not really over 190 cm. 191 is my guess.
time for a new current height. He struggling to look over 5´11. Peak are all over the place. sometimes could look 6´4 with cowboy boots other time not really over 190 cm. 191 is my guess.
Arch Stanton said on 1/Jan/23
His legs don't look outlandish, but I think his legs were pretty long even for his height as Henrik says. I think you'll find there are 6 ft 6 men who had a similar leg measurement, I would guess 36 inseam too.
His legs don't look outlandish, but I think his legs were pretty long even for his height as Henrik says. I think you'll find there are 6 ft 6 men who had a similar leg measurement, I would guess 36 inseam too.
Meltdown said on 31/Dec/22
I'm pretty sure at 92 Clint lost more than 3.5 inches. Nowadays, he is barely if at all taller than his son Scott who is probably 5'11" at most. And he's only getting shorter. I can go with a peak height of 6'3"+ for Clint, but now, he's closer to 5'11" like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I'm pretty sure at 92 Clint lost more than 3.5 inches. Nowadays, he is barely if at all taller than his son Scott who is probably 5'11" at most. And he's only getting shorter. I can go with a peak height of 6'3"+ for Clint, but now, he's closer to 5'11" like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Henrik said on 30/Dec/22
No, I guess it doesn't look the same as with David Prowse (who was a bodybuilder back in his day). You could clearly see on his legs when he had shrunk down to 6ft 1 in the photo with Rob that he didn't have the proportions of a normal 6ft 1 man.
No, I guess it doesn't look the same as with David Prowse (who was a bodybuilder back in his day). You could clearly see on his legs when he had shrunk down to 6ft 1 in the photo with Rob that he didn't have the proportions of a normal 6ft 1 man.
Malcolm Oliver said on 28/Dec/22
@Henrik
Good proportions, but his legs don’t look outlandish or disproportionate (average for his height). Just a tall guy who happened to retain his lanky frame.
@Henrik
Good proportions, but his legs don’t look outlandish or disproportionate (average for his height). Just a tall guy who happened to retain his lanky frame.
Henrik said on 15/Dec/22
Clint already at his peak had relatively long legs for his height, probably a 36" inseam. There are some 6ft 4 to 5 men who have shorter legs. Clint is now 5ft 11 with the legs of typically someone 6ft 6+.
Clint already at his peak had relatively long legs for his height, probably a 36" inseam. There are some 6ft 4 to 5 men who have shorter legs. Clint is now 5ft 11 with the legs of typically someone 6ft 6+.
Emil said on 3/Dec/22
@Rob
At any rate he's tough as nails so wouldn't surprise me that he'd be standing on his two feet till the day he goes
@Rob
At any rate he's tough as nails so wouldn't surprise me that he'd be standing on his two feet till the day he goes
Emil said on 3/Dec/22
Doubt he's gonna lose more height than this.
Editor Rob
Doubt he's gonna lose more height than this.
Editor RobIf he gets more bent in upper torso but still able to walk/stand he could drop more.
James B 172cm said on 2/Dec/22
Arch Stanton said on 29/Nov/22
Caught GBU again as well, good to see my grave again :-). Such a masterpiece, definitely one of the ten best films ever made. In some scenes with the hat and boots and long coat Clint really looked very tall, perhaps the wax work of him in California at 6'5.5 in cowboy boots was taken from a measurement. That looks about right. Whatever similarity there is of Scott to Clint around the eyes Scott really doesn't come close to how his dad looked back in the Dollars films in overall appearance and manliness. Scott still looks boyish and Clint looked middle aged and weathered by that time, Scott now being about the same age as Clint was in GBU.
Yeah, I think he's likely nearer 5 ft 11 now, might be time for a downgrade at the age of 92.
Looks more like Beckham in the Dollars films
Arch Stanton said on 29/Nov/22
Caught GBU again as well, good to see my grave again :-). Such a masterpiece, definitely one of the ten best films ever made. In some scenes with the hat and boots and long coat Clint really looked very tall, perhaps the wax work of him in California at 6'5.5 in cowboy boots was taken from a measurement. That looks about right. Whatever similarity there is of Scott to Clint around the eyes Scott really doesn't come close to how his dad looked back in the Dollars films in overall appearance and manliness. Scott still looks boyish and Clint looked middle aged and weathered by that time, Scott now being about the same age as Clint was in GBU.
Yeah, I think he's likely nearer 5 ft 11 now, might be time for a downgrade at the age of 92.
Looks more like Beckham in the Dollars films
Arch Stanton said on 29/Nov/22
Caught GBU again as well, good to see my grave again :-). Such a masterpiece, definitely one of the ten best films ever made. In some scenes with the hat and boots and long coat Clint really looked very tall, perhaps the wax work of him in California at 6'5.5 in cowboy boots was taken from a measurement. That looks about right. Whatever similarity there is of Scott to Clint around the eyes Scott really doesn't come close to how his dad looked back in the Dollars films in overall appearance and manliness. Scott still looks boyish and Clint looked middle aged and weathered by that time, Scott now being about the same age as Clint was in GBU.
Yeah, I think he's likely nearer 5 ft 11 now, might be time for a downgrade at the age of 92.
Caught GBU again as well, good to see my grave again :-). Such a masterpiece, definitely one of the ten best films ever made. In some scenes with the hat and boots and long coat Clint really looked very tall, perhaps the wax work of him in California at 6'5.5 in cowboy boots was taken from a measurement. That looks about right. Whatever similarity there is of Scott to Clint around the eyes Scott really doesn't come close to how his dad looked back in the Dollars films in overall appearance and manliness. Scott still looks boyish and Clint looked middle aged and weathered by that time, Scott now being about the same age as Clint was in GBU.
Yeah, I think he's likely nearer 5 ft 11 now, might be time for a downgrade at the age of 92.
Hong said on 26/Nov/22
Rob,I think it's time for a change to Clint's current height,5ft11 would be fair guess for his height now aged 92, because at times he's looking 5ft10 range,I would put that down to posture though.But in general I'd say he is no more than 5ft11 max currently.
Rob,I think it's time for a change to Clint's current height,5ft11 would be fair guess for his height now aged 92, because at times he's looking 5ft10 range,I would put that down to posture though.But in general I'd say he is no more than 5ft11 max currently.
Arch Stanton said on 25/Nov/22
So Burton obviously thought he looked very tall and imposing to call him 7 ft 2. Just watching For a Few Dollars More Again, not seen it for a few years, what a masterpiece. He looked too lanky and imposing proportionally to be just 6'2-6'3. I think he had to have been close to 6 ft 4, maybe he did really measure that in the morning. You can see big chemistry of Diana with both Clint and Selleck in those pics, she looks a bit overwhelmed in their presence! Selleck does look taller in comparison.
So Burton obviously thought he looked very tall and imposing to call him 7 ft 2. Just watching For a Few Dollars More Again, not seen it for a few years, what a masterpiece. He looked too lanky and imposing proportionally to be just 6'2-6'3. I think he had to have been close to 6 ft 4, maybe he did really measure that in the morning. You can see big chemistry of Diana with both Clint and Selleck in those pics, she looks a bit overwhelmed in their presence! Selleck does look taller in comparison.
Hong said on 25/Nov/22
Click Here= Look how short Clint looks in this pic,U think the tall guy with the beard is Dennis Haysbert listed 6ft4,Clint is looking way shorter, it's hard to believe there was only an inch between these two guys at peak.
Click Here= Look how short Clint looks in this pic,U think the tall guy with the beard is Dennis Haysbert listed 6ft4,Clint is looking way shorter, it's hard to believe there was only an inch between these two guys at peak.
Hong said on 11/Nov/22
Click Here Back to the subject of John Humphreys height in that Eastwood clip from 1967, Humphrys height is a bit of a mystery,but if you compare him to 5ft7.5 listed Chris Moyles,he looks to have about an inch of height on Moyles, allowing for his age and possible height loss it seems fair enough to assume that Humphreys was about 5ft9 as a young 24 year old reporter at the time of that interview.
Editor Rob
Click Here Back to the subject of John Humphreys height in that Eastwood clip from 1967, Humphrys height is a bit of a mystery,but if you compare him to 5ft7.5 listed Chris Moyles,he looks to have about an inch of height on Moyles, allowing for his age and possible height loss it seems fair enough to assume that Humphreys was about 5ft9 as a young 24 year old reporter at the time of that interview.
Editor RobIn 1996 a newspaper described him as exactly that, 5ft 9.
Editor Rob said on 2/Nov/22
Saw an article from 1969 in which Richard Burton glanced up at Clint and said "This is a combination for you. He's Seven-foot two and I'm five-foot one."
Clint gave an embarrassed grin..."He's exaggerating. I'm only six-four"
Saw an article from 1969 in which Richard Burton glanced up at Clint and said "This is a combination for you. He's Seven-foot two and I'm five-foot one."
Clint gave an embarrassed grin..."He's exaggerating. I'm only six-four"
Hong said on 17/Oct/22
Click Here Whoops that's Forest Whitaker and Bill Duke,this is the pic of Clint and Damon I meant to send.
Click Here Whoops that's Forest Whitaker and Bill Duke,this is the pic of Clint and Damon I meant to send.
Hong said on 16/Oct/22
Parker I've seen that film with Hudson before and Clint does look almost equal to Hudson,but I did post a pic of Clint and Hudson standing next to each other before,l don't seem to be able to find it again but it did show that Hudson was around an inch and a half taller than Clint.The pic was taken in the early 70s,it was in black and White.
Parker I've seen that film with Hudson before and Clint does look almost equal to Hudson,but I did post a pic of Clint and Hudson standing next to each other before,l don't seem to be able to find it again but it did show that Hudson was around an inch and a half taller than Clint.The pic was taken in the early 70s,it was in black and White.
Hong said on 16/Oct/22
Click Here Here's Clint in 2010 aged 80 with 5ft9.5 listed Matt Damon, it's interesting to see Clint with a guy who probably would have measured similar to the young Humphreys looking only a few inches Shorter than the 80 year old Clint and not being towered by him as Humphreys was.Its a good indicator of how much height Clint shrank from age 37 to the age of 80,and with 6ft range Denzel Washington he looks to have lost a bit more in the next 7 years at age 87.
Click Here Here's Clint in 2010 aged 80 with 5ft9.5 listed Matt Damon, it's interesting to see Clint with a guy who probably would have measured similar to the young Humphreys looking only a few inches Shorter than the 80 year old Clint and not being towered by him as Humphreys was.Its a good indicator of how much height Clint shrank from age 37 to the age of 80,and with 6ft range Denzel Washington he looks to have lost a bit more in the next 7 years at age 87.
Coldice said on 16/Oct/22
79- 191.3 cm
88- 190 cm
95- 187 cm
2003- 185 cm
79- 191.3 cm
88- 190 cm
95- 187 cm
2003- 185 cm
Celebheights 6'1.5" said on 16/Oct/22
With Denzel Washington:
Click Here
This was taken in early 2017, and Denzel is definitely taller.
With Denzel Washington:
Click Here
This was taken in early 2017, and Denzel is definitely taller.
Rory said on 14/Oct/22
I'd say in 1967,Humphrys 5ft9.25 and Clint 6ft3.25. Clint makes John look small there but it's clear looking at him elsewhere Humphrys was a perfectly average height,not short.
I'd say in 1967,Humphrys 5ft9.25 and Clint 6ft3.25. Clint makes John look small there but it's clear looking at him elsewhere Humphrys was a perfectly average height,not short.
Parker said on 13/Oct/22
Fair points Hong, although I would say looking at John Humphreys with 6 ft listed Tony Blair
Click Here
And the pic I posted of him with 6ft+ listed David Cameron Click Here, I cannot see 5'8 peak for John. Here's Cameron with Obama Click Here
John was 76 in the picture with Cameron.
In terms of Clints height, I've seen many interviews where he has claimed 6'4 - He's also said he felt he lost parts because he was too tall in his early days.Why then would he claim 6'4? Watch the first 4 mins of this Rock Hudson movie Click Here
Fair points Hong, although I would say looking at John Humphreys with 6 ft listed Tony Blair
Click Here
And the pic I posted of him with 6ft+ listed David Cameron Click Here, I cannot see 5'8 peak for John. Here's Cameron with Obama Click Here
John was 76 in the picture with Cameron.
In terms of Clints height, I've seen many interviews where he has claimed 6'4 - He's also said he felt he lost parts because he was too tall in his early days.Why then would he claim 6'4? Watch the first 4 mins of this Rock Hudson movie Click Here
Hong said on 12/Oct/22
Yeah Parker, Clint looks very tall in that clip with Humphreys,if Humphreys was 5ft9?Clint is looking his original 6ft4 listing in comparison,but you can't see the ground level as to judge if there are and advantages in Clint's favour,like uneven terrine,also Humphreys height is unknown and could have been 5ft8 for all we know.
Yeah Parker, Clint looks very tall in that clip with Humphreys,if Humphreys was 5ft9?Clint is looking his original 6ft4 listing in comparison,but you can't see the ground level as to judge if there are and advantages in Clint's favour,like uneven terrine,also Humphreys height is unknown and could have been 5ft8 for all we know.
Rory said on 10/Oct/22
I'd say hes looking 6ft2.5-2.75 next to Ferrigno, and I'm guessing the photo is from the late 80s which is the sort of range he consistently looked around then.
I'd say hes looking 6ft2.5-2.75 next to Ferrigno, and I'm guessing the photo is from the late 80s which is the sort of range he consistently looked around then.
Parker said on 10/Oct/22
This has been posted before, John Humphrys interviewing Clint Eastwood in 1967
Click Here
Think posters guestimated John at ~5'9. 6'3+ Clint Eastwood would match up.
Here's John with David Cameron in more recent times Click Here
This has been posted before, John Humphrys interviewing Clint Eastwood in 1967
Click Here
Think posters guestimated John at ~5'9. 6'3+ Clint Eastwood would match up.
Here's John with David Cameron in more recent times Click Here
Tall Sam said on 10/Oct/22
That is interesting seeing him near Lou Ferrigno. Eastwood looks to be between 6’2” and 6’3” to my eyes but he does look a little gray and could already have been losing a bit of height.
That is interesting seeing him near Lou Ferrigno. Eastwood looks to be between 6’2” and 6’3” to my eyes but he does look a little gray and could already have been losing a bit of height.
Hong said on 8/Oct/22
On second thoughts if Ferrigno was 6ft4, looking at the pic again Clint is looking nearer 6ft3 in comparison to Lou.
On second thoughts if Ferrigno was 6ft4, looking at the pic again Clint is looking nearer 6ft3 in comparison to Lou.
Hong said on 8/Oct/22
Click Here Steven Spielberg was 5ft7.5 peak,in his 70s Clint was looking around 6ft next to this guy,in all the pics dating back 30 years Clint looked max 6ft2ish next to Spielberg.
Click Here Steven Spielberg was 5ft7.5 peak,in his 70s Clint was looking around 6ft next to this guy,in all the pics dating back 30 years Clint looked max 6ft2ish next to Spielberg.
Hong said on 6/Oct/22
Yeah Rory I'd go along with that.
Yeah Rory I'd go along with that.
Rory said on 5/Oct/22
Most 58 Yr old men have lost something however small, and seeing as we know Clint has lost more height in life than most, it seems logical that hed succumb to some loss by 58. Unscientifically to me he also looked slightly smaller on screen by late 80s compared to 60s/early 70s too. My own view is by late 80s he'd gone from a strong 6ft3 peak to a weak 6ft3.
Most 58 Yr old men have lost something however small, and seeing as we know Clint has lost more height in life than most, it seems logical that hed succumb to some loss by 58. Unscientifically to me he also looked slightly smaller on screen by late 80s compared to 60s/early 70s too. My own view is by late 80s he'd gone from a strong 6ft3 peak to a weak 6ft3.
Hong said on 5/Oct/22
Yeah he could have been 6ft2.75 by aged 58,but I suppose he still measured up pretty well next to a big 6ft4 guy like Neeson.If I was pushed I'd say max 6ft3.25 for Clint's peak, I think 6ft3.5 is a tad over estimated.
Yeah he could have been 6ft2.75 by aged 58,but I suppose he still measured up pretty well next to a big 6ft4 guy like Neeson.If I was pushed I'd say max 6ft3.25 for Clint's peak, I think 6ft3.5 is a tad over estimated.
James B 172cm said on 5/Oct/22
Hong-Also aged 58 his hair was thinner and he was more bulkier/stockier than he was in his 40s which could have given the illusion of him being shorter. Anyway he didn't seem under 6ft3 with Neeson in my opinion but still not impossible that he lost 1/4 of an inch from his peak at that point.
Hong-Also aged 58 his hair was thinner and he was more bulkier/stockier than he was in his 40s which could have given the illusion of him being shorter. Anyway he didn't seem under 6ft3 with Neeson in my opinion but still not impossible that he lost 1/4 of an inch from his peak at that point.
Hong said on 4/Oct/22
@JamesB172cm I'm sure you meant 1988,but its a matter of opinion weather Clint lost any height by 58,I personally think he didn't.
@JamesB172cm I'm sure you meant 1988,but its a matter of opinion weather Clint lost any height by 58,I personally think he didn't.
James B 172cm said on 4/Oct/22
1988 I meant
1988 I meant
James B 172cm said on 3/Oct/22
Not so sure about just 6ft3 flat peak. I mean Clint did not look that much shorter than 6ft4 1/8 Liam neeson in 1998 because at that stage he already lost half inch from his peak.
Not so sure about just 6ft3 flat peak. I mean Clint did not look that much shorter than 6ft4 1/8 Liam neeson in 1998 because at that stage he already lost half inch from his peak.
Hong said on 3/Oct/22
I think I remember Rob listing Clint at 6ft.5 at 80 years old?This estimate would probably be more accurate,but I do have to concede that Hammer is making Clint look exceedingly average in those pics,and it is somewhat hard to believe that there would have been only an inch in the difference between both guys at peak.My own personal opinion on Clint's peak height is standing tall around 6ft3 but in more relaxed loose posture he looked more 6ft2.5 range.He could pull off 6ft4 and a bit in his boots though,and look near 6ft4 in a standard heel.
I think I remember Rob listing Clint at 6ft.5 at 80 years old?This estimate would probably be more accurate,but I do have to concede that Hammer is making Clint look exceedingly average in those pics,and it is somewhat hard to believe that there would have been only an inch in the difference between both guys at peak.My own personal opinion on Clint's peak height is standing tall around 6ft3 but in more relaxed loose posture he looked more 6ft2.5 range.He could pull off 6ft4 and a bit in his boots though,and look near 6ft4 in a standard heel.
Hong said on 2/Oct/22
Click Here Here's Clint and DiCaprio in 2001,Clint aged 81 is looking slightly taller than DiCaprio and if you look at Clint's legs there slightly bent at the knee resulting in him dropping a bit more height,at 81 I would guess standing tall Clint would still have been around 6ft1 range but given his habit in old age to stand with a slight stoop and bent knees he of course would look shorter than this.
Click Here Here's Clint and DiCaprio in 2001,Clint aged 81 is looking slightly taller than DiCaprio and if you look at Clint's legs there slightly bent at the knee resulting in him dropping a bit more height,at 81 I would guess standing tall Clint would still have been around 6ft1 range but given his habit in old age to stand with a slight stoop and bent knees he of course would look shorter than this.
James B 172cm said on 2/Oct/22
He looks 5’11 1/2 with hammer but then his posture is not great
He looks 5’11 1/2 with hammer but then his posture is not great
Coldice said on 2/Oct/22
Peak- 6ft 3 ⅓ , 191.3 cm
Now- 5ft 11 ⅞ , 182.5 cm
Peak- 6ft 3 ⅓ , 191.3 cm
Now- 5ft 11 ⅞ , 182.5 cm
Philip Z said on 30/Sep/22
With 6ft 4.5 listed Armie Hammer and 5ft 11.25 listed DiCaprio in 2011: Click Here
Looks very similar to or slightly under DiCaprio here and in other pictures from the same event, and a good five inches under Hammer. Footwear may throw those estimates off a bit, but I think it's fair to say Clint was already under 6ft back in 2011. Very likely he lost at least another inch since then and is below 5ft 10 these days.
With 6ft 4.5 listed Armie Hammer and 5ft 11.25 listed DiCaprio in 2011: Click Here
Looks very similar to or slightly under DiCaprio here and in other pictures from the same event, and a good five inches under Hammer. Footwear may throw those estimates off a bit, but I think it's fair to say Clint was already under 6ft back in 2011. Very likely he lost at least another inch since then and is below 5ft 10 these days.
Peter 180cm said on 27/Sep/22
It must really suck big-time to be very tall and lose so much height,and then look closer to the average at an old age. Tall genes aren't always generous to the people that get them.
It must really suck big-time to be very tall and lose so much height,and then look closer to the average at an old age. Tall genes aren't always generous to the people that get them.
Rory said on 24/Sep/22
It's a bit of a stretch reaching a conclusion how tall someone was based on a comparison with how someone else looks with another person in one still,when theyre stooped down I'd say lol. Even so I do think Selleck would have had Clint by a good half inch both peak. By '85 I think Clint had probably lost 1cm too.
It's a bit of a stretch reaching a conclusion how tall someone was based on a comparison with how someone else looks with another person in one still,when theyre stooped down I'd say lol. Even so I do think Selleck would have had Clint by a good half inch both peak. By '85 I think Clint had probably lost 1cm too.
Hong said on 23/Sep/22
@JamesB172cm I'm aware of Selleck being described as 6ft3.5 before,if that was the case you would have to seriously consider Clint being nothing over 6ft3 peak and even more likely 6ft2.5 to 6ft2.75 range probably 1.90cm at peak.
@JamesB172cm I'm aware of Selleck being described as 6ft3.5 before,if that was the case you would have to seriously consider Clint being nothing over 6ft3 peak and even more likely 6ft2.5 to 6ft2.75 range probably 1.90cm at peak.
James B 172cm said on 22/Sep/22
Hong- Selleck could have been 6’3 1/2 as well
Hong- Selleck could have been 6’3 1/2 as well
Hong said on 21/Sep/22
Click Here Here's Clint and Tom Selleck both with Diana,Clint is dropping a bit of height because of his posture and Selleck is standing very straight,but even taking that into account,it still looks too me that Selleck was the taller than Clint at age 55 by a couple of inches,Clint is looking no more than 6ft2 there.I doubt he would have lost over an inch in height by age 55?
Click Here Here's Clint and Tom Selleck both with Diana,Clint is dropping a bit of height because of his posture and Selleck is standing very straight,but even taking that into account,it still looks too me that Selleck was the taller than Clint at age 55 by a couple of inches,Clint is looking no more than 6ft2 there.I doubt he would have lost over an inch in height by age 55?
Philip Z said on 19/Sep/22
Slight correction: The third picture is actually from 2016, same goes for the first picture in my previous post. It seems as though the latest pictures of them together are from 2018 (not 2019).
In any case, back in 2006 20 years old Scott still looked considerably shorter than 76 years old Clint: Click Here
If Clint already looked 5ft 11-10.5 range in 2016, it's safe to assume he's 5ft 10 at most these days.
Slight correction: The third picture is actually from 2016, same goes for the first picture in my previous post. It seems as though the latest pictures of them together are from 2018 (not 2019).
In any case, back in 2006 20 years old Scott still looked considerably shorter than 76 years old Clint: Click Here
If Clint already looked 5ft 11-10.5 range in 2016, it's safe to assume he's 5ft 10 at most these days.
Philip Z said on 19/Sep/22
@Hong: For sure, the second picture is deceiving. Here's another one from that event: Click Here
Clint looks around 5ft 10.5 here if we believe Scott's 5ft 10.75 listing. Keep in mind that this was in 2018, and in years prior to that Clint still had an easy inch on Scott, putting him quite close to his 6ft listing: Click Here
In 2021, however, Scott looks noticeably taller in every picture: Click Here
Even when taking posture etc into account in Clint's favor, he's barely looking 5ft 10 there. 6ft for Clint in 2022 is out of the question I'd say.
@Hong: For sure, the second picture is deceiving. Here's another one from that event: Click Here
Clint looks around 5ft 10.5 here if we believe Scott's 5ft 10.75 listing. Keep in mind that this was in 2018, and in years prior to that Clint still had an easy inch on Scott, putting him quite close to his 6ft listing: Click Here
In 2021, however, Scott looks noticeably taller in every picture: Click Here
Even when taking posture etc into account in Clint's favor, he's barely looking 5ft 10 there. 6ft for Clint in 2022 is out of the question I'd say.
Hong said on 16/Sep/22
Click Here @PhilipZ Here's Clint and Scott at the same event, as you can see Scott is no longer towering Clint as he was in the second pic you posted.Its just a case of an elderly man who's around 6ft standing next to a young man who's around 5ft10.5.The elderly man is slouching and in extremely relaxed posture with bent knees dropping about two inches because of that, and the younger man standing as tall as he can.
Click Here @PhilipZ Here's Clint and Scott at the same event, as you can see Scott is no longer towering Clint as he was in the second pic you posted.Its just a case of an elderly man who's around 6ft standing next to a young man who's around 5ft10.5.The elderly man is slouching and in extremely relaxed posture with bent knees dropping about two inches because of that, and the younger man standing as tall as he can.
Philip Z said on 15/Sep/22
With 5ft 10.75 listed Scott in 2021: Click Here
Even keeping Scott's slightly thicker shoes in mind, Clint is barely looking 5ft 10 here. Must be close to a five inch loss by now.
This shot from 2019 looks even less favorable for Clint: Click Here
Scott might have an even greater footwear advantage here, however.
With 5ft 10.75 listed Scott in 2021: Click Here
Even keeping Scott's slightly thicker shoes in mind, Clint is barely looking 5ft 10 here. Must be close to a five inch loss by now.
This shot from 2019 looks even less favorable for Clint: Click Here
Scott might have an even greater footwear advantage here, however.
Zuber said on 9/Sep/22
@Matt6'4.5
We need to realize that Eastwood is 90 freakin 2.Most people aren't around at that age,and the ones that are,are very rarely at such a good condition physically and mentally.Clint directed and starred in a movie at the age of 91.You cant exept him to be close to his peak height.
@Matt6'4.5
We need to realize that Eastwood is 90 freakin 2.Most people aren't around at that age,and the ones that are,are very rarely at such a good condition physically and mentally.Clint directed and starred in a movie at the age of 91.You cant exept him to be close to his peak height.
Matt6'4.5 said on 4/Sep/22
Rob, would you think a loss of that magnitude is due to lifestyle, intensity of exercise, or just plain crappy genetics? Or is it just natural progression into extremely old age? What do you think that would be like to lose 3 plus inches?
Editor Rob
Rob, would you think a loss of that magnitude is due to lifestyle, intensity of exercise, or just plain crappy genetics? Or is it just natural progression into extremely old age? What do you think that would be like to lose 3 plus inches?
Editor Robin Clint's case, his age and 6ft 3+ starting height is something to bear in mind.
Rory said on 27/Aug/22
No, because I suspect that's why they were the chosen few who got on. It was the fact they were unusually tall for their generation which helped them as leading men of the era.
No, because I suspect that's why they were the chosen few who got on. It was the fact they were unusually tall for their generation which helped them as leading men of the era.
Arch Stanton said on 27/Aug/22
Slim1.75m said on 25/Aug/22
Rob are you and Sure about the 1988 article list him at 216lb sounds to heavy for him even for a guy who's 6'3/4 I'd have thought about 190lb
Editor Rob
Could see him 200's range, but 216? Maybe that's a kind of prime weight he once reached?
It's a Gethin Jones 216 haha! Looks 190-200 lbs but claims 15 and a half stone!
Slim1.75m said on 25/Aug/22
Rob are you and Sure about the 1988 article list him at 216lb sounds to heavy for him even for a guy who's 6'3/4 I'd have thought about 190lb
Editor Rob
Could see him 200's range, but 216? Maybe that's a kind of prime weight he once reached?
It's a Gethin Jones 216 haha! Looks 190-200 lbs but claims 15 and a half stone!
Slim1.75m said on 26/Aug/22
Hey isn't it weird the despite being born in 1900s-1930s in james stewrt,john wayne,clint eastwood,Rock hudson all grew to be 6'3+ despite all the claims of pepper being taller in the 21st century
Hey isn't it weird the despite being born in 1900s-1930s in james stewrt,john wayne,clint eastwood,Rock hudson all grew to be 6'3+ despite all the claims of pepper being taller in the 21st century
Slim1.75m said on 25/Aug/22
Rob are you and Sure about the 1988 article list him at 216lb sounds to heavy for him even for a guy who's 6'3/4 I'd have thought about 190lb
Editor Rob
Rob are you and Sure about the 1988 article list him at 216lb sounds to heavy for him even for a guy who's 6'3/4 I'd have thought about 190lb
Editor RobCould see him 200's range, but 216? Maybe that's a kind of prime weight he once reached?
MaskDeMasque 5'9.5 said on 24/Aug/22
I think 6'3.25 is more likely. But yeh I agree Rampage, he was slightly more than a flat 6'3.
I think 6'3.25 is more likely. But yeh I agree Rampage, he was slightly more than a flat 6'3.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 22/Aug/22
I'm not sure I'd go to 6ft3 flat for his peak
I'm not sure I'd go to 6ft3 flat for his peak
Jordan87 said on 17/Aug/22
@ 58 he was already getting 6'3" Listings in papers. I doubt they or Him would report based on height losses. he never looked over 6'3. One of my favorite actors but I'm not going to just add an inch to his height so he can be 6'4 lol.
@ 58 he was already getting 6'3" Listings in papers. I doubt they or Him would report based on height losses. he never looked over 6'3. One of my favorite actors but I'm not going to just add an inch to his height so he can be 6'4 lol.
Hong said on 10/Aug/22
Clint is definitely looking taller than 6ft2 in the Magnum Force video,he looks a comfortable 6ft3 guy, could pull off 6ft4 in shoes.
Clint is definitely looking taller than 6ft2 in the Magnum Force video,he looks a comfortable 6ft3 guy, could pull off 6ft4 in shoes.
Leighton Tang said on 10/Aug/22
Hi Rob, do you think Clint is still 6 foot at 92 years old or is he due for a downgrade?
Editor Rob
Hi Rob, do you think Clint is still 6 foot at 92 years old or is he due for a downgrade?
Editor RobLikely under it now.
Hong said on 10/Aug/22
Click Here Here's the Magnum Force scene at the firing range.Clint with a couple of 6ft2 range guys.
Click Here Here's the Magnum Force scene at the firing range.Clint with a couple of 6ft2 range guys.
Becheese said on 9/Aug/22
Good scene in magnum force with David soul (6-0.5). Stood facing. Clints 6-3 minimum peak. Probably over that.
Good scene in magnum force with David soul (6-0.5). Stood facing. Clints 6-3 minimum peak. Probably over that.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 9/Aug/22
I wouldn't place George Kennedy under a solid 6ft4 in his prime. In fact I'd argue he was a little over it. Bit taller than Eastwood (still at peak I'd say) and near 3in on Jeff Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot
I wouldn't place George Kennedy under a solid 6ft4 in his prime. In fact I'd argue he was a little over it. Bit taller than Eastwood (still at peak I'd say) and near 3in on Jeff Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot
Becheese said on 8/Aug/22
Good scene in magnum force with David soul (6-0.5). Stood facing. Clints 6-3 minimum peak. Probably over that.
Good scene in magnum force with David soul (6-0.5). Stood facing. Clints 6-3 minimum peak. Probably over that.
MaskDeMasque 5'9.5 said on 1/Aug/22
Over 6'3 peak but probably not 6'3.5. 6'3.25 I think.
Over 6'3 peak but probably not 6'3.5. 6'3.25 I think.
James.B 172cm said on 26/Jul/22
Clint 6’3.25-6’3.5
Kennedy 6’3.5-6’3.75
Clint 6’3.25-6’3.5
Kennedy 6’3.5-6’3.75
Hong said on 26/Jul/22
Click Here Even better here's the video of 6ft1.5 Coburn and Clint in that scene they shared all those years ago on Rawhide.
Click Here Even better here's the video of 6ft1.5 Coburn and Clint in that scene they shared all those years ago on Rawhide.
Hong said on 26/Jul/22
Click Here Here's an example of a young Clint next to James Coburn listed here as 6ft1.5 but usually 6ft2.Now both guys are in western outfits,both in cowboy booth style heels probably?they certainly don't look the same height too me,even if you give Clint a slight heel advantage he's looking a solid 6ft 3 in comparison to Coburn.
Click Here Here's an example of a young Clint next to James Coburn listed here as 6ft1.5 but usually 6ft2.Now both guys are in western outfits,both in cowboy booth style heels probably?they certainly don't look the same height too me,even if you give Clint a slight heel advantage he's looking a solid 6ft 3 in comparison to Coburn.
Hong said on 26/Jul/22
Clint did indeed wear cowboy boots in westerns but unfortunately for him everybody else was also wearing them so he could not take advantage of the high heel.As for his other movies of the 60s and 70s he mainly wore a regular heel or flats.To say he was only 6ft1.5 at peak is in accurate and ilinformed. If you look at him next to 6ft4 George Kennedy in the videos I posted he was definitely in the strong 6ft3 range with no cowboy boots by the way.
Clint did indeed wear cowboy boots in westerns but unfortunately for him everybody else was also wearing them so he could not take advantage of the high heel.As for his other movies of the 60s and 70s he mainly wore a regular heel or flats.To say he was only 6ft1.5 at peak is in accurate and ilinformed. If you look at him next to 6ft4 George Kennedy in the videos I posted he was definitely in the strong 6ft3 range with no cowboy boots by the way.
stiggles said on 25/Jul/22
Clint always came across as a 6ft 1.5 fella.. but could easily claim 6ft 3+ in those 60s / 70s cowboy boots.
Clint always came across as a 6ft 1.5 fella.. but could easily claim 6ft 3+ in those 60s / 70s cowboy boots.
Hong said on 25/Jul/22
It's pretty close there Rob?Kennedy at 6ft4 would put Clint near enough to that mark himself,so in this case Clint is looking 6ft3.5 as you have him listed.
It's pretty close there Rob?Kennedy at 6ft4 would put Clint near enough to that mark himself,so in this case Clint is looking 6ft3.5 as you have him listed.
Hong said on 24/Jul/22
Click Here Clint and Kennedy look very similar in height at the end of this hilarious video😂
Editor Rob
Click Here Clint and Kennedy look very similar in height at the end of this hilarious video😂
Editor RobI thought Kennedy edged him slightly.
Tall Sam said on 23/Jul/22
Eastwood holds up admirably a lot with George Kennedy, definitely looking a taller than 6’3” guy IMO in stills and videos with him.
Eastwood holds up admirably a lot with George Kennedy, definitely looking a taller than 6’3” guy IMO in stills and videos with him.
Rory said on 23/Jul/22
There's better examples of Clint with Kennedy in the film Eiger Sanction, and I'd say Kennedy is definitely taller than Clint by 0.5-1 inch. Kennedy 6ft4 and Clint 6ft3.25 seems fair to me. Clint also shorter than 6ft4 Gregory Walcott in that film.
There's better examples of Clint with Kennedy in the film Eiger Sanction, and I'd say Kennedy is definitely taller than Clint by 0.5-1 inch. Kennedy 6ft4 and Clint 6ft3.25 seems fair to me. Clint also shorter than 6ft4 Gregory Walcott in that film.
Andrey200 said on 23/Jul/22
Rob are you aware of any health-related reasons for such a big height loss, or is his age the only factor? Could posture have accelerated the loss?
Editor Rob
Rob are you aware of any health-related reasons for such a big height loss, or is his age the only factor? Could posture have accelerated the loss?
Editor RobHe is still in the limelight at his age, when a lot of elderly people are in care homes.
Since Clint was a very tall height to begin with, the odds of shrinking more increase. Maybe it's not that much more than what you'd expect for a 90 year old who was active as much as he's been, still working and directing in most of his 80's...
Since Clint was a very tall height to begin with, the odds of shrinking more increase. Maybe it's not that much more than what you'd expect for a 90 year old who was active as much as he's been, still working and directing in most of his 80's...
Hong said on 22/Jul/22
By the way it's at 6 minutes 19 seconds on the video.
By the way it's at 6 minutes 19 seconds on the video.
Hong said on 22/Jul/22
Click Here Here's Clint and 6ft4 listed George Kennedy.Kennedy looks to have the edge on Clint.
Click Here Here's Clint and 6ft4 listed George Kennedy.Kennedy looks to have the edge on Clint.
Voorhees Myers said on 21/Jul/22
Peak 6-3.5 or just over. Far too many pictures to suggest under 6-3 imo. Legit big guy.
Peak 6-3.5 or just over. Far too many pictures to suggest under 6-3 imo. Legit big guy.
James B 172cm said on 17/Jul/22
This is what I think for clints height through his younger decades
1950s 6'3.25-6'3.5
1960s 6'3.25-6'3 3/8
1970s 6'3-6'3.25
This is what I think for clints height through his younger decades
1950s 6'3.25-6'3.5
1960s 6'3.25-6'3 3/8
1970s 6'3-6'3.25
Tall Sam said on 16/Jul/22
Interesting that comparison with William Smith who has a page listing him 6’1.5”. IMO Eastwood looks his peak listing with Smith.
Interesting that comparison with William Smith who has a page listing him 6’1.5”. IMO Eastwood looks his peak listing with Smith.
Hong said on 15/Jul/22
Click Here Here's Clint with William Smith who was around 6ft1 tall some say as tall as 6ft2.
Click Here Here's Clint with William Smith who was around 6ft1 tall some say as tall as 6ft2.
Canson said on 12/Jul/22
Selleck was more 6’3.5 which he admitted twice
Selleck was more 6’3.5 which he admitted twice
James.B 172cm said on 11/Jul/22
Also remember Tom Selleck could have been a weak 6’4
On a different note Clint Eastwood and Jeff goldblum both attended ‘A perfect world premier’ in 93. Shame there are no photos of them together but I would imagine Jeff would be significantly taller than Clint.
Also remember Tom Selleck could have been a weak 6’4
On a different note Clint Eastwood and Jeff goldblum both attended ‘A perfect world premier’ in 93. Shame there are no photos of them together but I would imagine Jeff would be significantly taller than Clint.
Rory said on 11/Jul/22
Selleck would have been an inch taller than Clint by 1985. I think peak Clint was 6ft3.25 and by mid 80s he was 6ft2.75-3. Its not true to say Neeson had 2 inches on Clint,he had 1.25 inches on him or at the absolute most 1.5.
Selleck would have been an inch taller than Clint by 1985. I think peak Clint was 6ft3.25 and by mid 80s he was 6ft2.75-3. Its not true to say Neeson had 2 inches on Clint,he had 1.25 inches on him or at the absolute most 1.5.
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.