How tall was John Wayne - Page 9

Add a Comment2527 comments

Average Guess (198 Votes)
6ft 3.37in (191.4cm)
patrick said on 29/Oct/07
Gene C: so you find J.Wayne not looking particularly tall in his early movies? What is "tall" for you? 6'7? Because I have tens of those 30ies movies and he ALWAYS looks very tall and above all, much taller than everybody else!
What "Frankenstein" boots are you talking about? That is typically what I call bad faith because his boots are very often visible in his movies (shoes as well) and you can take your time in watching them carefully in the DVD's opening sequence of the documentary "about Chisum". I wear cow boys boots for 42 years now and I can tell you everything about them: Mexican, Texan, "fashioned" etc. I saw several pairs of his boots in museums and at WB studios: if you find "ridiculous" his boots, you simply don't like them! Gary Cooper wore exactely the same kind of boots, notably in the 30ies!
As for Bob Mitchum's John Wayne's lifts statements, I read them too but I never could check out their reliability. Let's admit he really said that, it is Robert Mitchum! I read things frankly "unbelievable" and I can assure you I LOVE that fabulous man-actor! He more than once said about himself, he was the greatest lyer ever! I don't say he lied but...Be that as it may, John Wayne was "diminished" at the time; everybody knows that and yet, he remained "colossal"! I have re-watched "Rooster Cogburn" and though it is from 1975, he looks great at 68 and despite he visibly did not do the slightest effort to maintain him in good health! He looks like a grizzly!
For the rest I invite you to refer again and again to mike c words and Gonzalo's too! Those posted by mike on 27 oct. are particularly relevant!
OK Billy Bob, you're free to believe your neighbour rather than your own eyes and tons of testimonies relegating your pal's comments to "non sense": John Wayne 6'1! Why not 5'11 or less! That is strange how people LOVE to diminish those who suceeded in being "greater than life"!
On the contrary, I use them as "references" not to pretend being eventually their match BUT just to help me to go forward!
I remember a friend of mine telling me, swearing it without the slightest doubt in his voice, that Burt Lancaster was 5'10 or 11 tops.
He met him and found himself as tall as Burt! The problem is that Burt never was under 6'!
Imagine how STUPID John Wayne should have been to remove his boots before someone being so able to testify how tricky he used to be! If I want to look taller than I real am and go to a lot of trouble in order to maintain the illusion in wearing so ugly and uncomfortable lifts (3 or 4 inchs), what kind of stupid guy should I be to unveal the reality just to ...swimm!
Gonazalo, I agree with you (surprised?) and I bet my bottom dollar that Robert Ryan was 6'4 even in the later years. Watch "the professionals": he looks clearly taller than Lee Marvin and 6'3 bulky Woody Strode and way taller than Burt Lancaster.
John Wayne looks tall even alone in the desert where he acted so many times!
When staggering at the end of "three godfathers", he looks very tall, in the searchers, this so magnificent, beautiful, one of the most fabulous shot ever, where he turns around before the door is closed on him, once more staggering and leavin...alone: he looks definitely very tall!
That happens ONLY with real tall men, not simply "tall". Deal!
Gonzalo said on 29/Oct/07
Wayne didn
Billy Bob said on 28/Oct/07
My neighbour said he saw Duke in the early 50`s. They were swimming and he noticed Wayne`s 2-3 inch boots. After he took them off and was barefoot my neighbour said he was SHOCKED!

My neighbour is, at the age of 84, about 5-11. But in his youth he was 6-3. He stood next to Duke and he said that he was CLEARLY taller!

I dont really believe that my dear neighbour would lie. No, hell no. Of course this sucks because there is no proof about this. But... I do believe my neighbours word...

My 84-year-old, very honest and gentle man told me that.... JOHN WAYNE WAS 6-1 INCHES TALL, AND HAD A BEER BELLY!
mike c said on 27/Oct/07
Patrick, you can get the book from Barnes & Noble..you can order it and have it delivered to your home.....it's less than $10.00...As Gonzalo will agree, it's a fantastic history of the Duke in pictues albeit showing a very, very short John Wayne..he was no more that 6' tall....
mike c said on 27/Oct/07
Gene C, please give us the source of your statement regarding Bob Mitchum and the fact that the Duke wore lifts on and off screen. It's obvious your computer doesn't let you scroll down to the myriad sources of proof that he was indeed was 6'4"+...but, you can't be all bad, 6'3" is fairly close to 6'4"..the width of my thumb.....do yourself a favor and rent or buy the following:
The Quiet Man....indeed 6'4.5"
In Harms Way...pause the tv at the scene between George Kennedy as he and the Duke, face to face (Kennedy 6'4-5") board the airplane...look at the combat boots of Kennedy and the shoes of the Duke...
Donavan's Reef..2" taller than Lee Marvin
Also, get on the internet if your computer allows you and type in John Wayne's Height......of course we can always just comment on what so and so said he heard from his neighbor 50 years ago! Luv you Patrick and Gonzalo!...it's almost getting toooo easy...there's sooo much evidence it's scary..mike c
Gene C said on 26/Oct/07
Robert Mitchum said Duke wore lifts on and off screen. Those Frankenstein cowboy boots her wore are a bit funny. In early films Wayne looks not particularly tall but he exxagerated it later on in his career. My vote goes to Duke being no taller than 6'3".
patrick said on 26/Oct/07
Thanks a lot friends! I know "the" book about the Duke but I did not know "you" got pictures from it in scanning them! Good job!
Each time I asked it...it was unavailable!
As for respective opinions of the Duke and Rock, as you know and can check it out in scrolling down this page, I know it and I 100% agree with you as always (for I think Anonymous is "you" mike c but let me know if I am wrong!).
Oh, I just paid attention to your signature! Sorry!
Gonzalo, I appreciate all what you write as micke c's and it is interesting to notice how similar are our western societies, especially regarding TV!
I also agree with you about it at 100%.
In the states, there are a lot of local TV channels(local, maybe but often very very spread out over a state and even several!) you can watch very old films and particularly, westerns or series on.
But if only with TCM, AMC or TV Land, you have a choice very hard to get in any other country!
Cine Club was also the name of the French evening Movie show I was referring to.
So, I wish I could meet more people like you because I feel both of you as real "soul brothers" and frankly, in this very peculiar world, that makes me feel good!
So, have a nice week end guys and...Hurrah for 6'4 John Wayne!
Gonzalo said on 26/Oct/07
Dear Patrick. TVs in Spain don`t broadcast old movies anymore. They used to but not now. Anyway it wasn`t easy to see silent movies or movies made before 1936. I used to go to the Filmoteca Espa
Anonymous said on 25/Oct/07
Thanks, Gonzalo. Patrick, try to get the book, The Duke: A Life in Pictures..Barnes and Noble sells it..you won't regret it and I just know you'll appreciate it as much as I have...even Gonzalo has a copy in Spain...When I get a moment, I'll write what Hudson said about the Duke and how the Duke felt about the Rock....each respected the other...what you've seen on this page regarding the Duke and Rock( negative things)... is not true and just the crap that guys retell without bothering to think for themselves. mike c
patrick said on 25/Oct/07
Dear Gonzalo, I saw that movie in a French show calle "the midnight cinema" because it is aired around 12 pm. I am sure TCM aired it because they are great there and Tod Browning was a genius!
Don't miss that fantastic silent movie which, as many others of that Director, relegates our today's ones to amateur's featurettes!
I can assure you that watching old American movies is much easier in the USA than seeing any vintage one in any other country!
What I love with the Duke is that though he passed away almost 30 years ago (incredible!) he still is everywhere in any store, whether it is in America or anywhere else abroad!
Larger than life...
Gonzalo said on 25/Oct/07
Patrick, the pic from Fort Apache comes from Mike C. The remainder from the book The Duke: a life in pictures. all those pics were scanned by Mr. Mike C.
Haven
patrick said on 24/Oct/07
Very nice pic Gonzalo! Where do you dig them up?
Mike c, I love your sense of humor! By the way, in 1952, Victor was 66 while shooting the quiet man.
He probably was the bulkiest very famous actor ever, the other one being Clint Walker. I mean, not bodybuilt actor as Arnold or others are nowadays!
Have you ever seen Victor in "the unholy three" a Tod Browning's masterpiece starring in 1925, Lon Chaney? We see him as Hercules (a fair one!) and he is just like a strong bodybuilder! This man was...over dimensioned by nature! British and not Irish despite his name, he was a great man, very brave and probably as close to heroes he embodied as far can be a current Colin Farrel or a Brad Pitt! What a pity!
mike c said on 23/Oct/07
Thank you, Gonzalo. But, can't you see he's wearing 4" lifts...without them the girl would certainly be taller....Gracias, amigo. Cuidate. Mike C
Gonzalo said on 23/Oct/07
I have uploaded a new John Wayne pic in my album. My pal Mike C sent it to me. Guess what? Wasyne looks tall
Click Here
dmeyer said on 21/Oct/07
it is hard to see him under 6'4 maybe even 6'5
mike c said on 19/Oct/07
Thank you, Gonzalo..great pics! Especially the one with Martin. Now, the Duke towers over Dean, who,according to most sites, was at least 5'10.5" tall. Wayne sure does look 6'4"+ to me, but it's obvious he was wearing 5.5" lifts. So, Gonzalo, your picture just proves you wrong. Nice try. Welcome, also, Montana. Mike C...ps...Tony G, that means that perhaps Victor McLaglen could have been 6'3" tall at age 70 when he made The Quiet Man with Duke..well, Gonzalo/Patrick, perhaps you're right again.
patrick said on 19/Oct/07
montana, I love your pseudo because I do love the Montana State AND, what you say! Welcome aboard too!
Jimmy was a bit younger than the duke but looked older many years before that last movie. John Wayne NEVER looked really old; he still looked strong, like an veteran tree!
5'10"": very good example of what I call "obstinate opinion"! Whteher it is about that or anything else, some people stick to their guns even though those ones are...empty! BUT, you're right mike c, theyr are utterly entitled to do so, in spite of what "we" can think of it. After all, billions of people thought for decades that communism was the better way to live!
Nevertheless, "5'10", it verges on the bad faith and nothing else!
Happy to "talk" with you fellas!
Tony G said on 19/Oct/07
Mike,

Jimmy Stewart was born on May 20, 1908. So he was 68 years old in 1976.
mike said on 18/Oct/07
Gonzalo, I'm missing all the fun! When I click on your pics. I get text, but no pics. What am I doing wrong? It usually works. Maybe you can send them to my e-mail as attachments..I'm getting curious...Something about common sense-even a Martian can see the difference in height. This is true especially after seeing countless movies, photos, and reading about 4 books on the Duke. But, Catsman's entitled to his opinion-we don't agree, but he's entitled to it. Believe this or not, guys, one of my teachers (she's 4'9" tall) told me her father met the Duke and was sure the Duke was only 5'10"..his height. And, she was serious about it! That means (correct me if I'm wrong here) that the Duke wasn't wearing 4" lifts; the lifts were actually 6"..! Now, that makes sense!!!!! NOw it's all coming together.
montana said on 18/Oct/07
hi ray i thought jhonwayne was taller than 6'4.he looks it in all his movies,he looks so big next to all the other actors in the movies
Gonzalo said on 18/Oct/07
Hi, Ray and Patrick. Yes, I was joking, specially about all those four inch comments that want to tell us Wayne was around 6`1.
My pics show what Patrick said: if I didn
patrick said on 18/Oct/07
mikeC, about Catsman's comments, I find them, sorry Catsman, a bit far fetched. One has to watch star's movies to get a reasonable appreciation of their height, give or take one inch. In the Gonzalo's pics, the Duke is always much taller than everybody and not only "taller". Even though I wouldn't know John Wayne, admitting I come from the planet Mars, that would be just enough for me.
Jimmy Stewart was still 6'3 MIN. at 70: when getting on my (late) friend's car (a limo: Chevy Caprice 77) he had to "break" his endless back no to hurt his head and once inside, he was at a hair of the ceiling! John Wayne used also his car but it was before and I remember Paul (my friend) telling me he took all the available room of its Plymouth's rear seat.
Paul carried a lot of celebrities for 40 years, the Duke proving the most imposing he ever met. He was always talking about the Burt Lancaster's hand grip too, as almost the same "torture" as John Wayne's!
patrick said on 18/Oct/07
Ray!!! OF COURSE he is joking! You should know Gonazalo better and I invite you to read him as mikeC in scrolling down this page so as to realize how them (and I)we "see" the "short" John Wayne (must I precise I am laughing too?)
Hey, Gonzalo! Very nice pics for sure! Thanks a lot!
Ray said on 18/Oct/07
You havin a laugh Gonzalo ???
Gonzalo said on 18/Oct/07
Wayne wearing lifts next to Dean Martin
Click Here
Wayne looking barely over 1`85 with these women
Click Here
Wayne looking shorter than Ronald Reagan in this one
Click Here
John Wayne should be inmediately downgrade
mike said on 17/Oct/07
Thanks, Catsman....you know Jimmy Stewart was getting on in age also when he and the Duke made The Shootist...Jimmy was still 6'3" tall I'm told when he made the movie......I think he was pushing 70.Some tall gents just don't shrink..how about it guys, how old was Jimmy when he made The Shootist with JW?..Catsman, I may not agree with you, but I like you because you're a gentleman and I'm having a ball discussing/debating...take care. Mike C
Catsman said on 17/Oct/07
Mike - I'm not so much of a fan of that film to buy it so I'll wait until it comes on TV:) I think its worth saying that McLaglen was born either in 1886 or 1883, according to the link you have sent us, and would have been almost 70 by the time this film was made. The 6-3 height (if that was the correct bare foot measurement) was probably made when he was boxing in his 20s, so he might not have been that tall in 1952. Even then, we don't know if he was measured in his boxing shoes or if they rounded to the nearest inch. For example, he might have been just over 6-2 and a half at the weigh-in wearing his boxing boots. So, bare foot he might have been 6-2 at peak and was more like 6-1 by 1952!
On the other hand, maybe he started out at near 6-3 and a half bare foot and didn't shrink much at all in old age.
I guess a boxing historian might be able to tell us how they did the measurements in those days. Enjoy the logic;-)
Joshua said on 17/Oct/07
Yep, but if a man helps me like John Wayne helped Hudson, there`s no way I would say things like he said. Yes, John Wayne had to look like John Wayne and those lifts were a HUGE thing. Size was one main thing about Wayne. What was Hudson thinking? How would Wayne react to those actions? He treated Hudson like his own brother and then Hudson stabbed him in the back! Doesn`t sound fair..

W
mike said on 16/Oct/07
Click Here Guys, if you can, rent or buy the Quiet Man...the uncut version..I have it. Play the movie and pause it when you get to the confrontation between The Duke and Victor McLaglen in the widow's home..Wayne wants to buy his dad's property...Victor, in love with the widow, wants to outbid Wayne..the two men stand face to face..shoes showing..no lifts in sight....now, go the page at the beginning of my comments...you tell me
Wayne was 6'2" at max...better yet, go to the next scene at the bar when Wayne apparently insults Victor..even throws a towel on him....boys, Wayne is at least 1.5 inches taller....love the google page!...Gonzalo, gracias...you beat me to it. Just reread a couple of bios. on the Duke..Rock was indeed indebted to the Duke and would never have insulted him as the quotes below insinuate. Catsman, got to run to a meeting, but enjoy your logic..we'll discuss further.
Gonzalo said on 16/Oct/07
Rock Hudson said this about John Wayne:
"John Wayne was then the Hollywood legend, and I was on screen with him. The guy is an angel. He saved my life back then when no other film maker wanted to know me."
Catsman said on 16/Oct/07
Joshua - Hudson was realistic about Hollywood and knew that a film star image is not a true representation of the individual. He himself underwent name changes, teeth capping etc... to become a star. His point was that the real John Wayne was not the one portrayed on screen. Wayne still had to maintain the image that was expected of him long after he had been weakened by illness, had put on weight, lost his hair and some height.
Sean Connery, for example, wore a wig in all the James Bond films because the public wouldn
patrick said on 16/Oct/07
Actually, Rock was a very nice guy, according to most people having met him or knowing him intimately.
By the time he made this movie with the Duke, he, in fact was a bit
Joshua said on 16/Oct/07
Patrick, I understand. Thanks for explaining.

Just wondering what kind of man Hudson was saying things like that?
patrick said on 15/Oct/07
1/Catsman: I did not say "for you" even though you could be "included" in it. My message was about people who deny things when they are obvious. Nothing to do with being or not, a "fan". I am 54 and if I love some actresses and actors, I just cannot be a fan! That is for me, a childish, even if nice one, attitude.
Please, re read what you wrote at the time and try to figure out "why" I answered "that".
2/mike C, my friend, what you wrote is perfectly clear while it is subtle and hard to explain! Furthermore, everything is perfectly RIGHT in your text! So good common sense plus a real cleverness.
3/Anonymous: In what year that photo was taken please, I mean the one with the gigantic Clint Walker and the Duke? If after 1964, please remember he was a wounded man, severely!
Actually, Clint was 6
Catsman said on 15/Oct/07
Gonzalo - that is the picture I was talking about. Wayne is definitely not seated but standing on one leg. Look at his jacket - it hangs straight down on the left showing that his leg is straight (otherwise it would ruck up on his leg). His other leg is resting on the seat that Fitzgerald is sitting on, and he is leaning to that side. This is a good example of how pictures can show different things. Like I say, the ground is probably uneven so it proves very little.
Douglas is a great star, but I'm sure he was shorter than that. This probably isn't the best place for me to argue about his height, but the point is that he should not have been looking an inch taller than Mitchum!
Gonzalo said on 15/Oct/07
Catsman, the pic you are talking about is this one, that I posted here on July 12th
Click Here
It seems Wayne is algo seated. Wayne was taller than McLaglen in the quiet man, and also in She wore a yellow ribbon. Not much, because Victor was very big, but taller anyway.
In my opinion Douglas was at least 5`10. I don`t know why he is listed shorter inn celebheights. I haven
Joshua said on 15/Oct/07
"I did a movie with Duke Wayne and was very surprised to find out he had small feet, wore lifts, and a corset. Hollywood is seldom what it seems." -Rock Hudson

What do you think about that?
Catsman said on 14/Oct/07
Mike C - rotating the picture doesn't alter the ratio of anything as such. If you were standing there looking at the two people you would have a sense of what was vertical, but when looking at a picture the eye references the frame of the image for horizontal and vertical information. In order to view the scene as it was, you first have to rectify the frame so that it is in aligned with the true vertical and horizontal axis. Otherwise it is a slight trick of the eye. What I
mike c said on 12/Oct/07
Catsman, before we go any further, did you see the movie Donovan
Catsman said on 12/Oct/07
patrick - I have tried to put forward a constructive and scientific point. If you think that I am twisting things in some sort of blind fanatisism then you are totally wrong. If you are a fan of John Wayne that's OK, but it probably means you are actually the one who is not objective. My interest is in films rather than film stars, and am simply doubtful about his quoted height given what I have seen.
And no, I'm not saying Lee is as tall, I'm saying that the picture has to be adjusted before you can compare. That's just basic logic.
patrick said on 12/Oct/07
Catsman..."you can lead a horse to water but..."Frankly, if you really wnat to see the Duke as tall or so as Lee Marvin, OK!
You know what? I saw a pic of John Wayne and Mickey Rooney and, after all, thinking it over, the difference...
Catsman said on 12/Oct/07
Mike c - what I'm saying is that even if the ground is totally level, when you adjust the picture so it is genuinely straight, as I've described, the difference becomes much less.
mike c said on 11/Oct/07
Hi Gonzalo. Maybe I'm imagining it, but you posted the Lee/Wayne pic with the footwear showing and even commented on the sneakers the Duke was wearing a while ago. Catsman, I've seen the pic that Gonzalo sent and it shows the Duke next to Lee, side by side, sneakers on feet...no lifts anywhere to be found. Am I right, Gonzalo? Mike C ps. Catsman, look at the chin line of both and tell me that the difference is less than 2 inches.
Gonzalo said on 11/Oct/07
Yes, Catsman, pics can be deceiving. But I have seen the movie and in one scene they walk together on even ground and Wayne is taller, around 4 or 5 cms. It is a nice movie, I hope you like it. It is not among the best movies of Wayne and Ford together but it
patrick said on 11/Oct/07
Very nice and "accurate" pic Gonzalo!
Catsman said on 11/Oct/07
Gonzalo, thanks for posting that. It
Gonzalo said on 11/Oct/07
Hi, Catsman. Until you see the Donovan
patrick said on 10/Oct/07
Catsman "widely reported" 4 inch lifts? No way! I never everheard of that! Lifts, yes, 4 inch ones, certainly not: just try to figure out them!! John Wayne in "talons aiguilles" as it is said in french ("needle heels")!
"We" did not especially "studied" his height...we just opened our eyes and notice what is obvious for our prime.
About Lee Marvin who definitely was 6'2 even in his old days, it is as easy to check what Gonzalo and mike C write as about the Duke: hundreds of films!
Did you ever really watch John Wayne movies? I say that because I repeat his height is obvious but for guys like Viper! I wonder how "that" can be such a matter of debate! That is different with current actors because of the way directors most often shoot them with angles, sophistication essentially dating from the 60ies.
Catsman, take ANY Howard Hawks movie with Wayne or not, and you will have what a other great director, Japanese this time, Ozu, always did: still camera according to an angle showing characters from the same point of view as if he were (the director) no more than 5'5 tall. Hawks is the best example and he did with Ford, the best movies ever, whether it is with the Duke or not.
Thanks for trying!
Catsman said on 10/Oct/07
Mike C - I did try to post some examples but there are unspecified word filters set on this site and those emails won't post because of the names I entered. Do some keyword searches on the web, as I did, and you'll find quite a few references. They might all originate from one exagerated source, of course, but I do think that there is some truth in the story.
I did take a look at that picture from 21st. It's not the best reference because of the wide angle which tends to enlarge the edges and Wayne is leaning his head, but he does look 6ft 4. I take your point about 4 inch lifts being unlikely but perhaps he still had some sort of lifts?
I can't comment on the Lee Marvin comparison until I see it for myself.
mike c said on 9/Oct/07
Catsman, no offense meant. Take a pair of your favorite shoes/boots, and put 4" lifts (maybe use paper, styrofoam, etc) and please let us know if you can walk and/or run using them. Please let me know the written source of these mythical 4" lifts...I want to read for myself. Respect your opinion, but honestly can't even begin to agree with it...Lee Marvin was 6'2" and, as Gonzalo points out, Wayne was at least 2" taller wearing sneakers..check this out: Gonzalo says on 21/May/07 Catsman, please scroll down
Well, I hope this thing works. Here are some pics that Mike C sent to me and one that I already had of Wayne towering over 6ft john ford. I hope you all can see it. wayne looks very tall in this pics but we know how it works: Wayne is wearing lifts or Ford was 5`9. The same old story

Click Here
Catsman said on 9/Oct/07
You guys seem to have studied John Wayne more than I have, or care to, so you may well be right. I read that he wore lifts of a large size (4 inches is widely reported), it's not something I've judged myself. Maybe it's folklaw. To say I'm in denial suggests that I have some problem with him being that tall. I certainly don't care that much! I'll keep an eye out for Donovan's Reef.
patrick said on 9/Oct/07
Thanks Friends! Anyway, "that" is ridiculous! Already that old story of lifts and moreover 4' lifts! Frankly...
Some people appear taking pleasure in downgrading others, especially "very known people", stars, celebrities. It is so easy to reduce them under the pretext of "demythify" any person "too worshipped" man or woman in their opinion.
Gonzalo said on 9/Oct/07
Catsman comment is hard to understand. There is no way Wayne wore four inch lifts; I don
mike c said on 8/Oct/07
Catsman, if you indeed saw The Quiet Man, maybe you missed three important scenes. The one with Victor McLaglen in the widow's home where the Duke haggles for his father's property. They're face to face, you get a great shot of the shoes....if you see 4" heels/lifts you are definitely in denial. Earlier in the movie when he's being driven to his hometown in a horse and buggie, you get a good look at the shoes he wears throughout the movie....again, the 4" lifts are no where to be scene.....and the best shot of all, when he's standing in the doorway of his cottage and his wife has gone AWOL, he's barefoot...he's taller than the doorway....I know, they purposely built the cottage to make his look tall....
patrick said on 8/Oct/07
Very well and "long enough" posted Russ! "Robert Mitchum was not close to being Wayne's height in the movie. In some scenes yes, Robert Mitchum looks tall. But, it was only because of the camera angle when Wayne was in the background": what could I add ?? Even "me"? Perfect!
Catsman, what on earth are trying to say mentioning "4 inch lifts" ? That really makes no sense at all! Where did you dig that up?
Hey mike c, Gonzalo and now, Russ, what do you think? Maybe in getting on in age I have lost "something" but frankly, I find that typically as "wanting being right at all cost" arguments!
mike c said on 7/Oct/07
Well said, Russ.
Russ said on 6/Oct/07
I've been watching John Wayne movies for a long time. In every movie, he is considerably taller than almost every other man in the film. The only other actors who even came close to Wayne's height were Jimmy Stewart, Ward Bond, Woody Strode and George Kennedy. All of these men were bonifide tall men. If John Wayne truly was 5'10" or 5'11" as some people want to think, he'd have to have been wearing 6"lifts to have been taller than these other men. I doubt very much that Wayne was wearing 6" inch lifts in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, "The Sons of Katie Elder",etc. He did a fair amount of running in his Westerns. You can't run when you are wearing 6" lifts. I've watched "El Dorado" probably 10 times over the years. Robert Mitchum was not close to being Wayne's height in the movie. In some scenes yes, Robert Mitchum looks tall. But, it was only because of the camera angle when Wayne was in the background, etc. Many actors are shorter than we think they are. But, John Wayne truly was a tall, big man.
mike c said on 6/Oct/07
Catsman, no offense meant, but if you read, please scroll down and read my contribution dated July 20 'o7...and, if you can schedule it, watch very carefully The Quiet Man....minimum 6'4" barefoot...the man he fights was the monster boxer Victor (6'3")...
mike c said on 6/Oct/07
Russ, Catsman is in denial.....
Russ said on 6/Oct/07
In the Bruce Dern interview I mentioned previously, Dern mentioned that John Wayne "threw me around like a rag doll" in the fight scene from "The Cowboys. When you figure Wayne's age at that time and that he probably had only one lung, that's impressive.
Catsman said on 5/Oct/07
I saw the last minute of a film starring Wayne and Robert Mitchum the other day. I think it was El Dorado, made in 1966. The two looked almost the same height. I think Wayne was 6-4 with his lifts, not barefoot.
Russ - Dern probably meant he was giant in character or charisma.
Gonzalo said on 5/Oct/07
Bruce Dern and John Wayne. In that movie, The war wagon Wayne and Kirk Douglas shot two guys at the same time killing both. Douglas said "mine reached the floor first" and Wayne replies "mine was taller". Wayne
patrick said on 5/Oct/07
Yes, I always saw him as 6'1 in his "bad guy roles" years in the 60ies. He was mainly confronted to the Duke in "the Cowboys" where though being a strapping man himself, Bruce looks like a teenager against a baobab when fighting John Wayne!
glenn said on 5/Oct/07
i think bruce dern told me he was 6-1 in youth but lost height.
Russ said on 5/Oct/07
I recently saw a documentary on John Wayne. In the documentary, they were interviewing Bruce Dern who was in the movie "The War Wagon" with John Wayne and Kirk Douglas. Bruce Dern, who is probably at least 6 feet himself, stated that John Wayne was "a giant of a man".
patrick said on 1/Oct/07
Well posted Russ and "common sense marked". The Duke, unlike Rock Hudson or Bob Mitchum (ah! all those wonderful actors!)very rarely stood straight up and on the other hand, tilted all the time a often swaying head; remember: his famous look, the eyes up to the one he was talking to!
mike c said on 24/Sep/07
patrick, I had to erase what I wrote twice...guess I'm getting soft in my old age....not once did I ever see Rock dwarf the Duke...not once..King must have seen a movie that the rest of the world did not see nor knew existed....there's no accounting for perception nor taste for that matter!! Keep your common sense coming. mike c
patrick said on 24/Sep/07
mike C, may I tell you you are too polite with Mr King. That is my way of saying what I think of such a silly thing! It is always possible to say anything about anything; non sense is the most common argument for peopla unable to play fair and square; No argument but a real will to say "something", preferably cynical, even evil, no problem! let's invent it and not matter it is completely incredible and not founded at all! "We" so have talked, at all cost! Pathetic!
mike c said on 22/Sep/07
King, you're joking, right?
King said on 22/Sep/07
John Wayne was not 6-4. He refused to act with Rock Hudson, because Rock completely DWARFED Duke.
Patrick said on 17/Sep/07
"hmm, you had to read "refering to" of course...sorry!
Anonymous said on 13/Sep/07
John Wayne was a solid 6'3. In a movie with Ron Howard there was a scene where
Wayne was barefoot and Howard was wearing boots and Wayne still towered
over him. 6'4 in his prime.
Patrick said on 13/Sep/07
Sure mike; I just wanted to add a "superior, essentiel" touch because, dear friends, I really and deeply feel that "we", all of us, need that kinda great nexus in a world full of "noise and fury" and too often "signifying nothing" or at least, "not so much"!
Remember how Gonzalo and you and sometimes a few others, considered hat very site as a basis to develop values we all are attached to;
This world is not that bad but, what is crazy lies in the fact while we do not know war (Hmm...) on our lands (I speak as an European here!)and racial differences are way less obvious than "in the good old times" like the 50ies, there is a lack of values, of things to stick to. As ressult we live in a "gentle" but quite insipid and a bit fuzzed world. In Europe and especially in France, that is far more evident!!! Believe me! I am always between the "two worlds" and there is no need to compare them!!! Yet, feature films being a "mirror" of our society, we can see "us" through the choice that very society does as for its "stars"; the same with stupid TV shows we won't be able to watch "tomorrow" as we can do for the same silly ones of the 50ies; Question of charm! I do not see any part of "future kitsch" in our vulgar today's TV shows! Not all of them but...I am sure (for those still reading that boring statement!) "you" will see what I mean!
SO, people able to keep cool enough not to be laid astray by all of that "easy way out", people like you mike c and Gonzalo are like a cold glass of fresh water in a burning desert!
Sorry for being so long!
mike c said on 12/Sep/07
Patrick, we can also call it common sense..of which you have quite a bit just like my buddy Gonzalo...great pic. G.
Patrick said on 12/Sep/07
Thanks again buddies mike c and Gonzalo; That is funny how each of you react exactly as..."the two others" do! That is what I call a "psychic link"!
Gonzalo said on 12/Sep/07
It`s true he doesn
mike c said on 11/Sep/07
I'm sorry captainobvious (I hope it's not your real name!)..I reacted very quickly and dashed off a comment without seeing your "Someone wasn't 6'4"...I guess you were there when the pic was taken and know by heart the heights of all the men in the pic. and their names so us stupid folks can do some research...I mean, how else could you possibly say 'Someone wasn't 6'4"? (remember cap' he was getting on in age when the pic was taken...). Ed. Rob. I saw a movie of John Wayne with Roy Rogers....Roy was about 6' tall(Roy was in his twenties)...The Duke towered over him...I'll do my homework and get back to you..I believe the movie can out in the 30's...nice piece of acting by both superstars.
mike c said on 11/Sep/07
captainobvious,..... AND YOUR POINT IS? Oh, I hope it's not the old John Wayne's short story again...Nice pic. though. mike c
Patrick said on 11/Sep/07
On an uneven soil surface ? What is strange in there? I don't figure out...furthermore, the Duke was not young at the time of this pic and also, who are those guys? Who knows how tall they are? Kinda pic I like but not to serve as measurement basis in any way!
captainobvious said on 10/Sep/07
Here's a curious pic. Very curious indeed:

Click Here

Someone wasn't 6'4".

Editor Rob
I was watching early Wayne, c-movies, the guy in late 20's to early 30's range when thin in those movies really did tower people.
mike c said on 7/Sep/07
chris, 6'.4.5" minimum in his prime. Glad you're on board.
chris said on 6/Sep/07
The Duke could have scratched 6'5" in his prime height.
Patrick said on 4/Sep/07
YES Gonzalo! Exactly what I think: "Wayne looked taller in the shots on even ground, specially by the end of the movie when they meet in the headquaters preparing their last mission Wayne looked clearly taller".
Nothing to add!
Iam sure Ryan was more than 6'3 and was well 6'4 as repported.
I just watched "the hellfighters" with 6'5 T.Hutton and Wayne once more, "in turns" looked as or almost, tall as him or shorter, depending...how the Duke STOOD beside Tim: actually, J.Wayne was as you often how to say , swaying and his head was rarely still (as the Brando's one!); even late in his career, the Duke still was very supple and i'd say "flexible"; it was in his nature; his walk was as a floating boat and he always talked with moves of his head underlying his words; even his face was in move: remember how he would lift his forehead skin, looking then very "dangerous"!
But Tim, him, remains all the time as a very rigid and right stick!
Until then guys !
Gonzalo said on 4/Sep/07
Hi, Patrick, Mike C. Well, Robert Ryan was also a very tall man and a great actor. He was a boxer before becoming an actor. In The flying leathernecks, as you say Patrick, it was hard to tell who looked taller, cause it depended on the shot. To me Wayne looked taller in the shots on even ground, specially by the end of the movie when they meet in the headquaters preparing their last mission Wayne looked clearly taller. I would like to see the movie again in order to take a pic of that shot so people here can see Wayne was taller.
My mother and my brother saw The longest day the other day and my mum said that they looked very similar in height but Wayne could be a little taller.
Anyway, they were both great in all terms. At least 6`3 for them
mike c said on 2/Sep/07
Hi Gonzalo, Patrick. Patrick, I enjoy reading what you write...a lot of common sense. I don't think, though, Gonzalo is trying to show that Ryan is taller than the Duke. His great pic. just shows the height of the Duke..6'4" at least..on the Ryan page he's listed as 6'4" yet in Gonzalo's pic. I feel the Duke is a tad taller.look at the shoulders and the chin..call me silly...Quidate, amigo. Keep it coming Patrick, my friend. mike c
patrick said on 31/Aug/07
ALANR, frankly, if you are still "there" about that topic...I know vry well that foot print WHICH MEANS NOTHING at all!
I can't get over it! People still continue to trust that kind of vague impression from a foot print or so rather than just simply watching movies!
That scares me when I think such people could serve as witnesses in a trial!
Gonzalo: that is just a pic among many others and you know as we all do, that a pic will never be worth the natural we find an entire movie; The one looking taller at a moment will seem shorter after.
Furthermore, that is taken from "the longest day" in 1962; the Duke was supposed not to be as tall as in "the flying leathernecks" in 1951. In Tom Welling page, I wrote precisely how in that last movie, he first (first scene together) looks shorter by one to two inches and, suddenly seem atller ALL ALONG THE FILM, with no need of any trick!
In that '51 movie, they walk along often, wearing exactly the same USAF shoes and enough long to allow us to appreciate they respective height;
No doubt the Duke was slighlyt taller at the time and even more broadshouldered!
NO DOUBT unless being blind or decided to deny reality.
In 62, it is visible John, while staying in very good shape (for a man smoking more tha 4 packs and drinking "reasonnably") was not the same athletic man any more, contrary to R.Ryan who never was fat and kept his slender silhouette until his too early death.
Hope to get an answer from you and mike c; meanwhile: take care !
mike c said on 29/Aug/07
Great pic. Gonzalo! Alanr, I know someone wrote about the boot size...scroll down to Mike T May 30, June 2....interesting thing..boots
ALANR said on 29/Aug/07
We were at Graumans Chinese Theater last month and his boot print was tiny--my 8 year olds foot was bigger than his. I do not see how he could be over 6 ft with such a tiny foot if it was really his!!!
Gonzalo said on 29/Aug/07
John Wayne next to Robert Ryan. Hard to say. The same height I would say.
Click Here
patrick said on 24/Aug/07
Of course! Sure he was so mike C and Mr Sunshine! I saw the same in the Warner Brothers museum where are displayed many artefacts having belonged to the Duke.
I remember a jacket he wore in the high and the mighty.
To cut a long story short HE was BIG and tall because as says Mr. Sunshine, if not so he should have been very badly built, notably much more bulky, head in shoulders like a funfair brute what he was not!
On the contrary John Wayne was slender even when having got a lot of weight!
He NEVER appeared fat and kept all along his life that incredibly elegant silhouette. I re-watched once more, the cow boys where he looks like a tree trunk compared to the athletic Bruce Dern. Only a really tall man can give that impression with maybe 40 Lbs too much!
mike c said on 23/Aug/07
Thank you, Sunshine. Great piece of info. for the ones who still insist he was short, abeit stocky. The man was huge and if you read below.(July 20th)......"He was like a walking mountain, physically big, huge, amazing to be around" mike c
Ms. Sunshine said on 23/Aug/07
Saw a cowboy shirt worn by J. W., that is displayed at the Gene Autry Western Heritage Museum in Los Angeles, & I could not believe how wide the shoulders were on this shirt. The man had to have been very tall in person or he would have been very disproportionate overall & he does not look that way in his movies.
patrick said on 21/Aug/07
SO NICE WORDS Mike C ! The same about you, of course! Please, mike could you get to Tom Welling page and read what I try to make understand concerning "old fashioned actors"? That would be very nice. Scroll down and try to find other remarks I did about that very profound subject; I say profound because how are and look our today's actors reveals a lot about us, about how our society really is and what are its values.
Hi Gonzalo too! Island in the sky isnot a typical John Wayne film because he does not appear as the emblematic hero he used to being. He is "one" among other guys in a very difficult position. Heroes are, in a way, more "the others", rescuers, whose tallest is J.Arness. I so don't remember seeing him facing the Duke. Easier I think, in the see chase (55), Hondo (53). The best example to watch them together all along the same movie is by far, "big jim mclain" but I doubt this film be ever visible today! That is about Mc Carthism and its heroes would probably seen now as "the vilains", including John Wayne!
To finish: in hellfighters, Hutton looks in turn an inch taller then about the same. I think an inch is rightn not two. Need to get it in DVD!
Many happy returns to all of us, guys!
mike c said on 19/Aug/07
Great to hear from you Gonzalo!! If you can, scan the pic. of Hutton and Wayne in the BOOK and send it to ed. Rob. ...I think an inch is about right, what do you think? Cuidate, Amigo. Mike ps, Patrick, miss you, buddy.
Hmm said on 19/Aug/07
Watch "Hellfighters" with Wayne and 6'5" Jim Hutton. Hutton looks an inch or two taller than Wayne, footwear is unclear though.
Gonzalo said on 17/Aug/07
Hi, guys. Nice article about Wayne, Mike C. Thank you. I have found another movie of Wayne with James Arness, Island in the sky. I hope to have the chance to watch it and see how tall Wayne looks next to 6`7 Arness
patrick said on 6/Aug/07
Mike C : I did! I read your long and fascinating report but as you noticed, it was impossible to take anything down until september; I do not even figure out how I can do it "now"!
William: I am not sure Americans were so "shorter" in the 50ies; At the time, there were the tallest in the world and are not any more. If you take into consideration just "actors" you will see that most of them were between 6 and 6'3, and even more. I always said that if a European actor would have been hired in an American movie, he would so looked just ridiculous, unless using tricks of course.
Some british actors and few Germans were tall at the time (Curd Jurgens) but in France for example, only Yves Monatnd was real tall star and at 6'2 he towered any other actor! Another French star was Jean Marais (one of the best built man ever...without doing ANY sport!)and looked really tall at only 5'11.
At the same height in the USA, Glen Ford looked very average. Alain Delon looked tall at 5'11/2. Look how R.de Niro looks short and fortunately, he played not in the "6 to 6'3" 50ies but in the "5'6 to 5'9" 70ies!
Many of my friends are between 6 and 6'2 and were between 20 and 30 in the 50ies. Just like nowadays. As I wrote it many times, at the time, people were mostly white and those typical "WASP" were rather tall and still are they.
Latinos and others as Asians are rarely over 5'7 or 8. The average has been modified because of this population increasing.
Actors are taken out of the real population and if being tall is right, at 6 to 6'2, beyond, it is considered "too much".
Wayne's time was nevertheless different about that even though 6'5 or more were estimated already too tall.
William said on 5/Aug/07
I don't know, I mean the adults of 1955 were those of two-three generations ago, and about 2-3 inches shorter, on average, than today's adults. He may give the appearance of being a 6'4 or 6'5 man now but he would have only needed to be 6'1 to tower above most men of 1955.
Mike C said on 22/Jul/07
LOW are you also nick? Either way, respect the way you write. Mike C ps Patrick, did you get a chance to read my July 20 post?
LOW said on 22/Jul/07
Mike c, great investigating, I wasn't trying to insist that the Duke was 6'3 1/2 or anyting, I was just conveying information from something I had saw, I would like to help get an accurate reading of of his height weather it's 6'1 or 6'6. I have no doubt that he could have lost at least 1/2 inch by then, he was past his prime physically. I'm suprised that it was from 1955 though, I would have guessed that it was more recent.
Viper said on 22/Jul/07
Mike, that site has the Rock at a ridiculous 6-4 1/2 as well, lol. Not too credible there.
Mike C said on 21/Jul/07
nick, you sound like a reasonable guy. Got this in a google search. Remember, the Duke was gaining weight by then...his life style was starting to get in the way..could easily have lost .5" by this episode...mike c:
10/10/55: "Lucy and John Wayne"
I Love Lucy Episode 129 - Filmed 9/15/55
Story: Lucy and Ethel have made off with the cement slab of John Wayne's footprints. Now the police are called in to investigate.
nick said on 20/Jul/07
I beg to differ Patrick, I had shortend my original remark because I didn't want to praddle on, but I can get more specific about that episode. It's an episode when Lucy is trying to meet the great Duke Wayne so she's snooping around his dressing room looking at stuff when Wayne's massuse comes in. she makes up a story to get ride of him. but right after that, much to her horror, john comes in expecting his messauge, he lay's down on his stomach with his head on the towel and can't see Lucy, he starts to make small talk and finally she has to say something, so in a deep manley voice she say's "so whatcha up to" and he say's "oh about 6'3 1/2". I have to admit, I don't have any real proof to post or episode # or anything.
Mike C said on 20/Jul/07
Guys, another interesting site regarding the so-called height of The Duke...open and scroll downn to 6'4.5"
Click Here Oh, yes, I know....not enough proof!! This is getting better, Patrick, it's almost too easy!
Mike C said on 20/Jul/07
Patrick, Gonzalo, visit this page: Click Here then read below what Neil Summers says about the "walking mountain!!!
A few years ago, Albuquerque's Boyd Magers found himself in a bind while compiling an all-time list of top Western stars for Western Clippings, his magazine about cowboy movies and TV shows.
"I kept going back and forth between (singing cowboys) Gene Autry and Roy Rogers for Nos. 2 and 3," Magers said during a phone interview this week. "But there was no question about No. 1. That was John Wayne."
Magers said Wayne throws his tall shadow worldwide.
"You mention him in Japan and people know him instantly," he said. "It's hard to say why. It's an almost undefinable thing, a kind of chemistry on the screen.
"But to me, he epitomizes that manly let's-take-care-of-business attitude that doesn't seem to exist anymore. And the sense that's there's a right and a wrong and no in between."
Wayne - Oscar-winning actor, mythic hero, American icon and one tough hombre - was born Marion Morrison in Winterset, Iowa, 100 years ago today.
He doesn't look his age. A Harris Poll done this year lists him as the third most popular movie star behind Denzel Washington and Tom Hanks.
Not bad for someone who died of stomach cancer in 1979. But legends are not good about lying still.
"John Wayne's image is more mythic than realistic," said Johnny D. Boggs, 45, of Santa Fe, a writer of Western fiction and nonfiction and vice president of the Western Writers of America. "The image he portrayed in the movies is this giant figure for truth, justice and the American way. I don't think you met too many characters like that in the (real) West."
Boggs said the characters in his own award-winning fiction (two Western Writers Spur Awards) are more likely to be influenced by Jimmy Stewart's roles in such movies as 1950's "Winchester
Mike C said on 20/Jul/07
Patrick, Gonzalo, go to this site and scroll down to John Wayne...Click Here everyone thinks he was 6'4"
mike c said on 20/Jul/07
Patrick, The Quiet Man has all the proof of his height if only Nick et.al would take the time to watch it.....taller than the boxing brute Victor McLaglen (6'3")when they stand face to face with shoes (no lifts) showing....he clearly states at the beginning of the movie when Barry Fitzgeral asks,"6'6"? he replies, "6'4.5" ...you can clearly see the shoes...now, that's a fact that he said that, but is it true?.just read and watch his movies and I say YES! Why is he constantly described as 6'4" in his biographies and in many movies statements are made of towering height? You're right, Patrick, as you would also, I'd like to know the episode because I'm going to find it,view it and make up my own mind. Love your comments!! Mike C
Patrick said on 20/Jul/07
What happens with this site? I posted a (for once) short remak yesterday I have to repeat: NO WAY John Wayne ever claimed being 6'3 +. Sorry, nick, he never did that. Whether you badly heard or I don't know but I can assure you he never said that unless you are able to post the proof of the contrary nick. Thanks in advance.
What do you think mike c and Gonzalo?
nick said on 17/Jul/07
In an episode of I love lucy in which he was making a guest appearence when the ricardo's are going out to California, he says I'm 6'3 1/2 and 213. I don't know the year but it was towards the end of the series, so I'm thinking mid 60's, he was getting pretty old by then, he had graying hair,he was probably around 60 yr old +/-
Patrick said on 17/Jul/07
SURE as always at 150% Mike C (sorry, I cannot help putting your nickname with two Caps.!).
Wonderful and so profound and warm remarks about "our" li'l Mouse! Just love it.
Patrick said on 16/Jul/07
Hi there Gonzalo too and Mike C as well!
I dove in "movie stuff" since I was a very little boy: hardly two years old! My dear late mother was crazy about it and knew by heart every existing actor.
It is to believe she passed it on to me because I outwent her in that so exciting topic!
I am SO happy to find here people like both of you Gonzalo and Mike C: I sincerely wish "we" are numerous beyond this site!
Your comment of 07/16 is absolutely relevant. I agree with it at 100%.
As everybody knows it: the Duke was sooo stupid! Look how he directed this so much underrated feature film "Alamo". Sorry for the "Wayne contemptors", I never ever got bored in watching that wonderful and very respectful movie.
He was a "giant" "and not only because he was 2 meters tall" would say a famous french critic in the late 60ies.
sam said on 16/Jul/07
Where did you read this, King?
Gonzalo said on 16/Jul/07
King, I would like to know which are your sources. I am very keen on cinema and I have read many boks: about John Wayne, john Ford, Hitchcock, howard Hawks. In only one book, Hollywood bable on, I have read something about john Wayne`s lifts. It was that quote of Mitchum that has been transcripted in this site. It seems that Wayne was not very intelligent since he semed surprised by Stewart`s height which was well known. After 30 yeras in the industry for both of then Wayne had no idea that Stewart was a tall man.
Hi, Patrick and MikeC. Great to have you on this site. MikeC, ya tengo el libro. Muchas gracias. Me encanta
Patrick said on 15/Jul/07
Yeah Mike C! What could I add ?
King, I heard a friend whi heard a cousin of the house keeper of the grand father of a guy having met at school a nasty pupil just sitten next to a friend of mine having told me "you" wore a wig! With such an evidence, how could I be doubtful? So, I swear you wear a wig and do not tell me the contrary..."please"!
mike c said on 15/Jul/07
It's amazing how sure one can be of himself with just a little bit of secondhand knowledge. I guess, King, you believe everything you hear.
King said on 15/Jul/07
No doubts... John Wayne was a big 230-pounder bull. But six-four? Please...

I heard that in MHSLW he met Stewart who was six-three. Wayne was like "my god!!" and immediately went to Ford and DEMANDED 2 inch -lifts.

And thats the bottom line cause Jimmy Stewart said so.
Patrick said on 14/Jul/07
Mike C..."you're my Man"! I feel "reading my own mind", more than my words and you know that since You have honored me in reading what I tried to express. Whether it is about "this site" - by the way: THANKS A LOT Ed; Rob! - or regarding the stars and what "cinema" really is (or should be)and especially the nowadays stars or supposed such, I meet in your eyes as in AAAA and DaMan (see Tom Welling page), in your way of tackling and envisioning life what I always wanted.
100% ok with you and Gonzalo, a good friend too!
Patrick said on 13/Jul/07
Here is what I wrote in the Walter Pidgeon page and think that concerns the Duke as well:
I am watching "dark command": they indeed, appear alike, especially when Wayne is caught and invited by Walter BUT, in the very SAME scene, no cut, and JUST after that, the Duke does not look but really IS clearly taller by at least one inch.
That, once more, should lead everybody to think twice before peremptorily claim "this "or "that".
Frankly, even me, convinced that Walter is about 6'3 or so and J.Wayne more than 6'4 when young, (6'4 after 45-50), I was about to change my mind about the Duke. BUT, I know howaturally, by design, tricky mowies are and I waited for "the rest": the same room, the same shoes since the same scene and yet, not the same height at all! I invite anybody to check that out: that happens all the time and here is why I still am so circumspective regarding all that height stuff!
Nothing is more deceptive, I would say illusional hence misleading, than cinema industry!
I repeat: I would have have sworn this time they were the same height and yet, they were not!
Actually, the perfect example for this site!
Patrick said on 13/Jul/07
BRAVO, all of you! Thanks Gonzalo for your words and superb and rare pics!
In the third one, the Duke is ...sitten!!! Normal he looks smaller than the others!
I repeat, I never heard of him being not tall, not "very" tall, when I was young and while he was still acting and...starring!
No problem about the "confusion" Mike C (I was sure of that!)
Gonzalo said on 13/Jul/07
Hi, MikeC. I just wrote John Wayne in google and searched for pictures. Not bad pics. I have also been anonymous sometimes on celebheights
chris said on 12/Jul/07
In the early 50's he was clearly 6'4 and a half plus, in the 60s he had 2 ribs, and his whole left lung removed so from about '64 onwards he was no longer at his peak height
mike c said on 12/Jul/07
Patrick, I just realized that I was Anonymous on July 10. I wrote Mike C at the end of the post, but never bothered to write it at the beginning....so, I am anonymous. Sorry for the confusion.
mike c said on 12/Jul/07
Gonzalo, great pics. Where did you get the last three.
Gonzalo said on 12/Jul/07
He looks tall to me in this pic
Click Here
Or in this one
Click Here
You guys will love this one. Wayne looking shorter than Victor McLaglen and John Ford. Lifts, of course.
Click Here
In this one Wayne used his lifts again
Click Here
Gonzalo said on 12/Jul/07
After all this time discussing about Wayne`s height I haven
Patrick said on 12/Jul/07
THANKS a lot Mike C! Impressed, for sure; I share at 100% your words about common sense AND the fact YOU judge after your OWN mind and got your OWN opinion.
That maybe will surprise you Viper but it is exactly why I like you too: you do not care what other people think and stick to your guns: I appreciate that, believe it or not even though that seems sometimes a bit "irritating" (joke) or or you being "stubborn" (re-joke no offence above all!).
You know what? that is why Americans are so LOVED and in the same time, HATED so much in the world AND why I love them!
Being able to write sometimes so profound thoughts from such a trivial issue as "how tall is a man died since 28 years!" proves how eclectic and sharp and to say the whole truth, "in good health" is the American mind.
Viper, for God's sake...
Mike C said on 11/Jul/07
Patrick, I'm not Anonymous, but he and I are on the same page. We, as you, read, watch, study, research, use common sense, and never rely on what someone said more than 7 decades ago ( must have the memory of an African elephant).....I'm my own man and make up my own mind. I'm the principal of an almost 500 student body school and, if I didn't use the mind that God gave me and just repeated mindlessly what everyone said, I would be working for the State Dept.( a bunch of ***holes)...keep it coming Patrick!!! Anonymous? I suspected Tiger, Frank 2, Glen, and even my buddy Gonzalo..a true Spanish gentleman at that!! Who cares, he and you have common sense...
Viper said on 11/Jul/07
And 75 years later, I agree with your grandfather King.
Patrick said on 11/Jul/07
Mike, are you well Anonymous as I suppose? Aniway, I consider you as a friend and a very reasonable person. I have just watched on that fabulous channel (at least for movie lovers as I am proud to belong to), TMC, two "pilot movies" including "high and the mighty". I can assure all those who claim such stupidity as the Duke being 6'2 that they should better see it prior to approximately gauging him!
Once more, even "solo", he looks like a tower! Bob Stack, a superb and unforgettable actor, looks like a child sitten beside him! I know that M. Stack was not a very tall man but he never gave the impression to be short or weak!
Frankly, the more I watch Duke's movies, the more I love him and find him physically as tall as he humanly was: a real Giant!
Anonymous said on 10/Jul/07
Well said, Patrick. Thank you! I guess King doesn't care to scroll down and view pictures/math formula that prove how tall the Duke was...it's easier to write mindlessly and say the first thing that pops into the head.with all respect to his grandfather, 6'2" is nonsense...a "mass" he indeed was!!!!Mike C
Patrick said on 10/Jul/07
King I am sorry but that kind of testimony, we do not really care of in this site; 75 years ago...with all due your grand father respect...
So, John Wayne was the "most numerous leading parts actor" ever; Hence, it proves to be very easy to watch him in very different situations and get some idea of how tall and bulky he was.
I do not know how old are on average, the readers but what I do know is when I was young, most people thought he was between 6'4 and...6'8: sure that is ridiculous but shows how "old time viwers" saw him;
Those who see him at 6'2 should put "new actors" as the so-called star Colin Farrell or even Clooney, Pitt etc. as between 5'6 and 7 tops!
The Duke had always been caricatured (refer to Al Capp strips) as a "mass" towering over everybody; I think people here and not only regarding the Duke, seem having a bone to pick with celebrities;
What is strange is I did not notice as much acrimonious attitude towards precisely, more recent actors.
That is an interesting way of reading this site, psychologically speaking I mean.
King said on 9/Jul/07
About 75 years ago my grand-dad saw him in a street and my grand-dad was 6`1". He was as close to Wayne as you can ever imagine and my grand-dad was shorter than him, he said... but DEFINITELY NOT MORE THAN ONE INCH! Period.

John Wayne was a big 220 pounder man, who was no more, than my grandy says he was - 6ft 2
Croat said on 9/Jul/07
By looking at more pictures, I think he was at his peak somewhere around 6'4''.
Croat said on 9/Jul/07
I am analyzing some of his pictures. On some he looks 6'2'' and a half to me. But I found a better picture where he does look close to 6'4''. Look at how he towers the soldiers. Too bad I can't copy links to websites here.

I'm gonna look at more pictures, and see what I think.
dmeyer said on 8/Jul/07
jacky pm lost 1 in in 5 years with no back problem wath do you think of that you said that by 50s if some loose 0.5 to 0.75 in is more than average
Jacky P.M said on 8/Jul/07
It's seems strange But Ivan 6'2.25 is a bit right.Many people billed their height. My father who died 12 years ago was a solid 6'2 and billed his height to 6'3.He died at 72 yo.
I remember couples of weeks he was shorter than I. He was at least 5'11/6' tall.
mike said on 7/Jul/07
Ivan 6'2.25" & Jacky P.M.....no one is debating that he lost some height...the dabate, at least since I've been reading this site, is that John Wayne's peak height was never 6'4"...mathematically and pictorally, I've proven that indeed he was at minimum 6'4"...he didn't bill his height of 6'4" while in college..the college did. Watch The Quiet Man carefully and read some of his bios. nowhere is he ever described as being less than 6'4"...take it to the bank. Mike C ps..my grandfather, a farmer, died at 102 years of age..was 6' tall when he was a young man. The last time I saw him was when he was 96..he was about an inch taller than I..and I'm 5'6" even...age, curvature of the spine, etc.
Jacky P.M said on 7/Jul/07
I am 56 yo and I remember 5 years ago I was 6'1 now I am 6 ft and i don'thave any back or what else problem so that's mean we can lost inches in the early 50s and i measure myself twice a year.
Ivan 6'2.25 said on 7/Jul/07
I remember that he was 8 inches taller than 5'7 richard attenborough in Brannigan
the year before the shootist.He was 68 yo and richard was 52 yo.
by the way most stars billed their height.
mike c said on 6/Jul/07
Ivan 6'2.25" that would mean that he was 6'1" in 1976...yes? In the picture that you can plainly see, if you scroll down to Gonzalo's May 21 post, he's at least 1 inch taller than JS if he were not leaning..... you're telling us that he lost 3 inches in 7 yrs!.....watch The Shootist carefully and try to spot the scene where he's barefooted next to 5'9" Ron Howard..Wayne towers over him..a hell of a lot taller than 73 inches! Mike C
Ivan 6'2.25 said on 6/Jul/07
in the 1976 shootist movie was 2 inches shorter than nearly 6'3 legendary James Stewart.Like Stewart,The duke was old.
mike c said on 5/Jul/07
He didn't give a **** what other thought of his height..in one of his books he's asked about the lifts..he states that he's heard the rumor..now, he tells the person: "do I look short to you?" to which the person states emphatically,NO! Was at a minimum 6'4"/maybe 6'4.5"..see below Gonzalo May 21...no argument about his height!!!case closed about his height...Mike C..ps, Gonzalo, if you're still out there, the book is on it's way! Gracias amigo.
Patrick said on 1/Jul/07
Thanks Talker for restoring the truth while keeping loving this wonderful actor who was Jimmy Stewart. Personnaly, I love them all because they, each of them, were a part of what America has best: humanity, courage and personality.
I nevertheles think that the One who always definitely delights me still remains John Wayne.
He has something different, a magic, a truth and a dimension which make any of his appearances a great moment. That is the peculiarity, the idiosyncrasy of the true stars.
talker said on 30/Jun/07
Bobo,Jimmy Stewart was anything but a libertarian.In fact his extreme conservatism was a major cause of conflict with his good lifelong friend Henry Fonda who was libertarian.By the way,Stewart is one-if not the-of my favorite actors.
patrick said on 21/Jun/07
Wow, what hatred! I am myself rather "leftist" in some ways and "republican" in some others. It depends on the situation and...the man involved. All of that said to tell you I am not a "die hard"! I am indeed very tired for the moment and perhaps, not able to clearly explain such a delicate point but this is what I meant: I met too many people, "good conscience keepers
anonymous said on 20/Jun/07
what really is annoying about judging wayne's height is most of his movies were westerns, and it is very rarely even ground, so for one moment, he looks 6`4, next he looks 6`8, next, he can look as short as 6`0. his westerns are not the way to go to determine his height.
bobo said on 17/Jun/07
I reckon a 6'4' in his hey day. As for being fallible, How fallible do you have to be to support the mass killing of civillians? I don't. Your quote is wrong I believe. You say: "he belived in American right from wrong" Don't you mean, "he believed in America right OR wrong'?, which is why the US is in such a mess, too many people with blind obedience to some mythical destiny which always meets with a reality at some point, whether it be Vietnam or Iraq. Reality has a funny way of catching up with you. There are plenty of actors with more integrity and sophistcation these days, thank the lord, Sean Penn, Clooney, De Niro etc. Wayne had the politics of an average 8 year old, all teary patriotism without the compassion. ANyway, he was certainly tall, his grandad was a civil war veteran which may explain why he had the political sophistcation of a 19th century prairie farmer.
Mike T said on 16/Jun/07
bobo, you don't need to clown around with us. I'm unfamiliar with John Wanye, but John Wayne was tall. How tall exactly, I don't know. How tall do you suppose he was? He did wear heels, that's obvious from photos, along with anyone else that acted in westerns. Whether he wore lifts, I honestly don't know. Does anyone else on here know for sure? I'd like to know. His footwear in Hellfighters didn't appear to be anything special, and I'd say he was about an inch shorter than 6'5" Jim Hutton. Regardless of his political beliefs, I believe, that he believed in America, right from wrong, and doing the best he could with the time and talents he posessed. He was human, just like any of the rest of us, and not infallible. Everyone's interpretation of a great human being is different, but I would dare say that more people would agree that he had as much or more charactor and integrity in the Hollywood scene as anything out there these days.
bobo said on 16/Jun/07
Mike T:

John Wanye wasa Right Wing Nutjob with some pretty odd views about the US and other countries. He supported the mass killings in Cambodia and believed whole heartedly in the American Empire. Hardly a 'great human being'. And yes for the purposes of this site it does matter if he wore heels or not....
Mike T said on 16/Jun/07
Well guys, I got The Duke A Life In Pictures book. I have to tell you there a lot of good pictures of John Wayne throughout his career. In his younger years when he is slim and very fit, it is obvious he is tall. I would say right at 6'4". I really don't think he started to lose height until about 1964, when he had his cancer surgery. I can't imagine the pain from losing a lung and a couple of ribs would be like. This guy was tough as nails! Anyway, his stocky build later on may give the illusion of not being that tall, until you see him next to people that are in the 6'4-6'5" range, and he is right there. I really don't think he was less than about 6'3' later on. I recommend getting the book, and seeing for yourselves. I think most Hollywood actors fudge their heights a little, so if he did, then the others did too. Who really knows if he wore lifts or not? The style of boots he wore, I think it would be almost impossible to walk with lifts in them. They had a pretty healthy heel on them anyway, as all cowboy boots do. Does it even matter in the end anyway, because he was a great actor and human being. He provided good entertainment for millions of people, and is still greatly admired by millions to this day. He really was BIG!
JW HEIGHT said on 15/Jun/07
in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Jimmy Stewart appears to be about half an inch taller than Duke, specifically in the scene when Duke is giving him the shooting lesson.
patrick said on 15/Jun/07
I just don't buy it! Robert Ryan was a "lord"; I just cannot accept him to be reduced to a tramp! A man saying that about another actor, above all such as John Wayne, would just be worthy of disdain!
Unless bearing a proof, a real one, of that word, I prefer not to say what I think of his author.
And by coincidence, that one, of course, dwarfs the Duke until 6
Brian said on 15/Jun/07
I've seen the Duke listed on sites between 6'0" (which is really hard to believe!) to his widely-believed height. He had to have been at least 6'2" barefoot. I agree with Gonzalo, regardless if he was 6'2" or really 6'4", at least his screen dominance made him look huge anyway.
Gonzalo said on 15/Jun/07
Well, with or without lifts Wayne would still be a great actor. Robert Ryan was also a great actor but that commentary sucks
King said on 15/Jun/07
Interesting... Once Robert Ryan shouted that "You`d be nothing without your lifts." And lots of people, including Ryan himself, has stated that Wayne wasn`t that tall... I think 6`2" was correct.
Mike T said on 4/Jun/07
Hey mike c, I got the book ordered, and look forward to reading it. Thanks for the info! Patrick, from the information I got on the Duke, his boot size was indeed 11E. This information I got right from Paul Bond Boots website, by clicking on an interview movie he did. Just do a search for Paul Bond Boots. Once you look at his style of cowboy boots, I think you will immediately recognize them as what the Duke wore in his movies, and from some of the pictures I've seen posted on this site. It seems a lot of guys from that era had smaller feet, for whatever reason. My dad only wore an 8 or 9 and he was 5'8. I wear a 12D and I'm 6'3.5. I know some guys that are shorter than me that have bigger feet than me, so I think it's kind of a crap shoot. Anyhow, thanks for the comments guys. I tried to post a link, but it didn't work.
patrick said on 4/Jun/07
FIRST THANKSA LOT Mike C & T and Gnzalo and other "Duke admirers" whose I am proud to be!
Mike T, are you absolutely sure the Duke wore only "11E" shoes? I know that Rock Hudson was amazed in seeing how "small" were his feet but, all the same, "11" is just one over me and i am only 5'7/5'8!
I re watched "the war wagon" and it is so visible they had to put Kirk Douglas (one of my favorites!) on "stilts" that i found that funny! Besides, the Duke towers over ANYBOY ELSE int that movie, including Bruce Cabot (so 6' MINIMUM) and above all, Howard Keel who was notably known for being 6'3.
Admittedely, "he wore lifts"!!! I wish i could buy such ones (lifts) because wearing them and walking "normally" with already high heels cow boy boots (as everyone else in westerns - thanks Gonzalo) , riding horses and climbing, jumping and even running as John did (I don't mention when he is obviously replaced with a stuntman), I say: "bravo!" because I just couldn't do it!
mike c said on 2/Jun/07
Thanks, again, Mike T for your comments..he was a great, albeit with some flaws,man. He stuck by his beliefs and his love for this great nation of ours.
You can purchase The Duke A Life in Pictures at Barnes and Noble...they usually have it on sale for less than $8.00. Get on the internet and order it...you'll never regret it..The pics. are fantastic....a truly TALL man in spirit and in physical height. Glad to read your comments and welcome to the club of JW's admirers. Mike C. ps Check out Gonzalo's posting on May 21 and the four pics of the Duke..they came from the book....
Mike T said on 2/Jun/07
I think the Duke held his height pretty well compared to a lot of guys as they age. When you take into consideration the health problems he had, this guy had fortitude. Even in his later films, he was still very agile, and insisted on doing a lot of his own stunts. He was very broad, and stocky, and I think this would give the illusion that he may not be as tall as 6'4". Yet when he was around other guys this tall, he was right there with them. He looks all of 6'4" in The Quiet Man, but was much thinner then. I still think even toward the end he was close to 6'3" maybe just a bit less. The Duke was truly a big man in more ways than one. He's always had my admiration and respect, as with so many others. Happy 100! p.s. mike c, where could a guy purchase The Duke A Life in Pictures? Barnes and Noble or somewhere like that? Thanks.
mike c said on 31/May/07
Thank you Mike T...I knew there had to be a logical explanation..tired of all the stuff about being short and having small feet. Mike ps Hi Gonzalo, when I get another The Duke A Life in Pictures I'll send it to you...Gracias por todo!
Gonzalo said on 31/May/07
Wayne did a lot of westerns in which he wore boots, as his partners in those movies did. But, I have said this before, Wayne also looked very tall in other non westerns movies. Check Donovan
Mike T said on 30/May/07
Just a bit of information on John Wayne's boot size. According to Paul Bond, the fellow who custom made boots for the Duke, he wore an 11E. The footprints at Hollywood would look small, do to the fact that these boots have quite a steep rake forward on the heel to a more central position under the pivot point of the foot. This is common on cowboy boots. I doubt very much he would need lifts in these, as the heels on a lot of these custom boots are in the 2 to 2-1/2 inch range. Just a little info.
mike c said on 30/May/07
Bill, with all due respect, your point is? Click on Gonzalo, May 21 below and the stunt man was 100% right....a very big man in more ways than one...Mike C
Bill said on 30/May/07
There is a cast picture in the Alamo in San Antonio showing Wayne wearing built up moccasins. In the movie "Trouble Along the Way" wearing street shoes he looks significantly shorter than Chuck Connors. I recently met an old fellow who worked as a stunt man on "The Alamo." He is over 6 ft and described Wayne as a big man.
Bill Friday said on 25/May/07
My daughter saw JW on the I Love Lucy ep today. She said he stood about a head taller than Desi Arnaz.
mike c said on 21/May/07
Gonzalo, thank you, pal. Mil Gracias!!! You did a wonderful job...I could never had figured it out....But, John Wayne was 6' tall...invisible lifts!!! Take a good look guys at the Flying Tigers photo...yes, all of 6'4"+ and the 1929 doesn't show his shoes...definitely no lifts...I must have cut off the bottom portion when I scanned it. The best one is the 1969 photo with JS and Clint, et al., still a huge man in spite of all he had gone through..use your imagination and straighten him out...note that JS is standing straight while JW is bending forward to cut...Clint is in the foreground thus appears taller. And, Lee Marvin, 6'2" definitely next to 6'4" Clint..Gonzalo, you made my day. After a tough day at school this was definitely the highlight of my day..
Mike C ps, Gonzalo I don't see the JW Ford pic.
patrick said on 21/May/07
Guys, how tall was Dean Martin? 5'10 not less OK? So, in Rio Bravo, that wonderful actor singer was like a child beside to the Duke;
the other thing i wanted to say is that in the scene John Wayne confronts 6'3 John Russel, he by turns, appears taller, then shorter a bit and thereafter definitely taller! The magic of that art we never can trust in about heigts of similar people!
Gonzalo said on 21/May/07
Well, I hope this thing works. Here are some pics that MikeC sent to me and one that I already had of Wayne towering over 6ft john ford. I hope you all can see it. wayne looks very tall in this pics but we know how it works: Wayne is wearing lifts or Ford was 5`9. The same old story

Click Here
mike c said on 19/May/07
Height Watcher, how did you arrive at that very concise measurement? .75" no less. Mike C ps. you're right, he was down quite a bit from 6'4.5" circa 1950.
Height Watcher said on 18/May/07
Next to 6 ft 4 Rock Hudson, in The Undefeated Wayne was 6 ft 2.75 in. I am sure he had shrunk a bit by then though.
Tony G said on 17/May/07
Actually, Bob Hope was 100 and a few months. So was George Burns.
patrick said on 16/May/07
Thanks for the tip, Gonzalo! I had forgotten! 100 years, so soon...I can't get over it! Bob Hope died at 101, Eddie Albert at 99 and K Hepburn at almost as much as thme! But they finally leave us as we will do when it is our turn;
Fortunately, they still are alive for ever more than we will be thanks to the magic of "cinema"!
Nice to read you soon, fellows!
Gonzalo said on 16/May/07
Hi, MikeC. I
geeoo said on 14/May/07
one explanation about j.w.'s height was the walk or 'gait' he used purportedly to change his image on screen. my take is how uncomfortable @ about 6' wearing 3-4 inch lifts to appear taller just as allan ladd was similier. anyway they were both great in there're era when most movies made some sense.
patrick said on 14/May/07
That's really refreshing to read you mike c; I wishi'd meet more people like you; the same about Gonzalo!
I don't know why people want all cost "shrink" some big stars; It seems that reducing big men to be an old human habit; the did the same with Moses, Jesus? So, why not doing it with movie stars like Robert Mitchum or John Wayne?
"They all wear lifts BUT I" seem saying "those" people; "I am tall but not them"!
Being taller than "others" remains the best way to make oneself bigger than any other!
Hope to read you soon fellows!
mike c said on 11/May/07
Great, Patrick, as usual...and also Gonzalo. I have 4 pictures on my desktop that will open the eyes of all the people that still insist the Duke was 6'2" or less..I can't figure out how to get them from the desktop to this page...Ed. Rob has told me that it's easy..if Gonzalo or anyone can help, you certainly will admit that the Duke was a giant...especially in the 20's, 30's and right into the early 50s..one pic. Salute ~1929 definitely shows a giant of a man...with regular shoes..but, then, it's not enough.....For all of you out there with doubts, rent/buy the Quiet Man and pay close attention to the shots with the giant Victor...look at the shoes...Oh, I forgot, they're both wearing lifts...anyway, thanks, Patrick. Como estas? Gonzalo. Mike C
Patrick said on 10/May/07
By the way, Kevin T, JHON WAYNE AND JAMES STEWART MADE JUST ONLY TWO FILMS TOGETHER: L. Valnece and the Duke's last one: the shootist. So, as for it is to compare them, not that easy, isnt'it?
Patrick said on 10/May/07
Mr Kevin T, you seem to forget that if the Duke indeed wore big heels, as is with any cow boy boots (i wear themJimmy Stewart wore them as any other westerner; As for Liberty Valence, if it is true that in some scenes he appears a bit shorter it is ever just because of different angles or "whatever" details which, between two almost alike people makes sometimes one taller then shorter than the other; That happens all the time, even in the real life;
I have a friend who before a mirror appears sometimes taller then shorter than I IN THE SAME DAY, with both the same shoes on !
I know that movie by heart and have it on DVD and and i can assure any honest person that JWayne looks taller in MANY scenes;
But if you can lead a horse to water...
I furthermore agree with Gonzalo and many many other people : the Duke ALWAYS looked very tall and not "just tall" as a 6'2 range guy could be;
Imagine him beside Matthew Fox for example! He always towered over anyone but James Arness who was at the time 6'7 and besides, did not look a lot shorter in comparison anyway;
Let's be serious: who ever claimed that J Wayne was not very tall ?
Gonzalo said on 10/May/07
Kevin T, you forget Wayne looked very tall in all his films, wether he wore boots or not. Have you seen Donovan
Kevin T said on 9/May/07
Tony G: 6' 2" is quite tall. He was a big man. But he wasn't 6' 4.5", as is often asserted, at least if we're talking stocking feet. The whole issue could come down to costuming. I'll bet in his platform cowboy boots, with his ten-gallon Stetson on, JW looked quite large, especially surrounded by pint-sized Hollywood actors.
Anonymous said on 9/May/07
Athletic records from his days playing American football state that he was '6 feet 4 inches tall and 195 pounds'.
Tony G said on 9/May/07
I was reading the "Q&A" section of Barry William's (Greg Brady) website. He was asked if he ever met John Wayne. 5'10" Barry said, "Yes, I meet him once at the Paramount studios. He was tall."
I don't know if that helps any. ;-)
Kevin T said on 8/May/07
"talker says on 27/Mar/07
From Valance.JW looks shorter than JS,and seems to look UP to Stewart in the other one."

Because JW WAS shorter than Stewart, by about an inch, assuming they wore similar bootwear (which is unlikely). All photographic still evidence suggests Wayne's height in bare feet was about 6.2 at most. I won't speculate on lifts. But I know from looking at photos that Wayne wore 3" Cuban heels in his cowboy roles throughout his career. And even allowing for those, Stewart looks taller in the films where they appear together onscreen. People who claim Wayne looks taller than Stewart in Liberty Valance and The Shootist must be measuring him from the top of his hat.
patrick said on 26/Apr/07
Yes, he did anonymous, and that is the characteristic of great, really great people; I buy 6'4.5 at the quiet man period and for long; My firnd met him several times as he did with tall men as G.PECK, Jimmy Stewart and others but he told me he never met someone like the Dude; He was taller than anybody and bigger too, much bigger.
And let alone his fabulous charism and personality; he was glowing as is it with real stars in the sky; rare among "small humans". We need that kind of real man, whatever what one can think about such or such opinion, position; Who cares? I prefer having deal with an opponent even an adversary i respect than people of my side i could not name "men".
anonymous said on 25/Apr/07
he does look around that mark. probably just 6`4 though. he really did have a presence of a 6`6 tall man
JOSH said on 23/Apr/07
wayne stated his height as 6ft 4 and a half in the film the quiet man.
patrick said on 20/Apr/07
"et bien voil
flora mendez said on 19/Apr/07
Yes, I met him once and he is every bit of 6 feet 4. I would say a little taller. He was very polite.
mike c said on 18/Apr/07
thanks, anonymous....i bought the classic version of the quiet man..uncut version...it's great..I can see it over and over...those were great actors..funny, yet the message was there..and the duke was great and very tall. mike..ps...how do i get 4 pics from my desktop to this page...shows the duke at his best height..6'4.5" no doubt...
anonymous said on 18/Apr/07
mike c, i just saw the quiet man again. i have to admit, i liked it more the second time. great performances. wayne really does shine out as being the tall, cool guy.
anonymous said on 17/Apr/07
i admit he does look rather large in his later movies. i am not sure about him being a true 6`4, but still, no less that 6`2 1/2.
patrick said on 10/Apr/07
Brian, Bruce Dern was probably 6'1 at the time; that wis what he appears to me beside Clint in hang'em high and others; he looks taller thant 6'David Janssen in an episode of the fugitive he costared. Besides, Dern was slender but not thin at all; a good broad shouldered american student type guy! The Duke is just ... an oak!
Chris, i haven't seen that movie for long and i wish i'd do soon but i remember one thing: depending how they are shot, either this is J.Wayne who looks taller or Rock Hudson; Alway the same problem;
In the Red river, great great movie with a fabulous Monty Clift deservedly oscared at his first role, that one doesn't look 5'10 as he really was; He looks much taller and no trick seem justify it; It is just directors KNOW how to make someone, anyone, look taller than he is (or shorter) when necessary. Monty would have been dwarfed by the Duke otherwise.
The same with Alan Ladd in Shane where despite his only 5'6 MAX, never looks so even in front of 6'3 Ben Johnson (at the time Ben was 6'3).
Brian said on 9/Apr/07
Agreeing with what Patrick mentioned on May 30th, John could've really crushed Dern in The Cowboys, hehe. Yet I always thought Dern was around 6'1" (6'0" it is!)and kind of on the slender side. Big John was much burlier than him though regardless of height!
chris said on 8/Apr/07
I was watching the movie The Undefeated today which starred John Wayne and Rock Hudson.
I can honestly say out of most people saying Hudson was taller, I couldnt see him being as tall, maybe half an inch to quarter of an inch shorter than Wayne.
mike c said on 6/Apr/07
great, Patrick, thanks. mike c...ps..now, if I could only figure how to send four pictures that I have on my desktop....Wayne at the peak of his height!
patrick said on 5/Apr/07
PLEASE MIKE C AND ANONYMOUS, please...read this even it is too long; In advance, thanks:
BOTH are GREAT! "the taming of the Shrew" inspired "the quiet man" which could have been a "light" tragedy and sometimes turns out to be; great moments whose Maureen throwing "the" dowry money into the fire is one of the best (what an actress !)
"the searchers" IS a real tragedy: the N.Wood's one, her family's one and the worst because internal inferno: the J.Wayne's one;
Fabulous movie and, true, even greater role for J.Wayne: immense, tragic, noble and AMBIGUOUS in the same time! His LAST image, turning back to the dardk, shaded closing door...ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL MOMENT IN CINEAM EVER!
J.Ford as J.Wayne were touched with something greater than human conditio as it is in every masterpiece;
Easy to love the masterpiece "the quiet man" : genius, fabulous script, fabulous acting and directing within a fantastic people and and beautiful and vivid country AND, and...so funny and exciting!
The second one is more hard, rude and shows another face of our human heart; Wayne is over what anyone could expect from him; I think that this role and later, the liberty valence one, made him FOR EVER, ever, even for those who "disliked" him at least a GREAT actor; That definitely settled his ability to act in the way we mean "Brando" or Hoffmann" acting; I personnaly do not care of that kind of sterile comparison BUT since i consider important that the Dude is NEVER forgotten or relegated to just "a conservative cow boy actor", i take into consideration how he can be seen and appreciated by the "method" actors addicted ("ah, Robert De Niro!" "ah, Al Pacino!");
the end: don't mistake : i like very much these actors but who among them could have replaced the Dude? Not even Brando, a tough guy in his way!
Bye fellows !
Mike C said on 4/Apr/07
anonymous...take a look at the list of legends that made The Quiet Man..then look at the cast of The Searchers..no comparison...both great films, but no comparison with the earlier Wayne film..a classic, a film in its in own class..but still respect your opinion..glad your on the team.mike c.
anonymous said on 3/Apr/07
searchers= Brilliant masterpiece
Quiet Man= Interesting Flick

John Wayne's performance in the Searchers was incredible.
patrick said on 2/Apr/07
anonymous: you cannot say that "the searchers"i s better than "the quiet man" because theses film features are too different; their aims are opposite even though there is ONE connection: John Ford's humanity with a big "H" and a terrific talent to put it a value higher than humanbeings deserve it (ususally).
It is like comparing a Cadillac to a Ferrari; non sense; What you do is saying "I PREFER THIS ONE" but not claiming one of them is "better"; The fabulous quality of the script, the screenplay and the way scenes are edited makes both absolutely perfect; one is something comparable to a "rhapsody" since tragedylike but being based upon a culture and a legend of Ireland, more fun than tragic; not a drama but could have been; that is the quiet man;
the other, a masterpiece, offered a greater play to the Duke in a way, because, as he did in Liberty Valence, he is anambiguous character and finds himself alone when "his job is over"; Why alone (and NOT lonely for he accepts - that's visible thanks to enormous Wayne talent - his fate) so, "why alone" ? because if he succeeded in finding out the girl, he owes it just thanks to a last moment harrowing awareness of what he was about to do; it's a tragedy, the one of the heroe who cannot taste the fruit of his victory as Moses was.
He always, lifts or not, who cares ! was more than 6'2; even when old he was tall; look at his waist and you will see how long remained his bust, though a good belly; At the Paramount studio i visited several times, there a famous photo showing Hudson next to Wayne, Montand, Marvin and Clint. The Duke looks a little bit shorter than Hudson but this one is standing very straight while Wayn is a bit slouching (cow boy cool pose) and he in any way, is more than two inches than 6'2 Montand; (i knew him and he was really tal above all for a french!) It was in 1969 and the Duke was 18 years older than Rock.
Too kind of you Mike C. I wish i'd be able to do better but i have no time; I love this page which allows us to talk about the star of the stars!
brando, do you know that Brando didn't like the Duke while the Duke found Brando one of the greatest american artists? Thanks for backing us up!
brando said on 1/Apr/07
the duke was always over 6ft 4 inches tall.
He also said his height as 6ft 4 and a half in the quet man.
Mike C said on 1/Apr/07
Ed. Rob. I haven't been able to send you two photos of the Duke...when I try the various addresses I get the message that message was not delivered..I tried Click Here can I attach two photos to this post? Mike C

Editor Rob
you've got to use www.tinyurl.com to post links to images, just plop the url http://www.blah.com/blah.jpg into tinyurl.com to get a link to post
Mike C said on 30/Mar/07
Patrick, belated thank you for your common sense and for the compliment...the math I use is usually taught in grades 5-6 in my school district....very old mathematical approach used by museums, carpenters, and historians to duplicate objects in a picture....will shortly try to scan the book I have (mentioned it quite a bit durng the yr. on this page) and the pics that show JW as a giant of a man..especially in the late 20's, 30's, and 40's..the book is a must buy for anyone on this post who admires the Duke as I do....thank you also for being a gentleman..when I first found this site, I read a lot of thrashy responses..most likely from guys who celebrated a tad too much while they were surfing the web....while a smart response is always fun, stupidity and name calling quickly elitcites from this principal mental images of the individual's IQ...usually less the 100..keep your responses coming...love this page!!!! mike c
anonymous said on 30/Mar/07
The Searchers was better than the Quiet Man, but was Wayne truly 6`4. Certainly didn't look it in his later years. Looked more 6`2, but in his prime, supposedly, he was pretty massive. But those Rock Hudson shots. Hmmmm...
patrick said on 30/Mar/07
Size shoes is not a good landmark to evaluate a height; I went MANY TIMES before the Mann's Chinese Theatre where prints make us dream of old time where stars walked along with Grecian gods!
I was surprised too when seeing the Duke's prints and ...I thought about it longly and i found other prints not being very related to their authors; THAT DEPENDS ON HOW WET IS THE CEMENT. That is why many guys known for having huge or long hands seem having been there where just children! Sly has deeply pushed his thick hands in the cement so did Clint but very often, i happen to have bigger hands than people i thought being mcuh more strapping than I am.
J.Wayne was known for not having especially big feet in relation to his huge hands; that happens and means nothing; Tom Welling is 14 what is huge and could theorically be for that up to 6'7 or even 8 which is not;
In "the cow boys", nobody can doubt that J Wayne could crush the yet well built 6' Bruce Dern like a flea! at a moment he surrounds Dern with his arms and i always feel sorry for him (Dern
Mike C said on 29/Mar/07
threadtrekker says on 21/Mar/07
I always assumed JW was shorter than he appeared just because my fist print and foot print covered (entirely) his on the famous Hollywood sidewalk I visited in high school. Just for reference I am 5'8".5. Sadly my shoe size is typically 11 and I can pick up a basketball with one hand so my proportions are sort of "off", but if JW was 6'4" is were "off" too I would think.

threadtrekker , I'm 5'6" and wear 5.5/or 6EEE size shoes. My first cousin, who's my age, wears 7.5 D shoe size....I weigh 150 lbs. He's 15 lbs. lighter...one just can't claim that a huge man would automatically have large feet...it's the old wives tales of a large nose usually means a big pecker..and you tall guys would agree that a large nose doesn't necessarily mean your pecker is large...just ask your wives!! only kidding. mike c
patrick said on 29/Mar/07
OK, common sense sounds coming back for some people!
the Duke is OF COURSE sitting on a table which besides, needs to very tall to reach such a height ! I know that movie as "movie maniac" only is able to! The other picture is of that kind which IN ANY WAY allows to evaluate a height just because it is shot on an especially uneven ground;
This man has always been a tower and even with tal guys like Ward Bond or Vic Mc Laglen, he always taller, significantly taller!
I DO ADMIRE THE MIKE C TALENT IN CALCULATING HEIGHTS ! WOW ! That's some thing! Keep it up !
Ther are two kind of people: those who see the glass half empty and those, as I am, who see it half FULL ! Meditate upon that please!
Mike C said on 28/Mar/07
thank you, anonymous. I'll accept 6'3.5" by late 50's and after his removal of ribs, etc. operation..6'4"-6'4.5" in The Quiet Man..the best picture of the era..watch it and compare him to 6'3" Victor, the brute of a boxer.....hell of an actor! Look at the shoes and at the scene where JW is standing in bare feet in the doorway of the cottage....we can have so much fun with this page if we remember that unless we resurrect JW, measure him in his prime, we'll never truly know if he was indeed 6'4" or 6'4.5"..just teasing. thank you, mike c
anonymous said on 28/Mar/07
I agree with you mike c. This is a fun page.
As for wayne, he may have been 6`3 1/2
Gonzalo said on 28/Mar/07
That`s what I remember, Talker, that Wayne was sitting on a table.
Here is Wayne looking very tall. Howard Hugues is in the picture. Hughes is listed here 1`92
Click Here
talker said on 28/Mar/07
before anybody jumps on me.ok,sorry,forget the pic with the match from Valance i posted,i just saw that scene and Wayne was leaning on a table.mr.editor can you remove that photo please?
Mike C said on 27/Mar/07
Patrick/Talker...my additional mathematical proof on November 24 '06..Patrick, I'm referring to the famous shot of JW in England while filming Brannigan....:mike c says on 24/Nov/06
Frank 2..what wonderful pics!..especially love the shot of John Wayne in London while shooting Brannigan. Tiger, can't resist a little mathematics here! JW measures (on my computer screen) 5.25" and the belt he has on measures 3/32"..again, using proportions of elements in a pic. to their true measurements I've come up with 77" for Wayne....3/32" (.09375)divided by 1.375" (actual measurement of the belt in real life [measured some of my own for this])is equal to 5.25" divided by X (Wayne's real height)..see below for the steps involving cross multiplication and solving for X..Wayne, Frank, with what are apparently normal shoes measures a full 77"..6'5"..add the inch for the heel..he's lost 1/2inch since the log cabin shot....love a challenge! Frank, why don't you write a book (unless you've already done that)..your pics. and info. are priceless.! Remember guys, let's have some fun..enough crap out there..we don't need anymore, especially on a site that should be fun!Rob, this is my favorite page!.....Mike C
talker said on 27/Mar/07
From Valance.JW looks shorter than JS,and seems to look UP to Stewart in the other one.
Click Here
Click Here
anonymous said on 27/Mar/07
Nice picture talker. Also, check out the way Wayne is standing. It is like he is trying to stretch himself out as much as possible. And Fonda is laid back.
patrick said on 27/Mar/07
Thanks Mike C! Lee Van Cleef was not utterly spared and died at 64 only of an heart attack but not allegedly caused by "something else"!
MISTER TALKER !!! If I were your physician, for your own sake i certainly would prescribe you an deep eye exam or a good pair of glasses!
If only in watching that photo from Fort Apache, anybody, i mean ANY ONE HAVING A COMMON SIGHT AND ABILITY OT MEASURE APPROXIMATELY THINGS HE SEES, anybody so, could tell you there is EXACTLY 6,4 cm, more so two inches and half between them; The great Henry Fonda was standing straight up what is not the case of the Duke, as usual; Fonda was 6'1 and half minimum at the time; If you don't believe me, do like me: enlarge ten times the picture and print it; take a ruler, a straight one, not the "viper brand" one (joke Viper !)and calculate! Fonda never looked nothing than tall because his height was so and he was slender too; he never appears like "that" in his career; Watch the movie all along and you'll see how tall the Duke does not "look" tall but appears to be so, ALL THE TIME!
please open your eyes for once as it is sooo obvious; you give the stick to be beaten with! No offense of course.
Gonzalo said on 27/Mar/07
Well, Talker. I see more than a one inch difference. I don`t see a three inch difference, that`s for sure; I see 1`5-2 inches
talker said on 26/Mar/07
mIkeC,yes,JW looks 1"taller than Fonda.You seem to think 1" is very little,it isnt.
another shot from Fort Apache,JW doesnt look 6'4"next to Fonda.
Click Here
anonymous said on 25/Mar/07
Not that i don't think he is 6`4, but how do we know he wasn't wearing lifts in that photo?
Mike C said on 24/Mar/07
Talker says on 10/Mar/07
in the pic with H.Fonda posted by Gonzalo 28/2,JW looks one inch taller which would make him 6'2.5". Talker, somehow missed your post...by no stretch of the imagination is the Duke only one inch taller in that pic...you've got to be kidding! With all due respect, plese tell me you don't work with measurements or any job that requires accuracy of measurement!
Viper said on 24/Mar/07
So he drank gallons of tequila and litterally killed his cancer but ended up killing himself?
patrick said on 23/Mar/07
BECAUSE IT IS NOT "RUMORS" BUT FACTS, just only AFTER a certain period, after having been operated in 1964, certainly not before; He got ribs removed and and pain in breathing let alone what causes as destructive factors such an illness: cancer! It's already a miracle that a man could act after that and, furthermore, very few months after since he made "the sons of Katie Elder" where he rode his horse and offered a physique which in any way, could let guess he had been so close to death! This man was NOT, definitly not, an "ordinary" man; In 1968, the cancer came back; his doctors warned him and he told them he wasn't reday to capitulate so easily; so, he got to Mexico and during four days, drank all the "one year mexican tequila production"!
When he went back home, cancer seemed having preferd to stay in Mexico instead of in his body; The story has only been known after his death by the physicians themselves; he "burned out" his cancer cells in short!
Try to fancy what a human body of this size underwent when getting a entire (left) lung off!
Mike C said on 22/Mar/07
Glenn, please reread Patrick's Feb. 7 entry...good one. Mike C
glenn said on 22/Mar/07
but why the lifts rumors with wayne?
patrick said on 22/Mar/07
Good posted Gonzalo! You're right about the searchers! It is obvious that he is much taller and bigger than yet well built and 6' tall J.Hunter; no doubt!
Thanks in turn Mike C! I find this debate all the more since interesting than that allows all of us to pay tribute to a wonderful star i, and i am sure, "you", miss so much! That the general point of interest of that entire site: thanks editor Rob!
The Duke was, besides, one of the very rare actors (with Robert Mitchum one of my favourites) capable to act from behind: he is imposing and you can easily find what he thinks or means to do, his face being off shot;
Viper, i wish i'd be you just one second to figure out upon what evidenc, for you, you base your judgment to assume J.Wayne (and so many others) is shorter than claimed everywhere; I mean, i don't see more arguments to argue Clin or Price would have been taller than him. For everybody i met, J.Wayne has ALWAYS looked as a "giant" and i don't mean that figuratively.
I REPEAT ABOUT LIFTS HE WORE THEM MUCH LATER THAN DURING THE QUIET MAN.
Look at his early movies: he super towers EVERYBODY and at the time, people weren't dwarfs as yet!
Talker, i know very weel what you think and didn't mean the contrary; I just wanted to say that being a super star exposes you to such a judgment.
You know, like in superman stories where "he" is exposed to critics whil he does anything else that "good"; I don't say that is your case but a general way of practicing. Remember, you asked why "people" doubted about him and not about Hudson and so forth.
Gonzalo said on 22/Mar/07
Well, Talker I understand what you say. I admit I didn
Viper said on 21/Mar/07
Hell, Id even say theres a better chance Clint Eastwood was a legit 6-4 and taller than Wayne.
Viper said on 21/Mar/07
Talker is kinda right. Guys like David Hasselhoff, Tom Selleck, Jeff Goldblum, Vincent Price have always looked like legit 6-4 men to me, but not John Wayne.
Anonymous said on 21/Mar/07
Patrick, don't have time to get into details, but you're right..The Quiet Man is one of the best movies to judge JW's height...three scenes should be watched carefully: when he approaches Victor's house with flowers in hand (raining) next to Barry Fitzgerald (5'3"); the first encounter in the bar with the Victor (6'3"); and the scene at the cottage (standing barefoot in the doorway where he's clearly many inches taller than the entrance)...watch these Talker, then we'll talk!....no pun intended. Still love the debate. Thanks, Patrick...Mike C
threadtrekker said on 21/Mar/07
I always assumed JW was shorter than he appeared just because my fist print and foot print covered (entirely) his on the famous Hollywood sidewalk I visited in highschool. Just for reference I am 5'8".5. Sadly my shoe size is typically 11 and I can pick up a basketball with one hand so my proportions are sort of "off", but if JW was 6'4" is were "off" too I would think.
talker said on 21/Mar/07
Patrick,im in noway anxious to claim anything.I like JW,i said so before.I dont care what height he really was,i think he was a fine actor and star.
He just looks to me a certain height.I mentioned these other actors,not to compare them with JW as stars,but because they are around 6'4" and they look to me taller than Wayne.
patrick said on 21/Mar/07
sorry talker, but you're wrong even if what you say is pretty fine: John Wayne is STILL an icon, which is not the case of Rock Hudson for long if ever (i like him but nothing to do with the Duke) and even less of course Robbins or Selleck.
a star, a real STAR, not Clooney or Depp but A ... STAR, like Gable, Cooper and a very few others (Borgey, Stewar) PLUS an icon, something which means ABOVE being just an actor, fine or not, but symbolizing a dream, an ideal or even a nation, a people, when you are that... you are confronted many trivial discussions, as a boss is in his company or gods are in mythology.
Clint Eastwood, the real LAST movie icon, even a bit under the Duke as an icon, knows the same controversy though he was most time really as tall as it is claimed: 6'4.
I always saw J.Wayne as being that size long before knowing it; I even thought as many people did, he was taller! I never made a mistake about the tall actors because it is easy to simply see how tall they really are! If "you" do not see that the Duke was VERY tall, so more than 6'3, OK, i won't try to convince you but ask yourself why you are so anxious to claim that.
i watched the quiet man the other day and i laugh in thinking of what was mentioned here, notably about his "so called" lifts! It is so obvious he din't wear any lift at the time and even after (until his so serious lung surgery in 64) that i sincerely complain people always looking for getting great guys shorter; That is not fair because they are dead for the most of them and cannot say anything but i am sure that you never wouldn't listen to them anyway!
talker said on 20/Mar/07
its funny this discussion will never end.If JW was 6'4" i dont believe ANYONE would argue he was shorter,like they dont for people like Rock Hudson,Tim Robbins,Tom Selleck and others.
Gonzalo said on 20/Mar/07
Ok, Gramps. What about the scene of the headquarters? Who looked taller? Most of the shots of that movie are taking in uneven ground. In the shots of regular ground Wayne looked taller
Gramps said on 19/Mar/07
Wayne and Ryan were up close - - face to face - - in a confrontation in a field tent, and Ryan was definitely the taller of the two.
Gonzalo said on 19/Mar/07
I saw Flying leathernecks and Wayne looked taller than Ryan. Remember by the end of the movie when they met in the headquarters, right before their last mission. Wayne looked two inches taller in that scene
Tallboychick said on 17/Mar/07
Gampie, I saw "Flying Leathernecks," last night also, and John Wayne definitely looked shorter than Robert Ryan. Plus, I understand Wayne usually wore lifts, too ... so, I would estimate his real height at around 6'2"!
AAAA said on 16/Mar/07
ahhh.... Victor Mclaghan was a freaking boxer when he was young, so i am gonna have to back patrick that he could knock out one of our Tough guys today. Much the same as Jack Palance( RIP) was a boxer, and could have won a bar fight till the day he died. BTW John wayne was undeniably a giant man, 6'4 with a hefty frame. Give the duke that. He didn't only seem iconic, HE LOOKED IT
mike c said on 16/Mar/07
Gramps, CC-Tron says on 10/May/06:
He was shorter than John Wayne. Wayne seemed to have two inches Ryan in "Flying Leathernecks" (they were wearing boots in that movie). I'd put him no taller than 6'3. I think he was 6'2 though. His slim build made him appear taller than he was and Ryan was definitely on the slim side. I'm 6'2" and people make that mistake with me all the time. Also most of the actors he starred with were 6 feet or shorter (mostly shorter).

SAME MOVIE, TWO DIFFERENT VIEWERS!!
Gramps said on 16/Mar/07
Saw John Wayne in "Flying Leathernecks" (1951) last night on AMC with Robert Ryan. Wayne looked 1/2" shorter than Ryan, who has been credited with being 6'4", but sometimes 6'3".
patrick said on 16/Mar/07
Me neither! I am amazed! Why syaing that? Victor Mc Laglen at 66 would have easily punched anyone of our so-called current "tough" guys! This man was an Hercules, naturally and when young had a grecian sculpturelike body; Huge arms, bones and hands; That kind of man has no age; they die as fall big trees; all of sudden, without warning;
He was more than 6 (anybody can check that out) even at 66! How can you see John Wayne wore lifts? Have you "superman's X ray vision"? I have not;
It is easy to claim anything just "like that" becasue that "helps" one's opinion; It's a different hing to bring proofs !
OK, as from now i'll say taht Tom Cruise is wearing artificial legs and is actually 4' and that Rock Hudson was in fact 7,5 but underwent surgery!
THAT IS STUPID but not that less than what is claimed here sometimes!
It is not enough to read somewhere that "this one" wears that or that one was in fact a girl or i don't know: IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN MARBLE !
Jhon Wayne, very ill in 64 underwent surgery and suffered a lot; he had to wear corset after 60 and wore lifts just to stay how he was to be for his own audience, people who loved him and who HE loved even more.
NOT TO DISAPPOINT THESE PEOPLE WHOSE I AM PROUD TO BE A PART, here was his motto and why he wore a wig he hated and lifts he didn't care.
In "cow boys" he compels a horse to knee by biting his ear: the horse is a tall one (i KNOW horses!) and look how tall John is standing next to him and he was perhaps wearing lifts and was 63 at the time, HE STILL is tall then;
And you can wear lifts; if you don't want to look RIDICULOUS by having a silly short torso and long long legs, you need to be tall anyway; I saw that kind of lifts and pretending thay can raise you up to 10 inches more is denying reality. In a word, that would be VISIBLE. If you know a minimum about proprtions, you'll see that John Wayne has fantastic ones which allowed him to NEVER look fat even when he had 30 lbs too much.
THANKS MIKE C for backing up this great man!
mike c said on 15/Mar/07
John, "you'll regret that comment to your dying day, if you live that long!" Did you, pray tell, start celebrating early? Must be the green beer. I can't believe you wrote that.
John said on 15/Mar/07
Victor McLaglen was old and ill in The Quiet Man and no more than six foot. Wayne looked taller because he was wearing lifts.
patrick said on 15/Mar/07
YAHOO! Mike C ! I am sure Viper, you and so many others recognize in him a very speacial man prior to bein,g a great actor: he is a symbol and has what is impossible to find now among celebrities because values have changed;
REMEMBER about "the Quiet Man (what a wonderful image for the Duke!) that my name is...Patrick, precisely!
I have the DVD for very long and trust me, i'll watch it on 17th of march!
I have been there, i mean where the film was shot; EVERYWHERE, even today, you can see signs saying "the quiet man" was shot here; "the quiet man inn" etc. That is good to see it 55 years after ! Victor Mc Laglen was one these personalities that ONLY directors and producers of that time were able to put up as a star! Now? LOL as say so many here!
Who would choose and direct in important roles guys of that ilk? People like him or Wallace Berry for instance.
Even the Duke would be in difficulty and probably would do something else or would act as secondary actor.
I think (sure) that our friend Viper will say that Victor MC Laglen was only 6'1 or 2 but i can be surprised!
Actually, John Wayne is clearly tallr than him who yet is taller than Ward Bond, another "giant" in every meaning this word can get!
Kudos march 17th!
mike c said on 14/Mar/07
Patrick, my apologies to Viper..he Did state that the Duke was 6'3"..he can't be that bad of a guy...I'll handle 6'3" (even though it's wrong), but the nonsense others are spouting..6'1-2" is unacceptable....will watch The Quite Man tonight for the 10th time..it's St. Patty's Day soon....6'4.5" next to the 6'3" giant Victor!
Viper said on 14/Mar/07
Mike, most college football heights are inflated by 1-2 inches. You do know that right? Since they are always measured shorter usually at the NFL combine.
patrick said on 14/Mar/07
Very psychologically clever "smart" Mike c ! I appreciate your way of deducing the logic of others: i am impressed!
i agree with you even though Viper never claimed he was so short, just an ich taller, at 6'2, what remains for me, even in his old days, even with his lifts on, much too few;
mike c said on 13/Mar/07
Patrick, the answer is simple..using Viper's logic, the Duke knew, as a senior in high school, that he would would be a super star some day, he immediately hired an agent, and billed himself as 6'4"...now, that makes a lot of sense...! and the high school just took his word for it...yeah, he's 6'1" but because he's destined to be a super star, let's make him he's 6'4" even!!!! Case closed..the Duke 6'1", but on the books 6'4"!!!
patrick said on 13/Mar/07
Viper, you mean that in your opinion, John was not measured but nevertheless listed as being 6'4 "just like that"?
OK, it's what you think but let know...why?
Over what are you basing you, what does found this argument?
Because everybody can say what he wants from the moment that would "prove" his words. Thanks for answering.
Viper said on 12/Mar/07
Im sure the Duke was billed at 6-4 in his football days, not measured.
Gonzalo said on 12/Mar/07
I see more than a one inch difference, Talker. I see a couple of inches. Well, I prefer centimeters: I see Fonda at 1`87 and Wayne at 1
patrick said on 12/Mar/07
I follow Mike c opinion at 100%! He was giantlike and as broad as tall! He is mcuh taller than the great H.Fonda ind fort apache! That doesn't need any special sense but just common one to see it! Why downgrading such a man? IT IS A SHAME AND NOT REALLY NOBLE.

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.