Here is a collection of images taken by fans, which show us Paul's height in relation to the other Beatles.Īs established, Paul was about 5'11" from mid-63 onwards. Sure, some people continue to grow in their early-20s.īut not 3-4 inches in a short period of time!Īnd If the vintage album covers and magazine scans weren't enough, here's a news article from 1965 showing a very tall Paul from that Help! photo shoot at the beach.Įleanor Bron is 5'7" and Leo McKern is 5'6"į/celebrity-height-eleanor+bron.htmlĮleanor Bron is 5'7", putting McCartney, again, at about 5'11"įrom vintage magazine: from vintage magazine: Paul towering over Ringo. One simply cannot play the 'shoe-lift card' or the 'continued adult growth card' here. How does an adult suddenly grow 3-5 inches in his 20's? No shoes (or lifts) for Paul during this session, and look at how much taller than Ringo he is.
If Paul & George continued growing in their 20’s they would’ve had to have suddenly grown 3-5 inches in just a few months as adults. Growing 1 inch is possible, but quite extraordinary. You might be thinking “Paul & George weren’t done growing, it’s not uncommon for people to continue growing into their 20’s”. Ali who is 6’3” – Putting Paul McCartney at about 5’11” in sandals!įrom the vintage magazine Romance Show, June 1964 Or watch the video.Īlso notice Paul is about 4-5 inches shorter than M. Here the Beatles all are wearing sandals and Paul is tallest of the four. They are all bending their left knee to the same degree.ĭon't let Muhammad Ali throw your perspective. Yeah, they are angled back, but their height ratios are still more off than they should be. Although, it does seem like Paul is wearing high-sole shoes. As you can see neither John or Ringo is standing on a phone book or anything. Here they are in the same photo-shoot from a slightly different angle. Again, compared to this short Paul & George. I don't think it's the same Paul though because the eyebrows and chin are too different. Here's a scan from a vintage mag, that looks like it's from the same time frame of the Swedish ad. Most notable in all of these, the Ringo/Paul ratio They are all barefoot here in 1963 and John, Paul & George are all equal in height, with Ringo noticeably shorter.īut later that year and onward Paul is taller than ever before. John tallest again, now George is very short.
Yes, John is closer to the camera, but even if he were to scoot back, he would be a little taller than Paul, which is not the case before this. In these shots from early 1963 John is tallest, while George & Paul seem to be between Ringo & John's height range. Notice the fluctuating heights amongst the photos. Was Paul wearing lifts? Note, lifts do not add length to a person's arms or torso.
0 kommentar(er)
