Mark is a public figure. I can't see why wondering about his health would be such a problem. Like, people didn't wonder about the Queen's health for years before she eventually passed? Michael Schumacher also comes to mind.
I'd be extremely surprised if the same people who complain here would not worry about his condition after his accident, for example - although that would be just as private as this thing.
I really hope I'll be in better shape than that when I'm 70, that's for sure.
You're conflating 2 completely different things.
It's one thing to worry about someone after an accident that we know the facts about, and something completely different to speculate randomly about someone's overall health based on our opinion of their appearance.
One is based on established facts, the other is pure speculation.
And if there's no information if there is an accident (i.e. Schumacher), all we can do is speculate if it's a topic of interested. So in the end, the relevant pieces are the same. Not that I think MK cares what we write in here, anyway.
The thing is, that you can just look at like Springsteen's band. We know what Mark at 70 looks like, and then we can see what other performers at the same age look like. If there is a noticeable difference, it's perfectly normal to wonder if something's up.
That's what your typical 71-73 year olds musicians are like. Compare that to MK at 69-70. He seems like he's 10 years older than those guys. And it's not like MK is the "one normal guy", and the others are outliers.
I don't have the skills to say why it's so, and I hope it's just a matter of being totally out of shape.
There was plenty of accurate info about Marks accident, all in the public domain.
Are you honestly comparing Springsteen, a force of nature, with the 'average' 70 year old?
Sorry but that really is a bit silly. As Robson said different people age at different rates depending on genetics, location, life circumstance, and wealth.
Your average 70+ rocker is not your average man in the street. They are most definitely outliers and will have spent a kings ransom under the knife, Spend 5 minutes and google *insert rock star of choice* - plastic surgery. Makes my point for me...
Springsteen has even had a hair transplant! Wonder if MK ever considered that......back in about 1983!
I was referring to the band as a whole. Bruce is 73, and is probably above average in terms of fitness. The others? I doubt it. Their ages: 68-71-71-72-73-73(+73 for BS himself). And a few younger ones, but the ones who look rather old in any 2023 BS clip would be among those at 68-73. This is also more about general movement and apparent fitness on MK's side than lack of hair, which is a silly measure in this setting, anyway. If I were to compare MK to someone, it would be someone like Phil Collins. But, in that case we actually know what's up. And, also "insert rock star of choice" - we could try with MK. Or is he oh-so-VERY-special in this manner, also?
And yes, there was some public information about the accident. Now, did people speculate outside of the official information? This was before my time as an MK fan (which started in 2004, from what I recall). If the answer is "yes", then it should also be fine to speculate now - and at any given moment in between. It's not like there's no reason to, either - as pointed out by others.
There's also the case of "none of our business". Most of what we discuss in this forum regarding MK is "none of our business", after all, and pure speculation. Like, all the speculations regarding new albums, and what not - and who he hated on when writing this and that song etc. It seems like what's OK to have a meaning about is related to personal opinions, as "none of our business" certainly isn't a deal breaker in WAY too many other cases. How does one actually define that IS "our business" to begin with, even?
