Yeah, he looks like he went through a meat grinder, and has already died. But, despite his frail appearance, he's actually pretty muscular. He's a heavy smoker, drinker, and drugger, but he's still very mobile and has lived twice as long as many of his contemporaries.
Obviously he's tough to still be alive. With his genetic toughness, do you think he could've been an athlete if he committed himself in that way?
2007-02-28 01:56:37 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
http://www.robertmknight.com/photos/new/11-KeithRichards.jpg
2007-02-28 02:11:47 · update #1
That's a big "if", in that what makes so many top athletes as successful as they are is their commitment and desire. It's not just metabolism, as evidenced by the large number of top athletes you often see who've porked up post-career (not least given that they've stopped having to watch their diet!).
My other query on this would be how co-ordinated Keith is, as there are plenty of sinewy, fit people about who couldn't run, row, cycle or jump if their life depended on it - and perhaps his recent "falling out of a tree" incident (albeit at a rockin' old age) suggests not?!
That said, I reckon that both Keith and Mick would've been mighty fine athletes if they had the commitment, desire and co-ordination.
2007-02-28 02:09:26 · answer #1 · answered by ClaudeS 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd say Keith is rather lucky and maybe good genetics. Can you imagine how long he might live had he not abused his body with heroin, smoking etc.. He looks so much older than his band mates.. That's for sure!
He could have been a runner or pole vaulter in his day..
2007-02-28 03:15:54 · answer #2 · answered by xjaz1 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting point. He takes a lickin and keeps on tickin. He probably could've been an athlete if he set his mind on it. I happen to enjoy all the memorable guitar licks he has given us over 4 decades. To take all the traveling and touring he has done over his lifetime does require a lot of stamina.
2007-02-28 02:03:52 · answer #3 · answered by cap3382 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Given that he survived centuries of decadence & drug use I bet he could've run a few miles in his day, sure.
But then he wouldn't be Keith Richards...
2007-02-28 02:00:41 · answer #4 · answered by Winette 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not. I picture an ironic demise before the age of forty. Perhaps stroking out after a triathlon.
2007-02-28 02:02:12 · answer #5 · answered by sleepingliv 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course, and he could've given Mick a run for the money as well.
2007-02-28 01:59:50 · answer #6 · answered by Zeera 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea. he had some good genetics, but he smoked em all. Damn dude would smoke anything.
2007-02-28 04:42:12 · answer #7 · answered by Toeless_Joe_Jackson 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I think he has found his niche as a musician....oh, yeah, he could have been a pirate!
2007-02-28 02:04:57 · answer #8 · answered by empebi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who cares......the man has been dead for 10 yrs, he just hasn't laid down yet!!
2007-02-28 02:00:51 · answer #9 · answered by mamaexfour 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋