Seems to me, Paul Dillet is bigger.
|
-
11-01-2006, 12:36 AM #1
-
11-01-2006, 02:15 AM #2
-
11-01-2006, 02:22 AM #3
-
11-01-2006, 02:26 AM #4
-
-
11-01-2006, 06:16 AM #5
-
11-01-2006, 06:20 AM #6
-
11-01-2006, 06:22 AM #7
-
11-01-2006, 06:24 AM #8
-
-
11-01-2006, 06:25 AM #9
-
11-01-2006, 06:25 AM #10
-
11-01-2006, 06:26 AM #11
-
11-01-2006, 06:31 AM #12Originally Posted by Uriel_da_man
emmm... 1998 olympia, 1999 olympia ,1997 AC , 1997 grand prix europe tour .....
http://www.musclememory.com/show.php?a=Dillett,+Paul
Do your HW man
Ronnie beated him more than once and when he wasnt on his best shape yet.
I cant belive ppl are taking this thread seriously i mean dillet was good but not to be compared with Ronnie.
-
-
11-01-2006, 06:40 AM #13
Between 94-97 Dillet pretty much always beat Coleman. Then Dillet went downhill. But while Dillet was still serious about it Ronnie didn't beat him. Then Ronnie started his major bulkage and became Mr. Olympia.
But still, I stand by my first reply, you can't say one is better than the other because it's just completely different bodies - Dillet has Ronnie beat on the shoulders, biceps, triceps, WAIST and thighs. Coleman has Dillet beat on the back and...back? Because let's face it, by today's judging standards the best back = the best body, they completely disregard all the rest.
-
11-01-2006, 07:58 AM #14
-
11-01-2006, 08:00 AM #15
-
11-01-2006, 08:01 AM #16
-
-
11-01-2006, 08:02 AM #17
-
11-01-2006, 08:02 AM #18
-
11-01-2006, 08:04 AM #19
-
11-01-2006, 08:07 AM #20
-
-
11-01-2006, 08:16 AM #21
-
11-01-2006, 08:16 AM #22Originally Posted by coldfusion71
His shoulders were bigger and just as conditioned. How were they not better?
His biceps were bigger and had a much lower insertion, and in case you haven't been paying attention to the biz for normal people huge peaks are great and all but in bodybuilding the lower the insertions the better. So how were they not better?
Originally Posted by kethnaab
-
11-01-2006, 08:20 AM #23
-
11-01-2006, 08:22 AM #24
-
-
11-01-2006, 08:28 AM #25Originally Posted by Guardian
-
11-01-2006, 08:29 AM #26
-
11-01-2006, 08:34 AM #27
-
11-01-2006, 08:59 AM #28
-
-
11-01-2006, 09:11 AM #29
- Join Date: May 2006
- Location: Texas: swimming in a way that you can't detect...
- Age: 36
- Posts: 46,471
- Rep Power: 19965
Originally Posted by Uriel_da_man
I agree with everything else you said, Ronnie had Dillet from the back.
Thing is, Dillet couldn't pose for anything and that counts for a lot. Both of them back in the day, Dillet was better. But I think Ronnie in his prime would mean Ronnie in 2003 or possibly 2005. Both of these would certainly beat Dillet. No doubt about it, I don't think the 2003 version of Ronnie can be beat by anyone.
-
11-01-2006, 09:15 AM #30
Bookmarks