Dillett has better squiggly veins than Ronnie...as a matter of fact, they're becoming so large they can almost be considered a separate bodypart.[url]http://www.muscletech.com/PROFILES/PAUL_DILLETT/Paul_Dillett.shtml[/url]
Printable View
Dillett has better squiggly veins than Ronnie...as a matter of fact, they're becoming so large they can almost be considered a separate bodypart.[url]http://www.muscletech.com/PROFILES/PAUL_DILLETT/Paul_Dillett.shtml[/url]
[QUOTE=Uriel_da_man]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. [/quote]
uh....wrong.
1998 Mr. Olympia, Ronnie 1st, Dillet 7th
1997 Arnold, Ronnie 4th, Dillet 6th
1997 Grand Prix, Czech - Ronnie 4th, Dillet 6th
1997 Grand Prix, Finland - Ronnie 3rd, Dillet 5th
1997 Grand Prix, Russia - Ronnie 1st, Dillet 5th
1997 Ironman - Ronnie 3rd, Dillet 5th
oops?
[quote=Uriel]
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.[/quote]
you're nuts. Ronnie's thighs are FAR better than Dillets, especially in the hamstrings and his calves are better as well. Dillet was wider than Ronnie at the shoulders, but he was smooth, never particularly well conditioned, and his back was downright pitiful. His back was sub-amateur level. You can't have a bodypart that is THAT PITIFULLY BAD and still expect to win much. Dillet looked like absolute crap in EVERY back shot, just like Gary Strydom. They looked great from the front, but the moment they turned around, they lost the game. Dillet's chest also looked like bloody hell compared to Ronnie's, especially in a MM.
Of course, let's not forget Dillet's notoriously woeful attempts at peaking. Do we REALLY need to go there? He was typically quite smooth, and aside from his ridiculous veins, he rarely was able to resemble a contest-level bodybuilder.
He won based on structure alone. Talk about a waste too...
[QUOTE=kethnaab]uh....wrong.
1998 Mr. Olympia, Ronnie 1st, Dillet 7th
1997 Arnold, Ronnie 4th, Dillet 6th
1997 Grand Prix, Czech - Ronnie 4th, Dillet 6th
1997 Grand Prix, Finland - Ronnie 3rd, Dillet 5th
1997 Grand Prix, Russia - Ronnie 1st, Dillet 5th
1997 Ironman - Ronnie 3rd, Dillet 5th
oops?
you're nuts. Ronnie's thighs are FAR better than Dillets, especially in the hamstrings and his calves are better as well. Dillet was wider than Ronnie at the shoulders, but he was smooth, never particularly well conditioned, and his back was downright pitiful. His back was sub-amateur level. You can't have a bodypart that is THAT PITIFULLY BAD and still expect to win much. Dillet looked like absolute crap in EVERY back shot, just like Gary Strydom. They looked great from the front, but the moment they turned around, they lost the game. Dillet's chest also looked like bloody hell compared to Ronnie's, especially in a MM.
Of course, let's not forget Dillet's notoriously woeful attempts at peaking. Do we REALLY need to go there? He was typically quite smooth, and aside from his ridiculous veins, he rarely was able to resemble a contest-level bodybuilder.
He won based on structure alone. Talk about a waste too...[/QUOTE]
He said 97 yet you post results of the 98 Olympia, now who is the dumb one....
You conveniently did not post results of Mr Olympia placings from 94-97 where Dillet did indeed beat Coleman, as did Yates for 5 different years!
[QUOTE=Guardian]He said 97 yet you post results of the 98 Olympia, now who is the dumb one....
You conveniently did not post results of Mr Olympia placings from 94-97 where Dillet did indeed beat Coleman, as did Yates for 5 different years![/QUOTE]
well if you read the previous post, the other dudes contention was ronnie didnt beat dillet at all in the timespan of 94-97. so his evidense did disprove the other guys assertion.
dont act like you never posted immaterial crap, to prove your idiotic viewpoints.
Dillet's quads were bigger and had deeper cuts than Ronnie's (I'm repeating myself...). And hamstrings and calves are hardly Ronnie's strong points. And yes, yes back was bad, I never said it wasn't. And you're comparing two completely different MM styles.
Oh yeah, just a pic for comparison with Yates. Ronnie looks bigger alone but put them side by side and suddenly Ronnie doesn't look as ridiculously big anymore.
[QUOTE=coldfusion71]well if you read the previous post, the other dudes contention was ronnie didnt beat dillet at all in the timespan of 94-97. so his evidense did disprove the other guys assertion.
dont act like you never posted immaterial crap, to prove your idiotic viewpoints.[/QUOTE]
Only idiotic by some peoples account
The fact is Uriel said 94-97 yet Kethnab posted results from the 1998 Mr Olympia....
And imo and granted it is opinion though I feel it is failr fact one can say Dillet was better in the 94-97 period based off Olympia placings in which Dillet was ahead of Ronnie while Ronnie never even made the top 5..
[QUOTE=Uriel_da_man]Dillet's quads were bigger and had deeper cuts than Ronnie's (I'm repeating myself...). And hamstrings and calves are hardly Ronnie's strong points. And yes, yes back was bad, I never said it wasn't. And you're comparing two completely different MM styles.
Oh yeah, just a pic for comparison with Yates. Ronnie looks bigger alone but put them side by side and suddenly Ronnie doesn't look as ridiculously big anymore.[/QUOTE]
Yea Dillet was like the Ruhl of the 90s but was even bigger!
[QUOTE=coldfusion71]well if you read the previous post, [b]the other dudes contention was ronnie didnt beat dillet at all in the timespan of 94-97[/b]. so his evidense did disprove the other guys assertion.
[b]dont act like you never posted immaterial crap, to prove your idiotic viewpoints.[/b][/QUOTE]
lol
[QUOTE=kethnaab]
his calves are better as well.
[/QUOTE]
Dude, I'm sorry, but there is noooooo wayyyyyyy Ronnie's calfs are better than Dillet's. Ronnie's are tiny by comparison. That's gotta be a joke man.
[QUOTE=andymuscle88]Dude, I'm sorry, but there is noooooo wayyyyyyy Ronnie's calfs are better than Dillet's. Ronnie's are tiny by comparison. That's gotta be a joke man.[/QUOTE]
yes dillets calves are pretty good, better than ronnies.
Ill settle this now
Ronnie was better
Dillet could have been better
[QUOTE=Guardian]Ill settle this now
Ronnie was better
Dillet could have been better[/QUOTE]
May we add that Dillet was better at one time and Ronnie passed him by?
[QUOTE=Guardian]Ill settle this now
Ronnie was better
Dillet could have been better[/QUOTE]
It's not settled because it's impossible to prove it. You hate Ronnie so much, you probably think Paco Bautista could have been better, and make up some stupid reason as why.
[QUOTE=danj112]It's not settled because it's impossible to prove it. You hate Ronnie so much, you probably think Paco Bautista could have been better, and make up some stupid reason as why.[/QUOTE]
You guys use my past posts for unfare statements like the above
For many years people on these boards and in bodybuilding have said Dillet had some of the best genetics ever. How many times have you heard that about Ronnie?
You can use personal attacks based on my past to try to prove your point, but history shows alot more people feel Dillet had the best genetics ever.
That doesnt mean he was better, it only means he could have been better. Getting in an uproar over could haves and using my past to disprove it is rediculous....
Very simple, if Dillett were better, he's have more titles....period.
[QUOTE=Guardian, the obsessed anti-Ron]He said 97 yet you post results of the 98 Olympia, now who is the dumb one....[/quote]he selectively ignored head to head competition, and I didn't allow him to. So please, enough with idiotic comments like "dumb one"
[quote=Guardian, the obsessed anti-Ron]You conveniently did not post results of Mr Olympia placings from 94-97 where Dillet did indeed beat Coleman, as did Yates for 5 different years![/QUOTE]and I also conveniently did not post results of Mr Olympia placings from 1999-2005 when Ronnie won 7 more Olympias. Why?
Because they're irrelevant. He said that Ronnie didn't beat Dillet in that time frame, I showed that he was completely wrong. I included the 1998 Olympia because it was Ronnie's first Olympia, and it showed how Ronnie was getting BETTER while Dillet got worse.
Ronnie at his best makes Dillet look like an amateur. A big amateur, but a big, smooth amateur with no back and crappy conditioning, as well as horribly disproportionate development.
Dillet had broad shoulders and small hips, and as a result, it seems there are a lot of people freaking over him. He certainly had the best structure in the game, but he was never disciplined enough (nor intelligent enough) to bring his best game to the stage.
TONS of pics of Dillet in the off-season, or during pre-contest cutting, but you don't see a lot of great pics of Dillet on stage because he sucked at peaking.[quote=Guardian the anti-Ron]The fact is Uriel said 94-97 yet Kethnab posted results from the 1998 Mr Olympia....[/quote]as well as several other shows where Ronnie placed ahead of Dillet in that timeframe. You DID notice that, didn't you? Let's just pretend I didn't post that Olympia win (something Dillet never did, BTW). You still have 5 shows where Ronnie beat Dillet, therefore Uriel was wrong. Just because Ronnie won the 98 Olympia, doesn't mean that he DIDN'T place ahead of Dillet in those other shows.
Damn Guardian, is your anti-Ronnie bias making your brain turn to mashed potatoes?[quote=Guardian]And imo and granted it is opinion though I feel it is failr fact one can say Dillet was better in the 94-97 period based off Olympia placings in which Dillet was ahead of Ronnie while Ronnie never even made the top 5..
[/quote]That's a fair assertion.[quote=Uriel]Dillet's quads were bigger and had deeper cuts than Ronnie's (I'm repeating myself...).[/quote]I disagree entirely. When I get home, I'll post up some pics, please post up some Dillet pics.[quote=Uriel]hamstrings and calves are hardly Ronnie's strong points[/quote]yet they were still better than Dillets, and please, Ronnie's hamstrings are (and were) outstanding. To say they're not a strong point of Ronnie is ridiculous. Again, I will post pics when I get back home.[quote=Uriel]yes, yes back was bad, I never said it wasn't. [/quote]his back was pitiful, his hamstrings were poor, and his calves were poor. What does that result in? Dillet, just like Strydom, looked like garbage from EVERY SINGLE POSE FROM THE REAR. You can't just turn around in a bodybuilding show, disappear, and expect to win.[quote=Guardian]Ronnie was better
Dillet could have been better[/quote][quote=andymuscle88]May we add that Dillet was better at one time and Ronnie passed him by?[/quote]I can agree thoroughly with both of those statements.[quote=Guardian]For many years people on these boards and in bodybuilding have said Dillet had some of the best genetics ever. How many times have you heard that about Ronnie?
[/quote]how many times have you heard that of Dorian? :)
In the end, Ronnie won 8 Olympias and lived up to his potential moreso than anyone with the exception of Lee Haney.
Paul Dillet SHOULD'VE won a good 8-10 Olympias, but he didn't. He was notoriously lazy in the gym, notoriously undisciplined with his diet, lifted like a chump using chump weights and borderline questionable technique, and time after time after time did something stupid during his precontest prep which either destroyed his conditioning or resulted in him getting carried off stage in a state of rigor mortis.
TONS of potential, very little production.
Ronnie = 8 Times Mr. Olympia
Dillet =
coulda
shoulda
woulda
DIDN'T
[QUOTE=kethnaab]he selectively ignored head to head competition, and I didn't allow him to. So please, enough with idiotic comments like "dumb one"
and I also conveniently did not post results of Mr Olympia placings from 1999-2005 when Ronnie won 7 more Olympias. Why?
Because they're irrelevant. He said that Ronnie didn't beat Dillet in that time frame, I showed that he was completely wrong. I included the 1998 Olympia because it was Ronnie's first Olympia, and it showed how Ronnie was getting BETTER while Dillet got worse.
Ronnie at his best makes Dillet look like an amateur. A big amateur, but a big, smooth amateur with no back and crappy conditioning, as well as horribly disproportionate development.
Dillet had broad shoulders and small hips, and as a result, it seems there are a lot of people freaking over him. He certainly had the best structure in the game, but he was never disciplined enough (nor intelligent enough) to bring his best game to the stage.
TONS of pics of Dillet in the off-season, or during pre-contest cutting, but you don't see a lot of great pics of Dillet on stage because he sucked at peaking.as well as several other shows where Ronnie placed ahead of Dillet in that timeframe. You DID notice that, didn't you? Let's just pretend I didn't post that Olympia win (something Dillet never did, BTW). You still have 5 shows where Ronnie beat Dillet, therefore Uriel was wrong. Just because Ronnie won the 98 Olympia, doesn't mean that he DIDN'T place ahead of Dillet in those other shows.
Damn Guardian, is your anti-Ronnie bias making your brain turn to mashed potatoes?That's a fair assertion.I disagree entirely. When I get home, I'll post up some pics, please post up some Dillet pics.yet they were still better than Dillets, and please, Ronnie's hamstrings are (and were) outstanding. To say they're not a strong point of Ronnie is ridiculous. Again, I will post pics when I get back home.his back was pitiful, his hamstrings were poor, and his calves were poor. What does that result in? Dillet, just like Strydom, looked like garbage from EVERY SINGLE POSE FROM THE REAR. You can't just turn around in a bodybuilding show, disappear, and expect to win.I can agree thoroughly with both of those statements.how many times have you heard that of Dorian? :)
In the end, Ronnie won 8 Olympias and lived up to his potential moreso than anyone with the exception of Lee Haney.
Paul Dillet SHOULD'VE won a good 8-10 Olympias, but he didn't. He was notoriously lazy in the gym, notoriously undisciplined with his diet, lifted like a chump using chump weights and borderline questionable technique, and time after time after time did something stupid during his precontest prep which either destroyed his conditioning or resulted in him getting carried off stage.
TONS of potential, very little production.
Ronnie = 8 Times Mr. Olympia
Dillet =
coulda
shoulda
woulda
DIDN'T[/QUOTE]
You twist my "Ronnie hate" into distorting everything I post
First, I only claimed Dillet could have been better, I never said he was better. Second, again you post results of 98 to disprove Uriel, correct me if im wrong 98 is after the 94-97 period!!! Sure Ronnie may have done better at smaller shows but Uriel is right in that Dillet was better then Ronnie during that time period taking into account the Olympias (how couldn't you take the Olympias into account...).
The poin tof this thread is whos better. I already posted it Ronnie was, but Dillet could have been. You dance around that simple answer but in reality that is the answer! Dillet had better genetics he just didnt live up to them. The same can be said about Wheeler and to an extent Levrone 9though with Levrone injuries prevented him from living to his potential).
You take simple statements I make and twist them into anti Ronnie extremism when it is not always the case [sometimes yes :)].
When quoting me please use my proper name in my profile, using other names is only asking to make this forum into more of a circus then it already is...
[QUOTE=kethnaab]as well as several other shows where Ronnie placed ahead of Dillet in that timeframe. You DID notice that, didn't you? Let's just pretend I didn't post that Olympia win (something Dillet never did, BTW). You still have 5 shows where Ronnie beat Dillet, therefore Uriel was wrong. Just because Ronnie won the 98 Olympia, doesn't mean that he DIDN'T place ahead of Dillet in those other shows.[/quote]
Just to address this, to be honest the GPs never even crossed my mind. I was realy just thinking of the big one.
[QUOTE=kethnaab]I disagree entirely. When I get home, I'll post up some pics, please post up some Dillet pics.[/quote]
I already have.
[QUOTE=kethnaab]yet they were still better than Dillets, and please, Ronnie's hamstrings are (and were) outstanding. To say they're not a strong point of Ronnie is ridiculous. Again, I will post pics when I get back home.[/quote]
I've seen a lot of Ronnie and quite frankly I don't see anything "outstanding" about his hamstrings. I suppose you have pictures I've never seen, you never know. And why is it ridiculous to say they're not a strong point? They're realy not a match for his quads.
[QUOTE=kethnaab]his back was pitiful, his hamstrings were poor, and his calves were poor. What does that result in? Dillet, just like Strydom, looked like garbage from EVERY SINGLE POSE FROM THE REAR. You can't just turn around in a bodybuilding show, disappear, and expect to win.[/quote]
His calves weren't poor. May not have been the best around but not poor man. Hell I think they were better than Coleman's. And I never realy said he should have won, did I? I was merely saying that there are several body parts which he has better than Coleman ever did, and everyone just go offended over it.
[QUOTE=Guardian][b]You twist my "Ronnie hate" into distorting everything I post[/b]
Second, again you post results of 98 to disprove Uriel, correct me if im wrong 98 is after the 94-97 period!!! Sure Ronnie may have done better at smaller shows but Uriel is right in that Dillet was better then Ronnie during that time period taking into account the Olympias (how couldn't you take the Olympias into account...).[/QUOTE]
kethnaab stated why, but you refuse to accept that. You're like the Republicans dealing with John Kerry's joking comment on "Bush".
[QUOTE=Gaurdian]You take simple statements I make and twist them into anti Ronnie extremism when it is not always the case [sometimes yes :)]. [/QUOTE]
All your posts are about Ronnie's gut. You are the epitamy of an anti Ronnie...
You simply cannot admit when you're wrong.
[QUOTE=danj112]kethnaab stated why, but you refuse to accept that. You're like the Republicans dealing with John Kerry's joking comment on "Bush".
All your posts are about Ronnie's gut. You are the epitamy of an anti Ronnie...
You simply cannot admit when you're wrong.[/QUOTE]
You guys dotn give up do ya...
This thread isnt about his gut nor did I say or post anything about it.....
Dillet had better genetics then Ronnie if he would have used them
This has nothing to do with me and my feeligns for Ronnie, its just how it is.
You people use everything that you dont like and refute it simply by saying I hate which isnt the case in every scenario like this.
Stick to the thread at hand not the past please........................
Also I have twice as many posts as you, feel free to check out my post history, you will find the majority of my posts have nothing to do with Ronnie...
haha, look at his "favorite" supps.
[QUOTE=Jay_Star]Seems to me, Paul Dillet is bigger.[/QUOTE]
He is. Dillet dwarfed Dorian and was bigger than Ronnie.
Dillet had all the potential to be as great as Ronnie has been and still is.. unfourtantly it was very well known that his work ethic was far below par.
Had he been with the work ethic of Mr Coleman... who knows
Speculation is all were left with. Let's hope his comeback is a success; i love watching the freakenstein.
[QUOTE=Guardian]You twist my "Ronnie hate" into distorting everything I post[/quote]i don't need to distort anything. It's there, in tons of what you post. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.[quote=Guardian]First, I only claimed Dillet could have been better, I never said he was better.[/quote]no problemo. I agree. Dillet COULD'VE been better. I agree.[quote=Guardian] Second, again you post results of 98 to disprove Uriel, correct me if im wrong 98 is after the 94-97 period!!![/quote]Oh, for Chrissakes, stop obsessing over that! I also posted half a dozen other shows that Ronnie placed higher in that timeframe, WTF is so difficult about this?
[quote=Guardian]I already posted it Ronnie was, but Dillet could have been. You dance around that simple answer but in reality that is the answer! [/quote]WTF? dance around it? I agreed with you, and said so, outright. Did you actually read what I wrote?
Since you seemed to have missed it the first time....
[quote=kethnaab]Paul Dillet SHOULD'VE won a good 8-10 Olympias[/quote]
[quote=Guardian]I feel it is failr fact one can say Dillet was better in the 94-97 period ....[quote=kethnaab]That's a fair assertion.[/quote][/quote]
[quote=Guardian]Dillet had better genetics he just didnt live up to them. [/quote] [quote=kethnaab]He certainly had the best structure in the game, but he was never disciplined enough (nor intelligent enough) to bring his best game to the stage.[/quote]
y'know, I could SWEAR that it seems we agree on several points here bub. Please 'splain to me how you are missing this, considering what I just quoted above?
[quote=Guardian]The same can be said about Wheeler and to an extent Levrone 9though with Levrone injuries prevented him from living to his potential).[/quote]I honestly wonder a lot about Flex. I don't know that he could've actually beaten Ronnie in the late 90s/early 00's for the simple fact that his structure was so naturally "skinny" (i.e. tiny joints), I don't know that he could've packed the mass necessary to beat Ronnie. Remember, this was a "pre-preggo" Ronnie, back when Ronnie was still a badass ~268-275ish. Flex was awesome, but I just cannot see him packing on more mass, despite his admittedly poor work habits and dietary habits.
As for Levrone, I agree thoroughly. He got his lats in gear later on, but injuries prevented him from keeping his wheels up to par. Shame really. That's my pick for "best ever not to win an O"[quote=Guardian]You take simple statements I make and twist them into anti Ronnie extremism when it is not always the case [sometimes yes :)]. [/quote]hahaha..."sometimes"....:p
[quote=Uriel]Just to address this, to be honest the GPs never even crossed my mind. I was realy just thinking of the big one.[/quote] fair enough. I can agree that Dillet owned Ronnie pre-98. *nods*[quote=Uriel]I was merely saying that there are several body parts which he has better than Coleman ever did, and everyone just go offended over it.[/quote]well...It was a little more "forceful" than that, but no biggie...[quote=Uriel]The ONLY thing in which Ronnie is better than Dillet is on the back, like I've said countless times before.[/quote]
Well, yeah, the only body part Ronnie has BETTER than Dillet is the back. Of course there are body parts he'll have worse and body parts that they'll be even.
[QUOTE=Uriel_da_man]Well, yeah, the only body part Ronnie has BETTER than Dillet is the back. Of course there are body parts he'll have worse and body parts that they'll be even.[/QUOTE]
distinctly better? I'd say chest and traps also, but I can see where you're coming from.
[QUOTE=kethnaab]i don't need to distort anything. It's there, in tons of what you post. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.no problemo. I agree. Dillet COULD'VE been better. I agree.Oh, for Chrissakes, stop obsessing over that! I also posted half a dozen other shows that Ronnie placed higher in that timeframe, WTF is so difficult about this?
WTF? dance around it? I agreed with you, and said so, outright. Did you actually read what I wrote?
Since you seemed to have missed it the first time....
y'know, I could SWEAR that it seems we agree on several points here bub. Please 'splain to me how you are missing this, considering what I just quoted above?
I honestly wonder a lot about Flex. I don't know that he could've actually beaten Ronnie in the late 90s/early 00's for the simple fact that his structure was so naturally "skinny" (i.e. tiny joints), I don't know that he could've packed the mass necessary to beat Ronnie. Remember, this was a "pre-preggo" Ronnie, back when Ronnie was still a badass ~268-275ish. Flex was awesome, but I just cannot see him packing on more mass, despite his admittedly poor work habits and dietary habits.
As for Levrone, I agree thoroughly. He got his lats in gear later on, but injuries prevented him from keeping his wheels up to par. Shame really. That's my pick for "best ever not to win an O"hahaha..."sometimes"....:p
fair enough. I can agree that Dillet owned Ronnie pre-98. *nods*well...It was a little more "forceful" than that, but no biggie...[/QUOTE]
I see misunderstanding. So even though you agreed with me regarding this thread you decided to throw in some crap about me hating Ronnie anyways... mmmk
[QUOTE=Guardian]I see misunderstanding. So even though you agreed with me regarding this thread you decided to throw in some crap about me hating Ronnie anyways... mmmk[/QUOTE]
You do hate ronnie. Your bodyspace has 2 pics, one of you, one of Ronnie with his belly distended. You post tons of anti-Coleman stuff. There's really nothing to argue about or discuss, you are probably the most vigorous non-trolling anti-Ronnie guy that posts with any regularity in the IFBB section.
As for what I agree with, I agree that Dillet had more potential, I agree that he didn't live up to it, I agree that Ronnie DID live up to his potential (and then some)
[quote=Uriel_da_man]You can't count it by that, Ronnie never actualy beat Dillet that I can remember and Dillet beat Ronnie plenty of times.[/quote]
Yes, Ronnie did beat Dillet at the 98 and 99 Olympias.
[QUOTE=Uriel_da_man]I've seen a lot of Ronnie and quite frankly I don't see anything "outstanding" about his hamstrings. I suppose you have pictures I've never seen, you never know. And why is it ridiculous to say they're not a strong point? They're realy not a match for his quads.[/QUOTE]
I had promised pics of the hamstring development and quad development that I was talking about.