Author Topic: The best Pro that never was  (Read 20575 times)

pumpster

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18890
  • If you're reading this you have too much free time
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #50 on: June 12, 2007, 07:37:24 AM »
dillet didn't have a back. deal with it and move on.

when padilla's stars collided and he got everything right he was denied.

robinson was snubbed by weider his whole career.

To point out Dillet's only flaw without acknowledging that most others had more flaws is misleading. Also, his back had plenty of width, as seen here where Yates' width and taper can't compare. Only back detail was missing.

Hustle Man

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1351
  • What is the most common form of stupidity?
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #51 on: June 12, 2007, 07:59:41 AM »
VICTOR RICHARDS

W

Hustle Man

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1351
  • What is the most common form of stupidity?
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #52 on: June 12, 2007, 08:02:07 AM »
A few more of Vic
W

BEAST 8692

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #53 on: June 12, 2007, 08:15:56 AM »
god i hate photoshop.

i mean, why photoshop victor's pics? it's not necessary at all and any impression that he may have made in the pic is gone.

pumpster, that's not a good pic to expound on the differential of taper between yates and dillet. front relaxed, no question.

back detail is a HUGE flaw in a bbing contest. there are just too many muscles and too much muscle back there for it to be as bad as paul's was. it is akin to having weak legs.

apart from that, dillet's condition was never good enough. not dense enough, dry enough, grainy enough and nowhere near enough detail to make him a contender for the olympia. couldn't pose either which didn't help his cause, but when he did, nothing happened. makes me suspicious about just how much synthol he used because that, along with lack of detail and grainyness are 2 of the most telling signs.

the guy had a very freaky (perhaps the freakiest of all time) combination of size and shape. that's all.

donrhummy

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1924
  • Getbig!
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #54 on: June 12, 2007, 09:40:27 AM »
VICTOR RICHARDS



Doesn't count, he actually made it to the pro ranks.

Figo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8101
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #55 on: June 12, 2007, 10:26:33 AM »
  Do you understand the concept of underachieving? My point is that Benffato should have won the 1990 Mr.Olympia, but didn't. Likewise, Wheeler should have won the 1998 Olympia, but didn't. No matter how far you go, if you could have gone further, than you underachieved.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Yeah, for sure. I thought you meant he should have turned pro(as title thread implies). Best physiques that Mr O, 1990, were Ray and Benfatto. Labrada as great as he was, should have taken it 1989, but was off that year. So were Haney, Gaspari, and Christian forgot to train legs again.

Thing is, a 175-180lb guy would never take the O post Dickerson, things changed. He was freaking awesome, though.

Testing took its toll on big boys that year, heh?

Figo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8101
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #56 on: June 12, 2007, 10:54:41 AM »

Hustle Man

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1351
  • What is the most common form of stupidity?
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #57 on: June 12, 2007, 01:57:53 PM »
Doesn't count, he actually made it to the pro ranks.

Well the thread does not specify exactly what level was not attained for the individual to be labeled as a "never was", so I merely downloaded pics of a body builder who had some impacts but never accomplished what many expected or wanted him to accomplish, i.e. win the Olympia.

god i hate photoshop. Me too!

i mean, why photoshop victor's pics? it's not necessary at all and any impression that he may have made in the pic is gone. I didn't photoshop I just inserted the pics.

W

BEAST 8692

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #58 on: June 13, 2007, 06:40:57 AM »


nah, wasn't having a go at you Hustle Man. they were great pics mate, thanks.

just gives me the screaming shits, all this photoshop. it takes away the unique qualities of bbers and cheapens their legacy somewhat if you know what i mean.

victor, for example, was a freak in his time and much freakier in person. seeing that he didn't compete, that was his whole thing. photoshop just makes him look like a clown.


eliscominblue

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #59 on: June 18, 2007, 08:15:06 AM »

nah, wasn't having a go at you Hustle Man. they were great pics mate, thanks.

just gives me the screaming shits, all this photoshop. it takes away the unique qualities of bbers and cheapens their legacy somewhat if you know what i mean.

victor, for example, was a freak in his time and much freakier in person. seeing that he didn't compete, that was his whole thing. photoshop just makes him look like a clown.



Amen......photoshop pics should be banned from this board.

kkcfoto

  • Getbig I
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #60 on: August 07, 2007, 08:03:38 PM »
Crazy genes! But as we all know, height counted against him. Only short guys that did really well were Columbo, Dickerson, Labrada and Benaziza.
Terra would have been 6-10th place guy even ripped to shreds 210lbs at 5'4".

Don't forget Danny Padilla

Figo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8101
Re: The best Pro that never was
« Reply #61 on: August 08, 2007, 10:58:57 AM »
Don't forget Danny Padilla

I didn't. Because Danny was great, but was overlooked/robbed throughout his career.