nobody of the current crop will match ronnie for back. People act like dillett purposely underdeveloped his back and it annoys the shit out of me. He used all the weight he could handle - end of story. His shoulders are wrecked so he lost control of the movement with heavy lifts. From the front even Ronnie doesnt get a look in, from behind Paul is less than amateur in comparisonhey can you tell me why the hell his shoulders wer wrecked.wat really happened to them..i have been hearing this for a while why his shoulders were not strong...
hey can you tell me why the hell his shoulders wer wrecked.wat really happened to them..i have been hearing this for a while why his shoulders were not strong...
Ronnie beat dillett at the 1996 Olympia. Ronnie just started to play the size game at that point
Ronnie would totally crush Paul from 1998-present
Really?holly hell...wat a fuckin awesome picture man...he was standing next to shawn ray and made shawn look like a fuckin scholl girl..
(http://ironage.us/yabbse/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6138.0;id=4851;image)
You think Paul did his best trying to get his back up? From what Ive heard, he is one of the worst in training....they say he is lazy.....
Im a big fan of King Paul's physique as well but I really feel that he will never ever get back to greatness
watcht the BFTO 1996 and note how much weight paul is using for his back...I showed it to my buddy and he laughed his ass off. Paul's is doing pulldowns one set facing the machine supersetted with one with his back to the machine..really light weight and charles glass is like "c'mon paul" between the SS cause paul is so lackadasical.
For t-bars his got maybe 100lbs..I know it's precontest but c'mon..you're almost 270lbs...
Now the BFTO1998 paul works alot harder and is alot bigger but he's not training back.
Exactly. I couldn't believe the pussy weight he was using either, no wonder he had a small back, I mean he was doing barely 110 pounds on the t bar row, where ronnie goes uptp over 500.
he is better in the 98 version but still he's really, really dogging it in the 96 version...god if only he had the work ethic of Dorian or Ronnie.
Just goes to show what gear and genetics do for you, the amount of people who have said they have seen dillet maxing out on 50 pound dumbells for shoulders out his training intensity into context.
shut up Beener - show a Canadian hero a little respect
Have you seen the movie Flubber? It's really good, its got Robbin Williams and this floating robot. Oh, and Dillet plays this weird ass green blob that is always jiggling around.
No shit Sherlock
American Muscle had a segment on Paul doing sholders prior to the 93 ASC and he's using some nice girly wieght and he says "you might be wondering why I train so light...it's about the feel and if you're laughing at me I might come through your TV and smash you!!" or something like that.now why the hell paul need to lift heavy when he is not training for power and he is only training to look muscular..remember paul never trained to gain power but only size..he is a bodybuilder in the true sense,lifting to gain muscle and not power..so wats the problem in that...
watcht the BFTO 1996 and note how much weight paul is using for his back...I showed it to my buddy and he laughed his ass off. Paul's is doing pulldowns one set facing the machine supersetted with one with his back to the machine..really light weight and charles glass is like "c'mon paul" between the SS cause paul is so lackadasical.dude even he trained light it was working for him..y would he wanna lift hundreds fo pounds when he is getting the feel in few hundred pounds..he was one of the largest bodybuilders of all time and it does not matter if you lift heavy or light..its your look that counts onstage and paul dillett was always at his best..and yes his posing was alright..
For t-bars his got maybe 100lbs..I know it's precontest but c'mon..you're almost 270lbs...
Now the BFTO1998 paul works alot harder and is alot bigger but he's not training back.
ronnie from the 04 russian grand prix would make paul look like a child. his legs were very small in that clip to go along with his back. his delts and arms were the only freaky muscles i saw. his waist is small as well, but ronnie is much more of a freak just watch the video.dude till 1999,paul virtually dwarfed ronnie from every angel..just go back and see pauls posing from from 1994 to 1999 mr olympia and ronnie looked like lil bitch next to paul.even at mr olympia 1999 wich ronnie won paul mde big ron look like lil ron..all he needed was to improve his back and thats it..if he had a back ronnie would have never ever been mr olympia
pual dillett was always big and wide..coleman was not even close.here is paul dillet posing at mr olympia 1994
Both are links of Ronnie..sorry my bad..here ya go
His posing routine just sucks to the max but you can't deny his awesome muscle size and maturity..
Compare him and Ronnie Coleman, muscles alone, I think Paul will win hands down..
how can u say that maybe from the front alittle close in size but ronns back n overall striations,superation n shape are tremendously better by farfrom the front paul blows ronnie away..its no contest man..pauls big chest,big delts,big arms and balanced legs are just too much for big ron to handle
what r u watchin when u say this
n im not a ron fan at all!!
would like to hear ur reasons???????
here you go, ronnie still with better detail and seperation. he's a monster.
Ronnie is a monster but Paul's physique was the only one "capable" of matching him, Paul put on alot of size and still kept his waist under control for the most part, now I don't know if paul would have ended up doing the same things ronnie did and maybe Paul's gut would have gotten just as bad but there is no doubt in my mind that if paul had gotten his act together he would have been right up there.i totally agree with your statement. although those that claim paul had more size then ronnie are foolish, paul is taller and has a bigger structure but ronnie has more mass. pauls arms and delts can match ronnies although they are no were near as conditioned.
ronnie is far more conditoined in the videos you posted, his arms have way more seperation and detail. ronnies quads taped out at 38-39 inches recently, are you going to tell me that pauls legs were even close to that. they dont look that impressive to me. his arms and delts are great, and his chest is mediocre, i wathced the pre-judging at that show, put both those guys together and you'll understand why ronnie is far superior.dude paul was the first real freak in bodybuilding.even before dorian paul was the real freak.paul virtually owned ronnie till 1999.dude the videos do not lie.pauls legs were huge but were not as big as colemans but they were well conditioned at the same time..paul had a wide and a thick chest.dude in 1994 paul ass raped coleman.paul actually looked twice his size at olympia 1994.and the funny thing is paul was younger than coleman.the only thing in wich coleman was big was only his back and thats it.paul was super wide and super thick..dude just go and watch arnold classic 1997, he made coleman look like a lil bicth.paul was super big and also under-rated...he was overlooked.the physiue that paul had it was easy to say he was destined to be mr olympia..damn he just got bigger every year and never added an inch to his waist.he had that freaky mass with the smallest waist possible.i have never seen any mass monster with a waist as small as pauls.paul was the true super freak.during that time there were alot of mass monsters who got bigger and at the same time getting their waist lines bigger..paul was not like that..pauls waist was so small that the rest of him looked even freakier.i hope in comes in tip-top shape at this years montreal pro
Paul's waist, being as small as it was, made him look ridiculously large. After having seen all these guys, Coleman, Ruhl, DJ, Cutler, etc I've become somewhat desensitized to these astonishingly large physiques. However, that being said, every once in a while another picture of Paul will surface, one that I have not yet seen, and the reaction it evokes is the same every time, "holy shit".correct
He's the closest thing to a cartoon character that I have ever seen.
shut up Beener - show a Canadian hero a little respect
stop with the paul coulda woulda shit, face it he never. answer this question and then stop the debate, does a 300 pound contest conditioned ronnie coleman carrry more muscle then an in shape at any point paul dillett. yes or no. ronnie has surpased everyone in muscle size no matter who coulda been bigger, ronnie did it end of story.dude long before ronnie became a 300 pounder there was paul dillet.paul was the first mass freak.he made every pro look like a small child.had he improved his back by just 10% he would have been mr olympia 20 times in a row.he filled the criteria of a perfect mr olympia.he had a small waist,big delts,big arms,amazing legs and a big chest to go with that..wheres the flaw man..and yes paul was always 270 plus onstage and stil looked bigger than a 300lb ronnie coleman
dude long before ronnie became a 300 pounder there was paul dillet.paul was the first mass freak.he made every pro look like a small child.had he improved his back by just 10% he would have been mr olympia 20 times in a row.he filled the criteria of a perfect mr olympia.he had a small waist,big delts,big arms,amazing legs and a big chest to go with that..wheres the flaw man..and yes paul was always 270 plus onstage and stil looked bigger than a 300lb ronnie coleman
I've always wondered what's upp with his freaky veins - do some ppl "just have them", or are they the result of substance abuse gone bad in some way?
Yes, I am a newbie, so don't hate on me for asking! :)
Dillet smashes Ronnie in regards to overall leg development, his stomach is infinitely better, his shoulders are wider than Ronnies stomach circumfrance, his arms are a legit 24" atleast and his chest was excellent. Ronnie wipes his arse with him in regards to back development so how can you say Ronnie has surpassed everyone in regards to mass? Dillet made even Dorian look smallone of the best posts ever...
one of the best posts ever...
yes shadow paul was amazing, his 0 olympia titles trump ronnies 8. ronnie is clearly has more muscle mass all over, dillett had a bigger structure. pauls arms were bigger then ronnies yes but ronnies are much more conditioined. ronnies legs are much bigger then pauls who can match ronnie is shear thigh size. when did this thread turn into quality i thought we were talking about quanity, paul has great overall leg development yes, however ronnies quads are bigger. face the truth pauls legs never taped out at 38 inches, even in the offseason. and ronnies back makes pauls look like a school girl.in the words of lee haney..its about quality and not quantity..and yet paul had both quantity and quality.ronnie only has quantity but no fuckin quality.ronnie only had quality in his back and thats it and if you are saying pauls arms are not well condtioned,you are absolutely blind.heres pauls perfect 24 inch guns..amazing size and conditioning
ronnie has bigger quads but their quality is poor, they have little seperation these days. Paul had better hamstrings and the calves shouldnt EVER be brought into question. Ronnie has the worst calves of any pro in the top 10 today. So yes, granted Ronnies quad size is unmatched but for overall balance and symmetry Dillet has the better leg structure.one of the most rational posts on this thread.these coleman asslickers just don't get the fact that there are bigger and well conditioned pros than coleman.. heres a message to
Paul has amazing shoulders, arms, and a very good chest. He also has excellent calves. I would say he compares very favorably with Ronnie from the front but gets SMOKED from the back.compares hahah.paul was light years ahead of coleman till 1999 from the front.after 1999 paul just sort of retired.if he had continued his 1999 form he would have smoked coleman and yes with a bit of back improvement..
compares hahah.paul was light years ahead of coleman till 1999 from the front.after 1999 paul just sort of retired.if he had continued his 1999 form he would have smoked coleman and yes with a bit of back improvement..
Yet Paul won nothing. He did not beat the best of his day. I saw Paul at Gold's in Venice circa 1991 and he was AMAZING. I think it was a lack of work ethic and will that kept him from being the best.i think so he lifted light because it worked for him..his work ethic was ok.and the only thing he needed was back and thats it..if he even had a back like jp fux or nasser el sonbaty he would have been mr olympia forever..
i think so he lifted light because it worked for him..his work ethic was ok.and the only thing he needed was back and thats it..if he even had a back like jp fux or nasser el sonbaty he would have been mr olympia forever..
I don't agree about the work ethic. If he had the will he would have learned how to pose and he would have improved his back. The fact he didn't indicates to me he was lacking in desire and the will to do what must be done.
Who knows? I don't know the man I could be wrong but that is what is looks like from the outside.
i think so he lifted light because it worked for him..his work ethic was ok.and the only thing he needed was back and thats it..if he even had a back like jp fux or nasser el sonbaty he would have been mr olympia forever..
Paul's back sucked horrendusly. It was the worst back on the olympia stage any given time he competed. A baby's but had more detail than Dillet's back. And you know why? Becuase he trained like a pussy. 1, you have Coleman deadlifting 800lbs and doing 495lb barbell rows 5 weeks out compared to Dillet 95lb machine pulldowns which he didn't even execute properly. :-X :-\paul only had one weakness and i admit that his back was not at par with ronnie.like i said if he improved his back by just 10% he owuld have had been mr olympia forever.and you know the fact that paul from the front just owned ronnie from every angel...
in the words of lee haney..its about quality and not quantity..and yet paul had both quantity and quality.ronnie only has quantity but no fuckin quality.ronnie only had quality in his back and thats it and if you are saying pauls arms are not well condtioned,you are absolutely blind.heres pauls perfect 24 inch guns..amazing size and conditioning
paul only had one weakness and i admit that his back was not at par with ronnie.like i said if he improved his back by just 10% he owuld have had been mr olympia forever.and you know the fact that paul from the front just owned ronnie from every angel...
his quads look like shit in the video you posted along with his calves, were are these amazing quads, and dont post a pick of one of ronnies first shows. compare both at their best.
He was also so big he couldnt pose correctly, simply because the muscles couldnt flex properly due to their size.
I do give Paul credit for this....as seen in BFTO 98...Dillet's legs as a whole were better than Ronnie's have EVER been. He had everything, glutes, hames, striations, cuts, AND calves to boot!
i'm suprised you're actually saying someone is better than coleman. yes, his legs looked incredible in battle for the Olympia.
also, his training in that scene wasnt that bad. or at least from some of the stories that we've heard.
Dillet won nothing? And there i was convinced he won the NOC ::)
You idiots act like Paul deliberately decided not to work hard. If he was such a poor trainer then how the f**k did he get as big as he did? It is well publicised that he has had multiple arthroscopic operations on his rotator cuffs, the knock on effect of this being he cant exactly use alot of weight without losing control of the movements. He was also so big he couldnt pose correctly, simply because the muscles couldnt flex properly due to their size.
you are a meatbag, paul never had more quality then ronnie or he would of won something. ronnies has way more seperation and detail then paul will ever have. your a fucking guy, did you ever think that maybe he couldnt get better. keep suggesting he would ruled the world while people like ronnie get it done and become 9 times mr o.dude if paul continued his 1999 NOC form,he owuld have had defeated coleman..long before the word freak existed there was one man who defined the word freak that is big paul dillett..just compare both of them from 1991 to 1999..coleman looked like nothing but a small bitch..seriously you people are just blind and the fact that coleman won 8 sandows has nothing to do with this..paul was the bigger and the thicker guy than ronnie will ever be..paul is the real uncrowned mr olympia..
I stand corrected if that is the case. Did he win anything else? With his incredible genetics should he not have won more than 1 professional bodybuilding show?
paul only had one weakness and i admit that his back was not at par with ronnie.like i said if he improved his back by just 10% he owuld have had been mr olympia forever.and you know the fact that paul from the front just owned ronnie from every angel...
from the front paul blows ronnie away..its no contest man..pauls big chest,big delts,big arms and balanced legs are just too much for big ron to handle
honestly of the two videos posted by me and shadow, who looks bigger, in terms of muscle size all over, and not structure. its easy to see ronnies diced to the bone and still bigger then paul. stop with the he would of shit seriously, i bet you would have squated 700 pounds if you dedicated your life to it. he never had it in him, end of discussion. pauls waist is crazy however for a man of his size, no if coleman had that waist his spot as the best in history would be solidified. but i just hate how people say ronnie vs. orville, ronnie vs etc no they wouldnt have beaten him, he won the olympia and he is the champ. his going to blow everyones minds this olympia i love when people downgrade him, this is going to be 03 all over again.the thing he if you compare paul to ronnie in 1997,it was pretty evident that paul the real massive guy.for eg at the arnold classic 1997 it was like apples and oranges..paul always had the size and aesthetics..pauls waist was one of the smallest waist of a mass monster.paul made ronnie look like an amateur at arnold classic 1997.and heres an another eg of paul at the olympia 1994 was one of the most best packages i have ever seen in my entire life..like i said if paul continued his 1999 form he would have blown any one away.paul kept on adding size year after after.ronnie was not as big as paul till 2000.hell ronnie will never be big with a small waist..pauls small waist made him appear even bigger...here is pauls posing routine from olympia 1994
Paul basically stopped progressing in 99, he fell off the face of the planet about that time, maybe he did a show after that but for the most part he was done after 99. Ronnie didn't really "blow up" in terms of size until after 99 from what I remember, didn't he do the 99 ASC at about 247lbs? I think paul was ahead of Ronnie in the size game as of 98, condition was about even. Ron just destroyed paul from the back. I think if anyone could have kept up with Ron in the size game it was paul. Realistically Pual could match up very well with Ron on pretty much every bodypart except back as of 98 or 99, he beat Ron on thighs, calves, abs and tri's. Now if Paul could have kept up with Ron's pace as far as adding size, which there is no indication that he couldn't he had a chance to beat ron...but he didn't so I guess that's all that matters.agreed
agreedI second that.
No, he also seriously lacked aesthetics-too vascular, bad skin plus the muscles didn't flow well from one to the other as they do with Coleman. He also had nowhere near Coleman's refinement or muscle quality.
As far as muscle size, never thought I'd see someone with more size than Dillet but Coleman has more size for his frame than Dillet. Coleman's arms, legs and back are proportionately bigger.
No, he also seriously lacked aesthetics-too vascular, bad skin plus the muscles didn't flow well from one to the other as they do with Coleman. He also had nowhere near Coleman's refinement or muscle quality.come on man bodybuilding is all about unreal vascularity..paul had vascularity and size at the same time...dude just tell me wat do ou mean by 'muscles din't flow well fromone to the other'..yeah ronnies gut was as big as the rest of him...haa.man yoy are nothing but a coleman ass licker.how possibly can you say that ronnies muscles did correspond to each other..his crappy triceps,over-developed legs and no calves...his chest just sags too much...
As far as muscle size, never thought I'd see someone with more size than Dillet but Coleman has more size for his frame than Dillet. Coleman's arms, legs and back are proportionately bigger.
do you honestly think he lacked asthetics? very wide shoulders, super small wasit, huge quads...there's your x-frame you guys are always raving about in the truce thread. Legs were balanced, upper body was balanced....back just lacked detail. His lats were wide and they inserted pretty low. Huge traps but they didn't detract from his width. I don't think you can call someone unasthetic because they are vascular, that's just a bi-product of him beingin shape, some guys have it some don't. I don't know if you can mark someone down for being vascular, I think it looks kinda cool but I can see where others wouldn't. His skin tone was a little funky at the end of his run but look at picks from 93-97 and he looked fine, not ashen like he did at his last NOC.amazing post man and also an honest one..i think so till 1999 paul was definetly bigger..ronnie was no where near paul size wise till 1999...just look at these videos and judge for youself
Ronnie is bigger than paul now but back in 98 I think Paul was equal to Ronnie in terms of size, Ronnie may habe been in better condition but size wise paul could stand next to him and look pretty good.
No, he also seriously lacked aesthetics-too vascular, bad skin plus the muscles didn't flow well from one to the other as they do with Coleman. He also had nowhere near Coleman's refinement or muscle quality.so you were saying'his muscles didn't flow well from one to the other'..hahaa open up your eyes man....
As far as muscle size, never thought I'd see someone with more size than Dillet but Coleman has more size for his frame than Dillet. Coleman's arms, legs and back are proportionately bigger.
do you honestly think he lacked asthetics? very wide shoulders, super small wasit, huge quads...there's your x-frame you guys are always raving about in the truce thread. Legs were balanced, upper body was balanced....back just lacked detail.
Ya, the vascularity he had was gross; that looks has been seen on a few BBs over the decades and is basically too many veins running over areas that are bloated that have no underlying cuts = unhealthy and unnatural looking. This drug look is not something Weider wants in a champ when there's a choice, part of why Yates who wasn't as good was allowed to win so often.bodybuilding is and will be the sport of the feaks..coleman was nothing but a lil bitch next to paul.pauls veins were just stuffs of legend and that bloated ronnie never i mean never ever had these veins beacuse he had poor conditioning..paul was the real freak and the fact that about 99% of bodybuilders are unnatural and your coleman is also unnatural beacuse this sport involves roids and more roids...so don't say unnatural to paul as if coleman was natural...
Plus the skin, plus the fact that the muscles didn't have flow in some areas specifically involving his torso.
Nothing to do with his tapers-unreal shoulder/waist and thigh/waist differentials but that has nothing to do with the above.
I still say that as much as Ronnie's enormous, he doesn't have any pics/moments where he looked as monstrously inhuman as this:amazing pic man...ronnie was nothing but a lil bitch to this freakenstin dillet
(http://ironage.us/yabbse/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6138.0;id=4851;image)
bodybuilding is and will be the sport of the feaks..coleman was nothing but a lil bitch next to paul.
Weider doesn't let the freaks win the Olympia unless they have something else, like Coleman does.coleman has nothing but paul had...a perfect v-taper that coleman never had...see for yourself.
coleman has nothing but paul had...a perfect v-taper that coleman never had...see for yourself.
Dillet was incredible, saw him doing a photo shoot on Venice beach in the early 90s. Your shot though, only shows his strong points, the incredible tapers. Unfortunately he also had some big downsides ASIDE from the back shots, as already listed above. He was close to revolting as well as incredible.ok so wat were his weak points..only his back and thats it...
I already mentioned them, aside from his back which by itself wouldn't have stopped him from winning against Yates if the contests were fair because he blew Yates away in any shot other than from the back.dude he did have aesthetics man..this guy had waist line of a light weight pro but well said that weiders were not interested in him..
His problems were aesthetics and Weider politics. Weider wasn't interested in Frankenstein as Mr. Olympia.
dude he did have aesthetics man..this guy had waist line of a light weight pro but well said that weiders were not interested in him..Dillet was great in his day. Ranked #3 in the world at one point. But you really cannot compare him to Coleman especially in the "back" department of all muscles. :-\
hmmm
I already mentioned them, aside from his back which by itself wouldn't have stopped him from winning against Yates if the contests were fair because he blew Yates away in any shot other than from the back.
His problems were aesthetics and Weider politics. Weider wasn't interested in Frankenstein as Mr. Olympia.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=88677.0;attach=96147;image)i somewat do agree with you man but i think so his main weakness was his back and his posing was not the best though but was average..his posing was ok for him.
(http://digilander.libero.it/mrolympia2/rc104.jpg)
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/977754456.jpg)
(http://www.schwarzenegger.it/mro/coleman/rc230.jpg)
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/977753906.jpg)
(http://digilander.libero.it/mikementzer/Coleman08.jpg)
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/977754402.jpg)
(http://www.bodybuildingpro.com/ronnie-coleman-2001-arnold-classic/32.jpg)
Paul was fantastic (except for the upper back) but he was no Ronnie Coleman.
This is my favorite all time Paul Dillett Picture:
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/977754650.jpg)
it is somewhat famous now..
problem with paul was that he look unbeatable standing relaxed or in transition, but when he posed, he lost a lot of impact in certain poses..
(http://body.builder.hu/imagebank/pictures/977754338.jpg)
sad but true. Many writers have commented on this strange phenomenon
shut up Beener - show a Canadian hero a little respect=
Another problem Dillet had, very evident in his videos, is that his muscles did not pop. He would transition from pose to pose but it is like nothing really happened. That is why he looked soooo impressive in a relaxed pose.
Yeah, too bad for Paul the Olympia wasn't judged soley on the front "Standing Relaxed" pose.