Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 23, 2017, 07:29:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Nasser vs Dillet - better BB'er  (Read 6530 times)
NarcissisticDeity
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 62825


Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl


« Reply #50 on: December 15, 2010, 04:34:04 PM »

 Grin  Wink


* german-gp-1994-1_20090828_1456718991.jpg (96.56 KB, 800x686 - viewed 297 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Sherief Shalaby
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10642


Team Nasser


« Reply #51 on: December 15, 2010, 04:35:37 PM »

Outed!

 Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Nirvana
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5122


Chew Tobacco


« Reply #52 on: December 15, 2010, 04:36:20 PM »

dillett just always looked a little "crooked".

anyways great thread, people are actually talking objectivly about nasser and not just "bitter old oily scumbag shit-backed terrorist"
Report to moderator   Logged
Sherief Shalaby
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10642


Team Nasser


« Reply #53 on: December 15, 2010, 04:38:14 PM »

Grin  Wink

 Tongue Tongue Tongue


* 16231_204087456888_48163666888_3048251_5269936_n.jpg (39.14 KB, 604x409 - viewed 300 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Sherief Shalaby
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10642


Team Nasser


« Reply #54 on: December 15, 2010, 04:42:10 PM »

something i was always noticing in dillett's rear delts that they were HUGE but always looked like bags of water.. never looked detailed and hard as the ideal shape!!.. i am not saying he was filling anything in them,.. i am sure he had only muscles inside but just his genetics shape!!..
Report to moderator   Logged
Nirvana
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5122


Chew Tobacco


« Reply #55 on: December 15, 2010, 04:44:39 PM »

something i was always noticing in dillett's rear delts that they were HUGE but always looked like bags of water.. never looked detailed and hard as the ideal shape!!.. i am not saying he was filling anything in them,.. i am sure he had only muscles inside but just his genetics shape!!..
they seemed to take all the work in his back workouts
Report to moderator   Logged
NarcissisticDeity
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 62825


Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl


« Reply #56 on: December 15, 2010, 04:45:18 PM »

Tongue Tongue Tongue
\

Nasser is owning those guys but you can tell even with the detailed back it's still behind delts & arms which are great compared to latter days his delts were great and his arms showed much better separation , his physique really was great when he was lighter


* CCE000002.jpg (87.05 KB, 1010x741 - viewed 287 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Sherief Shalaby
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10642


Team Nasser


« Reply #57 on: December 15, 2010, 04:49:56 PM »

\

Nasser is owning those guys but you can tell even with the detailed back it's still behind delts & arms which are great compared to latter days his delts were great and his arms showed much better separation , his physique really was great when he was lighter

imo at around 260 pounds his back could be better than levrone's back!!..
Report to moderator   Logged
NarcissisticDeity
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 62825


Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl


« Reply #58 on: December 15, 2010, 04:50:50 PM »

something i was always noticing in dillett's rear delts that they were HUGE but always looked like bags of water.. never looked detailed and hard as the ideal shape!!.. i am not saying he was filling anything in them,.. i am sure he had only muscles inside but just his genetics shape!!..

I posted that I think on page one , his delts were just huge and soft , looked glossy with no separation between the heads or striations


* 94O60.jpg (97.9 KB, 575x390 - viewed 285 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
lesaucer
Guest
« Reply #59 on: December 15, 2010, 04:51:59 PM »

imo at around 260 pounds his back could be better than levrone's back!!..

levrone own the shit out of nasser, any bodyparts, its not even close lol
Report to moderator   Logged
NarcissisticDeity
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 62825


Go back to making jewelry and cakes with your girl


« Reply #60 on: December 15, 2010, 04:56:25 PM »

imo at around 260 pounds his back could be better than levrone's back!!..

Maybe
Report to moderator   Logged
mesmorph78
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10966


there can only be one...


« Reply #61 on: December 15, 2010, 05:06:04 PM »

Dillet a billion times over ..... No contest
Report to moderator   Logged

choice is an illusion
the_swami
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1776


« Reply #62 on: December 15, 2010, 05:45:57 PM »

Nasser's back was not weak.

it was wide , thick and developed.- you can see that in the RLS with Dorian

where it was not quite as good as Dorian was in dryness and seperation. But that is the only pose where Dorian jsut edges Nasser- ONE pose, the BDB, all others Nasser easily over DOrian.

Nasser did not have a weak back.

when you talk of weak backs you  should talk of Dillet, Matarazzo, Porter Cottrell
Report to moderator   Logged
gcb
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 2256


you suffer, why?


« Reply #63 on: December 15, 2010, 07:36:43 PM »

perhaps based on their records Nasser was better, but on potential Dillet blew everyone away - I just don't understand how he never really got it together.
Report to moderator   Logged
littleguns
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4179



« Reply #64 on: December 15, 2010, 07:43:30 PM »

Someone mentioned it...Nasser was big but Dillet was freaky...just the Wow factor...will always be known for "locking up" I believe at the Arnold and being carried off like a cardboard cut out!
Report to moderator   Logged
cephissus
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 6811



« Reply #65 on: December 15, 2010, 07:57:09 PM »

haha I wish there was a video of that, so badly!!
Report to moderator   Logged
Skeletor
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 8386


Silence you furry fool!


« Reply #66 on: December 15, 2010, 08:44:51 PM »

Dillet had huge potential and he stood out due to the freakiness and also because he was a bit taller than the others, too bad he never learned to pose well.
Nasser was more consistent in his conditioning for most of his career.
This picture is unreal, not sure if its shopped because the proportions are just out of this world.

Report to moderator   Logged
Palpatine Q
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 24141


Disdain/repugnance....Version 3: glare variation B


« Reply #67 on: December 15, 2010, 08:57:33 PM »

Nasser's back was not weak.

it was wide , thick and developed.- you can see that in the RLS with Dorian

where it was not quite as good as Dorian was in dryness and seperation. But that is the only pose where Dorian jsut edges Nasser- ONE pose, the BDB, all others Nasser easily over DOrian.

Nasser did not have a weak back.

when you talk of weak backs you  should talk of Dillet, Matarazzo, Porter Cottrell

Nasser had a weak back...get over it
Report to moderator   Logged
Sherief Shalaby
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10642


Team Nasser


« Reply #68 on: December 15, 2010, 09:12:11 PM »

I posted that I think on page one , his delts were just huge and soft , looked glossy with no separation between the heads or striations

yes and i seriously hadnt read your post before writing mine!!.. seems that we both agree on many points (of course aside of anything related to dorian as then you are turned to be blind) Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
WillGrant
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21144


Ron is Watching


« Reply #69 on: December 15, 2010, 09:56:22 PM »

Dillett was a freak, but Nasser by a mile and in fact.
QFT  Cool
Report to moderator   Logged
Figo
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8104



« Reply #70 on: December 16, 2010, 06:27:15 AM »

how does a guy with no mind-muscle connection whatsoever - unable to fully contract a muscle for a pose - build a physique of such dimensions?

its like someone with hooves writing a classic piano symphony

I remember 93 olympia he couldnt do, never mind hold a most muscular, side chest, lat spread...
Report to moderator   Logged
keanu
Getbig III
***
Posts: 886


« Reply #71 on: December 16, 2010, 07:25:33 AM »

Paul had much better overall genetics for bodyparts (back aside), but onstage his conditioning was lacking, the details and seperation were often not there. His muscle display was horrible. He trained light and rested a long time in between sets. He looked like he'd train high.

Nasser made the most of his genetics and was a better bodybuilder then Paul.
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 18612



« Reply #72 on: December 16, 2010, 07:29:00 AM »

Paul had much better overall genetics for bodyparts (back aside), but onstage his conditioning was lacking, the details and seperation were often not there. His muscle display was horrible. He trained light and rested a long time in between sets. He looked like he'd train high.

Nasser made the most of his genetics and was a better bodybuilder then Paul.

x2
Report to moderator   Logged
Parker
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 51478


He Sees The Stormy Anger Of The World


« Reply #73 on: December 16, 2010, 07:50:36 AM »

Grin  Wink
Dillett looks more symmetrical and has better abs, and fuller rounder muscle bellies...
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Equipoise
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 12933


back from the dead...


WWW
« Reply #74 on: December 16, 2010, 08:15:37 AM »

Nasser's back was not weak.

it was wide , thick and developed.-
you can see that in the RLS with Dorian

where it was not quite as good as Dorian was in dryness and seperation. But that is the only pose where Dorian jsut edges Nasser- ONE pose, the BDB, all others Nasser easily over DOrian.

Nasser did not have a weak back.

when you talk of weak backs you  should talk of Dillet, Matarazzo, Porter Cottrell

You are delusional..



Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!