|
Sherief Shalaby
|
 |
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2012, 10:33:08 AM » |
|
The video didn't show him against yates or nasser, just Levrone and early coleman.
against yates or who??..  also didnt you see before levrone a better bb than nasser??.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sherief Shalaby
|
|
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2012, 10:40:31 AM » |
|
same tour the english round.. |
|
|
|
|
|
Groink
|
|
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2012, 10:41:21 AM » |
|
against yates or who??.. also didnt you see before levrone a better bb than nasser??.. Overall, no doubt. One contest doesn't make a career. Nasser looked great there, best he's ever looked. That is a weird video though, and that's probably the only contest I've ever seen where the lighting makes the white guys look better than the black guys |
|
|
|
|
|
Sherief Shalaby
|
|
« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2012, 10:47:05 AM » |
|
Overall, no doubt. One contest doesn't make a career.
Nasser looked great there, best he's ever looked. That is a weird video though, and that's probably the only contest I've ever seen where the lighting makes the white guys look better than the black guys
so firstly i was posting selected pics and no videos and now the videos are weird .. what is your next excuse gronk??.. no one contest can make a great career but anyway this has nothing to do with nasser who was always on at his best for more than 5 years.. |
|
|
|
|
|
ARNIE1947
|
|
« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2012, 10:49:04 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Groink
|
|
« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2012, 10:50:33 AM » |
|
so firstly i was posting selected pics and no videos and now the videos are weird .. what is your next excuse gronk??.. no one contest can make a great career but anyway this has nothing to do with nasser who was always on at his best for more than 5 years.. I just said he looks great, his best ever. But that is a weird video, the contrast and aspect is all jacked up. relax tiny |
|
|
|
|
|
El Diablo Blanco
|
|
« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2012, 11:18:16 AM » |
|
and from the back he held his own against 2 of the best backs in the history of the sport..
No he doesn't |
|
|
|
|
|
Groink
|
|
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2012, 11:23:44 AM » |
|
No he doesn't5
Sherief has been pushing that bullshit for 5 years, trying to get some traction. |
|
|
|
|
|
Parker
|
|
« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2012, 11:37:18 AM » |
|
as you yourself said in your previous post nasser and paul were the same weight and according to you now everybody knows that paul had a better shape rounder bla bla bla... so why do you think nasser was always beating him???.. in all fairness at their very best i see nasser better in all poses..
Because Paul couldn't pose worth shit and had a shitty back. Paul had a better structure, and shape...Hell, he had a better shape than Dorian, but Dorian blew him away in terms of back detail, conditioning, etc. Shape and structure are only part of the equation, only Flex or Cormier could really get away with being a tad soft...and really, it was Flex out of the two whose shape carried him to more wins. Dillet at his best vs Nasser at his best would be a good comparison. It could go either way. |
M
|
|
|
|
Groink
|
|
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2012, 11:43:38 AM » |
|
Because Paul couldn't pose worth shit and had a shitty back.
Paul had a better structure, and shape...Hell, he had a better shape than Dorian, but Dorian blew him away in terms of back detail, conditioning, etc.
Shape and structure are only part of the equation, only Flex or Cormier could really get away with being a tad soft...and really, it was Flex out of the two whose shape carried him to more wins.
Dillet at his best vs Nasser at his best would be a good comparison. It could go either way.
I think Nasser beats him, best to best. Dillet was a freak of nature, probably the most impressive specimen ever, just looking at him standing there. But he never came in in the type of conditon needed to win shows, Nasser was always in shape. and his flaws were atrocious...he looked like a fucking retard onstage and his back was worse than nassers |
|
|
|
|
|
disco_stu
|
|
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2012, 12:30:38 PM » |
|
just like branch is massive...nasser was too.
both a steaming pile of turd.
lumps of muscle stacked on top of itself.
there were and have been, since, better BODYBUILDERS.
the key to both not winning is a massive midsection...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaime
|
|
« Reply #36 on: November 14, 2012, 12:38:55 PM » |
|
Did someone use a microwave to take these pictures? Great picture quality.
|
Trans Milkshake.
|
|
|
|
cephissus
|
|
« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2012, 12:45:27 PM » |
|
just like branch is massive...nasser was too.
both a steaming pile of turd.
lumps of muscle stacked on top of itself.
there were and have been, since, better BODYBUILDERS.
the key to both not winning is a massive midsection...
does anyone care what this guy says  |
|
|
|
|
|
Shockwave
|
|
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2012, 12:49:14 PM » |
|
I think Nasser beats him, best to best.
Dillet was a freak of nature, probably the most impressive specimen ever, just looking at him standing there.
But he never came in in the type of conditon needed to win shows, Nasser was always in shape.
and his flaws were atrocious...he looked like a fucking retard onstage and his back was worse than nassers
I'd say Nasser USUALLY came in shape. Later in his career it was a crapshoot. |
|
|
|
|
|
Groink
|
|
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2012, 12:51:43 PM » |
|
I'd say Nasser USUALLY came in shape. Later in his career it was a crapshoot.
I'm talking about his prime years. Nasser from 98 on completely fell apart, palumboism and synthol are a bad combination  |
|
|
|
|
|
Shockwave
|
|
« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2012, 12:53:24 PM » |
|
I'm talking about his prime years. Nasser from 98 on completely fell apart, palumboism and synthol are a bad combination Ah, roger that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sherief Shalaby
|
|
« Reply #41 on: November 14, 2012, 01:40:21 PM » |
|
what i mean is this.
if they both died and some butcher would peel their muscles off the bones, muscle for muscle, thered be more meat in size and weight from dillets corpse.
nasser would be all stomach weight.
nasser was bigger in all parts even arms and shoulders which were paul's best and biggest parts.. check the pic. well.. as for the butcher thing i think nasser would taste better |
|
|
|
|
|
Jaime
|
|
« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2012, 01:42:08 PM » |
|
nasser was bigger in all parts even arms and shoulders which were paul's best and biggest parts.. check the pic. well.. as for the butcher thing i think nasser would taste better No he wasn't, that's one pic, Dillet had bigger arms and shoulders than Nasser, Nasser had to abuse SEO to get his arms over 19 inches. |
Trans Milkshake.
|
|
|
|
Sherief Shalaby
|
|
« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2012, 01:43:54 PM » |
|
Because Paul couldn't pose worth shit and had a shitty back.
Paul had a better structure, and shape...Hell, he had a better shape than Dorian, but Dorian blew him away in terms of back detail, conditioning, etc.
Shape and structure are only part of the equation, only Flex or Cormier could really get away with being a tad soft...and really, it was Flex out of the two whose shape carried him to more wins.
Dillet at his best vs Nasser at his best would be a good comparison. It could go either way.
no because it was always going to nasser's way  .. in 96 both were at their best or very close and nasser beat him 7 times, 6 if you dont want to count the olympia.. |
|
|
|
|
|
cephissus
|
|
« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2012, 01:47:45 PM » |
|
why did nasser get dq'd anyway?
so yates could win again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
NarcissisticDeity
|
|
« Reply #45 on: November 14, 2012, 01:50:03 PM » |
|
and from the back he held his own against 2 of the best backs in the history of the sport..
No he's not lol |
|
|
|
|
|
Sherief Shalaby
|
|
« Reply #46 on: November 14, 2012, 01:52:36 PM » |
|
why did nasser get dq'd anyway?
so yates could win again?
because he failed a diuretic test.. the same test jay cutler failed in 2001 but was not dq'd  this is why team nasser doesnt accept this disqualification |
|
|
|
|
|
Sherief Shalaby
|
|
« Reply #47 on: November 14, 2012, 01:54:31 PM » |
|
No he's not lol
in the RLS he did.. actually imo he beat ronnie in this pose in 96.. check the comparison video again.. |
|
|
|
|
|
the_swami
|
|
« Reply #48 on: November 14, 2012, 01:54:48 PM » |
|
Nasser 95-98 was an amazing BB, one of the greatest ever
never has there been such a combination of massive size, tiny waist, ripped conditioning and hardness, shape and symmetry.
Nasser was not blocky, he had an incredible V taper and aesthetic shape.
Nasser's back in those years was as thick and wide as Yates but just not as dry hence looked slightly less detailed.
It is erroneous to say nasser had a weak back, Paul Dillet had a weak back
|
|
|
|
|
|
NarcissisticDeity
|
|
« Reply #49 on: November 14, 2012, 01:57:23 PM » |
|
Nasser 95-98 was an amazing BB, one of the greatest ever
never has there been such a combination of massive size, tiny waist, ripped conditioning and hardness, shape and symmetry.
Nasser was not blocky, he had an incredible V taper and aesthetic shape.
Nasser's back in those years was as thick and wide as Yates but just not as dry hence looked slightly less detailed.
It is erroneous to say nasser had a weak back, Paul Dillet had a weak back
Nasser admitted he had a weak back , it's blatantly obvious to anyone who doesn't purchase his underwear. His back sucked Great bodybuilder from the front though |
|
|
|
|
|
