Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

All out

Vader.

RotJ Vader.

Why?

Superior force power, greater physical strength, and the fact that Vader already beat Maul.

what he said

Vader got lucky with maul in a saber duel, Vader evenly matched maul when he used the DBL but if maul switches to jar kai, vader loses if not it could go either way.

As for a force fight or all out, i'm sure vader would be smart enough to use the force which he beats maul in that category.

I didn't know Bondara's skill was greater than Yoda's. That doesn't seem to make too much sense.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I didn't know Bondara's skill was greater than Yoda's. That doesn't seem to make too much sense.

"The Twi'lek Jedi Master lived in the Force. Always still and complacent as a pool of unknown depth, he was nevertheless one of the best fighters in the order. His skill with a lightsaber was second to none." (Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter)

Uh, how doesn't it make sense? Mace Windu had progressed by a large margin during the period in between TPM and ROTS. Logically since Yoda has ALWAYS been regarded as his superior, Yoda must have improved greatly as well. Which means that Anoon Bondara doesn't necessarily have to be on par with ROTS Yoda.

You may expect Yoda to be the end-all, be-all of PT Jedi duelists, but canon says otherwise. And absolutely nothing I've seen contradicts such.

Told you. Anoon could probably solo the Jedi council.

......and the whole Star Wars thing has had many exxagerations.

Wow, I actually had no idea Advent had been posting here recently. It felt weird no longer having any superiors. Anyways, long time no see Mokot- I mean, nice to meet you... for the very first time in my life, ever, on this forum, in my life, Advent was it?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Told you. Anoon could probably solo the Jedi council.

I just love jokes that don't get old.. fast. Truly. Makes me laugh every time.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Told you. Anoon could probably solo the Jedi council.

Whatever you undermining jackass. Instead of these types of "LOL MAUL IS BEST! ADVENT TOLD ME!" posts when discussing anything about Maul, why don't you add something useful to the discussion?

Originally posted by Darth Martin
......and the whole Star Wars thing has had many exxagerations.

In what way exactly? Although, I do agree, elaborate on what you mean in reference to this thread.

Originally posted by BaneHumper
Wow, I actually had no idea Advent had been posting here recently. It felt weird no longer having any superiors. Anyways, long time no see Mokot- I mean, nice to meet you... for the very first time in my life, ever, on this forum, in my life, Advent was it?



Classical. I really do get an enjoyment out of your presence.

Originally posted by Advent
"The Twi'lek Jedi Master lived in the Force. Always still and complacent as a pool of unknown depth, he was nevertheless one of the best fighters in the order. His skill with a lightsaber was second to none." (Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter)

Uh, how doesn't it make sense? Mace Windu had progressed by a large margin during the period in between TPM and ROTS. Logically since Yoda has ALWAYS been regarded as his superior, Yoda must have improved greatly as well. Which means that Anoon Bondara doesn't necessarily have to be on par with ROTS Yoda.

You may expect Yoda to be the end-all, be-all of PT Jedi duelists, but canon says otherwise. And absolutely nothing I've seen contradicts such.

I wasn't disagreeing with you but Yoda's skill was unparalleled. In this case, if Bondara was no match for Maul and Bondara was somehow better than Yoda, well you get the point. Yes, I thought Yoda was the end all be all of PT duelists. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the picture I got from all of the movies, comics, books, etc..

Originally posted by BaneHumper
Wow, I actually had no idea Advent had been posting here recently. It felt weird no longer having any superiors. Anyways, long time no see Mokot- I mean, nice to meet you... for the very first time in my life, ever, on this forum, in my life, Advent was it?

Everyone on this forum is your superior Noobaris. If you weren't a complete moron, you'd realize that.

Originally posted by Advent
Whatever you undermining jackass. Instead of these types of "LOL MAUL IS BEST! ADVENT TOLD ME!" posts when discussing anything about Maul, why don't you add something useful to the discussion?

Because if I do you'll just pwn me in a debate..

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Because if I do you'll just pwn me a in a debate..

An acceptable answer. You are no longer on my bad side now - congratulations!

Awsome..

Maul fanboy super13

Maul fanboyism strikes again....

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Awsome..

Maul fanboy super13

Yeah, you're on my bad side. **** off.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Maul fanboyism strikes again....

Instead of entering into a logical fallacy by appealing to my motives, why don't you refute my argument? And I'm a woman, idiot.

Not to mention, calling me a "fanboy" (simply the idea proposed behind it) is ridiculous. Why don't you do some homework on the SWVF and learn who you're talking to?

Originally posted by Advent
Yeah, you're on my bad side. **** off.

What if I told you you looked really awesome in that outfit last Saturday?




Maybe he's afraid of getting pwned in a debate? I dunno.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
What if I told you you looked really awesome in that outfit last Saturday?

I did, didn't I? But then again, this would mean you were spying on me. **** off.



...You're teetering on the edges now. You don't have to **** off.

I usually change my opinion when you oppose it.

Originally posted by Advent
I'd say its much more dependent upon what Vader does with the Force, because engaging him in a lightsaber duel would be stupid on his part. He'd lose. Ill concede what i said earlier because i was going by what wookie said, anyways you proved me wrong.
Originally posted by Advent

Maul displays clear signs of superiority throughout the entire duel sans two points (lightsaber cut in half, death ). Whether he had his lightsabers combined or not didn't change shit. On-panel evidence trumps your personal opinion.
I'll concede what i said, but as i said earlier before i made the unsupported claim of vader evenly matching maul, vader got lucky meaning that i acknoledged the fact that he was losing and beat maul due to a circumstance, not due to skill.



Originally posted by Advent


And what leads you to believe "it could go either way" otherwise? Support your claim. "It could go either way" as in what vader does, i believe he has a chance to beat maul if he uses the force rather than engaging him in a saber duel as you pointed out that he would clearly lose.

If he chooses to face maul in a saber duel, then thats where vader will get beaten.

I changed my opinion to this after you posted the scans. BTW where did you get those scans? I can't seem to access swtimeline.ru

"Fanboy" is a term with no bearing on gender, males and females alike can be fanboys.

And I did refute your argument. Vader already beat Maul.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
"Fanboy" is a term with no bearing on gender, males and females alike can be fanboys. I am an idiot.

Show me where the term 'fanboy' is defined by a reasonable authority and how your presented definition matches that of said reasonable authority's.

'Fanboy' implies gender association (as grammatically it suggests masculinity in some form or another). I am a female, therefore using the word to describe me makes no sense. If 'fanboy' was recognized as an actual word, you'd have a point. But it isn't.



Are you ****ing blind, fascistcrusader?

Originally posted by Advent
The book you're referring to is Resurrection, where Vader fights something appearing to be Darth Maul. And it is canon. Leland Chee has confirmed this in his blog. However, it is not confirmed as to what we are seeing in the form of Darth Maul. He notes several possibilities, such as: a clone, illusion, or a vision like what Luke faced on Dagobah.

So, because of such, it is irrelevant to bring it up as you cannot compare their power. For all we know, it was a slower version of Maul. For all we know, it was a weaker version of Maul. Of course, that doesn't leave out alternative guesses, but its inconclusive, and you cannot compare his speed in the comic to the movie.

I clearly explained that the evidence presented in the book is meaningless and why. The onus lies on you to provide proof of the contrary and to present a viable counterargument. Since you'd done neither of the aforementioned, I was justified in asking you to address the actual argument rather than appeal to my motives and commit a logical fallacy.

You have two options at this point: put up or shut up.

No, it is not meaningless. Regardless of it it was "really" Maul or not, it fought like Maul, had Maul's skill, had his strength, and was created from the force by people powerful in the darkside. If anything it was more powerful than the "real Maul, meaning it is you who has no point.

Stop being a fanboy, Vader beat Maul or something that was stronger than Maul.

Advent is far from a fan boy is and one of the most respected debators on here.

Darth Vader wins. In a duel in the SW universe, there is no real luck. When Obi-Wan and Anakin fought, Obi-Wan took advantage of Anakin's unstable state. He didn't win by "luck". When Obi-Wan killed Darth Maul, he was (as much as I'd hate to say it) able to take Maul by surprise and sever his torso. He didn't win by "luck" there, either.

Same way, when Vader killed the second Maul, he took advantage of his overconfidence and apparently, his momentary lack of defense. Whether it be in trait, personality strengths, actual skill or some other quality, Vader has something that allowed him to triumph over Maul. However marginally, Vader is superior to Maul.

Slinging "fanboy" about = no. Disprove (or prove) an argument or go don't post, which is my view for the entire SWVs. forum. Best to follow it or people just get annoyed.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Best to follow it or people just get annoyed. ...or in Advent's and my case, curse like a sailor who stubbed his toe.

I'd say Vader. Maul's biggest weakness is he cockiness aswell as his ego, if Vader takes advantage of that like he did in the fight with the resurrected Maul, chances are he has a good chance at winning, albeit, not easily, however.

The resurrected Maul fight has not been declared as canon.
And "Maul's biggest weakness is his cockiness" ? Maul is deadly, cocky or not (and he wasn't). And (even though it's irrelevant) just because he overestimated his opponent once doesn't mean he was cocky. Hell, he's so serious he almost doesn't speak. How can you know if he's cocky?

Originally posted by City Hunter
Yes, it has. Read the NEC, and Leland Chee confirmed him to be resurrected in the comic.

So is Vader, yet he isn't cocky, though I would rate him slightly less than Maul in the skill department, but not by much.

TWICE. He was toying with Obi-Wan and gloating when he shouldve finished him off, the same goes for his duel with Vader. If that isn't arrogance or cockiness, I certainly don't know what is.

How does being serious not allow you to speak? Ive seen and met lot's of people who were dead serious and yet still speak.

How do I know? Cause I actually payed attention to the movies and comics.

It is canon? Hell, that's f*cked up.

Right, twice. I bet he has defeated far more than 2 opponents.

I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I must've not made myself clear. But anyways, serious or not, Maul almost doesn't speak, does he?

City Hunter and Xepeyon above are WRONG. Both of your conclusions are based solely on the duel in Resurrection, which makes you incorrect on more than one level. The first being that everything that happened in the comic was dependent upon the location. If the location isn't Kalakar Six (and even if it was, it would have to be in the same place), then there's nothing to suggest Maul would be in the same position he was at the end of the duel. The second being that there's no way to prove definitively (or even the more likely) that the Maul we witnessed is as strong as the real one. Given that, it leaves open the possibility to suggest that TPM Maul wouldn't make that same mistake or be in that predicament.

Reasonably Maul is the more adept duelist when it comes down to prowess with a blade as demonstrated in my initial post. You're telling me that Vader is then only relying on the chance Maul would momentarily stop or rather the chance that Maul will do something irrational before he kills him in direct lightsaber confrontation, which is ****ing stupid because there's nothing to indicate that he would in circumstances where there's no bullshit story or plot necessity keeping Vader alive.

Originally posted by Xepeyon
Whether it be in trait, personality strengths, actual skill or some other quality, Vader has something that allowed him to triumph over Maul.

Only pertaining to that particular situation, something you're clearly not taking into account.



Uh, because you are operating under the nonsensical idea that defeating an opponent makes you superior ACTUALLY MEANS that defeating an opponent makes you superior? No, that's not how it works. What if Darth Maul hadn't wasted any time? What if the lightsaber blow that struck Vader had killed him? You're basically saying that because neither of these happened, Vader is better due to taking advantage of one situation denying all evidence which points out that Maul has the capabilities of dispatching Vader in a lightsaber battle. Whereas Vader does not and would, as outlined above, be appealing to his arrogance as his only means of victory.

The main problem with your logic is that Maul also possesses qualities which would allow him to defeat Vader. Simply because they didn't in Resurrection doesn't mean they wouldn't elsewhere. Just like how Vader's hatred was enough to overcome Maul in the end doesn't mean it would elsewhere.

Double.

Originally posted by Advent
Both of your conclusions are based solely on the duel in Resurrection, which makes you incorrect on more than one level. The first being that everything that happened in the comic was dependent upon the location. If the location isn't Kalakar Six (and even if it was, it would have to be in the same place), then there's nothing to suggest Maul would be in the same position he was at the end of the duel. The second being that there's no way to prove definitively (or even the more likely) that the Maul we witnessed is as strong as the real one. Given that, it leaves open the possibility to suggest that TPM Maul wouldn't make that same mistake or be in that predicament.

Ignore this part, City Hunter. Although I still believe your reasoning to be absurd, your conclusion is based more on Maul's personality rather than relying specifically on the comic. This paragraph is for Xepeyon only, I apologize for misreading your post.

The rest, however, still applies to you.

Ignoring the truth doesn't make it any less true, Advent. Your fanboyism can't change reality...

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
Ignoring the truth doesn't make it any less true, Advent. Your fanboyism can't change reality...

1. Back up your claim that she is a fanboy or "girl" for that matter. Creating a logical argument for a character doesn't make one a fanboy.

2. Refute her argument.

If you can't do both 1 and 2, then don't type because your accusations are unwarranted.

I already did both.

she's a fanboy because she supports Maul in situations where logic dictates that he has no chance of winning, says stupid things about Maul beating the "best Jedi evar!!11!!," and has admitted to agreeing with Nebaris' idiocy on many occasions.

Vader has already beat Maul in a canon story. That means this fight has already occurred, and Vader was the winner. Arguing otherwise is arguing against canon.

I suggest you look at Advent's arguments from a while back. I would say that I would show more fanboyism at times than I have ever seen from Advent. And if you read the comic you would know that it was not said i it was the real Maul and Sidious's expression or what I would say a lack of surprise does not entirely rule out the possibility of Sidious's own involvement in it.

I did read her posts. They are all based off of hypothetical "what ifs" and exaggerations of Maul's power. I am basing my argument solely on canon fact.

Originally posted by fascistcrusader


She never said the he beat the best jedi ever. She said Maul defeated a jedi who' saber skills were described as second to none. Plus that was before TPM. And Nebaris can construct good arguments whether they go against canon or not. and she never said that she bought into Nebaris's views rather she hold him in higher regard (or respect him) than other people here. Plus she never actually said that "Maul wins or Vader loses"

Regardless of how highly she regards him, she said she agrees with him a lot, and he rarely agrees with canon.

And she has been implying very heavily that Maul wins, when we know that Vader did win this fight. I just hate arguments that go against canon. Regardless of whether or not you think Maul would beat Vader, Vader won. Regardless of whether you think Yoda could pwn Sidious, Sidious won. regardless of whether or not you think Qui Gin could beat Maul, Maul won.

Arguments like those are a pet peeve of mine. Its one thing if its a complete hypothetical like Revan vs Vader, but if we already know the outcome of a certain battle why fight canon?

Originally posted by fascistcrusader
I already did both.

she's a fanboy because she supports Maul in situations where logic dictates that he has no chance of winning. I am an idiot.

Bullshit. Show me this supposed logic. I've explained numerous times why you're wrong and clearly demonstrated my point, simply because you refuse to concede due to your stubbornness and apparent mental retardation doesn't mean that I'm a "fanboy".


Originally posted by Advent
Uh, how doesn't it make sense? Mace Windu had progressed by a large margin during the period in between TPM and ROTS. Logically since Yoda has ALWAYS been regarded as his superior, Yoda must have improved greatly as well. Which means that Anoon Bondara doesn't necessarily have to be on par with ROTS Yoda.

You were saying? The only one exaggerating here is you. Also, how is commenting on the fight between Maul and Anoon - who is confirmed by canon to be a more skilled duelist than TPM Yoda - "stupid"? You've yet to explain that one.



This statement alone proves your idiocy. You claimed that I was a 'fanboy'. How would me agreeing with Nebaris (when he's right) support your claim? It wouldn't.


Originally posted by Advent
You cannot conclusively prove that it was equal to or greater than the actual Darth Maul. Ergo, it is meaningless. Is the concept of logic that hard to grasp for you?

Its no use arguing with you. Some people can never admit when they're wrong, even when canon says they are.

Translation: I cannot provide sufficient evidence to back up my claim and prove that the Darth Maul witnessed in Resurrection was equal to that of its movie counterpart. Therefore, I will rely on the subtle tactic of trying to deceive people by twisting what I'm doing onto you rather than risk looking like a complete moron and attempting to refute your posts.

No what canon says is Vader beat "resurrection" Maul not TPM Maul and since there is not enough information on what the "resurrection" Maul is it can't be completely determined. It could be a clone,could have been created with sith alchemy or it could have been the real Maul with a healed body or the "spirit" of the real Maul in a new body.

Clone, spirit in a new body, etc, it doesn't matter. Vader still beat Maul. A clone of Maul or a new body for Maul doesn't change Mauls's skill level or knowledge of the force, and Vader beat it. This means V ader did beat Maul.

Your argument is like saying that no one beat Palpatine in Dark Empire because it was just Palpatine's spirit in a clone body.

Difference is that we know what DE Sidious is and that DE Sidious is greater than any other previous incarnation. We know it was Sidious's spirit in a new body. We don't know if this was a clone had the original Maul's spirit in it or if it was its own being based on Maul. Plus you would have to prove that resurrection Maul>TPM Maul. To simply say that Vader killed ressurection Maul does not mean he automatically beats TPM Maul which I think is one of Advent's points.

And on another note I notice that no one has brought up the point that this vader is that of ROTJ not resurection if anyone has any thoughts on this.

Advent, how is "his skills with a blade are second to none" implying that he is better than Yoda? For all you know, Yoda is also "second to none" and they are equals.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Advent, how is "his skills with a blade are second to none" implying that he is better than Yoda? For all you know, Yoda is also "second to none" and they are equals.

Oh, please. Do you even know what an implication means? It means that it leads one to believe something even if its not outright stated. Saying that he's "second to none" implies that he is above all others. The same novel also refers to Yoda's skills as "second to none on the Jedi Council" shortly thereafter, so the author gives us an obvious outline: that Anoon's skills are second to none in the Jedi Order and Yoda's skills are second to none on the Jedi Council (the Jedi Order as a whole includes the Jedi Council obviously).

That not withstanding, your assumption would depend upon the extremely unlikely and asinine idea that they are SHEER EQUALS, that they are on the exact same level. Which is pretty stupid if you ask me.

According to the Revenge of the Sith novelization, Darth Sidious and Mace Windu achieved this state of absolute parity once Windu had submerged himself in Vaapad; while it is unlikely that Master Yoda and Anoon Bondara were precise equals with a lightsaber, one cannot rule the possibility out. Especially when one's argument seems to be based on, in one's own words, an "implication".

Originally posted by Advent
Oh, please. Do you even know what an implication means? It means that it leads one to believe something even if its not outright stated. Saying that he's "second to none" implies that he is above all others. The same novel also refers to Yoda's skills as "second to none on the Jedi Council" shortly thereafter, so the author gives us an obvious outline: that Anoon's skills are second to none in the Jedi Order and Yoda's skills are second to none on the Jedi Council (the Jedi Order as a whole includes the Jedi Council obviously).

That not withstanding, your assumption would depend upon the extremely unlikely and asinine idea that they are SHEER EQUALS, that they are on the exact same level. Which is pretty stupid if you ask me.

Don't lecture me on the definition of "implication", because I am well aware. If you're going to claim that "second to none" means that Bondara is superior to Yoda, that's your opinion. However, it doesn't make much sense since Maul bet Bondara, which would mean that Maul is at least in Yoda's league, where that's not the case. Did you forget that to beat Palpatine (who was considerably more powerful than Maul), you need to be Yoda or Mace.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Don't lecture me on the definition of "implication", because I am well aware.

Obviously not if you don't believe that it doesn't imply he is above all others, especially considering the two other things I mentioned.



No, its a logical deduction based on what's written in the book and the fact that Yoda and Anoon would have to be on completely equal footing in terms of skill.



You're absolutely right - your position doesn't make much sense.



Why? Because you typed it out?



You're leaving out two essential details that render this point void:

Originally posted by Advent
Mace Windu had progressed by a large margin during the period in between TPM and ROTS. Logically since Yoda has ALWAYS been regarded as his superior, Yoda must have improved greatly as well.

That, and Yoda and Mace (Yoda, especially) are much more gifted Force users meaning they are much more well-equipped to handle Darth Sidious.

Lucas' statement could mean that Yoda and Mace are good enough to handle Sidious with a saber, or it could mean they are good enough with the force. You can't make the claim that it was because they were better equipped with the force because the statement is as open to interpretation as the Vanity Fair statement..

But you're basically saying that Yoda was progressing at a normal rate for 800 years, and suddenly in a 10 year span, he surpasses everybody else. Does that make much sense to you Advent?

Originally posted by Advent
Whatever you undermining jackass. Instead of these types of "LOL MAUL IS BEST! ADVENT TOLD ME!" posts when discussing anything about Maul, why don't you add something useful to the discussion?



In what way exactly? Although, I do agree, elaborate on what you mean in reference to this thread.





Classical. I really do get an enjoyment out of your presence.
For example Empreror Palpatine on Luke in TESB: "He could destroy us."

Mace stating that Depa's bladework had surpassed his own.

Kenobi stating in ROTS that Anakin is a FAR better Jedi than he could ever hope to be.

See what I mean SW just happends to be full of them.

The book was published in 2001. How would the author know of Yoda's saber abilitied seeing as to how he first ignited a lightsaber in 2002.

I definitely have would say though that the specific time frame the TPM-ROTS is probably the time when his skills increased the most out of any equivalent time frame in his jedi career.

Originally posted by Elite Hunter
I definitely have would say though that the specific time frame the TPM-ROTS is probably the time when his skills increased the most out of any equivalent time frame in his jedi career.

Probable.

But it would take a seriously convincing argument to prove that the TPM-RotS time period would make an extremely significant change for an 800-plus-year-old Jedi Master to suddenly go from "one of the best" to "the undisputed best" in thirteen years.

Thats what I said lol

Originally posted by Gideon
Probable.

But it would take a seriously convincing argument to prove that the TPM-RotS time period would make an extremely significant change for an 800-plus-year-old Jedi Master to suddenly go from "one of the best" to "the undisputed best" in thirteen years.

It would indeed but then again what we are discussing seems to be Yoda's saber skills in comparison to Anoon's. But the question should be how much of a gap there was really was from when Anoon was alive. From the two quotes of Yoda and Anoon that Advent posted, I interpret it as saying that Yoda was second to Anoon in sheer sabers.Then we would need to look at the engagements/battles that Yoda participated in after Anoon's death and to see how much his skills could have increased. And then compare that to what we see Anoon do in battle.

Originally posted by Gideon
According to the Revenge of the Sith novelization, Darth Sidious and Mace Windu achieved this state of absolute parity once Windu had submerged himself in Vaapad; while it is unlikely that Master Yoda and Anoon Bondara were precise equals with a lightsaber, one cannot rule the possibility out. Especially when one's argument seems to be based on, in one's own words, an "implication".

Twisting words in a book to help entertain the idea that two beings can be complete equals in skill, Escape? Sad. Really sad coming from you. What does the ROTS novelisation really say, you ask?

"Vaapad made him an open channel, half of a superconducting loop completed by the shadow; they became a standing wave of battle that expanded into every cubic centimeter of the Chancellor's office. There was no scrap of carpet nor shred of chair that might not at any second disintegrate in flares of red or purple; lampstands became brief shields, sliced into segments that whirled through the air; couches became terrain to be climbed for advantage or overleapt in retreat. But there was still only the cycle of power, the endless loop, no wound taken on either side, not even the possibility of fatigue.

Impasse.

Which might have gone on forever, if Vaapad were Mace's only gift."

Care to point out this supposed "absolute parity"? All it states is that it 'might have gone on forever' which doesn't exactly equate to "absolute parity". If it does, I'd like to know how.

All it means it that, at that time, neither had the necessary power to overcome the other (which does not mean that they were absolutely equal). If it says it in another section of the book, I'd like to see the quote.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Lucas' statement could mean that Yoda and Mace are good enough to handle Sidious with a saber, or it could mean they are good enough with the force. You can't make the claim that it was because they were better equipped with the force because the statement is as open to interpretation as the Vanity Fair statement..

You're just being downright silly at this point. And stupid. Because if its open to interpretation, you have no point either for ****'s sake.



Uh, Anoon doesn't necessarily have to be leagues above Yoda, he could simply be slightly better. There's no power charts that define exactly by what margin a character is better than the next. That aside though, he advanced at a rather large level considering Mace Windu went from being defeated by Count Dooku in lightsaber duels to overwhelming Darth Sidious.

Why would it be so out of the realm of possibilities to suggest he was once the inferior, but by ROTS, was the superior? Its not whatsoever especially with what Elite Hunter pointed out and the fact that the novel never says by what degree he is better.

You've caught me. I don't like to consider myself a debater anymore; I prefer "twister of words" -- it has a nice Metallica ring to it, don't you think? "Master of Puppets", "Twister of Words". I like it.



What's weird is that I get the "implication" of absolute parity. I mean, hell, the constant references to "no possibility of fatigue" or "no wound taken on either side" or "impasse".

Actually, if you take it as a cut and dry interpretation, there is nothing to support (not even an implication ) the idea that they were anything but absolute equals at this point.


Edit: Though, admittedly, I just twist words. No need to take me seriously.

Originally posted by Gideon
What's weird is that I get the "implication" of absolute parity. I mean, hell, the constant references to "no possibility of fatigue"

An exaggeration obviously. Neither party had access to unlimited stamina, and certainly they cannot last "forever" without tiring.



Ah, a fact anyone who watched the movie could deduce? At that point, no wound was taken on either side.



impasse, n.

A position or situation from which there is no escape; deadlock.

I didn't realize a stalemate equated to or suggests "absolute parity" in any way. Merely that neither possesses an advantage enough over the other to win.



Except, you mean, for the fact that nothing suggests their skills are at an absolute equal level? Could it be that Mace Windu can't overpower Sidious due to his speed? Could it be that Sidious can't overpower Mace due to his strength? The point I'm trying to demonstrate here is that the passage never implies they are completely on par, but that neither possesses an advantage enough over the other to win.

My point is that you critisize me for taking a stance on an ambiguous statement when you do the exact same thing.




It's not IMPOSSIBLE, but Yoda being one of the best for 800 years and 10 years later he's godly, is kind of illogical.

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
My point is that you critisize me for taking a stance on an ambiguous statement when you do the exact same thing.

The statement isn't exactly as ambiguous as you'd like to believe, Sexy. Especially considering that I've provided more than sufficient reasoning to support its truth. In the thread you're referring to, you have no reasoning to support its truth other than your contextual interpretation, which doesn't even seem more than likely the opposite - in this case, it does.



Excuse me? Anoon Bondara wasn't even fifty years old! Why would Yoda have to be placed as only "one of the best" for 800 years as opposed to second best for five to twenty-some years? Anyways, he logically must've advanced by a rather substantial degree because as I pointed out: Windu's skills grew enormously too (which only makes sense due to the need to train more for combat , more lightsaber battles, and constant warfare throughout the Clone Wars).

Windu was 50+ right? Bondara was 50+. Yoda comes from (as you put it,), not the best, to being the absolute best in 10 years, after 800 years. Or is it more likely that Yoda has been the best for quite a while. There's also a reason why he's the leader of the jedi council.

Furthermore, your 'statement' is not definitive in any sense, because it is very possible and even likely that two individuals are equal to each other. If you are stating that Bondara>Yoda, then you are stating Maul>Yoda in a sense..

From Cloak of Deception:

"A Twi'lek, with slender head-tails and a heavily muscled upper body, his name was Anoon Bondara, a duelist of unparalleled skill. Qui-Gon engaged him in matches at every opportunity. For a match with Bondara, no matter how brief, was more instructive than twenty contests against lesser opponents."

unparalleled, adj.

Not paralleled; unequaled or unmatched; peerless; unprecedented.

QED.

Unparalleled to whom Advent? The jedi council, the jedi order, the entire race of force users?

Has 'unparalleled' been applied to any other duelist? I could've sworn I heard it applied to Dooku at some point or another

I'm not going to bother directly responding to your question as we're just arguing in circles. At this point I'm merely going to explain why I'm correct again in full:

Originally posted by Advent
"The Twi'lek Jedi Master lived in the Force. Always still and complacent as a pool of unknown depth, he was nevertheless one of the best fighters in the order. His skill with a lightsaber was second to none." (Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter)

Originally posted by Advent
Saying that he's "second to none" implies that he is above all others. The same novel also refers to Yoda's skills as "second to none on the Jedi Council" shortly thereafter, so the author gives us an obvious outline: that Anoon's skills are second to none in the Jedi Order and Yoda's skills are second to none on the Jedi Council (the Jedi Order as a whole includes the Jedi Council obviously).

That not withstanding, your assumption would depend upon the extremely unlikely and asinine idea that they are SHEER EQUALS, that they are on the exact same level. Which is pretty stupid if you ask me.

Because,

Originally posted by Advent
From Cloak of Deception:

"A Twi'lek, with slender head-tails and a heavily muscled upper body, his name was Anoon Bondara, a duelist of unparalleled skill. Qui-Gon engaged him in matches at every opportunity. For a match with Bondara, no matter how brief, was more instructive than twenty contests against lesser opponents."

unparalleled, adj.

Not paralleled; unequaled or unmatched; peerless; unprecedented.

And considering

Originally posted by Advent
Anoon doesn't necessarily have to be leagues above Yoda, he could simply be slightly better. There's no power charts that define exactly by what margin a character is better than the next.

Originally posted by Advent
He logically must've advanced by a rather substantial degree because as I pointed out: Windu's skills grew enormously too (which only makes sense due to the need to train more for combat , more lightsaber battles, and constant warfare throughout the Clone Wars).

Therefore,

Originally posted by Advent
Anoon Bondara doesn't necessarily have to be on par with ROTS Yoda.

Now your stance relies on the extremely unlikely and inane notion that TPM Yoda's skills are absolutely equivalent to that of Anoon's, but that's not supported by any means of logical deduction, canon, or anything relatively meaningful aside from your belief that Yoda "must be the top dog". That is why I'm saying,

Originally posted by Advent
Your position doesn't make much sense.

What you're saying is Bondara who is less than 50, is superior to 800 year old Yoda as of TPM. Then, 10 years later, Yoda has some kind of steroid-progress spurt and becomes the undisputed #1 in the force and saber combat.

What bullshit!

I never said that Anoon was a more powerful Force user or when all is accounted for, the better combatant than Yoda. Quote me for truth if you believe otherwise. And none of my sources imply such either, in fact, Shadow Hunter outright says that he was only "one of the best fighters" (accounting for both prowess with a blade and strength in the Force), but his dueling skills were unmatched within the Jedi Order.

Yoda has always been the greater Force user and overall was always the greatest.

And yes, there's reasonable evidence to support the idea that Yoda, being slightly lesser in skill than Anoon as of TPM, progressed by a considerable degree from the time period of TPM to ROTS making him better than Bondara. One could point out the constant fighting done throughout the Clone Wars, the need to extensively train because of such (also due to the fact of a growing Sith threat which didn't reveal itself until TPM), Mace Windu growing a lot, &c. which I've already done countless times.

Why are you denying all my evidence? You have no reason to. The bottom line is:



Whereas everything I've said is supported - be it from canon itself (which directly contradicts you and overrides your opinion) or valid reasoning. And this entire argument was spawned merely because of your improper use of ambiguous statements as evidence, but the key difference here is: you had only your naked contextual interpretation, as opposed to my more than sufficient evidence that supports what I'm saying and the statement really isn't too open to interpretation (I'd say that it's not whatsoever, actually).

STFU.

Advent, I never said you were wrong. I just said it makes little sense to me how Bondara could be more powerful than Yoda with a blade, when you said yourself that Yoda improved significantly in 10-13 years. What about the other 800?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Advent, I never said you were wrong. I just said it makes little sense to me how Bondara could be more powerful than Yoda with a blade, when you said yourself that Yoda improved significantly in 10-13 years. What about the other 800?

You mean, the other eight hundred years where there was relative peace? There was absolutely no ongoing galactic conflicts or major threats from Yoda's birth to TPM, outside of the Stark Hyperspace War which lasted less than a year.

What happened in-between TPM and ROTS? War, the Sith revealed their presence, and the Jedi were becoming much more martial due to both. Why wouldn't he have advanced by a significant margin? He gained tons more experience and had the need to train much more extensively than before to combat all the combined problems the Republic and Jedi Order faced.

Either way, canon confirms that Anoon was better than TPM Yoda in dueling skill and all the reasoning and evidence points that way honestly. Additionally, I suppose I should apologize for my rudeness - I've just been pretty mean lately.

Hey when you're right you're right. It not making sense to me doesn't make it any less factual. Wouldn't the Dark Jedi Conflict also count as a major conflict?

Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Hey when you're right you're right. It not making sense to me doesn't make it any less factual. Wouldn't the Dark Jedi Conflict also count as a major conflict?

For the Jedi Order or Republic? No, I don't think so. Although a rather dubious source, Wookiepedia writes:

"Seen as too dangerous to be left alive, the Jedi Council sent a Jedi Knight and her Padawan to hunt down and kill their former compatriot. They gathered an armada formed of ships from the system's various settlements and companies, which they used to crush the pirate fleet. They succeeded in resolving the danger, but were forced to slay Jeen in the process."

It doesn't seem to have affected the Republic/Jedi much seeing that they didn't bother sending more than two Jedi and amassed a fleet using non-Republic ships, as the Cularin system wasn't a part of the Republic at the time. Do you know if the sources that this Dark Jedi Conflict appear in confirm or disprove Wookiepedia? If Wookiepedia is right, then my answer would be the same as above. If they are wrong (which wouldn't surprise me in the least bit), then please enlighten me as to exactly what happened.

I need to look into it because i have some sources detailing the bpfassi dark jedi.. I'll let you know.

Originally posted by Advent
City Hunter and Xepeyon above are WRONG. Both of your conclusions are based solely on the duel in Resurrection, which makes you incorrect on more than one level.


No it doesn't. Resurrection is the only canon reference we have concerning a battle between them. And canon supplies a whole lot more than opinions based of points of view.



Please, don't start with that. This "well what if they fought here" or "what if they fought there" type of theory is endless with possibilities for either side.



You're right. There's nothing to prove that this Maul wasn't as strong as the true one. Likewise, you in the same boat as you have no actual proof that this Maul is in fact weaker.



Vader forced on his knees proves that alone, however, also keep in mind that the heretics that tested Maul against Vader stated that "they more evenly matched that realized." The only difference they saw was their level of darkness.



Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that he relied even only on that chance, but that he took advantage of it. If one Jedi takes advantage of a hole in another Jedi's defense, he isn't relying on chance to defeat the, he's taking advantage of the opportunity.



First off, it's not nonsensical at all. In most cases, real life and in fiction, one opponent defeats another because one is superior to the other. This isn't necessarily in prowess and agility, as Maul was able put Vader down. Intelligence, vitality, the will to live philosophy and other feats may determine a winner.



Well, what if Maul tripped on a pebble and rolled into the lava? What if he twisted his wrist and his lightsaber fell on and through his neck and back? What ifs can't change what happened.



*sigh* I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying Vader won because he used his brain instead of his brawn, which is more than I can say for Maul. Dooku himself called him "an animal. A skilled animal, but a beast nonetheless." I don't deny that Maul had the power to kill Vader, but having power isn't always a guaranteed success. Look at the match between Vader and Kenobi (mustafar). Anakin was stronger, but Kenobi defeated him though a different mean than matching power with power, which is what you are basing your so called "facts" on.



I don't dispute that Maul was completely capable to kill Vader to the fullest extent. He showed that in Resurrection. But having the skills to do something isn't the same as carrying it out. Maul could have Force pushed Vader in the lava, but he didn't. Vader could have Force Crushed Maul, but he didn't. About Vader's hatred overcoming Maul... it's true. What works in one scenario may not work in another, but this scenario was one that worked.

I take it you don't realize what your original conclusion was, Xepeyon?

Originally posted by Xepeyon
Darth Vader wins...However marginally, Vader is superior to Maul.

You're contradicting yourself in your rebuttal due to the fact you're denying the basic premise behind your stance. You're generalizing that defeating your opponent in one situation equates to superiority, despite the fact that nothing suggests what happened in the comic would always happen in a duel.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is that you have no logical basis for claiming Vader is "superior".

Originally posted by Xepeyon
No it doesn't. Resurrection is the only canon reference we have concerning a battle between them. And canon supplies a whole lot more than opinions based of points of view.

But: a) as I initially said, whether or not the fact Resurrection Maul is more powerful, weaker, or equal to TPM Maul is inconclusive; none of the cases can be proven by either side. This means what happened in Resurrection is inadmissible to use as evidence in a battle with TPM Maul since it's unknown, and b) winning in one particular situation is not indicative of "superiority" in every other battle.



You don't seem to understand the fact that because the setting could be changed in this match-up, it means what happened in Resurrection doesn't exactly apply as what happened only applies to that specific location and condition.



Where have I said that I did exactly? I believe what I said was that it's inconclusive. Which basically nullifies the point; that since neither of us can prove either side, it means that we cannot apply what happened in Resurrection to this duel as we don't know.

And that would make use of the source as evidence invalid since we need to know. Luckily for me, my position is not based on anything in Resurrection, yours is.



The Sith acolytes who observed the duel have absolutely no authority whatsoever to accurately judge it and its combatants (nothing suggests they can gauge who's really better). You would first have to substantiate that they do; otherwise their opinions hold no value. And the on-panel evidence overrides anything they have to say anyways.



I suppose you've yet to realize that by stating "Vader is superior, because he took advantage of it" implies that he only proved himself superior in that showing only. It doesn't account for any other duel, because he would then had have to be relying on the chance he doesn't get outright slaughtered and Maul displays his arrogance the same way (by wasting time).



Oh Jesus Christ, taking advantage of an opportunity that arose in a specific duel doesn't mean that same opening would be available in another!

This is exactly what I've been saying all along; he relies on an opportunity that doesn't necessarily have to happen in any other case. Ergo, he isn't definitively superior then since it's merely a chance and not even a likely one at that.



Actually, it is. I honestly don't see how you can come to the conclusion that taking advantage of one situation means he's superior. Zett Jukassa is somehow better than a group of five Clone Troopers including Commander Cody simply because he thought to take them by surprise?

It's the same case, he had the chance to do what he did in that particular situation, but what's to say the same would happen if it occurred in a different location? Nothing. Which. Is. My. Point. Exactly. If it wouldn't always happen in another situation, how can Vader be "superior"?



See above. Saying "most cases" doesn't help support your side. In fact, it seems to indicate that it isn't always the case.



Something I never disagreed with.



Indeed, if you had understood the premise that my point operating under I don't believe I'd have to explain myself ad nauseum. All my points are relating to one thing: a singular situation where Vader won doesn't necessarily mean it would happen in any other battle. Which especially applies in this case as the only thing that granted him the victory in the comic was appealing to Maul's arrogance (and thus, the only thing you're basing your claim that "he's superior" on).

Why would that happen anywhere else, Xepeyon? Where Darth Maul - being the superior swordsman and possessing virtually all the physical attribute advantage - would likely just tool him in a lightsaber battle.



Apparently, you don't fully comprehend what your position entails, Xepeyon.



This is ridiculous. If being more skillful "isn't always a guaranteed success" then why should relying on the chance somebody doesn't kill you outright and then proceeds to get arrogant define superiority (since if being better isn't "a guaranteed success", then I fail to see how this would be)? Your reasoning for Vader's superiority makes absolutely no ****ing sense.



My argument is that while I agree power isn't always indicative of certain superiority, neither is the fact that Maul wasted time in that one particular situation. And its probability is dependent upon if and only if he gets cocky. Whereas with abilities, there's a much higher chance of the superior winning; I don't see how appealing to his arrogance lessens that chance by much or in Vader's case, increases it.



You mean, just like how displaying the ability to take advantage of one situation doesn't define superiority.



WTH? You're acknowledging my point, but then suggesting that I'm somehow wrong. The entire point is that "what works in one scenario may not work in another", this means that one particular situation doesn't define superiority in another duel. You stated Vader was superior because he took advantage of one situation, but failing to realize that if "what works in one scenario may not work in another" means just that - that one scenario does not display definitive superiority.

Originally posted by Advent
You're contradicting yourself in your rebuttal due to the fact you're denying the basic premise behind your stance. You're generalizing that defeating your opponent in one situation equates to superiority, despite the fact that nothing suggests what happened in the comic would always happen in a duel.

Ultimately, what this comes down to is that you have no logical basis for claiming Vader is "superior".

I must be drunk (either that, or the fact it's 3:45 AM) because this makes pretty much zero sense. What it should read:

"You're generalizing that defeating your opponent in one situation equates to "superiority", despite the fact that nothing suggests what happened in the comic would always happen in a duel.

Ultimately, what that leads to is that you cannot definitively prove Vader is "superior" based from that one showing; especially considering the means Vader won."

Exclude the first sentence and a few other things. I apologize for that and the double post, the edit time limit expired.