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

Mace Windu



vs.



Darth Revan



Sabers: Mace
Force: Revan
All Out: Mace

mace for all.

...unless revan's done something legit that i'm unaware of.

No way to tell. We have a rough idea of Revan's league, being the best of his era and all, but 'rough' isn't good enough especially when comparing such different eras.

Hm, well, I guess with the anti-darkside abilities of vapaad and Palpatine being the 'strongest ever' Sith, we could reasonably make the assumption that Mace'll have at least good odds against any Sith Lord.

Revan's done what? Beat some guy who's done... what?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Revan's done what? Beat some guy who's done... what?

Lead an army against the Mandalorians. Was viewed as superior by Darth Traya, who we saw use the force to kill three Jedi Masters at once. Was called the greatest warrior of the age by Canderous Ordo, leader of the Mandalorians.

Beat Malak, who in turn beat Bastila Shan, the Jedi's choice for a team leader to send after them, had numerous fights in the comic back in his early days, and by the end of the war (years after the comic, but pre-fall) was considered one of the best swordspeople in the order. Malak also showed a pretty impressive array of force powers including Sith Sorcery.

Beat Bandon, who had been attributed to killing many Jedi.

So the entire galaxy seemed to consider these two pretty hot stuff, including by people who we've in turn seen do impressive stuff like Traya.


I don't know why this question keeps coming up. Not knowing as much as main character in the movie isn't the same as "Nothing," we probably know more on their era than we do Bane's! So while 'one of the most powerful within it' is semi-vague we do definitely have a good idea of his range.

Originally posted by Q99
Lead an army against the Mandalorians. Was viewed as superior by Darth Traya, who we saw use the force to kill three Jedi Masters at once. Was called the greatest warrior of the age by Canderous Ordo, leader of the Mandalorians.

Beat Malak, who in turn beat Bastila Shan, the Jedi's choice for a team leader to send after them, had numerous fights in the comic back in his early days, and by the end of the war (years after the comic, but pre-fall) was considered one of the best swordspeople in the order. Malak also showed a pretty impressive array of force powers including Sith Sorcery.

Beat Bandon, who had been attributed to killing many Jedi.

So the entire galaxy seemed to consider these two pretty hot stuff, including by people who we've in turn seen do impressive stuff like Traya.


I don't know why this question keeps coming up. Not knowing as much as main character in the movie isn't the same as "Nothing," we probably know more on their era than we do Bane's! So while 'one of the most powerful within it' is semi-vague we do definitely have a good idea of his range. We have substantiated, definable, quantitative, statistics about Bane and movie characters.

That Rakatan in the mind prison lead an army. Some captain in a security force on some planet fought the Mandalorians. Those feats mean nothing in terms of personal power and combative ability.

As for Revan beating Malak, Bastila, Mandalore etc., let me ask you: where do THEY stand in ability. And don't give me some general "this person was really good, this master liked this Jedi, this Sith was really strong" trite little crap. Those are just sayings. Where's the stats? Where's the comparisons to characters who DO have them? Almost everyone in KotOR is defined by drawings, game mechanics, and hearsay. It's not enough.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
We have substantiated, definable, quantitative, statistics about Bane and movie characters.

That Rakatan in the mind prison lead an army. Some captain in a security force on some planet fought the Mandalorians. Those feats mean nothing in terms of personal power and combative ability.

As for Revan beating Malak, Bastila, Mandalore etc., let me ask you: where do THEY stand in ability. And don't give me some general "this person was really good, this master liked this Jedi, this Sith was really strong" trite little crap. Those are just sayings. Where's the stats? Where's the comparisons to characters who DO have them?

What stats does Bane have that's not "he beat this person who was really good, this master said X about him, etc.?"

That's a serious question. The only comparison we have of him is how he compared to other people of his time too, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'stats' which covers Bane but not Revan.



FMV/Scripted events did happen in plot and aren't game mechanics, we see other Jedi masters (some of whom show up in the games) in the comics, etc..

Originally posted by Q99
What stats does Bane have that's not "he beat this person who was really good, this master said X about him, etc.?"

That's a serious question. The only comparison we have of him is how he compared to other people of his time too, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'stats' which covers Bane but not Revan.

With Bane we have concrete informations about what, exactly, Kas'im has done. Same with Raskta and Kopecz. They are knowns. Bane is compared with known quantities.

With Revan we have feweer concrete informations about what, exactly, his contemporarieds did. We know he was better than Malak but we don't know what that means. Is Malak impressive? Why?

The best answer I can see from you is that Malak is impressive because he was better than the rest of the Sith at the time. (This is the total "you" and it includes Legend as well.) However, that simply doesn't mean anything. We don't know if those other Sith were all Johun Othone level of power.

The same criticism applies to using Kreia as a benchmark. Revan impressed Kreia. Yes. But what do we know about Kreia? The best we can say is taht she is more powerful than three unknown Jedi Masters, none of whom were noted as particularly powerful on the grand scheme of things. Being better than them doesnt make Kreia particularly impressive.

I could continue but I think we've established the point. You've made your claim ("Reavn is powerful" and supplied your evidence ("these people were less powerful than him" but you've left out the warrant-- the reason that the evidence is important. So what? These people are less powerful than him. If we dont have a way of evaluating these people (and I assure you we do not) then they arent very effective as evidence.


Sorry for the spelling, it is after four thirty and I did not use the bckspace key at all.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

The same criticism applies to using Kreia as a benchmark. Revan impressed Kreia. Yes. But what do we know about Kreia? The best we can say is taht she is more powerful than three unknown Jedi Masters, none of whom were noted as particularly powerful on the grand scheme of things. Being better than them doesnt make Kreia particularly impressive.

Force-killing three Jedi council members at once is a pretty impressive thing, even with just background members.

Note, said council members do have history and have done stuff and weren't just background masters- Vrook lead the charge against the Conclave that framed Zayne and got some combat in there for example.





But, how does those arguments not apply equally as much to Bane?

Sure, he fought Kas'im, how do we know everyone Kas'im fought wasn't chumps and all the other Sith and Jedi around didn't just suck even more? We know what they did, but only from people of the same era, without any stronger reason that we should see it matter than the KotoR. The only three Sith we really have any detail on and reason to consider strong are Kaan, Kas'im, and Bane, and the only reason we do so is because of how they compare to each other and beating up a bunch of no-name no-featers.

We don't have a way to evaluate any of these people other than how they compare to people of the same era, period, with very rare exception. People from KotoR do stuff just as much as people from Bane's era do stuff, after all.





And heck, for someone to indicate how powerful Revan was, how about Darth Bane? It was Revan's holocron that taught him the dark side knowledge to surpass all of his follow Sith and Bane practically idolized him for it.

Mace Windu wins.

Darth Revan wins.

Master Windu ftw

mace stomps. darth revan wasnt even good with lightsabers; he only used guns and grenades.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
mace stomps. darth revan wasnt even good with lightsabers; he only used guns and grenades.
Prove this...

prove what?

Originally posted by ares834
Darth Revan wins.

Um, no.

Mace Windu beat Sidious.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Um, no.

Mace Windu beat Sidious.
Revan is lvl 20. Mace is lvl 19. 20>19 ergo Revan>Mace.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
prove what?
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
darth revan wasnt even good with lightsabers; he only used guns and grenades.
I have it on good authority that Revan used hus Heart of the Force powers to turn Malak into a Twi'lek.

oh that!

well, i played as a scoundrel class and only used guns and grenades. i defeated malak with a heavy rifle and grenades. no lightsaber used

Sometimes I feel so alone. I'm the only competent Revan fanboy on the Internet.

Revan could be a lightsider, in which case Vapaads advantage is kinda null. In fact, canonically, he is, so probably gonna say Revan takes this. Some feats are pretty well established as canon, such as him defeating two Tarentateks, which is pretty dang awesome.

Darth Revan...

Yeah, but I'm assuming the OP is talking about Revan at the latest point we have seen him, and by that time he's a lightsider, thank you very much.

using the dark side doesnt make you not a lightsider. hell look at mace.

that aside, nothing points to revan being mace's equal in... well, anything. people act like shatterpoint and vapaad are the only things mace has going for him.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Sometimes I feel so alone. I'm the only competent Revan fanboy on the Internet.


This is true. But half the "Revan fanboys" are simply being sarcastic and ridicule the incompetent fanboys who actually game stats AKA SWLegend.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Revan could be a lightsider, in which case Vapaads advantage is kinda null. This misconception needs to go away.

Vaapad still has an advantage, because it enables Mace to tap his own inner darkness and employ it in battle - that is one of the main reasons he invented the form, after all.... Facing a darksider is just an added perk.

Originally posted by Galan007
This misconception needs to go away.

Vaapad still has an advantage, because it enables Mace to tap his own inner darkness and employ it in battle - that is one of the main reasons he invented the form, after all.... Facing a darksider is just an added perk.
You mean the same darkness which Sora Bulq, one of THE best Swordsmen the order has ever produced, even moreso than Mace had when he fell to the dark side and still got raped by Dooku (whose darkness should've been channeled as well)?

A+B=C!!!! ermm

Anyhow, Vaapad used Sora. Mace used Vaapad. Big difference.

Originally posted by ares834
Revan is lvl 20. Mace is lvl 19. 20>19 ergo Revan>Mace.



Vapaad: +20% vs darksiders and saving throw of 11 vs all dark side Force attacks.

Shatterpoint: +20% chance of critical

Plus, even though Mace is only level 19, his stats are still pretty much the same.

Seriously though, Mace Windu beat Sidious.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Yeah, but I'm assuming the OP is talking about Revan at the latest point we have seen him, and by that time he's a lightsider, thank you very much.

...

It said DARTH Revan

Mace did destroy a droid army. With his fists. A little bit more awesome than killing Tarentaks with mines.

I pay for those of you who claim Mace can win. May the Revanchrist have mercy on you soul.

pay what?

Originally posted by Galan007
A+B=C!!!! ermm

Anyhow, Vaapad used Sora. Mace used Vaapad. Big difference.
And where is the difference except for the philosophical bullcrap which doesn't affect the fighting abilities?

You've made the claim that Vapaad is the strongest form even when not fighting against darksiders because it also channels the practitioner's own darkness. If that trait was really that much of a decisive factor then Sora and Deepa would be THE best swordsmen because they already were AMONG the best prior to falling to the darkside.

So no, I'm affraid there is no ABC there.

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Revan could be a lightsider, in which case Vapaads advantage is kinda null...

bangin

Your gonna have 2 prove this.

Go ahead. I dare you.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Your gonna have 2 prove this.

Go ahead. I dare you.
What is there to prove? Are you telling me that falling to the dark side automatically disqualifies you from being a master swordsman?

I didn't tell you anything. Nice strawman attempt, though.

I'm prompting you to support your assertion. I'm sure you didn't forget that the burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I didn't tell you anything. Nice strawman attempt, though.

I'm prompting you to support your assertion. I'm sure you didn't forget that the burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion.
Eh, what?
Like I said before, if it actually affected your fighting then darksiders couldn't possibly be counted as master swordsmen. Furthermore when you look at the nature of Vapaad (using one's darkness) I don't see how Sora's alignment would change things.

Originally posted by DrunknClockwork
Eh, what?
Like I said before, if it actually affected your fighting then darksiders couldn't possibly be counted as master swordsmen. Furthermore when you look at the nature of Vapaad (using one's darkness) I don't see how Sora's alignment would change things.

Just to make sure, this is your justification for the statement that there is no difference between Mace Windu's mastery of Vaapad and that of Sora or Bulq? I would so hate for you to endorse a position that you did not fully support.

I will wait for confirmation that this is your stance before I reply.

Originally posted by DrunknClockwork
And where is the difference except for the philosophical bullcrap which doesn't affect the fighting abilities?

You've made the claim that Vapaad is the strongest form even when not fighting against darksiders because it also channels the practitioner's own darkness. If that trait was really that much of a decisive factor then Sora and Deepa would be THE best swordsmen because they already were AMONG the best prior to falling to the darkside.

So no, I'm affraid there is no ABC there. Doesn't affect fighting abilities? That's your opinion.

I didn't say Vaapad is "the strongest form". I said that it retains an advantage in battle, because it's proprietor doesn't need to be facing a darksider for it's inherent 'pros' to still be present.

Imo, it is ABC logic.

I've been crawling through my 700 page Logic textbook and I have yet to find anything called ABC logic. To this day, the term mystifies me.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Just to make sure, this is your justification for the statement that there is no difference between Mace Windu's mastery of Vaapad and that of Sora or Bulq?
Yes, moreover as far as I remember it is nowhere stated that Sora's change of alignment has actually made him weaker.

Originally posted by Galan007
I didn't say Vaapad is "the strongest form". I said that it retains an advantage in battle, because it's proprietor doesn't need to be facing a darksider for it's inherent 'pros' to still be present
So first you're saying that Vapaad has the advantage over any other form (since we don't know the one Revan used) but then you go on to say that it's not the strongest?

^ I merely said that whether the opponent is a darksider or not, Vaapad "still has an advantage". You're the one who chose to interpret those four words like that.

However, it is reasonable to assume that Vaapad is the strongest form, because of the perks it offers (ie. taping it's user's, and an opponent's inner darkness.) But does brute power make it the best overall form? Well.... That's what this thread is meant to discuss.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I've been crawling through my 700 page Logic textbook and I have yet to find anything called ABC logic. To this day, the term mystifies me.
The term refers to basic syllogisms, in which
A is related is B
-and-
B is related to C
The comparison is then extended to assert that A is related in some way to C.

The problem arises when you take very broad assertions as the premises. For instance, Anakin is less than Obi Wan and Obi Wan is less than Count Dooku. Thus, Anakin is less than Dooku.

Basically, it is frowned upon here because of the temptation for gross oversimplification; all too often the general combat capability of a character is used rather than a specific quantity that can be compared objectively. (The comparison is almost always in the form of a judgment about someone being "greater than" or "less than" someone else.)


So it is your contention that, in a universe where one's emotional state drastically affect one's ability to access the all-pervasive energy field that is so often the deciding factor in these fights, approaching it in an entirely new (and formerly forbidden) way would have absolutely no impact on one's combat capabilities? That a form singled out for its reliance on one's state of mind to achieve its results, let alone the various metaphysical aspects that we all would love to tell another newcomer about, would be equally effective when implemented under a different paradigm? Does it make even the slightest bit of difference to you that the form in question was developed specifically to take advantage of one man's philosophical outlook?

Are you even thinking about the words you post at all?

ABC logic comes from Mathematics. Interestingly enough, it IS true in mathematics, but our point is, it isn't true here.

4 < X

X < Y

4 < Y

Is valid. The same cannot be said if X and Y are replaced with characters that might respond to a situation differently, or have skills that interact with each others' skills differently. (Picture a sniper versus a swordsman and then the swordsman against a berserker. Very different outcomes, regardless of initial fights.)

exactly. If X and Y are variables, you lose your connections between them. X and Y must be constants to make it true.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
4 < X

X < Y

4 < Y

Is valid. The same cannot be said if X and Y are replaced with characters that might respond to a situation differently, or have skills that interact with each others' skills differently. (Picture a sniper versus a swordsman and then the swordsman against a berserker. Very different outcomes, regardless of initial fights.)

But sometimes is does end up working.

Exar Kun < Sidious

Sidious < Mace due to Vapaad

Exar Kun < Mace also due to Vapaad (and Mace is probably more powerful anyway).

I don't know. I don't see Windu fairing well against Kuns amulet blasts.

Hewhoknowsall: I disagree with the result of your fight, AND, in the cases where it does work, it is simply coincidence. It has nothing to do with logic.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
So it is your contention that, in a universe where one's emotional state drastically affect one's ability to access the all-pervasive energy field that is so often the deciding factor in these fights, approaching it in an entirely new (and formerly forbidden) way would have absolutely no impact on one's combat capabilities?
Stop generalizing. I would NEVER argue against the overall relevance of the state of mind of a fighter during battle. However, you have to look at each case individually. You have obvious cases like Anakin where it had a visible influence on his fighting and actually made him weaker, and you have cases like Sora where not a single source is stating that he actually became weaker after his fall to the darkside (in fact he even stalemated Mace).


"Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force" entry on Vaapad:
http://img13.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=jedivssith0134.jpg

As you can see there is no mention of anything OTHER than one's darkness (giving in and enjoying the battle, yada yada) being a factor in Vaapad, so I would be grateful if you could provide evidence that says otherwise.


Mace developed Vaapad in order to channel his inner darkness, but apart from that? "To take advantage of" what "philosophical outlook" exactly?
So again, please prove that there actually are other factors relevant for Vaapad than one's darkness.

By "philosophical outlook" I assume RN meant one's personal view, and/or acceptance of the force - ie. good/bad, light/dark, yin/yang, etc.

In Vaapad's case it's user is free to channel the "philosophical outlook" of darkness. Make sense?

'The Jedi must also accept and embrace the fury of his opponent. This transforms a Jedi into half of a superconducting loop, the other half being the power of darkness, which passes in and out of the Jedi without touching him'

Galan007, thank you for the spot on interpretation. I would, however, appreciate it, DC, if you would be sure to respond to this post, rather than those that preceded it. Make sure that it is my ideas that you take issue with.
Originally posted by DrunknClockwork
Stop generalizing.
Oh goodness. Irony is never more fun than when it is unintentional.

Originally posted by DrunknClockwork
I would NEVER argue against the overall relevance of the state of mind of a fighter during battle. However, you have to look at each case individually. You have obvious cases like Anakin where it had a visible influence on his fighting and actually made him weaker, and you have cases like Sora where not a single source is stating that he actually became weaker after his fall to the darkside (in fact he even stalemated Mace).
This was a fun strawman. It is completely off topic and not even close to what I said, but it was fun. If you'll notice, the topic at hand is how a combatant's view of and approach to the Force impacts the usage of Vaapad--not the question of immediate emotions' effect on competence.

Originally posted by DrunknClockwork

"Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force" entry on Vaapad:
http://img13.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=jedivssith0134.jpg

As you can see there is no mention of anything OTHER than one's darkness (giving in and enjoying the battle, yada yada) being a factor in Vaapad, so I would be grateful if you could provide evidence that says otherwise.

Mace developed Vaapad in order to channel his inner darkness, but apart from that? "To take advantage of" what "philosophical outlook" exactly?
So again, please prove that there actually are other factors relevant for Vaapad than one's darkness.

For simplicity's sake, I have typed out the relevant passage:


This clearly shows that one's relationship to the Force is of utmost importance in the operation of the style.

Other examples of how Vaapad is "more than a fighting style" can be found in the novelization of Ep. III during which Mace had to "sink into Vaapad" to fight Sidious, or at nearly any point during Shatterpoint (which, admittedly, repeats many of the phrases included in this source).

Since we have established that Vaapad incorporates components more complex than simple sequences of bladework, it quickly becomes obvious that one's understanding and use of those components directly influences the output of the form. How, exactly?

In your own source, Mace notes that the Jedi "does not let the fury touch him," and that the form is also a "state of mind." A Jedi's approach to the Force is one of acceptance and trust (as was Kenobi's during the fight with Dooku in the opening of the Ep. III novelization) whereas a Sith uses an aggressive, domineering approach (ibid). This is the difference between "dark side" and "light side." When a Vaapad practitioner falls to the dark side, they experience a radical shift in the way they approach the Force. This is what I mean by "philosophical outlook." The Jedi is no longer using the same technique, in regards to the Force, as Vaapad's creator. For a form with such prominent metaphysical ramifications--including both a source of internal power ("channeling inner darkness into a weapon of the light" and a reaction to aggression ("accepting and embracing the fury of his opponent"--it would be more unlikely that there be no effect. Mace himself notes that "Vaapad has mastered Sora Bulq." It would be foolish in the extreme to so lightly discount the opinion of the creator of the technique, especially one shown to be so proficient in all aspects of combat.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
This was a fun strawman. It is completely off topic and not even close to what I said, but it was fun. If you'll notice, the topic at hand is how a combatant's view of and approach to the Force impacts the usage of Vaapad--not the question of immediate emotions' effect on competence.
It's either my reading comprehension in the english language (which is not my native language, so please bear with me) or you're just rejecting my argument for no apparent reason.



I haven't read Shatterpoint, but I still don't see how being a lightsider is a strict requirement in order to "sink into Vaapad".


Fair enough.


There is nothing wrong with the quote "Vaapad has mastered Sora Bulq" itself because, to me, it means that Sora succumbed to the dark side due to his extensive use of Vaapad. Hence: It mastered him. However, I don't see how this quote could have any bearing on his fighting skills (this is the "philosophical bullcrap" I was talking about). It's comparable to Dooku, who was called the greatest failure by Yoda. Now, it would be foolish to directly apply this quote to Dooku's combat abilities and since Sora managed to stalemate Mace after his fall to the darkside, it leads me to believe that Sora's overall combat strength didn't suffer (as you concluded there might have been some changes in his fighting, but I'm talking about the overall efficiency which was my entire point in the first place) and, in my opinion, it's certainly not enough to deprive him of his Vaapad-mastery.

Originally posted by DrunknClockwork
It's either my reading comprehension in the english language (which is not my native language, so please bear with me) or you're just rejecting my argument for no apparent reason.

See guys, this is why we aren't jerks to people about grammar until they tell us that English is their native language. DC, I'd like to take the chance and tell you that, if this is true and you are a non-native speaker, you rock. I would love to be bilingual.

I am not just rejecting your argument for no reason, I was pointing out (in kind of a mean way) that it wasn't entirely on topic. I don't really care about bloodlust (which is the term we have for Anakin on a rampage) or other temporary factors. There is a fundamental difference between how dark side users and light side users use the Force, which directly impacts Vaapad's usage.


Well, I'm not sure that it has been explicitly noted as such, but it is certainly implied. In every source I've seen, Mace notes that Vaapad "is more than a fighting style," indicating that there is more to the technique than knowing the right sequence of footwork and remembering how to swing your sword.

That added complexity is in the realm of the Force, which applies to this:



Sora's fighting style includes an aspect (Vaapad) that is contingent on his ability to use the Force. That is, Vaapad includes metaphysical aspects that have a real effect on the physical results of the form. Every single source we've yet examined indicates this. From your databank entry to the fight with Sidious, there is a notable, real effect that comes out of the user's frame of mind.

I do not think that this can be dismissed as "philosophical bullcrap." It has a non-trivial effect on the outcome of the fight. When that frame of reference changes, then so too does the inner kernel of power that drives the form. It no longer "creates a superconducting loop for the darkness" that "takes in the fury but does not let it touch the Jedi" because the user no longer remains detached from the fury. I believe that because Vaapad is so reliant on the "philosophical bullcrap" aspect, any change in that "bullcrap" translates directly to a change in the combat ability of the combatant.

^ Dumb ho.

Originally posted by truejedi
Hewhoknowsall: I disagree with the result of your fight, AND, in the cases where it does work, it is simply coincidence. It has nothing to do with logic.

Let's say X > Y because of reason Z
And Y > W simply because Y is superior
And, if reason Z still would apply in a fight between X and W (in this case it does since Exar Kun is a darksider), it would make sense to believe that X > W as well.
This isn't factoring in the amulets though.

Originally posted by Eminence
^ Dumb ho.
hate you

http://i40.tinypic.com/imt79f.jpg

HWKA: no, because your letters represent variables, not constants.

Originally posted by truejedi
HWKA: no, because your letters represent variables, not constants.

So? Although variables change from equation to equation, they don't change within an equation.

My point is that Mace > Sidious because of Vapaad/shatterpoint/superconducting loop, all of which will also apply to a fight vs Exar Kun.

H, that is why it is OK for this time. You are giving reasons. Usually it is just that Anakin beat Dooku and dooku is teh powerz so anakin will beat EVRY1.

By not being stupid about it you are making it hard for TJ to disagree.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
H, that is why it is OK for this time. You are giving reasons. Usually it is just that Anakin beat Dooku and dooku is teh powerz so anakin will beat EVRY1.

By not being stupid about it you are making it hard for TJ to disagree.

...that's what I'm saying. SOMETIMES A>B>C logic works.

Only this isn't ABC. ABC is as has been explained. This is really just "making a cogent argument" by using "facts" and, later, "sources."

You don't have to call it ABC-- you can just call it "slowly accruing competence."

Right. I don't disagree that sometimes it is TRUE.

But saying that Mace Beat Sidious, and Sidious beat/ tied Yoda is proof positive that Mace will beat/tie Yoda is always false. That is how we use the term ABC logic here generally.