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

Takes place on Utapau, where Obi-Wan fought General Greviuos.

Who do you think would win? Obi-Wan was the master of the most defensive forrm, soresu, after all.

Oh God, Sidious would.

Oh, i forgot to mention, its all three:
1) Sabers
2) Force
3) All out

Oh God, Sidious would win all three.

Even sabers? Obi-Wan has some impressive saber duel feats. For instance, he beat ROTS Anakin, General Grevious, Asajj Ventress and held his own aginst Dooku.

Oh yeah, and Darth Maul

Yes, and Sidious would sweep the floor with ALL of them.

By the by, on the Invisible Hand, Kenobi didn't present much of a challenge to Dooku. Dooku, who so easily disarmed Grievous--in his prime.

Point taken, but surely Obi-Wan presents at the very least a challenge to Sidious in sabers. Btw on the Invisible Hand Dooku took Obi-Wan out with the force, lets for the minute just stick to sabers and so i will subtract Dooku from this particular point.

Dooku's not an idiot. Even with Kenobi and Skywalker duping him, he still survived their attack. Even when he realized Kenobi's mastery of Soresu and Skywalker's Djem So (which he admitted during that fight generated too much kinetic energy for his Makashi to meet head-to-head), even then he survived long enough to kick Skywalker and knock Kenobi unconscious.

In this scenario, without the deception, without the two-pronged attack, and without Anakin's brute strength and aggressive Djem So to exhaust him, then Dooku's got a very clear advantage.

And Sidious, quite frankly, is a tad above Dooku.

I agree with the Canadian. Sidious wins it, unless he suddenly gets a stroke.

Or heart attack

his is almost (or is) a Sidious spite thread......

There is a reason Kenobi said he would go after Sidious and Yoda said "Ready for this fight, you are not"

Originally posted by Pwned
his is almost (or is) a Sidious spite thread......

This is not a spite thread, i just thought that seeing as Kenobi is always touted as being the best defensive swordsmen in the jedi order that he might present a challenge to Sidious.

No i wasnt meaning that you did it intentionally, but there is almost no way in hell Sidious could lose

Obi-Wan could very easily pose a challenge to Palpatine in a strict fencing match. But Palpatine might just blitz him. Dunno.

Thats what i was referring to, Palpatine killed those Masters in seconds with that crazy blitz, so I dont think Kenobi could win


Also, see the Yoda quote i put up earlier, I think that says who wins

Originally posted by Pwned
There is a reason Kenobi said he would go after Sidious and Yoda said "Ready for this fight, you are not" Actually, Yoda's exact words to Obi-Wan were: "To fight this Lord Sidious, strong enough you are not."

That statement doesn't imply inferior skill with a lightsaber, it implies inferior power with the force.

Th1S 1S aN0Th3R 3XaMpL3 0f H0W
k3N081 HaS 833N 0V3RhYp3D

H3 D03Sn`T sTaNd A cHaNc3

Originally posted by Galan007
Actually, Yoda's exact words to Obi-Wan were: "To fight this Lord Sidious, strong enough you are not."

That statement doesn't imply inferior skill with a lightsaber, it implies inferior power with the force. Ok thnx for clarifying it its been forever since I saw the movie

Anyways if there is even the basic speed and strength increase from the Force here, Sidious still wins

I think he could do better than Grevious in breaking Kenobis defense

If only saber, Kenobi does have a chance, just not much of one, imho

Yeah I think Kenobi would do okay in a pure lightsaber duel, but it's hard to imagine him coping with Palpatine's speed for very long before being overwhelmed.

In force Kenobi is obviously stomped

Same in all out

Yes and yes.

OK, so we are all agreed that Sidious wins in all three but Kenobi gives him a slight challenge in sabers before being overwhelmed. That is cool, tbh i probably should not have stuck force and all out in, shoulda just left it at sabers.

Is everyone forgetting the direct quote from yoda regarding this match up.....?

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson014
Is everyone forgetting the direct quote from yoda regarding this match up.....? Originally posted by Galan007
Actually, Yoda's exact words to Obi-Wan were: "To fight this Lord Sidious, strong enough you are not."

That statement doesn't imply inferior skill with a lightsaber, it implies inferior power with the force. Hence the generalized opinion that Sidious would stomp in any scenario where he is permitted to use the force -- but in a pure saber battle, Kenobi could potentially pose a problem.

No. Sidious is too fast for Kenobi. He gets blitzed just like the B-team.

It's very possible that Sidious would be able to overwhelm Obi-Wan with his speed. But imo, he certainly wouldn't be able to do so as easily as he did with Kit/Agen/Saesee.

Do we actually know how good Kit, Agen and Saesee were, or are going on the fact that because Mace said they are the best then they are the best. Who have they beaten? Anybody of reputation?

Also, if we're going on Mace logic then Obi-Wan is the best swordsmen in the entire Order as he was the only Jedi that Mace said could beat Grevious, including Mace himself.

True, but they are claims, any actual evidence?

Darth Malak had sources claiming he was one of the best swordsmen, jedi or sith, of his era but it has been acknowledged by most that his saber skills are still unknown.

He probably was the best, it's just not verified.

I'm not saying that he wasn't, as you say he might well have been. All i am asking is if there are any saber feats for Agen and Saesee.

no feats, but the quote is omniscienty(not perfectly omniscient, but along those lines) that refers to them.

Originally posted by Master_Galen
True, but they are claims, any actual evidence?

Darth Malak had sources claiming he was one of the best swordsmen, jedi or sith, of his era but it has been acknowledged by most that his saber skills are still unknown.

Fisto beating Grievous is NOT a claim, it's canon.

My posts after that only asked for Agen and Saesee proof, sorry if it was not made clear.

So Sids can strike faster than Grievous can per second?

Actually, that may not be so. Hang on, I need to check the perspective of the ROTS novel.

'The electrodrivers that powered Grievous's limbs could move them faster than the human eye can see; when he swung his arm, it and his fist and the lightsaber within it would literally vanish: wiped from existence by sheer mind-numbing speed, an imitation quantum event. No human being could move remotely as fast as Grievous, not even Obi-Wan-but he didn't have to.'

Discuss.

If it helps, this is the indication of perspective-

'This is Obi-Wan Kenobi in the light:'

So the question is: 'Omniscient narrator or Kenobi's perspective?'

I say narrator. That whole book seemed to be one huge narrative, regardless of characters.

definitly narrative there.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Actually, that may not be so. Hang on, I need to check the perspective of the ROTS novel.

'The electrodrivers that powered Grievous's limbs could move them faster than the human eye can see; when he swung his arm, it and his fist and the lightsaber within it would literally vanish: wiped from existence by sheer mind-numbing speed, an imitation quantum event. No human being could move remotely as fast as Grievous, not even Obi-Wan-but he didn't have to.'

Discuss.

If it helps, this is the indication of perspective-

'This is Obi-Wan Kenobi in the light:'

So the question is: 'Omniscient narrator or Kenobi's perspective?'

Does it matter? I highly doubt that Obi Wan would, in this case make a mistake as to roughly how fast Grevious moves if he's seeing it with his own eyes.

If its Kenobi, then he's fallible and can be wrong (and would be, since Sidious is logically faster than Grievous and Kenobi's never seen his speed so he can stfu), but if its the Omniscient narrator then Grievous is legit faster than Sidious will ever be, and by the sound of it, by a hell of alot.

The last time you and I discussed the general's speed against Kenobi's, I told you that I think the statement could refer to one's natural speed, not Force-powered.

I doubt it. The 'no human being' part seems pretty damn conclusive to me. If it didn't include Force speed then it would have added an 'unaided' or somesuch in there.

I disagree, for that very reason. Consider: the statement says "human being" rather than "organic beings." Are we to conclude that General Grievous's speed > every Force-wielding human, regardless of power, but that there are alien species whose natural speed surpass Force-wielding humans, such as Obi-Wan?

I doubt it.

Just because the sentence doesn't include other species' doesn't mean that he isn't faster than other species'. There is nothing there that even hints that the narrator means what you think it could, at all. Now i'm going to tell you the same thing I told my PE couch, No means No. As in, absolutely not one, period. It's canon. I'm putting my foot down.

http://fugato.net/wp-content/facecrush.jpg

I didn't want to have to do that.

I'm still waiting to hear ANY narration that is equal to the narration about how fast The General can strike per second.

It'd be a little silly to take that passage as gospel about Sidious' speed, considering he's nowhere to be mentioned. The author (like the mythos' creator) is subject to mistake and shortsightedness.

Though I'd be fine with a super-cyborg being physically faster than Sidious; Sidious arms may not be able to do what Grievous' can, but his Force-aided sight and precog. trump that any time.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Actually, that may not be so. Hang on, I need to check the perspective of the ROTS novel.

'The electrodrivers that powered Grievous's limbs could move them faster than the human eye can see; when he swung his arm, it and his fist and the lightsaber within it would literally vanish: wiped from existence by sheer mind-numbing speed, an imitation quantum event. No human being could move remotely as fast as Grievous, not even Obi-Wan-but he didn't have to.'

Discuss.

If it helps, this is the indication of perspective-

'This is Obi-Wan Kenobi in the light:'

So the question is: 'Omniscient narrator or Kenobi's perspective?'

I dunno Nep. The human eye can perceive something like 24 frames per second, and I can definitely perceive 3-5 strikes per second from each arm, so to say "faster than the human can see" is an exaggeration. Therefore, no matter who's perspective this is from, it is fallible.

But you're using the viewframe of a camera. It is likely that the recording device is taking shots at more than 25 fps given the advances in the film industry.

Originally posted by Master_Galen
Even sabers? Obi-Wan has some impressive saber duel feats. For instance, he beat ROTS Anakin, General Grevious, Asajj Ventress and held his own aginst Dooku.

Oh yeah, and Darth Maul Damn noobs.

Or Grevious wasn't going as fast as he could, seeing as he was directly stated that he was getting faster. Or Human eyes are different in the SWverse.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Or Grevious wasn't going as fast as he could, seeing as he was directly stated that he was getting faster. Or Human eyes are different in the SWverse.

I was actually looking for that narration last night in the novel. Where is it exactly? Thanks!

In the novel? Its just after Palpatine admits to being a Sith to Anakin and Anakin spazes and runs off.

Or y'know, i could just post it:

'The electrodrivers powering Grievous's mechanical arms let each of the four attack thrice in a single second; integrated by combat algorithms in the bio-droid's electronic network of peripheral processors, each of the twelve strikes per second came from a different angle with different speed and intensity, an unpredictably broken rhythm of slashes, chops, and stabs of which every single one could take Obi-Wan's life. Not one touched him.

After all, he had often walked unscathed through hornet-swarms of blasterfire, defended only by the Force's direction of his blade; countering twelve blows per second was only difficult, not impossible. His blade wove an intricate web of angles and curves, never truly fast but always just fast enough, each motion of his lightsaber subtly interfering with three or four or eight of the general's strikes, the rest sizzling past him, his precise, minimal shifts of weight and stance slipping them by centimeters.

Grievous, snarling fury, ramped up the intensity and velocity of his attacks-sixteen per second, eighteen-until finally, at twenty strikes per second, he overloaded Obi-Wan's defense. So Obi-Wan used his defense to attack. A subtle shift in the angle of a single parry brought Obi-Wan's blade in contact not with the blade of the oncoming lightsaber, but with the handgrip. -slice-

The blade winked out of existence a hairbreadth before it would have burned through Obi-Wan's forehead. Half the severed lightsaber skittered away, along with the duranium thumb and first finger of the hand that had held it.

Grievous paused, eyes pulsing wide, then drawing narrow. He lifted his maimed hand and stared at the white-hot stumps that held now only half a useless lightsaber.'

Though personally I think the whole scenes non-canon anyway.

I meant this:

'The electrodrivers that powered Grievous's limbs could move them faster than the human eye can see; when he swung his arm, it and his fist and the lightsaber within it would literally vanish: wiped from existence by sheer mind-numbing speed, an imitation quantum event. No human being could move remotely as fast as Grievous, not even Obi-Wan-but he didn't have to.'

When Greivous captures them on the Hand, after rescuing Palpatine. You should know the scene.

Originally posted by Nephthys
When Greivous captures them on the Hand, after rescuing Palpatine. You should know the scene.

I know the scene, but could not recall the point where said narration was located last night.

Do you have it now?

So there is zero evidence that sids can attack as fast as the General right?

Gonna point out the obvious, because I'm sick of you continuing to say this baseless thing.

Grievous had "20 strikes" a second. A "frame" as you keep pointing out, is a STILL IMAGE. Grievous physically struck 20 times. That means blows. That means all the way up and all the way down. That does not mean 20 still images.

Obviously if a cartoonist was going to draw the thing, a "strike" would take more than one "frame" to show.

Canon wins, you lose.

Originally posted by truejedi
Gonna point out the obvious, because I'm sick of you continuing to say this baseless thing.

Grievous had "20 strikes" a second. A "frame" as you keep pointing out, is a STILL IMAGE. Grievous physically struck 20 times. That means blows. That means all the way up and all the way down. That does not mean 20 still images.

Obviously if a cartoonist was going to draw the thing, a "strike" would take more than one "frame" to show.

Canon wins, you lose.

TJ, who are you talking to? Me? If so, I don't think you understand the concept here. In short, the point is that 20 strikes per second is NOT faster than the human eye can perceive. Do your own research and find out for yourself. If you weren't addressing me, then my bad, but the point remains.

And yes Nep, I have it now. Thanks!

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
TJ, who are you talking to? Me? If so, the point is that 20 strikes per second is NOT faster than the human eye can perceive. Do your own research and find out for yourself. If you weren't addressing me, then my bad, but the point remains.

It IS faster than the eye can see. You yourself just said the human eye can follow 23 frames a second. A frame is a still image. Grievous was capable of 20 strikes per second. a strike (if illustrated) would be made up of more than a single frame. (a frame merely covers a single instant of the strike)

Try reading my post next time before telling me i'm wrong. It makes you look better.

And handsomer.

Originally posted by truejedi
It IS faster than the eye can see. You yourself just said the human eye can follow 23 frames a second. A frame is a still image. Grievous was capable of 20 strikes per second. a strike (if illustrated) would be made up of more than a single frame. (a frame merely covers a single instant of the strike)

Try reading my post next time before telling me i'm wrong. It makes you look better.

You're absolutely missing the point TJ as well as the concept here. Look, to make it simple, do this; Do you have a counter on your dvd player? If so the watch the fight between GG and OB1. Count the sum of GG's swings/rotations per second. Does it match up w/ the novel? Surprisingly, yes it does. Now watch the dvd @ full speed and tell me you can't see or perceive his strikes/swings/rotations/whatever. And the 24 fps (18 fps in some situations) applies to fluidity. We can perceive the motion of 100 fps, but not each individual frame. This confuses a lot of people.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Zampano, what I'm saying is that the novelization states 20 strikes per second. According to Nep, the narration dictates that GG attacks faster "than the human eye can see." It's a fact that most humans can perceive up to 23 frames per second. 23>20. Therefore, the narration that Nep refers to is fallible.

This is your statement that is incorrect. The important parts are bolded.

Strikes are not equal to frames, therefore you are incorrect.

Your hate has made you powerful....

our eye cannot follow the motion of the blade actually. our mind fills in the places where the blade SHOULD be based on its rotation. You cannot individually keep track of 20 strikes per second, and that is what the novel is referring to..

Originally posted by truejedi
This is your statement that is incorrect. The important parts are bolded.

Strikes are not equal to frames, therefore you are incorrect.

I thought that using this analogy might help, but it seems like it's making matters more confusing (hence, why I'm not a teacher). The point remains that General Grievous does not move faster than the eye can perceive, therefore the narration is wrong. Unless of course, visual acuity is different in the SW universe.

Originally posted by truejedi
our eye cannot follow the motion of the blade actually. our mind fills in the places where the blade SHOULD be based on its rotation. You cannot individually keep track of 20 strikes per second, and that is what the novel is referring to..

Imagine you look at a shining white wall. Now this wall turns totally black for 1/25th of a second. Would you notice it? You surely would. 1/50th of a second, well maybe harder, but you would notice it. 1/100th of a second? Very difficult. Think of your 100Hz TV sets. They are called flickerfree, because at flicker rates of 100 times per second you stop to notice the blackness of the TV screen, though the TV screen isn't shining all the time, but pulsating 100 times per second. You lose!!

Thanks for playing!

Actually your entire point is invalid because the 20 strikes per second thing is non-canon. Never happened.It directly contradicts the movie.

Thanks for playing though. excellent

THat has absolutely NOTHING to do with what we are talking about here, unfortunately for you. Grievous is using 20 strikes per second. You continue to talk about still images. His entire motion falls into that 1/20th of a second.

Besides, your entire point is mooted, since we have no idea how fast grievous is capable of. He reached 20 strikes per second before Obi-wan's defenses were overloaded, it is not stated that his speed had stopped increasing, in fact, the trend was that his speed was continuing to increase.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Actually your entire point is invalid because the 20 strikes per second thing is non-canon. Never happened.It directly contradicts the movie.

Thanks for playing though. excellent

Nep: Then you shouldn't have posted non-canon bulls**t. I wasn't arguing it's status as canon, I was making the point that the narration is fallible, which it is.

TJ: You're making yourself look bad. Did you do as I commanded you? I doubt it. That is why you fail.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Nep: Then you shouldn't have posted non-canon bulls**t. I wasn't arguing it's status as canon, I was making the point that the narration is fallible, which it is.

TJ: You're making yourself look bad. Did you do as I commanded you? I doubt it. That is why you fail.

address the post, or concede the argument, those are your options.

I have addressed it TJ, several times. Do as I commanded you or drop it.

Don't do it TJ, it's a trap!

Originally posted by truejedi


Besides, your entire point is mooted, since we have no idea how fast grievous is capable of. He reached 20 strikes per second before Obi-wan's defenses were overloaded, it is not stated that his speed had stopped increasing, in fact, the trend was that his speed was continuing to increase.

I was doing you a favor Turdf*cker. And I said I didn't think it was canon as I posted it. AND the narration is only fallible when it directly contradicts the movie, which the quote about Grevious being Super-Sonic-speed doesn't.

So you still lose, sucker.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I was doing you a favor Turdf*cker. And I said I didn't think it was canon as I posted it. AND the narration is only fallible when it directly contradicts the movie, which the quote about Grevious being Super-Sonic-speed doesn't.

So you still lose, sucker.

I have never ****ed a turd (Gideons mother)shifty. And whoever told you otherwise is lying.

Originally posted by truejedi
Besides, your entire point is mooted, since we have no idea how fast grievous is capable of. He reached 20 strikes per second before Obi-wan's defenses were overloaded, it is not stated that his speed had stopped increasing, in fact, the trend was that his speed was continuing to increase.

Fair enough then. For the record, I'm NOT conceding anything. This is traveling too far along the lines of conjecture. Any further debating is akin to foolishness.

My point is... in a sabers only affair people are saying Sids would overwhelm Obi with his speed. Sorry but his fight with the General tells me otherwise. Sids might win a sabers fight, but I see no evidence that it would be because of Obi not being able ot keep up with Sids speed.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
My point is... in a sabers only affair people are saying Sids would overwhelm Obi with his speed. Sorry but his fight with the General tells me otherwise. Sids might win a sabers fight, but I see no evidence that it would be because of Obi not being able ot keep up with Sids speed.

It would seem that Sids moves at least as fast as GG. However, I'm lacking any hard evidence right now, so it's just an opinion, and a loose one at that. However, while GG is able to strike at least 20 timer per second, Sids speed is more than saber movement. We're talking footwork, dashing, leaping, flanking, etc... all at incredible bluresque (is that even a word?) speeds. So while GG may be able to match Sids in saber speed alone (then again, maybe he can't), Sids overall speed ability should far surpass that of the General.

How about this, he teaches Kenny-boy the art of manly love. Because he finds his mustache cute.

This is why you lose.

Look at what you wrote:

If that is true, then any given frame from the fight during RotS between he and Kenobi (where he is using this technique) should show his blade as a blur (or fan) of light.

I would be willing to bet that is in fact the case.













Since we have a policy of including canon unless there is an explicit reason not to, you will have to substantiate your claim that Grievous is not moving at twenty strikes per second in the film recording. Given that we have clearly defined what 20 sps looks like (a fan or blur of light) it should be easy enough for you to go through the stills and find where the observed speeds are too slow. (Burden of proof is clear in this case. I'm neutral as far as grudges go, and I'd like for you to be mature enough not to try to shift blame or burden elsewhere.)


In case you still do not understand, let's dissect this early post of yours:

That "still image" is an exposure that includes the entire "all the way up and all the way down." Anywhere you can find that Grievous is using this speed-blitz that does not show a blur is non-canon. You've only got to find one in order to substantiate your point.

Originally posted by truejedi
Red, what are you even talking about? I never made the claim you claim I made. (bolded for you)

My argument with JT was speaking about the supposed top speed of Grievious(faster than the eye can see). Since we are not told during his fight with Kenobi that he has reached that top speed, then his 20 strikes per second is perfectly canon, as his top speed quote, since they are not necessarily the same thing.

I'll be honest, i don't know what you want from me, your post was confusing...
I appear to have been confused.

I was under the impression that you were calling Grievous's speed of 20 strikes per second non-canon. Under that idea, I was providing you with a way to prove it.

If you are willing to accept 20 strikes/second as canon then we have no trouble at all.

damn tj SHOW these nigguz whose BOSS

wut kinda whip u pushin son?

nope, JT was calling the "faster than the eye can see" quote non-canon. I disagreed. no worries though.

Originally posted by truejedi
nope, JT was calling the "faster than the eye can see" quote non-canon. I disagreed. no worries though.

No TJ, I never stated it as being non-canon. I stated that the narration was fallible. This was in response to a comment made regarding whether or not the narration came from a fallible source. Read again.

ah, fine, fallible, non-canon, both would be quite similar in this situation. I still disagree.

Originally posted by truejedi
ah, fine, fallible, non-canon, both would be quite similar in this situation. I still disagree.

Fallible and non-canon are two entirely different things.

I'm the one who said the whole 20-strikes per second thig is non-canon. He barely even makes 20-strikes at all.

Where did the whole 23 strikes per second thing come from?

2 pages back, halfway down, the italicised text

No I mean within the mythos. That statistic has been used here for years, where did it originate? In a text or commentary or what?

The RotS novel.

I forgot how awesome that book is.


So I got to the part with Grievous and it says "...finally, at twenty strikes per second, he overloaded Obi-Wan's defense."

So twenty stirkes per second starts to overload Kenobis defenses, Im pretty sure we cant logically say that he can block 20 per second

We can say he can block 19 per second however =-p

Originally posted by Pwned
So twenty stirkes per second starts to overload Kenobis defenses, Im pretty sure we cant logically say that he can block 20 per second

We can say he can block 19 per second however =-p

If you wan't to get technical, he CAN possibly block 20 per second depending on the angle from which those attacks are coming. He just couldn't block GG's 20 per second.

So Sid's won't overwhelm Kenobi with is speed right?

i really doubt Sidious would overwhelm Kenobi with Speed.

Kenobi's form is perfect for deflection of a high-speed opponent.

In sabers only Kenobi has a chance. His Soresu defenses have never been breached, and he is THE master (not A master) of Soresu.

However in an all-out or force contest Kenobi is getting broken so badly its pathetic.

Originally posted by truejedi
i really doubt Sidious would overwhelm Kenobi with Speed.

Kenobi's form is perfect for deflection of a high-speed opponent.

In sabers only Kenobi has a chance. His Soresu defenses have never been breached, and he is THE master (not A master) of Soresu.

However in an all-out or force contest Kenobi is getting broken so badly its pathetic.

Agreed without question.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I'm the one who said the whole 20-strikes per second thig is non-canon. He barely even makes 20-strikes at all.
Well then my challenge stands. Find me a still of Grievous doing his speedfeat at Kenobi in which the lightsabers are not a blur.

If you can do that then you've proven your case.
Else: stfu

I would like to point out sth: Kenobi beat Grievous in a fashion similar to the fight Fisto won with Grievous, yet we've seen that Fisto lasted few seconds with Sidious?

Originally posted by Zampanó
Well then my challenge stands. Find me a still of Grievous doing his speedfeat at Kenobi in which the lightsabers are not a blur.

If you can do that then you've proven your case.
Else: stfu

I don't really understand your point but does this count?

http://www.portal-cifi.com/scifi/images/cifipedia/Grievous_vs_Kenobi.jpg

I've also just watched the scene and I'm pretty sure that Grievous doesn't make 20 strikes before Kenobi cuts off the first hand, which the novel says he does. So yeah.....

Originally posted by Nephthys
I don't really understand your point but does this count?

http://www.portal-cifi.com/scifi/images/cifipedia/Grievous_vs_Kenobi.jpg

I've also just watched the scene and I'm pretty sure that Grievous doesn't make 20 strikes before Kenobi cuts off the first hand, which the novel says he does. So yeah.....
Is this the part of the fight that Grievous is "ramping up his attack speed?"

My point is that everything in the movie is canon, and everything in the book that doesn't contradict the movie is canon. The only reason you think the book is contradicting the movie is that it doesn't seem fast enough. However, given that 20 anythings per second is essentially just "arbitrarily fast," so long as the movie shows the sabers moving quickly enough to cause a blur, it remains canon.

The second thing I wrote does directly contradict the movie though. And that isn't why I think its non-canon.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
So you think Sid's speed can give him the win over kenobi in a sabers only battle?

He never explicitly stated such. Be careful.

Originally posted by axel_jovan
I would like to point out sth: Kenobi beat Grievous in a fashion similar to the fight Fisto won with Grievous, yet we've seen that Fisto lasted few seconds with Sidious?

So what! that's terrible logic to use when trying to offer up evidence that Kenobi would fall to Sids in a saber only contest. I hope that this isn't what you're trying to get at.

I'm not claiming anything, though its interesting that Fisto can beat "20-strikes-per-second" Grievous /shrug

But as to the fight, I feel that Kenobi has a chance in pure bladework. In force and all-out he gets crushed.

It's rather unfortunate that there is no such thing as pure bladework. Kenobi owed his defense against Grievous to the force, without which he would have been cut down instantly. If you are referring to technical skill, then Kenobi goes down hard, seeing as how he is but a master of the simplest form.

Shoes: Generally when we say "sabers-only" we involve the part of the force that guides the blade. Otherwise, NO ONE is a master of anything.

Originally posted by Shoes
It's rather unfortunate that there is no such thing as pure bladework. Kenobi owed his defense against Grievous to the force, without which he would have been cut down instantly. If you are referring to technical skill, then Kenobi goes down hard, seeing as how he is but a master of the simplest form. Greivous was the Ur example pre being a ******

Originally posted by Letum Lettow
Greivous was the Ur example pre being a ******

...uh...yeah...what now?

Originally posted by truejedi
Shoes: Generally when we say "sabers-only" we involve the part of the force that guides the blade. Otherwise, NO ONE is a master of anything.
(And generally it sounds stupid anyway.)

Originally posted by truejedi
In sabers only Kenobi has a chance. His Soresu defenses have never been breached, and he is THE master (not A master) of Soresu.


Unbreachable? Anakin kicked him in the face barely ten seconds into the fight at Mustafar.

Sure he is good, but perfect? Nah.

A boot to the chest (not face) is not a lightsaber to the chest. Hence: unbreachable (when it counts).

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
A boot to the chest (not face) is not a lightsaber to the chest. Hence: unbreachable (when it counts).

So it only works against lightsabers now? Kicks, strangle holds, punches and so on do not count, how convinient.

20 strikes per second by a cyborg Jedi killer and he lives.

A kick to the chest by the man he spent 13 years sparring with and fighting beside, and he lived.

Yeah, I'd call that unbreached.

Originally posted by Mshinu
Unbreachable? Anakin kicked him in the face barely ten seconds into the fight at Mustafar.

Sure he is good, but perfect? Nah.

You are surely kidding, right? Soresu deflects the opponent's blade, I would have thought you would know this?

Also, the kicks and punches on Mustafar were part of Kenobi "giving ground" and he did so willingly. He did so because "to strike Anakin down would fill his heart with ash." that much is made indisputably clear from the novelization..

Originally posted by truejedi
You are surely kidding, right? Soresu deflects the opponent's blade, I would have thought you would know this?

Also, the kicks and punches on Mustafar were part of Kenobi "giving ground" and he did so willingly. He did so because "to strike Anakin down would fill his heart with ash." that much is made indisputably clear from the novelization..

Seriously, it is not as if Jedi are not trained to defend against unarmed attacks. If you don`t count Anakin getting a solid grip with his mech hand on Obi`s throat as breaching his defenses, your definition is not the same as mine.

Originally posted by Mshinu
Seriously, it is not as if Jedi are not trained to defend against unarmed attacks. If you don`t count Anakin getting a solid grip with his mech hand on Obi`s throat as breaching his defenses, your definition is not the same as mine. If you were fighting a man who knew your every move and style, and whom you could not bring yourself to kill, do you think you'd give it everything you had? Do you think this murderous, powerful little bastard isn't?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If you were fighting a man who knew your every move and style, and whom you could not bring yourself to kill, do you think you'd give it everything you had? Do you think this murderous, powerful little bastard isn't?

Obi tried to split Anakin`s head in twain halfway trough the fight when he was knocked down.

He later cut of his three remaining limbs and watched him burn until he thought he was finished.

And was tortured for it.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And was tortured for it.

True. But he did what he must.

Talk more to you later, not-friend. I really must be getting back to work.

Originally posted by Mshinu
Seriously, it is not as if Jedi are not trained to defend against unarmed attacks. If you don`t count Anakin getting a solid grip with his mech hand on Obi`s throat as breaching his defenses, your definition is not the same as mine.

Notice while his hand is on Kenobi's throat, Kenobi is still keeping Anakin's blade away from him, and he eventually escapes the attack, so yes, since Anakin, who was clearly trying to kill Kenobi, was unable to do so, yes, I consider Kenobi's defense unbreached.

As far as "all-out" goes: there is a moment in that duel when Kenobi held Anakin's life in his hands (from the novel) and he hesitates, allowing Anakin to recover. So yes, perhaps by the time he tries to cut anakin in half, he was going all out, but at least once, he allows Anakin to live.

Also, in that "split anakin in half" moment that you mentioned, it is entirely possible that Kenobi was going to bring the saber to his throat and stop, much like Mace did after beating Sidious. (not quite to his throat, but the part in the window when Sids is crawling backwards.)

Canon quote saying Anakin was really trying to kill Kenobi?

Originally posted by Shoes
Canon quote saying Anakin was really trying to kill Kenobi? ...

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
...




He's hopeless.

And his sigs icky!

Yeah I really that's not him, he looks disgusting.

Originally posted by Nephthys
And his sigs icky!

Yes, YES! It makes me want to find him, grab him by the throat with a large pair of ChannellLocks, choke him until he passes out, then stomp his face repeatedly with my old football cleats while screaming "baaaaacooooooooon!!!... Arrrrggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Yeah I really that's not him, he looks disgusting. Bruno over at another website I frequent is just stlightly higher on the fugly scale. But he's cool, so it evens out.

Shoes? Damn....

Palpatine ROFLstomps Kenobi.

ROFL

****ing

Stomps.

Originally posted by Letum Lettow
Bruno over at another website I frequent is just stlightly higher on the fugly scale.

Wow! Dat b sum skeery shit yo. Fo sho.