Darth Sidious (one lightsaber) -vs- Savage Opress and Maul

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Visage
http://i723.photobucket.com/albums/ww231/Thallah/Sidious_zpsd5ef4bd7.jpg

Location: Mandalore.

Starting Distance Apart: 10 Feet.

Just as in TCW; in the Mandalorian city, cargo facility.



Maul and Opress find themselves face to face with Sidious.

Except Sidious only has one lightsaber.

Does this mean death for the Dark Lord? Or does it not make a difference at all?

Scenario 1: Sidious fights the Zabrak brothers in the exact same situation as the TCW episode, with one lightsaber to use.


Scenario 2: The Mandalorians have discovered Sidious' presence upon his entering the planet, and Sidious knows he must kill both brothers in 1 Minute and then escape - is he capable of this, or no?

In both scenarios, he has one lightsaber - just as when he fought the Council members.

Sidious cannot use Offensive Force attacks to kill or subdue his opponents; he can only use his lightsaber to dispatch them, in both Scenarios.

The_Tempest
The brothers stomp.

One blade!Sidious cannot hope to match, let alone defeat, four blade!Zabraks. Only by divine intervention, perhaps by channeling the spirit of the great Barriss Offee, could the Dark Lord hope to secure a victory.

DARTH POWER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVQitRfBWcI

Dave Filoni
At 10:32

"What I really took away from the screening last night though was that when Obi-Wan rose up with his 2 Lightsabers and Defeated Maul and Opress the whole place went nuts.."

Now I might be crazy but him specifying Kenobi using 2 Lightsabers to Defeat Maul and Opress seems to suggest Kenobi having 2 Lightsabers might have had something to do with defeating Maul and Opress.

And Visage I await your response on why Kenobi performed so much better against the Brothers than Count Dooku did against Opress and Ventress if using dual sabers makes no difference against multiple opponents.

I'd also like an explanation for why Kenobi used 2 against them. He was in for the fight of his life. Was it really a good time to switch to a different style than he's used to. And was it just a big coincidence that Sidious also chose the same method to tackle the brothers?

I await your response.

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Next do you think Kenobi is a significantly superior duelist to Count Dooku?

No.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Because his Saber performance against Maul and Opress outstrips Dooku's against Opress and Ventress by a mile.

It's called "Bad Writing".



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

The only explanation I can see there is that 2 Sabers makes it easier taking on 2 Lightsaber wielding opponents.


Holding a pair of blades, as opposed to one blade, will significantly weaken your offensive and defensive capabilities, strength-wise.

With one blade, you can defeat multiple opponents through speed, and setting up your positioning, so their attacks cross in front of each other and interfere with each other.

Also, on a sidenote, using two blades that are the same length also creates a gap in your defense, which easily be exploited and this is why you will never see two long swords of equal length being utilized in real life martial arts.

A lightsaber and shoto would have sealed up the gap that two lightsabers generate. Regardless, the two brothers apparently weren't even skilled enough or evidently fast enough to take that potential opening.



It comes down to technique and utility - Sidious was masterful enough with one blade to be able to cut down a trio of highly skilled opponents in seconds; he doesn't actually need two blades to kill anyone beneath Yoda or Mace.

Everything he did, from the TK-rag-dolling, to the carrying of two lightsabers, to the constant traveling, was done to lead the brothers on and toy with them.

He was there to savor crushing them, not just physically - but emotionally and psychologically, as well.

And hope are the seeds, in the garden of despair.

Sidious didn't need two lightsabers; just one. But two fit the specific purpose of his visit, which was to inflict pain - and not just outright kill.

DARTH POWER
As for this thread Sidious will still win a large majority with his far far Superior force powers.

Make it a Saber Only match, restricting Sidious to 1.. Then yeah I'd give the Brothers a slight majority.

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Make it a Saber Only match, restricting Sidious to 1.. Then yeah I'd give the Brothers a slight majority.

That's what I did.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Visage
No.

Well either accept that he clearly is, or that 2 Sabers aided him in fighting multiple opponents.





Originally posted by Visage
It's called "Bad Writing.

LOL What a Lame excuse. I think what the majority would consider bad writing is when Sidious blitzed those 3 Masters.

What's your In-Universe explanation? If your just putting down whatever you feel like to Bad Writing, then I'll have field day doing the same.





Originally posted by Visage
Holding a pair of blades, as opposed to one blade, will significantly weaken your offensive and defensive capabilities, strength-wise.

I never said it's without disadvantage. But if there were no advantages then no one would ever use 2. What I'm saying is the advantages are more suitable to take on 2 opponents. That's what Season 5 of the Clone Wars has shown anyway.

Anyway if you look here at 2:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE_CVWMWK74

Even when Obi-Wan had one blade he chose to fend off the brothers one handed. So it can't be that much of a disadvantage in terms of weakening his hold.

Count Dooku also fends off powerhouses like Skywalker one handed and Maul did the same when he stomped Opress.

Originally posted by Visage
With one blade, you can defeat multiple opponents through speed, and setting up your positioning, so their attacks cross in front of each other and interfere with each other.


Well Kenobi clearly couldn't just battle them both through sheer speed alone. If he could he would have completely stomped Maul in their one on one. But he didn't. Their one on one wasn't even close to a stomp.

With 1 Blade if your stuck in between 2 of them you'd be royally screwed. Which Obi-Wan knows himself. This is the extract from the novel when he's fighting them both off with 1 Blade:

"Obi-Wan senses it coming and whirled with blinding speed, parrying Maul's attack. Then he jumped aside, knowing it would be a fatal mistake to be caught between two Sith "

And yet later he does just fine caught between the 2 of them when he had 2 Blades to deflect simultaneous attacks from opposite sides.

Originally posted by Visage
Also, on a sidenote, using two blades that are the same length also creates a gap in your defense, which easily be exploited and this is why you will never see two long swords of equal length being utilized in real life martial arts.

A lightsaber and shoto would have sealed up the gap that two lightsabers generate. Regardless, the two brothers apparently weren't even skilled enough or evidently fast enough to take that potential opening.

LOL So your actually arguing Kenobi was actually overall Disadvantaged when using 2 Blades.

Ok then, explain to me why Kenobi specifically grabbed Adi's Saber and used both Sabers when he knew he's have to face them alone.

Oh don't tell me: "Bad Writing," LOL. From what your saying Kenobi is >>> Count Dooku in Sabers.

As for your own speculation about the gap a full Saber creates compared to a Shoto. It's kind of irrelevant when facing 2 Opponents on either side of him. He wouldn't get very far parrying off one of the Sith's attacks with just a Shoto.

Not to mention he didn't have a Shoto available and he might not even be skilled in using a Shoto.



Originally posted by Visage
It comes down to technique and utility - Sidious was masterful enough with one blade to be able to cut down a trio of highly skilled opponents in seconds;

Which means nothing in this case. Because Dave Filoni has outright confirmed that just Opress's performance against Sidious was > than the 3 stooges.

Originally posted by Visage
Everything he did, from the TK-rag-dolling, to the carrying of two lightsabers, to the constant traveling, was done to lead the brothers on and toy with them. He was there to savor crushing them, not just physically - but emotionally and psychologically, as well.

And hope are the seeds, in the garden of despair.

Oh here we go. Back to the toying. Even though No Canon Source on the subject anywhere backs this idea up. But keep sticking to it. It's much easier than actually accepting that the Brothers challenged Sidious in Sabers thumb up


Originally posted by Visage
Sidious didn't need two lightsabers; just one. But two fit the specific purpose of his visit, which was to inflict pain - and not just outright kill.

And yet you've still not explained why Kenobi used 2 Sabers. And why Filoni specifically noted Kenobi using Dual Sabers to defeat Maul and Opress.

Why even mention it if it makes no difference?

And you've certainly not proved that Sidious could just outright defeat the Brothers whenever he liked. If he could then he should have done so. Your speculation about him toying and savoring the fight is not Canon.

As usual the Sidious camp has nothing but speculation, and no answer to simple questions like why the heck Kenobi abandoned his usual use of 1 Saber in that scenario.

Whilst I'm binging all the proofs and sources on the subject, as well as the clear indications from the episodes. But it's clearly falling on deaf ears.

-Pr-
So this isn't a bait thread, then?

Darth Martin
This cartoon has ****ed everything up. facepalm

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Well either accept that he clearly is, or that 2 Sabers aided him in fighting multiple opponents.

Kenobi may perhaps need two sabers to fight people like Ventress, Maul, Savage, etc.

Sidious does not.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

LOL What a Lame excuse. I think what the majority would consider bad writing is when Sidious blitzed those 3 Masters.

Because that kind of speed is certainly out of question for the most powerful Dark Lord of the Sith in Galactic History. stick out tongue

Very well done, DP. clapping



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

What's your In-Universe explanation? If your just putting down whatever you feel like to Bad Writing, then I'll have field day doing the same.

There is none.

It's Corporate Fan-fiction and doesn't consistently fit in with the showings of other Canon.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

I never said it's without disadvantage. But if there were no advantages then no one would ever use 2. What I'm saying is the advantages are more suitable to take on 2 opponents.

No, you can do the same amount of damage and work, with just one blade.

By positioning yourself, so their attacks interfere with each other and parrying the blade from one attacker, into the next; and delivering a follow-up cut to drop one of the opponents.

And in European swordsmanship, two swords were only deliberately used in one-on-one duels; while the sword and shield were used to take on multiple opponents.

In Japanese swordsmanship, the extra shorter blade is utilized to give added-defense to the central line - and it's not needed to deal with multiple opponents, where one blade can suffice just as well.

Fantasy movies typically have instances where heroes will pick up two weapons and fend off droves of enemies, though.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

That's what Season 5 of the Clone Wars has shown anyway.

Yep, and it's made for little kids.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Anyway if you look here at 2:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE_CVWMWK74
Even when Obi-Wan had one blade he chose to fend off the brothers one handed. So it can't be that much of a disadvantage in terms of weakening his hold.

That's fantasy swordplay in a kids show.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Count Dooku also fends off powerhouses like Skywalker one handed

It's part of the reason he lost.

His one-handed hold got hammered by Anakin's total strength.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Well Kenobi clearly couldn't just battle them both through sheer speed alone. If he could he would have completely stomped Maul in their one on one. But he didn't. Their one on one wasn't even close to a stomp.
With 1 Blade if your stuck in between 2 of them you'd be royally screwed. Which Obi-Wan knows himself. This is the extract from the novel when he's fighting them both off with 1 Blade:
"Obi-Wan senses it coming and whirled with blinding speed, parrying Maul's attack. Then he jumped aside, knowing it would be a fatal mistake to be caught between two Sith "
Originally posted by Visage
and setting up your positioning, so their attacks cross in front of each other and interfere with each other.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

And yet later he does just fine caught between the 2 of them when he had 2 Blades to deflect simultaneous attacks from opposite sides.

Mhm. Kids show.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

LOL So your actually arguing Kenobi was actually overall Disadvantaged when using 2 Blades.
Ok then, explain to me why Kenobi specifically grabbed Adi's Saber and used both Sabers when he knew he's have to face them alone.

Because it's a children show, intended to have fantastic displays of flashy fantasy-swordplay, to amaze and stupefy the young children watching it.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Oh don't tell me: "Bad Writing," LOL.

I suppose for children and the mentally-handicapped, the writing would be quite advanced, wouldn't you say? smokin'



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

From what your saying Kenobi is >>> Count Dooku in Sabers.

How so? smokin'



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

As for your own speculation about the gap a full Saber creates compared to a Shoto.

The "speculation" is a three-hundred year old art called Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū, and not my own.

Two long blades cannot be used perfectly in tandem, whilst guarding the central line.

At points, an opening is exposed; a gap created. And the use of a shorter blade is able to fill that gap at all times, while providing defense. This is universally known to those trained in swordsmanship.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

It's kind of irrelevant when facing 2 Opponents on either side of him. He wouldn't get very far parrying off one of the Sith's attacks with just a Shoto.

He would, when he follows up that parry with a turning of his body, and a follow up cut with his lightsaber.

Remember, it's about timing, body-positioning, and the cut.

It's not a case of meeting force head-on - it's a case of footwork, timing and using his opponents movements against each other, as much as they are intended against him.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Not to mention he didn't have a Shoto available and he might not even be skilled in using a Shoto.

He is the foremost Master in one of the Seven Forms, so he probably has a good familiarity of it.

Either way, it's a kids show.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Which means nothing in this case. Because Dave Filoni has outright confirmed that just Opress's performance against Sidious was > than the 3 stooges.
Oh here we go. Back to the toying. Even though No Canon Source on the subject anywhere backs this idea up. But keep sticking to it. It's much easier than actually accepting that the Brothers challenged Sidious in Sabers thumb up
And yet you've still not explained why Kenobi used 2 Sabers. And why Filoni specifically noted Kenobi using Dual Sabers to defeat Maul and Opress.
Why even mention it if it makes no difference?
And you've certainly not proved that Sidious could just outright defeat the Brothers whenever he liked. If he could then he should have done so. Your speculation about him toying and savoring the fight is not Canon.
As usual the Sidious camp has nothing but speculation, and no answer to simple questions like why the heck Kenobi abandoned his usual use of 1 Saber in that scenario.
Whilst I'm binging all the proofs and sources on the subject, as well as the clear indications from the episodes. But it's clearly falling on deaf ears.

Because you make no sense; know nothing about swordsmanship, and are blindly prescribing to your own ideas, which is why everyone else has been chastising you for it. smokin'

Visage
Originally posted by -Pr-
So this isn't a bait thread, then?

I thought it, a fair topic for debate. smokin'

Visage
Originally posted by Darth Martin
This cartoon has ****ed everything up. facepalm

Indeed.

Visage
Originally posted by The_Tempest
The brothers stomp.

One blade!Sidious cannot hope to match, let alone defeat, four blade!Zabraks. Only by divine intervention, perhaps by channeling the spirit of the great Barriss Offee, could the Dark Lord hope to secure a victory.

stick out tongue

DARTH POWER
Oh so Visage is Rockwood.

In that case I don't need to respond. He will never bring reason to debate, just "LOL It's a kids show"

So why are you talking about it then! Get outta here you Sock.

The_Tempest
Originally posted by Darth Martin
This cartoon has ****ed everything up. facepalm

A bit, yes, but its implications are radically overblown.

There's still a general hierarchy: mooks -> Padawans -> Knights -> Masters & Grievous -> Council Masters, Ventress, Savage, Maul -> Dooku, Mace -> Yoda, Sidious -> The Anchorites

You have some people of... shall we say, questionable intellect trying to hammer out concrete placement that isn't there by incorporating obviously circumstantial battles and designing a hilariously inept formula based on number of lightsabers used. facepalm

DARTH POWER
It was pretty retarded when certain people began claiming that Fisto =/> Kenobi because he was beating Grievous once. That was a huge facepalm moment for KMC.

The_Tempest
Sweetheart, your perpetual e-stalking continues to push the proverbial envelope of creepy. I understand that there's probably a deficit of people who voluntarily interact with you in any social environment, but you should keep looking.

Elsewhere.

Visage
I don't think DP will be doing that anytime soon.

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER

In that case I don't need to respond. He will never bring reason to debate, just "LOL It's a kids show"

Pretty convenient, eh?

I throw some questions at you, that you can't handle, and now you throw in the towel.

And you wonder why people are chastising you.

Stop running, DP. Turn and face it.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER

So why are you talking about it then!

The question is, why are you talking about it?

You asked questions and I answered, and now you're running away.

Do you think the first time we spoke, I was any different than I am now? And you had no qualms then.

So, I've responded to your queries and now you're giving up.

Concession accepted. smokin'

Arhael
What you are saying is true.

I practiced with Shinai myself and tried with two Shinai as well.

When practiced, we agreed that one strictly attacks, the other - defends, then swap. That way we could achieve flashy SW like performance because, if both attack, fight ends within seconds.

When defending against two Shinai, it required me to constantly move backward like Dooku in AotC because it is mostly impossible to block both sabers simultaniously, dodging is required.

Also, Shinai are too heavy for one handed grip, so speed and strength were suffering a lot.

Against two opponents I certainly would prefer one sword and rely on foot movement, so opponents stumble against each other unable to attack at the same time.

Using two sabers against multiple opponents in real life is unsuitable. One handed style, while lacks strength, it offers much more movement freedom and strong attacks can still be deflected sideways but it requires a lot of focus and skill. But with two sabers your concentration is split between two hands, it is, also, very hard to focus on both opponents and respond to their attacks correctly.

Force users on the other hand are guided by the Force, which makes it much easier for them to split concentration. Moreover, they don't even need to see attack to counter it, so it is not as big problem, if one of the opponents is behind. And that's why comparison with real life doesn't work in this case.


Originally posted by The_Tempest
A bit, yes, but its implications are radically overblown.

There's still a general hierarchy: mooks -> Padawans -> Knights -> Masters & Grievous -> Council Masters, Ventress, Savage, Maul -> Dooku, Mace -> Yoda, Sidious -> The Anchorites

You have some people of... shall we say, questionable intellect trying to hammer out concrete placement that isn't there by incorporating obviously circumstantial battles and designing a hilariously inept formula based on number of lightsabers used. facepalm

Originally posted by The_Tempest
You attempted to undermine your adversary's argument by exposing its variance from popular opinion. That's a textbook argument by consensus.

You, sir, are a hypocrite and a liar and a generally unpleasant person with a tiny penis. uhuh



http://s12.postimage.org/3np817msd/hah.jpg

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Visage
I don't think DP will be doing that anytime soon.

That's funny coming from you and your buddy who have both been banned multiple times but keep making sock accounts because your so desperate for attention on these boards.


Also your sock buddy is as funny as he is sad and hypocritical. He tells me to stop e-stalking him when many many of his comments are clearly made to attack me.

Originally posted by Arhael
What you are saying is true.

I practiced with Shinai myself and tried with two Shinai as well.

When practiced, we agreed that one strictly attacks, the other - defends, then swap. That way we could achieve flashy SW like performance because, if both attack, fight ends within seconds.

When defending against two Shinai, it required me to constantly move backward like Dooku in AotC because it is mostly impossible to block both sabers simultaniously, dodging is required.

Also, Shinai are too heavy for one handed grip, so speed and strength were suffering a lot.

Against two opponents I certainly would prefer one sword and rely on foot movement, so opponents stumble against each other unable to attack at the same time.

Using two sabers against multiple opponents in real life is unsuitable. One handed style, while lacks strength, it offers much more movement freedom and strong attacks can still be deflected sideways but it requires a lot of focus and skill. But with two sabers your concentration is split between two hands, it is, also, very hard to focus on both opponents and respond to their attacks correctly.

Force users on the other hand are guided by the Force, which makes it much easier for them to split concentration. Moreover, they don't even need to see attack to counter it, so it is not as big problem, if one of the opponents is behind. And that's why comparison with real life doesn't work in this case.




I don't know if you've seen the last episode of the season. But (SPOILERS AHEAD) even Skywalker resorts to using 2 Sabers to fight off a dual saber wielding Bariss.

So what are the troll's explanations now? That Kenobi, Sidious and Skywalker were all just showing off?!

If people still can't see that multiple Sabers are more useful when faced against mutiple sabers then they're either supremely arrogant to give up the issue or just plain out dense.

Oh and nice Force feats for Skywalker Force choking Ventress and Force Slamming Bariss

Ascendancy
Clearly duel wielding aids when fighting against two sabers, but it is not a necessity.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Ascendancy
Clearly duel wielding aids when fighting against two sabers, but it is not a necessity.


If it aids then it is a factor.

But at least we we've finally come to some sort of agreement on the issue.

Visage
Originally posted by Arhael
What you are saying is true.
I practiced with Shinai myself and tried with two Shinai as well.
When practiced, we agreed that one strictly attacks, the other - defends, then swap. That way we could achieve flashy SW like performance because, if both attack, fight ends within seconds.
When defending against two Shinai, it required me to constantly move backward like Dooku in AotC because it is mostly impossible to block both sabers simultaniously, dodging is required.

I can tell you're a first-year student.

Actually, defending against two swords, especially when they're the same length, is very easy.

The next time you spar your friend and he uses two Shinai:

When he delivers a cut or strike, move your Shinai against his in a clockwise motion, from the outside of his blade, inward - and cross his attacking blade over into the path of his other Shinai.

From there, drag your blade into a (follow-up) cut that will target his hand, and step off to the side, dragging the blade across his hip, as you step out.

That will interfere with the movements of his other weapon, defend against his striking-sword, disable that sword-hand, and deliver an incapacitating cut to his torso.

It's a very easy defense you will learn in your first few years.



Originally posted by Arhael

Also, Shinai are too heavy for one handed grip, so speed and strength were suffering a lot.

Actually, Shinai are quite light, and especially easy to use in a one-handed grip.

The training sword you might have a lot of trouble wielding one-handed, would be the Bokken.



Originally posted by Arhael

Against two opponents I certainly would prefer one sword and rely on foot movement, so opponents stumble against each other unable to attack at the same time.

That's the general idea.

It's not about meeting force-with-force, and in that way, it's very much like classical unarmed combat.



Originally posted by Arhael

Using two sabers against multiple opponents in real life is unsuitable. One handed style, while lacks strength, it offers much more movement freedom and strong attacks can still be deflected sideways but it requires a lot of focus and skill.

You'll find that in Japanese swordsmanship, when two blades are used in conventional fashion, they will always be Katana and Wakizashi-length.

With the Wakizashi being used to intercept attacks, and further guard the central line.

You can train to have dexterity in both hands, so that your movements will be balanced and fluid, but you will always have the disadvantage of only having half the potential strength to defend against the force of your opponents two-handed strikes over time.



Originally posted by Arhael

But with two sabers your concentration is split between two hands, it is, also, very hard to focus on both opponents and respond to their attacks correctly.

Your only focus needs to be to position yourself where their attacks interfere with each other, and using the principles of interceptive-attack, you can utilize one of the blades of your opponent to be beneficial to your defense.

Two blades can be useful - not for added offense - but for added defense of the central line.

And your body would naturally develop a kinesthetic-awareness that accompanied your use of two weapons.

But obviously you don't need them for two opponents - and as we all know, that's something that fantasy movies are usually rife with, because they're fantasy movies. big grin






Originally posted by Arhael

Force users on the other hand are guided by the Force, which makes it much easier for them to split concentration. Moreover, they don't even need to see attack to counter it, so it is not as big problem, if one of the opponents is behind. And that's why comparison with real life doesn't work in this case.

No; Force users don't have a perfect sense of Precog, and at times they will fail to detect some attacks or activity, and sometimes even if they do detect it, they're too slow to react.

In real life, visual-acuity is an all-important aspect of a martial artist's functioning, and although a Jedi/Sith relies less on this, they still have to rely on it at times.

Essentially, they are bound to the same technical principles that all martial artists rely upon.

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
That's funny coming from you and your buddy who have both been banned multiple times but keep making sock accounts because your so desperate for attention on these boards.
Also your sock buddy is as funny as he is sad and hypocritical. He tells me to stop e-stalking him when many many of his comments are clearly made to attack me.

Having a Lover's Quarrel with Sidious 66 again? smokin'



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

If people still can't see that multiple Sabers are more useful when faced against mutiple sabers then they're either supremely arrogant to give up the issue or just plain out dense.


You'd have to be dense to assume something about a subject you know nothing about.

Utilizing two weapons in either hand effectively cuts your total strength in half, making it more difficult to weather hard strikes from your opponent.

With one sword/saber, you can simply cross your enemies offending-blade into the path of his other blade, and from there make a simple cut to the offending-wrist, which will temporarily incapacitate your opponent, and create an opening.

Also, keep in mind, the effect of his strength being cut in half by the use of two weapons in both hands also applies, so when you execute this parrying technique with both hands, you'll overpower his wrist.

Yoda didn't attempt to fight Sidious with multiple sabers, nor did Sidious when he fought Yoda, nor even Mace Windu when he sought to fight Sidious.


Fantasy elements in children's shows and some movies see the usage of double-wielding as flashy and exotic-looking, when in reality it has little to no practical application in most conventional duels.

If you became a student of the sword, you would learn this.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Visage




You'd have to be dense to assume something about a subject you know nothing about.

Actually you've shown very little knowledge of the subject.. As Arhael has pointed SW fights do have differences. The weight of Lightsabers makes it more akin to stick fighting in which 2 weapons are preferred.

And the coordination aspect is guided by the force.

Originally posted by Visage
Utilizing two weapons in either hand effectively cuts your total strength in half, making it more difficult to weather hard strikes from your opponent.

And yet some of the most effective defending against powerful 2 handed strikes has been done using just 1 hand.

Dooku against Anakin. Maul against Opress. Kenobi against both Maul and Opress.

Try again Sock. And try actually using references to SW. Which I know is difficult for you with your limited knowledge and hatred of Higher Canon material.

Placidity
I don't think the one arm/two arm argument for strength flies. I don't think their strength comes mainly from their muscles because then Sidious would be overwhelmed as an old man. They are clearly augmented by the force.

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Actually you've shown very little knowledge of the subject.. As Arhael has pointed SW fights do have differences. The weight of Lightsabers makes it more akin to stick fighting in which 2 weapons are preferred.
And the coordination aspect is guided by the force.

Stick fighting is nothing like fighting with a sword, Young One. smokin'

And the lightsaber, being "sharp all over" akin to a sword, has nothing to do with being like a stick and is completely akin to a sword, and you would know this, were you actually educated in the subject.

And again, aside from fantasy movies, one sword is conventionally preferred; not two.

And in the words of Obi-wan Kenobi, the Force only guides the coordination partially; with the rest being guided by the swordsman themselves.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

And yet some of the most effective defending against powerful 2 handed strikes has been done using just 1 hand.

Dooku against Anakin.

He lost partially because of that.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Maul against Opress.

Fantasy elements in a kids show.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Kenobi against both Maul and Opress.

Again, fantasy elements in a children's show. smokin'



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Try again Sock. And try actually using references to SW. Which I know is difficult for you with your limited knowledge and hatred of Higher Canon material.

Still butthurt? smokin'

You don't take being anally-screwed in arguments very well; try lotion, it would help you. big grin

I rely on actual swordsmanship, as did Nick Gillard, when putting the actual lightsaber Forms together.

You still have much to learn, Child.

Enjoy your childhood - you only get to enjoy it once. smokin'

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Visage
Stick fighting is nothing like fighting with a sword, Young One. smokin'

And the lightsaber, being "sharp all over" akin to a sword, has nothing to do with being like a stick and is completely akin to a sword, and you would know this, were you actually educated in the subject.

And again, aside from fantasy movies, one sword is conventionally preferred; not two.

Lightsabers are very different to swords. With a Sword, or even a very long stick, it's difficult to balance it and handle the weight with one hand.

A Lightsaber only requires the hilt to be balanced and only the handle has any weight(which is negligible for a Jedi).

So stick fighting with lighter, easier to balance sticks is actually the better performance comparison for wielding 2.

Originally posted by Visage
And in the words of Obi-wan Kenobi, the Force only guides the coordination partially; with the rest being guided by the swordsman themselves.

The Force does guide them. When they block so many blaster bolts from different directions, clearly guiding 2 different hands to block a Saber striked each is not something that's suddenly so difficult.






Originally posted by Visage
He lost partially because of that.

Nah. That was only an issue when he was fighting off Kenobi at the same time. He fended off Anakin's 2 handed power strikes in "Crisis on Naboo" until Anakin kicked him over the stairs.

Maul won against Opress like that whose a Physical beast.

Kenobi was fending both Maul and Opress of one handed when he was on the defense.






Originally posted by Visage
Fantasy elements in a kids show.





Again, fantasy elements in a children's show. smokin'





Still butthurt? smokin'

You don't take being anally-screwed in arguments very well; try lotion, it would help you. big grin

I rely on actual swordsmanship, as did Nick Gillard, when putting the actual lightsaber Forms together.

You still have much to learn, Child.

Enjoy your childhood - you only get to enjoy it once. smokin'

Exactly. You have no respect for higher canon. So don't disturb the grown ups when they're having such conversations.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Visage

I rely on actual swordsmanship, as did Nick Gillard, when putting the actual lightsaber Forms together.



Oh and as for your Nick Gillard reference, that's fine with me. He rated Sith Anakin, Mace Windu, Yoda and Sidious all being On Par in Saber Prowess Happy Dance

Mizukage Yoda
Originally posted by Visage
Having a Lover's Quarrel with Sidious 66 again? smokin'





You'd have to be dense to assume something about a subject you know nothing about.

Utilizing two weapons in either hand effectively cuts your total strength in half, making it more difficult to weather hard strikes from your opponent.

With one sword/saber, you can simply cross your enemies offending-blade into the path of his other blade, and from there make a simple cut to the offending-wrist, which will temporarily incapacitate your opponent, and create an opening.

Also, keep in mind, the effect of his strength being cut in half by the use of two weapons in both hands also applies, so when you execute this parrying technique with both hands, you'll overpower his wrist.

Yoda didn't attempt to fight Sidious with multiple sabers, nor did Sidious when he fought Yoda, nor even Mace Windu when he sought to fight Sidious.


Fantasy elements in children's shows and some movies see the usage of double-wielding as flashy and exotic-looking, when in reality it has little to no practical application in most conventional duels.

If you became a student of the sword, you would learn this.

Lol at using real world applications in the discussion of fictional lore. laughing

SIDIOUS 66
Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda
Lol at using real world applications in the discussion of fictional lore. laughing


She doesn't know the difference in what's real and what isn't. She has imaginary body parts that she argues is real.

The_Tempest
RookwoodVisage's tendency to draw bewildering conclusions from source material notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure it's equally silly to throw "real world applications" out the window entirely. It's our only frame of reference.

Mizukage Yoda
Originally posted by The_Tempest
RookwoodVisage's tendency to draw bewildering conclusions from source material notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure it's equally silly to throw "real world applications" out the window entirely. It's our only frame of reference.

Saying that Jar'Kai is ineffective because it doesn't work in real life is bull. While inspired by traditional swordsmanship, lightsaber duels are completely different because:
1. They are weightless
2. Physical power can be amplified by the force.
3. Force powers.

Jar'Kai has been proven multiple times to be effective. So yes real life applications in a world where the combatants can move mountains with their minds is a ridiculous notion.

The_Tempest
Read again: I said entirely. The bottom line is that all of us (yes, you, too) interpret Star Wars events and feats from the lens of a real world perspective. Maul can move a starship, Starkiller can move a Destroyer. Which feat is greater? The destroyer, because its mass and weight are exponentially bigger. We make that judgment because of an understanding of real world physics.

My entire point is that one should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. At this point, Jar'Kai is irrelevant.

Arhael
Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda
Saying that Jar'Kai is ineffective because it doesn't work in real life is bull. While inspired by traditional swordsmanship, lightsaber duels are completely different because:
1. They are weightless
2. Physical power can be amplified by the force.
3. Force powers.

Jar'Kai has been proven multiple times to be effective. So yes real life applications in a world where the combatants can move mountains with their minds is a ridiculous notion.
Well, you are right about differences but it doesn't mean that real life mechanics need to be discarded completely.

My conclusions are in general based on real life sword work. Yet, I still evaluate Jarkai as more effective against multiple opponents. If you look at my post above, I explained "why" it is not effective in real life. It's just in this case real life examples don't apply in the same way.

Col. Valerian
Rookwood's right in the sense that you lose strength when utilizing two blades. You also lose balance.

But, using two swords or a double-bladed one does give you a lot more blows per swing; hence, more damage and destruction per strike. And if used correctly you can overwhelm your opponent much more easily.

Although, I believe that this logic cannot be applied to SW. Maybe when analysing an object's weight or its mass, etc. it is correct to use real life physics as a viable comparrison, but not when it comes to lightsaber duels. There are many more fictional factors to be considered which cannot be compared to real life in any way.

Ascendancy
Agreed. We see the great ability displayed by some masters/skilled users of the two blade style throughout the series. That said, we also see capable duelists using a single saber to defend themselves and defeat them in some cases. Every technique and weapon set has an opportunity cost. More strikes per second at the lost of strength in each blow, even when augmented by the Force.

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Lightsabers are very different to swords. With a Sword, or even a very long stick, it's difficult to balance it and handle the weight with one hand.

Sticks don't cut, or open the opponent up, as lightsabers and swords do.

A lightsaber can be thought of as perhaps a Katana, or the lighter rapier.

But aside from it's weight, functionally, it has no difference to a sword.

But it is cute to hear you talking about things you know nothing about. stick out tongue




Originally posted by DARTH POWER

A Lightsaber only requires the hilt to be balanced and only the handle has any weight(which is negligible for a Jedi).

So stick fighting with lighter, easier to balance sticks is actually the better performance comparison for wielding 2.

I can tell you don't know anything of either discipline. smokin'

A lightsaber typically has a blade of around three Feet in length.

In Kenjustu, you don't conventionally pair up two swords that exceed (or even come close to) 24 inches, of which the lightsaber blade is much longer than that.

Doing so causes a gap to form over the central line, that the two long blades cannot protect effectively, because their length makes them interfere with one another spacially.

In conventional stick fighting, you'll notice the practioners always use short sticks, not long ones.

Even still, the cadence of movements is different than that used for swordsmanship.

So we can see why George Lucas hired a swordsman to design the lightsaber forms and not a master of stick-fighting, which is a different discipline altogether.

The fact that the lightsaber Forms were organically created around that of real-life sword arts, reinforces their nature functionally as swords, and obviously not sticks.

So, if a Jedi did hypothetically use stick-fighting with wielding lightsabers - they wouldn't use regular lightsabers (for the reasons listed above) - they would use Shotos, and the overall visual effect would look noticeably different.

So a lightsaber and it's arts, are nothing like a stick or those arts.

It is a sword, and obviously built around the arts of swordsmanship.

And if you were a student of either the sword or stick, you would know this. smokin'

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER

The Force does guide them. When they block so many blaster bolts from different directions, clearly guiding 2 different hands to block a Saber striked each is not something that's suddenly so difficult.

Read up again, Boy.

I never said it didn't. smokin'

I harkened back to the words of Jedi Master Obi-wan Kenobi, who told Luke during his first lightsaber-lesson, that the Force only guides you partially.
With the rest of the coordination being guided on that part of the swordsman.

Pay attention, Young One. stick out tongue




Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Nah. That was only an issue when he was fighting off Kenobi at the same time.

That was an issue throughout the entire fight for Dooku; he couldn't handle the power of Anakin's Djem So, as it was a weakness for his Makashi.

So it makes sense that his one-handed parries caused his wrist to buckle when it was struck. cool





Originally posted by DARTH POWER

He fended off Anakin's 2 handed power strikes in "Crisis on Naboo" until Anakin kicked him over the stairs.
Maul won against Opress like that whose a Physical beast.
Kenobi was fending both Maul and Opress of one handed when he was on the defense.

And I'm sure all the toddlers enjoyed seeing those duels. stick out tongue





Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Exactly. You have no respect for higher canon. So don't disturb the grown ups when they're having such conversations.

Son, when you can go to the bathroom without needing a diaper (I know you do; your mum has told me so in private conversations) then you'll be a grown up. stick out tongue

And you really need to get over the shafting I gave you, in regards to referencing from Genndy's Clone Wars, which I know you despise.

It's Canon, so rub some aloe vera over your mutilated and burned sphincter, and move on. laughing

It's like I did to your ass, what Obi-wan did to Anakin at Mustafar. laughing laughing laughing

Visage
Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda
Lol at using real world applications in the discussion of fictional lore.

Lol at you not knowing that a real-world swordsman designed the Lightsaber Forms, with real-world considerations in mind. laughing

Nice job, Dumbass. laughing

Oh and by the way, your Mom told me tell you that when you're done with D&D, your microwavable Pizza Rolls are done.

Don't keep her waiting, Son. Go up and get them. cool

Visage
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
She doesn't know the difference in what's real and what isn't. She has imaginary body parts that she argues is real.

And the irony is, you say this while nestled under my desk, sucking my dick.

You seem to have a very genuine love for my manhood, which you would claim (with a full mouth of cum) isn't real.

Try not to have bits of my fluid dribbling down the sides of your mouth, when you make such pronouncements. It shows a lack of conviction. laughing

Now when your done sucking it, go shower up, because I'm going to cook some ribs in the backyard later.

wink cool

Visage
Originally posted by The_Tempest
RookwoodVisage's tendency to draw bewildering conclusions from source material notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure it's equally silly to throw "real world applications" out the window entirely. It's our only frame of reference.

thumb up

Visage
Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda
Saying that Jar'Kai is ineffective because it doesn't work in real life is bull. While inspired by traditional swordsmanship, lightsaber duels are completely different because:
1. They are weightless
2. Physical power can be amplified by the force.
3. Force powers.

It has nothing to do with that.

Jar'Kai is an ineffective construct made for children, because when using two long blades of the same length, a spacial-gap is created over the central line, where the length of the two blades interfere with one another; and an experienced and oppurtunistic swordsman can take advantage of this.

This is why conventionally, a long sword will be paired up with a short sword; for the opposite effect.

And if you were trained in martial arts, as opposed to playing too much D&D, you would know this. smokin'




Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda

Jar'Kai has been proven multiple times to be effective. So yes real life applications in a world where the combatants can move mountains with their minds is a ridiculous notion.

In a fantasy show for children, Sure. stick out tongue

But hilariously, when Jar'Kai was used in the movies, curiously, only one strike/slash could be delivered at a time; it was readily apparent that both long blades would get in the way of each other. laughing

So it's just a silly construct to wow and amaze the kids; and it does it's job. cool

Visage
Originally posted by The_Tempest
At this point, Jar'Kai is irrelevant.

thumb up

Visage
It has nothing to do with how many blows/strikes/cuts that using the two blades can give you, etc.

The advantage of using two blades (not long blades of equal length) but one long blade and a short blade, is the advantage of added defense.

It's useful against multiple opponents, because the shorter blade can easily intercept attacks and allow for easy counter-strikes to your opponent.

If someone used two swords (we'll say the length of a lightsaber) at the same time, their central line would be exposed, and their opponent, with one blade could easily move a cut or thrust into that zone and kill the double-wielder; that's why it's not done that way.

In fantasy, especially when some of the storyboard people aren't martial artists, they ignore/don't know this. So it slides, and many movies have done it this way for the sake of looking flashy.

Also, regardless, using two lightsabers here or not, is not a factor at all.

Yoda didn't use two sabers against Sidious; Sidious didn't use two against Yoda. The Jedi who went to stop Palpatine didn't take another saber for extra benefit (which there really wouldn't be).

The Double-saber wielding you see in TCW is for the Kids whether you want to admit it or not.

There is no actual practical application in any of the fights, because of it being technically flawed. It's just for the kiddies.

smokin'

Vensai
Originally posted by Visage
It has nothing to do with how many blows/strikes/cuts that using the two blades can give you, etc.

The advantage of using two blades (not long blades of equal length) but one long blade and a short blade, is the advantage of added defense.

It's useful against multiple opponents, because the shorter blade can easily intercept attacks and allow for easy counter-strikes to your opponent.

If someone used two swords (we'll say the length of a lightsaber) at the same time, their central line would be exposed, and their opponent, with one blade could easily move a cut or thrust into that zone and kill the double-wielder; that's why it's not done that way.

In fantasy, especially when some of the storyboard people aren't martial artists, they ignore/don't know this. So it slides, and many movies have done it this way for the sake of looking flashy.

Also, regardless, using two lightsabers here or not, is not a factor at all.

Yoda didn't use two sabers against Sidious; Sidious didn't use two against Yoda. The Jedi who went to stop Palpatine didn't take another saber for extra benefit (which there really wouldn't be).

The Double-saber wielding you see in TCW is for the Kids whether you want to admit it or not.

There is no actual practical application in any of the fights, because of it being technically flawed. It's just for the kiddies.

smokin'

So are you saying one saber is just as effective as two sabers, if not more so? This would be consistent with Dooku's view on dual sabers since he found them inferior to single sabers.

Visage
Originally posted by Vensai
So are you saying one saber is just as effective as two sabers, if not more so? This would be consistent with Dooku's view on dual sabers since he found them inferior to single sabers.

In the hands of a highly skilled practioner, one sword can be as good as, or easily better, than two.

Two lightsabers of equal length, because of their actual technical flaw, is a death sentence and a stupid option for a someone to adopt.

A lightsaber and a Shoto, however could offer very good defensive edges in a duel.

Unfortunately, we're not discussing that; and discussing the death sentence of stupidity that is the flawed act of attempting to use two regular-length lightsabers.

Those would be highly ineffective and even moronic to use, compared to a single lightsaber, which is ten times more effective and practical to wield.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Vensai
So are you saying one saber is just as effective as two sabers, if not more so? This would be consistent with Dooku's view on dual sabers since he found them inferior to single sabers.

It's against Dooku's personal preference. (Although the original intent for AOTC was that Dooku was going to use Dual Sabers against Yoda when he couldn't defeat him with 1).

But Dooku is a one handed fencer. He likes to keep his other hand free for force attacks.

But his preference is just that. End of the day the ROTS novel states how he thinks Skywalker is disgusting for having a Cyborg arm and that "A gentleman would have learned to fight one handed."

Does that mean having 1 arm is better than having 1 biological and 1 cyborg arm just because that's what Dooku would prefer?

Of course not.

Fact is this season Kenobi, Sidious, Maul and Skywalker have all resorted to using a 2nd Saber when up against multiple Sabers.

As did Fisto in the first season when he was up against Grievous's multiple Sabers. (In fact the only person in the series to defeat Grievous in a strict Saber duel was Ventress, a Jar Kai wielder).

So either we believe that in all these examples there was no reason for them doing that except "Hey there is another Saber available, so why don't I just use the opportunity to look cool."

Or we can believe the obvious assumption from all these examples, which is that 2 Sabers can be better for dealing with multiple Sabers/Opponents.

Mizukage Yoda
Originally posted by Visage
Lol at you not knowing that a real-world swordsman designed the Lightsaber Forms, with real-world considerations in mind. laughing

I am well aware that a real world swordsman Nick Gillard was the primary choreographer with sword fights.



Attempting to bate me into a flame war I see. Quality posting here.


This vain attempt to save face won't save you. Yes, lightsaber battles are based on real life sword fights.

Star Wars space battles are based on real life battleship encounters. However Star Wars space battles have hundreds of thousands of kilometers with range, and pin point hyperspace jumps, and main weapons with gigatons of power.

Similarly lightsaber battles are more often than not empowered by the force. The weaknesses presented in Jar'Kai in the real world will be way less relevant/ not relevant at all, when you have an entity that grants the user precog, superspeed, and supernatual strength. Oh...and did I forget TK, and lightning.
Originally posted by Visage
In the hands of a highly skilled practioner, one sword can be as good as, or easily better, than two.

Two lightsabers of equal length, because of their actual technical flaw, is a death sentence and a stupid option for a someone to adopt.

A lightsaber and a Shoto, however could offer very good defensive edges in a duel.

Unfortunately, we're not discussing that; and discussing the death sentence of stupidity that is the flawed act of attempting to use two regular-length lightsabers.

Those would be highly ineffective and even moronic to use, compared to a single lightsaber, which is ten times more effective and practical to wield.

Ahh, I see. So Darth Sidious, Darth Plaeguis, and Obi-Wan. All skilled blademasters, are morons because your sensei told you that in your Saturday morning Kendo class? Give me a break.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda



Ahh, I see. So Darth Sidious, Darth Plaeguis, and Obi-Wan. All skilled blademasters, are morons because your sensei told you that in your Saturday morning Kendo class? Give me a break.

laughing

I'll add a few more names: General Grievous, Kit Fisto, Asajj Ventress, Darth Maul, Anakin Skywalker, Starkiller..

Clearly all Morons. Especially GG, Ventress and Starkiller (TFUII) who use that style as their norm.

NewGuy01
Sidious still owns.

Arhael
Originally posted by Col. Valerian
Rookwood's right in the sense that you lose strength when utilizing two blades. You also lose balance.

But, using two swords or a double-bladed one does give you a lot more blows per swing; hence, more damage and destruction per strike. And if used correctly you can overwhelm your opponent much more easily.

Although, I believe that this logic cannot be applied to SW. Maybe when analysing an object's weight or its mass, etc. it is correct to use real life physics as a viable comparrison, but not when it comes to lightsaber duels. There are many more fictional factors to be considered which cannot be compared to real life in any way.

You said that two sabers give more blows per swing. Equally it gives more blocks. But in real life it is ineffective because human can't concentrate on both sabers well. It still works against single opponent as you can use one to block and another to attack. However, it is still useless, when you need to split concentration on both opponents. However, in SW guided by the Force they can concentrate much better on multiple opponent. So the advantage of blocking more is well applicable in SW against multiple opponents.

SevenShackles
All Sidious has to do is change his approach and it's just as an easy win as before. I honestly think he brought two light sabers as overkill to make sure he did what he had to do in a timely fashion. Just exercising caution, not something odd for a man who is manipulating a galactic war and has alot to lose if things go wrong or drag ass.

Col. Valerian
Originally posted by Arhael
However, in SW guided by the Force they can concentrate much better on multiple opponent. So the advantage of blocking more is well applicable in SW against multiple opponents.

My thoughts exactly. That's why I said it cannot be compared to real life.

But it doesn't mean that by wielding two sabers you will automatically be a better swordsman. Sidious wielding one saber or two sabers against the brothers; it doesn't make much difference.

ROTJ Vader
Sidious still owns. 1 saber isint that much of a difference.

KuRuPT Thanosi
Sids doesn't need one saber let alone two to win here.

Jinsoku Takai
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Sids doesn't need one saber let alone two to win here.

Exactly true. Sidious can end the fight with the 2 at any moment he wishes.

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Fact is this season Kenobi, Sidious, Maul and Skywalker have all resorted to using a 2nd Saber when up against multiple Sabers.

Yeah, all in that infantile TCW show. stick out tongue



Originally posted by DARTH POWER
So either we believe that in all these examples there was no reason for them doing that except "Hey there is another Saber available, so why don't I just use the opportunity to look cool."

Or we can believe the obvious assumption from all these examples, which is that 2 Sabers can be better for dealing with multiple Sabers/Opponents.

Assumption? laughing

Yeah. we can believe that TV show mechanics intended to delight and amaze 5-year olds is true and correct.

Or we can believe the technical roots that the very Lightsaber Forms are built upon and understand that it is an obvious flaw that would never actually be practical against an experienced swordsman, and that it's just for kids.

Never "assume" anything. The dual lightsabers of equal length are a death sentence for idiots, and they're only used in that show so little kids can squeal with delight at how cool it looks.

I understand that your infantile "mind" is too overwhelmed by that visual spectacle to even guess at how impractical and useless it really is, but there you are. laughing

Visage
Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda
I am well aware that a real world swordsman Nick Gillard was the primary choreographer with sword fights.

Then you understand the real-world application that was molded into the technical aspects of the Forms, the second he started working on them. smokin'



Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda

Attempting to bate me into a flame war I see. Quality posting here.

I'm pulling your head out of your ass, Sonny. smokin'



Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda

This vain attempt to save face won't save you. Yes, lightsaber battles are based on real life sword fights.

No, not "based on sword fights" - The lightsaber Forms are based on techniques and strategy found in real-world swordsmanship.



Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda

Star Wars space battles are based on real life battleship encounters. However Star Wars space battles have hundreds of thousands of kilometers with range, and pin point hyperspace jumps, and main weapons with gigatons of power.
Similarly lightsaber battles are more often than not empowered by the force. The weaknesses presented in Jar'Kai in the real world will be way less relevant/ not relevant at all, when you have an entity that grants the user precog, superspeed, and supernatual strength. Oh...and did I forget TK, and lightning.

Which does absolutely nothing for the fact that both long blades of equal length which still interfere with each other and create a gap over the central line, that can easily be struck by an experienced and opportunistic swordsman.

TK does nothing for this, nor speed, nor lightning, nor strength, nor even precog.

The only answer to this lethal technical flaw, is if the practioner could use the amplifying switch on their lightsaber to drop the intensity of the blade quickly, to allow one long blade to pass through another, but then that still wouldn't do the job of actually guarding the central line, defeating the purpose still, of another long blade altogether.

The answer for this, would obviously be a Lightsaber and Shoto.

Face it, Son. Your kiddie TV show is flawed. smokin'



Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda

Ahh, I see. So Darth Sidious, Darth Plaeguis, and Obi-Wan. All skilled blademasters, are morons because your sensei told you that in your Saturday morning Kendo class? Give me a break.

My instructor passed away two decades ago and I'm an old fart, now. stick out tongue

Even first-year students know, from the spacial relationship of objects to the blade of their bokken, that two long swords of equal length expose the central line and equate to a potentially quick and very gruesome death.

If you didn't spend those Saturday mornings in your bunny pajamas, playing D&D religiously and instead had put it towards actual martial arts training, you would know all these things by now. smokin'

It's time to let go of the fantasy and pull your head out of your ass, Son.

I'm talking about Swordsmanship here, not D&D.

And in real Swordsmanship, what I said, stands.

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
laughing

I'll add a few more names: General Grievous, Kit Fisto, Asajj Ventress, Darth Maul, Anakin Skywalker, Starkiller..

Clearly all Morons. Especially GG, Ventress and Starkiller (TFUII) who use that style as their norm.

The by-product of being raised by video-games. laughing

Mizukage Yoda
Originally posted by Visage
-snip-
And in real Swordsmanship, what I said, stands.

This isn't real swordsmanship. It's fictional swordsmanship with real world roots.

Your knowledge of real world swordsmanship does not somehow trump canon source material that states that Jar'Kai is best suited for dealing with multiple opponents/ blades.

Visage
Originally posted by Arhael
You said that two sabers give more blows per swing. Equally it gives more blocks. But in real life it is ineffective because human can't concentrate on both sabers well. It still works against single opponent as you can use one to block and another to attack. However, it is still useless, when you need to split concentration on both opponents. However, in SW guided by the Force they can concentrate much better on multiple opponent. So the advantage of blocking more is well applicable in SW against multiple opponents.

That's not the reason why, Arhael. stick out tongue

It has nothing to do with wielding two sabers together - over time, the ability to naturally and effortlessly wield the two weapons becomes second-hand nature; pre-ingrained instinct.

It has to do with the fact that when both blades are as long as they are, and equal length, they obstruct each other's capability to guard a gap in the central line - and all it takes is an experienced swordsman with one blade, to easily pass a cut or thrust into it.

That's why two long blades are not used conventionally in real life, and a long sword and short sword is used, instead.

As long as the two lightsabers are solid, they'll have this problem, and the fatal flaw everyone who is experienced in swordsmanship knows about.

Mizukage Yoda
Originally posted by Visage
The by-product of being raised by video-games. laughing

Concession accepted.

Arhael
Originally posted by Visage
That's not the reason why, Arhael. stick out tongue

It has nothing to do with wielding two sabers together - over time, the ability to naturally and effortlessly wield the two weapons becomes second-hand nature; pre-ingrained instinct.

It has to do with the fact that when both blades are as long as they are, and equal length, they obstruct each other's capability to guard a gap in the central line - and all it takes is an experienced swordsman with one blade, to easily pass a cut or thrust into it.

That's why two long blades are not used conventionally in real life, and a long sword and short sword is used, instead.

As long as the two lightsabers are solid, they'll have this problem, and the fatal flaw everyone who is experienced in swordsmanship knows about.
That's an interesting info, which made me do some research.

This is my initial opinion before research:

I can't agree that this weakness is real factor. Whatever weakness a style has, techniques can be invented to compensate for it or overcome entirely. It's like Makashi that lacks kinetic energy making it difficult to block attacks. Yet, its superior mobility allows to deflect attacks sideways and even use opponent's strength against them.

This is my opinion after research:

I still can't agree with the weakness you stated. Maybe it is the case in some specific style(s) but there is so many styles and techniques that it simply cannot be the case every time.

Moreover, the style with two equal length swords does exist, although, not very popular. I found a source, where sword+dagger and two-swords are compared and two-sword style is specifically stated to give much better blocking:
"Two Swords implies that you are wielding two swords of equal length. This not only gives you the advantage of multiple attacks at the same time, but it also allows for much better blocking than with only one weapon".

Here is the link:
http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Boffer/Guide-Florentine.html

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Arhael


Moreover, the style with two equal length swords does exist, although, not very popular. I found a source, where sword+dagger and two-swords are compared and two-sword style is specifically stated to give much better blocking:
"Two Swords implies that you are wielding two swords of equal length. This not only gives you the advantage of multiple attacks at the same time, but it also allows for much better blocking than with only one weapon".

Here is the link:
http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Boffer/Guide-Florentine.html

Well that's that then.

Dual Sword fighting has real life proof that it's more effective for defending and attacking.

The disadvantages of weight and concentrating on 2 different blades will hardly effect a force wielder whose actions are force guided and carrying lightsabers whose blades are weightless.

Plus TCW has made it clear it's more useful in reference to SW.

There's no point in questioning this anymore. The only thing to question is how much of a difference it makes. But it clearly does make a difference (however small or large).

But LOL It's all obviously stupid. I mean why would weapons used make any kind of difference to a Fight? Fisto, Kenobi, Maul, Sidious and Skywalker were obviously all just trying to look Cool!

Visage
Originally posted by Arhael
That's an interesting info, which made me do some research.

This is my initial opinion before research:

I can't agree that this weakness is real factor. Whatever weakness a style has, techniques can be invented to compensate for it or overcome entirely. It's like Makashi that lacks kinetic energy making it difficult to block attacks. Yet, its superior mobility allows to deflect attacks sideways and even use opponent's strength against them.

This is my opinion after research:

I still can't agree with the weakness you stated. Maybe it is the case in some specific style(s) but there is so many styles and techniques that it simply cannot be the case every time.

Moreover, the style with two equal length swords does exist, although, not very popular. I found a source, where sword+dagger and two-swords are compared and two-sword style is specifically stated to give much better blocking:
"Two Swords implies that you are wielding two swords of equal length. This not only gives you the advantage of multiple attacks at the same time, but it also allows for much better blocking than with only one weapon".

Here is the link:
http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Boffer/Guide-Florentine.html

Is this LARPing shit? laughing

From the very same website:
The term 'boffer' refers to a contact weapon (swords, spears, clubs, arrows, hammers, etc.) that is made from light weight materials and padded with foam to prevent injury. Here is a picture of some boffer weapons.

Boffering is a contact sport and because of this it is not entirely painless. It is possible to get a bruise or welt if you are playing too rough. However, with properly padded weapons, there is very little chance of injury. The pain in boffering is about equal to a pillow fight. Other sports, such as football, baseball, or hockey, are more dangerous than boffer fighting. So if you can play those games, you should be able to handle boffering with ease.

laughing

Anyway..

Back in the day, the most popular form of using two swords, was still using a rapier and a shorter sword (which would go in line with the Japanese technical understanding of using the Katana and Wakizashi).

So, long sword, and short sword.

Using two rapiers that were the same length were rarely ever utilized in serious combat; never found their way onto any battlefields and were generally considered to be nothing more than a curiosity by most swordsmen.

Which means that unlike the sword/shortsword combo, the case of two long blades was nothing more than a curiosity.

And understandably so.


- You have to understand just why dueling with a rapier and a side-sword or a dagger was so popular; because it was effective and practical.

Dueling with two long blades leaves gaps in the all-important central-line exposed - and when you use a Wakizashi, or a parrying-dagger, or a shortsword - that gap can be covered and protected.

Not to mention it gives that great edge in interceptive-defense.

So using two 3-foot long blades at the same time, would get you killed against an experienced swordsman.

Using a lightsaber and Shoto however, could give you an edge.


As you saw with that silly website, double-rapier fencing is highly popular with re-enactment groups, LARPers (Live-Action-Role-Play) and stage-fighting organizations, for the use of fictional fencing in plays and movies.

It looks neat, but would get you killed against someone who knows what he's doing. stick out tongue

Visage
Originally posted by Mizukage Yoda
My being your ***** is accepted.

Fixed. big grin

laughing

Your concession is accepted. cool

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Well that's that then.

Not so much, 'O ye of little brains. stick out tongue

Go read what I posted to Arhael.





Originally posted by DARTH POWER

But LOL It's all obviously stupid. I mean why would weapons used make any kind of difference to a Fight? Fisto, Kenobi, Maul, Sidious and Skywalker were obviously all just trying to look Cool!

Why don't you go ask some 5-year olds for their opinion? laughing

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Visage


Back in the day, the most popular form of using two swords, was still using a rapier and a shorter sword (which would go in line with the Japanese technical understanding of using the Katana and Wakizashi).

So, long sword, and short sword.

Yes which has been explained in the website, the lethality of that form is the dagger would have forks that could catch the Opponents Sword. That's what made it so lethal. A Shoto doesn't have that advantage.

Anyway we're not even comparing Dual Sabers of different lengths.

We're comparing Dual Sabers to a single one..

In SW it's clearly proved more useful wielding 2.

Originally posted by Visage
Using two rapiers that were the same length were rarely ever utilized in serious combat; never found their way onto any battlefields and were generally considered to be nothing more than a curiosity by most swordsmen.



Because of the weight which Lightsabers don't have. I mean jeez imagine backin the day trying to wield a heavy sword in each hand.

Originally posted by Visage



Why don't you go ask some 5-year olds for their opinion? laughing

I really don't need to when I have you here.

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Yes which has been explained in the foam website, the lethality of that form is the dagger would have forks that could catch the Opponents Sword. That's what made it so lethal.


A sword/dagger combination was lethal, period, extended-guard or not.

And why did you capitalize "opponents sword"? laughing



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

A Shoto doesn't have that advantage.

It doesn't need it. laughing

It does it's job perfectly well, which is the seamless defense of the central line and the ability to check an incoming blade; to accommodate the follow-up strike from the sword.

- If you're trying to say that the Shoto is ineffective to be paired up with a lightsaber, then you're more of a water-head than I thought.

You should just quit now and stop embarrassing yourself, although it is funny to watch. stick out tongue



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Anyway we're not even comparing Dual Sabers of different lengths.

Apparently we are. With your borrowing quotes off of website run by LARPers who attack each other with foam. stick out tongue

And then you try to use that to sound like you know what you're talking about, when you obviously don't. laughing

You couldn't even guess at the advantages of a shortsword/Shoto.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

We're comparing Dual Sabers to a single one..

And it stands. Wielding two 3-foot long blades would obstruct the ability of the two, to guard the fatal gap in the central line.

Wielding a single 3-foot blade does not have that obstruction, and is free to guard the central line in it's totality.

Wielding two, would get you killed against an experienced swordsman.

Wielding one, would be able to guard everything better, and would be the effective and practical choice.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

In SW it's clearly proved more useful wielding 2.

TCW is a work of fiction with elements clearly aimed at children. It ignores or is ignorant of principles clearly understood in real Swordsmanship.

It's the same stuff you see in cartoons; it's just there to delight and amaze the kiddies.. and the mentally-handicapped. smokin'



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Because of the weight which Lightsabers don't have. I mean jeez imagine backin the day trying to wield a heavy sword in each hand.

Soldiers were well-trained to carry and fight with heavy gear/objects over miles. stick out tongue

It was because the act of wielding two long blades that obstructed each other so that the body couldn't even be entirely defended, would result in a horrible death on the battlefield, which is why, unlike the sword/dagger combination, the two rapier combination was never used there and was never considered more than a simple curiosity.



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

I really don't need to when I have you here.

I think your mind is obviously the most in tune with that of a child, here. stick out tongue

You won't let go of the childish notions that you see in cartoons, designed and put there to simply dazzle children.

In a way, it's light-hearted to watch, and yet it's also funny. stick out tongue

DARTH POWER
From SW Wookie (your preferred "official" source laughing out loud ):

Dual-blade fighters, whether classical Niman duelists or individuals applying the Jar'Kai tactic, were able to maintain a strong offense, as the speed of attack that two blades allowed would overwhelm most opponents.


Another advantage of Jar'Kai was that the two blades made it easier to hold off multiple opponents, as one simply had more blades to parry with.

laughing

You can stop arguing the point now.

Oh and I know it kills you every day that the "kid cartoon" is higher in canonicity than the rest of the EU according to your own preferred source Leeland Chee laughing

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
From SW Wookie (your preferred "official" source ):
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Well the Bios on the official site has a link to their wooki bio for a more in depth EU take. So that's something.
Official in your words, too, 'Tard. stick out tongue






Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Dual-blade fighters, whether classical Niman duelists or individuals applying the Jar'Kai tactic, were able to maintain a strong offense, as the speed of attack that two blades allowed would overwhelm most opponents.
Another advantage of Jar'Kai was that the two blades made it easier to hold off multiple opponents, as one simply had more blades to parry with.

Yeah.

I can see a Lightsaber-Shoto combination working well for that. cool




Originally posted by DARTH POWER

You can stop arguing the point now.

I accept your concession. smokin'



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Oh and I know it kills you every day that the "kid cartoon" is higher in canonicity than the rest of the EU according to your own preferred source Leeland Chee

Oh, as long as we're arguing "higher canon", care to point out to me in the Trilogies, one instance where Jar'Kai was effectively used to deliver strikes - multiple times together - and not one at a time, and point out to me evidence of it's effectiveness, period. wink

I want to see what the Highest form of Canon says about the effectiveness and physical characteristics of Jar'Kai, as displayed by a skilled swordsman. cool

Go ahead; let's see what it produces. wink

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Visage
Official in your words, too, 'Tard. stick out tongue

No not in my words. I was just pointing out that there is a link there. But in this case I'm happy to make an exception just to watch how you desperately try and crawl your way out of this massive hole you've dug for yourself.








Originally posted by Visage
Yeah.

I can see a Lightsaber-Shoto combination working well for that. cool


Nope. Your official source was talking specifically about Dual Lightsabers. Full-Length ones smokin' So in your words:


Originally posted by Visage
I accept your concession. smokin'






Originally posted by Visage
Oh, as long as we're arguing "higher canon", care to point out to me in the Trilogies, one instance where Jar'Kai was effectively used to deliver strikes - multiple times together - and not one at a time, and point out to me evidence of it's effectiveness, period. wink

I want to see what the Highest form of Canon says about the effectiveness and physical characteristics of Jar'Kai, as displayed by a skilled swordsman. cool

Go ahead; let's see what it produces. wink

Oh that's simple. It was only used 1 time by AOTC Anakin. And the novel makes it clear Anakin gave Dooku the most trouble with his Dual Sabers. In fact Yoda is described as being even better than the Dual Blade Anakin.

Oh you've so been owned here. By your own official sources, and from the sources you requested. Put your head down in shame and return to your SockVerse, where all Socks belong. And always remember DP handed you your ass.
smokin' smokin' smokin'

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Visage

Oh, as long as we're arguing "higher canon", care to point out to me in the Trilogies, one instance where Jar'Kai was effectively used to deliver strikes - multiple times together - and not one at a time, and point out to me evidence of it's effectiveness, period. wink



Oh and duh.. General Grievous. How could I forget him! Whose only noted to produce an offence of a lethal 20 strikes per second with the use of 4 Sabers. (He actually rarely ever uses less than 2, because he realizes not being a force user he better be attacking Jedi with as many Full Length Sabers as he can. I don't remember him using a Shoto smokin' ).

And the ROTS Novel and Script both claim that even Kenobi- The Master of the most Defensive form, had a difficult time defending against all 4 of his Sabers.

So yeah:

Originally posted by DARTH POWER


Oh you've so been owned here. By your own official sources, and from the sources you requested. Put your head down in shame and return to your SockVerse, where all Socks belong. And always remember DP handed you your ass.
smokin' smokin' smokin'

Galan007
Palpatine wins both scenarios-- and easily, at that.

It was made overtly clear in the CW episode that he could have casually obliterated the brothers with the force at any time.... He seemed to engage them in lightsaber combat solely for his own personal enjoyment-- and when he grew tired of that, he tooled each of them with the force.

DARTH POWER
Confirmation from the Official Site that Sidious also enjoyed battling Yoda:

Master Yoda confronts Darth Sidious in the Senate chambers. The Sith Lord, having long plotted his conquest of the galaxy, delights in battling the Jedi.

Since the closet thing to proof that Sidious held back on the brothers was that Filoni suggested it with his statement about Sidious enjoying the fight, then I guess the Official Site is also suggesting here that Sidious held back against Yoda.

KuRuPT Thanosi
Don't worry Big Galan... DP just has a man crush on the brothers... Don't worry though I'm working on that.. Anyways, Sids stomps and with little difficulty

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Don't worry Big Galan... DP just has a man crush on the brothers...

It wasn't aimed at him Lol. His comment just reminded me to post that quote.

KuRuPT Thanosi
Glad you didn't disagree about your mancrush though... We all have them... I have one on Thanos.. Galan.. Mxy or Zoom stick out tongue

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Glad you didn't disagree about your mancrush though... We all have them... I have one on Thanos.. Galan.. Mxy or Zoom stick out tongue

Mine are on Thor, Batman, Iron-Man, Green Arrow/Lantern.. Luke, Vader, Dooku and yes Maul Lol

KuRuPT Thanosi
and yes Maul LOL. ... Though I'm glad to know you like Thor smile Batman.. well he's no Captain America but whatever lol

Arhael
Originally posted by Visage Is this LARPing shit? laughing

From the very same website:
The term 'boffer' refers to a contact weapon (swords, spears, clubs, arrows, hammers, etc.) that is made from light weight materials and padded with foam to prevent injury. Here is a picture of some boffer weapons.
Being made from light material makes it much more similar to lightsaber.
Shinai or Katana are heavy, which reduces speed by a lot making it unsuitable for one handed grip in general.


We are not discussing populariry here. More popular does not equate to more effective. Using one sword or sword + shield or many other weapons was far more popular than two swords. Doesn't mean it is more effective.

Also, Japanese Katana and Wakizashi you refer to. Was it utilized in real battle field or was it just a guy who invented style and opened a training school?


Don't agree. You apply logic of specific style and assume that it would be the case for every style.

I watched videos with this long+short style.
First, Katana/Shinai unlike rapier or rubber stick as I said is not sufficient for one-handed style, it's too heavy and that's why it requires second short weapon in order to be effective.

Second, practitioners hold both weapons at front of them. So yes, you are right, two long weapons, when using such posture, would create problem in central defense. But more suitable postures and tactics can be used.

I can hold one sword at the front, while another drawn behind ready to swing. The first sword would be used for both blocking and attacking, second - for attacking only, when opportunity arises. This way swords will not interfere. And no, it will not make my defense weak, one handed style with apropriate weapon such as rapier or rubber stick can be as effective as two-handed style. And lack of strength is compensated by much better maneuverability that comes from wrist manipulation and better movement freedom in general.

Although, one-handed defence can still be overpowered by strength in some cases, it is well compensated by extra offensive power of second weapon.

Moreover, why would I allow opponent to overwhelm my defence? I can choose to keep distance and suddenly attack (ala Kendo suicide attack) with both weapons simultaniously.

Or I can choose to strike at opponent's weapon to batt it away or simply keep busy, while simultaniously attack with second weapon.

These are only some of the possible tactics that take advantage of double attack.

Finally, as my second weapon is generally held behind me, I can use it to block attacks of second opponent from opposite side. While it would be nearly impossible to split concentration in such way, for Force user such feat is nothing extraordinary.


Don't be so sure. That "someone" would be trained to defend against single weapon attacks, thus attaking him with both weapons at the same time would give me significant advantage.

Visage
Originally posted by Arhael
Being made from light material makes it much more similar to lightsaber.

No, it doesn't. Being made from foam does not give it the characteristic of being "sharp all over". stick out tongue




Originally posted by Arhael

Shinai or Katana are heavy, which reduces speed by a lot making it unsuitable for one handed grip in general.

Shinai are light.

The Bokken would be heavy.

And the majority of opening stances are practiced with one-handed cuts and swings.

The Katana is very suitable for a one-handed grip and is by no means a slow weapon to wield. stick out tongue





Originally posted by Arhael

We are not discussing populariry here. More popular does not equate to more effective. Using one sword or sword + shield or many other weapons was far more popular than two swords. Doesn't mean it is more effective.

It's "popularity" and yes, being more popular at the time, does make it more effective.

On the battlefield, where your life was on the line, the sword and shield or sword and dagger combination was more popular than wielding two long blades - because the former combination would ensure your survival, whereas the latter would you get you killed.

They understood the dangers inherent in a system that was not practical and would lead to your death, hence they never used it on the battlefield.

It wasn't popular, because you would die from trying to use it. So in this case, yes, popular does equal more effective.




Originally posted by Arhael

Also, Japanese Katana and Wakizashi you refer to. Was it utilized in real battle field or was it just a guy who invented style and opened a training school?

It was a system that was always utilized in real battle. Feudal Japan was full of small skirmishes where a swordsman could be set upon almost any day by bandits, depending on where he was traveling.

The case of the Katana and Wakizashi is tried and true, as practitioners of Kenjustsu understood it could provide a heightened defense of the central line.




Originally posted by Arhael

Don't agree. You apply logic of specific style and assume that it would be the case for every style.
I watched videos with this long+short style.
First, Katana/Shinai unlike rapier or rubber stick as I said is not sufficient for one-handed style, it's too heavy and that's why it requires second short weapon in order to be effective.

Your writing is humorously contradictory. You're saying that the Katana is too heavy for one hand, and that's why you have to carry a second weapon in the off-hand? laughing

Oh, Arhael. stick out tongue

You make it impossible for anyone to dislike you.

A Shinai is very easy to hold in one hand, in terms of it's weight.

A Katana is utilized and practiced with a multitude of one-handed cuts and maneuvers and isn't too heavy for that, either.

You should look into studying the style more, before giving erroneous opinions.




Originally posted by Arhael

Second, practitioners hold both weapons at front of them. So yes, you are right, two long weapons, when using such posture, would create problem in central defense. But more suitable postures and tactics can be used.

Yeah, like not using the second blade. stick out tongue





Originally posted by Arhael

I can hold one sword at the front, while another drawn behind ready to swing. The first sword would be used for both blocking and attacking, second - for attacking only, when opportunity arises. This way swords will not interfere. And no, it will not make my defense weak, one handed style with apropriate weapon such as rapier or rubber stick can be as effective as two-handed style. And lack of strength is compensated by much better maneuverability that comes from wrist manipulation and better movement freedom in general.
Although, one-handed defence can still be overpowered by strength in some cases, it is well compensated by extra offensive power of second weapon.
Moreover, why would I allow opponent to overwhelm my defence? with both weapons simultaniously.
Or I can choose to strike at opponent's weapon to batt it away or simply keep busy, while simultaniously attack with second weapon.
These are only some of the possible tactics that take advantage of double attack.
Finally, as my second weapon is generally held behind me, I can use it to block attacks of second opponent from opposite side. While it would be nearly impossible to split concentration in such way, for Force user such feat is nothing extraordinary.

Ahrael, you don't know anything about Swordsmanship. laughing

Just go back to your school, or find one, and keep studying. laughing




Originally posted by Arhael

I can choose to keep distance and suddenly attack (ala Kendo suicide attack)

I think you actually might have raw talent at being a comedian, though. laughing

The Russian version of Robin Williams.




Originally posted by Arhael

Don't be so sure. That "someone" would be trained to defend against single weapon attacks, thus attaking him with both weapons at the same time would give me significant advantage.

Only if he doesn't cross one of your attacking-extended weapons into your next blade and deliver a cut to one or both of your hands/wrists, flaying them open. stick out tongue

It doesn't matter if you know how to fight a single-blade opponent - if you wield two long blades against him - you're the one with the disadvantage. smokin'

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
No not in my words. I was just pointing out that there is a link there. But in this case I'm happy to make an exception just to watch how you desperately try and crawl your way out of this massive hole you've dug for yourself.

Oh, the hole is dug for you, smokin'

And you've tripped right into it.

In an ironic twist, you've made my "official" website irrelevant here.

Since we're going by your standards of Highest Canon this effectively makes the EU material on my official website non-involved in our debate.





Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Nope. Your official source was talking specifically about Dual Lightsabers. Full-Length ones

That EU material doesn't exist in the Highest Canon. smokin'





Originally posted by DARTH POWER

So in my words: I concede.

Concession accepted. cool






Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Oh that's simple. It was only used 1 time by AOTC Anakin.
And the novel makes it clear

Novel? laughing

We're using Highest Canon here, 'Tard. That means the Movie. stick out tongue

Now let's see how our prodigy swordsman did, with the added advantage of another saber - let's see how much of an advantage it gave him:
BvnwLLXHabg

1:35-1:43
Two Lightsabers
Length Only 9 seconds.
Added Advantage None - Prodigy can only strike one at a time; never together and is driven back.


1:44-2:15
One Lightsaber
Length 32 Seconds
Added Advantage Greater offensive and defensive capability; length to smirmish; not driven back through fight.


In the Trilogies, the Jar'Kai user has no added advantage at all with two lightsabers.

With the long blades being too obstructive, the Prodigy cannot make the simple physical action of striking with both blades multiple times together.

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Anakin gave Dooku the most trouble with his Dual Sabers.

That wasn't what I challenged you. stick out tongue

I challenged you to show me what the Highest Canon says about the effectiveness and physical characteristics of Jar'Kai by a skilled swordsman and to prove one instance of such a swordsman using Jar'Kai to deliver strikes - multiple times together - and not one at a time.

And you failed miserably. laughing

General Grievous cannot display the standard physical characteristics of Jar'Kai - because he has a Cybernetic frame that has joints that bend allowing him to move and strike from angles not found naturally within the art of Jar'Kai.


Anakin is Non-cybernetic and furthermore has a body with equipped Jedi conditioning, and while being a Prodigy swordsman, cannot initiate the simple physical action of striking with both long blades multiple times together - and can only strike with the long obstructive blades one at a time.

Such a showing further demonstrates a non-existent advantage given by the two lightsabers.

cool

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER

In fact Yoda is described as being even better than the Dual Blade Anakin.

Of course he would be, Moron. laughing






Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Oh you've so been owned here.

No, Young Lady. It is you who have been owned. stick out tongue

A hole was dug. And I simply waited for you to bring up your crowning importance within Star Wars; that being the Highest Canon, which in your vernacular symbolizes the epitome of Canon itself.

And within that Canon, two lightsabers being utilized give no advantage whatsoever, and in fact apparently give a disadvantage.

Hmm, two long obstructive blades, that can only be used to strike only one at a time by a Prodigy swordsman; wonder why? stick out tongue





Originally posted by DARTH POWER

By your own official sources, and from the sources you requested.

And by your own standards, I have defeated you.

You created the bonds that would slip around you and tighten, sealing you to your fate.

The Highest Canon was the hole I was digging from the very beginning.

And all I had to do, was wait for you to blindly trip into it.

And now I have buried you. smokin'










Originally posted by DARTH POWER

always remember DP ass.

This is the very reason you shouldn't celebrate your victories early; you look like a Retard. laughing

But then again, that's what you are. stick out tongue

I had my hand up your ass, from the very beginning - controlling you like a puppet. smokin'

Now it's time for you to place your head on the floor, and your ass up in the air, so I can claim what's mine. cool

I am your Daddy, and you have been defeated; your virginity belongs to me.

laughing

Visage
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Oh and duh.. General Grievous. How could I forget him!

The question is, how could you forget that he has cybernetic joints that allow him to bend and strike from angles, impossible for standard Jar'Kai users.

And that I challenged you to show me what the Highest Canon says about the effectiveness and physical characteristics of Jar'Kai by a skilled swordsman, of which Grievous' own physicality is uniquely different from.

Which leaves only Anakin. wink

And how could you forget this? Why, because you're a Retard of course. laughing

A spitting, stumbling, water-headed Retard. stick out tongue

But at least you can be Mommy's baby forever because of that. stick out tongue



Originally posted by DARTH POWER

Whose only noted to produce an offence of a lethal 20 strikes per second with the use of 4 Sabers.
(He actually rarely ever uses less than 2, because he realizes not being a force user he better be attacking Jedi with as many Full Length Sabers as he can. I don't remember him using a Shoto smokin' ).And the ROTS Novel and Script both claim that even Kenobi- The Master of the most Defensive form, had a difficult time defending against all 4 of his Sabers.
So yeah:

Exceptional deduction! stick out tongue

And his cybernetic joints that allow him to bend and strike from angles not found naturally within the art of Jar'Kai, meaning he is non-applicable.

Good job, Moron. laughing

My, your mother must love the fact that you never progressed beyond the cognitive strength of a 6-year old child.

It's like she has you as a little kid, forever. big grin

Arhael
Originally posted by Visage
No, it doesn't. Being made from foam does not give it the characteristic of being "sharp all over".

Lol. It's enough to assume that it is sharp all over.


Except my friend who used to do fencing said that Shinai is too heavy. There is no way you can move Shinai/Katana even remotely as fast as rapier/rubber stick. In one hand it simply lacks control and speed.


Where do you get info that on battlefield sword and dagger was used at all? For example having katana + wakizashi against armored person would be waste as you won't have enough strength to cut through armor.


Bullshit. Traditionally they carried two swords but only one was used in combat. In particular this style is almost useless against armored opponent as it doesn't offer enough strength to cut through armor.

According to most traditional kenjutsu schools, only one sword of the daisho would have been used in combat. However, in the first half of the 17th century, the famous swordsman Musashi Miyamoto promoted the use of a one-handed grip, which allowed both swords to be used simultaneously. This technique, called nitōken, is a main element of the Niten Ichi-ryū style of swordsmanship that Musashi founded.

A single guy founded and promoted style. That's hardly sounds like "popular" style.


Lol. I am talking in general. Katana is insufficient for one-handed use on it's own because of lack of control, it would require second short weapon. Rapier on the other hand is designed for one hand and can be more deadly than Katana in two hands.

Irrelevant that it is easy to hold Shinai in one hand. Control and speed it offers is nowhere as good as rapier's.

Indeed, Katana includes a few one handed strikes. But you still lack control, if you don't use second hand.

You should train at least in one style to have at least some idea of what you are talking about. Two-sword style is effective and popular, although, weapons in most cases are shorter than usual.


You don't know anything about Swordsmanship as your knowledge is based on experience of others, while your own one is 0. I base my knowledge both on mine and of others.


Only, if I don't cut him with second weapon, while he is trying to cross them. We can make entire fight through forum. big grin

It doesn't matter, if he knows how to fight against opponent with two weapons. I can win him with one weapon in one hand, second weapon is just a bonus. Happy Dance

Vensai
Yeah, so if this is sabers only, the brothers barely win. Sidious is powerful but I am not sure he can separate them long enough without the force. Maul himself was briefly pushing back Sidious at the end. Sidious with force rapes.

Arhael
Originally posted by Vensai
Yeah, so if this is sabers only, the brothers barely win. Sidious is powerful but I am not sure he can separate them long enough without the force. Maul himself was briefly pushing back Sidious at the end. Sidious with force rapes.
thumb up

Agree, what you described is common sense. But few people would appropriate it here.

Galan007
Originally posted by Vensai
Yeah, so if this is sabers only, the brothers barely win. Sidious is powerful but I am not sure he can separate them long enough without the force. Maul himself was briefly pushing back Sidious at the end. Can't agree.

Maul was able to *marginally* push back Palpatine after he unlocked 'super rage mode' in the wake of his brother's death, and Palpatine's taunting(similar to the rage-boost Obi-Wan momentarily gained when he saw Maul kill Qui-Gon.) However, even with the added rage Maul never once gained any sort of clear advantage in their one-on-one saber fight, imo--- as once Palps gathered himself he easily pushed Maul back and down to his knees, before proceeding to tool him for a final time with the force... And before that the Brothers looked even worse still-- there was not a single instance in which their saber skills appeared to remotely rival those of Palps. Hell, Savage was so inept that at one point Palps was effortlessly side-stepping some of his strikes without even activating his saber. Lulz.

At any rate, lets not act as though Palpatine needed to use the force to win. No happenings in that battle were indicative of such. Imo utilization of the force was simply a faster/simpler means to the same end. Nothing more.

Vensai
Originally posted by Galan007
Can't agree.

Maul was able to *marginally* push back Palpatine after he unlocked 'super rage mode' in the wake of his brother's death, and Palpatine's taunting(similar to the rage-boost Obi-Wan momentarily gained when he saw Maul kill Qui-Gon.) However, even with the added rage Maul never once gained any sort of clear advantage in their one-on-one saber fight, imo--- as once Palps gathered himself he easily pushed Maul back and down to his knees, before proceeding to tool him for a final time with the force... And before that the Brothers looked even worse still-- there was not a single instance in which their saber skills appeared to remotely rival those of Palps. Hell, Savage was so inept that at one point Palps was effortlessly side-stepping some of his strikes without even activating his saber. Lulz.

At any rate, lets not act as though Palpatine needed to use the force to win. No happenings in that battle were indicative of such. Imo utilization of the force was simply a faster/simpler means to the same end. Nothing more.

Well, I don't want to get into the whole "Sidious wasn't actually trying" argument but was Sidious actually stomping the brothers together in sabers? Enraged Maul did manage to kick Sidious back, which is a temporary advantage. I agree though that Sidious was messing around with Opress by himself. Without Maul's assistance he got owned.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Galan007


Maul was able to *marginally* push back Palpatine after he unlocked 'super rage mode' in the wake of his brother's death, and Palpatine's taunting(similar to the rage-boost Obi-Wan momentarily gained when he saw Maul kill Qui-Gon.)

Although I mostly agree I'm inclined to point out a couple of differences in the 2 examples. Obi-Wan's a lightsider. For him to embrace his rage is a one-off. Maul has spent his life embracing his rage and not letting things go.

The whole reason TCW Maul is more powerful than TPM Maul is the build up of his rage over the years at the events of TPM. Whose to say the anger at seeing Opress slain won't also stay with him?

The other difference is that Maul actually did hold his own the against Sidious the whole Saber fight. He wasn't easily floored the way Opress was or the way TPM Kenobi was against Maul (before the rage boost).


Originally posted by Galan007
However, even with the added rage Maul never once gained any sort of clear advantage in their one-on-one saber fight, imo--- as once Palps gathered himself he easily pushed Maul back and down to his knees, before proceeding to tool him for a final time with the force...

He was still stronger which is why he overpowered him in the Saber lock (which actually began with Sidious on his knees btw). But they were even in skill and speed. And the fact that Sidious wasted no time to force stomp him as soon as he was disarmed shows Sidious didn't want to chance him getting up and grabbing a lightsaber again Imo.

Originally posted by Galan007
Hell, Savage was so inept that at one point Palps was effortlessly side-stepping some of his strikes without even activating his saber. Lulz.

I mean Dooku's treated Savage in the same way. But clearly Savage was some kind of threat to him (with the aid of Ventress).

Kenobi has given Ventress the same treatment in TCW movie. Does that mean she's a joke to him. Ventress eveaded Opress blows after being disarmed by him. But she was actually losing the fight.

And most recently an unarmed Ventress evaded Skywalker.


Originally posted by Galan007
At any rate, lets not act as though Palpatine needed to use the force to win. No happenings in that battle were indicative of such. Imo utilization of the force was simply a faster/simpler means to the same end. Nothing more.

It's speculation tbh. The Lightsaber battle was a good one. I'm not saying Palpatine couldn't have won it. He obviously could of. But I'd say the Brothers also would have had a chance in a pure Saber duel. And their chances would likely increase if you limit Sidious to 1 Saber only.

But the fact is Palpatine did resort to using the Force to seperate them so it's all speculative.

Galan007
Originally posted by Vensai
Well, I don't want to get into the whole "Sidious wasn't actually trying" argument but was Sidious actually stomping the brothers together in sabers? Enraged Maul did manage to kick Sidious back, which is a temporary advantage. I agree though that Sidious was messing around with Opress by himself. Without Maul's assistance he got owned. If Palpatine went into this battle not messing around initially, he is obviously capable of slaying Savage within the first few seconds of the battle-- leaving only Palpatine and Maul to battle individually... And in their one-on-one skirmish, Maul showed absolutely nothing indicative of being able to beat Palpatine in sabers, imo.

This 'saber lock' people continuously reference as though it put Maul on par with Palps, should really be reevaluated by those same people. Palpatine starts out on his knees with Maul standing above him. Palps proceeds to stand back up to his feet(despite having a leverage DISadvantage), and easily pushes Maul a few feet backward and and down to his knees with a single back-hand-slash from his sabers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jt-V_WQW3w
(starts at 4:20.)

Clearly Palps was the stronger duelist. Even if you want to argue that their skill-level was the same(which is a drastic overestimation, imo) Palps was still the stronger duelist. If two combatants are utilizing the same form of combat, and their skill-level with that form is equal, then the stronger of the two duelists is going to win every time. Only a berserker fanboy would argue otherwise.

KuRuPT Thanosi
Originally posted by Galan007
Can't agree.

Maul was able to *marginally* push back Palpatine after he unlocked 'super rage mode' in the wake of his brother's death, and Palpatine's taunting(similar to the rage-boost Obi-Wan momentarily gained when he saw Maul kill Qui-Gon.) However, even with the added rage Maul never once gained any sort of clear advantage in their one-on-one saber fight, imo--- as once Palps gathered himself he easily pushed Maul back and down to his knees, before proceeding to tool him for a final time with the force... And before that the Brothers looked even worse still-- there was not a single instance in which their saber skills appeared to remotely rival those of Palps. Hell, Savage was so inept that at one point Palps was effortlessly side-stepping some of his strikes without even activating his saber. Lulz.

At any rate, lets not act as though Palpatine needed to use the force to win. No happenings in that battle were indicative of such. Imo utilization of the force was simply a faster/simpler means to the same end. Nothing more. thumb up

KuRuPT Thanosi
I don't know why more is made out of this fight than need be... Sids didn't even need ONE saber to beat these two. It was a non fight. Doesn't mean maul or opress aren't powerful or a force together or alone.. it's just that Sids is THAT good and one of the best ever in the mythos. Nor harm there, but let's stop making this out to be more than it is.

SIDIOUS 66
Originally posted by Galan007
If Palpatine went into this battle not messing around initially, he is obviously capable of slaying Savage within the first few seconds of the battle-- leaving only Palpatine and Maul to battle individually... And in their one-on-one skirmish, Maul showed absolutely nothing indicative of being able to beat Palpatine in sabers, imo.

This 'saber lock' people continuously reference as though it put Maul on par with Palps, should really be reevaluated by those same people. Palpatine starts out on his knees with Maul standing above him. Palps proceeds to stand back up to his feet(despite having a leverage DISadvantage), and easily pushes Maul a few feet backward and and down to his knees with a single back-hand-slash from his sabers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jt-V_WQW3w
(starts at 4:20.)

Clearly Palps was the stronger duelist. Even if you want to argue that their skill-level was the same(which is a drastic overestimation, imo) Palps was still the stronger duelist. If two combatants are utilizing the same form of combat, and their skill-level with that form is equal, then the stronger of the two duelists is going to win every time. Only a berserker fanboy would argue otherwise.


Not to mention Palpatine wasn't trying to kill Maul. And when only aiming to disarm, one tends limit himself greatly.

Galan007
That is true. Palpatine outright stated that he didn't want to kill Maul. thumb up

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Galan007
If Palpatine went into this battle not messing around initially, he is obviously capable of slaying Savage within the first few seconds of the battle-- leaving only Palpatine and Maul to battle individually... And in their one-on-one skirmish, Maul showed absolutely nothing indicative of being able to beat Palpatine in sabers, imo.

This 'saber lock' people continuously reference as though it put Maul on par with Palps, should really be reevaluated by those same people. Palpatine starts out on his knees with Maul standing above him. Palps proceeds to stand back up to his feet(despite having a leverage DISadvantage), and easily pushes Maul a few feet backward and and down to his knees with a single back-hand-slash from his sabers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jt-V_WQW3w
(starts at 4:20.)

Clearly Palps was the stronger duelist. Even if you want to argue that their skill-level was the same(which is a drastic overestimation, imo) Palps was still the stronger duelist. If two combatants are utilizing the same form of combat, and their skill-level with that form is equal, then the stronger of the two duelists is going to win every time. Only a berserker fanboy would argue otherwise.

No one's argued Sidious wasn't stronger or that Maul could have won.

And you don't think they showed equal skill in that last fight?

Originally posted by Galan007
That is true. Palpatine outright stated that he didn't want to kill Maul. thumb up

He never said he simply didn't "want" to. Or that "he never planned" on killing him. Maul was never a part of his plans, and if he's going to make use of a defeated Maul then it's just a situation he's taking advantage of.

That was Maul who said that to Kenobi. Not that it matters. Arhael's made a thourough and convincing argument that as long as your willing to take out limbs your performance will not be effected too much in a sword fight.

KuRuPT Thanosi
equal skill no... it's was more competitive than it was close.. There can be big gaps between the 2. I think maul is skilled and he displayed some of that... As skilled.. nah.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
I don't know why more is made out of this fight than need be... Sids didn't even need ONE saber to beat these two. It was a non fight. Doesn't mean maul or opress aren't powerful or a force together or alone.. it's just that Sids is THAT good and one of the best ever in the mythos. Nor harm there, but let's stop making this out to be more than it is.

So do you think Maul can defeat Kenobi without a Lightsaber?

KuRuPT Thanosi
you're funny DP... I have no comment

Galan007
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
And you don't think they showed equal skill in that last fight? Maul put up a good fight in the few seconds they dueled one-on-one. In no way/shape/form does that mean his skills were equal to Palpatine's overall. Example: during TPM, Kenobi put up a good fight against Maul for a bit(after witnessing Qui-Gon's death), but his saber-skills were still vastly inferior to Maul's overall.

So yeah, I saw Maul put up a good saber fight before ultimately being overpowered by Palpatine. That's what I saw.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
He never said he simply didn't "want" to. Or that "he never planned" on killing him. Maul was never a part of his plans, and if he's going to make use of a defeated Maul then it's just a situation he's taking advantage of. Palpatine: "Do not worry. I'm not going to kill you. I have... Other uses for you. MWAHAHAHAHA!!"

Palpatine obviously had some sort of premeditated plans for Maul, imo-- otherwise he would have simply killed him with the force when he first arrived.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Galan007


So yeah, I saw Maul put up a good saber fight before ultimately being overpowered by Palpatine. That's what I saw.

That's all I'm saying. (I also think the 2 on 1 was a good Saber fight.)


Originally posted by Galan007
Palpatine: "Do not worry. I'm not going to kill you. I have... Other uses for you. MWAHAHAHAHA!!"

Palpatine obviously had some sort of premeditated plans for Maul, imo-- otherwise he would have simply killed him with the force when he first arrived.

Not sure if that's the best determination seen as he didn't kill Opress at that point either. Yet we know he was there to kill him at least.

As for premeditated plans, the Official site makes it clear he saw Maul as "a rival to be destroyed."

That was clearly his priority. Any extra use of him would be secondary. Let's not pretend we know for sure that he desperately needs him alive.

Galan007
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
As for premeditated plans, the Official site makes it clear he saw Maul as "a rival to be destroyed."

That was clearly his priority. Any extra use of him would be secondary. Let's not pretend we know for sure that he desperately needs him alive. Clearly the site is wrong. If Maul were truly a rival to be destroyed, then Palpatine would have, you know, destroyed him. stick out tongue

Obviously Palps didn't "desperately" need Maul alive. He simply kept him alive because he has other plans in store for him. However, you're acting like Palps deciding to spare Maul was something he thought of at the last second. However, given Palpatine's history of extensively planning out each and every move he makes well in advance of making it, I highly doubt that was the case-- Palps likely decided that he wanted to keep Maul alive from the moment he first (re)discovered him.

The_Tempest
Originally posted by Galan007
Clearly the site is wrong. If Maul were truly a rival to be destroyed, then Palpatine would have, you know, destroyed him. stick out tongue

The site isn't wrong, he did destroy Maul-the-rival.

Galan007
Originally posted by The_Tempest
The site isn't wrong, he did destroy Maul-the-rival. If you interpret "destroyed" as "beaten", then yes, Palpatine destroyed Maul.

The_Tempest
Originally posted by Galan007
If you interpret "destroyed" as "beaten", then yes, Palpatine destroyed Maul.

Merriam Webster lists "neutralize" as one of the few definitions for that term. When Sidious came to Mandalore, Maul was a rival; when Sidious left, Maul was no longer. The website is absolutely correct.

Galan007
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Merriam Webster lists "neutralize" as one of the few definitions for that term. Hence my above statement. thumb up

However, some people(inc. myself) may have interpreted "destroyed" by one of its other definitions-- ie. "to put out of existence: kill."

The_Tempest
Originally posted by Galan007
Hence my above statement. thumb up

However, some people(inc. myself) may have interpreted "destroyed" by one of its other definitions-- ie. "to put out of existence: kill."

Hopefully you have seen the error of your ways and exchanged your faulty interpretation for the proper one.

And then, you shall kneel before me.

Vensai
Originally posted by Galan007
Clearly the site is wrong. If Maul were truly a rival to be destroyed, then Palpatine would have, you know, destroyed him. stick out tongue

Obviously Palps didn't "desperately" need Maul alive. He simply kept him alive because he has other plans in store for him. However, you're acting like Palps deciding to spare Maul was something he thought of at the last second. However, given Palpatine's history of extensively planning out each and every move he makes well in advance of making it, I highly doubt that was the case-- Palps likely decided that he wanted to keep Maul alive from the moment he first (re)discovered him.

Sidious did technically destroy Maul. Maul was shaping up to become a third player in Palpatine's war. Sidious chose to nip Maul's budding power before he could become a potential "rival" as he put it. I suspect taking Maul alive was a possible but not really important objective as crushing the third party.

The_Tempest
Originally posted by Vensai
Sidious did technically destroy Maul. Maul was shaping up to become a third player in Palpatine's war. Sidious chose to nip Maul's budding power before he could become a potential "rival" as he put it.

thumb up

Galan007
Had I seen the quote in context(ie. on the site itself) it would have made things much clearer from the get-go.

You see, based on DP's usage of that statement, he obviously equated "destroyed" to "killed"-- and given that he *seemed* to have seen the site-quote first hand, I assumed he knew what he was talking about, and went with it. Shame on me for assuming he was correct.

Galan007
Originally posted by Vensai
Sidious did technically destroy Maul. Maul was shaping up to become a third player in Palpatine's war. Sidious chose to nip Maul's budding power before he could become a potential "rival" as he put it. You're late to the party, kiddo.

The_Tempest
Originally posted by Galan007
Had I seen the quote in context(ie. on the site itself) it would have made things much clearer from the get-go.

You see, based on DP's usage of that statement, he obviously equated "destroyed" to "killed"-- and given that he *seemed* to have seen the site-quote first hand, I assumed he knew what he was talking about, and went with it. Shame on me for assuming he was correct.

A dangerous assumption indeed for anyone who's read anything he's posted ever. You are forgiven, my son.

Rise, Lord Galan. Do what must be done. Do not hesitate, show no mercy.

DARTH POWER
Originally posted by Galan007
However, you're acting like Palps deciding to spare Maul was something he thought of at the last second. However, given Palpatine's history of extensively planning out each and every move he makes well in advance of making it, I highly doubt that was the case-- Palps likely decided that he wanted to keep Maul alive from the moment he first (re)discovered him.

That's the thing. We have no idea when he made that decision. He never even knew Maul was alive until the Jedi mentioned it. So he was never a part of his original plans. And Filoni confirms this. But he will just use new factors to his advantage where he can.

He could have actually made a decision on the spot if he was impressed by his combat performance.

Originally posted by Galan007


You see, based on DP's usage of that statement, he obviously equated "destroyed" to "killed"-- and given that he *seemed* to have seen the site-quote first hand, I assumed he knew what he was talking about, and went with it. Shame on me for assuming he was correct.

I never said it meant killing him. I said that was his priority for being there. To destroy his rival. Any other usage of him would be secondary.

So I'm against this idea that Sidious's performance was somehow hindered simply because after defeating him he said he won't kill him. His priority was to destroy his rival as confirmed by the official site.

Not to mention Arhael's given a thorough and convincing argument that as long as your willing to go for limbs in a sword fight, your performance will not be hindered to a significant degree.

Galan007
You're right, we don't know the exact point in which Palpatine decided that he did not want to kill Maul-- and because of that, all we can do is take into consideration Palpatine's character history. That said:

Given Palpatine's extensive history of planning out each and every move he makes well in advance of making it, I highly doubt that was the case-- Palps likely decided that he wanted to keep Maul alive from the moment he first (re)discovered him.

smile

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.