Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Am I?
What's stated about Ahsoka in the Yoda comparison is different than the stipulations given in the question of note.
Then perhaps we should refer to the dictionary?
So when you say "X matched Y, blow for blow" this means, "X matched Y down to the details of the fight".
You can fight relatively evenly with someone, and still fail to match them blow for blow which coincidentally, happened, in Maul's fight vs Ahsoka.
Well there's no dictionary definition to it (I can only find "blow BY blow", which only supports my point that he's given a vague statement, hence it's very limited in the canon facts thsat can be drawn from it.
It also means your definition is made up by yourself, to fit the facts you would like it to.
To me what we saw in their fight was Maul matching Ahsoka blow for blow, so Filoni's vague statement contradicts his own visual canon. More reason not to take it as canon fact.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Not at all relevant to Ahsoka vs Maul, but I'm glad we've made progress
It's not, because Sithmaster's interpretation relies on a qualifier that is nowhere to be found in the statement or the context surrounding it. Feloni never mentions or specifies that he's talkinga bout imperial antagonists, so such an assertion is unsubstantiated.
On the otherhand, the jedi being exempted from this works because it's substantiated by the context surrounding the quote. Feloni is talking about how to use Ahsoka in a story, Ahsoka can't be used vs Yoda or Kenobi, and hence their ability to match or not match her isn't relevant.
Point being we all agree there clearly are presumed qualifiers to his statement. Another reason the statement is too vague to take as canon fact.
Now I agree your interpretation is more likely to be what he meant, but I also think the possibility definitely exists that Maul is another qualifier.
Especially the part where he states "we all felt." I mean you really think Everyone at Lucasfilm animation felt there's no way Maul could defeat Ahsoka? Really? Not even 1/10? You really believe that?
They were definitely talking about the antagonists to the Rebels crew. Maul being confined to a single place, much like Yoda and Ben, might just disqualify Maul from being included in his statement as well.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Except that Maul doesn't match her "blow for blow".
He fails to match her here:
https://youtu.be/ukse7fCIt2c?t=1m1s
Or here:
https://youtu.be/ukse7fCIt2c?t=1m33s
Remember, "blow for blow" is about details which means even minor edges are sufficient to render what you just claimed false.
It seems Maul can't match her "blow for blow", even on a nexus.
Shame.
This is honestly kinda silly. This is your new definition of matching blow to blow? Really?
Firstly you've not even addressed my points about Opress, TPM Obi-Wan and most of all Pre-Vizsla also driving Maul back, all right before he puts them in their place. Vizsla is the guy who drove Maul back the most.
Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but Maul does seem to only be using 1 hand on those locks. So Maul using one hand is driven back a couple of steps. Really? That's your proof of Ahsoka being superior? Really?
No kicks, no force pushes, no saber cuts, no physical attacks, just forcing a one handed Maul back a couple of steps.
That's what's called "stringing" onto tiny hints of superiority when there's really no evidence there at all.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Ah, so since you realize that the sw.com quote doesn't necessarily say what you want it to say, you're going to try and equate it's level of clarity to the level of clarity in what Feloni said. Let me explain why this is a false equivalency:
Feloni's statement identifies the combatant in question, and makes an explicit statement regarding her combative abilities.
The Starwars.com quote makes a note of the abilities of a combatant separate for the one you're arguing for, simply as an explanation for a certain situation(Ezra being a weak link) which Maul is, for an unspecified the best solution to resolve.
Feloni's statement is unquestionably relevant to Ahsoka's combative abilities, the SW.com quote isn't clearly relevant to Maul's.
Additionally, even taking your interpretation into account, such an interpretation is easily reconciled by what Feloni said by making note of implied context.
Even with your interpretation of the quote, there isno contradiction unless you try to force it.
Except that
The SW.com quote may or may not refer to Maul's combative abilities
Feloni's statement is explicitly referring to Ahsoka's combative abilities
Feloni's statement gives us specific criteria for exemption: Being able to match her "blow for blow", and existing as of the time period as of Rebels
I've just addressed DMB on this above. By far the most likely "logic" is to team the weakest with the strongest.
You really think there's a strong possibility the quote meant, "the logical choice was to team the weakest member with the one who knew the terrain best.."
That's not the most obvious or most heavily implied reasoning at all.
If it was for Ezra's protection, the more appropriate wording would be to team Maul up with the most "Vulnerable" member.
As for the terrain, you're forgetting the point of splitting up. It was simply to travel up the temple on different sides, to scatter the Inquisitors. Teaming the weakest with the strongest would obviously balance out the teams. Teaming the weakest with the one who knows the terrain best again implies it's all about protecting Ezra, and not about dividing and conquering the Inqs, and that being the "logical" choice would be highly debatable.
As for your quote and statement comparisons:
1) Filoni's quote was talking about combat abilities.
The SW.COM quote was almost certainly talking about strength in the Force.
2) Filoni's quote didn't make comparisons to every Force user, so although he probably meant Maul as well, we don't know for sure given Maul's own unique position at that time in that era.
The SW.COM quote was definitely and without question comparing Maul to Ahsoka/Kanan.
Now do any of the above prove Maul or Ahsoka are superior. No. Definitely not. It's pretty desperate to Cling to either one as definitive evidence tbh.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Me and Joker addressed this. If you're so inclined, respond and I'll try to offer you a response in turn.
I've been through this to death with Joker, and am not willing to do it again as he gets needlessly insulting.
I've addressed DMB's points above as well, and feel I've given you thorough rebuttals on the subject.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Except that the statement indicated how Ahsoka comapres to others of her era in a general context.
Regardless, if you want to argue the quote means Ahsoka>Maul on Malachor, feel free to. Such an interpretation still doesn't hold any contradictions as Maul failed to match Ahsoka blow for blow in their fight and the SW.com quote only contradicts this statement if you force it to. Hence, if that's your stance on the matter, you're welcome to it
Addressed the comparisons and the undefined "blow for blow".
Yes I am welcome to my stance. You know why? Because these aren't facts, and both open to interpretations.
Actual Canon Facts convince almost everyone. Like Vader > Maul. There's only the odd troll who denies that now. It's something that's been repeated by multiple people in Universe and Out of Universe, and clearly clarified. Not to mention feats supporting that notion.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
My interpretation perfectly reconciling all evidence of the matter would make it rather good. I can't help it if the evidence supports what I argue
Yes, but Sithmaster's interpretation relies on assumed context that is never stated or specified anywhere. My interpretation is based on what is explicitly stated and hence is inherently stronger.
I really don't given that my interpretation is based on what is stated and Sithmaster's is based on what he assumes.
The uncontradicted statement of authority on my side only confirms what's already obvious.
Regardless of the approach you choose to take here, Maul still comes out as inferior.
Shame.
Well this is the problem. You're both trying to Force Filoni's comments and the SW.COM Quote to meld together as if they MUST be consistent with one another.
Filoni isn't head of canon, and he doesn't check or edit the SW.COM quotes as far as I'm aware.
Different authors can have different bias, so the important thing is to go by clearly clarified and repeated statements (like the Vader > Maul), and by feats.
