Rebels Ahsoka vs SoD Maul

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



slayne
Force, sabers, and all-out. Starting distance is 20 meters; who wins and why?

Rockydonovang
Ahsoka is authoritatively ahead of, and has stalemated a canonically superior version of Maul on a DS Nexus. If that's not sufficient for you, Ahsoka is close enough to Vader, a force user who's feats several years pre-rebels sh!t on maul's, that Vader only bothers to attempt tking her when her defenses are down. So even if you are willing to ignore canon to form an argument regarding sabers, there's nothing stopping Ahsoka from dismissing Maul with the force.

DarthAnt66
Maul pretty soundly.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Maul pretty soundly.
Ant, even if you take SOD Maul as >Rebels Maul in spite of the lack of supporting evidence, trying to argue the gap between SOD and Rebels Maul is bigger than the gap between Rebels Maul and Ahsoka is pure spitballing.

And this is ignoring Ahsoka is shown to be close to Vader, a force user who sh!ts on SOD Maul, even as of LOTS.

DarthAnt66
I didn't even know a significant gap between rebels Maul and rebels Ahsoka existed, lmfao.

Ursumeles
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I didn't even know a significant gap between rebels Maul and rebels Ahsoka existed, lmfao. Vaders equal stomped Maul, while Ahsoka is a near-equal to Vader. Duh.

Kurk
This would make for a descent debate as long as a+b=c logic isn't followed...which it is.

carthage
Maul would get annihilated by Vader, lmao

Not sure probably a stalemate like their brief fight in Rebels

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
I didn't even know a significant gap between rebels Maul and rebels Ahsoka existed, lmfao.
strawman....

DarthDuelist9
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Maul pretty soundly.

Rockydonovang
@darthduelist, I'm interested in your reasoning here

DarthDuelist9
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
@darthduelist, I'm interested in your reasoning here

Rebels Ahsoka and Rebels Maul were fighting pretty evenly, combined with the quote that he might be the strongest member of the group and his equal/superior performance against the Inquisitors kind of makes me believe both are roughly even fighters. However that's a Maul who's been going around years without a lightsaber fight, has lost his purpose and is far less physically strong than before (TPM, TCW, SoD). So putting in SoD Maul, who's pretty much in his prime, seems to tilt the fight more in his favor.

thesithmaster
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Maul pretty soundly.

I take Canon into account, not my debunked fan-fictions. Thus, this answer is correct.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
Rebels Ahsoka and Rebels Maul were fighting pretty evenly, combined with the quote that he might be the strongest member of the group and his equal/superior performance against the Inquisitors kind of makes me believe both are roughly even fighters.
This ignores the nexus, and that Ahsoka is authoritatively superior on even ground. Not to mention that even though they were fighting roughly evenly, any edge there was in that duel going to Ahsoka who sent Maul flailing backwards in their first bladelock and then drovehim back.
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
However that's a Maul who's been going around years without a lightsaber fight, has lost his purpose and is far less physically strong than before (TPM, TCW, SoD). So putting in SoD Maul, who's pretty much in his prime, seems to tilt the fight more in his favor.

Maul was troubling the empire, looking for artifiacts, and looking for holocrons. More importantly we have feloni confirming Maul grew and indicating that he became very good in comparison to his tcw self. Not to mention as of Rebels Maul is in the range of a force user who's feats several years pre-prime completely outclass TCW Maul's. There's no reason to think Maul is pot-prime as of Rebels.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Maul pretty soundly.

Prof. T.C McAbe
Ahsoka wins this, with medium difficulty.

deathslash
Maul wins IMO. As the fight goes on, he's only going to get faster from raging out and that combined with the fact that he's physically stronger, faster and possesses a higher level of ferocity than his Rebels version is enough to give him the win IMO.

NewGuy01
Originally posted by Ursumeles
Vaders equal stomped Maul,

Vader's superior* smile

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by deathslash
Maul wins IMO. As the fight goes on, he's only going to get faster from raging out and that combined with the fact that he's physically stronger, faster and possesses a higher level of ferocity than his Rebels version is enough to give him the win IMO.
force augmentation is a thing yes, dooku had superior physicals to his younger self. As it though, we have a statement saying maul grew as a swordsman and indicating he was very good compared to his tcw self. There's nothing saying otherwise, and rebels maul remains in the range of a force user who's feats several years pre-rebels outclass sod maul's.

FreshestSlice
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Vader's superior* smile
Proof that Lucas selling the brand was the best thing that ever happened to it.

|King Joker|
Whoever wins isn't winning easily by any means. That being said, I'd say Ahsoka can probably edge it out.

Emperordmb
I agree with Joker. I'm pretty blootered atm, but her closeness with Vader than I'd expect from Maul honestly. Vader clearly had the upper hand in that duel, but it's pretty clear from Ahsoka holding her ground, managing to land a strike on Vader's head while he was slightly distracted but still cognizant enough to see her coming and react to her first strike, and her being able to meet him in a bladelock while turned around, that while she's clearly inferior that's some pretty impressive shit for her to be doing against someone of Vader's caliber. Then when you consider Ahsoka and Vader trading force blows, and Filoni stating that Vader has to put in some serious effort to dismiss her it's clear that had Vader relied on his force powers more it wouldn't have significantly altered the closeness of the fight.

So yeah, I'm overall more impressed with Ahsoka's obvious closeness with Vader (even if she is clearly inferior), than I am with Maul, so I'm backing her in a tough fight.

Lord Stark
Probably Maul tbh. Rebels Ahsoka is def superior to Old Master Maul though.

FreshestSlice
Based on...?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Based on...?
-> stalemating him on a nexus
-> being authoritatively placed higher

Rockydonovang
There's also nothing stopping Ahsoka from taking Maul out with the force. Vader as of LOTS is pulling bigger freighters out of the air than the one Maul barely dragged a few feet. Vader, despite regularly using the force in canon only bothers using telkenisis on Ahsoka when she's thrown off balance and has her defenses down, on a ds nexus no less.

Ahsoka has closeness to Vader, SOD Maul has demonstrated nothing to indicate he's in Vader's stratosphere. What's stopping Ahsoka from shortening this fight with the forcre? Granted I'm sure Maul can prolong the fight with his offensive style and swordmanship, but Ahsoka certainly should wield enough power to end this when she gets the opportunity.

Kurk
Small details matter when combatants are this close.

Sabers:I don't think it's worth discussing any skill disparity between the two as other factors are more likely to influence the fight. Multiple sources hold both at a substantial level of skill.

Instead look at the small details. Tano has two sabers, SoD Maul has a single dark-saber. Tano is at an offensive advantage with Shien/Ataru but at an disadvantage defensively, stylistically speaking, from strength based attacks.

Maul, wielding only one saber, will have a better balance of offensive and defensive abilities.

In pretty much every fight we've seen with Maul, he is always the one to initiate the attack. Same with Rebels Ahsoka. At 20m starting distance it'd be a head-on charge. The question then becomes who's more likely to give up ground first?

Ahsoka has the higher strikes-per-second rate so to speak, so I believe she'd be the one driving back Maul in the beginning. Both are utilizing incredibly demanding forms requiring acrobatics and strength-based attacks.

From the physical advantage Maul might have an edge. His cybernetic legs mean half his body needs less augmentation/energy. Tano has also shown great endurance considering she managed the more powerful Vader for at least as long as Maul fought Sidious. I would say "Dathomirian" edge, but feat-wise, Ahsoka has survived many of the things Maul has (kick from Grievous, explosions, etc). When it comes to strength, both have respectable showings, but I'm inclined to believe Maul has a slight strength edge over Tano due to his anatomy and diversified strength showings.

Both have training in hand-to-hand combat, but I think it's fair to say that Maul has better incorporated it into his lightsaber move-sets than Ahsoka, who has mostly demonstrated it while disarmed.

Without factoring in environmental factors, I believe that a fight on neutral ground can certainly go either way but I would side with Maul 6 times out of 10. Maul's extensive training in multiple fighting disciples in addition to his barely superior physicals might edge it out for him.

In my mind, Ahsoka doing so well against Vader was due to his lack of mobility, that Maul doesn't suffer from, paired with Tano's acrobatics. A cat can leap around the bull but eventually the cat will tire out.

HOWEVER, in an all-out fight that doesn't take place in a "test-tube", I would side with Ahsoka 7-8/10 simply due to her wit. Maul has been shown to suffer from tunnel-vision while Tano always made use of her environment and exploited the enemy's weaknesses.

It really comes down to state of mind; and what I see is an all too neurotic Maul falling to a sound-minded Tano.



Filoni's quote about only Vader or Sheev matching Tano in combat comes to mind, though SoD Maul is the prime combatant in my and other minds.

FreshestSlice
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> stalemating him on a nexus
-> being authoritatively placed higher
I'm wondering why SoD Maul is the superior here, despite no evidence supporting this besides opinion.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
As it though, we have a statement saying maul grew as a swordsman


Nope. Been debunked many times.

Growth referred to Obi-Wan vs Maul Only. In that they both must have learned something from all their previous long duels, and it wouldn't make sense for them to go through all that again.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> stalemating him on a nexus
-> being authoritatively placed higher


-> Stretching the facts.
-> Also debunked. And pretty silly a guy who wants to dismiss actual written source material, but take vague oral quotes from one person involved in writing Canon as some kind of Canon fact.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I agree with Joker. I'm pretty blootered atm, but her closeness with Vader than I'd expect from Maul honestly. Vader clearly had the upper hand in that duel, but it's pretty clear from Ahsoka holding her ground, managing to land a strike on Vader's head while he was slightly distracted but still cognizant enough to see her coming and react to her first strike, and her being able to meet him in a bladelock while turned around, that while she's clearly inferior that's some pretty impressive shit for her to be doing against someone of Vader's caliber. Then when you consider Ahsoka and Vader trading force blows, and Filoni stating that Vader has to put in some serious effort to dismiss her it's clear that had Vader relied on his force powers more it wouldn't have significantly altered the closeness of the fight.

So yeah, I'm overall more impressed with Ahsoka's obvious closeness with Vader (even if she is clearly inferior), than I am with Maul, so I'm backing her in a tough fight.


Yes Ashoka definitely performed very well against her former Master. But allow me to just make a case for Maul here based on Ahsoka vs Vader.

Firstly let's not forget all of Filoni's talk pre-fight about how Ahsoka won't go down easy due to knowing a lot about how to fight Vader. Making it clear this was always going to be closer than it probably should.

Second let's not forget that despite being "so close" to Vader, that she made little to no progress in defeating Old Maul after fighting him for a fair amount of time.

And finally let's speculate for a second how SOD Maul might reasonably perform against Vader. Is it not reasonable to assume he could put up just as good a Saber fight against Vader as he did against Sidious in their final 1 v 1 after Savage died? I think that's a perfectly reasonable assumption personally given Sidious is > Vader. Now if he does that well before getting BFR'd/KO'd by a Force attack similar to how Ahsoka was initially defeated, then I think that would classify doing as well against Vader as Ashsoka did. Or at least pretty damn comparable.

godemperortrump
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Maul pretty soundly.
So the Maul trolling is over?

Ursumeles
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Whoever wins isn't winning easily by any means. That being said, I'd say Ahsoka can probably edge it out.
thumb up

MythLord
Maul.

DarthDuelist9
Originally posted by MythLord
Maul.

Thank god.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by godemperortrump
So the Maul trolling is over?


Well when even Carthage admits this is a good fight, then the trolling seems to be over for the meantime.

I guess everyone likes to debate seriously now and then.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
I'm wondering why SoD Maul is the superior here, despite no evidence supporting this besides opinion.
Ah, yes, good question

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Growth referred to Obi-Wan vs Maul Only. In that they both must have learned something from all their previous long duels, and it wouldn't make sense for them to go through all that again.

-> As usual you keep harping on something that isn't essential to the argument

-> the context of the statement repeatedly refers to swordfights.

-> And they became very good compared to their prior incarnations.

How the hell are you getting that they didn't grow as swordsmen here?


Originally posted by Darth Thor
-> Stretching the facts.

I'm using what is explicitly stated
Originally posted by Darth Thor
-> Also debunked.

Where? Do tell please. Where was it stated Malachor wasn't a nexus?
Originally posted by Darth Thor
And pretty silly a guy who wants to dismiss actual written source material, but take vague oral quotes from one person involved in writing Canon as some kind of Canon fact.
Your interpretation of source material does not outweigh the authorial intent behind it. Nowhere does the source material explicitly indicate Maul has grown weaker, that is an assumption which you have failed to substantiate.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by MythLord
Maul.
reasons please

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
-> As usual you keep harping on something that isn't essential to the argument

-> the context of the statement repeatedly refers to swordfights.

-> And they became very good compared to their prior incarnations.

How the hell are you getting that they didn't grow as swordsmen here?



Where did I say it wasn't referring to sword fights?

I suggest you read my interpretation of Filoni's comments on "growth" again, and then get back to me.

Because it's been explained to you many times by myself and others, including on your own thread on the issue on comic vine.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I'm using what is explicitly stated


You should probably think carefully about what is stated and by who.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Where? Do tell please. Where was it stated Malachor wasn't a nexus?


Pablo Hidalgo clearly stated he can't confirm if Malachor amped Vader's and Maul's performance over the Jedi. And yet miraculously you seem to know something the head of the canon group doesn't.

Now sure you could argue that it's a possibility that we should all be aware of, so Maul and Ahsoka stalemating probably favours Ahsoka more, but stop making out it's some kind of fact that Ahsoka was clearly disadvantaged in her fights against Maul and Vader.





Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Your interpretation of source material does not outweigh the authorial intent behind it. Nowhere does the source material explicitly indicate Maul has grown weaker, that is an assumption which you have failed to substantiate.



LOL, so my interpretation of pretty clear cut source material quotes should be dismissed, but your interpretation of vague director comments are somehow canon? Okay buddy, but I think you're gonna have to up your game if you actually want to convince people that Ahsoka is factually > Maul, or that Rebels Mau is factually > SOD Maul Lol.

I never said it's stated Rebels Maul has grown weaker. But Maul thinks he's past his prime, Witwer talks of Maul's prime being in his past, Filoni and Witwer both call Rebels Maul "broken" and "stuck in the past". And sure that's all speculative and not evidence. But then you do excel using vague comments as evidence.


Fact is though most people here just don't believe SOD Maul would be as clumsy and desperate in combat as we've seen Rebels Maul be, and we all know SOD/The Lawless Maul has far far better feats going for him.

Kurk

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Where did I say it wasn't referring to sword fights?

I suggest you read my interpretation of Filoni's comments on "growth" again, and then get back to me.

Because it's been explained to you many times by myself and others, including on your own thread on the issue on comic vine.

That they learned something? Yea, them leraning something that helped them grow as combatants would make sense as that fits with the context of their statement. It still indicates they're better. Any other kind of growth here can be dismissed as there's nothing referring to that kind of growth in the context of the statement.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Pablo Hidalgo clearly stated he can't confirm if Malachor amped Vader's and Maul's performance over the Jedi. And yet miraculously you seem to know something the head of the canon group doesn't.

No, Hildago said anything about an inability to confirm this. What he did was acknowledge it being a possibility, one which we have confirmation of with Henry Gilroy
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Now sure you could argue that it's a possibility that we should all be aware of, so Maul and Ahsoka stalemating probably favours Ahsoka more, but stop making out it's some kind of fact that Ahsoka was clearly disadvantaged in her fights against Maul and Vader.

Something being possible does not exclude it from being true. Hildago has confirmed the possibility, Gilroy has indicated the possibility to be true. In order for there to be a contradiction here, Hidalgo has to outright state the nexus was "only a possibility.







Originally posted by Darth Thor
LOL, so my interpretation of pretty clear cut source material quotes should be dismissed, but your interpretation of vague director comments are somehow canon?

It's "pretty clear cut" in your opinion. And you've yet to substantiate give a reason why it's "super clear cut".

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Okay buddy, but I think you're gonna have to up your game if you actually want to convince people that Ahsoka is factually > Maul, or that Rebels Mau is factually > SOD Maul Lol.

Given that I've provided evidence, and you haven't, I'm not the one that needs to step up here. You like making claims, now back your claims up.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
I never said it's stated Rebels Maul has grown weaker. But Maul thinks he's past his prime
Maul never says anything regarding his progression or regression as a combatant. It would be nice if you could substantiate your claims with evidence that actually exists.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
, Witwer talks of Maul's prime being in his past

In a statement which never refers to combative ability. Lets try and providing relevant evidence for a change.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
, Filoni and Witwer both call Rebels Maul "broken" and "stuck in the past".

Indeed, as a character, which can also be said of TCW Maul.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
And sure that's all speculative and not evidence.

It's not even speculative, neither of the quotes you provided say what you're trying to say they say.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
But then you do excel using vague comments as evidence.

You call these comments vague, and have yet to provide an alternative explanation which doesn't blatantly ignore the context of the quote.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Fact is though most people here just don't believe SOD Maul would be as clumsy and desperate in combat as we've seen Rebels Maul be
We've seen Maul struggle with non force sensitives, pirates, and a dog. Harping on low showings is a horrible way to construct an argument.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
, and we all know SOD/The Lawless Maul has far far better feats going for him.

Rebels Maul is in the range of a force user who's feats several years pre-prime trample all over anything SOD Maul has done.

You've yet to explain why contending with TCW Kenobi is more impressive than contending with Ahsoka who is close to an ROTS Kenobi+ duelist.

Using Maul vs Sidious doesn't work as Sidious wasn't even fighting at full speed with Maul which renders the showing a non showing.

Not to mention that even if I grant you Rebels Maul being<SOD Maul, all you would have managed to prove is that Maul could possibly beat Ahsoka, not that she would.

Arguing that Maul would beat Ahsoka remains an unarguable stance.

Rockydonovang
@ Kurk, I can't quote and reply for some reason, so make do with the formatting

1. That Maul is stronger than Ahsoka in terms of striking strength is baseless and contradicted. ROTS Ahsoka was able to hold ROTS Maul in place and in Rebels we see Ahsoka send Maul flailing backwards. Force augmentaion can both compensate for and even exceed physical degradement. Given Maul managed to improve as a duelist and that older sith like Dooku have remained physiclally superior to their younger selves, we have no reason to think maul has physiclally degraded.

-> Your example with Sidious is bunk as Sidious simultaneously overpowered the strength of both Maul and Oppress.

-> Maul has only ever manhandled Kenobi when he was already a physical and mental wreck. As it is, Kenobi's blows have done more to Maul than vice versa so I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to draw here.

-> Maul tackled Grevious when he caught him by suprise. Ahsoka as a padawan has been able to disorientate him in the midst of a saber duel.

Ahsoka holding Maul in place with her strength vastly pre-prime and then sending him flailing backwards would indicate Ahsoka to be the stronger of the two.

2. Ahsoka managing to exploit her agility against Vader is no different from Vader exploiting his strength to gain an advantage against Ahsoka, something Maul, who Ahsoka has held in place and sent flailing backwards has little chance of replicating.

Kurk
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
@ Kurk, I can't quote and reply for some reason, so make do with the formatting


1. That Maul is stronger than Ahsoka in terms of striking strength is baseless and contradicted. ROTS Ahsoka was able to hold ROTS Maul in place The Ahsoka novel? I never read it, but brief encounters don't really mean much. Maul briefly fought Windu and Secura in SoD but that doesn't mean he can handle their strength for an extended period.


and in Rebels we see Ahsoka send Maul flailing backwards.Yes, she does, but that doesn't trump all. I can point to times in the late clone-wars where Dooku physically over-powers Anakin, yet the later is also seen over-powering the former. Even though the general consensus is that Anakin is physically more powerful, Dooku is often able to send him flailing too. I'll touch on why in the next point.

Force augmentaion can both compensate for and even exceed physical degradement. Given Maul managed to improve as a duelist and that older sith like Dooku have remained physiclally superior to their younger selves, we have no reason to think maul has physiclally degraded.
If we can agree that each individual force user has a finite amount of "force reserve" so to speak, based on their level of midichlorians, which regenerates over time, we should also be able to agree that a biologically weaker user will have to continuously spend more of their reserve augmenting their speed and strength than a biologically superior one.
The bigger the discrepancy, the faster the weaker user will experience force exhaustion.

Dooku being stronger than his former self is due to the power-growth he experienced when he embraced the dark-side, not to any biological growth as you've said. That doesn't necessarily mean that older Dooku would beat his younger self in a test of endurance because he is spending more of his reserves just to sustain his body every second of the fight than his younger and more fit self.

Let's use two relatively evenly matched force users like TCW Dooku and Anakin. Let their strength in the force be 25,000 and 15,000 respectively (these are arbitrary, unit-less figures used only for analogous purposes).

From a strictly biological stance, meaning if neither were force sensitives, Anakin would by far be the superior combatant due to his physique. Because both are force users though, they are able to augment their physical abilities.

Let's say that Dooku has to expend 30 units every second for every 2 units Anakin spends just to match his natural strength and speed. And remember, being that he's an old man he will tire faster and have to spend even more energy as he fatigues more, so really it should exponential.

Dooku's remaining units = -(30)x(seconds elapsed)+ total reserve 25,000
(y=mx+b)
vs
Anakin's remaining units = -(2)x(seconds elapsed) + total reserve 15,000


Whereas Anakin wouldn't be spending any units on augmentation and wouldn't naturally tire nearly as quickly. If he did choose to augment, Dooku would need to factor that in to his passive units spent to match him.

The point is that even though Dooku may be the more powerful force user, meaning he can afford to spend more units that Anakin in quick bursts (e.g TK, lightning, etc) since he has a greater reserve, in a pro-longed physical combat setting where he has to passively spend energy augmenting his physicals more than Anakin, he will eventually intercept him and become the weaker of the users.

Apply this now to Maul and Tano. It is possible for Tano to over-power Maul in a short burst at the cost of expending more units. If she continuously tried to over-power him she'd suffer from force exhaustion. Remember her fight with Vader and my points in the first post. She was able to match Vader in the beginning and even outmaneuver him, but after the cutaway she was visibly being over-powered.


-> Your example with Sidious is bunk as Sidious simultaneously overpowered the strength of both Maul and Oppress.

-> Maul has only ever manhandled Kenobi when he was already a physical and mental wreck. As it is, Kenobi's blows have done more to Maul than vice versa so I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to draw here.
Kenobi has never demonstrated similar strength against Maul. He has been man-handled by both him, Grievous, and Darts D'nar whereas Maul has over-powered Savage, who in turn over-powered Kenobi. Maul's feat against the Rathtar is nothing Kenobi or Tano have replicated. the point of comparing Kenobi to Maul is to set a standard, which is average human male. What does Tano bring the table which puts her above Maul biologically?


-> Maul tackled Grevious when he caught him by suprise. Ahsoka as a padawan has been able to disorientate him in the midst of a saber duel.

Ahsoka holding Maul in place with her strength vastly pre-prime and then sending him flailing backwards would indicate Ahsoka to be the stronger of the two.

2. Ahsoka managing to exploit her agility against Vader is no different from Vader exploiting his strength to gain an advantage against Ahsoka, something Maul, who Ahsoka has held in place and sent flailing backwards has little chance of replicating.
Everything said here goes back to the original argument.

Darth Thor
Maul and Ahsoka were literally in 1 blade lock in the Ahsoka novel.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Maul and Ahsoka were literally in 1 blade lock in the Ahsoka novel. Right, a bladelock where Ahsoka is able to hold Maul in place long enough to spring the trap. It's a showing of physical strength.

Darth Thor
Which might have been like 2 seconds. What makes you think Maul was using his full strength? Did it even state if he was using both arms?

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Which might have been like 2 seconds. What makes you think Maul was using his full strength?
Because in a fight, you try and bring your full strength to bear in bladelocks? Why would Maul not utilize his full strength in a bladelock?

Darth Thor
"She responded with all her strength"

So we Know she used all her strength. Unlikely Maul used all of his given how he was mocking her and sees her as a sub-par opponent.

And she shouts "Now" like straight after. So she needed all her strength to block him for like a second or two.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Kurk
The Ahsoka novel? I never read it, but brief encounters don't really mean much. Maul briefly fought Windu and Secura in SoD but that doesn't mean he can handle their strength for an extended period.

Maul never tried to hold Windu in place.
Originally posted by Kurk
Yes, she does, but that doesn't trump all. I can point to times in the late clone-wars where Dooku physically over-powers Anakin, yet the later is also seen over-powering the former. Even though the general consensus is that Anakin is physically more powerful, Dooku is often able to send him flailing too. I'll touch on why in the next point.

Dooku has never sent Anakin flailing backwards. And yes, Anakin has been able, even as of TCW, consistently overpower him in bouts of strength, hence why Anakin is considered physically stronger. Your assertion that Maul can somehow gain an edge on Ahsoka via strength when their only bout of strength ended up with Maul being overpowered is unsubstantiated nonsense.
Originally posted by Kurk
If we can agree that each individual force user has a finite amount of "force reserve" so to speak, based on their level of midichlorians, which regenerates over time, we should also be able to agree that a biologically weaker user will have to continuously spend more of their reserve augmenting their speed and strength than a biologically superior one.
The bigger the discrepancy, the faster the weaker user will experience force exhaustion.

BS. A force user's potential does not dictate their force reserves, their actual level of power does. Rebels Maul has had a decade to grow in power and hence has larger force reserves than his TCW counterpart as well as better augmentation. And there is no precedent in canon for a character physically degrading at Maul's age as of rebels when augmentation is taken into account.
Originally posted by Kurk
Dooku being stronger than his former self is due to the power-growth he experienced when he embraced the dark-side, not to any biological growth as you've said. That doesn't necessarily mean that older Dooku would beat his younger self in a test of endurance because he is spending more of his reserves just to sustain his body every second of the fight than his younger and more fit self.

Where the power growth stemmed from is irrelevant. the point is power growth can exceed biological degradement, and hence your assertion that Rebels Maul. on a nexus no less, would be physically weaker than his TCW self is completely unsubstantiated.
Originally posted by Kurk
Let's use two relatively evenly matched force users like TCW Dooku and Anakin. Let their strength in the force be 25,000 and 15,000 respectively (these are arbitrary, unit-less figures used only for analogous purposes). From a strictly biological stance, meaning if neither were force sensitives, Anakin would by far be the superior combatant due to his physique. Because both are force users though, they are able to augment their physical abilities.

They're not evenly matched evenly matched force users, Dooku is more powerful at this point.


Originally posted by Kurk Let's say that Dooku has to expend 30 units every second for every 2 units Anakin spends just to match his natural strength and speed. And remember, being that he's an old man he will tire faster and have to spend even more energy as he fatigues more, so really it should exponential.

Dooku's remaining units = -(30)x(seconds elapsed)+ total reserve 25,000
(y=mx+b)
vs
Anakin's remaining units = -(2)x(seconds elapsed) + total reserve 15,000


Whereas Anakin wouldn't be spending any units on augmentation and wouldn't naturally tire nearly as quickly. If he did choose to augment, Dooku would need to factor that in to his passive units spent to match him.

The point is that even though Dooku may be the more powerful force user, meaning he can afford to spend more units that Anakin in quick bursts (e.g TK, lightning, etc) since he has a greater reserve, in a pro-longed physical combat setting where he has to passively spend energy augmenting his physicals more than Anakin, he will eventually intercept him and become the weaker of the users.


No offense, but I'm not taking any of this into consideration. These are all numbers you've drawn from thin air and hence your fan calcs are little more than pointless conjecture. Give me a source for these numbers or stop trying to peddle these calcs of yours as a valid basis for an argument.

Originally posted by Kurk
Apply this now to Maul and Tano. It is possible for Tano to over-power Maul in a short burst at the cost of expending more units. If she continuously tried to over-power him she'd suffer from force exhaustion. Remember her fight with Vader and my points in the first post. She was able to match Vader in the beginning and even outmaneuver him, but after the cutaway she was visibly being over-powered.

This comparison fails because there's nothing that equates Maul's strength with Vader's. Ahsoka never overpowered Vader physically, rather, she outmaneuvered him with her speed. Vader is very clearly stronger than Maul. Vader drives Ahsoka back. Maul gets driven back. Maul failed to replicate what Vader did with his strength and hence this comparison you're drawing is bunk.

Originally posted by Kurk

Kenobi has never demonstrated similar strength against Maul. He has been man-handled by both him

Kenobi has incapped, disorientated, and stunned Maul physically, even when physically compromised. Maul has been unable to replicate Kenobi's success physically even when Kenobi was already a physical wreck. I don't care if you want to make thisbe because of skill or strength. Maul's physical strength has meant jack sh!t to him when facing Kenobi.
Originally posted by Kurk
, Grievous

When in a direct fight, all that has physically happened between the two would be Maul being kicked back by Grevious. Maul has done nothing to imply he wouldn't get physically manhandled by Grevious whose physical feats hilariously outclass his. And BTW, Kenobi has bent Grevious's arm like a cheap spoon, something I've never seen Maul do.
Originally posted by Kurk
, and Darts D'nar whereas Maul has over-powered Savage, who in turn over-powered Kenobi.

Kenobi staggered Oppress with a punch when he could barely stand up and then in season 5 physically mandhandled him while landing blows on and driving back Maul. Whatever physical superiority Maul may or may not have to Kenobi, it's done absolutely crap for him in terms of their actual fights and hence isn't relevant.

Originally posted by Kurk

Maul's feat against the Rathtar is nothing Kenobi or Tano have replicated. the point of comparing Kenobi to Maul is to set a standard, which is average human male. What does Tano bring the table which puts her above Maul biologically?

That's because neither have ever faced a Rathar. If we look at how they've directly fared against each other, we'd come to a conclusion opposite of th eone you're drawing off of nothing. Maul has done nothing to suggest he can win anything against Ahsoka by virtue of his physical strength and hence this is nonsense.

Base biology means sh!t in comparison to force augmentation, hence why Sidious can simultaneously overpower maul and oppress and Yoda can physically school 4 younger council masters with his agility.

The only direct physical confrontation between Maul and Ahsoka has had Maul sent flailing backwards and Maul driven back. Hence trying to claim Maul can do something to Ahsoka physically is unsubstantiated conjecture.

Kurk
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Maul never tried to hold Windu in place.
The post before mine already pointed out that Tano poured all her strength to hold-back Maul while the latter mocked her and called her a sub-par opponent, insinuating that Maul didn't need to put in nearly as much effort.


Dooku has never sent Anakin flailing backwards. And yes, Anakin has been able, even as of TCW, consistently overpower him in bouts of strength, hence why Anakin is considered physically stronger.
Exhibit 1:
https://media.giphy.com/media/lNlE0JJdoOsXS/giphy.gif

Exhibit 2:
https://media.giphy.com/media/PeSNlwFp5dmzC/giphy.gif

I have more too.

Your assertion that Maul can somehow gain an edge on Ahsoka via strength when their only bout of strength ended up with Maul being overpowered is unsubstantiated nonsense.
An anomaly more than anything. I just directed you to a fight where Dooku over-powers Anakin the entire time. I would label it an anomaly too.


BS. A force user's potential does not dictate their force reserves, their actual level of power does. Rebels Maul has had a decade to grow in power and hence has larger force reserves than his TCW counterpart as well as better augmentation.
I mis-worded that part. Yes it's the power that determines it not potential.

And there is no precedent in canon for a character physically degrading at Maul's age as of rebels when augmentation is taken into account.
What do you mean? That in canon characters are immune from the effects of aging? Nonsense. Augmentation compensates but it takes more energy. It then becomes a question of "has this character grown enough in the force to compensate for their physical handicap?" I don't believe that theory is stated to be canon either, but then what's the point if we can't apply common sense?


Where the power growth stemmed from is irrelevant. the point is power growth can exceed biological degradement, and hence your assertion that Rebels Maul. on a nexus no less, would be physically weaker than his TCW self is completely unsubstantiated.
There is no confirmation that Malachor aided in Maul's performance. Do planetary nexuses even exist in canon?


They're not evenly matched evenly matched force users, Dooku is more powerful at this point.
Maybe more skillful, but not significantly more powerful if at all. I don't want to debate this here.



No offense, but I'm not taking any of this into consideration. These are all numbers you've drawn from thin air and hence your fan calcs are little more than pointless conjecture. Give me a source for these numbers or stop trying to peddle these calcs of yours as a valid basis for an argument.
Fair enough. Like I said it's arbitrary. Don't rely on numbers then. Substitute x and y. Y, the finite reserve of energy a user has, will decrease with time, x, multiplied by the amount of energy a user has to use to augment their physical abilities. As their body fatigues they will need to compensate more for that. It should make sense unless Disney believe jedi are demigods who never tire because "da force".


This comparison fails because there's nothing that equates Maul's strength with Vader's.
I didn't claim that they were equal in strength.

Ahsoka never overpowered Vader physically, rather, she outmaneuvered him with her speed.
She did both in the beginning.
Exhibit 3:
https://media.giphy.com/media/lXuHzujkw6PWo/giphy.gif

Exhibit 4:
https://media.giphy.com/media/BY9fVM4YP8S76/giphy.gif

After the cutaway she quit the acrobatics and was unable to push back any of Vader's strikes. Why? Because she was fatiguing.

Vader is very clearly stronger than Maul.
I don't deny it.
Vader drives Ahsoka back. Maul gets driven back. Maul failed to replicate what Vader did with his strength and hence this comparison you're drawing is bunk.
I would be inclined to agree with you if we had more than one fight between Tano and Maul where she demonstrated consistency, but we only have one. Circumstances vary with every fight. The Dooku vs Anakin example from earlier is great example of inconsistencies and why only one showing can not be relied on.


I will respond to the rest later.

quanchi112
Maul wins.

FreshestSlice
Kurk making some hella stupid and contradictory arguments tbh.

Kurk
Kenobi has incapped, disorientated, and stunned Maul physically, even when physically compromised.
You'll have to forgive my foggy memory on that...


Maul has been unable to replicate Kenobi's success physically even when Kenobi was already a physical wreck. I don't care if you want to make thisbe because of skill or strength. Maul's physical strength has meant jack sh!t to him when facing Kenobi.
What success of Kenobi physically are you referring to? I'm inclined to agree that Maul's strength has never given him any sort of real advantage in his fights against Obi-Wan.


When in a direct fight, all that has physically happened between the two would be Maul being kicked back by Grevious. Maul has done nothing to imply he wouldn't get physically manhandled by Grevious whose physical feats hilariously outclass his. And BTW, Kenobi has bent Grevious's arm like a cheap spoon, something I've never seen Maul do. Very few users exist who wouldn't get man-handled by Grievous. What's the canonical source for the Kenobi feat?


Kenobi staggered Oppress with a punch when he could barely stand upOh come on. You said yourself how augmentation over-rides fatigue.

and then in season 5 physically mandhandled him while landing blows on and driving back Maul.
I only remember him kicking down Savage with a flying kick from a height.

Whatever physical superiority Maul may or may not have to Kenobi, it's done absolutely crap for him in terms of their actual fights and hence isn't relevant.
If this was legends, I would push the point, but unfortunately I'm having trouble finding much on Maul's physicals in canon. I will concede on this point.


That's because neither have ever faced a Rathar. If we look at how they've directly fared against each other, we'd come to a conclusion opposite of th eone you're drawing off of nothing. Maul has done nothing to suggest he can win anything against Ahsoka by virtue of his physical strength and hence this is nonsense.Touche, but it's likewise with Tano.


Base biology means sh!t in comparison to force augmentation, hence why Sidious can simultaneously overpower maul and oppress and Yoda can physically school 4 younger council masters with his agility.
At the power difference between someone like Sidious and Maul yes it means sh1t. But because Tano and Maul are on the same tier, the smaller factors add up.


The only direct physical confrontation between Maul and Ahsoka has had Maul sent flailing backwards and Maul driven back. Hence trying to claim Maul can do something to Ahsoka physically is unsubstantiated conjecture.
I will say that Maul is not Savage, meaning he's not going to overpower anyone (in canon at least). However, he has demonstrated an affinity for incorporating martial arts into his move-sets and has made use of his strength specifically there. Go back to TPM. Look at his first TCW fight with Kenobi. He managed to land a kick on Sidious. Ahsoka is going to have to put up with that.

Kurk
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Kurk making some hella stupid and contradictory arguments tbh. At least I don't try to pass myself off as hot sh1t.

Darth Thor
Maul physically grappled and overpowered Grievous in SOD issue 2. Kenobi was hilariously outclassed by Grievous in a physical match up in ROTS.

But in a Lightsaber fight Kenobi seems to be able to handle strength. Given he parried off Anakin whose obviously the stronger combatant.

Darth Thor
Kenobi being a "physical wreck" while facing Maul in "Revenge" is also a laughable point. This has also been debunked multiple times with clear comments from Filoni stating that Maul was the clear disadvantaged onein that fight. He was the actual physical and mental wreck.

Kenobi's excuse in comparison is piss poor when seeing how a Padawan novice like Kanan put up his best performance against the GI after being tortured for days.

FreshestSlice
Originally posted by Kurk
At least I don't try to pass myself off as hot sh1t.
That...really doesn't have any impact whatsoever on what was said. You still have to make sense, no matter how low an opinion of yourself that you have.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Darth Thor
"She responded with all her strength"

So we Know she used all her strength. Unlikely Maul used all of his given how he was mocking her and sees her as a sub-par opponent.

And she shouts "Now" like straight after. So she needed all her strength to block him for like a second or two.
Just saw this

This bladelock happens after Ahsoka turns Maul's attempt at dun moch back on him and pisses him off. So yes, I'd imagine Maul would be trying with this bladelock

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Kurk
The post before mine already pointed out that Tano poured all her strength to hold-back Maul while the latter mocked her and called her a sub-par opponent, insinuating that Maul didn't need to put in nearly as much effort.

Yea, Ahsoka had pissed Maul off at this point so nah, Maul was trying here.
Originally posted by Kurk
Exhibit 1:
https://media.giphy.com/media/lNlE0JJdoOsXS/giphy.gif

Exhibit 2:
https://media.giphy.com/media/PeSNlwFp5dmzC/giphy.gif

Yea, that's not remotely similar to what Ahsoka did to Maul or what Anakin has done to Vader sustained bouts of strength.

Originally posted by Kurk
An anomaly more than anything. I just directed you to a fight where Dooku over-powers Anakin the entire time. I would label it an anomaly too.

Since it's the only relevant showing here, you have no way of calling this an anomaly

Originally posted by Kurk
What do you mean? That in canon characters are immune from the effects of aging?

No, what I mean is that at the age Maul is at as of Rebels, his 40's/50's, there's no precedent for characters physically degradement exceeding their augmentation. Dooku shows that even at 70, you can still be physically superior to your 20 year old self.
Originally posted by Kurk
It then becomes a question of "has this character grown enough in the force to compensate for their physical handicap?" I don't believe that theory is stated to be canon either, but then what's the point if we can't apply common sense?

And you have failed to provide any evidence for Maul's physical degradement exceeding his force growth.
Originally posted by Kurk
There is no confirmation that Malachor aided in Maul's performance. Do planetary nexuses even exist in canon?

roll eyes (sarcastic)
Being more powerful wouldn't improve abilities that are dependent on augmenting yourself with the force?

Originally posted by Kurk
Fair enough. Like I said it's arbitrary. Don't rely on numbers then. Substitute x and y. Y, the finite reserve of energy a user has, will decrease with time, x, multiplied by the amount of energy a user has to use to augment their physical abilities. As their body fatigues they will need to compensate more for that. It should make sense unless Disney believe jedi are demigods who never tire because "da force".

You're assuming the reserves would decrease when more powerful force users have larger force reserves, hence this formula you're trying to use hinges on unsubstantiated assumption. sad
Originally posted by Kurk
I didn't claim that they were equal in strength.

Then how Vader can perform vs Ahsoka is irrelevant to how Maul would perform against Ahsoka. thumb up
Next.
Originally posted by Kurk
She did both in the beginning.
Exhibit 3:
https://media.giphy.com/media/lXuHzujkw6PWo/giphy.gif

Exhibit 4:
https://media.giphy.com/media/BY9fVM4YP8S76/giphy.gif

Pushing back a strike isn't the same as overpowering someone in a sustained bladelock
Originally posted by Kurk
After the cutaway she quit the acrobatics and was unable to push back any of Vader's strikes. Why? Because she was fatiguing.

Right, because Vader is strong enough to tire Ahsoka out with his blows. Maul isn't as strong as Vade which means this comparison you're trying to draw will lead you nowhere.
I don't deny it.
Originally posted by Kurk
I would be inclined to agree with you if we had more than one fight between Tano and Maul where she demonstrated consistency, but we only have one. Circumstances vary with every fight. The Dooku vs Anakin example from earlier is great example of inconsistencies and why only one showing can not be relied on.

You can't claim this is inconsistent when there's nothing for it to be inconsistent against.

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Just saw this

This bladelock happens after Ahsoka turns Maul's attempt at dun moch back on him and pisses him off. So yes, I'd imagine Maul would be trying with this bladelock


Complete and unsubstantiated speculation as usual. You have a habit of making things up. The last part of the Dun Moch was Maul saying to Ahsoka "One last attempt at glory to impress a master who had not further use for you" to which Ahsoka replied "That's no True!"

So clearly as far as Maul knew he was winning the Dun Moch exchange and clearly enjoying toying with a sub-par opponent.

Then We Know as a Fact that Ahsoka used ALL HER STRENGTH just to block one blade lock.

Maul is clearly stronger than ROTS Ahsoka Lol. Get over it.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Complete and unsubstantiated speculation as usual. You have a habit of making things up.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
The last part of the Dun Moch was Maul saying to Ahsoka "One last attempt at glory to impress a master who had not further use for you" to which Ahsoka replied "That's no True!"

Actually fair enough, I misremembered the order of events here.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
So clearly as far as Maul knew he was winning the Dun Moch exchange and clearly enjoying toying with a sub-par opponent.

Yeah, none of this substantiates your assertion that Maul wouldn't be putting his strength into a direct overhead strike intended to cleave Ahsoka in two which leaves your claim:
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Complete and unsubstantiated speculation as usual.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Maul is clearly stronger than ROTS Ahsoka Lol. Get over it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Keep it up bro thumb up

Rockydonovang
(The first part of my response was on the last page)
Originally posted by Kurk
You'll have to forgive my foggy memory on that...


What success of Kenobi physically are you referring to? I'm inclined to agree that Maul's strength has never given him any sort of real advantage in his fights against Obi-Wan.

Take a gander:

-> Disorientates Maul for several seconds
https://youtu.be/aE_CVWMWK74?t=1m56s

-> Disorientates Maul again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE_CVWMWK74

-> Incaps Maul for several seconds:
https://youtu.be/DlJiphrbLyg?t=1m8s
Originally posted by Kurk
Oh come on. You said yourself how augmentation over-rides fatigue.

I said it can override Physical degradement, not Physical injury
Originally posted by Kurk
I only remember him kicking down Savage with a flying kick from a height.

He landed grounded kicks too. All of his kicks affected Oppress though.
Originally posted by Kurk
If this was legends, I would push the point, but unfortunately I'm having trouble finding much on Maul's physicals in canon. I will concede on this point.

Making this legends wouldn't do you any favors. Maul has no strength feats on par with Kenobi catching Grevious's ship denting punch and then bending Greviou's arm like a cheap spoon. Maul is only assumed to be stronger because of impressive crap he did pre-prime being more impressive than what Kenobi did pre-prime. The argument being that Kenobi's better results physically are a result of superior skill than strength.
Originally posted by Kurk
Touche, but it's likewise with Tano.

No, because Tano has sent Maul flailing backwards by virtue of her strength. Hence there's an argument to be made for Ahsoka causing Maul problems with her strength.

Originally posted by Kurk
At the power difference between someone like Sidious and Maul yes it means sh1t. But because Tano and Maul are on the same tier, the smaller factors add up.

It's still negligible, especially considering we've seen Ahsoka physically overpower Maul.
Originally posted by Kurk
I will say that Maul is not Savage, meaning he's not going to overpower anyone (in canon at least). However, he has demonstrated an affinity for incorporating martial arts into his move-sets and has made use of his strength specifically there. Go back to TPM.
That Maul knows martial arts doesn't prove he's skilled enough to effectively use these martial arts on Ahsoka who also can use martial arts.
Originally posted by Kurk
Look at his first TCW fight with Kenobi.
A beat up Kenobi taking a second to get up from Maul landing three successive hits on him doesn't really help your argument much tbh:
https://youtu.be/DlJiphrbLyg?t=1m16s
Originally posted by Kurk
He managed to land a kick on Sidious.

When Sidious wasn't fighting at full speed, yea.
Originally posted by Kurk
Ahsoka is going to have to put up with that.
And you've yet to provide evidence indicating she couldn't "put up with that", which renders your conclusion that Maul could take the w via his supposed physical superiority, dubious. erm

godemperortrump
Maul shit stomped Obi-Wan almost every time in TCW, apart from duel blades Ataru rage amp Kenobi. Even in that case Maul still wrecked him with the force.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by godemperortrump
Maul shit stomped Obi-Wan
TCW, gloss edition?

Darth Thor
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Actually fair enough, I misremembered the order of events here.


Well check your facts then before making up BS counters to someone whose giving you actual evidence from the very source you're using to support your own agenda.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yeah, none of this substantiates your assertion that Maul wouldn't be putting his strength into a direct overhead strike intended to cleave Ahsoka in two which leaves your claim:


It's for you to prove he was given all the evidence I've presented against your own speculation based on things that don't even happen. a Lightsaber only needs to touch Ahsoka's head to kill her, and as far as Maul's concerned she's a very sub-par opponent to him. Hardly someone he needs all his strength to defeat Lol.

Ahsoka is canonically stated to have used her full strength. There's nothing anywhere suggesting Maul was doing the same.

You're beyond reaching now.


Originally posted by Rockydonovang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Keep it up bro thumb up


IOW you don't like the facts thumb up

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Darth Thor
You lied to me, meanie!
Please forgive me Thor sad


Originally posted by Darth Thor You
It's for you to prove he was given all the evidence I've presented against your own speculation based on things that don't even happen. a Lightsaber only needs to touch Ahsoka's head to kill her, and as far as Maul's concerned she's a very sub-par opponent to him. Hardly someone he needs all his strength to defeat Lol.

Yea, that's not how the burden of proof works. In order for me to disprove something, you have to first prove it.
Read up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Ahsoka is canonically stated to have used her full strength. There's nothing anywhere suggesting Maul was doing the same.

Except that force users utilize their strength in bladelocks, that's how bladelocks work.





Originally posted by Darth Thor
IOW you don't like the facts thumb up
That's... not relevant to what a strawman is. erm

Kurk
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Yea, Ahsoka had pissed Maul off at this point so nah, Maul was trying here.
Thor already corrected you here.


Yea, that's not remotely similar to what Ahsoka did to Maul or what Anakin has done to Vader sustained bouts of strength.
That entire fight was a sustained bout of strength by Dooku; Anakin never over-powered him once there.


Since it's the only relevant showing here, you have no way of calling this an anomaly
It's not an anomaly nor is it consistent in that case. Fights are independent of each other. What happens in one does not determine what will happen in another. Repetition is the only real way to definitively place a combatant above another, and being that this is their only fight, using Ahsoka's one or two instances where she overpowers Maul as an indication of superior strength would be the equivalent of saying Dooku is stronger than Anakin using only the one fight from earlier.


No, what I mean is that at the age Maul is at as of Rebels, his 40's/50's, there's no precedent for characters physically degradement exceeding their augmentation. Dooku shows that even at 70, you can still be physically superior to your 20 year old self.
To be fair, we can't assume Dooku is more physically capable than his younger self because that quote is legends. Physical augmentation in as it relates to age is pretty untouched in canon from what I can tell.


And you have failed to provide any evidence for Maul's physical degradement exceeding his force growth.
You want one? Maul needing a cane during this era. If we want to dwell into legends, Stover's ROTS novel states how astonished Sidious was when he tried to run without the aid of the force. Obviously this is not a handicap when fighting Yoda because he too shares the same problem, canceling out any sort of disadvantage.

Now when you compare Maul and Tano, two force users who are on a similar tier (we can agree on at least), the latter who does not have any physical decrepitudes, it would be reasonable to assume that Maul has to channel significantly more of his energy into simply sustaining his degrading body during combat than Ahsoka.

It's not a residual amount of energy being used either, because even someone as powerful as RotJ Sidious couldn't passively sustain himself in-definitively as shown by the use of a cane throughout the films (the one exception being when fighting Luke).

roll eyes (sarcastic)
Being more powerful wouldn't improve abilities that are dependent on augmenting yourself with the force?
I'm too stupid to understand your point. Malanchor isn't a nexus in canon, so it's not aiding him.

You're assuming the reserves would decrease when more powerful force users have larger force reserves, hence this formula you're trying to use hinges on unsubstantiated assumption. sad
That assumption here is that Maul and Ahsoka on on relatively similar force tiers when it comes to their overall powers, reserves, strength, speed, etc. While I cannot speculate how long it would take for someone like Sidious to expend their reserves on augmentation, we can speculate that Rebels Maul is using more of his energy on augmentation than a physically fit Ahsoka who isn't suffering from the corrupting nature of the dark-side.


Then how Vader can perform vs Ahsoka is irrelevant to how Maul would perform against Ahsoka. thumb up
Next.

It shows how quickly Ahsoka tired from the fight. She's not on Vader's tier so who's tier is she on?


Pushing back a strike isn't the same as overpowering someone in a sustained bladelock
You know very-well that one of those was a clear-cut blade-lock when Tano pushed back even from a disadvantaged spot.


Right, because Vader is strong enough to tire Ahsoka out with his blows. Maul isn't as strong as Vade which means this comparison you're trying to draw will lead you nowhere.
I don't deny it.
So we agree that both Maul and Ahsoka aren't as strong as Vader. So neither is going to be over-powering the other consistently, right?

You can't claim this is inconsistent when there's nothing for it to be inconsistent against.
already answered.

Rebel95
Probably Maul, but it could go either way

Emperordmb
Goddamn... loving the new avi Rebel95

Rebel95
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Goddamn... loving the new avi Rebel95
Thanks big grin

|King Joker|
I knew this thread was going to be abortion-tier, and Kurk seems done a spectacular job in proving me right. Good job.

Ursumeles
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Goddamn... loving the new avi Rebel95
thumb up

XSUPREMEXSKILLZ
Originally posted by |King Joker|
I knew this thread was going to be abortion-tier, and Kurk seems done a spectacular job in proving me right. Good job.

Anyone who puts Ahsoka below Maul is cancer, amirite? smile

Darth Thor
To be honest Rocky's first line here began the cancer:



Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Ahsoka is authoritatively ahead of, and has stalemated a canonically superior version of Maul on a DS Nexus.

Rockydonovang
Naturally, Thor's definition of cancer are three claims I've provided uncontradicted evidence for.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Kurk
Thor already corrected you here.

He corrected me on a misremembering of evidence that still leaves us with your and thor's claim as unsubstantiated. Regardless you can ignore that baldelock if you like, it isn't remotely essential to my argument.
Originally posted by Kurk
That entire fight was a sustained bout of strength by Dooku; Anakin never over-powered him once there.

No, it wasn't a bout of strength, it was a bout of skill. Since Dooku is more skilled than Anakin at that point, he was able to repeatedly use superior skill to clown him.
Originally posted by Kurk
It's not an anomaly nor is it consistent in that case. Fights are independent of each other. What happens in one does not determine what will happen in another. Repetition is the only real way to definitively place a combatant above another
Sorry Kurk, but we base conclusions of the evidence we receive, not of the evidence you think we should receive. And Kurk, if your stance here is we don't have enough information, then why are you trying to draw a conclusion? If your stance is you don't know, then you shouldn't be arguing anything here.
Originally posted by Kurk
, and being that this is their only fight, using Ahsoka's one or two instances where she overpowers Maul as an indication of superior strength would be the equivalent of saying Dooku is stronger than Anakin using only the one fight from earlier.

A false equivalency. Not only has Dooku never been able to overpower Anakinin the manner Ahsoka overpowered Maul, but unlike with maul and Ahsoka, we have multiple examples of Anakin directly overpowering Dooku in sustained bouts of strength.
Originally posted by Kurk
To be fair, we can't assume Dooku is more physically capable than his younger self because that quote is legends. Physical augmentation in as it relates to age is pretty untouched in canon from what I can tell.

If you want to keep this exclusive to canon, fair enough. However we can simply refer to Rebels Maul growing as a duelist despite his natural physical degradement.
Originally posted by Kurk
You want one? Maul needing a cane during this era.

Yes, when he wasn't fighting and was not making use of the superior force augmentation his greater power would grant him. erm
Originally posted by Kurk
If we want to dwell into legends, Stover's ROTS novel states how astonished Sidious was when he tried to run without the aid of the force. Obviously this is not a handicap when fighting Yoda because he too shares the same problem, canceling out any sort of disadvantage.

Why is what Sidious can do without the force relevant to his combative abilities with the force? confused
Originally posted by Kurk
Now when you compare Maul and Tano, two force users who are on a similar tier (we can agree on at least), the latter who does not have any physical decrepitudes, it would be reasonable to assume that Maul has to channel significantly more of his energy into simply sustaining his degrading body during combat than Ahsoka.

Which would make Ahsoka being stronger than Rebels Maul logical. Now why is this relevant to SOD Maul who isn't as powerful as either? erm
Originally posted by Kurk
It's not a residual amount of energy being used either, because even someone as powerful as RotJ Sidious couldn't passively sustain himself in-definitively as shown by the use of a cane throughout the films (the one exception being when fighting Luke).

You act as if ROTS Sidious could fight forever. No force user has infinite stamina, however a more powerful force user has bigger force reserves to draw on and hence will be able to fight longer.
Originally posted by Kurk
I'm too stupid to understand your point. Malanchor isn't a nexus in canon, so it's not aiding him.

Says who? I have an authorial statement from Henry Gilroy implying otherwise
Originally posted by Kurk
That assumption here is that Maul and Ahsoka on on relatively similar force tiers
Not SOD Maul who's feats are outclassed by an inferior version of Vader to the one who both Maul and Ahsoka share a degree of near parity to.
Originally posted by Kurk
when it comes to their overall powers, reserves, strength, speed, etc. While I cannot speculate how long it would take for someone like Sidious to expend their reserves on augmentation, we can speculate that Rebels Maul is using more of his energy on augmentation than a physically fit Ahsoka who isn't suffering from the corrupting nature of the dark-side.

Now explain why this means SOD Maul, who doesn't have the force reserves Rebels Maul has would be able to do better? In fact, given that Ahsoka and SOD Maul are of similar age, I'd think Ahsoka being a force user who Vader wouldn't bother to directly tk until she had her defenses down, on a nexus, would be able to do just fine against Maul considering her greater power.
Originally posted by Kurk
It shows how quickly Ahsoka tired from the fight. She's not on Vader's tier so who's tier is she on?

Tiring after more than a minuite of fighting isn't quickly tiring bro. And I'm not seeing why she isn't on Vader's tier when she can contend with him in unfavorable circumstances for more than minute before the fight is prematurely ended. On the other hand, given LOTS Vader's feats sh!t on SOD Maul's, I wonder why you think Maul would be doing as ell as Ahsoka did.
Originally posted by Kurk
You know very-well that one of those was a clear-cut blade-lock when Tano pushed back even from a disadvantaged spot.

Brief bladelocks aren't solid indications of strength, a sustained bout, where both opponents are trying to physically overpower the other, are.
Originally posted by Kurk
So we agree that both Maul and Ahsoka aren't as strong as Vader. So neither is going to be over-powering the other consistently, right?

That both are sub-Vader doesn't make the two equal. Ahsoka has physically overpowered a more powerful version of Maul and can be assumed to wield considerably more power than SOD Maul given her closeness with a considerably more powerful force user in Vader.

What's the argument for Maul here again?

Kurk
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
He corrected me on a misremembering of evidence that still leaves us with your and thor's claim as unsubstantiated. Regardless you can ignore that baldelock if you like, it isn't remotely essential to my argument.

No, it wasn't a bout of strength, it was a bout of skill. Since Dooku is more skilled than Anakin at that point, he was able to repeatedly use superior skill to clown him.

Sorry Kurk, but we base conclusions of the evidence we receive, not of the evidence you think we should receive. And Kurk, if your stance here is we don't have enough information, then why are you trying to draw a conclusion? If your stance is you don't know, then you shouldn't be arguing anything here.

A false equivalency. Not only has Dooku never been able to overpower Anakinin the manner Ahsoka overpowered Maul, but unlike with maul and Ahsoka, we have multiple examples of Anakin directly overpowering Dooku in sustained bouts of strength.

If you want to keep this exclusive to canon, fair enough. However we can simply refer to Rebels Maul growing as a duelist despite his natural physical degradement.

Yes, when he wasn't fighting and was not making use of the superior force augmentation his greater power would grant him. erm

Why is what Sidious can do without the force relevant to his combative abilities with the force? confused

Which would make Ahsoka being stronger than Rebels Maul logical. Now why is this relevant to SOD Maul who isn't as powerful as either? erm

You act as if ROTS Sidious could fight forever. No force user has infinite stamina, however a more powerful force user has bigger force reserves to draw on and hence will be able to fight longer.

Says who? I have an authorial statement from Henry Gilroy implying otherwise

Not SOD Maul who's feats are outclassed by an inferior version of Vader to the one who both Maul and Ahsoka share a degree of near parity to.

Now explain why this means SOD Maul, who doesn't have the force reserves Rebels Maul has would be able to do better? In fact, given that Ahsoka and SOD Maul are of similar age, I'd think Ahsoka being a force user who Vader wouldn't bother to directly tk until she had her defenses down, on a nexus, would be able to do just fine against Maul considering her greater power.

Tiring after more than a minuite of fighting isn't quickly tiring bro. And I'm not seeing why she isn't on Vader's tier when she can contend with him in unfavorable circumstances for more than minute before the fight is prematurely ended. On the other hand, given LOTS Vader's feats sh!t on SOD Maul's, I wonder why you think Maul would be doing as ell as Ahsoka did.

Brief bladelocks aren't solid indications of strength, a sustained bout, where both opponents are trying to physically overpower the other, are.

That both are sub-Vader doesn't make the two equal. Ahsoka has physically overpowered a more powerful version of Maul and can be assumed to wield considerably more power than SOD Maul given her closeness with a considerably more powerful force user in Vader.

What's the argument for Maul here again? Alright, I can nitpick the details here but overall you've effectively supported the idea that SoD Maul doesn't have the force capacity to win an extended fight with Ahsoka. You have my fodder concession.

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Kurk
Alright, I can nitpick the details here but overall you've effectively supported the idea that SoD Maul doesn't have the force capacity to win an extended fight with Ahsoka. You have my fodder concession.
Good discussion bro thumb up

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