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.
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
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.
It's "pretty clear cut" in your opinion. And you've yet to substantiate give a reason why it's "super clear cut".
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.
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.
In a statement which never refers to combative ability. Lets try and providing relevant evidence for a change.
Indeed, as a character, which can also be said of TCW Maul.
It's not even speculative, neither of the quotes you provided say what you're trying to say they say.
You call these comments vague, and have yet to provide an alternative explanation which doesn't blatantly ignore the context of the quote.
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.
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.
@ 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.
Registered: Jul 2015
Location: The Darkest Corner of your Mind
Account Restricted
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.
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.
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.
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?
Everything said here goes back to the original argument.
__________________ "Technology equals might!" "Evolve or perish"
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.
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.
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.
They're not evenly matched evenly matched force users, Dooku is more powerful at this point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Registered: Jul 2015
Location: The Darkest Corner of your Mind
Account Restricted
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.
Exhibit 1: (please log in to view the image)
Exhibit 2: (please log in to view the image)
I have more too.
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.
I mis-worded that part. Yes it's the power that determines it not potential.
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?
There is no confirmation that Malachor aided in Maul's performance. Do planetary nexuses even exist in canon?
Maybe more skillful, but not significantly more powerful if at all. I don't want to debate this here.
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".
I didn't claim that they were equal in strength.
She did both in the beginning.
Exhibit 3: (please log in to view the image)
Exhibit 4: (please log in to view the image)
After the cutaway she quit the acrobatics and was unable to push back any of Vader's strikes. Why? Because she was fatiguing.
I don't deny it.
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.
__________________ "Technology equals might!" "Evolve or perish"
Registered: Jul 2015
Location: The Darkest Corner of your Mind
Account Restricted
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.
Oh come on. You said yourself how augmentation over-rides fatigue.
I only remember him kicking down Savage with a flying kick from a height.
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.
Touche, but it's likewise with Tano.
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.
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.
__________________ "Technology equals might!" "Evolve or perish"
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.
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.
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
Yea, Ahsoka had pissed Maul off at this point so nah, Maul was trying here.
Yea, that's not remotely similar to what Ahsoka did to Maul or what Anakin has done to Vader sustained bouts of strength.
Since it's the only relevant showing here, you have no way of calling this an anomaly
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.
And you have failed to provide any evidence for Maul's physical degradement exceeding his force growth.
Being more powerful wouldn't improve abilities that are dependent on augmenting yourself with the 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.
Then how Vader can perform vs Ahsoka is irrelevant to how Maul would perform against Ahsoka.
Next.
Pushing back a strike isn't the same as overpowering someone in a sustained bladelock
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.
You can't claim this is inconsistent when there's nothing for it to be inconsistent against.
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.
Last edited by Darth Thor on Sep 14th, 2017 at 08:11 AM
Sep 9th, 2017 03:20 PM
