Carth Onasi vs. Han Solo

So because Carth didn't shoot Vader's TIE fighter or slip in with some rebels at Endor he what? Isn't good enough to be compared to Han Solo?

You're providing us with a very absolutist viewpoint here that basically spits all over the reason for having this subforum.

There is no form of reason that spits over this place, because there is no set logic by which this place works.

And it's because Carth has no famous events to his name by which his qualities can be measured against the super-heroic ones that come from Han that mean he cannot be compared.

lmfao

Sure. So I can't compare the battle prowess of say, a New York sharpshooter to James Bond because James Bond saved the world a few times?

That's basically what you're saying, Ush. We can't compare the two because Han Solo is famous and has uber victories.

Carth must be some lowly digital peon not worth a thing but Han Solo did great things and thus this battle is ridiculous, right?

So the guy who was eventually promoted into an admiral is a lowly grunt with no records attached to his name?

I fail to see how the logic works, honestly.

Well, that's just you twisting my logic. As I said, you actually have no basis to compare Carth to Han. Hence, attempting to is silly.

And for those who think that Han's luck doesn't count for much- tell that to Boba.

Originally posted by Illustrious
So the guy who was eventually promoted into an admiral is a lowly grunt with no records attached to his name?

I fail to see how the logic works, honestly.

What, Rank determines quality in Star Wars now?

That's entirely irrelevant. And even if it did, so what? Han was the equivalent rank so you still have nothing on him.

THe point remains that you still have no specific thing you can point to and sday that it makes Carth better. At least EU book characters have specific and measurable deeds to their name. He has none.

Han Solo has this if he can survive Boba Fett I'm sure he can take Carth.

Actually that comparison is a bit drastic, but it's valid. You're effectively saying Han has more victories and has accomplished more, therefore, regardless about whatever we know about their skills, Han will beat Carth.

I suppose someone like Ludo Kressh would lose to Han Solo because he didn't accomplish much.

Originally posted by Lord Simus
Han Solo has this if he can survive Boba Fett I'm sure he can take Carth.

Boba is a Mandalorian. Carth fought in the Mandalorian Wars. I'm sure he'd meet up with a few people like Boba.

Or Yoda, who was quite unambitious.

Ush, if you're so concerned with people making threads you feel aren't reasonable, why don't you close them and make a disclaimer?

No, my postulation is that we actually know nothing about Carth's skills at all, whereas we have seen plenty of Han's, which are very good. Han has experiences a plenty- far more so, in fact- so you cannot say Carth is more experienced. You cannot say Carth is more skilled. So you cannot say that this fairly irrelevant character is in any way better than probably the most famous good guy in the entire SW saga at all.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Boba is [b]a Mandalorian. Carth fought in the Mandalorian Wars. I'm sure he'd meet up with a few people like Boba. [/B]

Prove it! Boba was a legend. Carth may only have ever met grunts. I'll say again, at the start of KOTOR, Carth was a very average person, so that past experience counts for nowt.

Again, with Yoda we have obvious and demonstrated ability that we have none of with Carth. Why you guys cannot see this simple logic is beyond me.

And I don't mind people making the threads; I'll just point out how silly that viewpoint is within it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What, Rank determines quality in Star Wars now?

That's entirely irrelevant. And even if it did, so what? Han was the equivalent rank so you still have nothing on him.

THe point remains that you still have no specific thing you can point to and sday that it makes Carth better. At least EU book characters have specific and measurable deeds to their name. He has none.

It's about as relevant as saying Palpatine had great political accomplishments, therefore he beats Obi-Wan. You are forgetting all the confounding variables that could throw off the equation.

I don't like the hypocrisy, when you say political achievements and "victories" makes your team win, it's valid. But when I show achievements, it's irrelevant. So I suppose they decided to play spin the bottle with Admiral candidates, right?

Carth was a hero against Mandalorians (Boba was a single Mandalorian), yet somehow, Han's feat against one mandalorian is more impressive?

Carth killed Saul, he fought in the battle of the Starforge, he was a hero in the Mandalorian Wars, yet all of those are irrelevant because there's few book sources?

So Han can beat Ragnos because there's not enough supporting him?

I didn't say achievement counted for nothing at any point- I said that in Star Wars, rank counts for nothing. Look at Ozzel. Read what I say properly.

And yes- Han's achievement is more impressive because it is defined against a Galactic legend.

lmao

Han >>>>> Ragnos.

It's simple logic, really.

It's ridiculous twisting. Clearly, having held together the entirity of the Sith for so long, this is a specific acheivement that clearly shows that Ragnos is a powerful Sith and so therefore beyond Han.

You guys really need to learn to read an argument properly rather than try and make silly adolescent extremes look like what I am saying.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I didn;t say achievement counted for nothing at any point- I said that in Star Wars, rank counts for nothing. Look at Ozzel. Read what I say properly.

And yes- Han's achievement is more impressive because it is defined against a Galactic legend.

Again, that's walking a fine line towards logical fallacy, Ush.

You can't list off one individual who was an incompetent high ranking official, while ignoring all the rest who were, and say Carth's ranking is irrelevant. While there may be outliers, the general trend is the higher up you go, the more competent you are. And there's no facts to say Carth was incompetent.

You personally said Palpatine is the greatest Sith lord because he was able to "accomplish more." In this case, take over the Republic.

But I ask of you, what does this awesome political maneuver do in battle? Nothing. That is the most "irrelevant" thing in the thread. At least citing his rank would indicate he has more "fame" than your typical "grunt" which you attempted to throw Carth in with.

Agreed. ANd really, define Galactic Legend for us? You don't think someone they call a hero of the Mandalorian and Jedi Civil Wars is weaker than a smuggler who got tied up in the rebellion against the Empire?

What qualifies as a "Galactic Legend"?

No, that's not the general trend at all, in fact, when it comes to military rank in Star Wars. Dunno where you got that idea from.

And it;s not up to me to prove negatives, but for you to prove popsitives., There is nothing proving that Carth is competent as an Admiral, and that's the trick. For all we know, he got the job because he was Revean's friend. This ois the central popint- there is NO barometer of Carth's quality at all, whereas Han is very high on that scale.

And again, I'll remind you that Palpatine's rise to power is directly related to his power as a Sith, and this has an important mythological resonance that it is very important that you should recognise in these films. It;s not even vaguely irrelevant. By that logic, if any Sith before Palpatine had been as good as him, he would have succeeded.

This qualifies:

Look in a mirror and have Han stand behind you and look deep into it.

Oh, and yeah, don't look at yourself. Thats a Galactic Legend.