Um Malak vs Hoth was no overkill, Hoth was just slightly above Malak because Malak looses all of his advantages in that battle as for strenght, height, lightsaber skills etc. I bet even Revan didn't "overkill" Malak.
In this fight I belive Hoth slightly takes it, he was a strong jedi so I bet he could resist some off her force powers and he was a much better lightsaber duelist.
He's right. I belive Kreia would beat Malak after a hard fight but still that doesent mean she can beat Hoth. Mabey Malak would fare much better against him, he might be really good with sword and has much physical strenght to survive force powers, that means he can beat Kreia because shes a bad swordsman (not near one of the best anyway). But he might be killed by Malaks because he got very good lightsaber skills. Just because Qui-Gon was killed by Maul and Obi-Wan beated him doesent mean that Obi-Wan is superior to Qui-Gon in saber skills.
Originally posted by Darth_Janus
More bad logic.A bee could kill a man (if he's allergic) and an ape is around the same size and build, therefore the bee could kill an ape.
While that logic is wrong, it's also wrong to assume the bee can't kill the ape, because the bee could be stronger than credited, or the ape could have the same allergic reaction. It's better to leave unknowns as unknowns.
The point was it operates on unfounded assumptions and illogical order to make a judgment that was faulty before it began.
- There is nothing to say or support that Kreia is about equal to Malak. Even if they were equal on some ground, they would be unequal on others, making a direct comparison impossible.
- There is nothing to say or support that Lord Hoth is definately superior to Malak, even in the slightest. Also, we have nothing to directly compare them either. Such a comparison is a product of opinion and nothing more.
- Thus, you cannot say M = K and M<H therefore K<H, when you have no facts to support the first parts.