Shouldn't Jedi be better duelists than Sith?

Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Yes, the Sith are supposed to be stronger then Jedi. Thats why they are always stronger then Jedi in almost every case. Qui-Gon was a seasoned Jedi master and a brilliant swordsman, he was far better then the average Jedi knight and he got pWned by Maul, who was a Sith Apprentice. Imagine what most Sith Lords, or a Sith Master would do to Qui-Gon (Palpatine for instance) then add "WTF" to Qui-Gon's "pWned" to get what a Sith master would do to regular average Jedi.

That's saying far too much. Qui-Gon did not get pwned by Maul. And wasn't Mace able to defeat Sidious in saber combat?

But still the Sith seem to focus on power which usually leads to their own downfall. Plus you must see that the Sith train to face the Jedi and the Jedi of the PT hadn't seen a Sith in like a thousand years. But all in all it seems that the Sith are always their own worse enemy.

Wesker I thought you were leaving? And Mace is stronger. MArka would be so afraid of getting analy raped By MAce he would s**t himself

Originally posted by Illustrious
Neither side is stronger than the other. It just so happens that many of the Sith were Jedi prodigies to begin with: Freedon Nadd, Exar Kun, Darth Revan.

The Sith believe in dominating, even against themselves. The Lightside wins because it believes in peace and balance, which is more lasting than the Sith ideals of power.

Canonically though, Revan turned to the light. Wouldn't that make him one of the strongest Jedi? You can't include him in the list of Sith Lords.

vampire Even though the sith are strong they don't as much rely on skill. Look how obi wan defeated anakin not with the force yeah it helped but he defeated him by experience anakin was strong in the dark side but he was arrogant and believed that he could defeat obi wan with out experiance in his abilities he was a jedi learning the p;ower of the dark side whereas obi was comfortable with his abilities.

Originally posted by zephiel7
Canonically though, Revan turned to the light. Wouldn't that make him one of the strongest Jedi? You can't include him in the list of Sith Lords.

Even if Revan did turn and remain a jedi and become uber as shit, it would be the exception rather than the rule.

Originally posted by Wesker
Even if Revan did turn and remain a jedi and become uber as shit, it would be the exception rather than the rule.

Wasn't Revan this powerful Jedi before falling to the dark side?

Originally posted by Hello Friend
In the Movies era, half of the Sith Lords died from a Jedi.

Another thing: in the movies era, the strongest Jedi can stand against (and even defeat) the strongest Sith.

Originally posted by ESB - 1138
[B]That's saying far too much. Qui-Gon did not get pwned by Maul. And wasn't Mace able to defeat Sidious in saber combat?

You also have to think about this...in the movies...EVERY Sith took out at least 1 Jedi before getting killed.

Maul>Qui-gon.....OB1>Maul

Dooku> OB1 AND Anakin....yoda chased him away...

Dooku>OB! AGAIN....Anakin> Dooku

Sidious> Kit and those other TWO.....and eventually Mace due to help from Anakin...PLUS, i think Palps was playing opossum to seem weak to Anakin so he'd help.

Ob1>young Vader...Vader> Old OB1...although he gave up, he knew he was fighting an uphill battle.

Say what you likw about Qui-Gon, but the fact is that Nick Gilliard intended him and maul to be even (and the original sequence which had Qui-Gon knock Maul off of the ramp onto the Naboo ship was a part where QGJ get's the better of Maul).

All this babbling about how even a rudimentary swordsman should have been able to block is just horse manure, frankly. QGJ was a VERY good duellist; Maul just won on the day.

Originally posted by ESB - 1138
That's saying far too much. Qui-Gon did not get pwned by Maul. And wasn't Mace able to defeat Sidious in saber combat?

But still the Sith seem to focus on power which usually leads to their own downfall. Plus you must see that the Sith train to face the Jedi and the Jedi of the PT hadn't seen a Sith in like a thousand years. But all in all it seems that the Sith are always their own worse enemy.

Yes, OK Qui-Gon did OK against Maul, he was afterall said to be one of the best in the order with his saber, in the end he still got owned though. And yes Mace did defeat Palpatine, maybe (but I wont get into that). There are exceptions, like Mace, Yoda, Anakin (and Obi-Wan maybe) But thats not what this thread is effectively saying. Its asking "shouldn't ALL Jedi be superior to Sith in saber combat?". The answer is an obvious; NO. Look at Kit Fisto, he was supposed to be an extremely good duelist, far better then the average Jedi, and Palpatine pWned him.

Palpatine owned 3 Jedi Masters in under 30 seconds, and respected Jedi masters at that, imagine what he'd do to average Jedi Knights. Imagine what he could have done if he started using the force at the same time while dueling. There are always extremely powerful and skilled Jedi, but on average the Sith are far superior to Jedi in terms of Saber skill, not to mention force prowess.

Hardly a fair comparison seeing as Palpatine is King Uber Sith.

By the time there are two Sith, the Sith are always going to be the finest examples of their kind. That's not a worthwhile comparison of 'average' Sith in the sense of which the question is asked.

I've never seen any reason to think anything other than Jedi and Sith being evenly matched.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Say what you likw about Qui-Gon, but the fact is that Nick Gilliard intended him and maul to be even (and the original sequence which had Qui-Gon knock Maul off of the ramp onto the Naboo ship was a part where QGJ get's the better of Maul).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
All this babbling about how even a rudimentary swordsman should have been able to block is just horse manure, frankly. QGJ was a VERY good duellist; Maul just won on the day.

First of all... QGJ never took a rest. He decided to meditate during the lull; it was a rather neat piece of characterisation.

Secondly, yes, I have studied sword fighting, and I know people pretty darn good at this sort of thing who have watched that fight, and moreover, I trust Nick Gillard a hell of a lot more than I trust you to do this kind of thing right. He thinks the stun was too much for even a master swordsman, and that's all there is to it.

Good logic...But i think it also depends on the individual. If one is more dedicated to their craft they'll be better. Like for instance, Dooku pwned OB1 twice, and Anakin killed Dooku, rather easily i might add, but OB1 beat Anakin. So it depends on styles and dedication. But when 2 Sith can overthrow, hundreds of Jedi, that should say something. I know I know, they had the clones help and that was a BIG help, sure, but more jedi died at the hands of the Sith than vice versa.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hardly a fair comparison seeing as Palpatine is King Uber Sith.

By the time there are two Sith, the Sith are always going to be the finest examples of their kind. That's not a worthwhile comparison of 'average' Sith in the sense of which the question is asked.

I've never seen any reason to think anything other than Jedi and Sith being evenly matched.

This thread title is: "Shouldn't Jedi be better duelists than Sith?"

The answer is no. Jedi ARE NOT better duelist then Sith. Everything you said is correct, and I agree with you, but the thread is not asking shouldn't the BEST top jedi be better duelist then Sith, its just asking shouldn't the Jedi be better duelist then Sith.

It is a fair comparison, because its a true one. Just because there happens to only be 2 Sith doesn't mean that the Jedi should get some kind of linguistic handicap because of the numbers difference. Fact is, put either the Sith master or apprentice up against almost ANY Jedi in the order and they will more then likely mop the floor with them. That is what the thread is asking after all, I didn't make it, I'm just answering the question.

And what do you mean by "average" Sith? If your talking before the rule of 2, which you apparently are, then well this question changes. But that was not specified by the thread creator.

Again... not a fair comparison- there were way more Jedi that COULD die, and again, the Sith are always the absolutley best they can produce.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again... not a fair comparison- there were way more Jedi that COULD die, and again, the Sith are always the absolutley best they can produce.

Exactly, thats my point. The Jedi, are on average, NOT better duelist then the Sith. Your giving the Jedi a linguistic handicap (why?). The thread is asking "shouldn't Jedi be better then the Sith at dueling?"

The answer is no. Just because there are only 2 does not mean that its unfair. It just happens to be the only way it is, and thus the only way to answer the question.

Its "unfair" in its nature, but there is no other way to address it. Unless you can give me a way to compare the Jedi and the Sith (thousands vs. 2) fairly, but I doubt you can. So the apparently "unfair" answer is the only answer to give, except, "this thread is unfair by nature since its 2 vs. thousands". But to actually answer the question, you have to answer the question, not add to it, not change it.

So the answer(s) are either 1) this is an unfair comparison overall and this thread should be closed. or 2) the Jedi are not better duelist then the Sith.

Simple really.

Why are we talking here like this is only post-Ruusan Sith anyways?

Most popular times?

In other times the Jedi or the Sith were not necessarily better. It depends on the training and the will to fight. The sith were more aggressive however.