Originally posted by Stealth Moose
His actual moves against Maul indicate otherwise though. Dooku and Mace show very tight control over themselves and leave few weaknesses, whereas Qui-Gon's Ataru was all balls, no defense.
Maybe he was just ballsy that day.
Btw, isn't it somewhere stated that TPM Windu was = to Qui-Gon? I'm not sure about this one, someone might wanna confirm this.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
How about you read the book?lol at Dooku mastering Djem So.
Your own quote betrays you. All it says is that Dooku taught Grievous well. The things that were programmed were grievous's elites.
"Dooku had taught Grievous well, and Grievous had taught his elite well. Coupled with Dooku's coaching , their programming in the seven classic forms of lightsaber dueling - - in the Jedi arts - - made them lethal opponents."
Suggesting Grievous is more of a master of the seven forms than Dooku because of his programing is pigdisgusting levels of dumb.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
1. Kenobi disarms Maul of part of his weapon with his own weapon. Something QG wasn't able to do in a much longer period of time. BTW thanks for helping my case SM.2. You mention QG backslapping Maul to counter my point about Kenobi disarming Maul and QG not being able to. Problem is, QG only did that when it was a 2 v 1 fight while Maul just got done kicking away Kenobi. Kenobi pulled his feat off ONE V ONE with no distraction. Try again SM (by the way we all know what the S really stands for eh)
Oh Jeez KT, you still living in your delusion that TPM Kenobi > TPM Maul and Qui-Gon?
1. Urm excuse me, how did Obi-Wan chop Maul's weapon in a shorter time than Qui-Gon fought Maul? You do remember that Kenobi began fighting Maul alongside Qui-Gon at the exact same time right?
Or are we supposed to give Kenobi credit for missing half the fight after getting a boot to his face and disarmed of his weapon, then coming back to the fight after a huge rest and completely revitalized like a few minutes later?
2. Oh it was 2 on 1 was it? And yet out of those 2 it was Kenobi who got disarmed and knocked out of the fight, but Qui-Gon who gained the upper hand at that point. That right there is clear proof of who was the superior combatant between Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan. Not to mention the novel flat out states Qui-Gon was the superior combatant.
Oh and I don't know why you keep raving about "HE PARTIALLY DISARMED HIM, YET QUI-GON DIDN'T!" I don't see what's so impressive about that, since Maul wasn't fully disarmed, and wasn't defeated, and still went on to defeat Kenobi in combat. Besides perhaps Qui-Gon wasn't looking for that hit, and was looking for killing strikes only.
Originally posted by JediMaster97
I don´t get this. People say Obi-Wan was lucky when he cut Maul in half but Maul wasn´t lucky when Kenobi was standing right in front of a big hole when Maul force force pushed him? Use some logic!!! There was no luck for either of them.
That was also Kenobi's luck smarty pants.
Maul already floored Kenobi disarming him of his weapon before he fell down the "big hole." If Kenobi didn't have that "big hole" to fall down then he would have got chopped to pieces by Maul.
And yes Kenobi was lucky. He only survived the fight due to Qui-Gon's help. He was defeated in the 2 on 1 fight and only survived that point because Qui-Gon smacked Maul and then began forcing him back. And heck even when he cut Maul in 2 it was with Qui-Gon's Lightsaber, as he was disarmed of his own once again.
Kenobi simply had zero chance against Maul by himself as of TPM.
Originally posted by Petrus
Maybe he was just ballsy that day.Btw, isn't it somewhere stated that TPM Windu was = to Qui-Gon? I'm not sure about this one, someone might wanna confirm this.
To be honest, I'm not sure where the quote came from, as it has been around since this subforum began. I suspect TPM novelization (which is rubbish) or some kind of TPM reference guide which came out in 1999. Mace Windu hadn't even swung a sword or been in a book or comic when the quote came out though, so I highly doubt it.
Looks like KT replied. I must crush him and absorb his soul to become more powerful so that I can run rampant through the cosmos.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
I'm starting to think the name stupidmoose is more appropriate than stealth. Trust me, there is nothing stealth about your stupidity here.
You say I provided no evidence.. odd.. I listed 4 fights in which kenobi did better than ANYTHING in QG entire career.. and you call that not bringing evidence to the table? LULZ. Just because you want to low ball the feats and bring in your own context to them (last time I checked you weren't lucas and don't work on anything star wars) doesn't change the fact that they happened. Let's go over them again one more time so even a dunce like yourself could grasp the concepts here.
I analyzed the fight and gave you the same Youtube link so you could be on the same page. You just spewed out a bunch of stuff and then claimed to have a monopoly on the truth. If you can't handle me calling you out on it, maybe you should learn how to debate.
1. Kenobi disarms Maul of part of his weapon with his own weapon. Something QG wasn't able to do in a much longer period of time. BTW thanks for helping my case SM.
Disarming Maul was both minimal in impact and not indicative of Obi-Wan's overall standing against Maul. It ignores context surrounding the event. Maul recovered very quickly and dominated Obi-Wan immediately after this, maneuvering the head-strong young padawan into a definitive ring out position.
2. You mention QG backslapping Maul to counter my point about Kenobi disarming Maul and QG not being able to. Problem is, QG only did that when it was a 2 v 1 fight while Maul just got done kicking away Kenobi. Kenobi pulled his feat off ONE V ONE with no distraction. Try again SM (by the way we all know what the S really stands for eh)
1. Obi-Wan had the benefit of Qui-Gon Jinn fighting Maul alongside him, and yet he was tagged twice and the second time literally took him out of the fight. When Qui-Gon was left alone, he lasted nearly twice as long as Obi-Wan did, and was overcome only when he had run out of room/stamina. Obi-Wan, when he was angry and riled, blitzed Maul and after the "uber break sabruz" movement was dominated. Utterly. This is not comparable, as much as that hurts your bias.
3. Now you're claiming it wasn't a lucky move but now calling for the PIS card to be played. Sorry bud, agian doesn't work that way. Maul was LOOKING RIGHT AT KENOBI as he executed the move. Him looking surprised doesn't change the fact that he saw the move coming and COULD DO NOTHIGN ABOUT IT.
Maul was helpless against the slowly rising Obi-Wan, in a situation where it was already a foregone conclusion that Obi-Wan lives? This doesn't make any sense. No, the plot dictated that Maul was superior, but needed to be overcome by the heroic music and Obi-Wan centering himself, pushing aside his anger and using the weapon of his master to overcome his superior foe. It's not indicative of Obi-Wan's greater power; he had just been WTFpwned prior and was effectively out. In a neutral situation without Qui-Gon's weapon, he'd be dead, and of course without having like third billing in ANH too.
The surprise comes from being turned into a pint sized dwarf. Most anybody would have a look of surprise if they were cut in half.. regardless of what proceded them being cut in half. Try again, but try harder to make a valid point SM. Fact is, he couldn't react fast enough and got beaten.
Maul, who is shocked, did not respond. If someone does not respond, but has previously kicked the shit out of an individual, they are not automatically inferior by virtue of not responding, especially when Maul cannot win due to established canon which says that Obi-Wan lives and goes on to train Anakin Skywalker.
All sorts of inconsistencies take place because the plot demands it. Yoda gets zapped by Sidious at the beginning of their fight, even though he should both expect it and is demonstratably able to defend against it. We would not argue that Sidious outskilled or overpowered Yoda in this instant.
4. You next try and act like Kenobi was beaten and 100% out of the fight with zero chance to win.
The only time this is true of anyone is if they are dead or unable to move at all. Don't strawman.
Not only is that unquestionably retarded on your part,
Wow, with your eloquence, intelligence, and charm, you're really convincing me.
since ya know, he was beaten and kenobi wasn't out of the fight via the highest source of canon.. but even a dunce like yourself would realize that this is a common occurance in real life and the any genre of tv or movie. People can look out of it with no chance to win.. and yet they do... how many football games.. bball games.. MMA fight... movies should I recite for you where they aren't in fact ouf of it and end of winning? Countless time this happens in real life and in the movies. Kenobi wasn't beaten nor was there zero chance for him to win.
If someone is getting donkey stomped throughout a fight and then suddenly is able to get a chokehold in at the last second when the opponent thinks they're out of the game and unable to make a comeback, this is an argument for winning, not being martially superior. Your inability to see the semantic difference along with your ridiculous bias confirmation is approaching critical mass.
5. Next I cite him beating Anakin in a one v one fight. Something again, greater than anything QG has ever done in his career. You call that not bringing evidence to the table LULZ. So tell me... being that you've brought zero evidence to the table. Name me one feat that QG has that is better than beating Sith Anakin in a one v one battle? This response should be lulz worthy or most likely a red herring yet again.
So let me get this straight; even though I did not come to you saying Qui-Gon would win, you want me to demonstrate that this is absolutely true when you claimed the reverse and then failed the burden of proof? Have you forgotten what started all this already?
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
You're better than this buckaroo.... You very well know the arguments at hand... I'll just leave it at.. Kenobi did exponentially better against someone that killed Qui-Gon. We'll leave it at that for now... since I'm sure that was earth shattering info
You did not prove this at all. You claimed it was pretty obvious, then did a bang-up job of misrepresenting the established TPM finale, and now you're pretending the Obi-Wan/Anakin fight, in which Obi-WAn barely hung on and was later able to win due to situational advantage and massive arrogance in his opponent, is also absolute proof.
If you claim absolutes, make arguments that support it. No one is beholden to your opinion, because while your parents may not have informed you, yours isn't the only one of merit.
6. Next, name me one thing in QG entire career that is better than beating The General in a one v one fight. I don't need a Ad hominem here.. nor a missing the point.. name me one feat of QG superior to this.
I don't have to, because I never made the claim. I asked you to demonstrate proof since you made an absolute claim. The burden of proof is on you. If you don't understand this due to limited reasoning power, you should bow out.
7. Next I cite a fight with Maul and Savage, which ya know, is the 2 v 1 fight I was referring to in my previous post. I know your dumb, but to think I was still talking about Kenobi and QG against Maul is even bad for you. Funny enough, you also stated.. oh it would've been better to name a fight I y aknow.. ALREADY NAMED. So then, name me feat for QG superior to this feat by Kenobi... Trust me, I expect you to avoid all these questions and come back with a true S type of response.
Shifting burden of proof. Inability to demonstrate logical argument to support absolute claim. Ad hominem.
In conclusion, what we have here is Kenobi with 3 combat feats superior to anything QG has done in his entire career. That is leaving out the obvious, ya know, Kenobi as a padwan beating the same person that killed QG one v one. No amount of red herrings, ad hominems, missing the point or lack of proof on your part changes that. I sense the butt hurt is strong with you SM. So I suggest you get that checked out soon before you can't have butt sex with your QG blow up doll. Now that, would be some serious butt hurt.
This is the most pathetic attempt at debate I've seen in years. I have to assume your age is "NA" because you're in reality 13 and thus incapable of anything approaching adult reason.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
no
So let me get this straight...you think Grievous has a higher mastery of the seven forms than Count Dooku? The Count Dooku who was the most agile swordmaster and instructor? Who was one of the most skilled swordmasters and instructors in the order? Who is considered by Yoda as his greatest pupil? Who in spite of being a Makashi user utilized acrobatics in his duel against Grievous? Who is considered to be one of the most skilled Jedi in the Order's 20,000+ year history.
He may be the master of Makashi, but in order to teach one must be a master. And he taught Grievous all the forms to the point of being able to push the Order's greatest masters to the brink.
Wow you're dumber than I originally thought... I said Kenobi wins and this should be obvious. This is obvious because Kenobi has the COMBAT feats to support such a conclusion. If one disagrees that Kenobi wins.. then logically they feel like either Qui-Gon wins or at the very least it's a stalemate. Obviously following a logial line of thinking is beyond you.. but in either case... if one disagrees with my conclusion. those are the only two possibilities that need to be support with feats of your own. You don't disagree one person or team wins.. and then go.. but I don't have to prove so. Even a 5th grader knows better than that. If you disagree with a stance.. especially a vs. stance... you're either saying the other person wins or at the very least it's a stalemate. In either case, that would require YOU to post feats prove so.
Your last post was a big pile of dung.. like literally.. it once again didn't bring anything to the table.. nor did it involve you posting any feats. Nor did it answer any questions I asked. So we're going to break it down nice and simple for you Smoose.
I say Kenobi wins.. I say he wins because of
1. Beating Maul one way or another as a Padawan
2. Beating Anakin Skywalker
3. Beating General G
4. Getting the better of Maul and Savage at the same time 2 v. 1
Now, you disagreed with my conclusion that Kenobi wins and you do so based on these feats from QG
1. ____________
2. ____________
3. _____________
I'll give you a hint slow moose... this is the part where you actually give combat feats that are comparable to Kenobi's or better.. thus validating why you disagree with my conclusion. See, and people think I'm not nice to children... Pffttt.. I am!!!
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Wow you're dumber than I originally thought... I said Kenobi wins and this should be obvious.
And because your opinion was so absolute, I asked you to prove up. I didn't say "I disagree with you and I am diametrically opposed to your viewpoint. Let us engage on the field of Me versus You. No, I said you didn't bring reason to the table, and that's expected if you want your argument to be considered. Your juvenile responses just tell me how far away from this approach you really are.
This is obvious because Kenobi has the COMBAT feats to support such a conclusion. If one disagrees that Kenobi wins.. then logically they feel like either Qui-Gon wins or at the very least it's a stalemate.
I don't have to disagree with you here. That's the amusing part that you're missing; I'm asking you to thoroughly prove your case instead of claiming it is so. The biggest issue which you raised that I could immediately address was the TPM fight, which was easily findable on Youtube. I reviewed the fight, and concluded using the same evidence available to all of us that you were wrong in your interpretation and I thoroughly demonstrated why. You simply chose to ignore me because I don't agree completely with your viewpoint. That's not debating; that's just being stubborn.
Obviously following a logial line of thinking is beyond you..
If "logial" is agreeing with everything you say but can't substantiate, than yeah, it is beyond me. Or any other reasonable person.
but in either case... if one disagrees with my conclusion. those are the only two possibilities that need to be support with feats of your own. You don't disagree one person or team wins.. and then go.. but I don't have to prove so.
I don't have to chose a side to ask you to prove up. If I am about to vote on an election and someone claims "Politician A is better for this job than B!" I would be reasonable to seek proof. If that person cannot substantiate that A is better than B, I don't have to vote for A based solely on their reasons. Someone else may come along and present the facts better or reveal previously unknown data and I may then make a binding decision. Your attempt to pigeon hole me so that I can make your arguments for you is silly.
Even a 5th grader knows better than that.
5th grades are not operating at a post-formal level, so I doubt that they would be proper benchmarks for any logical discussion which involves "fallacies" and "evidence".
If you disagree with a stance.. especially a vs. stance... you're either saying the other person wins or at the very least it's a stalemate. In either case, that would require YOU to post feats prove so.
No, you've shifted the burden of proof. Your method of debating is "It's evident. OB1 beat X! QGJ did not beat X! Therefore, OB1 wins!" It's the most underdeveloped debating style again I've encountered in this section in years. Even people around here who are not master logicians who wow us with their posts every evening are aware enough to realize that context needs to be provided for feats to mean anything. And you haven't provided any context.
Your last post was a big pile of dung.. like literally.. it once again didn't bring anything to the table.. nor did it involve you posting any feats. Nor did it answer any questions I asked. So we're going to break it down nice and simple for you Smoose.I say Kenobi wins.. I say he wins because of
1. Beating Maul one way or another as a Padawan
2. Beating Anakin Skywalker
3. Beating General G
4. Getting the better of Maul and Savage at the same time 2 v. 1
This is perhaps the most you've given me since this began. Now you need to elaborate upon these fights. The first one we already discussed, and you utterly failed to establish as a benchmark. The second I addressed as well; Obi-Wan did not stomp Anakin and won just barely. Using Anakin as some kind of "upper limit" is unrealistic as well, because Anakin defeated Dooku relatively quickly while Obi-Wan had no chance.
Work on 3 and 4.
Now, you disagreed with my conclusion that Kenobi wins and you do so based on these feats from QG1. ____________
2. ____________
3. _____________I'll give you a hint slow moose... this is the part where you actually give combat feats that are comparable to Kenobi's or better.. thus validating why you disagree with my conclusion. See, and people think I'm not nice to children... Pffttt.. I am!!!
Again, read above. I did not at any point say Qui-Gon Jinn was absolutely better. Unlike you, I refrained from making a claim that I could not support. I merely asked you to prove up, and so far you seem baffled as to just what that means.
So you refuse to again answer basic questions and prove your stance... and now, since being called out on proving your stance.. decide to have no stance LULZ. Why am I not surprised you took such an approach once backed into a corner. So before we continue.. let's get something straight here so we see exactly where we are..
WHAT IS YOUR STNACE on this fight... Who wins and by what margin?
Concession accepted.. if what you say is true (which I don't believe BTW) then that would logically mean you also believed I cared one ounce about you agreeing with my stance. It's further amusing that you thought you were held in enough esteem that it warranted the need to prove it to you. Both very laughable conclusion to make. I could care less what your opinion is nor convincing you of mine. I was only discussing it with you because it seemed you had the opposite stance on the fight. However, once you were backed into a corner and called out.. you put your tail between your legs and said no I actually have no stance LULZ. Then when I simple ask you okay.. if you had no stance before.. what is your stance.. and again, scared to take a stance.. decided to run away. Concession accepted and please do the forum a favor and work on your debating skills.