((The_Anomaly))
2003 Super Senior Member
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Jesus christ, you still don't get it. 99% of these versus threads are pure spculation. Besides the obvious canon quotes of Yoda, Sidious, and Luke, EVERYTHING else is speculation that could be deduced through logical arguments. Since you seem incapable of grasping this concept I'll give you a simple example.Premise: Marka Ragnos is the most powerful of the ancient sith and likely more powerful than any other except for Sidious
Evidence: Very little
Logical Deduction: He ruled for a century with an iron fist, he died of old age, and the two most powerful sith after him cowered to his image. He was THE dark lord who crowned other DLOTS, he was THE Dark Lord who spoke for the ancient sith..
Now, as you see, there's very little evidence on Ragnos, but we can logically deduce that he was at the top. Is it absolute truth? Certainly not. Neither is 99% of star wars.
No actually, Ragnos has enough proof of being the most powerful Sith of the ancient sith for it to be considered knowledge. We KNOW that he was, because they're is substantial reasoning to back it up. What we don't know is how powerful he was on the grand scheme of Star Wars. But given all the Sith that were below him, he either a) was more powerful then they were or b) he possessed some kind of ability(s) that they feared.
Unfortunately YOU don't get it, let me make it clear for you. Revan DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME KIND OF EVIDENCE TO BACK UP HIS SABER SKILLS.
There is absolutely no evidence AT ALL about it. Seeing as there is no evidence of how good ANY of the KOTOR characters are at lightsaber dueling on the grand scheme of things, deducing how good Revan was is completely illogical.
YES, he obviously was the best in that era. But what does that mean? It doesn't mean anything, because as I've pointed out in my numerous posts before, Force power DOES NOT equal saber skill, so perhaps everyone in the KOTOR era was pretty damn good with the force, but were absolute crap in terms of lightsaber combat. So that would put Revan as the best of some of some of the worst saber duelists. Which means, on the grand scale, Revan's saber skills would suck. However, MAYBE the KOTOR people were awesome with lightsabers, and maybe then Revan was the best of some of the best, which would put him on a pretty good level in terms of overall saber skill. The problem you encounter logically is proving that the KOTOR characters WERE actually good with lightsabers, because there is no evidence to back it up. Nothing at all. So deducing that Revan was a saber prodigy becomes a huge problem logically as the first premise you are using to argue it falls, because it does not adhere to the TAK, which makes it a faulty premise, which makes the conclusion false.
Basically, it is possible that Revan was a saber prodigy. But it is not a fact that he was. There is not enough proof to make a good premise about it, and the fact of there not being enough proof means the premise isn't good enough to form a valid deductive argument.
Revan being a saber prodigy, even good with a saber is completely speculation. Since it is 50/50, he could be crappy with a saber, or he could be amazing with a saber, but since it is equal both ways, there is absolutely nothing to justify in calling him a saber prodigy.