Originally posted by jollyjim311
We know that he did, weather he even needs to would be a better question. Yoda rarely used his lightsaber, but when the situation called for it, he had all the skills. Sidious didn't use his for 10 years and then he killed three of the best swordsmen ever. Yaddle hadn't used hers for a long period of time as I understand, too.It's like riding a bike, and I s'pose. Plus Kenobi did exercise and stay up with his skills.
Really I want to see proof that Kenobi exercised and stayed up with his skills.
I am with obi-wan. He is better a better duelist. By the way, ROTS Obi>ANH Obi. Vader himself said that obi-wan was weak in that time. "Your powers are weak old man".
Originally posted by darthsith19
In The Defense of Kamino Mace asks Yoda if he'd care to spar, but Yoda declines, saying that he got sufficient practice with Dooku
Not only that, but it shows that even though the duel with Dooku occurred like a month previous, Yoda still felt that he had practiced enough.
lool. Is that your magnific prrof that shows that obi-wan was more powerful then in ROTS? Just lol...
Originally posted by darthsith19
I seriously doubt that ANH Kenobi > ROTS Kenobi.
You asked for proof that "ANH Kenobi really is quite strong." I provided proof that he was strong, just as you asked. I NEVER stated that he was more powerful than ROTS Kenobi. Damn!
Not only that, but it shows that even though the duel with Dooku occurred like a month previous, Yoda still felt that he had practiced enough.
It seems people here have trouble in education, really. Again, i say, is THIS your proof? You are talking about the first plot ever made about the first seen jedi master and sith lord, what would you expect the narrator would say? But you can't counter vader's statement, in fact nothing showed it wrong and in fact obi-wan seems quite weak, so i have no reason to think that luke>obi because he beat a vader who beat ANH obi-wan, this is the logic i want to denie.
Originally posted by kamhal
It seems people here have trouble in education, really. Again, i say, is THIS your proof? You are talking about the first plot ever made about the first seen jedi master and sith lord, what would you expect the narrator would say? But you can't counter vader's statement, in fact nothing showed it wrong and in fact obi-wan seems quite weak, so i have no reason to think that luke>obi because he beat a vader who beat ANH obi-wan, this is the logic i want to denie.
First off, Obi-Wan wasn't defeated by Vader in the traditional sense. He surrendered to Vader before Vader could overwhelm him, and we therefore do not have any idea of who would've won that fight.
Secondly, it seems like you're saying that ANH Obi-Wan was a superior duelist to the ROTS Obi-Wan. Do you have any proof to support this statement? I say that before you start insinuating the fact that other people are idiots, you first take a look at your argument.
Originally posted by kamhal
It seems people here have trouble in education, really. Again, i say, is THIS your proof? You are talking about the first plot ever made about the first seen jedi master and sith lord, what would you expect the narrator would say? But you can't counter vader's statement, in fact nothing showed it wrong and in fact obi-wan seems quite weak, so i have no reason to think that luke>obi because he beat a vader who beat ANH obi-wan, this is the logic i want to denie.
Originally posted by kamhal
Yes, actually vader is not that strong, his lightsaber technique lacks a lot of speed amd he lacks much mobility, that's why Darth Maul almost killed him for example... Vader was much stronger before Mustafar then in a ANH
And I never said that Vader didn't get weaker after ROTS.
Except Darth Maul is really strong. He is referred to in The Ultimate Visual Guide as 'one of the deadliest Sith apprentices in history'. And I'm afraid you'll makr yourself quite unpopular here if you start going around and saying that Vader is weak.And I never said that Vader didn't get weaker after ROTS.
First,i really don't care if I will be "unpopular" because i say what i see, which means a vader who, even though may be stronger with the force then much of their prequels foes, he is not that good with lightsaber. Maul almost make him to dust and he couldn't keep up with a not so strong luke skywalker in ROTJ. Also, the speed of his lightsaber is so low in the movies that makes you think how he can beat anyone.
And who said Maul was bad? But as far as i know, he was not the best and here are several jedis or siths who could beat him, from windu to dooku, from yoda to sidious, even obi-wan at his prime or anakin in ROTS pre-Mustafar could do it. And these are all movie characters, i am not even try to arg about EU characters.
So, if an anakin skywalker could blast to pieces Darth Maul before Mustafar and Vader barely beat him (and as far as i saw he beat him the same way obi-wan beat maul, with some luck and using his lack of attention), i think it's quite clear that he lost power, potential and lightsaber skill. Also, GL himself said anakin's potential was reduced to less then half so, if there are touchy people about him is not my problem, really.
Anyway, Obi>Luke to me.
he is not that good with lightsaber.
Maul almost make him to dust and he couldn't keep up with a not so strong luke skywalker in ROTJ.
Also, the speed of his lightsaber is so low in the movies that makes you think how he can beat anyone.
But as far as i know, he was not the best and here are several jedis or siths who could beat him, from windu to dooku, from yoda to sidious, even obi-wan at his prime or anakin in ROTS pre-Mustafar could do it.
So, if an anakin skywalker could blast to pieces Darth Maul before Mustafar and Vader barely beat him (and as far as i saw he beat him the same way obi-wan beat maul, with some luck and using his lack of attention), i think it's quite clear that he lost power, potential and lightsaber skill. Also, GL himself said anakin's potential was reduced to less then half so, if there are touchy people about him is not my problem, really.
Originally Posted by darthsith19
I never said that Vader didn't get weaker after ROTS.
No, because he is not that fast, lacks a lot mobility and he actually lost in lightsaber to Luke even though he had much training or almost lost to Maul. By the way, Maul can be one of the best ever, so what? I am not saying vader is in the top 20 or even in the top 10 of the greatest siths or force users, but am i saying is that he is not as good as the really elite ones like the ones i mentioned, and so this can't be used to show that Obi-Wan didn't get weaker, because in that case Luke wold beat obi, and i really don't think this could happen against ROTS Obi-Wan, the one who beat Anakin Skywalker.
By the way, weren't Agen Kolar, Kit Fisto and Saesee Tiin considered some of the finest, greatest duelists the Jedi Order ever produced? Even them, any of them are far from the top force users. I could just apply the same logic to Maul.
Anyway, let's stop with this for now.
I say Kenobi wins. His lightsaber skill was greater then Luke's one in my opinion and even in force powers he could have some advantage.
Originally posted by kamhal
By the way, weren't Agen Kolar, Kit Fisto and Saesee Tiin considered some of the finest, greatest duelists the Jedi Order ever produced?
According to the novelization, yes they were. And I was a super big Tiin fan. Fisto was cool, also. Kolar.... eh, he's alright. I'll be forever angry and disappointed at Lucas for letting them get owned without putting up a fight.