Originally posted by darthsith19
Saber duel only, eh? Close, but Dooku and Mace take it. Either of them could last a looooong time against Yoda, while the other beats Anoon. Anoon won't go down easy, but he'll definately lose before Yoda finishes his opponent. Then, Dooku and Mace together pwn Yoda.
Agreed, if it was all out though, Anoon would be beaten quickly by Dooku with the force.
Originally posted by Se7in
Yet he killed himself in a futile attempt after giving up in a fight against Maul, who a Padawan Obi-Wan defeated.
In reality, Bondara would beat TTPm Kenobi pretty badly, though Kenobi would put up a bit of a fight.
Originally posted by darthsith19
Yet, he was not at full strength when he fought Kenobi (as stated in The New Essential Guide to Characters), and Kenobi got lucky after Maul had already beaten him. Anoon, on the other hand, fought a full-strength Maul, and was intelligent enough to realise that Maul was strong, so he sacrificed his life in an attempt that veyr possibly could have killed Maul.In reality, Bondara would beat TTPm Kenobi pretty badly, though Kenobi would put up a bit of a fight.
How was Maul not at his full strength?
If I can recall, neither were Kenobi and Qui-Gon considering they fought their way into the hanger through a battalion of droids in the streets of Theed. Add to this that Kenobi, after getting knocked two-stories down onto his back, was virtually sprinting to catch up to Maul and Jinn, I doubt he was in top-fighting shape either.
And Kenobi didn't "get lucky." Maul made a stupid mistake at not killing an opponent when he had the chance and also made a mistake at underestimating an opponent in a disadvantaged position. He lost because of himself, not because of sheer luck.
How was Maul not at his full strength?
If I can recall, neither were Kenobi and Qui-Gon considering they fought their way into the hanger through a battalion of droids in the streets of Theed. Add to this that Kenobi, after getting knocked two-stories down onto his back, was virtually sprinting to catch up to Maul and Jinn, I doubt he was in top-fighting shape either.
And Kenobi didn't "get lucky." Maul made a stupid mistake at not killing an opponent when he had the chance and also made a mistake at underestimating an opponent in a disadvantaged position. He lost because of himself, not because of sheer luck.
Originally posted by darthsith19
It says he isn't in The New Essential Guide to Characters. I've heard that in the Darth maul Journal he gets held-up while leaving Tatooine by Tusken Raiders and Pirates and he hurts his leg.
Alright, you've proved up. Point considered.
Yes, but Maul wasn't at full strength even before the duel started. Fighting into a hanger wouldn
t tire you out that much, that was like what, 1/50 of how much Kenobi and Skywalker fight droids on Geonosis? All they really did was protect Padme, which was deflecting blaster bolts, not so tiring.
Kenobi and Skywalker were both MUCH more experienced than Kenobi and Qui-Gon were in TPM. Kenobi and Skywalker in ROTS were practicing totally different styles, versus totally different enemies, with completely different numbers and tactics. You can't compare them.
Exactly, Kenobi got lucky that Maul got cocky. And seriously, who in the right mind wouldn't be cocky in that situation? Vader? Please, he'd have been cocky as hell. Palpatine? He'd have likely started ranting about how Kenobi was no match for the power of the dark side. Honestly, no Sith in that position wouldn't have been cocky.
So? Just because other people would act the same, doesn't mean it isn't a disadvantage for the fighter. Character-induced stupidity is always on the part of the person who exhibits it, you can't blame enobi's luck for Maul's actions, that doesn't make sense. Maul is stupid for his own actions, period.
Se7in, I personally (and, please, take no offense) find that argument rather ridiculous.
Are you trying to insinuate that Obi-Wan Kenobi -- as of The Phantom Menace -- was more powerful and more skilled than Darth Maul, "one of the deadliest Sith apprentices in history"; a Sith Lord who "pushed his physical and Force-assisted abilities to the utmost"? I rather, rather doubt it. In fact, the only time Obi-Wan was able to come close to standing on equal terms with the Sith Lord was when he gave into his anger. Note that this similar technique allowed Anakin Skywalker to overcome Count Dooku, despite the fact that the older Sith Lord was able to (though only barely) hold himself and an older Obi-Wan Kenobi at bay.
I'm sorry, but no. Maul's arrogance (not to be confused with stupidity) does not make him any less skilled. He is more powerful and more dangerous than Obi-Wan, and it's not debateable. Anakin was arrogant and was dealt a terrible defeat at his master's hands, and yet when it comes down to pure skill, he was much stronger and greater than Obi-Wan.
Arrogance is simply not a detraction of skill.
Originally posted by Gideon
Se7in, I personally (and, please, take no offense) find that argument rather ridiculous.Are you trying to insinuate that Obi-Wan Kenobi -- as of The Phantom Menace -- was more powerful and more skilled than Darth Maul, "one of the deadliest Sith apprentices in history"; a Sith Lord who "pushed his physical and Force-assisted abilities to the utmost"? I rather, rather doubt it. In fact, the only time Obi-Wan was able to come close to standing on equal terms with the Sith Lord was when he gave into his anger. Note that this similar technique allowed Anakin Skywalker to overcome Count Dooku, despite the fact that the older Sith Lord was able to (though only barely) hold himself and an older Obi-Wan Kenobi at bay.
I'm sorry, but no. Maul's arrogance ([B]not
to be confused with stupidity) does not make him any less skilled. He is more powerful and more dangerous than Obi-Wan, and it's not debateable. Anakin was arrogant and was dealt a terrible defeat at his master's hands, and yet when it comes down to pure skill, he was much stronger and greater than Obi-Wan.Arrogance is simply not a detraction of skill. [/B]
Oh, I take no offense Gideon, this is a debate forum, and I respect anyone who can prove or refute statements and points without throwing insults.
The thing I've noticed in many of these debates is that people are beginning to take quotes and put them before actual accomplishments and feats.
If someone made the thread TPM Obi-Wan vs. Maul, would you say Maul? No, because the event has happened, and Obi-Wan won. Now the prior injury is indeed a valid reason for him to be less effective in their fight, but even so, if he does get cocky and underestimate a disadvantaged enemy WHILE with a sustained injury and half of his normal weapon left, then he is stupid.
I think you all are thinking pure skill allows people to win. It doesn't. The mindset, styles, and habits of a person can also be a factor in winning, which many duels in the movies have shown us.
Perhaps you believe that Maul lost due to circumstance. Who is to say circumstance won't allow him to lost again? Duels don't happen in perfect conditions, terrain and the character's style of fighting and philosophies HEAVILY effect fights.
That's the thing. We ultimately -- unless we're dealing with things like Mace vs. Sidious -- have to go on what each side is capable of rather than individual circumstances. Sidious lost to Mace due to Vaapad and Shatterpoint, and though he is "more powerful", nothing says he could win if they fought again. Maul's flaw was a psychological one, something that can be rectified and amended.
So, yes. Obi-Wan vs. Maul? I'd give it to Maul. Any day.
Originally posted by Gideon
That's the thing. We ultimately -- unless we're dealing with things like Mace vs. Sidious -- have to go on what each side is capable of rather than individual circumstances. Sidious lost to Mace due to Vaapad and Shatterpoint, and though he is "more powerful", nothing says he could win if they fought again.
Let me get this clear. Because Mace had an advantage in their duel due to something that is principle about his fighting style, then he may lose that advantage in another fight? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
TMaul's flaw was a psychological one, something that can be rectified and amended.
What?
That defeats the purpose of debating then. If we're going to just forget about a character's flaws are just because they can be changed, and virtually anything can, then there's no purpose of even debating it.
Think about it.
Originally posted by GideonNo, but it detracts heavily from one's effectiveness as a fighter. Maul was decidedly more experienced and skilled in combat than Kenobi, but his arrogance kept him from doing what a more level-headed warrior would do. Anakin had the same problem. He was easily one of the most skilled and powerful duelists in the Order, but his arrogance and ridiculous ego kept him from being able to match Obi-Wan's limitless patience and Jedi reserve. Both Sith Lords - while technically more skilled than their opponent - were too arrogant to take advantage of their "superiority."
I'm sorry, but no. Maul's arrogance (not to be confused with stupidity) does not make him any less skilled. He is more powerful and more dangerous than Obi-Wan, and it's not debateable. Anakin was arrogant and was dealt a terrible defeat at his master's hands, and yet when it comes down to pure skill, he was much stronger and greater than Obi-Wan.Arrogance is simply not a detraction of skill.
Maul's flaw was a psychological one, something that can be rectified and amended.No, it's not. Maul's flaw was a character trait, like Obi-Wan's patience, or Luke's recklessness. And such traits - when regarding a character from a specific era - do not change from one fight to the next for the convenience of an argument. Maul will always have his arrogant, reckless side as a potential risk to himself.
Originally posted by Faunus
No, but it detracts heavily from one's effectiveness as a fighter. Maul was decidedly more experienced and skilled in combat than Kenobi, but his arrogance kept him from doing what a more level-headed warrior would do. Anakin had the same problem. He was easily one of the most skilled and powerful duelists in the Order, but his arrogance and ridiculous ego kept him from being able to match Obi-Wan's limitless patience and Jedi reserve. Both Sith Lords - while technically more skilled than their opponent - were too arrogant to take advantage of their "superiority."No, it's not. Maul's flaw was a character trait, like Obi-Wan's patience, or Luke's recklessness. And such traits - when regarding a character from a specific era - do not change from one fight to the next for the convenience of an argument. Maul will always have his arrogant, reckless side as a potential risk to himself.
Maul disregarded Obi-wan as a threat because Obi-wan was so much weaker than himself and a Padawan to boot, whose master had just died. In most, if not all of his other fights, Maul is quick, efficient and brutal and he kills people quickly
Let me get this clear. Because Mace had an advantage in their duel due to something that is principle about his fighting style, then he may lose that advantage in another fight? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
You misunderstand. I am arguing that only in rare circumstances should the "lesser" opponent's victory (in several cases, brought on by plot-device or dramatization) constitute in all versus matches. Mace Windu is weaker than Darth Sidious; this is nearly irrefutable. The fact remains that Sidious initially held the advantage, he was faster and stronger -- only delving into Vaapad allowed Mace to duel the Sith Lord on even terms. And then, using the shatterpoint charism was Mace able to exploit a weakness in Palpatine's fighting form. But never throughout the fight was he ever stronger than Palpatine.
Still, Mace's Vaapad and shatterpoint charism will be available to him in every duel. Only in cases such as these do the "lesser" opponents have a nearly-guarenteed victory.
Obi-Wan Kenobi, on the other hand, did not duel Darth Maul on even terms. He was the lesser and was only spared because of Maul's arrogance, and that Kenobi performed an unpredictable move. Never was he close to being as skilled as Maul himself; the Phantom Menace novelization directly states that Obi-Wan is not as skilled or as powerful as Qui-Gon is, and we saw how comfortably Maul defeated Qui-Gon.
In a contest of skill, Maul wins. But declaring that he will always allow his arrogance to overcome his sense is fallacious.
What?That defeats the purpose of debating then. If we're going to just forget about a character's flaws are just because they can be changed, and virtually anything can, then there's no purpose of even debating it.
Think about it.
No. What defeats the purpose of debating is when we automatically conclude that an event that happened once constitutes the result for every hypothetical match. I mentioned two confrontations in which the technical "lesser" opponent managed to overcome the "greater". The first was Mace Windu versus Darth Sidious, the second was Obi-Wan Kenobi versus Darth Maul. The first scenario involves two very powerful techniques that will not change no matter what environment; Mace will always have access to Vaapad and the shatterpoint charism, thus it is highly logical that he stands an excellent chance -- if not guarenteed -- of defeating Sidious. The second situation involves Maul's defeat at Kenobi's hands primarily due to his own ego. To say that he will always be done in by his own hand is a rather silly conclusion.
Faunus:
No, but it detracts heavily from one's effectiveness as a fighter. Maul was decidedly more experienced and skilled in combat than Kenobi, but his arrogance kept him from doing what a more level-headed warrior would do. Anakin had the same problem. He was easily one of the most skilled and powerful duelists in the Order, but his arrogance and ridiculous ego kept him from being able to match Obi-Wan's limitless patience and Jedi reserve. Both Sith Lords - while technically more skilled than their opponent - were too arrogant to take advantage of their "superiority."
Again, to conclude -- or even imply -- that Darth Maul will always lose because of arrogance is asinine. I could just as easily say that Dooku will always lose to Anakin Skywalker and Yoda will always be overpowered by Palpatine -- but live to continue the fight because the Sith Lord will monologue rather than finish the job. You are making it sound as if one specific instant should suddenly define the rest of the encounter; in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the vampire Spike was always overpowered by his former mentor, Angel, in every confrontation they had. Angel, more experienced and stronger, always one. Yet in an S5 episode of Angel (a spin-off), Spike battled Angel and defeated him for the first time. Angel himself latter admits that Spike "fought better" and was "stronger". Yet in latter episodes, Angel overpowers Spike while combating three others. Which one is better? Just because Spike defeated Angel once, are we to conclude that he wins all the time? No. Because obviously he doesn't -- in fact, he loses the majority of the time. There's the rule of "Any Given Sunday", and it's ridiculous to prescribe to such things.
Jar Jar Binks with a blaster has a chance of killing Marka Ragnos. Given the right circumstances, he could do it. So, were a versus thread to pop up, are we to say "could go either way?" Doubt it.
No, it's not. Maul's flaw was a character trait, like Obi-Wan's patience, or Luke's recklessness. And such traits - when regarding a character from a specific era - do not change from one fight to the next for the convenience of an argument. Maul will always have his arrogant, reckless side as a potential risk to himself.
I'm not used to suddenly deciding the outcome of duels based on character traits. Anakin was WTFpwned by Count Dooku's Force lightning in Attack of the Clones, because he foolishly charged him. Yet in Revenge of the Sith, he developes a measure of patience and doesn't attempt it again. In fact, it's his "master with limited patience" that suffers the embarrassing defeat rather than him. When Yoda confronts Darth Sidious, he's "caught off guard" and overpowered -- rendered unconscious. Are we to assume this is always going to happen?
The bottom line is that very rarely is a character, or any person, always arrogant, always clever, always patient, or always stupid.
Ergo, unless the circumstances bear reevaluation (Mace vs. Sidious), we must conclude that the stronger and/or more capable opponent wins.