Originally posted by Advent
City Hunter and Xepeyon above are WRONG. Both of your conclusions are based solely on the duel in Resurrection, which makes you incorrect on more than one level.
No it doesn't. Resurrection is the only canon reference we have concerning a battle between them. And canon supplies a whole lot more than opinions based of points of view.
The first being that everything that happened in the comic was dependent upon the location. If the location isn't Kalakar Six (and even if it was, it would have to be in the same place), then there's nothing to suggest Maul would be in the same position he was at the end of the duel.
Please, don't start with that. This "well what if they fought here" or "what if they fought there" type of theory is endless with possibilities for either side.
The second being that there's no way to prove definitively (or even the more likely) that the Maul we witnessed is as strong as the real one. Given that, it leaves open the possibility to suggest that TPM Maul wouldn't make that same mistake or be in that predicament.
You're right. There's nothing to prove that this Maul wasn't as strong as the true one. Likewise, you in the same boat as you have no actual proof that this Maul is in fact weaker.
Reasonably Maul is the more adept duelist when it comes down to prowess with a blade as demonstrated in my initial post.
Vader forced on his knees proves that alone, however, also keep in mind that the heretics that tested Maul against Vader stated that "they [were] more evenly matched that [they] realized." The only difference they saw was their level of darkness.
You're telling me that Vader is then only relying on the chance Maul would momentarily stop or rather the chance that Maul will do something irrational before he kills him in direct lightsaber confrontation, which is fucking stupid because there's nothing to indicate that he would in circumstances where there's no bullshit story or plot necessity keeping Vader alive.Only pertaining to that particular situation, something you're clearly not taking into account.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that he relied even only on that chance, but that he took advantage of it. If one Jedi takes advantage of a hole in another Jedi's defense, he isn't relying on chance to defeat the, he's taking advantage of the opportunity.
Uh, because you are operating under the nonsensical idea that defeating an opponent makes you superior ACTUALLY MEANS that defeating an opponent makes you superior? No, that's not how it works.
First off, it's not nonsensical at all. In most cases, real life and in fiction, one opponent defeats another because one is superior to the other. This isn't necessarily in prowess and agility, as Maul was able put Vader down. Intelligence, vitality, the will to live philosophy and other feats may determine a winner.
What if Darth Maul hadn't wasted any time? What if the lightsaber blow that struck Vader had killed him?
Well, what if Maul tripped on a pebble and rolled into the lava? What if he twisted his wrist and his lightsaber fell on and through his neck and back? What ifs can't change what happened.
You're basically saying that because neither of these happened, Vader is better due to taking advantage of one situation denying all evidence which points out that Maul has the capabilities of dispatching Vader in a lightsaber battle. Whereas Vader does not and would, as outlined above, be appealing to his arrogance as his only means of victory.
*sigh* I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying Vader won because he used his brain instead of his brawn, which is more than I can say for Maul. Dooku himself called him "an animal. A skilled animal, but a beast nonetheless." I don't deny that Maul had the power to kill Vader, but having power isn't always a guaranteed success. Look at the match between Vader and Kenobi (mustafar). Anakin was stronger, but Kenobi defeated him though a different mean than matching power with power, which is what you are basing your so called "facts" on.
The main problem with your logic is that Maul also possesses qualities which would allow him to defeat Vader. Simply because they didn't in Resurrection doesn't mean they wouldn't elsewhere. Just like how Vader's hatred was enough to overcome Maul in the end doesn't mean it would elsewhere. [/B]
I don't dispute that Maul was completely capable to kill Vader to the fullest extent. He showed that in Resurrection. But having the skills to do something isn't the same as carrying it out. Maul could have Force pushed Vader in the lava, but he didn't. Vader could have Force Crushed Maul, but he didn't. About Vader's hatred overcoming Maul... it's true. What works in one scenario may not work in another, but this scenario was one that worked.
I take it you don't realize what your original conclusion was, Xepeyon?
Originally posted by Xepeyon
Darth Vader wins...However marginally, Vader is superior to Maul.
You're contradicting yourself in your rebuttal due to the fact you're denying the basic premise behind your stance. You're generalizing that defeating your opponent in one situation equates to superiority, despite the fact that nothing suggests what happened in the comic would always happen in a duel.
Ultimately, what this comes down to is that you have no logical basis for claiming Vader is "superior".
Originally posted by Xepeyon
No it doesn't. Resurrection is the only canon reference we have concerning a battle between them. And canon supplies a whole lot more than opinions based of points of view.
But: a) as I initially said, whether or not the fact Resurrection Maul is more powerful, weaker, or equal to TPM Maul is inconclusive; none of the cases can be proven by either side. This means what happened in Resurrection is inadmissible to use as evidence in a battle with TPM Maul since it's unknown, and b) winning in one particular situation is not indicative of "superiority" in every other battle.
Please, don't start with that. This "well what if they fought here" or "what if they fought there" type of theory is endless with possibilities for either side.
You don't seem to understand the fact that because the setting could be changed in this match-up, it means what happened in Resurrection doesn't exactly apply as what happened only applies to that specific location and condition.
You're right. There's nothing to prove that this Maul wasn't as strong as the true one. Likewise, you in the same boat as you have no actual proof that this Maul is in fact weaker.
Where have I said that I did exactly? I believe what I said was that it's inconclusive. Which basically nullifies the point; that since neither of us can prove either side, it means that we cannot apply what happened in Resurrection to this duel as we don't know.
And that would make use of the source as evidence invalid since we need to know. Luckily for me, my position is not based on anything in Resurrection, yours is.
Vader forced on his knees proves that alone, however, also keep in mind that the heretics that tested Maul against Vader stated that "they [were] more evenly matched that [they] realized." The only difference they saw was their level of darkness.
The Sith acolytes who observed the duel have absolutely no authority whatsoever to accurately judge it and its combatants (nothing suggests they can gauge who's really better). You would first have to substantiate that they do; otherwise their opinions hold no value. And the on-panel evidence overrides anything they have to say anyways.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that he relied even only on that chance, but that he took advantage of it.
I suppose you've yet to realize that by stating "Vader is superior, because he took advantage of it" implies that he only proved himself superior in that showing only. It doesn't account for any other duel, because he would then had have to be relying on the chance he doesn't get outright slaughtered and Maul displays his arrogance the same way (by wasting time).
If one Jedi takes advantage of a hole in another Jedi's defense, he isn't relying on chance to defeat the, he's taking advantage of the opportunity.
Oh Jesus Christ, taking advantage of an opportunity that arose in a specific duel doesn't mean that same opening would be available in another!
This is exactly what I've been saying all along; he relies on an opportunity that doesn't necessarily have to happen in any other case. Ergo, he isn't definitively superior then since it's merely a chance and not even a likely one at that.
First off, it's not nonsensical at all.
Actually, it is. I honestly don't see how you can come to the conclusion that taking advantage of one situation means he's superior. Zett Jukassa is somehow better than a group of five Clone Troopers including Commander Cody simply because he thought to take them by surprise?
It's the same case, he had the chance to do what he did in that particular situation, but what's to say the same would happen if it occurred in a different location? Nothing. Which. Is. My. Point. Exactly. If it wouldn't always happen in another situation, how can Vader be "superior"?
In most cases, real life and in fiction, one opponent defeats another because one is superior to the other.
See above. Saying "most cases" doesn't help support your side. In fact, it seems to indicate that it isn't always the case.
This isn't necessarily in prowess and agility, as Maul was able put Vader down. Intelligence, vitality, the will to live philosophy and other feats may determine a winner.
Something I never disagreed with.
Well, what if Maul tripped on a pebble and rolled into the lava? What if he twisted his wrist and his lightsaber fell on and through his neck and back? What ifs can't change what happened.
Indeed, if you had understood the premise that my point operating under I don't believe I'd have to explain myself ad nauseum. All my points are relating to one thing: a singular situation where Vader won doesn't necessarily mean it would happen in any other battle. Which especially applies in this case as the only thing that granted him the victory in the comic was appealing to Maul's arrogance (and thus, the only thing you're basing your claim that "he's superior" on).
Why would that happen anywhere else, Xepeyon? Where Darth Maul - being the superior swordsman and possessing virtually all the physical attribute advantage - would likely just tool him in a lightsaber battle.
*sigh* I don't even know how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying Vader won because he used his brain instead of his brawn, which is more than I can say for Maul.
Apparently, you don't fully comprehend what your position entails, Xepeyon.
Dooku himself called him "an animal. A skilled animal, but a beast nonetheless." I don't deny that Maul had the power to kill Vader, but having power isn't always a guaranteed success.
This is ridiculous. If being more skillful "isn't always a guaranteed success" then why should relying on the chance somebody doesn't kill you outright and then proceeds to get arrogant define superiority (since if being better isn't "a guaranteed success", then I fail to see how this would be)? Your reasoning for Vader's superiority makes absolutely no ****ing sense.
Look at the match between Vader and Kenobi (mustafar). Anakin was stronger, but Kenobi defeated him though a different mean than matching power with power, which is what you are basing your so called "facts" on.
My argument is that while I agree power isn't always indicative of certain superiority, neither is the fact that Maul wasted time in that one particular situation. And its probability is dependent upon if and only if he gets cocky. Whereas with abilities, there's a much higher chance of the superior winning; I don't see how appealing to his arrogance lessens that chance by much or in Vader's case, increases it.
I don't dispute that Maul was completely capable to kill Vader to the fullest extent. He showed that in Resurrection. But having the skills to do something isn't the same as carrying it out.
You mean, just like how displaying the ability to take advantage of one situation doesn't define superiority.
Maul could have Force pushed Vader in the lava, but he didn't. Vader could have Force Crushed Maul, but he didn't. About Vader's hatred overcoming Maul... it's true. What works in one scenario may not work in another, but this scenario was one that worked.
WTH? You're acknowledging my point, but then suggesting that I'm somehow wrong. The entire point is that "what works in one scenario may not work in another", this means that one particular situation doesn't define superiority in another duel. You stated Vader was superior because he took advantage of one situation, but failing to realize that if "what works in one scenario may not work in another" means just that - that one scenario does not display definitive superiority.
Originally posted by Advent
You're contradicting yourself in your rebuttal due to the fact you're denying the basic premise behind your stance. You're generalizing that defeating your opponent in one situation equates to superiority, despite the fact that nothing suggests what happened in the comic would always happen in a duel.Ultimately, what this comes down to is that you have no logical basis for claiming Vader is "superior".
I must be drunk (either that, or the fact it's 3:45 AM) because this makes pretty much zero sense. What it should read:
"You're generalizing that defeating your opponent in one situation equates to "superiority", despite the fact that nothing suggests what happened in the comic would always happen in a duel.
Ultimately, what that leads to is that you cannot definitively prove Vader is "superior" based from that one showing; especially considering the means Vader won."
Exclude the first sentence and a few other things. I apologize for that and the double post, the edit time limit expired.