I graciously accept your concession, child. You have failed me for the last time.
What concession?
But I actually have one, I concede that it is pointless to argue with someone who turns every argument with god knows what.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
No, it wasn't a low showing. Fisto did not struggle nor did he lose that encounter, so it wasn't an inconsistent showing at all. It is, however, a very weak attempt to lowball Fisto. We see later in that episode, that Fisto is more than capable of handling Grievous on his own using a single saber, which is basically how he ended up with a second saber to begin with--by disarming Grievous of one of his.As for the rest, I'm done. It's not even worth it. It's clear you will continue whether you're wrong or not.
Indeed, Fisto is more than capable to handle Grievous, if he has mist to hide and taunt Grievous. Strange that he couldn't disarm Grievous of other sabers as easily.
Anakin is equal to Sidious based on what?
I guess you haven't noticed what I already posted in this thread:
This:
"In Attack of the Clones, I had to give them levels," he says. "Sidious is a level nine [out of ten]. On this film, Obi is eight - he's moved up - Anakin is a nine; Mace is a nine, Yoda is a nine. They're up with Sidious". - The making of RotS.This quote applies strictly to sabers. It is direct proof that Anakin is on parr with Yoda, Windu and Sidious. Kenobi is one level below, which is not big difference considering that Kenobi could survive Anakin in exhaustively long fight.
And this:
"The fighting has evolved in these last three movies considerably," says Gillard. "George Lucas works on a system of levels. So, on The Phantom Menace Obi-Wan would have been like a level six or seven. Now that we're on Episode III he's actually a level eight. When you move up the levels, it affects the style of fighting." - Nick Gillard, Homing Beacon #126
First quote proves that Anakin is on parr with Yoda, Windu and Sidious. Second proves that combat prowess is established by Lucas.
Finally, this:
To design and choreograph the sequence as well as the myriad other action-packed scenes in Revenge of the Sith Gillard says he first discussed with writer-director George Lucas the fighting prowess of each of the characters, which were ranked against other Jedi on a scale of 1 to 10.
Obi-Wan is at a level 8, which is where Anakin starts. But Anakin jumps to level 9 and the difference between 8 and 9 is enormous. A Jedi can get to level 9, but that's the difference between light and dark. The duel actually gives you quite an idea about these characters, because Anakin has learned the fighting, he's enormously talented but he hasn't learned the mental side of it.
"Knowing all of that from a story standpoint was enormously helpful in choreographing the sequence", Gillard says.
This quote is taken from "Dueling Jedi" article and talks about fight between Anakin and Kenobi. It establishes Anakin's combat prowess as 9 and it actually makes sence considering how Kenobi level 8 was barely surviving whole fight. But the nicest thing is that popular assumption that Anakin wasn't able to perform against Kenobi at his best can be thrown out in the bin as Anakin wouldn't be given lightsaber prowess level 9 for this specific performance.
What is it that you're not understanding? I'm not arguing against your claim that targeting the wrists would be easier than the rest of the body. I'm saying that when targeting only a specific area, you would still be limiting your targets. This is a fact, no matter how much you argue against it. In a saber duel, your opponent is in constant motion, which would leave potential brief openings in many other areas of the body, many of which may be fatal, and if you pass up the opportunities to hit those areas in order to prevent yourself from killing your opponent, you would be holding back. If your opponent is trying to kill you, while your only aiming to disarm or to dismember certain body parts, your opponent would have far more openings to take advantage of, because they have not only your wrists to target, but they also have your entire body to target, which would give them a far greater chance at hitting their target. You see what I'm saying?I just wanted to get this point cleared just in case this argument gets brought up again.
You are completely clueless what you talk about.
If there is an opportunity to strike at fatal areas, it mean that hands and other non-fatal areas are equaly exposed. It's a matter of choice where to strike ones there is an opening.
And you are completely wrong to think that, the one fighting with non-lethal intend is at disadvantage. Disarming techniques are actually more effective than killing ones.
My opponent might use full strength and try to knock me down as hard as possible. In turn I will not try to knock him down at all and use only fraction of my strength. I would deliberately limit my targets to eyes, throat and knee-caps and would try grappling techniques that mostly don't harm and restrain opponent. Even if I punch, it would serve only for breaking concentration and balance and by no means to knock down. On top of that I don't dodge with body like boxer, I keep my body centered instead. And I don't block attacks either, I deflect or redirect them only. Moreover, I don't even attack, I only respond to attacks with counter techniques, the only exception is kick in the knee. Putting so many limitations and restrictions doesn't mean that I hold back. It is done for various reasons and on opposite increases my combat prowess by a lot. It is my style and that's how I achieve my best performance.
If someone would try to stab me with knife, there are various techniques to couter it. And the harder he tries to kill me, the easier it is for me to disarm him.
But if I have a knife and face skilled opponent, I will not try to stab. I will attack with short slicing moves in fast succession. It will cause sever wounds to opponent's hands as he will try to defend but not kill. Yet, it is far more effective method as it is nearly impossible to defend against such attacks, while stabbing attacks are rather easy to defend against.
And if we both have knifes, again it will be much easier for me to deal cuts to his weapon arm than for him to stab me to death.
As of SW I already provided proof of how Dooku limited himself to striking Kenobi at knees, which you chose to ignore. And I can dig much more similar examples. Lethal techniques are simply not better than non-lethal ones, whether it is real life or science fiction.
Vaapad is the most lethal style but it doesn't make it the most effective one.
Makashi style is nowhere as lethal as Vaapad or Djem So and is centered on penetrating defence and disarming, yet, it is not weaker than any other style.
Soresu lacks offensiveness almost entirely. Would you say that it means each character using it holds back? The only thing it means is that practitioner utilizes his capabilities in different way.
Ironically, Windu with his most lethal style passively defeneded against Sidious whole time:
"It was difficult to learn how to be in a scene being backed up and on defense the whole time". - Samuel L Jackson.
And Windu finished fight by executing non-lethal technique. In novel Windu chose to slice lightsaber in half, when he could simply chop his wrist off like Luke.
So knowing that Windu didn't make a single offensive move with lightsaber except non-lethal technique at the end would you say that Windu held back?
I provided more than enough canon as well as real life information that proves non-lethal combat is more effective than lethal one.
Both your and Tempest's assumption that non-intention to kill means holding back is based on lack of knowledge of fighting mechanics and biased interpretation. And both of you provided 0 evidence to support your assumption. Tempest at least spared his embarassment by not replying on the matter, hiding behind a vague quote and simply trolling. Time for you to do the same thing, if you don't want to concede on something you are outright wrong.