Originally posted by truejedi
Mace Windu, ROTS, Pg."I am called a great swordsman because I invented a lethal style; but who is greater, the creator of a killing form--or the master of the classic form?"
"I'm very flattered that you would consider me a master, but really--"
"Not a master. The master, " Mace had said." Be who you are, and Grievous will never defeat you."
The onus of that is that Mace's answer to his own question was Kenobi.
Since it was rhetorical, and we get no answer, it hardly counts as a deciding factor, but it can easily be an influencing factor, since it is clear Mace's opinion on the subject.
Mace Windu is the master of Vaapad. He can defeat Grievous, too. . . I'm not sure this was anything other than a pep talk. The Jedi belief is that striving for power is not the way to true power (i.e. "the killing form" - taking a life - is not a demonstration of light side power). "The classic form" is a substitute for the Jedi only rising to defend (key) against those who would do injustice. Kenobi "being who he is" - a Jedi, upholding the virtues of the light side - will prevail over the evil that is General Grievous.
At least, that's one way of looking at things. It's probably just a bunch of philosophical mumbo-jumbo - Kenobi kicks ass.
Edit: Damnit!
Originally posted by Gideon
That makes a lot of sense.Now prove it, plz.
😕 If we're going by statements Obi Wan was described as the greatest Soresu practitioner in the order.
Dooku described Anakin as the best Djem So master he'd ever seen.
This would mean that both Anakin and Obi Wan were Superior to Cin and Bondara in their technical mastery of those two particular forms.
Allankles
😕 If we're going by statements Obi Wan was described as the greatest Soresu practitioner in the order.
Mace Windu, for all his skill, isn't an omniscient narrator. And, lest we forget, Obi-Wan was having a bit of insecurity concerning his assignment: to destroy "the most prolific living Jedi killer." Windu obviously had faith in Kenobi to do the job, but it is quite possible that his words were exaggerative in nature in order to boost Kenobi's confidence.
Allankles
Dooku described Anakin as the best Djem So master he'd ever seen.
As good as any he'd ever seen.
Allankles
This would mean that both Anakin and Obi Wan were Superior to Cin and Bondara in their technical mastery of those two particular forms.
Not even close. It's an implication at best.
Originally posted by Gideon
Mace Windu, for all his skill, isn't an omniscient narrator. And, lest we forget, Obi-Wan was having a bit of insecurity concerning his assignment: to destroy "the most prolific living Jedi killer." Windu obviously had faith in Kenobi to do the job, but it is quite possible that his words were exaggerative in nature in order to boost Kenobi's confidence.
Mace Windu isn't the only one to speak highly of Kenobi. The point is, there's enough supporting evidence to imply that Obi Wan was the best form 3 guy in the order. You don't need more than a sentence to support this.
Originally posted by Gideon
As good as any he'd ever seen.
Which counts for a heck of a lot more than just assuming Cin and Anoon were anywhere close in terms of their technique in form 5
Originally posted by Gideon
It's an implication at best.
Aren't they all? Especially if you want to talk about Cin and Anoon's proficiency in these two specific forms vs the proficiency of Anakin and Obi.
But what you all don't seem to be getting is that Mace or even Yoda saying something, is not the same as the narrator saying it. Anakin said that he was more powerful that Sidious and that he could overthrow him... does that make it so? Of course not. Now if the narration said, "Anakin was now more powerful that the Emperor. Powerful enough to overthrow him and rule the galaxy himself," then that's a different story.
Cin was the BM for a reason.. his superior proficiency in all forms, and ability to break them down and teach them.
Look at it realistically. Brock Lesnar is not a very technical fighter as far as striking, and BJJ. He is probably the best heavyweight wrestler in the UFC, but the rest of his game is lacking. Yet he destroyed, Heath Herring, Randy Couture, and Frank Mir. All extremely technical is their respected styles, but he ran through all of them. So Anakin doesn't have to be "technically" better than Cin in order to beat him. Nor Maul to Anoon.
Does that make more sense to you?
Originally posted by Darth Subjekt
Cin was the BM for a reason.. his superior proficiency in all forms, and ability to break them down and teach them.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Like I said, Cin Drallig got his ass handed to him by a one-handed Anakin, who uses a form of dueling that relies heavily upon power. Actually, it's better to say that Vader killed Cin Drallig instead of Anakin, and Vader is a Dark Sider so he always uses his Dark Side rage in duels. You think that at any other moment after he became a Sith and didn't get delimbed, he would not be a better lightsaber duelist than Cin Drallig?
Originally posted by Darth Subjekt
Look at it realistically. Brock Lesnar is not a very technical fighter as far as striking, and BJJ. He is probably the best heavyweight wrestler in the UFC, but the rest of his game is lacking. Yet he destroyed, Heath Herring, Randy Couture, and Frank Mir. All extremely technical is their respected styles, but he ran through all of them. So Anakin doesn't have to be "technically" better than Cin in order to beat him. Nor Maul to Anoon.Does that make more sense to you?
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
I know what you're talking about, but I don't think that's the point of this thread. Sometimes technical skill says more than feats. But in this case the feat directly puts A above B in the ranking, because B was beaten by A with no PIS in a lightsaber duel.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
This part is irrelevant?. He had a metal arm I think.Cyborg strength > Human strength
Okay. But I think he was being an idiot then using two hands against Obi-Wan "human arms" Kenobi, while he could have used his other hand to throw stuff.
EDIT: It was only his lower arm btw. Wookieeeeeeeepedia.
Originally posted by Darth Subjekt
But what you all don't seem to be getting is that Mace or even Yoda saying something, is not the same as the narrator saying it. Anakin said that he was more powerful that Sidious and that he could overthrow him... does that make it so? Of course not. Now if the narration said, "Anakin was now more powerful that the Emperor. Powerful enough to overthrow him and rule the galaxy himself," then that's a different story.Cin was the BM for a reason.. his superior proficiency in all forms, and ability to break them down and teach them.
Look at it realistically. Brock Lesnar is not a very technical fighter as far as striking, and BJJ. He is probably the best heavyweight wrestler in the UFC, but the rest of his game is lacking. Yet he destroyed, Heath Herring, Randy Couture, and Frank Mir. All extremely technical is their respected styles, but he ran through all of them. So Anakin doesn't have to be "technically" better than Cin in order to beat him. Nor Maul to Anoon.
Does that make more sense to you?
but it was omniscient narrator that said blade-to-blade, Anakin and Kenobi were identical.
Originally posted by Red NemesisWe could not use the line "managed to avoid dying at the hands of [the opponent]" for any given saber duel in the mythos. You seem to be operating under the misconception that the line indicates the final outcome of the match only. It does not. It provides a measure of the difficulty with which [Kenobi] managed to emerge from battle. It illustrates the degree to which he was outclassed. The match between Kenobi and Anakin is one that could not be labeled as such; the novel notes that 'Blade-to-blade, they were identical.' Another such pairing is the one between Mace Windu and Depa during Shatterpoint: the former had been ambushed and struck even before the battle had begun. This did not prevent him from taking the day.
And in each of those cases some level of environmental or narrative factor has intervened. Against Anakin, who was 'identical' in terms of bladework but his superior in terms of power, he emerged victorious due to the emotional and tactical factors that were flying around.
Maul had been in control of the duel for the entire incident. The Sith lord was dictating the location and pace of the battle throughout, and outmatched him even while Kenobi was tapping into the dark side, which provides a huge boost to Jedi who make that choice. Kenobi won because the plot said he would- Maul had a PIS induced lapse of reaction time. He was not out-dueled by TPM Kenobi.
One could even argue that his performance against Grievous was atypical- he was noted by the then-omniscient narrator to be incapable of defeating even the magnaguards by himself. He was at an unprecedented level of immersion within the Force:
No it could not be. I have provided several examples where it could not be. See above.
No, Gideon is "avoiding it" because it is pathetic that you think your little phrase is enough to rebut pages upon pages of argument based on fact.
[/b]
Wut? You misquoted him such that his argument was necessarily incorrect. That doesn't qualify as a relevant discrepancy? ThankallahYAHWE/BABY JESUS'S DIAPER that you weren't in charge of the Florida voting process.No.
Your total lack of reading comprehension is not our fault.
Who are you? [/B]
So, tell me as you didn't prove a damn thing with this post of yours. Let me focus on the main point of the argument... You absolutely could say... Kenobi managed to not die at the hands of Anakin. You see, just because he tried to use adjectives to get the point across that he barely won and really shouldn't have one doesn't change in any way how you could use that sentence. Lets break that sentence down because clearly you need help in understanding the English language. "managed to survive and not die at the hands of ___ blank" Even if better than somebody that doesn't change the fact that I could say I managed to beat(survive) and not lose to (die) ___. Any saber duel in history could use that same exact sentence. Just because Gideon tried to use it to discredit Kenobi's skill doesn't change in any way how that sentence can be used or interrupted. If you survive a duel, it doesn't matter if your better or worse YOU MANAGED TO SURVIVE and NOT DIE AT THE HANDS OF ___. I'm unclear how basic reading comprehension/vocabulary alludes you, and you can't see this. It certainly can be used in such a way to describe any duel, whether he was using that way or not, doesn't disprove my point that it can be.
Furthermore, the best proof of skill in dueling is.... drum roll.... dueling!! Ya know what the best measure of who is a better duelist.... drum roll.. actually dueling between A & B. You see, in life and death situation and in direct dueling situation we see who comes out on top. On KMC we go by feats and direct combat situations. Yes we also go by narration but as you know that can be filled with hyperbole and not substantiation of narration. However, when we see a duel between Kenobi and Maul.. we don't need narration to know who came out on top and is a better duelist. They fought and Kenobi won, period. You can give me x,y and z of why but in the end Kenobi proved to be the better duelist. You can't argue with cannon battles and choose to look at hyperbole instead which is the mistake you and Gideon make. Just because you don't like the outcome or feel Maul was better.. Well sorry, he wasn't better.
In conclusion.. I posed a very simple question... Name me the people Cin and Anoon beat and we'll compare that list to who Kenobi has beat. You ask for proof and I've given examples of who Kenobi has beat to make him a better duelist than those 2. So, please provide me with a list of who they beat. I don't want narration and hyperbole I want feats in duels. We aren't talking potential this is THE BEST DUELIST. Hmmmm what is the best way to see and rank who is better than who... Ooooo that's right... If they fought and beat the other.. They are better. So, please let me see the actually dueling feats of Cin and Anoon and lets see how they stack up against Kenobi and Anakin.
Originally posted by KuRuPT ThanosiMe and Floyd Mayweather had a fight in the bar. He hit me with a one-two and I was down. He thought the fight was over, so he proceeded to walk away thinking I was knocked out. I got back up as he headed for the door. And with all my strength, I hit him directly in the temple (which can take down the biggest and strongest person). He was out....
So, tell me as you didn't prove a damn thing with this post of yours. Let me focus on the main point of the argument... You absolutely could say... Kenobi managed to not die at the hands of Anakin. You see, just because he tried to use adjectives to get the point across that he barely won and really shouldn't have one doesn't change in any way how you could use that sentence. Lets break that sentence down because clearly you need help in understanding the English language. "managed to survive and not die at the hands of ___ blank" Even if better than somebody that doesn't change the fact that I could say I managed to beat(survive) and not lose to (die) ___. Any saber duel in history could use that same exact sentence. Just because Gideon tried to use it to discredit Kenobi's skill doesn't change in any way how that sentence can be used or interrupted. If you survive a duel, it doesn't matter if your better or worse YOU MANAGED TO SURVIVE and NOT DIE AT THE HANDS OF ___. I'm unclear how basic reading comprehension/vocabulary alludes you, and you can't see this. It certainly can be used in such a way to describe any duel, whether he was using that way or not, doesn't disprove my point that it can be.Furthermore, the best proof of skill in dueling is.... drum roll.... dueling!! Ya know what the best measure of who is a better duelist.... drum roll.. actually dueling between A & B. You see, in life and death situation and in direct dueling situation we see who comes out on top. On KMC we go by feats and direct combat situations. Yes we also go by narration but as you know that can be filled with hyperbole and not substantiation of narration. However, when we see a duel between Kenobi and Maul.. we don't need narration to know who came out on top and is a better duelist. They fought and Kenobi won, period. You can give me x,y and z of why but in the end Kenobi proved to be the better duelist. You can't argue with cannon battles and choose to look at hyperbole instead which is the mistake you and Gideon make. Just because you don't like the outcome or feel Maul was better.. Well sorry, he wasn't better.
In conclusion.. I posed a very simple question... Name me the people Cin and Anoon beat and we'll compare that list to who Kenobi has beat. You ask for proof and I've given examples of who Kenobi has beat to make him a better duelist than those 2. So, please provide me with a list of who they beat. I don't want narration and hyperbole I want feats in duels. We aren't talking potential this is THE BEST DUELIST. Hmmmm what is the best way to see and rank who is better than who... Ooooo that's right... If they fought and beat the other.. They are better. So, please let me see the actually dueling feats of Cin and Anoon and lets see how they stack up against Kenobi and Anakin.
Now did I win the fight because I was a better fighter? Or did he lose because he got too overconfident and dumb?
If new guy was saying ROTS Kenobi is better than Maul, I definitly agree. If he was actually saying (as i'm getting the impression, and hell no i'm not reading those entire posts, they are long and boring) that TPM kenobi==AOTC Kenobi==ROTS Kenobi>>Maul, I disagree. He keeps mixing up his arguments about which Kenobi is better.
ROTS Kenobi has more impressive victories than Maul does.
TPM Kenobi has PIS FTW.
Have i picked up on the argument?
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
So, tell me as you didn't prove a damn thing with this post of yours. Let me focus on the main point of the argument... You absolutely could say... Kenobi managed to not die at the hands of Anakin. You see, just because he tried to use adjectives to get the point across that he barely won and really shouldn't have one doesn't change in any way how you could use that sentence. Lets break that sentence down because clearly you need help in understanding the English language. "managed to survive and not die at the hands of ___ blank" Even if better than somebody that doesn't change the fact that I could say I managed to beat(survive) and not lose to (die) ___. Any saber duel in history could use that same exact sentence. Just because Gideon tried to use it to discredit Kenobi's skill doesn't change in any way how that sentence can be used or interrupted. If you survive a duel, it doesn't matter if your better or worse YOU MANAGED TO SURVIVE and NOT DIE AT THE HANDS OF ___. I'm unclear how basic reading comprehension/vocabulary alludes you, and you can't see this. It certainly can be used in such a way to describe any duel, whether he was using that way or not, doesn't disprove my point that it can be.Furthermore, the best proof of skill in dueling is.... drum roll.... dueling!! Ya know what the best measure of who is a better duelist.... drum roll.. actually dueling between A & B. You see, in life and death situation and in direct dueling situation we see who comes out on top. On KMC we go by feats and direct combat situations. Yes we also go by narration but as you know that can be filled with hyperbole and not substantiation of narration. However, when we see a duel between Kenobi and Maul.. we don't need narration to know who came out on top and is a better duelist. They fought and Kenobi won, period. You can give me x,y and z of why but in the end Kenobi proved to be the better duelist. You can't argue with cannon battles and choose to look at hyperbole instead which is the mistake you and Gideon make. Just because you don't like the outcome or feel Maul was better.. Well sorry, he wasn't better.
In conclusion.. I posed a very simple question... Name me the people Cin and Anoon beat and we'll compare that list to who Kenobi has beat. You ask for proof and I've given examples of who Kenobi has beat to make him a better duelist than those 2. So, please provide me with a list of who they beat. I don't want narration and hyperbole I want feats in duels. We aren't talking potential this is THE BEST DUELIST. Hmmmm what is the best way to see and rank who is better than who... Ooooo that's right... If they fought and beat the other.. They are better. So, please let me see the actually dueling feats of Cin and Anoon and lets see how they stack up against Kenobi and Anakin.
NO. It DOES matter how A beats B.
Obi Wan only won because Maul was too overconfident.
Get it?
In other words, Maul was the better duelist. He took on Qui Gon + Obi Wan at once, even though he had an injured knee (or was it ankle?). He managed to knock Obi Wan into a ledge, and could've won by simply using the Force to push Obi Wan down, but decided to wait because he was overconfident and wanted to relish his victory.
Now please explain to me how that shows that Obi Wan was a better duelist.