Originally posted by AdventBy“semantics” I mean the absolute nonsense about what “curb stomp” means. For example, your retort here is nothing more than semantics because I explained what happened in the fight and what the context of the words I mean meant, as seen here:
IC, if you merely meant to say that Maul was the stronger combatant, I have no problem with that. My only contention was that the fight was not entirely one-sided. It is the second longest duel on-film in the mythos. A one sided fight, IMO, one that would show an utter domination of one's opponent happens in less than a minute.
In the movies, there is sidious beating 3 masters, there is Dooku beating AOTC obi-wan, there is Yoda defeating dooku. The others are fights that have ebbs and flows, and TPM is one of those. Yes, Maul was the stronger, but to say that he made a joke (my words, not yours, not misquoting you. 🙂 ) of the two in TPM is absolutely false. They fought a fierce duel.
Irrelevant misdirection - I wasn’t countering that in my rebuttal. I was supporting the obvious fact that Maul was dominating the fight.
Dominating? A strong word. He dominated QGJ in a one-on-one setting at the very end, with QG first taking the offensive, then being forced back, and then killed.
The rest of the fight, he wasn't dominant. He controlled the fight, but he wasn't on a whole different, untouchable level. He did the same thing that Kenobi did vs. ANakin, in that he retreated until he could seperate the combatants(like Kenobi retreated till he took Anakin out of a comfort zone), by using the environment. (this is interesting, i just realized the parallel we have here, Maul did to these two what Kenobi did to Anakin. I think Kenobi controlled the his fight with Anakin, you think Maul controlled his fight with the 2 jedi.
Interesting.
Maul certainly didn't dominate TPM kenobi blade to blade after QGJ died. He was better, he regained the upper hand, but the word domination certainly couldn't be used in that portion of the fight.
^ See above; zOMG, your examples of ‘curb stomp’ don’t fit the literal act of “placing someone’s head on a curb and stomping it with your foot”! I can play that game, too. Red herrings will be dismissed for the irrelevancy that they are.
So are you inserting the word dominate in place of curbstomp? That's okay.
To me, the words mean roughly the same thing. I reiterate all my reasons that he didn't "curbstomp" by giving you those reasons why he didn't "dominate"
Can you please show me where the word “curb stomp” is defined in Webster’s or any respectable dictionary? Oh? What’s that? You can’t, because it isn’t. Your personal interpretation doesn’t trump mine, especially when I’ve stated precisely what I meant by it. That is why any arguments over the semantics are simply stupid and a poor excuse at addressing the actual point.
This is acceptable. by your own quote above, we are using the word dominate now in the same context. Moving forward.
And really, you say ‘moments of possible death’? Hardly, considering Maul didn’t die and regained the upper hand by countering the attempts to capitalize on those ‘moments’.
I said moments of possible death if Maul had been a split second slower. Especially the moment against Kenobi when he gets knocked off his feet, and leaps out of the way of Kenobi's slash. (already posted video above) This was used to prove the point that Maul wasn't completely in utter (dominant, anyone) control of that part of the duel. I think the point was made nicely.
“They should have won this battle long ago. Against any other opponent, they would have.” - Red elaborated on this more than adequately.
All this says is that Maul is better than most other opponents. As I said to Red, this hardly goes anywhere to proving that Maul >>>> than duo.
It only proves that Maul>>>> other opponents of the duo, which are <<<<then duo, since they "would have (won long ago)" against those opponents.
Yes, it was. It is obvious from the duel and from the novel that they were never going to beat him without divine intervention (which ended up occurring).
By the very nature(unpredictable) of a melee fight, and the two places i already showed above where it was possible that Maul COULD HAVE died, this can definitly not be proven true. The life of any combatant in an extended melee battle is at risk when the battle is as extended as the one in TPM was. To say there was a 0 percent chance of Maul losing is to dwell in absolutes, and melee combat doesn't allow those.
What the hell does that even mean? That's vague; elaborate. Are you suggesting that Anoon Bondara was weak in the Force? Combined with his lightsaber skills, he’s “one of the best fighters in the Order”. Beating Anoon Bondara does mean that Maul beat the best saber duelist the Order had to offer. His combat prowess was “unmatched” so clearly his ability to amplify his attributes with the Force is considerable.
one of the best fighters in the Order: wait a minute though: How do you go from your own quote as "One of the best fighters in the Order" To "Maul beat the best saber duelist the Order had to offer?" Curious thats, all, i don't have the direct quote in front of me, so i'm wondering about the contradiction.
Using the Anoon Bondara quote about being the best duelist in the order from the 3rd person source, that is more or less the thoughts of Anoon's Padawan, is the same as using the Darth Sidious is the most powerful quote from RODV, when that quote, even though from the narrator, is clearly meant to be a parody of Vader's thoughts. I would need something else, other than that one quote, to put Bondara above Masters Yoda and Windu, at the very least.
His combat feats are non-existent. His one quote of power is questionably from the perspective of his own student, and him being the most powerful in the order isn't reinforced anywhere else in the mythos. It is iffy at the least. Making him the best duelist, who isn't strong in the force is actually doing Bondara a favor, rather than attacking the quote's credibility directly.
That doesn’t make a lick of sense. Anakin wasn’t the most powerful or skilled Force user. Obi-Wan was best suited according to Mace Windu because Anakin was his apprentice and he taught Anakin everything he knew, but not necessarily everything that Obi-Wan knew. Your A > B feat wars logic at the end is horribly skewed.
Except... That quote was about Grievous, not anakin. Just redo this rebuttal to fit that situation. All this, "Taught anakin everything he knew" stuff doesn't apply at all.
You seem to be under the impression that I was claiming Maul beat Anoon, therefore he’s better than Obi-Wan. I wasn’t. I was countering the logic that Obi-Wan should be better than Maul because he’s beaten Grievous and Anakin (which you called “more impressive). You continually brought up how Anakin beat Dooku but completely ignore how Anakin owned Dooku in a direct fashion. Obi-Wan didn’t do that against Anakin. If Grievous were in the Jedi Order, he clearly wouldn’t have been the best with a blade.
I understand what you are claiming. I would counter that ROTS Anakin is more powerful, stronger, more dangerous, whatever you want to call it, than Bondara in Shadow Hunter. Our main disagreement here seems to be whether Obi-wan's victory over Anakin is legitimate and repeatable or not, So i will continue to that part of the debate.
Strawman argument, logical fallacy.
I cannot tell you how much I disagree with that. It was neither.
Key phrase: 'If Kenobi doesn't have the same environment to manipulate'. Key word: 'same'. Reading comprehension is important.
Then simply put, I disagree. Any environment a duel would be fought in would have some sort of environment that could be manipulated.
What were his other options then? Are you suggesting that Kenobi could have stopped Anakin head-on? He didn't have much of any choice, the only choice he had was to either give ground or take Anakin on directly. The latter choice likely resulting in Kenobi being beheaded.
I disagree again. Kenobi was capable of blocking 16 blows a second from grievous. I don't see anything that suggest Anakin would have beheaded Kenobi in this situation.
I reiterate: Kenobi gave ground because he wanted to. You interpret the same quote differently. We may have to let this one go.