yes, Tano wins this one. Luke has had about 1 day of training. He left Hoth, and went to find Yoda. Leia and Han left Hoth and went to Bespin. Vader was waiting for Leia and Han at Bespin. Luke sensed the capture of his friends, and immediately went to save them.
There really wasn't too much of a gap for any training.
Luke defenitly trained for more than a day. However it could be anywhere from a couple of days to close to a month. Regardless Star Wars Adventures: Luke Skywalker and the Treasure of the Dragonsnakes implies his training was quite extensive. It says
"The movie The Empire Strikes Back shows us only a small portion of Luke Skywalker's Jedi training under the tutelage of Master Yoda. In this story, witness a never-before-seen part of that training as Luke is given the task of finding-and retrieving-an object guarded by the deadliest creatures on the swamp world of Dagobah: the monstrous dragonsnakes!
This is the most harrowing, dangerous, and muddiest mission that Luke has ever faced!"
Also Luke as of ESB did manage to get a glancing blow on the V man which is quite impressive.
It is worth mentioning that Luke held his ground against Vader for a good long while. The best Ahsoka did (by herself anyway) was hold her ground against Grievous for a short while. She also managed to beat the crap out of Cad Bane but still lost. Oh, and she beat some alien posing as Jocasta Nu, but dose that really account for anything?
I'm pretty sure that Vader is far superior to everyone I listed. The fact that Luke was able to hold his ground against him for a while, even after Vader stopped toying with him, whereas Ahsoka has done poorly to mildly well against people that are far inferior to Vader seems to suggest, at least to me, that Luke is the better fighter here.
Originally posted by DarthDaniel1001
It is worth mentioning that Luke held his ground against Vader for a good long while. The best Ahsoka did (by herself anyway) was hold her ground against Grievous for a short while. She also managed to beat the crap out of Cad Bane but still lost. Oh, and she beat some alien posing as Jocasta Nu, but dose that really account for anything?I'm pretty sure that Vader is far superior to everyone I listed. The fact that Luke was able to hold his ground against him for a while, even after Vader stopped toying with him, whereas Ahsoka has done poorly to mildly well against people that are far inferior to Vader seems to suggest, at least to me, that Luke is the better fighter here.
Grievous > Darth Vader (suited) in sabers - much faster, more agile, and 4 sabers at once striking up to 20 times per second.
Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Grievous > Darth Vader (suited) in sabers - much faster, more agile, and 4 sabers at once striking up to 20 times per second.
Originally posted by Samurai100
Except Vader has force tk and in the old movies their slowness was due to the actual weight of the lightsaber.
Originally posted by DarthDaniel1001Vader held back in TESB... if he really wanted to tool luke in sabers he would have.
It is worth mentioning that Luke held his ground against Vader for a good long while. The best Ahsoka did (by herself anyway) was hold her ground against Grievous for a short while. She also managed to beat the crap out of Cad Bane but still lost. Oh, and she beat some alien posing as Jocasta Nu, but dose that really account for anything?I'm pretty sure that Vader is far superior to everyone I listed. The fact that Luke was able to hold his ground against him for a while, even after Vader stopped toying with him, whereas Ahsoka has done poorly to mildly well against people that are far inferior to Vader seems to suggest, at least to me, that Luke is the better fighter here.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
AND that Grievous was *not* fighting her with four sabers, let alone twenty strikes per second.
Yes Red, I know. I was addressing the comment; "Vader is far superior" to General Grievous. My point is that Vader IS NOT far superior to GG (superior? maybe/probably. Far superior? Not at all). Also, Yes Vader's a beast no doubt, but as it was pointed out, he definitely appeared to be pulling back in his duel w/ Luke, thereby weakening that particular aspect of DarthDaniels argument/stand. Apologies to all for not being more clear. wallbash
Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Yes Red, I know. I was addressing the comment; "Vader is far superior" to General Grievous. My point is that Vader IS NOT far superior to GG (superior? maybe/probably. Far superior? Not at all). Also, Yes Vader's a beast no doubt, but as it was pointed out, he definitely appeared to be pulling back in his duel w/ Luke, thereby weakening that particular aspect of DarthDaniels argument/stand. Apologies to all for not being more clear. wallbash
And why not far superior if we bring in the force? GG can't even use the force so how can vader not be far superior to him in that aspect?
Originally posted by BoratBorat
And why not far superior if we bring in the force? GG can't even use the force so how can vader [b]not be far superior to him in that aspect? [/B]
ki-Adi-Mundi used the force against GG to no avail. As did Shaak Ti, and others he's killed and/or dueled (including Asajj Ventress). While Vader is very powerful, that aspect alone does not equate to him being "far superior"
Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
ki-Adi-Mundi used the force against GG to no avail. As did Shaak Ti, and others he's killed and/or dueled (including Asajj Ventress). While Vader is very powerful, that aspect alone does not equate to him being "far superior"
Vader is far superior to the Jedi you've mentioned.
*sigh*
Once again:
X < Y
X < Z
Y ? Z
So if Grievous is better than those Jedi, but so is Vader, the comparison is meaningless. What is important is that we have an incredibly powerful Force user squared up against someone that has no access to that arena, someone whose defense is certifiable only against combatants weaker than Vader's.
Qualitative data is useless here; both sides must provide some sort of argument (as opposed to glib tossaway comments) or concede the point.
I, of course, have expressed no opinion on the outcome and so am free of the burden of proof. I have merely pointed out that the reasoning that you've provided is insufficient to suitably convince me (and likely anyone else) that Tano's feats are unquestionably superior to Luke's. (This is not to say that such a task is impossible, just that you have not done so yet.)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Vader is far superior to the Jedi you've mentioned.*sigh*
Once again:
X < Y
X < Z
Y ? ZSo if Grievous is better than those Jedi, but so is Vader, the comparison is meaningless. What is important is that we have an incredibly powerful Force user squared up against someone that has no access to that arena, someone whose defense is certifiable only against combatants weaker than Vader's.
Qualitative data is useless here; both sides must provide some sort of argument (as opposed to glib tossaway comments) or concede the point.
I, of course, have expressed no opinion on the outcome and so am free of the burden of proof. I have merely pointed out that the reasoning that you've provided is insufficient to suitably convince me (and likely anyone else) that Tano's feats are unquestionably superior to Luke's. (This is not to say that such a task is impossible, just that you have not done so yet.)
Let me make this clear. I DID NOT state that Tano > Luke. Moreover, I DID NOT state that Luke > Tano. I offered a rebuttal to the comment (by DarthDaniel) where it is assumed that Vader is "FAR" superior to Grievous. I also posted a counter to BoratBorat's comment where he stated that having the force automatically makes one superior to a non-force user (I pointed out that having that particular aspect alone at ones disposal doesn't automatically grant one a position of being far superior). Therefore you are attacking a position that I have not established, or intend to as of yet. Please drop the straw man argument.