(a frame merely covers a single instant of the strike)
Look at what you wrote:
Grievous is using 20 strikes per second. You continue to talk about still images. His entire motion falls into that 1/20th of a second.
I would be willing to bet that is in fact the case.
Since we have a policy of including canon unless there is an explicit reason not to, you will have to substantiate your claim that Grievous is not moving at twenty strikes per second in the film recording. Given that we have clearly defined what 20 sps looks like (a fan or blur of light) it should be easy enough for you to go through the stills and find where the observed speeds are too slow. (Burden of proof is clear in this case. I'm neutral as far as grudges go, and I'd like for you to be mature enough not to try to shift blame or burden elsewhere.)
In case you still do not understand, let's dissect this early post of yours:
Grievous had "20 strikes" a second. A "frame" as you keep pointing out, is a STILL IMAGE. Grievous physically struck 20 times. That means blows. That means all the way up and all the way down. That does not mean 20 still images.Obviously if a cartoonist was going to draw the thing, a "strike" would take more than one "frame" to show.
Canon wins, you lose.
Originally posted by Zampanó This is why you lose.Look at what you wrote:
If that is true, then any given frame from the fight during RotS between he and Kenobi (where he is using this technique) should show his blade as a blur (or fan) of light.
I would be willing to bet that is in fact the case.
Since we have a policy of including canon unless there is an explicit reason not to, you will have to substantiate your claim that Grievous is not moving at twenty strikes per second in the film recording. Given that we have clearly defined what 20 sps looks like (a fan or blur of light) it should be easy enough for you to go through the stills and find where the observed speeds are too slow. (Burden of proof is clear in this case. I'm neutral as far as grudges go, and I'd like for you to be mature enough not to try to shift blame or burden elsewhere.)
In case you still do not understand, let's dissect this early post of yours:
That "still image" is an exposure that includes the entire "all the way up and all the way down." Anywhere you can find that Grievous is using this speed-blitz that does not show a blur is non-canon. You've only got to find one in order to substantiate your point.
Red, what are you even talking about? I never made the claim you claim I made. (bolded for you)
My argument with JT was speaking about the supposed top speed of Grievious(faster than the eye can see). Since we are not told during his fight with Kenobi that he has reached that top speed, then his 20 strikes per second is perfectly canon, as his top speed quote, since they are not necessarily the same thing.
I'll be honest, i don't know what you want from me, your post was confusing...
Originally posted by Zampanó
This is why you lose.Look at what you wrote:
If that is true, then any given frame from the fight during RotS between he and Kenobi (where he is using this technique) should show his blade as a blur (or fan) of light.
I would be willing to bet that is in fact the case.
In fact, this entire post actually seems to agree with me. So i'm not sure what you were getting at.
Since we have a policy of including canon unless there is an explicit reason not to, you will have to substantiate your claim that Grievous is not moving at twenty strikes per second in the film recording. Given that we have clearly defined what 20 sps looks like (a fan or blur of light) it should be easy enough for you to go through the stills and find where the observed speeds are too slow. (Burden of proof is clear in this case. I'm neutral as far as grudges go, and I'd like for you to be mature enough not to try to shift blame or burden elsewhere.)
In case you still do not understand, let's dissect this early post of yours:
That "still image" is an exposure that includes the entire "all the way up and all the way down." Anywhere you can find that Grievous is using this speed-blitz that does not show a blur is non-canon. You've only got to find one in order to substantiate your point.
Originally posted by truejedi
Red, what are you even talking about? I never made the claim you claim I made. (bolded for you)My argument with JT was speaking about the supposed top speed of Grievious(faster than the eye can see). Since we are not told during his fight with Kenobi that he has reached that top speed, then his 20 strikes per second is perfectly canon, as his top speed quote, since they are not necessarily the same thing.
I'll be honest, i don't know what you want from me, your post was confusing...
I was under the impression that you were calling Grievous's speed of 20 strikes per second non-canon. Under that idea, I was providing you with a way to prove it.
If you are willing to accept 20 strikes/second as canon then we have no trouble at all.
Originally posted by truejedi
nope, JT was calling the "faster than the eye can see" quote non-canon. I disagreed. no worries though.
No TJ, I never stated it as being non-canon. I stated that the narration was fallible. This was in response to a comment made regarding whether or not the narration came from a fallible source. Read again.
Originally posted by Pwned
So twenty stirkes per second starts to overload Kenobis defenses, Im pretty sure we cant logically say that he can block 20 per secondWe can say he can block 19 per second however =-p
If you wan't to get technical, he CAN possibly block 20 per second depending on the angle from which those attacks are coming. He just couldn't block GG's 20 per second.
i really doubt Sidious would overwhelm Kenobi with Speed.
Kenobi's form is perfect for deflection of a high-speed opponent.
In sabers only Kenobi has a chance. His Soresu defenses have never been breached, and he is THE master (not A master) of Soresu.
However in an all-out or force contest Kenobi is getting broken so badly its pathetic.