ROTS Mace Windu Vs AOTC/ROTS Count Dooku

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I was addressing this? Your post suggested that someone opining that Sidious toying with Yoda would be making an egregious assumption? I merely pointed out that that suggestion is false and that Sidious was very obviously toying with Yoda at critical points in the duel? Copy?

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Kit consistently drove Grievous from :55 to 1:18, with two near hits?

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Meanwhile, Grievous was on the offensive from 1:52 to 2:15? He lost it temporarily at 2:18-2:21? After losing his first saber, he regains the offensive from 2:25 to 2:35 and then wins their saberlock, shoving Obi-Wan back, at 2:39? After that, the clones arrive and Obi-Wan "wins" the duel by using the Force?

In what possible way does this demonstrate a clear advantage for Obi-Wan?

Originally posted by Galan007
And?

It seems to have upset you that I've done so? If it bothers you that people address certain extraneous details, perhaps you shouldn't make them to begin with? Still friends?

Originally posted by Galan007
Drove him back, where? A few feet? That's how you're judging who did better? Lol?

A few feet? Did one of the MagnaGuards bust out some measuring tape? Perhaps I'm more impressed that Grievous, a predominantly aggressive fighter, was put on the defensive for most of the duel and had to summon backup in order to survive whereas he largely dictated terms with Obi-Wan? Sorry that I don't share your [new] opinion on their respective abilities? It's not like you once thought the way I did oh wait?

Originally posted by Galan007
Kenobi fought Grievous for a shorter amount of time than Fisto,

And?

That might owe a little to Obi-Wan's army showing up and taking shots, not to mention the Force push? Or Grievous's backup against Kit?

Originally posted by Galan007
yet still managed to: a.) whether his full speed, b.) deliver more damage, and c.) had one less lightsaber.

What full speed? The twenty-strikes-per-second-line? Damage? So hacking off one hand doesn't mean much, but when one cuts off two, it makes a world of difference? One less lightsaber? How did Kit come across that second lightsaber, by chance? More importantly, why did Obi-Wan use the Force against Grievous to end the duel when it came down to 1 blade vs. 2?

Originally posted by Galan007
Thank you for posting those clips-- now I am absolutely certain that Kenobi did better against Grievous. 👆

lol I guess that means you actually hadn't seen Kit's fight with Grievous before? That explains a lot?

Lol, I know you're grasping for straws when you start throwing out snide insults. Sadly, though, that game/ploy/tactic is lost on me, as there are numerous people who 'debate' that way in the CBF. I'm used to it. 🙂

Anyway, Fisto did very well against Grievous; I am certainly not denying that. However, Kenobi clearly did better. Why? Because he caused more damage in a shorter amount of time with less equipment.

Simple logic is simple logic. 👆

Originally posted by The_Tempest
lol I guess that means you actually hadn't seen Kit's fight with Grievous before? That explains a lot?

Originally posted by Galan007
Lol, I know you're grasping for straws when you start throwing out snide insults. Sadly, though, that game is lost on me, as there are numerous people who 'debate' that way in the CBF. I'm used to it. 🙂

I have most certainly not insulted you?

I am most certainly not grasping at straws?

I am most certainly being snide? But that owes more to the and?s and okay?s instead of either conceding that point or agreeing to disagree? You started it, my son? Unfortunately, in addition to being the best looking and best endowed, I'm also the snidest person here?

Originally posted by Galan007
Anyway, Fisto did very well against Grievous; I am certainly not denying that. However, Kenobi clearly did better. Why? Because he caused more damage in a shorter amount of time with less equipment.

Simple logic is simple logic. 👆

I would say simplistic? Kit started out with the same amount of weapons Obi-Wan did and did a better job at keeping him on the defensive? Grievous felt comfortable enough to take on Obi-Wan alone but clearly did not feel likewise about Kit? Obi-Wan used his Force push despite the fact that Grievous only had two lightsabers left, whereas Kit used his Force push as a taunt and allowed Grievous to return to his feet?

The only difference you've established is that Obi-Wan relieved Grievous of two blades instead of one? Which is fine... but that harkens back to your original point, which was that cutting off an appendage doesn't mean one is out-dueling one's opponent?

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I have most certainly not insulted you?

I am most certainly not grasping at straws?

I am most certainly being snide? But that owes more to the and?s and okay?s instead of either conceding that point or agreeing to disagree? You started it, my son? Unfortunately, in addition to being the best looking and best endowed, I'm also the snidest person here?

Anyway, had I known beforehand that all you wanted was for us to agree to disagree, I'd of done it several posts ago. This circular BS is nauseating.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I would say simplistic? Kit started out with the same amount of weapons Obi-Wan did and did a better job at keeping him on the defensive? Grievous felt comfortable enough to take on Obi-Wan alone but clearly did not feel likewise about Kit? Obi-Wan used his Force push despite the fact that Grievous only had two lightsabers left, whereas Kit used his Force push as a taunt and allowed Grievous to return to his feet?

The only difference you've established is that Obi-Wan relieved Grievous of two blades instead of one? Which is fine... but that harkens back to your original point, which was that cutting off an appendage doesn't mean one is out-dueling one's opponent?

I don't think I can be any clearer, tbh.

If Tempest is serious arguing that Fisto is above Kenobi, then please explain why Fisto cannot beat Ventress but Kenobi can. You'd think Kenobi beating Savage (who did better than Fisto and his buddies) would have wrapped up the Fisto~Kenobi argument, but no...

And If Sidious was toying with Yoda (someone GL said could compete with Sidious), then why did he cowardly run? Face it Tempest, you're grasping at straws.

Galan007
Nah, you're a straw-grasper. 👆

Not at all. You've vastly overstated the extent of Obi-Wan's performance vis a vis Kit's.

Galan007
Anyway, had I known beforehand that all you wanted was for us to agree to disagree, I'd of done it several posts ago. This circular BS is nauseating.

That's basic etiquette, bro. If you are unable to refute the point, concede it; if you are unwilling to, agree to disagree. You elected instead to respond with snide rhetorical questions because I closed a door you opened.

Galan007
Again: Kenobi caused more damage in a shorter amount of time with less equipment. That's why Kenobi>Fisto(if GG is our only gauge, that is.) Simple.

I don't think I can be any clearer, tbh.

The length of the duel was shorter because of outside intervention and a mighty Force push from Obi-Wan. In contrast, it was Grievous who had the benefit of outside intervention in his battle with Kit and Kit's Force push was clearly taunting in nature (as he allowed Grievous to rise). Obi-Wan and Kit also began their battles with the same number of lightsabers; Kit earned his by taking it from Grievous. The merits of Jar'Kai have been debated at length; they are not inherently advantageous. And Obi-Wan elected to use the Force when Grievous was whittled down to two lightsabers; by your reckoning, we can conclude that he did not win the strict duel.

More importantly, you were the one who opined that removing an appendage does not constitute victory or dominance... which is the ultimate point of this exercise. At the end of the day, your entire argument comparing the two rests on Obi-Wan cutting off one more hand than Fisto did... which means that the removal of appendages does indeed signal the remover's advantage, contrary to what you told SIDIOUS_66. 👆

I'm a chessmaster, son, not a straw-grasper. 👆

Originally posted by Vensai
If Tempest is serious arguing that Fisto is above Kenobi, then please explain why Fisto cannot beat Ventress but Kenobi can. You'd think Kenobi beating Savage (who did better than Fisto and his buddies) would have wrapped up the Fisto~Kenobi argument, but no...

Kindly point to me where I said Fisto is above Kenobi.

Originally posted by Vensai
And If Sidious was toying with Yoda (someone GL said could compete with Sidious), then why did he cowardly run? Face it Tempest, you're grasping at straws.

facepalm

You should probably go back and reread my commentary on that in its entirety (that means all of it) before campaigning for the title of world's biggest moron.

Stick to the sidelines, junior. You don't have what it takes to get on the court with me. I'll polish the floor with your face and ass all day, any day.

Not to put too fine a point on it...

Vensai
You'd think Kenobi beating Savage (who did better than Fisto and his buddies) would have wrapped up the Fisto~Kenobi argument, but no...

...But season 5 demolished this notion. Myself and others spent a great deal of time mocking this argument with more glee than New Directions could hope to muster.

Obi-Wan fled from Grievous who was in turn stalemated by Ahsoka who was thrashed utterly by Barriss who gave Anakin the fight of his life. By this paradigm, Anakin ~ Bariss >>>> Ahsoka ~ Grievous >Obi-Wan.

Savage did better than Fisto and co. against Sidious, no doubt. But that hardly means he was better for a number of exhaustively defined reasons. Which would have to be the case to put Obi-Wan above Kit by those parameters.

One could make the same argument about the Kenobi/Fisto/Greivous duels, no?

Originally posted by ares834
One could make the same argument about the Kenobi/Fisto/Greivous duels, no?

One could if Obi-Wan and Kit weren't of comparable rank and station, recipients of comparable accolades, and if Obi-Wan hadn't already performed aggressive felatio on Kit in The Cestus Deception.

Meanwhile, Barris is the very definition of a no-name padawan. Comparing her to the likes of Obi-Wan & Anakin based off a singular performance is unreasonable.

I've already thought this through, ares. You cannot possibly win. excellent

Lol, this is a rather funny double-standard. Kenobi caused MORE damage to Grievous then Kit managed, in a SHORTER amount of time, and with LESS weaponry. Those are indisputable canon FACTS. Thus, if we use Grievous as a gauge, Kenobi>Fisto.

Why are we making excuses for Kit in order to place him higher on the totem pole than his feats warrant? No other character is allowed such a privilege.

Originally posted by Galan007
Lol, this is a rather funny double-standard. Kenobi caused MORE damage to Grievous then Kit managed, in a SHORTER amount of time, and with LESS weaponry. Those are indisputable canon FACTS. Thus, if we use Grievous as a gauge, Kenobi>Fisto.

Originally posted by Galan007
Why are we making excuses for Kit in order to place him higher on the totem pole than his feats warrant? No other character is allowed such a privilege.

Galan007
Lol, this is a rather funny double-standard.

The only double standard I'm aware of is the one you established on the previous page: Kit cuts off an appendage and is stalemating Grievous; Obi-Wan cuts off an appendage and is tooling Grievous outright.

Galan007
Kenobi caused MORE damage to Grievous then Kit managed,

So too did Obi-Wan against Savage than did Dooku against Savage.

Galan007
in a SHORTER amount of time,

Due to a Force push and favorable outside intervention.

Galan007
and with LESS weaponry.

Not true. Kit only had one weapon when he disarmed Grievous.

Galan007
Those are indisputable canon FACTS.

No one has denied that Obi-Wan's fight with Grievous was shorter, that Grievous lost more hands, and Obi-Wan only had one weapon the entire duel.

But facts taken out of context don't always tell the truth, do they?

Galan007
Thus, if we use Grievous as a gauge, Kenobi>Fisto.

Grievous dismissed assistance against Obi-Wan whereas he welcomed it against Fisto. Fisto drove Grievous back the entire duel until the MagnaGuards showed up; whereas Obi-Wan and Grievous exchanged the offensive. Fisto's Force push was taunting in nature whereas Obi-Wan's was intended to be decisive. Obi-Wan has 3 years worth of duels against Grievous to draw from.

More importantly, where have I ever said that Kenobi wasn't better than Fisto?

Galan007
Why are we making excuses for Kit in order to place him higher on the totem pole than his feats warrant? No other character is allowed such a privilege.

Making excuses =/= examining context. It would be no different than every Bane fanboy under the sun mentioning how Bane collapses temples and disintegrates enemies, neglecting to include the tidbit that such feats were formed on dark side nexuses. Or that Ventress and two featless Nightsisters disarmed Dooku without mentioning that he was blinded during the confrontation. Or so on and so forth.

More importantly, let's not pretend that you weren't staunchly defending this very perspective not two months ago. You can change your mind, but let's table implications of bias and stupidity. 😉

But most important of all is the fact that this entire discussion was simply to highlight the simple truth that, contrary to what you suggested, Kit was winning the duel with Grievous and that, sir, is also an "indisputable canon FACT."

Originally posted by Galan007
Lol, this is a rather funny double-standard. Kenobi caused MORE damage to Grievous then Kit managed, in a SHORTER amount of time, and with LESS weaponry. Those are indisputable canon FACTS. Thus, if we use Grievous as a gauge, Kenobi>Fisto.

Do you not think your arguments through before you post them, or are you just that desperate to win a debate.

Your original claim was that chopping off appendages =/= outduelling. Then when Temp asked how do you figure that Kenobi outdueled Grievous, if Fisto didn't? your answer was something like: because Kenobi gained more ground, whereas Fisto didn't. Tempest then proved you wrong by posting both fights, which showed that Fisto forced Grievous on the defensive far more than Kenobi did. Now suddenly you switch it up and say that Kenobi outdueled Grievous because he chopped off more appendages (something that you originally claimed didn't equal outduelling someone).

I guess it's down to opinion on who performed better against Grievous. Kit managed to disarm Grievous of one saber, and then proceeded to force him on the defensive the entire time. Kenobi, on the other hand, disarmed Grievous's of two sabers, but was forced on the defensive by the GG (unlike Kit). But for anyone to suggest that Kenobi performed much better than Fisto, especially when Fisto was seemingly toying with Grievous, needs either their eyes checked or head examined.

That said, nothing suggests that Kenobi is above Fisto in swordsmanship, and if he is, it's not by much based on their respective performances against Grievous. So my argument still stands: if Sidious can cut down an Obi Wan level swordmaster along with two other swordmasters without having to separate them from Windu, there is no reason to assume that he would separate Kenobi from Anakin when he is more than capable of cutting him down without having to separate him.

😂 After all this time you fellas [still] aren't comprehending a word I've typed *sighs*. As I've said multiple times now: cutting off more appendages equates to Kenobi fairing much better against Grievous than Fisto did. Again: he[Kenobi] was able to cause MORE damage, in LESS time, and with HALF the weaponry. This is an overtly simple concept to grasp. Why do you persist in making things more difficult then need be?

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Do you not think your arguments through before you post them, or are you just that desperate to win a debate.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Your original claim was that chopping off appendages =/= outduelling. Then when Temp asked how do you figure that Kenobi outdueled Grievous, if Fisto didn't? your answer was something like: because Kenobi gained more ground, whereas Fisto didn't. Tempest then proved you wrong by posting both fights, which showed that Fisto forced Grievous on the defensive far more than Kenobi did. Now suddenly you switch it up and say that Kenobi outdueled Grievous because he chopped off more appendages (something that you originally claimed didn't equal outduelling someone).

The following contains spoilers central to the discussion of this and the previous page. Viewer discretion is advised:

Spoiler:
This and the previous page was naught but a brilliantly staged ploy by yours truly to lure my wayward apprentice (Galan007) into a fatal argumentative blunder: Once he made the daring claim that Fisto was not winning the fight against Grievous by relieving the general of one of his arms, I knew I must entice Galan to confess that Obi-Wan's "tooling" of the general was determined by Kenobi's disarming of Grievous. I did not anticipate ares834's intervention, but was able to deftly maneuver the god of war into alignment with my greater agenda. I used a divine being to further my own scheme and so it is revealed that Fisto is a badass. This is an exercise in Magnificent Bastardry at its finest. Can it be anything else but apotheosis? I am become a god.

You must be stopped. lol

MWAHAHAHAHAHAH! 😐

@Gid:

I'm more than willing to admit that my use of the word "tooling" was misplaced. I stated such because SIDIOUS66 commented that Fisto "tooled" Grievous(or somesuch.)

Regardless, as I've said, and said, and said, and said, and said, Kenobi incontrovertibly did much better against GG than Fisto. That much is beyond contestation. 👆