Savage Opress vs. Obi-Wan Kenobi

Mizukage Yoda, THAT duel and THAT situation clearly imply a context specific win. It's not something Kenobi can do anytime, otherwise he wouldn't have got stomped by the brothers in the prior episode, and wouldn't have fought Maul one on one twice without a clear winner both times.

Tempest and Intrepid, Filoni did also denote the win to Kenobi being a "very skilled swordsman." So even though his win was context specific, it was still an awesome feat and showed us Kenobi's skill and clear superiority over Opress.

That said Opress won't lose 10/10. His physical strength and beastly TK will always be a threat to Jedi (minus Yoda, Mace, Peak Anakin).

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Mizukage Yoda, THAT duel and THAT situation clearly imply a context specific win. It's not something Kenobi can do anytime, otherwise he wouldn't have got stomped by the brothers in the prior episode, and wouldn't have fought Maul one on one twice without a clear winner both times.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Tempest and Intrepid, Filoni did also denote the win to Kenobi being a "very skilled swordsman." So even though his win was context specific, it was still an awesome feat and showed us Kenobi's skill and clear superiority over Opress.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
That said Opress won't lose 10/10. His physical strength and beastly TK will always be a threat to Jedi (minus Yoda, Mace, Peak Anakin).

Originally posted by Intrepid37
One thing is to say Kenobi can beat Opress with ease. Another thing is to think he can actually beat Opress + Maul.

I can't take anyone who supports the latter incident seriously.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
And I would IF Filoni said Obi-Wan was better than Savage, let alone so superior as to be able to curbstomp him.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
But in fact he doesn't. All he says is that Obi-Wan won't lose THAT duel in THAT situation. Since THAT duel and THAT situation aren't at play here, there's nothing relevant in Filoni's commentary.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Feel free to address the rest of my argument in your next post instead of pretending the only time the two ever fought was in Revival and that Filoni's statement means "lol obiwan pwnz all day 3vry day n savage sux!"

Filoni didn't say it was context specific... Shadow Conspiracy does. facepalm

Originally posted by mnat801
So you're saying that's just a one off performance!? He either can do it, or he can't. If he could win over Maul and Savage this time, I don't see any reason for him not being able to do it again

He clearly can't beat Maul and Opress together every time they fight.

Remember Ventress has beaten Kenobi while fighting off Anakin, and even Force choked them both at one time. Doesn't mean she can do that every/any time they fight.

Originally posted by mnat801
(except when Maul gets his new legs). Filoni outright said that the win was due to Obi Wan's swordsmanship and focus, not because it was context specific.

He states how Kenobi has "even more focus" after Gallia dies, is imlying he was extra determined to avenge her. The question is did Maul and Opress have the same kind of focus in that fight? As I remember the fight started with Maul saying something like "No, not yet, I'm not ready."

"THAT fight THAT situation," clearly implies a specific situation.

Filoni also states how in the prior episode how in "THAT fight and THAT situation" Kenobi and Ventress together were going to lose against the same duo.

However it is clear to me Kenobi > Opress.

Agreed. No doubt the circumstances gave him a boost in performance, but not that great a boost. He's still above Opress without them.

Seriously I am not saying that Obi-Wan can do it all the time, just that that showing easily puts him above Savage and perhaps Maul slightly.

Kenobi already proved superiority over both of them.. why would fighting just one of them be even up for discussion? Close for spite

DP
Just have to get you to admit that Kenobi's > Tiin, Kolar, Fisto and most council members

He might be... fractionally. >:]

DP
Mizukage Yoda, THAT duel and THAT situation clearly imply a context specific win. It's not something Kenobi can do anytime, otherwise he wouldn't have got stomped by the brothers in the prior episode, and wouldn't have fought Maul one on one twice without a clear winner both times.

👆

DP
Tempest and Intrepid, Filoni did also denote the win to Kenobi being a "very skilled swordsman." So even though his win was context specific, it was still an awesome feat and showed us Kenobi's skill and clear superiority over Opress.

I didn't dispute that Obi-Wan is "a very skilled swordsman" nor have I contested that Obi-Wan isn't Opress's superior... in experience and skill. In fact, I acknowledged a few posts back that this is a contest of Opress's greater power and ferocity and Obi-Wan's deeper skill and experience.

I comport myself entirely with Filoni's commentary. I do not comport myself with certain individuals' interpretationfabrication of Filoni's commentary.

mnat801
Well after Obi Wan's showings in Revival, it should be easy math.

This isn't math?
Put it another way, if it were math... then Opress should have slaughtered Obi-Wan outright in "Revenge" or "Revival" since Kenobi and the Chosen One combined were inadequate against Savage in "Witches of the Mist."

This is clearly not math, else all fights would be above contextual factors and be unerringly predictable. Your argument defeats itself.

mnat801
Any Star Wars content should be relevant. And you're overcomplicating his commentary. Filoni simply said Obi Wan wins against Maul and Savage. Get over it.

I'm uncertain as to why you're so clearly enraged by my refusal to hop aboard the Obi-Wagon.

mnat801
Well where's your proof stating otherwise? Most would agree that Maul and Obi Wan are pretty even, and Maul > Savage. So even without that fight in Revival, it should still be clear that Obi Wan > Savage.

And if most people decided to jump off a particularly high cliff, would you follow suit? Perhaps? And while there would no doubt be much rejoicing, it wouldn't be especially wise.

This is argumentum ad populum, an appeal to the majority, a fallacy of the highest order.

But, to answer your question:

[list]
[*]Savage embarrassed Anakin & Obi-Wan twice in "Witches of the Mist"
[*]Savage is confirmed to have only grown more powerful
[*]Savage has acquitted himself well against two other Council Masters, Plo Koon & Adi Gallia
[*]Filoni indicates that Obi-Wan's victory is context-specific
[*]Shadow Conspiracy indicates that the confining environment worked to Obi-Wan's advantage and that Obi-Wan fought aggressively because he knew defensive tactics would give him "no hope" of victory
[*]Obi-Wan is unable to beat Maul alone in their first duel in "Revival," but is able to fend both Zabraks off a short time later to such an extent that you all think he'd stomp either. What about that doesn't scream "circumstantial victory," especially since Filoni never hints that Obi-Wan isn't in the right mindset at that point?
[/list]

Six very good reasons to conclude that Obi-Wan will not duplicate those results in a general fight. I see no reason to lie about Filoni's commentary and disregard other evidence simply because some of us wish to furiously masturbate to the character.

Obi-Wan had been knocked out and beaten up in Revival. I highly doubt he was at 100%. Plus Maul used Dun Moch on him.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Obi-Wan had been knocked out and beaten up in Revival. I highly doubt he was at 100%. Plus Maul used Dun Moch on him.

Generally, its best to know what one is talking about before one interjects. The episode you're referencing is Revenge, you moron, not Revival.

Raise your game if you're going to be Captain Contrarian.

Why do people keep saying the victory was context or cicumstances specific. You act as though being more focused or going offensive is context or circumstances when they aren't. Those are all things he can do at the drop of a hat in pretty much every fight he's ever in. Obviously, if he's a mess emotionally... focus might be an issue. Yet, THAT is more an example of context or circumstances than him being focused. Him being focused is something he can do a majority of the time... being emotionally troubled isn't something that has or would happen regularly and would be much more circumstancial than him being focused or fighting offensively.

Obi-Wan appeared to be "focused" going in to the first fight with Maul in "Revival" and is unable to defeat him alone.

It's only after Adi Gallia dies that he snaps and unleashes himself on Opress, interceding and about to kill an unprepared Savage until Maul attacks. That's why Filoni takes care to mention Adi's death as a motivating factor.

I'm not inclined to disregard that simply because you really like Obi-Wan.

That doesn't change the fact that being focused and fighting offensively is something he can do on a regular basis. Him dropping his saber in a pit and having to fight without it is a much better example of context or circumstances. To provide a real world example.... The Ravens decide they need to run the ball and switch up their offensive gameplan for the Steelers. That is something they can do all the time and each and every game. It might not work all the time but they have those options. Just like Kenobi can go offensive or get more focused. A bus crash that takes out the whole offensively line of the Ravens... THAT is an example of circumstances and context that isn't normal or regular and decided the outcome because of it. They are worlds apart.

No one ever said that Obi-Wan would fight "unfocused." That's pretty dumb: isn't he focused in most battles?

But clearly his performance in the second duel in "Revival" owed more to something other than just mere focus... else he would have beaten Maul pretty handily one-on-one in the first duel, in which he appeared to be wholly focused as well.

That, I attribute, to Adi Gallia's death. Not to mention, as I have pointed out, a favorable environment (which I also believe is what explains Savage's excellent performance against Obi-Wan & Anakin in 'Witches of the Mist'😉.

Bereft of these things, Maul's intent to keep Obi-Wan alive, etc. and I don't see Obi-Wan taking these two out on neutral ground.

But that's all I have to say on the subject, since I'm repeating myself unnecessarily. Feel free to disagree.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Generally, its best to know what one is talking about before one interjects. The episode you're referencing is Revenge, you moron, not Revival.

Raise your game if you're going to be Captain Contrarian.

Jeez, cranky much? I made an honest mistake. No need to jump on me for it.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
He clearly can't beat Maul and Opress together every time they fight.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Remember Ventress has beaten Kenobi while fighting off Anakin, and even Force choked them both at one time. Doesn't mean she can do that every/any time they fight.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Filoni also states how in the prior episode how in "THAT fight and THAT situation" Kenobi and Ventress together were going to lose against the same duo.

However it is clear to me Kenobi > Opress.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
This isn't math?
Put it another way, if it were math... then Opress should have slaughtered Obi-Wan outright in "Revenge" or "Revival" since Kenobi and the Chosen One combined were inadequate against Savage in "Witches of the Mist."

This is clearly not math, else all fights would be above contextual factors and be unerringly predictable. Your argument defeats itself.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I'm uncertain as to why you're so clearly enraged by my refusal to hop aboard the Obi-Wagon.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
And if most people decided to jump off a particularly high cliff, would you follow suit? Perhaps? And while there would no doubt be much rejoicing, it wouldn't be especially wise.

This is argumentum ad populum, an appeal to the majority, a fallacy of the highest order.

But, to answer your question:

[list]
[*]Savage embarrassed Anakin & Obi-Wan [b]twice in "Witches of the Mist"
[*]Savage is confirmed to have only grown more powerful
[*]Savage has acquitted himself well against two other Council Masters, Plo Koon & Adi Gallia
[*]Filoni indicates that Obi-Wan's victory is context-specific
[*]Shadow Conspiracy indicates that the confining environment worked to Obi-Wan's advantage and that Obi-Wan fought aggressively because he knew defensive tactics would give him "no hope" of victory
[*]Obi-Wan is unable to beat Maul alone in their first duel in "Revival," but is able to fend both Zabraks off a short time later to such an extent that you all think he'd stomp either. What about that doesn't scream "circumstantial victory," especially since Filoni never hints that Obi-Wan isn't in the right mindset at that point?
[/list]

Six very good reasons to conclude that Obi-Wan will not duplicate those results in a general fight. I see no reason to lie about Filoni's commentary and disregard other evidence simply because some of us wish to furiously masturbate to the character. [/B]

All I'm disagreeing with is anyone denying that Obi Wan didn't win the fight in Revival, that it is unforeseeable that he can do it again, and that Savage can beat Kenobi in a one on one. That being said, I agree Kenobi won't win every rematch.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Jeez, cranky much? I made an honest mistake. No need to jump on me for it.

I can't help the fact that I'm seething with rage.