Maul did have the physical and long time "out of combat" disadvantages the first time. And he seemed to not be in the right mind set the second time "No, not yet, I'm not ready"
But Kenobi had the disadvantage of "not being in the right mind set" the first time. And the Big disadvantage of being out numbered the second.
It seems to me TCW has been making Kenobi and Maul out to be peers. Whilst it's also been making Anakin and Dooku peers (sort of).
Originally posted by DARTH POWERKenobi was ready to fight Maul, which he wasn't even sure was real yet, not Savage. But yeah, he should have been prepared for the worst case scenario, but still, its an unfair fight to judge on. Its sort of similar to Vader killing Sids, he should of been aware of Vader, but we know Sidious > Vader.
It was a fight, just not a very long one.Kenobi was ready to fight, and he had time to acknowledge Opress was there before he attacked him.
I'm not saying that's what would normally happen, but it did happen that time.
Kenobi should have been prepared for some one else, or some kind of surprise attack as he was warned by Mace that it was obvious he would be walking into a trap.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERWell that's where the right mindset comes into play. Plus he was prepared for it, and I don't see those slavers as a threat compared to Maul.
Not necessarily. In the Slave arc he allowed himself to get beaten up in combat to buy Anakin some time. But when he stopped he was perfectly fine to stomp his opponent and all the droids.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERSure, but that was in the middle of the fight, not before it.
Heck Padawan Luke took a much worse beating from Vader in ESB, and yet got back up and gave him a better fight later even hitting Vader's shoulder.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERAnd that's why I'm not declaring Kenobi's superiority over Maul in any of the battles.
Maul was definitely with the greater disadvantages at that time Imho, having been out of action for 10+years and just getting new monster legs he had yet to adjust to.
Originally posted by DARTH POWEROk I guess that's a fair comment.
Kenobi was a lot smaller than the brothers. We clearly saw he could maneuver just fine with all the flips and somersaults.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERThe first time where its just Kenobi vs Maul & Savage - after Gallia dies. The pirates happen afterwards.
I don't get what first time your talking about.The first 2 times he faced Opress with help and was tossed around with the Force.
The next time Opress disarmed him in Lightsaber combat quite quickly.
The next 2 times he fought Maul One on One with no clear winner each time.
Then after Adi died he tried engaging both brothers but was clearly being driven back and he fled.
It was the 7th time he engaged the brothers that he defeated them. But even then the defeat of Maul was with the aid of pirates.
Originally posted by DARTH POWERI think I agree with you on this one. Although I think that Peak Kenobi > or < Peak Maul can be up for opinion. And correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past I believe you agreed that Kenobi = Anakin roughly, so wouldn't that make Maul > Anakin?
But yeah I still do agree it was a great showing that finally showed us what Kenobi is capable of.But then I'd say Maul's best showing was probably his final lightsaber fight with Sidious. I doubt Peak Kenobi was > Peak Maul. That added to their 2 one on ones which both seemed able to go either way, is why I say Maul and Kenobi seem to be peers.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
No you missed my point completely. Your saying Obi-Wan beat them once, so he beats them every time.I'm saying(using your logic) that Maul was beating him in Revenge, therefore Maul wins everytime.
Opress stomped Kenobi in Revenge, therefore Opress stomps Kenobi everytime.
When Kenobi and Maul were stalemating Maul was driving Kenobi back the whole time, whilst Kenobi was using his defensive style to just survive. This also explains why Kenobi eventually ran away in Revenge.
So clearly the only win of Kenobi's was a circumstantial one-off. The brothers only lost because they were caught by surprise by Kenobi's offensive. Plus the cramped space made it difficult for the 2 giants to maneuver properly.
Also Kenobi is yet to have a convincing victory over Maul, considering Kenobi's 1 "Win" ended with Maul just fine, and Kenobi knocked out.
Maul was on the run from Kenobi +pirates. It was pirates who shot off his legs. Therefore Maul only lost to Kenobi + Pirates.
See how making up our own explanations work both ways KT 🙂
It was made clear in revenge Kenobi wasn't in the right frame of mind and not a 100% why are you using this as any kinda of proof of anything? Now, this is in stark contrast to their last fight.. where ALL parties were said to be at 100% and just fine. In one situation we're using a fight with all parties just fine... you're trying to use a fight where one party was CLEARLY stated not to be up to par. The weight of evidence isn't nearly the same.
Kenobi is more powerful as well as time has gone on.. so that isn't a relevant point at all. Those cancel eachother out. What we are left with is weaker versions of both but being in the right frame of mind and kenobi taking out both of them. The other fight is kenobi not being in the right frame of mind and losing. Those are the facts.
They don't to be stated to be at 100% Temptest since there weren't stated to be anything wrong with them. Unless of course you're trying to get me to prove a negative, in which case, you should know that is a fallacy and requires to proving. They didn't have anything stated or hinted at that they weren't 100% thus we assume they were just fine.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
Yeah? Prove that Kenobi grew between the Season 4 final Season 5. Also, Maul was not in the right mindset either, so there's that.
You haven't seen Kenobi progressively improve his combat performance in the many fights he's had? Are you even watching the seasons or just arguing to argue? Are you really suggesting Kenobi hasn't improved from season to season?
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
They don't to be stated to be at 100% Temptest since there weren't stated to be anything wrong with them. Unless of course you're trying to get me to prove a negative, in which case, you should know that is a fallacy and requires to proving. They didn't have anything stated or hinted at that they weren't 100% thus we assume they were just fine.