Originally posted by mnat801
No, its not going to be close. You seem to be forgetting Fisto was raped by Sidious, where as Maul put up a good fight against him, and Kenobi is relatively on par with Maul.
Unless you can name a time when Sidious actually took Maul seriously and actually tried killing him, then don't bring it up.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
Why people use Maul's fight with Sidious as an example of his skill is beyond me, considering his other feats.
Right. They ignore context of fights.
It's almot like saying Barriss Offee is almost an equal to Anakin. No, just no. When we consider Anakin's other feats we definitely know that if he were to put his full might into it, he would wreck Barriss, even in a pure saber match.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66It's almot like saying Barriss Offee is almost an equal to Anakin. No, just no. When we consider Anakin's other feats we definitely know that if he were to put his full might into it, he would wreck Barriss, even in a pure saber match.
What a stupid comparison:
1. Anakin still has something Sidious doesn't: Jedi Restraint, confirmed in the ROTS NOvel.
2. The official site makes it perfectly clear that Barriss and Anakin were not "near equals" in that fight.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Anakin was visibly pissed and all the website says is that Barriss "defends herself fiercely" but is ultimately beaten by Anakin.A moderately talented Padawan is no match for the Chosen One, so I think we can chalk it up to PIS. But taken without context and literally, she did give him hell.
It also notes her fleeing from him. She obviously put up a decent fight but I personally think the description(and the fight itself) makes it clear they were not equals.
Also she shouldn't be a Padawan at that point as she was Knighted in the CW Mini. Which obviously must have been before she turned to the dark side. Unless that's been retconned.
As usual, DP makes some great points. Since Sidious is not a jedi, we can't count his unwillingness to kill Maul as "jedi restraint," but I wonder if we can call it "sith restraint?" After all, restraint is restraint, right? No?
Also, Barriss gave Anakin far more of a struggle than the brothers gave Sidious, so I guess it isn't the best comparison. But I figured most would get the point though.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
As usual, DP makes some great points. Since Sidious is not a jedi, we can't count his unwillingness to kill Maul as "jedi restraint," but I wonder if we can call it "sith restraint?" After all, restraint is restraint, right? No?
First I've heard of Sith restraint. Nice try though.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Also, Barriss gave Anakin far more of a struggle than the brothers gave Sidious, so I guess it isn't the best comparison. But I figured most would get the point though.
You've not really made a point. What's the context of the Barriss fight that put the odds against Skywalker? And how is it at all comparable to the Sidious fight?
Your AOTC Dooku vs Kenobi you've used in the past is a much better example. I'd stick to that one if I was you.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
It also notes her fleeing from him.
Sidious and Yoda each fled from the other, but their fight wasn't entirely lopsided.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
She obviously put up a decent fight but I personally think the description(and the fight itself) makes it clear they were not equals.Also she shouldn't be a Padawan at that point as she was Knighted in the CW Mini. Which obviously must have been before she turned to the dark side. Unless that's been retconned.
It's probably been retconned, since the website refers to her as a "Padawan" in that very episode (slide 15).
Either way, we agree in that Barriss is no match for Anakin given her modest rank, station, and utter lack of accolade versus Anakin, the quintessential prodigy. Her performance was clearly an outlier and Anakin's rage, in that context, may have hindered him as much as helped.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
First I've heard of Sith restraint. Nice try though.You've not really made a point. What's the context of the Barriss fight that put the odds against Skywalker? And how is it at all comparable to the Sidious fight?
Your AOTC Dooku vs Kenobi you've used in the past is a much better example. I'd stick to that one if I was you.
Anakin wasn't trying to kill Barriss, whereas Barriss was using her full might and actually trying to kill Anakin; Palpatine wasn't trying to kill Maul, whereas Maul was using his full might ('rage-mode'😉 and actually trying to kill Sidious. The only notable difference between those two fights is, Barriss gave Anakin far more of a struggle than Maul (even with the help of Savage) gave Sidious, which is irrelevant to my argument, other than it makes Sidious look that much better than the characters you prefer.
Point you're missing: restraint is restraint regardless of whether it's a rule or an option.
That's true, but I never count restraint for a Jedi as them holding back because they're trained to do so. When a Sith tries not to kill, they purposely restrain themselves from what they usually try to do: When a Jedi tries not to kill, they're doing what they've been trained to do, ie they're not restraining themselves.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Anakin wasn't trying to kill Barriss, whereas Barriss was using her full might and actually trying to kill Anakin; Palpatine wasn't trying to kill Maul, whereas Maul was using his full might ('rage-mode'😉 and actually trying to kill Sidious. The only notable difference between those two fights is, Barriss gave Anakin far more of a struggle than Maul (even with the help of Savage) gave Sidious, which is irrelevant to my argument, other than it makes Sidious look that much better than the characters you prefer.Point you're missing: restraint is restraint regardless of whether it's a rule or an option.
Not killing will restrict you to a certain degree, but as long as your willing to chop off limbs and/or cut your opponent you can still let loose(mostly).
And lets not pretend Sidious desperately required Maul alive like Anakin desperately needed Barriss alive.
Sidious's primary objective was to "Destroy his Rival".. Keeping him alive was no more than a secondary objective.
And whose claiming Barriss is some noob anyway? Ventress specifically mentions that hardly anyone can sneek up on her the way Barriss did. And she also battered Ashoka whose held her own against Grievous.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Not killing will restrict you to a certain degree, but as long as your willing to chop off limbs and/or cut your opponent you can still let loose(mostly).And lets not pretend Sidious desperately required Maul alive like Anakin desperately needed Barriss alive.
Sidious's primary objective was to "Destroy his Rival".. Keeping him alive was no more than a secondary objective.
And whose claiming Barriss is some noob anyway? Ventress specifically mentions that hardly anyone can sneek up on her the way Barriss did. And she also battered Ashoka whose held her own against Grievous.
Originally posted by mnat801
Well that comes down to interpretation. But whether you like it or not, Maul did considerably well against Sidious in comparison to Fisto.
I always hate it when people say how Fisto was PWNed by Sidious. in the movie they made it that way but in reality in the book, Fisto fought for a long time that when anakin came to the building the book said he saw three lightsaber lights from the window: a green one of Fisto, a purple of Mace, and a red of Sidious. Although Maul did very well against Sidious which impressed me, Fisto did not do bad either and I dont think it can be used as a way of comparing Fisto and Obi Wan.
Originally posted by Arab Jedi
I always hate it when people say how Fisto was PWNed by Sidious. in the movie they made it that way but in reality in the book, Fisto fought for a long time that when anakin came to the building the book said he saw three lightsaber lights from the window: a green one of Fisto, a purple of Mace, and a red of Sidious. Although Maul did very well against Sidious which impressed me, Fisto did not do bad either and I dont think it can be used as a way of comparing Fisto and Obi Wan.
Well he lasted 5 seconds, which is impressive against Sidious tbh. But I do not believe he is Kenobi's equal. Fisto's done nothing to suggest he could dublicate Kenobi's high end feats.
He has however shown he can perform better than Kenobi's lower showings, and probably relatively on par with his average showings.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Well he lasted 5 seconds, which is impressive against Sidious tbh. But I do not believe he is Kenobi's equal. Fisto's done nothing to suggest he could dublicate Kenobi's high end feats.He has however shown he can perform better than Kenobi's lower showings, and probably relatively on par with his average showings.
Thats the thing though, Fisto lasted longer than 5 seconds. He lasted minutes against Sidious according to the novel. I personally believe that Fisto is on par with Kenobi on the terms of saber dueling especially since Kenobi has shown that he is not a consistant fighter. However, Kenobi does have more experience and seems to be better at one on one dueling. I think it is safe to say that ROTS Kenobi vs ROTS Fisto will probably end in Kenobi winning maybe 6/10.
Originally posted by Arab Jedi
Thats the thing though, Fisto lasted longer than 5 seconds. He lasted minutes against Sidious according to the novel.
I don't remember Fisto even fighting as long as you claim in the novel.
Not that it matters because the movie is the final canon, not the novel.
Originally posted by Arab Jedi
I personally believe that Fisto is on par with Kenobi on the terms of saber dueling especially since Kenobi has shown that he is not a consistant fighter. However, Kenobi does have more experience and seems to be better at one on one dueling. I think it is safe to say that ROTS Kenobi vs ROTS Fisto will probably end in Kenobi winning maybe 6/10.
If we're going by average showings, then yeah I agree with you. But if we go by high end feats then Fisto really has very little chance against Kenobi.