Originally posted by Intrepid37
Ventress, against a blinded Luminara Unduli, fails to get any sort of advantage.
She didn't start the fight blind. Ventress blinded her. And later even with Ashoka's help the 2 of them failed to gain any sort of advantage over Ventress.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
Fisto, as far as I know, in comparison to Unduli, is more skilled and faster, and has more accolades regarding skill.
Speculation.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
It's not.
Because your in denial. Ventress actually beat Grievous. Fisto did not. Ventress also did so in a shorter time.
Same with ROTS Kenobi, which according to Dave Filoni was the first time Kenobi properly got to engage Grievous in a one on one without other factors involved.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
Kenobi never defeated him in RotS either.
Kenobi never defeated Grievous in ROTS? Have you completely lost it?
Even if your talking up to the point where he force pushed him, Kenobi left him with 2 chopped off arms, sent him flying like 50 feet, disarmed him of his other weapons then had him running for his life.
How is it (even up to that point) not a defeat?
If I were you I would take that claim back, because it's one of the most silly ones I've read here in a while.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
And, in that span of 30 seconds, she never gained any noticeable advantage except when she disarmed him: in fact, Grievous got a hit in, as he did on Kenobi. Never did on Kit.
What does that matter when he still didn't defeat Grievous in a longer time span and with the aid of a Force Push?
Originally posted by Intrepid37
We've also seen the least convincing saber defeats of Grievous from Kenobi.
Not without other factors involved. I would like to see Fisto take on Grievous in an enclosed space against Magnaguards as well and still have Grievous running.
Originally posted by Intrepid37Was it? Neither gained a hit until Ventress did with a kick to Kit's jaw; it's hardly convincing- in fact, it shows parity, and need I remind you of all Ventress's advantages in the fight?
LOL So kicks don't count now. Ventress kicking Fisto to the floor and having him at her mercy is supposed to be Kit showing parity?
Originally posted by Intrepid37This is pointless. There's nothing suggesting Fisto can't compete with Opress and Maul; in fact, since his victory over Grievous is comparable to Kenobi's- and Kenobi can hold his own against each of the brothers- it suggest exactly that Kit can compete with them.
No your argument is pointless and getting tiring. Since when does defeating Grievous amount to being on par with Ventress, Opress and Maul?
Especially since Ventress has herself defeated Fisto, and has beaten Grievous in less time than Fisto could. And especially since Dave Filoni outright confirmed Opress performed better against Sidious than Fisto did.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
LOL. Kit's performance against Grievous is better than Kenobi's average performance against Grievous. 😐
Which is why if you paid attention before you started arguing you would have realised that I said Fisto has not shown he can compete with Kenobi's "Higher End Showings."
I even admitted average showings they do compare. But even that doesn't make them equals on an average basis.
You know, the statement says only that: he did better in that situation.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
Why are you wasting my time quoting me when you didn't read my post?
😆
Originally posted by Intrepid37
And the same would apply for Kit then, no?
This is another laughable argument. What we're just supposed to assume Fisto became more powerful through TCW to the extent that he can compete with Darth frigging Maul, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Ventress has been flat out confirmed to have become substantially more powerful. Opress has been stated to have become more powerful. Maul has been stated to have become more powerful. But Fisto has not.
Even if Fisto has improved, he lost to Ventress initially, so there's absolutely no reason to believe he would do any better against a more powerful Ventress.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
You know, the statement says only that: he did better in that situation.
No he didn't say "IN THAT SITUATION." That was in reference to Kenobi's fights. Stop making things up. The statement is in "The Lawless" featurette on the official website. Go look it up instead of making it up.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Because your in denial. Ventress actually beat Grievous. Fisto did not. Ventress also did so in a shorter time.
Fisto's performance was better than Ventress's.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Same with ROTS Kenobi, which according to Dave Filoni was the first time Kenobi properly got to engage Grievous in a one on one without other factors involved.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Kenobi never defeated Grievous in ROTS? Have you completely lost it?Even if your talking up to the point where he force pushed him, Kenobi left him with 2 chopped off arms, sent him flying like 50 feet, disarmed him of his other weapons then had him running for his life.
How is it (even up to that point) not a defeat?
If I were you I would take that claim back, because it's one of the most silly ones I've read here in a while.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
What does that matter when he still didn't defeat Grievous in a longer time span and with the aid of a Force Push?
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Not without other factors involved. I would like to see Fisto take on Grievous in an enclosed space against Magnaguards as well and still have Grievous running.
Grievous shitstomped Kenobi before he got Force pushes away.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
LOL So kicks don't count now. Ventress kicking Fisto to the floor and having him at her mercy is supposed to be Kit showing parity?
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
No your argument is pointless and getting tiring. Since when does defeating Grievous amount to being on par with Ventress, Opress and Maul?
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Especially since Ventress has herself defeated Fisto,
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
and has beaten Grievous in less time than Fisto could.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
And especially since Dave Filoni outright confirmed Opress performed better against Sidious than Fisto did.
Your logic is lacking.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I even admitted average showings they do compare.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Well first the difference is quite clear:Fisto resorted to a Force push, and still never actually defeated Grievous in the fight we saw lasting 40 seconds as you've pointed out.
Whilst Ventress in pure Saber combat completely defeats Grievous in 30 seconds flat.
And Kenobi in 35 seconds has cut off 2 of Grievous's arms. That's the most convincing Saber defeat we've seen against the General.
Lastly Ventress's defeat over Fisto was a convincing one. And we know as a fact that was a less powerful Ventress.
So now prove ROTS Fisto was more powerful than the one who faced Ventress, and prove he is on par with the likes of Late CW Ventress, Opress and Maul. Because taking 40 seconds to be on the winning side against Grievous with a combination of Sabers + Force push just doesn't cut it with the bigger leagues like Maul + Opress.
Whats even more damning evidence is that Filoni basically has flat out said that Opress's performance was better against the same foe- Sidious.
So where's this imaginary evidence that Fisto is in the same league as Ventress/Opress? Never mind Maul.
Kenobi and Grievous have fought MANY times and Grievous always gets the upper hand in mere seconds. Grievous has fought Ventress before when they first met and he beat here in seconds with only two lightsabers. Fisto on Grievous's own homeworld gained an upper hand on Grievous in seconds.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
This is another laughable argument. What we're just supposed to assume Fisto became more powerful through TCW
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
to the extent that he can compete with Darth frigging Maul, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Ventress has been flat out confirmed to have become substantially more powerful.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Opress has been stated to have become more powerful. Maul has been stated to have become more powerful. But Fisto has not.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Even if Fisto has improved, he lost to Ventress initially, so there's absolutely no reason to believe he would do any better against a more powerful Ventress.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
No he didn't say "IN THAT SITUATION." That was in reference to Kenobi's fights. Stop making things up. The statement is in "The Lawless" featurette on the official website. Go look it up instead of making it up.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
''Utterly''?The text specifically notes that she only pierced his guard once, and this was Kit with huge disadvantages. If she'd been so-so superior, she'd been getting more than one hit in.
The "one hit" she got in won here the duel...
Originally posted by Intrepid37
Kit, unlike Ventress, didn't get kicked, and, unlike Ventress, was forcing Grievous backwards. Same can't be said for Ventress, so no, it's hardly disparity.
And Ventress, unlike, Kit actually beat Grievous, that's far better than merely driving him back.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
@[b]AresIn what way did Ventress win her fight with Grievous that Fisto didn't? Was it because Grievous ended up on the ground, or because he relied on help? Because those same exact things happened to/for Grievous during his battle with Fisto, except Grievous couldn't land any hits on Fisto like he did with Ventress. And unlike Fisto, Ventress was clearly frustrated and was visibly putting effort in defeating Grievous, whereas Fisto was much more calm and collect and seemingly taunting him, which seemed to suggest that he didn't actually find Grievous as much of a threat, IMO. Also, as Intrepid has also pointed out, Ventress's duel with Grievous was on her turf, Dathomir, which is radiated with the dark side, which might explain why she took him down in such a short period of time. Either way, Ventress didn't do much better than Fisto did, other than her duel with Grievous was quicker. [/B]
Because Ventress had Grievous at her mercy. He was defenseless against her next attack.
Originally posted by ares834
The "one hit" she got in won here the duel...
Originally posted by ares834
And Ventress, unlike, Kit actually beat Grievous, that's far better than merely driving him back.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
Which I never denied. I'm merely saying that the fight was circumstancial and, even then, it wasn't a stomp; in fact, while Ventress and Kit were fighting, Kenobi's enemies ''came on and on'': that neither got a hit on one another for a decent amount of time certainly shows parity.
Not really. The Luke vs Vader fight in ESB goes on for a decent amount of time with only Luke getting a hit in, yet you wouldn't say they were equal or that Luke was superior.
No, I'd say Vader would be superior, since he got far more hits in.
By the way, I'm pretty sure Fightsaber notes that in ESB, Luke and Vader were equals. I'll look it up.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
Wait did intrepid say let's not pretend that Mace is above the brothers... WTF... He IS above the brothers and very clearly so.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
Sure, if it wasn't for Kit using five seconds starring at him.
😬
He knocked Grievous down. That's it. Grievous was still armed and could still attack/defend as we see during the rest of the duel.
By contrast, Ventress had Grievous defenseless and at her mercy.
Then, of course, Ventress already showed she was superior to Fisto by beating him.
I ended this argument like three threads ago; why do you all insist on defiling its corpse?
Kit and Obi-Wan are of similar rank and pedigree. The true outliers of the order (Yoda, Mace, Anakin) are noted by narration. Assuming Kit is the lesser (and to any significant degree) simply because of paltry exposure defies reason when his few feats rival Obi-Wan's. Might Obi-Wan be superior? Sure. But is it likely to a ridiculous degree? No. The implication that Obi-Wan would "pwn" Kit is baseless.