Originally posted by mnat801
But Kenobi has actually shown that he can defeat the brothers by himself. Where as any feat that Opress has shown over Kenobi & Skywalker were merely feats of gaining the upper hand, not actually defeating them.
Kenobi didint defeat the brothers. He defeated Savage. if ANYTHING it was a win for Maul since he force pushed and knocked Kenobi out.
Savage ragdolled Anakin/Kenobi then was driving them back. He only ran away because of droids intreupting there fight.
In Savage Vs Dooku/Ventress it was THEM that ran away.
So by your logic Savage>Dooku/Ventress if you say Kenobi>Brothers since you mightaswel believe Savage tools both Dooku and Ventress.
Originally posted by ROTJ VaderTechnically yeah, you're right. But practically, Kenobi was clearly beating them and Maul's force attack was a desperation move to avoid being literally defeated right then and there. Plus, Filoni confirmed that the brothers did NOT win that fight.
Kenobi didint defeat the brothers. He defeated Savage. if ANYTHING it was a win for Maul since he force pushed and knocked Kenobi out.
Originally posted by ROTJ VaderYes but that was only the beginning of what could have been a longer fight - if not for the droids - and therefore we cannot assume that Savage was going to win that fight. Heck a better example is when Maul proved to Savage that he was the Master (in Revival), and hence the superior of the two. And because Kenobi is approximately on par with Maul, it should be clear that Kenobi & Skywalker > Opress. Hence the reason why Opress merely gained the upper hand against the duo opposed to the idea that Opress > the duo.
Savage ragdolled Anakin/Kenobi then was driving them back. He only ran away because of droids intreupting there fight.
Originally posted by ROTJ VaderNo that's entirely wrong. Dooku was running away from Ventress & Opress, and Ventress ran after Dooku.
In Savage Vs Dooku/Ventress it was THEM that ran away.
Originally posted by ROTJ VaderYou've got the wrong idea my friend. The difference between Kenobi > Brothers and Savage > Dooku & Ventress is that the brothers practically lost against Kenobi per Filoni and Dooku & Ventress never lost against Savage.
So by your logic Savage>Dooku/Ventress if you say Kenobi>Brothers since you mightaswel believe Savage tools both Dooku and Ventress.
Originally posted by mnat801
Technically yeah, you're right. But practically, Kenobi was clearly beating them and Maul's force attack was a desperation move to avoid being literally defeated right then and there. Plus, Filoni confirmed that the brothers did NOT win that fight.
Specifically, he confirms that it wasn't even a draw. Sam Witwer opined that it was and Filoni contradicted him.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Specifically, he confirms that it wasn't even a draw. Sam Witwer opined that it was and Filoni contradicted him.
Yeah but was the statement "not really," a canon fact or Filoni's opinion/assessment of the situation?
The statement carries on with "You lost your legs again," which was done by the pirates.
Kenobi could have been said to have won because the brothers decided to flee in that situation. But as far as the actual combat went, Maul was not defeated. If anything Kenobi was when he was lying there unarmed and with the wind knocked out of him. Whilst Maul was standing just fine with all him limbs still intact.
But there was the entire situation to consider. Opress being maimed, the pirate situation being unstable e.t.c. Maul even says "Come brother THIS PLAN has failed.."
Originally posted by ares834
This argument might have merit if Savage actually cut one of the Jedi down and if the Jedi weren't shown trying to tackle him.
I'm talking about the second fight where he ragdolled the 2 of them a couple of times. The second time they were both flattened on the floor, along with several destroyer droids.
If that wasn't at least "winning" then I don't know what is. And fact is Maul was never cut, or force slammed anywhere. So if he's said to have been defeated, then I don't see how Anakin and Obi-Wan were not at least BEING defeated in that prior situation.
Besides which Opress clearly battered Obi-Wan in a one on one in the very prior episode to the one where Kenobi fought off both brothers.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
I'm talking about the second fight where he ragdolled the 2 of them a couple of times. The second time they were both flattened on the floor, along with several destroyer droids.If that wasn't at least "winning" then I don't know what is. And fact is Maul was never cut, or force slammed anywhere. So if he's said to have been defeated, then I don't see how Anakin and Obi-Wan were not at least BEING defeated in that prior situation.
He used the force to knock them back. That's it. It's not really winning. By contrast, Maul and Savage fled from Kenobi and Filoni confirms he won.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Besides which Opress clearly battered Obi-Wan in a one on one in the very prior episode to the one where Kenobi fought off both brothers.
Ok... This has to do with what?
Technically yeah, you're right. But practically, Kenobi was clearly beating them and Maul's force attack was a desperation move to avoid being literally defeated right then and there. Plus, Filoni confirmed that the brothers did NOT win that fight.
He beat Savage. And the whole fight was circumstantial. If you count that you mightaswell count Savage Vs Kenobi in Revenge and Savage>Anakin/Kenobi since he beat them twice.
And what did Filoni state?. Quote?.
Yes but that was only the beginning of what could have been a longer fight - if not for the droids - and therefore we cannot assume that Savage was going to win that fight. Heck a better example is when Maul proved to Savage that he was the Master (in Revival), and hence the superior of the two. And because Kenobi is approximately on par with Maul, it should be clear that Kenobi & Skywalker > Opress. Hence the reason why Opress merely gained the upper hand against the duo opposed to the idea that Opress > the duo.
This is why it should be clear the Brothers>>>>>Kenobi. Maul has beat Kenobi 1v1 or stalemated him in all there fights.
Your not getting my point. The point is if you use Kenobi beating the Brothers to say Kenobi>Brothers you have to do the same for Savage. Since NETHER make since.
No that's entirely wrong. Dooku was running away from Ventress & Opress, and Ventress ran after Dooku.
They both fled the battle. Leaving Savage there alone. However vs the Brothers it was Kenobi who was tossed aside, NOT Maul. So if your going to say Brothers>Kenobi you mightaswell say Savage>Dooku/Ventress since NEITHER make anysense!.
You've got the wrong idea my friend. The difference between Kenobi > Brothers and Savage > Dooku & Ventress is that the brothers practically lost against Kenobi per Filoni and Dooku & Ventress never lost against Savage.
The Brothers never lost against Kenobi... Savage did. And that was circumstantial just the same as Dooku/Ventress Vs Savage or Kenobi/Anakin Vs Savage.
Originally posted by ares834
He used the force to knock them back. That's it. It's not really winning.
He flattened them as well.
Originally posted by ares834
By contrast, Maul and Savage fled from Kenobi and Filoni confirms he won.
Maul knocked Kenobi out. How does that equate to Kenobi defeating him in combat.
Originally posted by ares834
Ok... This has to do with what?
Point being if we say Kenobi beat Maul and Opress, then we can also say Opress has beat Kenobi, Maul has beat Kenobi, Maul has stalemated Kenobi, and Opress was beating Kenobi and Skywalker.
And to everyone who keep bringing up Filoni, he never exactly said that Kenobi > Maul and Opress together. He said something like IN THAT FIGHT, IN THAT SITUATION, Kenobi came up as victorious. Which he did in the sense that the Brohters fled, and then they were on the run from the pirates as well.
But no matter what Filoni's words/opinions, fact is Kenobi hasn't beaten Maul in combat since he came back in TCW. Filoni's words/opinions are not > what's shown in TCW show. They are however useful in giving us a better idea of what is happening.
Kenobi at the very least had the wind knocked out of him. And we see him pick up the lightsabers when he gets back up so he was disarmed.
Now exactly how did Kenobi put Maul down/defeat him in any "meaningful" way?
Originally posted by ares834
? I really fail to see the distinction here.
If Opress continued the assault on them after they are flattened, it kind of puts them in a disadvantageous position does it not?
Especially when people are claiming Fisto beat Grievous just because he was on the floor one time. Opress's flattening of Skywalker and Kenobi was more convinving a put down.