Originally posted by Nephthys
Tempest got ares confused with Beefy, lol.
No I didn't. I'm just testing him to see if I can trap him elsewhere with inconsistency. And also gauging the nature of his logic. He says Sidious and Yoda would stalemate elsewhere despite his apparent belief that Sidious won the duel in the Rotunda. So clearly he believes that the outcome of one particular battle won't always replicate itself in the context of another. So we're roughly on the same page.
Originally posted by ROTJ VaderIf you consider that fight circumstantial, I could call almost every lightsaber duel in star wars circumstantial. Plus if Kenobi can outduel the brothers in a 2 on 1 situation, I find it difficult to believe that circumstances were the only reason why Kenobi was able to perform such a feat. Where as in Revenge Savage attacked Kenobi from behind, so how can you claim Savage > Kenobi from that?
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.
Originally posted by ROTJ VaderMaul has never defeated Kenobi. And as Darth Power pointed out, there was a moment in Revenge where Kenobi could have killed Maul, but at the expense of Asajj dying (Kenobi had a thing for Asajj I think). The only time Maul > Kenobi was in TPM when Kenobi was a padawan.
This is why it should be clear the Brothers>>>>>Kenobi. Maul has beat Kenobi 1v1 or stalemated him in all there fights.
Originally posted by ROTJ VaderOkay I get your point. But I don't have to do the same for Savage because Savage never beat Kenobi & Skywalker.
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.
Originally posted by ROTJ VaderOkay, Kenobi isn't > the brothers. But after his showings in Revival, Kenobi can certainly beat them again. And at least one thing is clear, Kenobi > Opress.
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!.
Originally posted by ROTJ VaderThe difference is that Savage was defeated by Kenobi while Kenobi was fighting Maul. So in a sense, this fight supports the idea that Kenobi is greater than Maul.
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.
If you consider that fight circumstantial, I could call almost every lightsaber duel in star wars circumstantial. Plus if Kenobi can outduel the brothers in a 2 on 1 situation, I find it difficult to believe that circumstances were the only reason why Kenobi was able to perform such a feat. Where as in Revenge Savage attacked Kenobi from behind, so how can you claim Savage > Kenobi from that?
It was circumstantial. The cave was such a small area that it was impossible for the brothers to move around and Savage was getting in the way of Maul. So it IS circumstantial. Note that before that fight Kenobi says to Hondo "there to powerful Hondo". If it was a flat ground Maul/Savage would destroy Kenobi.
Maul has never defeated Kenobi. And as Darth Power pointed out, there was a moment in Revenge where Kenobi could have killed Maul, but at the expense of Asajj dying (Kenobi had a thing for Asajj I think). The only time Maul > Kenobi was in TPM when Kenobi was a padawan
He got tooled badly in Revenge. At first the fight was even(proabably because Maul wasint in good shape and had just been revived so he was rusty, cancelling out Kenobi being injured). But as the fight progressed Maul wooped ass. Kenobi had to run because he couldint overcome Maul.
Okay I get your point. But I don't have to do the same for Savage because Savage never beat Kenobi & Skywalker.
Kenobi never did ether. He beat Savage. NOT Maul. And I would consider Kenobi running away a victory for Maul, lets be real.
Okay, Kenobi isn't > the brothers. But after his showings in Revival, Kenobi can certainly beat them again. And at least one thing is clear, Kenobi > Opress.
I doubt that anyone besides Sidious/Yoda can beat the Brothers for a majority.
The difference is that Savage was defeated by Kenobi while Kenobi was fighting Maul. So in a sense, this fight supports the idea that Kenobi is greater than Maul.
No. Maul has proven himself a equal in saber combat to Kenobi and far superior with the force. Maul would beat him for a very large majority.
Originally posted by mnat801
The difference is that Savage was defeated by Kenobi while Kenobi was fighting Maul. So in a sense, this fight supports the idea that Kenobi is greater than Maul.
Not really. That's like saying since Ventress beat Kenobi once while fighting off Skywalker, then that makes Ventress > Skywalker.
Opress losing his arm was his own fault. Not Maul's who actually tossed Kenobi around twice in that fight, and never once got put on his ass himself.
Originally posted by ROTJ VaderI doubt that anyone besides Sidious/Yoda can beat the Brothers for a majority.
👆
Originally posted by ROTJ Vader
No. Maul has proven himself a equal in saber combat to Kenobi and far superior with the force. Maul would beat him for a very large majority.
I wouldn't go that far. Their one on one fight in Revival seemed pretty even. Of course you could argue that at some point Maul would start to use force attacks to get the win. But I'd still only say slight majority tbh, considering Kenobi took all the attacks off Sith Anakin and still came out on top.
Originally posted by mnat801
Maul has never defeated Kenobi. And as Darth Power pointed out, there was a moment in Revenge where Kenobi could have killed Maul, but at the expense of Asajj dying (Kenobi had a thing for Asajj I think). The only time Maul > Kenobi was in TPM when Kenobi was a padawan.
Yes, he did. Read "The Sith Hunters". Kenobi and Maul are about equal with sabers, but Mauls is superior force user.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Opress losing his arm was his own fault. Not Maul's who actually tossed Kenobi around twice in that fight, and never once got put on his ass himself.
Couldn't agree more.
Originally posted by mnat801Maul has never defeated Kenobi.
Originally posted by Zett
Yes, he did. Read "The Sith Hunters". Kenobi and Maul are about equal with sabers, but Mauls is superior force user.
Zett's right. Maul has defeated Kenobi in "Revenge" and in "Sith Hunters." Yes the "Revenge" fight was circumstantial, but you can't say Maul has never defeated Kenobi, because he clearly has.
And Yes Maul fled in Revival, but it's not like he fled because Kenobi force choked him, or because Kenobi put him on his ass one too many times. On the contrary it was Maul who left Kenobi dazed, on his ass and weapons out of his hands.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Not really. That's like saying since Ventress beat Kenobi once while fighting off Skywalker, then that makes Ventress > Skywalker.Opress losing his arm was his own fault. Not Maul's who actually tossed Kenobi around twice in that fight, and never once got put on his ass himself.
Originally posted by Vensai
Not sure what else Opress could have done to prevent that disarming.
And for the record, Maul got kicked at least once in that fight that forced him to his knees.
I'll have to watch it again, but I don't remember Maul being hurt. All those kicks were doing were keeping him away from Kenobi.
^ Also those huge legs were not helping him in that cramped space. Maul and Obi-Wan's prior engagement in the same episode is the better fight to view how the 2 compare to each other Imo.
And lets face it they were pretty even without Force TK coming into play.
But lets not take a peak performance as the norm, otherwise Ventress > Skywalker and Kenobi going by the episodes "Nightsisters." Or she's at the very least >> Kenobi.
The fight wasn't circumstancial at all.. The only people that would even say such a thing have obviously NEVER BEEN IN A REAL FIGHT IN THEIR LIFE. If you're being attacked by more than one person.. the LAST thing you want is to be trapped in a confined space. you want to be able to retreat when need be and then engage.. retreat and then start again.. You never ever... want to be in an enclosed tight space. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There was no circumstances to that fight besides Kenobi winning and being pissed about his friend being killed.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
He clearly dominated Obi-Wan in TPM. Shouldn't be too hard to see even forobi-wan fanboysyou.
Funny how he dominated him and ended up being killed by a PADAWAN kenobi. The novel makes it clear yes Maul was gaining the advantage near the end... BUT... before that Kenobi had him on the ropes with his rage and speed of attack and even DISARMED him of half of his saber. Let's not act like maul dominated the whole fight. in fact, let's not forget he was literally cut in half after being on LOWER GROUND AND WITH NO WEAPON. He was essentially treated like a weak feeb if we go by how much of a difference higher ground makes. Maul was tooled.