Hero of Tython and Lord Scourge vs. ROTS Sidious and ROTS Kenobi

Good to see you're reading along. Do you have a say in this?

Originally posted by Master Han
I'm pretty sure Kenobi isn't the only duelist in history, or even in his time, to have mastered Soresu, yet he's solidly considered to be perhaps its greatest practitioner. The reason here being that he simply has a natural affinity for the form that may very well be beyond what Scourge can accomplish, even with an order of magnitude longer time to train. See Exar Kun vs. Vodo. See Vader vs. Cin Drallig. Or even Palpatine vs. Yoda.

I mean, with respect, if you could somehow study chess for three centuries, I still don't think you would beat Garry Kasparov.

And why is Kenobi arbitrarily the limit to where you can argue with good conscience? Why doesn't the "self evident" logic work equally well against Dooku? And yet again, to save myself from reading a redundant reply, it can't be "because Dooku is more powerful than Obi Wan".

'Perhaps.' Would you consider Kenobi more skilled than Yoda, who's claim to fame is a mastery of all forms, because of his 'natural affinity' with Soresu that Yoda lacks in regards to, say, Ataru? Surely someone with more skills is to be considered more 'skilled'.

And stop bringing up Vodo. Theres no indication that Vodo was a dedicated duelist or honed his skill over the centuries. He fought with a ****ing stick for gods sakes and Kun beat him through simple brute force and immense power, not skill. Likewise Vader is more powerful than Drallig. Palpatine and Yoda are about tied in skill and Yoda beat him regardless.

If I were already a chess master and I did that, **** yes I could.

Because as I said, Kenobi is the lowest Scourge could possibly be at. I don't understand, do you want me to argue him as being higher? Or is this just another rant about it being 'arbitrary'?

Originally posted by Nephthys
'Perhaps.' Would you consider Kenobi more skilled than Yoda, who's claim to fame is a mastery of all forms, because of his 'natural affinity' with Soresu that Yoda lacks in regards to, say, Ataru? Surely someone with more skills is to be considered more 'skilled'.

No, Yoda's explicitly stated to be a prodigious swordsman who is above Obi Wan (and anyone else in the prequels).

And stop bringing up Vodo. Theres no indication that Vodo was a dedicated duelist or honed his skill over the centuries. He fought with a ****ing stick for gods sakes and Kun beat him through simple brute force and immense power, not skill.

Vodo is described as having "the skill of long experience". If he had studied dueling for even 5% of his Jedi career, you'd imagine that he'd be able to give Exar Kun a good fight. You'd be wrong.

If I were already a chess master and I did that, **** yes I could.

Actually...that's debatable. Short of advancing computer technology to decode all of Garry's moves and playing styles.

Because as I said, Kenobi is the lowest Scourge could possibly be at. I don't understand, do you want me to argue him as being higher? Or is this just another rant about it being 'arbitrary'?

Careful, you're responding to my request for proof of your contention by restating your contention.

Originally posted by Master Han
No, Yoda's explicitly stated to be a prodigious swordsman who is [b]above Obi Wan (and anyone else in the prequels).[/b]

Ignoring that, if all we knew of Yoda's skill was having complete mastery of all forms, would you place him below or above Kenobi?

(This is an example. Answer the example instead of weasling out of it by going 'well yoda beat dooku' or stuff)

Originally posted by Master Han
Vodo is described as having "the skill of long experience". If he had studied dueling for even 5% of his Jedi career, you'd imagine that he'd be able to give Exar Kun a good fight. You'd be wrong.

As I said, Exar Kun beat him through brute force and power, not skill. Also he did give him a good fight.

Originally posted by Master Han
Actually...that's debatable. Short of advancing computer technology to decode all of Garry's moves and playing styles.

Nah, I could win.

Originally posted by Master Han
Careful, you're responding to my request for proof of your contention by [b]restating your contention. [/B]

No I'm not, I'm restating an argument I've already made, which is that in the space of 300 years, the absolute minimum Scourges skills could have improved would have been up to Kenobi's level based upon his already demonstrated rate of growth.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Ignoring that, if all we knew of Yoda's skill was having complete mastery of all forms, would you place him below or above Kenobi?

I'd label him an unknown and cite forum policy, since we know from just this information not his age or position, nor do we possess any feats or accolades beyond "complete" mastery of "all" forms.

The ambiguous word "complete" aside, however, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd put this conditional Yoda below Obi wan, in that, based on his known abilities, he's probably inferior to Kenobi.

Now before you jump on me and declare victory by pointing out that my logic must fail because Yoda is certainly above Obi Wan, note that the Yoda we know is only one of a wide spectrum of possible "Yoda's" that could exist within the parameters of your description. Cin Drallig would qualify as well, and he's not on RotS Obi Wan's level. Magnaguards are programmed with knowledge of all 7 lightsaber forms, but Obi Wan easily defeats them in pairs.

As I said, Exar Kun beat him through brute force and power, not skill. Also he did give him a good fight.

Are you suggesting that Vodo was more skilled than Exar Kun?

Nah, I could win.

In all seriousness, no, you could not, not unless if you were already a high tier grandmaster. Scourge as of Revan would be analogous to a talented and respectable chess master who would nonetheless not take away any wins against Obi Wan.

Now; Yoda, after 8 centuries of studying the Force, could not defeat the Palpatine we see in Dark Empire, possibly not even if he were in his physical prime.

No I'm not, I'm restating an argument I've already made, which is that in the space of 300 years, the absolute minimum Scourges skills could have improved would have been up to Kenobi's level based upon his already demonstrated rate of growth.

And I'm asking you to prove that your argument is true, since it is founded on the assumption that 300 years would bridge the gap between Scourge and Kenobi. Your response has been to...just declare that it would bridge the gap, because you say-so.

I'm not asking for proof of your overarching argument, but rather your sub-contention that 300 years + Revan Scourge > Obi Wan. You sound like:

You: in the space of 300 years, the absolute minimum Scourges skills could have improved would have been up to Kenobi's level based upon his already demonstrated rate of growth.
Me: Prove it.
You: in the space of 300 years, the absolute minimum Scourges skills could have improved would have been up to Kenobi's level based upon his already demonstrated rate of growth.