Its not trolling Luminara's mastery of Soresu was compared to Dookus mastery of Makashi. She was a consummate master of the style, but Im not expecting you to post a logical argument as opposed to making snide comments. An argument can be made for Malak winning, its just you're not capable of doing that
Malak struggled to defeat Mandalorians, and apart from getting trashed by Revan has nothing on Luminara as a duelist
Originally posted by carthage
Prove Malak can win then
Your obviously trolling, but I'll step to the stage in Ant's place and Defend Malak.
First Off
He's soundly frozen both Carth Onasi and Bastila Shan -a highly powerful young jedi, with Force Stasis
Bested Revan on the Leviathan and completely decimated Bastila to the point where she was in no shape to resist capture.
He's a powerful Sith Lord counted among the best.
"Many of the most powerful, terrifying, and notorious Sith Lords through history have been Human or near-Human, including Exar Kun, Darth Malak, Darth Bane, Darth Sidious, Darth Vader, and Darth Krayt."
―Behind the Threat: The Sith.
Malak would defeat Luminara in the same way Ventress did it.
Its not trolling Luminara's mastery of Soresu was compared to Dookus mastery of Makashi. She was a consummate master of the style, but Im not expecting you to post a logical argument as opposed to making snide comments. An argument can be made for Malak winning, its just you're not capable of doing that
Sure she was a master, yet she had a very bad showing against Season 1 Ventress, and you could argue she was injured, but her force senses would obviously work to compensate
Malak struggled to defeat Mandalorians, and apart from getting trashed by Revan has nothing on Luminara as a duelist
The next part I wish to address is rather a defense to a recent uprising against Darth Malak. In the Knights of the Old Republic comics, Mandalore the Ulimate triumphs over a young Malak with a mere swing of his infamous battle-axe. And then because of such, members believe this diminishes Darth Malak's overall abilities, and demonstrates he is a weaker character then we originally believed. This is incredibly deficient. Malak is *no* where near his prime, and literally years behind it. Darth Malak grew significantly more powerful being a Dark Lord, and rather a comparison that is fantastic is Anakin Skywalker himself. As a padawan during the Clone Wars, he was embarrassingly disarmed by A'Sharad Hett. However, members ignore this when debating the power of Anakin Skywalker from Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Why is this any different? Honestly, it isn't at all. Both have feats and accolades to prove they became crucially more powerful as time progressed. Below are the pictures of both Anakin Skywalker and Malak's defeat against their respective opponents.
Originally posted by carthage
Prove Malak can win then
I highly doubt you'll even acknowledge this and if you do, you'll only dismiss it. But Malak can win and i don't think i even needed to do this for anyone to know that. I wonder carthage, will you derail this thread and completely ignore this because of some bias?or...well i'm sure there's no "or" very sure.. Prove me wrong.
@Fated Xtasy not a bad post, but I'd like to point out that the Hett/Anakin situation and the Malak/Mandalore situation was completely different. Most notably, Anakin was murdering Hett's ass just beforehand, and the kick did little more than snap him out of his frenzy, whilst Alek simply got hammered the moment he popped up, then stayed down.
Still, Malak wins solidly.