Darth Vader vs. Darth Bane - Sabers Only

He's referring to the whole fight as "this sword fight."

He's never mentioned "Who is acting," or "why they are acting."

If just the whole Sword fight "is an act," then that would mean that BOTH Maul and Vizsla were acting.

That's not what he meant. He clearly explained himself saying he was showing Madalorian armor against a force user. So that fight could happen without Pre-Vizsla even having a Lightsaber. He even says in another interview on that fight that he always wanted to see a Boba Fett type guy against a Force user.

Jango Fett has already fought off/stalemated AOTC Kenobi in Movie Canon. Not to mention Kenobi has struggled more than once in TCW against Deathwatch assassins.

Pre-Vizsla having a Saber and Utilizing Amazing Saber skills just makes him an even bigger threat than Boba or Jango Fett.

And let's not forget... Maul still won.

True, but without sword fight it would be better. Nevertheless, whenever Vizsla lost his advantage, he has used his weaponry and jet pack. So basically it was never a ''pure'' sword fight, unlike the one with Ahsoka and Kenobi.

Originally posted by Marco1907
True, but without sword fight it would be better. Nevertheless, whenever Vizsla lost his advantage, he has used his weaponry and jet pack. So basically it was never a ''pure'' sword fight, unlike the one with Ahsoka and Kenobi.

He was drunk when he fought Ashoka Iirc. That was clearly not his best performance.

Kenobi force pushed him fairly soon in the fight. Maul never even once used Tk on Vizsla.

He only went all out on Maul. We never saw him go all completely out before that. And Maul still won, so there's no issue at all.

Grievous has actually beaten Kenobi once. Jango Fett actually killed Coleman Trebor in the movies.

Whilst Maul beat both Grievous and Pre-Vizsla. If they did well against him that's good for them, but there's really no issue there since he did beat them both, and was never going to lose to either of them.