Originally posted by NewGuy01
He actually gets progressively worse at it.
That makes sense though. Grievous was able to analyze and develop counters Mace's Vaapad in seconds. By the time of the Clone Wars Grievous had likely thoroughly analyzed Kenobi's Soresu. Kit Fisto's Shi-Cho was likely unfamiliar to Grievous, had they had a second encounter I doubt Fisto would have defeated him so soundly.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66DP, I'm also curious, what's wrong with being on par with Fisto? He's a beast.
Because of this:
Originally posted by ares834
Kenobi has defeated Maul and Vader. Fisto has done nothing that compares.Kenobi > Fisto.
To say Kenobi and Fisto are equals, would be to say Fisto and Maul are equals, or heck even that Fisto and Vader are equals! Whatever great showings Fisto has, he really doesn't have the right to be put in the same league with 2 of the Most Powerful Sith Lords of all time.
If you want to argue extenuating circumstances for those wins/draws of Kenobi, that's fine. But I don't buy it, especially not against Maul.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Also, Kenobi was floored by an unarmed Viszla, who wasn't even using his weaponry at the time, and at one point forcing Kenobi to use the force. Where were you getting at with those videos?
Maul was also disarmed by Vizsla, and certainly seemed to give Maul a much harder longer fought fight.
Now I'm not arguing your points about the different ways in which those 2 fights played out. But Fisto and Kenobi's fights against Grievous have also played out very differently. Rarely has Kenobi fought Grievous 1 on 1 out in the open like that.
My point was to compare Jedi based singular fights against a Non-Force sensitive (especially with Grievous's intimidating twirling blades scenario as explained by Filoni) is not the best comparison mode at all. Filoni certainly seems to agree with that in Grievous's case, and he was the supervising director of all these Fisto/Kenobi fights against Grievous.
I mean heck Ahsoka looks better than Kenobi if we compare her fight against Cad Bane to one of Kenobi's worse showing against him.
Whilst something like Kenobi vs Maul, is a fight comparing 2 opponents with the same kind of Jedi/Sith powers, and that has been a very consistent thing for Kenobi. 3/3 fights he's shown he's in Maul's league during TCW series.
In fact Filoni thinks S4 Maul and Opress combined couldn't beat Kenobi without the element of surprise.
So despite many low showings, Kenobi clearly gets his s*** together when up against Maul.
Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Tempest is a trained/experienced fighter,
That's good for him. But I'm willing to bet he's not as good a fighter as Arhael who also makes arguments for Kenobi based on real life fighting.
Next thread: Tempest vs Arhael real life 😛
Let's face it everyone has certain biases in debates, so there's no point in bringing up who has better real life experience to decide whose probably got the better points.
Originally posted by NewGuy01He actually gets progressively worse at it.
Which kind of proves Grievous was improving more throughout TCW than Kenobi was. Likely due to his training with Count Dooku throughout TCW.
Fisto's performance against Grievous is no more impressive than Kenobi's in RotS.
Fisto took out one Griveous' arm due to taunting and hiding in mist then used a Force push to floor Grievous.
Kenobi engaged Grievous in a fair saber fight and took out two arms without taunting or hiding before Force pushing him as well.
Fisto did manage to drive Grievous back with use of second lightsaber but it doesn't prove anything. Kenobi utilizes defensive style, so driving someone back can't be expected of him even against inferior opponents.
That's good for him. But I'm willing to bet he's not as good a fighter as Arhael who also makes arguments for Kenobi based on real life fighting.Next thread: Tempest vs Arhael real life 😛
Kit's definitely on par with Obi-Wan. He manhandled Grievous just as {if not more} decisivelyWindu struggled against Grievous too. Fisto is on par with Windu confirmed.