Asajj Ventress vs Rebels Ahsoka

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Funny how you're not bringing up this being a "Pre-Prime Ventress" now. [/B]

Just as Ventress realized she had overextended, Dooku's left hand clamped down on her right wrist and he brought up his own lightsaber. It was Ventress's turn to seize his arm and hold the scarlet blade at bay. For an instant, the two, their faces only centimeters apart, stared into each other's eyes in a mockery of lovers. Then Dooku heaved her up and sent her sprawling. Unable to catch herself in time, Ventress landed heavily with a grunt.

"Ventress, think for a moment! This place is steeped in dark side energy! And Vos is in terrible pain!""You don't understand," Ventress cried. "You weren't there!" She whirled, targeting Kenobi now instead of Vos. Her green lightsaber was a blur and Kenobi was hard-pressed to parry."You know," he said, slipping his blade alongside hers then twisting it to throw her off balance, "I rather think fighting you was easier when I was trying to kill you. Ventress abruptly dodged Kenobi's blow and returned her focus to Vos. By this point Obi-Wan was not just alarmed by Ventress's single-minded and inexplicable distrust of Vos, but growing profoundly exasperated."Ventress, by all that is good in this galaxy, can we please settle this later?" He reached out in the Force, lifted her up, and plunked her a few meters farther down the corridor the way they had come. "Go!" he shouted.

Ventress can't legitimately contend with Dooku. Ahsoka can and has contended with Vader in unfavorable conditions. I think it's obvious who's better here.

dmbs post was pretty convincing. is ahsoka dead yet?

Originally posted by ChocolateMuesli
dmbs post was pretty convincing. is ahsoka dead yet?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Refer too my response to Sithmaster:

I mean you're jumping to a few assertions yourself in what Filoni meant there.

First you're jumping to your own conclusion of what the comparison to Yoda meant, and second you're jumping to your own conclusion of what "blow for blow" meant.

We all agree Kenobi and Yoda are not included in his definition as they are not the antagonists to the Rebels crew. But honestly sithmaster's interpretation of Filoni meaning force users within the Galactic Empire (as in the antagonists for the Rebels crew from day 1) could be just as valid.

Filoni would need to clarify. Especially when on screen canon shows Maul matching Ahsoka blow for blow for a fairly extended period.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I don't think you understand what a strawman is: An argument or assertion that was never brought up.

It was late when I wrote that, but fair enough.. What I meant was "reaching".

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
That aside, Maul or Ahsoka's combative strength is never mentioned, and there is no specific comparison drawn between the two. All the statement asserts is that Maul can best protect Ezra from the inquisitors. That this means Maul>Ahsoka is simply a conclusion you're drawing from it. As Joker has pointed out, there are perfectly plausible alternatives to that reasoning which also align with Ahsoka being the only one of the two ever to gain any kind of advantage in the fight they had.

Firstly I'm not stringing to the sw.com quote or Filoni's comment to draw any conclusion. I think they're both too vague and I think more evidence would be required anyway.

What I'm arguing is the quote on sw.com is more clear in it's implication than Filoni's comments. Because on the sw.com quote the choice was cealry between Maul, Ahsoka and Kanan, so a direct comparison is being made there, whereas Filoni's quote clearly had a wider context and wasn't as specific in terms of comparisons.

And "the logical choice" would be pairing the weakest with the strongest. Because aside from that pairing Maul with Ezra would be a terrible idea.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Furthermore, even assuming your conclusion is the correct one, this inference only holds weight on Mandalore. Feloni's statement, which was referring to Ahsoka's abilities in general isn't contradicted by the quote you're trying to use. There is nothing that states or implies that Maul is superior on even ground and hence we can refer to Authority to clear up the matter of how the two compare on even ground.

There are no contradictions present, save for ones you're trying to force.

The fight being on Malachor should make no difference to Filoni's quote whatsoever as Filoni's quote was in reference to that time period (Rebels first 2 seasons) where Maul was trapped on Malachor anyway 😬

Your specific interpretation leaves no room for contradicitons, but it's also a pretty specific interpretation that suits your arguments.

Sithmasters interpretation of said quotes also leaves no contradictions 😬

If you're going to prove Ahsoka's > Maul you'll need a lot more than Filoni's vague comment, just as Sithmaster would need more than the sw.com quote to prove the opposite.

However just looking at those 2 quotes, denying the sw.com one requires more reaching. Also in general written sources are more reliable than verbal ones. Because a written one is likely to be checked before being put down, and can also be removed and changed later (on the website at least). Spoken words can have errors, and can't be edited later.

But like I said, clinging to either one is reaching.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Actually, he had the advantage at that stage of the fight. Hence why he kicked Maul down and cut his saber in half.

Funny thing is Obi-Wan wasn't even driving Maul back when that happened. But he did drive Maul back right before Maul overpowered him.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Not sure where you're getting a couple of steps from, we only see a couple of steps but they fight off screen. but given that this, and Ahsoka sending Maul flaling backwards were the only moments where either of the two showcased any edge, I think it works just fine. Both are examples of Maul failing to match Ahsoka blow for blow.

You seem to have a very specific and convenient definition of "blow for blow".

Ahsoka did nothing to Maul (or vice versa). A few steps literally means nothing in SW. Opress sent Maul a few steps back. Heck Vizsla drove Maul back the furthest!
And Sithmaster also has a valid point that Maul seemed fairly casual in that fight- turning his back on her, blocking one handed, seeming pretty confident at the start and end of the fight.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
"Long enough" doesn't cut it. For there to be a contradiction here, setting aside the nexus, you need to prove that one of the two wouldn't have eventually overcame the other.

They were portrayed as peers. There are vague quotes for both sides to suggest superiority, but taking either one as fact would be clinging.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
And "the logical choice" would be pairing the weakest with the strongest. Because aside from that pairing Maul with Ezra would be a terrible idea.

Plus... pairing Kanan with Maul would be an even worse idea. Ahsoka and Kanan know from witnessing it and experience that Maul has an interest in Ezra and wants him alive, and it's pretty obvious Kanan is a threat to that. You can say it would be a terrible idea to pair Maul with Ezra, but Ezra would almost certainly come out of that alive, whereas if you paired Maul with Kanan... I doubt Kanan or Ahsoka would expect Kanan's survival there.

Maul was the logical choice because he was demonstrably the most effective against the Inquisitors, but that doesn't mean he was the strongest.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean not really. Ezra's the one with the holocron, and Maul's the one who knows what to do with the holocron. Not to mention Maul's most familiar with the terrain and how to work the mechanisms of the temple.

Plus... pairing Kanan with Maul would be an even worse idea. Ahsoka and Kanan know from witnessing it and experience that Maul has an interest in Ezra and wants him alive, and it's pretty obvious Kanan is a threat to that. You can say it would be a terrible idea to pair Maul with Ezra, but Ezra would almost certainly come out of that alive, whereas if you paired Maul with Kanan... I doubt Kanan or Ahsoka would expect Kanan's survival there.

Not particularly. Too lazy.

How are people still so dense on this topic? I can't wrap my head around it. Maul being the logical choice does not mean he was the strongest individual there. You have to take into account why Maul was the logical choice, and it's because he could better protect Ezra from the Inquisitors. Go from there, and then try to argue with a straight face that Maul being the best protection for Ezra by default means he's a better fighter than Ahsoka, lol.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Go from there, and then try to argue with a straight face that Maul being the best protection for Ezra by default means he's a better fighter than Ahsoka, lol.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean not really. Ezra's the one with the holocron, and Maul's the one who knows what to do with the holocron. Not to mention Maul's most familiar with the terrain and how to work the mechanisms of the temple.

The Holocron will have nothing to do with "Ezra being the weakest". So that's not it.

Being familiar with the terrain is possible but less likely to be the "logical" reason to pair him with the weakest member of the group. The more likely explanation would be that Maul is the strongest, or at least like Beni said the one who can best protect Ezra.

Originally posted by Emperordmb

Plus... pairing Kanan with Maul would be an even worse idea. Ahsoka and Kanan know from witnessing it and experience that Maul has an interest in Ezra and wants him alive, and it's pretty obvious Kanan is a threat to that. You can say it would be a terrible idea to pair Maul with Ezra, but Ezra would almost certainly come out of that alive, whereas if you paired Maul with Kanan... I doubt Kanan or Ahsoka would expect Kanan's survival there.

Okay. But I never said Kanan and Maul was a great idea. Just that clearly Ezra and Maul isn't good for Ezra, and the only "logical" reason to pair them would be to balance the group out.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
To elaborate. The reason being due to Maul being the better fighter is a bit ridiculous because it would suggest that Ahsoka isn't good enough to comfortably handle the inqusitors despite doing so earlier on even ground.

Or it was just to best balance the group out by pairing the strongest with the weakest. Because tbh Ezra's protection isn't actually mentioned anywhere.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
How are people still so dense on this topic? I can't wrap my head around it. Maul being the logical choice does not mean he was the strongest individual there. You have to take into account why Maul was the logical choice, and it's because he could better protect Ezra from the Inquisitors. Go from there, and then try to argue with a straight face that Maul being the best protection for Ezra by default means he's a better fighter than Ahsoka, lol.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
The Holocron will have nothing to do with "Ezra being the weakest". So that's not it.

Being familiar with the terrain is possible but less likely to be the "logical" reason to pair him with the weakest member of the group. The more likely explanation would be that Maul is the strongest, or at least like Beni said the one who can best protect Ezra.

Okay. But I never said Kanan and Maul was a great idea. Just that clearly Ezra and Maul isn't good for Ezra, and the only "logical" reason to pair them would be to balance the group out.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm saying it could likely be a variety of reasons with balancing the group out being the most important. It's entirely possible that sticking Ezra with Maul or Ahsoka would've balanced the group out, but that there were other reasons such as Maul's familiarity with the terrain and knowledge of the temple and holocron that make him the preferable choice along with the fact that it's safer to stick Ezra with Maul than Kanan with Maul.

And I agree those are all possible, but much less likely.

And btw both groups were simply going up the temple from opposite ends to scatter the Inquisitors. So yeah I doubt the quote meant "the logical choice was to team the weakest with the one who knows the terrain best".

The most likely is the obvious, which is teaming the weakest with the strongest. Kinda like Filoni's comment "proving" Ahsoka > Maul. It's possible he wasn't including Maul in that context but that's also probably a bit of a stretch.

Either way it's only fanboys and haters who are clinging to these comments and quotes.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
It's Thor, much like the late Neph, his brain hasn't developed since 2008. 🙁

Just calling out double standards. But I can see how that may seem dense to some.

Of for fcks sake, kmc ate up my post because I used to many smilies. KMC doesn't seem to grasp the importance of banter it seems. Shame 🙁

I'll give this another go, maybe this time KMC won't reject my sense of humor 🙁

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I mean you're jumping to a few assertions yourself in what Filoni meant there.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
First you're jumping to your own conclusion of what the comparison to Yoda meant

Originally posted by Darth Thor
, and second you're jumping to your own conclusion of what "blow for blow" meant.

Then perhaps we should refer to the dictionary?

adjective
1.
precisely detailed; describing every minute detail and step:

You can fight relatively evenly with someone, and still fail to match them blow for blow which coincidentally, happened, in Maul's fight vs Ahsoka.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
We all agree Kenobi and Yoda are not included in his definition as they are not the antagonists to the Rebels crew

Originally posted by Darth Thor
. But honestly sithmaster's interpretation of Filoni meaning force users within the Galactic Empire (as in the antagonists for the Rebels crew from day 1) could be just as valid.

On the otherhand, the jedi being exempted from this works because it's substantiated by the context surrounding the quote. Feloni is talking about how to use Ahsoka in a story, Ahsoka can't be used vs Yoda or Kenobi, and hence their ability to match or not match her isn't relevant.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Filoni would need to clarify. Especially when on screen canon shows Maul matching Ahsoka blow for blow for a fairly extended period.

He fails to match her here:
https://youtu.be/ukse7fCIt2c?t=1m1s
Or here:
https://youtu.be/ukse7fCIt2c?t=1m33s
Remember, "blow for blow" is about details which means even minor edges are sufficient to render what you just claimed false.

It seems Maul can't match her "blow for blow", even on a nexus.
Shame. 🙁

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Firstly I'm not stringing to the sw.com quote or Feloni's comment to draw any conclusion. I think they're both too vague and I think more evidence would be required anyway.

Feloni's statement identifies the combatant in question, and makes an explicit statement regarding her combative abilities.

The Starwars.com quote makes a note of the abilities of a combatant separate for the one you're arguing for, simply as an explanation for a certain situation(Ezra being a weak link) which Maul is, for an unspecified the best solution to resolve.

Feloni's statement is unquestionably relevant to Ahsoka's combative abilities, the SW.com quote isn't clearly relevant to Maul's.

Additionally, even taking your interpretation into account, such an interpretation is easily reconciled by what Feloni said by making note of implied context.

Even with your interpretation of the quote, there isno contradiction unless you try to force it.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
What I'm arguing is the quote on sw.com is more clear in it's implication than Filoni's comments. Because on the sw.com quote the choice was cealry between Maul, Ahsoka and Kanan, so a direct comparison is being made there, whereas Filoni's quote clearly had a wider context and wasn't as specific in terms of comparisons.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
And "the logical choice" would be pairing the weakest with the strongest. Because aside from that pairing Maul with Ezra would be a terrible idea.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
The fight being on Malachor should make no difference to Filoni's quote whatsoever as Filoni's quote was in reference to that time period (Rebels first 2 seasons) where Maul was trapped on Malachor anyway

Regardless, if you want to argue the quote means Ahsoka>Maul on Malachor, feel free to. Such an interpretation still doesn't hold any contradictions as Maul failed to match Ahsoka blow for blow in their fight and the SW.com quote only contradicts this statement if you force it to. Hence, if that's your stance on the matter, you're welcome to it 🙂

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Your specific interpretation leaves no room for contradicitons, but it's also a pretty specific interpretation that suits your arguments.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Sithmasters interpretation of said quotes also leaves no contradictions 😬

Originally posted by Darth Thor
If you're going to prove Ahsoka's > Maul you'll need a lot more than Filoni's vague comment, just as Sithmaster would need more than the sw.com quote to prove the opposite.

The uncontradicted statement of authority on my side only confirms what's already obvious.

Regardless of the approach you choose to take here, Maul still comes out as inferior.
Shame. 🙁

Originally posted by Darth Thor
However just looking at those 2 quotes, denying the sw.com one requires more reaching. Also in general written sources are more reliable than verbal ones. Because a written one is likely to be checked before being put down, and can also be removed and changed later (on the website at least). Spoken words can have errors, and can't be edited later.

Additionally Feloni's statement is supported both by on screen evidence and Maul and Ahsoka's holistic potryal.

However you play it, Maul still loses. Shame. 🙁

Originally posted by Darth Thor
But like I said, clinging to either one is reaching.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Of for fcks sake, kmc ate up my post because I used to many smilies. KMC doesn't seem to grasp the importance of banter it seems. Shame 🙁

Maybe just try responding without all the sarcastic smileys Lol

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Maybe just try responding without all the sarcastic smileys Lol

Originally posted by Rockydonovang

Am I? 😖

What's stated about Ahsoka in the Yoda comparison is different than the stipulations given in the question of note.

Then perhaps we should refer to the dictionary?

So when you say "X matched Y, blow for blow" this means, "X matched Y down to the details of the fight".

You can fight relatively evenly with someone, and still fail to match them blow for blow which coincidentally, happened, in Maul's fight vs Ahsoka.

Well there's no dictionary definition to it (I can only find "blow BY blow", which only supports my point that he's given a vague statement, hence it's very limited in the canon facts thsat can be drawn from it.

It also means your definition is made up by yourself, to fit the facts you would like it to.

To me what we saw in their fight was Maul matching Ahsoka blow for blow, so Filoni's vague statement contradicts his own visual canon. More reason not to take it as canon fact.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang

Not at all relevant to Ahsoka vs Maul, but I'm glad we've made progress 👆

It's not, because Sithmaster's interpretation relies on a qualifier that is nowhere to be found in the statement or the context surrounding it. Feloni never mentions or specifies that he's talkinga bout imperial antagonists, so such an assertion is unsubstantiated.

On the otherhand, the jedi being exempted from this works because it's substantiated by the context surrounding the quote. Feloni is talking about how to use Ahsoka in a story, Ahsoka can't be used vs Yoda or Kenobi, and hence their ability to match or not match her isn't relevant.

Point being we all agree there clearly are presumed qualifiers to his statement. Another reason the statement is too vague to take as canon fact.

Now I agree your interpretation is more likely to be what he meant, but I also think the possibility definitely exists that Maul is another qualifier.

Especially the part where he states "we all felt." I mean you really think Everyone at Lucasfilm animation felt there's no way Maul could defeat Ahsoka? Really? Not even 1/10? You really believe that?

They were definitely talking about the antagonists to the Rebels crew. Maul being confined to a single place, much like Yoda and Ben, might just disqualify Maul from being included in his statement as well.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Except that Maul doesn't match her "blow for blow".

He fails to match her here:
https://youtu.be/ukse7fCIt2c?t=1m1s
Or here:
https://youtu.be/ukse7fCIt2c?t=1m33s
Remember, "blow for blow" is about details which means even minor edges are sufficient to render what you just claimed false.

It seems Maul can't match her "blow for blow", even on a nexus.
Shame. 🙁

This is honestly kinda silly. This is your new definition of matching blow to blow? Really?

Firstly you've not even addressed my points about Opress, TPM Obi-Wan and most of all Pre-Vizsla also driving Maul back, all right before he puts them in their place. Vizsla is the guy who drove Maul back the most.

Second, correct me if I'm wrong, but Maul does seem to only be using 1 hand on those locks. So Maul using one hand is driven back a couple of steps. Really? That's your proof of Ahsoka being superior? Really?

No kicks, no force pushes, no saber cuts, no physical attacks, just forcing a one handed Maul back a couple of steps.

That's what's called "stringing" onto tiny hints of superiority when there's really no evidence there at all.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Ah, so since you realize that the sw.com quote doesn't necessarily say what you want it to say, you're going to try and equate it's level of clarity to the level of clarity in what Feloni said. Let me explain why this is a false equivalency:

Feloni's statement identifies the combatant in question, and makes an explicit statement regarding her combative abilities.

The Starwars.com quote makes a note of the abilities of a combatant separate for the one you're arguing for, simply as an explanation for a certain situation(Ezra being a weak link) which Maul is, for an unspecified the best solution to resolve.

Feloni's statement is unquestionably relevant to Ahsoka's combative abilities, the SW.com quote isn't clearly relevant to Maul's.

Additionally, even taking your interpretation into account, such an interpretation is easily reconciled by what Feloni said by making note of implied context.

Even with your interpretation of the quote, there isno contradiction unless you try to force it.

Except that
[list=1]
[*]The SW.com quote may or may not refer to Maul's combative abilities
[*]Feloni's statement is explicitly referring to Ahsoka's combative abilities
[*]Feloni's statement gives us specific criteria for exemption: Being able to match her "blow for blow", and existing as of the time period as of Rebels
[/list=1]

I've just addressed DMB on this above. By far the most likely "logic" is to team the weakest with the strongest.

You really think there's a strong possibility the quote meant, "the logical choice was to team the weakest member with the one who knew the terrain best.."

That's not the most obvious or most heavily implied reasoning at all.

If it was for Ezra's protection, the more appropriate wording would be to team Maul up with the most "Vulnerable" member.

As for the terrain, you're forgetting the point of splitting up. It was simply to travel up the temple on different sides, to scatter the Inquisitors. Teaming the weakest with the strongest would obviously balance out the teams. Teaming the weakest with the one who knows the terrain best again implies it's all about protecting Ezra, and not about dividing and conquering the Inqs, and that being the "logical" choice would be highly debatable.

As for your quote and statement comparisons:

1) Filoni's quote was talking about combat abilities.
The SW.COM quote was almost certainly talking about strength in the Force.

2) Filoni's quote didn't make comparisons to every Force user, so although he probably meant Maul as well, we don't know for sure given Maul's own unique position at that time in that era.
The SW.COM quote was definitely and without question comparing Maul to Ahsoka/Kanan.

Now do any of the above prove Maul or Ahsoka are superior. No. Definitely not. It's pretty desperate to Cling to either one as definitive evidence tbh.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Me and Joker addressed this. If you're so inclined, respond and I'll try to offer you a response in turn.

I've been through this to death with Joker, and am not willing to do it again as he gets needlessly insulting.

I've addressed DMB's points above as well, and feel I've given you thorough rebuttals on the subject.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Except that the statement indicated how Ahsoka comapres to others of her era in a general context.

Regardless, if you want to argue the quote means Ahsoka>Maul on Malachor, feel free to. Such an interpretation still doesn't hold any contradictions as Maul failed to match Ahsoka blow for blow in their fight and the SW.com quote only contradicts this statement if you force it to. Hence, if that's your stance on the matter, you're welcome to it 🙂

Addressed the comparisons and the undefined "blow for blow".

Yes I am welcome to my stance. You know why? Because these aren't facts, and both open to interpretations.

Actual Canon Facts convince almost everyone. Like Vader > Maul. There's only the odd troll who denies that now. It's something that's been repeated by multiple people in Universe and Out of Universe, and clearly clarified. Not to mention feats supporting that notion.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
My interpretation perfectly reconciling all evidence of the matter would make it rather good. I can't help it if the evidence supports what I argue 😉

Yes, but Sithmaster's interpretation relies on assumed context that is never stated or specified anywhere. My interpretation is based on what is explicitly stated and hence is inherently stronger.
I really don't given that my interpretation is based on what is stated and Sithmaster's is based on what he assumes.

The uncontradicted statement of authority on my side only confirms what's already obvious.

Regardless of the approach you choose to take here, Maul still comes out as inferior.
Shame. 🙁

Well this is the problem. You're both trying to Force Filoni's comments and the SW.COM Quote to meld together as if they MUST be consistent with one another.

Filoni isn't head of canon, and he doesn't check or edit the SW.COM quotes as far as I'm aware.

Different authors can have different bias, so the important thing is to go by clearly clarified and repeated statements (like the Vader > Maul), and by feats.