Why was Rey able to defeat the injured Kylo ?

Originally posted by Darth Thor
One big reason the result of that fight causes confusion is because Yoda lost to Palpatine, and we're told/ implied throughout the trilogy (and by out of Universe commentary) that Yoda's the most Powerful Jedi combatant.

I have never understood why that should cause any kind of confusion.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
we're told/ implied throughout the trilogy (and by out of Universe commentary) that Yoda's the most Powerful Jedi combatant.

So what? Power isn't everything.

Yoda only lost due to circumstances/environmental factors. They were fighting on an elevated position, there was a big blast of Force energy and Yoda was thrown over the edge because he's smaller. Simple common sense.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
It especially when it's in the same movie where Obi-Wan beats Anakin who beats Dooku who beats Obi-Wan.

It completely baffles me why anyone would have any problem with that.

Look at the World Cup. Brazil beat a team that Germany only got a draw against. Yet when Brazil played Germany Brazil was soundly thrashed. Does that confuse people?

Originally posted by chilled monkey

Yoda only lost due to circumstances/environmental factors. They were fighting on an elevated position, there was a big blast of Force energy and Yoda was thrown over the edge because he's smaller. Simple common sense.

That can be seen when you analyze it more deeply. But on the face of it, Yoda and Palpatine looked equal, whereas Mace looked > Palpatine.

And like I said, it wasn't just the way the fight went. It was how Palpatine used the situation to turn Anakin, and how it all ended so perfectly for him.

I'm not saying Palpatine threw the fight btw. I'm just saying there's plenty there to confuse people.

Originally posted by chilled monkey

Look at the World Cup. Brazil beat a team that Germany only got a draw against. Yet when Brazil played Germany Brazil was soundly thrashed. Does that confuse people?

A boxing example would have been better since we're talking about 1 v 1's here and not 11 vs 11, where there's 11 different player's to take into account.

My favourite comparison is tennis- in boxing, you do get people with absurd, near-undefeated streaks sometimes. With tennis, upsets are so common that they aren't really upsets any more- all you can ever call is who you think has an advantage based on the weather, the court type, the style of his opponent etc.

From Laver to Borg to McEnroe to Sampras to Federer, there was never any such thing as 'x always beats y'.

amazing how the thread title answers it's own question.

😂

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That can be seen when you analyze it more deeply. But on the face of it, Yoda and Palpatine looked equal, whereas Mace looked > Palpatine.

And like I said, it wasn't just the way the fight went. It was how Palpatine used the situation to turn Anakin, and how it all ended so perfectly for him.

I'm not saying Palpatine threw the fight btw. I'm just saying there's plenty there to confuse people.

Yeah, I see your point in that regard.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
A boxing example would have been better since we're talking about 1 v 1's here and not 11 vs 11, where there's 11 different player's to take into account.

That's true but the basic principle is the same; two entities go up against the same opponent. One gets a win and the other doesn't. Yet when they go up against each other the one that had fared better earlier loses.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
My favourite comparison is tennis- in boxing, you do get people with absurd, near-undefeated streaks sometimes. With tennis, upsets are so common that they aren't really upsets any more- all you can ever call is who you think has an advantage based on the weather, the court type, the style of his opponent etc.

Interesting comparison which raises another point. A ring is a pretty standard environment with far fewer variable factors. Outside the ring, as with your tennis example, you have to account for variables such as weather.

Going back to lightsabre duels, you have to account for such variable factors. For example Yoda vs. Palpatine in ROTS. Would the result have been the same if they had fought at ground level? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it certainly affected how the duel went.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
My From Laver to Borg to McEnroe to Sampras to Federer, there was never any such thing as 'x always beats y'.

Precisely.

There... thread is done.

I've said it before, a shot to the side is one of the *worst* places to have an injury for a sword duel.

Even an arm would isn't so bad- most of your power comes from your middle. Every torso move and twist, every sway, is at reduced power and speed, and some angles of attack are much harder to do, making him more predictable.

Also there's the matter that she was his *second* fight while dealing with an aggravated injury that he was literally hitting to prevent the muscles from freezing up on him.

I'm sure many of those padawans could've beaten him if he had been shot in the side at the time.

What padawans?