Originally posted by Beniboybling
I'm seeing a contradiction here though Thor, you say that Filoni didn't acknowledge the Dathomir fight, yet you acknowledge it. Why apply a different set of rules here?
Huh?
I said Filoni tends to ignore it being a DS Nexus when it comes to the Saber fights. At least the ones that he choreographs.
I know what you said, but you appear to be ignoring that fact when referring to Grievous vs Ventress. So I'm wondering why you are accounting for it here.
Unless you believe Ventress wasn't amped by the nexus. What I'm asking you is whether you think Filoni's opinion is relevant to what actually occurred.
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9If the fight weren't over a minute long, I might agree with you.
The problem with this "statlemating" is that we don't see the biggest part of the fight, so you can assume things have happened but there is little confirmation they did happen. In that case I think it's safer to rely on other sources which describe Maul>Ahsoka.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
I know what you said, but you appear to be ignoring that fact when referring to Grievous vs Ventress. So I'm wondering why you are accounting for it here.Unless you believe Ventress wasn't amped by the nexus. What I'm asking you is whether you think Filoni's opinion is relevant to what actually occurred.
Again huh? I'm the one who brought up the Ventress vs Grievous fight, so what exactly am I ignoring?
What I think about Filoni's opinion or the actual strength of the Dark Side nexus in question is irrelevant to my point. My point being Filoni doesn't seem to factor in DS Nexus's when choreographing and discussing Saber fights.
Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
Except there's no source that actually implies Maul > Ahsoka. Only that he's the more logical choice for Ezra to go with which can be for any number of reasons including Maul's knowledge of the temple's layout.
The quote specifically names the fact that Ezra's the weakest of the Jedi as reason. The context is very clear.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
If the fight weren't over a minute long, I might agree with you.
Yeah but the biggest part of the fight, 1 minute IIRC, was off screen while only roughly 30 seconds were visible... I don't really quite made my mind up about it actually especially becuase off screen fighting also would imply the Fifth Brother could hold his own against Ahsoka.
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9What it doesn't say is that Maul is the strongest of the team however, he could have just been one of the strongest, ultimately its not as if anyone present could say for sure.
The quote specifically names the fact that Ezra's the weakest of the Jedi as reason. The context is very clear.
EDIT: Syn also makes a good point, the only thing we can be sure on is Ezra needed extra protection.
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9That wasn't my point, my point was that despite fighting for a considerable amount of time, Maul failed to gain any advantage. That demonstrates parity no matter how you slice it.
Yeah but the biggest part of the fight, 1 minute IIRC, was off screen while only roughly 30 seconds were visible... I don't really quite made my mind up about it actually especially becuase off screen fighting also would imply the Fifth Brother could hold his own against Ahsoka.
And there is now quite a long list of explanations for the 5th Brother's performance, like 1. He was amped by a nexus 2. He had improved by some margin 3. Ahsoka was holding back to avoid killing him.
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
The quote specifically names the fact that Ezra's the weakest of the Jedi as reason. The context is very clear.
And why does that dismiss the possibility that Maul being the more logical choice has something to do with his knowledge of the temple's layout rather then his power? If they were to confront Inquisitors Maul could maneuver them to somewhere safer and thus be able to better protect Ezra.