Wow Unbowed, I didn't think you could get anymore retarded, but you've really outdone yourself here.
First of all probably best to double check your facts before calling someone a liar, and then having a laugh about it. Because if you had you might have noticed that Maul and Ahsoka are indeed clashing blades when it cuts back to them:
After which they break off due to the explosion, then Maul starts bragging again. So I guess you were wrong. How embarrassing.
I mean did you really think the correct reading was that Maul bragged to Ahsoka for a full 1:20+ while Ahsoka just stood and listened? Lmao, you're ****ing hopeless. No wonder Temp considers you an imbecile.
Now let's mop up with the rest of your crap, so I can get on:
Originally posted by Unbowed1:40+ or rather almost two minutes of fighting is not a "pitiful amount of time", its actually a rather extended duel relative to other lightsaber engagements in SW mythos. Certainly enough time for Maul to assert his supposed superiority when he's done so against others in far shorter engagements.
My point is that it is the height of dishonesty on mr. gosh obnoxious' part to claim Ashoka "stalemated" Maul when:
a)they fought for a pitiful amount of time(which Maul probably spent verbally haranguing her anyway)
b)Ashoka ran away before the duel could be resolvedShe "ran away" to help Ezra, what part of that didn't you understand the first time? And if you pay attention to the time stamps the moments she glances up at the temple and subsequently retreats is the very moment Vader appears to Ezra. Go figure.(for the record, if the fight was going against Maul I doubt he would have mocked her for running away)
And Maul brags a lot dear, usually shortly after getting his ass handed to him in one way or another. On the other hand if the fight was going against Ahsoka, I doubt she would have laughed off his remark and left him to be dealt with by a cripple. 😂
I don't care if Ashoka is three times as strong as Maul, you can't say that in that fight she "stalemated" him. If a boxing match ends after one round because one of the boxers' mother just died, the bout can't be called a stalemate.You might think that Ahsoka is three times stronger than Maul but I couldn't possibly comment, on the other hand as Thor says it was a stalemate in the sense that neither party was able to gain an advantage over one another, they were contending as equals, which yes demonstrates parity. Semantics aside the point stands.
Notice that he also conveniently still hasn't addressed the contradiction of how Ashoka can fare worse than Maul against the Inquisitors but fare better than him against Vader and Sidious.Err Joker neatly addressed that at the beginning of this debate, which you handwaved with a bunch of shitposts. Maybe now is the time to present something more concrete?
But yes, it just so happens that ABC logic is fallible. 👆
Originally posted by quanchi112
Go, run, hide. I'll be here waiting on you to back your asinine and unfounded claims.
Hide? From you? Please.
Anyway, you say Filoni's opinions don't matter, correct? Alright, let's see.
The fact that Maul was able to handle Ahsoka very briefly means little when it comes to analyzing who the superior combatant is, because we were not able to see the conclusion of that duel, since there was none. The duel was anything but conclusive. At first, it seemed to demonstrate Maul could go evenly against her, but now this stance has been rectified by none other than Filoni.
Before you dismiss Filoni like he was just some SW writer who voices his opinion, consider he is also the director and executive producer of Rebels. He has direct and obviously legit power over the events that will transpire in S3.
He has said that only Vader and the Emperor are able to match Ahsoka. That pretty much establishes that if we ever see Ahsoka vs. Maul in S3, Ahsoka would be the victor.
The only way in which you could have the possibility of being right, is if Filoni stupidly contradicts his own words. That's literally it, and there's nothing more to it.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
I mean stalemate as in they seemed to fight quite evenly for all intents and purposes. We didn't see either gaining ground over the other for the time they fought. And they both mostly use an offensive Jar Kai style.She didn't run from Maul. She ran to go help Ezra. Heck she even offered t X to continue the fight if Maul could beat Kanan. But I agree it helps Maul's case that he thought she was running, as I have also brought up the case. On the other hand it could just have been Dun Moch.
Vader and Ahsoka never seemed even until the very end after she struck him from behind. Vader was driving her back the whole time (she didn't give ground against Maul) until he pushed her off a cliff and diverted his attention to the Holocron.
If you don't think it was a stalemate, then that's fine, but they did fight, and let's not pretend as if Maul showd any kind of decisive edge.
We have to give it to Ahsoka that the first 20 seconds and the last 10 seconds of her fight against Vader, she actually didn't give any ground against him.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Wow Unbowed, I didn't think you could get anymore retarded, but you've really outdone yourself here.First of all probably best to double check your facts before calling someone a liar, and then having a laugh about it. Because if you had you might have noticed that Maul and Ahsoka are indeed clashing blades when it cuts back to them:
After which they break off due to the explosion, then Maul starts bragging again. So I guess you were wrong. How embarrassing.
Originally posted by Beniboybling I mean did you really think the correct reading was that Maul bragged to Ahsoka for a full 1:20+ while Ahsoka just stood and listened? Lmao, you're ****ing hopeless. No wonder Temp considers you an imbecile.
And what the **** is a Temp?
Originally posted by Beniboybling Now let's mop up with the rest of your crap, so I can get on:1:40+ or rather almost two minutes of fighting is not a "pitiful amount of time", its actually a rather extended duel relative to other lightsaber engagements in SW mythos. Certainly enough time for Maul to assert his supposed superiority when he's done so against others in far shorter engagements.
For instance Vader also couldn't rise to the standards you impose on Maul(I guess he's not her superior either 🙄 ). You claim she was losing ground but she was clearly drawing him away from Ezra. He did manage a Force push, but she also managed a Force push at the very opening of the fight. The only difference was the environment.
Whether you like it or not, duels between characters who are close in power aren't resolved very quickly. By your rationale any fight that goes on for longer than 30 seconds and doesn't have one character bouncing the other off the walls is a "stalemate".
Originally posted by Beniboybling She "ran away" to help Ezra, what part of that didn't you understand the first time? And if you pay attention to the time stamps the moments she glances up at the temple and subsequently retreats is the very moment Vader appears to Ezra. Go figure.
She ran away to help Ezra so the fight couldn't be resolved. How can you call it a stalemate when outside factors brought about its untimely end?
Originally posted by Beniboybling And Maul brags a lot dear, usually shortly after getting his ass handed to him in one way or another.
On the other hand if the fight was going against Ahsoka, I doubt she would have laughed it off his remark and left him to be dealt with by a cripple. 😂
How do you interpret that?
You might think that Ahsoka is three times stronger than Maul but I couldn't possibly comment, on the other hand as Thor says it was a stalemate in the sense that neither party was able to gain an advantage over one another, which yes demonstrates parity.It can't be possibly be called a stalemate when one party disengages while the fight is in its infancy.
If it suggests "parity", that parity extends to Vader, Ashoka and Maul together.
Originally posted by Beniboybling But yes, it just so happens that ABC logic is fallible. 👆
Vader and Sidious are far, far stronger than the Inquisitors. There is no reason why Ashoka should perform worse than Maul against them, and better than him against Vader.
Heck, this particular comparison is as straightforward as it getss. Both Vader and the Inquisitors are Dark siders, both fights take place on Malachor, both fights takes place on the same day so there is no allowing for improvement or any other mitigating factors.
If anything Ashoka should be at a disadvantage against Vader, since he is fresh while she has been in multiple duels against Maul and the Inquisitors.
So I ask again: for what possible reason could Ashoka perform better than Maul against a superior foe when he just outshone her against inferior foes.
Either resolve that contradiction in a satisfactory manner or accept that whatever Ashoka can do in combat, Maul can do better.
Originally posted by UnbowedPreach it, brother. I have said the things when comparing Maul to Vader in my breakdown of this episode. Maul came off looking pretty great after this episode.
Maul was more than fine. He managed to escape Malachor, killed the Inquisitors that were stalking him and found a lead on a promising new student. And judging by the S3 trailer he's not done with the holocron either. At the end of the episode he was burning sky in his flashy new TIE fighter, peelin' paper like a bank teller. 😎Vader was left without transportation, beat to shit and limping, and probably had to ask Sidious for a ride like a kid who calls his parents to pick him up after some bully beat him in the yard and stole his shoes.
Originally posted by Darth ThorMaul blinded and had him beaten but Tano intervened. Quit glossing over this. Maul was overconfident and fell over the ledge. Vader was force pushed before by Kanan so let's not suddenly forget Kanan and Wzra survive because they are the heroes, sport. Quit cherry picking.
That'd all sound great if we didn't know Maul got beaten by Kanan and is scared to face Vader alone.Frankly the episode shat all over Maul. Here's hoping S3 does him more justice.
Originally posted by PetrusI didn't say his words are trash I just said he is entitled to his opinion. He doesn't have George Lucas power and until his opinion actually takes place who cares. We see Maul looked superior against Inquisitors and took on Tano easily. The only time a writer's words matter is over something canon that particular writer wrote in terms of their own work. That's to get the proper perspective over someone foolish fanboy who cooks up his own perceptions as to what happened. A writer's opinion over hypothetical matchups we haven't seen is just his opinion. Nothing more and opinions vary, kiddo.
Hide? From you? Please.Anyway, you say Filoni's opinions don't matter, correct? Alright, let's see.
The fact that Maul was able to handle Ahsoka very briefly means little when it comes to analyzing who the superior combatant is, because we were not able to see the conclusion of that duel, since there was none. The duel was anything but conclusive. At first, it seemed to demonstrate Maul could go evenly against her, but now this stance has been rectified by none other than Filoni.
Before you dismiss Filoni like he was just some SW writer who voices his opinion, consider he is also the director and executive producer of Rebels. He has direct and obviously legit power over the events that will transpire in S3.
He has said that only Vader and the Emperor are able to match Ahsoka. That pretty much establishes that if we ever see Ahsoka vs. Maul in S3, Ahsoka would be the victor.
The only way in which you could have the possibility of being right, is if Filoni stupidly contradicts his own words. That's literally it, and there's nothing more to it.
Originally posted by quanchi112
I didn't say his words are trash I just said he is entitled to his opinion. [B]He doesn't have George Lucas power[/B]
Oh? Seems like someone's having a hard time making up his mind about Lucas's authority on SW subjects:
Originally posted by quanchi112
Lucas isn't the end all be all so it has no bearing. It's just his opinion but only the facts matter not opinions, sport.
until his opinion actually takes place who cares.
You just don't get it, do you? It's not a simple opinion. He's the show's director and executive producer. In Rebels, what he says goes. It doesn't get clearer than that.
We see Maul looked superior against Inquisitors
Really?
Yeah, he didn't.
and took on Tano easily.
lolwut?
We can see the duel started with Ahsoka pushing Maul back, actually. And as it progresses, he keeps pushing him back. It seemed like a close duel, but he never 'took on Tano easily'. Pfft.
Originally posted by UnbowedQuite, feel free to send your formal apology over PM.
I guess so. Fair enough.
As I said in my original post, I was willing to concede the point since I didn't give a shit. It's only your duplicitous nature that made me download the episode and check again.Duplicitous right, you mean in terms of your nonsense accusations, the reality being that you're a ****ing moron. 😂And what the **** is a Temp?
Tempest friend, I believe that you're acquainted.
The only time Maul asserted his superiority very quickly was against Savage, and yes, he was far stronger than him. But I don't know why you would expect he should do the same against Ashoka. I think he is stronger than her but not that stronger.No lol I don't expect Maul to have defeated Ahsoka in 10 seconds, but yes if he is better than her there is no excuse for him failing to so much as gain the upper hand over the course of 1:40+ engagement when as you so kindly pointed he can destroy formidable opponents like Savage in a fraction of that time.
And no that's not the only example, in his duel with Kenobi in Revival he's clearly beating Kenobi one minute in and defeats him 30 seconds later, he also had Jinn rapidly backpedalling on Tatooine from the off-set, even against Qui-Gon and Kenobi combined on Naboo it's evident he's better than both of them from the very start.
For instance Vader also couldn't rise to the standards you impose on Maul(I guess he's not her superior either 🙄 ). You claim she was losing ground but she was clearly drawing him away from Ezra. He did manage a Force push, but she also managed a Force push at the very opening of the fight. The only difference was the environment.Wow, that's the first decent point you've made on this thread. Bravo.
But sure let's agree for a moment that Ahsoka was deliberately conceding ground and cut to how Ahsoka's doing 1:40 seconds in:
Hot damn, I literally took that at the exact 1:40 mark. More fool me for assuming your "2:20" figure was accurate. 😂
(And before you try and bullshit your way out of that one with I don't know "BFR =/= victory", pay attention to the fact that at that point Ahsoka was 1. being legitimately driven back 2. visibly fatigued, and consequently left an opening.)
Feel free to fact check that, actually don't bother, because you clearly suck and math and will probably **** it up again, regardless I accept your concession in advance.
Whether you like it or not, duels between characters who are close in power aren't resolved very quickly. By your rationale any fight that goes on for longer than 30 seconds and doesn't have one character bouncing the other off the walls is a "stalemate".No they aren't, however I can't think of a single duel in which a superior character has not at least gained some measure of an upper-hand after two minutes of fighting, because it doesn't happen, quite a lot of duels don't even last that long. If you are better than your opponent you are going to show it with ample time to do so, and as of yet you've failed to raise a single valid example that suggests otherwise.
How does that help your argument in the slightest?Unresolved yes, but without either opponent gaining superiority, that's the point, anything else is just quibbling over semantics.She ran away to help Ezra so the fight couldn't be resolved. How can you call it a stalemate when outside factors brought about its untimely end?
Name one instance when Maul has ever bragged "after getting his ass handed to him".There's supposed to be a comma in there, in these sense that he brags and then gets beaten e.g. against Kenobi on Naboo, against Kenobi again on Florrum, and then here against Kanan. Or to put it another way, Maul is consistently overconfident.
Then let's look to the fight itself. Right as Ezra activates the temple and the beam of energy bursts, Maul deflects Ashoka's blow and looks to the sky, unconcerned about any further attacks from her.As you grasping at straws, lmao.How do you interpret that?
Or rather 1. Maul being overconfident, again 2. Ahsoka being distracted by the beam as well. On the other hand if we are going to nitpick, how do you intepret Ahsoka deflecting his subsequent assault, and then driving him back, a Juyo specialist, no less?
It can't be possibly be called a stalemate when one party disengages while the fight is in its infancy.Call it what you like, but they were in deadlock for the duration of the fight. But no it doesn't sorry.If it suggests "parity", that parity extends to Vader, Ashoka and Maul together.
That's a copout and you know it. If I claimed Maul can beat Sidious despite admitting he can't take Vader and used "ABC logic is fallible" as an argument I would rightfully be laughed out of the room. What you're attempting to do is the same.A copout? How ironic coming from someone who has ignored the response three times now, are you going to try for a fourth or actually engage with the reasoning you so desperately seek?Vader and Sidious are far, far stronger than the Inquisitors. There is no reason why Ashoka should perform worse than Maul against them, and better than him against Vader.
Heck, this particular comparison is as straightforward as it getss. Both Vader and the Inquisitors are Dark siders, both fights take place on Malachor, both fights takes place on the same day so there is no allowing for improvement or any other mitigating factors.
If anything Ashoka should be at a disadvantage against Vader, since he is fresh while she has been in multiple duels against Maul and the Inquisitors.
So I ask again: for what possible reason could Ashoka perform better than Maul against a superior foe when he just outshone her against inferior foes.
Either resolve that contradiction in a satisfactory manner or accept that whatever Ashoka can do in combat, Maul can do better.
Here let me help you by actually posting it:
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Maul was clearly the fighter most effective against the Inquisitors due to his ruthless and overwhelming fighting style and willingness to kill, but as it relates to who the overall superior combatant between Ahsoka and Maul are, I don't think how each of them fared against the Inquisitors matters too much. If you judged who's the best solely by Tano's and Maul's fights with the Inquisitors, you could come away with the conclusion that Maul is well above Tano, but that was proven to be false when they actually fought each other.
Originally posted by |King Joker|Knock yourself out you clown. 🙂
@Unbowed: And what's your entire premise? That Maul is better than Ahsoka simply because he performed better against the Inquisitors? That sole reason as to justify why Maul is better than Ahsoka takes mental gymnastics. You've failed to realize a few things: 1. The darksiders were more powerful on Malachor because it is a dark side nexus, thus Maul is more powerful than standard, as well as the Inquisitors 2. Ahsoka had no intention on killing the Inquisitors, and thus would naturally be less effective against them, 3. Just because Maul can decimate the Inquisitors, it does not mean he is automatically superior to Ahsoka. Try to comprehend the circumstances a bit and apply some more nuanced thinking, my love.Filoni's quote itself already lends creadance to the idea that the only true superiors to Ahsoka at this time are Vader and Palpatine. Claiming the Ahsoka > Maul argument is solely because of Filoni's quote is ridic' though, seeing as how Ahsoka stalemated a nexus empowered Maul. Your flimsy argument relies on ABC logic with the Inquisitors and ignoring of circumstances.
Originally posted by PetrusIf it doesn't become canon it is just his opinion. That's the point. Comic book debaters understand this but you seem to be rather new to debating and to the merits of debating so I'll take it easy on you.
Oh? Seems like someone's having a hard time making up his mind about Lucas's authority on SW subjects:You just don't get it, do you? It's not a simple opinion. He's the show's [B]director
and executive producer. In Rebels, what he says goes. It doesn't get clearer than that.Really?
Yeah, he didn't.
lolwut?
http://static2.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/11113/111137054/5130510-maul+tano+4.gif[/IMG]
We can see the duel started with Ahsoka pushing Maul back, actually. And as it progresses, he keeps pushing him back. It seemed like a close duel, but he never 'took on Tano easily'. Pfft. [/B]
At what point does he exert himself or is in danger ? He took her on without any caution and didn't seem to exert himself at all. I didn't say he beat her easily. Read and learn what words actually mean not what you think they mean.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
TPM Maul could take Rebels, let alone TCW or SoD.
The website states he's grown stronger though. And given how he grew stronger from TPM to TCW even though he was doing literally nothing in the middle, there's no logical reason for him to be weaker.
If you think Age is a factor, just ask Count Dooku or Palpatine. Heck ask ROTS Mace Windu (approx same age as Rebels Maul).
