Ahsoka(Rebels) and Kanan vs Maul(Rebels) and Ezra

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
Stalemated him in a fight which of the majority was off screen and was interrupted twice, not to mention that we have no idea how much the Nexus influenced the fight.

Originally posted by Petrus
It doesn't matter that much, tbh. They fighting evenly, but it was a very brief duel. Filoni already established that Ahsoka > Maul. I don't think she's better by a big margin, but she is better.

Filoni never established Ahsoka > Maul, he was talking about when she was first introduced. The SW site actually implies the opposite, Maul is Ahsoka's superior.

Originally posted by Kurk
You mean run away from Maul, right?

Originally posted by Kurk
You mean run away from Maul, right?

She ran away because she was going to save Ezra from Vader. 😕

You really believe that Kanan will provide enough to help Tano significantly? It's just Jinn & Kenobi vs Maul all over again.

It's not really Jinn & Kenobi because Ahsoka > Maul. So, it's someone who is superior to Maul + another Jedi. Yeah, it's enough.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
Filoni never established Ahsoka > Maul, he was talking about when she was first introduced. The SW site actually implies the opposite, Maul is Ahsoka's superior.

Filoni literally says only Sidious and Vader can match Ahsoka blow-for-blow.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Who gives a shit if it was off screen? We know that Maul made no headway against Ahsoka when we cut back to the fight, and even if it was interrupted the first portion was still over a minute IIRC. Even if the nexus amp hypothetically wasn't that large, Maul was still amped, plain and simple, and Ahsoka stalemated him.

Because you neglect the biggest part of the fight by assuming nobody gained any kind of edge in the offscreen part. It' the same as saying Obi-Wan > Maul because he defeated him in TPM while completely ignoring the fight itself.

Sure he was amped, but enough to noticeable affect him? No idea.

maul can protect ezra agenst inquiziters bttr tht meens he ken beat ashoka

Originally posted by Petrus
Filoni literally says only Sidious and Vader can match Ahsoka blow-for-blow.

He was talking about when Ahsoka was introduced in the show, when Maul didn't even make an appearence.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
He was talking about when Ahsoka was introduced in the show, when Maul didn't even make an appearence.

And Filoni didn't know of Maul's role in the show, or..?

Originally posted by Petrus
And Filoni didn't know of Maul's role in the show, or..?

He wasn't known to the audience at that point so he can't be included in the thinking process to explain why Ahsoka wasn't used much in the beginning.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
Because you neglect the biggest part of the fight by assuming nobody gained any kind of edge in the offscreen part. It' the same as saying Obi-Wan > Maul because he defeated him in TPM while completely ignoring the fight itself.

Sure he was amped, but enough to noticeable affect him? No idea.

It affected the Inquisitors enough that they could fly all across the temple with their lightsabers, so I don't know why Maul's amp wouldn't have at least been somewhat noticeable.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Are you that mentally inhibited that you can't understand basic context in a children's show?

On the other hand Joker is on the money, neither Maul nor Ahsoka gained ground over one another in the off-screen engagement, that or whatever ground was gained was conceded. And the only advantage present in that fight belongs to Tano.

Regardless irrespective of what you infer from SW.com, they are evidently extremely close as combatants, on top of the added possibility Maul was amped by the nexus. So to assert that Maul can handle Ahsoka and Kanan like he did Jinn & Kenobi is legit retarded.

Originally posted by |King Joker|
It isn't a huge leap in logic to assume no one gained an advantage when Ahsoka was shown in the same position guarding Kanan with Maul having made no progress after a minute of dueling. You'd think if he was superior to Ahsoka she would've been pushed back with Kanan killed or something, but after an extended duel Maul accomplished nothing. And hey, even if Maul did somehow galn an edge in the part we didn't see, it obviously didn't last long.

It affected the Inquisitors enough that they could fly all across the temple with their lightsabers, so I don't know why Maul's amp wouldn't have at least been somewhat noticeable.

We didn't even see them beginning to duel when the screen went to Ezra climbing the Temple. Even assuming the just dueled off screen then it would seem extremely weird to two mobile fighters like Maul and Ahsoka wouldn't have moved a single meter, especially since when we see them fight they are jumping around all over the place.

Sure, fair point. I can actually use that to wank Ezra.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
He wasn't known to the audience at that point so he can't be included in the thinking process to explain why Ahsoka wasn't used much in the beginning.

We know Vader > Maul, right? Filoni said only Sidious and Vader can go blow-for-blow against Ahsoka. And we saw the fight she put up against Vader. And we saw how she humiliated two Inqs simultaneously. Everything points to Ahsoka > Maul, except their very brief encounter in which Ahsoka was in a hurry to head off and save Ezra.

Originally posted by Petrus
We know Vader > Maul, right? Filoni said only Sidious and Vader can go blow-for-blow against Ahsoka. And we saw the fight she put up against Vader. And we saw how she humiliated two Inqs simultaneously. Everything points to Ahsoka > Maul, except their very brief encounter in which Ahsoka was in a hurry to head off and save Ezra.

I'm not going to repeat myself for the third time.

Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
I'm not going to repeat myself for the third time.

What you said would make sense only if Ahsoka didn't manage so well against Vader, whereas Maul openly admits he wouldn't go against Vader. Add Ahsoka's showings against the Inqs [stomping both at the same time], and it only makes more sense. The fact that Filoni's claims were said prior to Maul's re-emergence in SW canon doesn't matter, because nothing actually contradicts what Filoni said in the first place.

Originally posted by Petrus
What you said would make sense only if Ahsoka didn't manage so well against Vader, whereas Maul openly admits he wouldn't go against Vader. Add Ahsoka's showings against the Inqs [stomping both at the same time], and it only makes more sense. The fact that Filoni's claims were said prior to Maul's re-emergence in SW canon doesn't matter, because nothing actually contradicts what Filoni said in the first place.

It matters because you used it was the sole base of your argumentation. Regarding the rest, Maul admitted inferiority only to keep the Ghost crew there since right after that he actually tries to kill the persons that are supposed to help him take on Vader. Secondly, Ahsoka was defeated by Vader so what's exactly your point? Her stomping two inquisitors, a showing she couldn't replicate in the Season 2 finale, doesn't prove anything especially since Maul was pushing back three inquisitors at once (the inquisitors should have improved by this point looking at how they put up a far better performance against Ahsoka).

He made that statement post-Twilight of the Apprentice fyi.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
He made that statement post-Twilight of the Apprentice fyi.

Doesn't matter, he was explaining why Ahsoka didn't do much in the beginning. He couldn't possibly name Maul since he wasn't a thing back then.

He's reflecting on Season Two as a whole, and states that the only people in "this time period" who could match Ahsoka are Vader and the Emperor. So no, your explanation relies on constructed contexts I'm afraid.