Sure, they influence fights but again you forget to include evidence which would support that the magnitude of this influence is enough to noticeably influence the fightIt's evidence in and of itself that fighting styles do influence fights, which is enough for me and many others not to take Maul's better performance against the Inquisitors than Ahsoka at face value as proof he's overall her superior.
not to mention that all your examples don’t necessarily prove that the difference between those cases are caused by different fighting styles, e.g. (1.)Dooku could easily perform better against Ventress because he actually trained her (as witnessed by Luminara in season 1) or (2.)how Kenobi performed worse against Savage because he never was in the same circumstances when fighting him contrary to Maul (e.g. Obi-Wan confronted Savage when he was with his brother so his attention is logically split and thus his inferior performance could possibly be explained). (3.)All the evidence you brought up, which I applaud since it’s more then Beni brought forward, are discussions on itself meaning they aren’t conclusive evidence.1. Sure, but I think it's also the fact that Dooku is simply just far more refined than Ventress in their respective forms (Makashi) so he could easily exploit Ventress' relative sloppiness in the form he's a master in. Anakin, who frequently challenges Dooku / pushes him on his back foot, doesn't perform nearly as well against Ventress, and I think a big reason for that is because of the difference in forms between himself and Dooku.
2. I was actually referring to the fight where Kenobi and Ventress fight Savage and Maul.
3. Not necessarily, but the fact is is that judging who is the superior combatant just from their respective performances against the same fighters is extremely flawed, at least in this case.
Yeah but then again Maul didn’t continue his assault either when first facing against the inquisitors (he stopped to let the others join) and to be honest, she stopped once to talk to the 7th Sister, for the rest she was just fighting them without pausing so your point is not valid.The entire course of Maul's brief duel with the Inquisitors (except at the end of the fight) he never paused his offense -- Ahsoka did.
1. Ahsoka waits for the S.S. to come to her instead of meeting her offense with her own
2. Ahsoka pauses offense for dialogue
3. Ahsoka waits for 5 seconds without pushing an offensive against the Inquisitors
^ At three separate points in the fight, Ahsoka chose a more reactionary, patient response to the Inquisitors, which contrasts Maul's overwhelmingly aggressive, brutal, and virtually nonstop offense against the Inquisitors on Malachor. It invalidates your original claim that "Ahsoka's fighting style is at least as aggressive and overwhelming as Maul's, looking at how she in Future of the Force was the aggressor when fighting two Inquisitors."
Drop it and move on since this isn’t going to go your way.
Sure, agreed but what does that change? Like I said to Beni, her mentality between Future of the Force and Twilight of the Apprentice hasn’t changed yet her performance did so that her approach was a factor that influenced her fighting prowess excluded.That's where the nexus comes in.
Not exactly, your case is based on what seems the most likely for you while mine involves factual evidence (no environmental restrictions + mobile fighters according to the on-screen fighting under the same circumstances and context by which we can accurately extrapolate how they would’ve fought during that minute gap)It isn't factual evidence in the slightest, and you're really not comprehending what your idea means, i.e. that Maul and Ahsoka stood still for like a minute and a half. Ahsoka and Maul only started moving away from their original position when Ahsoka pushed Maul back with her offense, so because that's the whole reason why they started distancing themselves heavily from their original position, why is it crazy to say "Hey, what if Ahsoka and Maul were stalemating in the beginning, hence the relative lack of movement?" Or like Beni has proposed, they advanced and retreated and ended up in the same place when the screen went back to them (scenario: Maul tries to get around Ahsoka to finish Kanan off, but Ahsoka has to stay pretty close to Kanan to prevent any openings Maul can exploit to strike Kanan down for good). I find these possibilities far more likely than Maul Gemini'ing for a minute and thirty with Ahsoka just chilling while Ezra's activating a WMD.
(1.)and like I told Beni, I can even give you the example about Maul talking for a decent sized amount of time (evidence = doing it two times during his fight with Ahsoka and during the Siege of Mandalore in the Ahsoka novel) which on it’s own would contradict your sole reason. (2.)Again, your case is solely based on what seems most likely to you since we didn’t see them star to fight (and you aren’t a canon source) while mine involves the examination of their fighting styles (or how a fight between them would go based on what we see them do afterwards under the exact same circumstances and context as during the one minute gap).1. Maul only talked after a brief saber lock and after the blast from the temple interrupted their fighting. On Mandalore, Ahsoka was purposefully luring Maul into a trap and was trying to get him riled up, so those examples don't prove anything.
2. There's nothing unlikely about Ahsoka and Maul fighting very soon after the screen cuts to Ezra going up the temple for pretty obvious reasons (i.e. Ahsoka needs to get to Ezra ASAP, Maul is an imminent threat to her and Kanan's safety, so Ahsoka would obviously want him dead). These are just basic, obvious, simple conclusions anyone should be able to make, man.
Sure, the advantage could be there since Gilroy never literally said that it strengthens Dark Side users (which is something you make of it) while also adding that “he would say Malachor being home to the Sith is connected to the Inquisitor’s ability to fly” so that isn’t actually conclusive but anyway even if you want take it like that, it’s never proven that the magnitude of the nexus is enough to influence a fight between Maul & Ahsoka or that the storygroup would’ve taken it into consideration (looking at Filoni’s history of neglecting nexuses while creating fights → Grievous vs Ventress).I thought we already reached an agreement that Malachor is likely a dark side nexus? Obviously, a dark side nexus would amp a dark sider like Maul. Gilroy doesn't have to spell everything out for us to make simple conclusions, and I feel as if it's implied anyway. The storygroup probably did take it into consideration since it was the reason why the Inqusitors could all of a sudden fly, which almost certainly was connected to their increased power on the nexus (i.e. lightsaber assisted Force flight).
Let me give you an example, you have E1 (Maul), E2 (Ahsoka) and E3 (Malachor) while E1 + E2 + E3 = Etot. Is E3 going to be an important factor in this equation? Depends on how big it is compared to E1 and E2 (take both 1000) while E3 = 1, the result is that E3 barely has any effect on the total equation (or fight in this case). Yes E3 and by extent the nexus can be big enough to make a noticeable impact but when we don’t have evidence that claims as much then it, until proven otherwise, doesn’t impact at all.oh i luv equations very fun
But yeah, if the nexus was influential enough to allow the Inquisitors to make extensive use of Force flight for prolonged durations, it's definitely a noticeable increase.
By reading the interview again I changed my mind,
Filoni never clarifies what he means with ‘time period’, it could be a general era or it could mean just season 2(definition ‘time period’ = Space of seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months or years with an established beginning date and ending date. It's a unit of measurement used to categorize a length of time. Also called time frame).I feel like Beni sufficiently covered this so I'll just leave this point if that's okay with y'all.
That’s what you make of it and you aren’t an official source, sorry.You're the context guy, my man, apply the context to the quote and you'll see the light. 🙂
Your entire argument involves what for you seems a logical explanation or option (fighting style being more effective, Ahsoka’s approach to a fight with the Inquisitors, what ‘time period’ means, how big the influence of Malachor is, both fighting for the full minute gap) while mine is based on things we actually see (Maul performing better against the Inquisitors, him being all but named the strongest of the group, extrapolating their fighting based on what we’ve seen them do after the one minute gap, no environmental limitations).My argument revolves around taking into consideration multiple different aspects regarding Ahsoka's state of mind in her duel with Maul, the Inquisitors, and the fact that her fighting style simply wasn't as effective as Maul's was in fighting their common enemy, all of which are incredibly important in understanding and accurately analyzing Ahsoka and Maul. Unfortunately, during the vast majority of this debate, if not all of it, you severely downplayed the circumstances if not outright ignored them in favor of half-baked conclusions you made from a quote and a performance against Inquisitors, as well your perpetuation of a tunnel-visioned perspective regarding Maul and Ahsoka's fight that truly makes no sense when everything is all said and done. All in all, I feel like your argument took less into account, wasn't as well analyzed, and used inaccurate examples to support your points.
I enjoy our little conversation, truly, but unless you bring forward (new) factual evidence which supports your case then I’m not going to spend more time repeating myself over and over again. People can now see what we brought forward, think about it and form their own opinion which is in the end what my intention was in the first place.Yeah this was fun and I think it's a good ending point for our discussion.
Till next time. 🙂