Originally posted by quanchi112
Debatable between PM Maul and SoD Maul. Both have their pros.
And both are<Rebels Maul who can't beat rebels kenobi who himself lost to rebels vader.
In other words, Maul can't beat vader
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1.My bad on the power quote, it was from some blog on starwars.com. Stil, logically, force users grow in power over time, and maul has been active, collecting knowledge, ect, no reason to think he degraded and given that he's progressed as a duelist despite physical degradement, that would point to more powerful force augmentation.
Force users usually grow in power over time, but without a Master, or Apprentice, or a Brotherhood of Jedi/Sith, or Communing with Force Ghosts, or collecting a ton of Jedi/Sith aritfacts to study, and without being active, growth will be very limited (if at all).
And I'm not sure how active Maul was given when we first saw him on Rebels he was stranded on Malachor, and we have no idea how long he was stranded there for.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
2. The context of the quote makes it very clear its referring to skill as a blade. And regaardless, its not needed. Maul and Kenobi being "very good" as a reason for the short fight compared to their tcw counterparts who had "prolonged fights" indicates they grew. The "growtw" part just reinforces that.
Even in that quote, the context doesn't necessarily mean skill with a blade at all. Both combatants used similar stances and moves that we've seen fro them in the past.
Growth could be growth as a character or growth in the Force. Either of those things from either combatant would change the fight, but neither means their skill with a saber has increased.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
3. Thats symbolism for character growth, which maul as a sith, never underwent. Furthermore that would apply to tcw/sod maul as well. Combatively feloni has made clear that due to kenobi's progression as a jedi, he gone to the point maul can't beat him:
''When pressed, because Obi-Wan is protecting someone else in the end, he does fight. But because he is so true and knows who he is in that moment, you can’t defeat that''. Maul using the same move was symbolism for him not progressing, as a character imo
The difference with TCW/SOD Maul was he had a purpose. He had an Apprentice he was training, his powerful Mother he was working with, and his own army he was amassing. He himself refers to that in Rebels as a time when his power was almost absolute.
1. Actually, Maul did collect a bunch of sith artifacts. And he was likely active given that the inquisitors in the empire wee scared of him and called him "the shadow".
2. Character growth and them trying to predict each other's moves was previously addressed by other people. Its not ever referred to in feloni's answer to the question.
Anyway as I've already pointed out, even if you somehow interpret growth to mean something else, the "growth" isn't needed.
The, very good swordsan don't have long fig can only be referring to their skill as duelists. And if them being very good swordsman is one of the reasons for the short fight, then that indicates growth from their tcw incarnations who had longer "prolonged lightsaber fights".
3. Rebels Maul does have a purpose, get revenge on Kenobi, so if anything he would be at his strongest facing kenobi who is now the purpose he's putting all his focus into.
Maul havng "absolute power" isn't in the context of combative ability. Him having that kind of power doesn't translate to him being combatively more powerful
Originally posted by RockydonovangAgain that is his opinion and both have their pros and cons. He didn't oversee phantom menace and we have the show. It's just his opinion. These books are ridiculous as we see the events ourselves unfold.
Jason Fry has confirmed that tcw maul being more powerful in shadow conspiracy also puts tcw maul above tpm maul as a duelist both physically and in terms of skill. So SoD Maul is superior to TPM Maul.And both are<Rebels Maul who can't beat rebels kenobi who himself lost to rebels vader.
In other words, Maul can't beat vader
Rebels is the weakest Maul has ever been. Rebels Kenobi knows who he is whereas Maul is lost and broken hence why he lost. Kenobi also was familiar and the move he countered he was already familiar with unlike Vader. So even Rebels Maul wouldn't lose to Rebels Vader. He isn't familiar, doesn't use the same style as Kenobi, doesn't have the same experience and familiarity with Maul, and isn't taking him on in that exact moment.
Vader didn't even beat Tano. He was her master and is supposedly so badass yet he left the fight gimping and injured unlike her. Weak.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. Actually, Maul did collect a bunch of sith artifacts. And he was likely active given that the inquisitors in the empire wee scared of him and called him "the shadow".
What artifacts? I don't recall any. He was stuck on Malachor waiting, because he couldn't unlock the Temple on his own.
Any Inquisitors that ever faced him will be dead lol
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
2. a)Character growth and them trying to predict each other's moves was previously addressed by other people. Its not ever referred to in feloni's answer to the question.Anyway as I've already pointed out, even if you somehow interpret growth to mean something else, the "growth" isn't needed.
b)The, very good swordsan don't have long fig can only be referring to their skill as duelists. And if them being very good swordsman is one of the reasons for the short fight, then that indicates growth from their tcw incarnations who had longer "prolonged lightsaber fights".
a) One of the producers on Rebels recon implied they're predicting each other's moves, saying the fight's already started when they're staring at each other.
b) Problem with that logic is that we know there are superior duelists to these 2 who have had much longer fights. So that in it self is not proof they've both improved. It's more of a justification that at their level a fight can be that short, not that it must be that short.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
3. Rebels Maul does have a purpose, get revenge on Kenobi, so if anything he would be at his strongest facing kenobi who is now the purpose he's putting all his focus into.
Maul havng "absolute power" isn't in the context of combative ability. Him having that kind of power doesn't translate to him being combatively more powerful
Maul just has spite and regrets. Towards the Sith and towards Kenobi. He only found out Kenobi was alive in "The Holocrons of Fate".
Maul's near absolute power was likely a combo of everything. His grand army he was building up, having his own apprentice, working under Mother Talzin, and his combat abilities being at a peak.
This all said, I have no doubt Ben Kenobi has grown beyond his previous incarnations, but there's little to suggest Maul has. Getting thrown off a cliff by Kanan doesn't really shout "Prime Maul" to me.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
What artifacts? I don't recall any. He was stuck on Malachor waiting, because he couldn't unlock the Temple on his own.Any Inquisitors that ever faced him will be dead lol
a) One of the producers on Rebels recon implied they're predicting each other's moves, saying the fight's already started when they're staring at each other.
b) Problem with that logic is that we know there are superior duelists to these 2 who have had much longer fights. So that in it self is not proof they've both improved. It's more of a justification that at their level a fight can be that short, not that it must be that short.
Maul just has spite and regrets. Towards the Sith and towards Kenobi. He only found out Kenobi was alive in "The Holocrons of Fate".
Maul's near absolute power was likely a combo of everything. His grand army he was building up, having his own apprentice, working under Mother Talzin, and his combat abilities being at a peak.
This all said, I have no doubt Ben Kenobi has grown beyond his previous incarnations, but there's little to suggest Maul has. Getting thrown off a cliff by Kanan doesn't really shout "Prime Maul" to me.
2. Well his lightsaber was actually stated to be an inquisitor's lightsaber iirc(I'll try to find the quote ils provided) so that, along with the fact the inqusitors were scared of him and called him a shadow by them its quite possible he was actually hunting down inqusitors(i totally parroted that from I like swords) and trying to trouble the empire.
So yea considering all the above, and that he showcased new abilities(an indication of increased lnowledge/mastery) like creating visions of himself from across a planet, across the galaxy, its pretty illogical for maul not to have grown more powerful. And yet again, him having an obsessive vengaence vs kenobi and being angry that he no longer has power that is "almost abosolute" wouldn't hurt considering how darksiders operate.
3.
A.I'm well aware of that but that had nothing to do with feloni's answer. It was a seperate reason and if we look at all the answers we can conclude that them having improved as fighters, combined with their knowledge of each other's fighting styles, and that the fight was a homage to a shorter kind of fighting all led to this sort of duel which was more symbolic than anything. However nothing stated earlier contradicts maul and kenobi progressing as fighters which is what feloni's answer indicates.
B. And those superior fightewrs aren't relevant here. This was a story telling choice made specifically for maul vs kenobi and the reason listed only applies to kenobi and maul. For one thing, they likely haven't been in numerous life or death battles vs each other before. And more importantly those other fights were not homages to the 7th samurai. What feloni chooses to do for maul and kenobi has nothing to do with what he previous did for say ahsoka and vader or what gillard did for yoda and sidious.
4. Sith draw on spite. Also, he was facing kenobi, which certainly wouldn't hurt maul's power. And even if you want to argue that maul lost because he was blindly in rage(even though after screaming maul actually engaged in a blade dance with kenobi and tried to see what would take him down), it doesn't matter as feloni has already confirmed that mat maul was incapable of beating kenobi once he chose to fight(I can repost that quote if you want me to).
5. I disagree. Thats like saying that when sidious called maul a rival it was a culmanation of things including maul's ability as a combatant. And combatively his power being "near absolute" would make no sense.
6. Getting tackled by a dog and struggling with a non force senitive who lost to a padawan doesn't scream prime maul to me.
And while we'll at it lets ignore that maul was able to fight evenly with a challenge to prime vader which, to me at least, sounds better than getting outdueled(as a duelist) by tcw kenobi despite kenobi using his secondary form and maul having the help of his brother
Originally posted by quanchi112
Again that is his opinion and both have their pros and cons. He didn't oversee phantom menace and we have the show. It's just his opinion. These books are ridiculous as we see the events ourselves unfold.Rebels is the weakest Maul has ever been. Rebels Kenobi knows who he is whereas Maul is lost and broken hence why he lost. Kenobi also was familiar and the move he countered he was already familiar with unlike Vader. So even Rebels Maul wouldn't lose to Rebels Vader. He isn't familiar, doesn't use the same style as Kenobi, doesn't have the same experience and familiarity with Maul, and isn't taking him on in that exact moment.
Vader didn't even beat Tano. He was her master and is supposedly so badass yet he left the fight gimping and injured unlike her. Weak.
You keep repeating your points without addressing our points it seems.
And don't even try and go there with Vader and Tano. Vader was obviously the superior fighter and had her on the defensive essentially the whole time. He wasn't trying to kill her during the fight either. He just backs her near the edge of the temple and force pushes her off to get back to Ezra.
Plus, the Sith temple exploded, Vader walked out, Tano didn't. So don't try and outright say Vader couldn't beat Tano, since that is blatantly false.
I'd say a closer fight for Maul is Tano rather than Vader.
Originally posted by samappo
You keep repeating your points without addressing our points it seems.And don't even try and go there with Vader and Tano. Vader was obviously the superior fighter and had her on the defensive essentially the [b]whole
time. He wasn't trying to kill her during the fight either. He just backs her near the edge of the temple and force pushes her off to get back to Ezra.Plus, the Sith temple exploded, Vader walked out, Tano didn't. So don't try and outright say Vader couldn't beat Tano, since that is blatantly false.
I'd say a closer fight for Maul is Tano rather than Vader. [/B]
Originally posted by samappo
You keep repeating your points without addressing our points it seems.And don't even try and go there with Vader and Tano. Vader was obviously the superior fighter and had her on the defensive essentially the [b]whole
time. He wasn't trying to kill her during the fight either. He just backs her near the edge of the temple and force pushes her off to get back to Ezra.Plus, the Sith temple exploded, Vader walked out, Tano didn't. So don't try and outright say Vader couldn't beat Tano, since that is blatantly false.
I'd say a closer fight for Maul is Tano rather than Vader. [/B]
Originally posted by samappo
Then why push Tano off the edge rather than kill her. She was obviously struggling to keep him at bay.
Either way hildago has stated vader fully intended to kill her and was in fact determined to as she was a reminder of vader's past as anakin which vader was trying to disawaow himself from