Kenobi vs Maul: How Did It Happen?

Originally posted by samappo
Yes he was silly. So was Sidious when he was cackling. I wouldn't call Sidious a pussy either when Maul was begging for mercy before his old master who made him his *****.

Vader > any version of Maul.

Okay, but it's not confirmed that she's alive and could have been a force ghost. You can't definitively prove she's alive, nor can I prove she necessarily died. Your opinion that Tano 100% lived (and therefore smacked Vader) cannot be proven definitively.

Ridiculous. Vader is simply too slow, not as agile, and not as skilled with a light saber.

So there's no proof it's a force ghost but you claim it was. We don't assume force ghost and who taught her that. When she is confirmed to be alive I'll rub your ignorant nose in it. You're a desperate fanboy.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Sidious begged for mercy against Windu. Maul took him on and later when disarmed he did what he thought he had to. He became indifferent to fl in SoD. He opposed Sidious from this moment on.

Ridiculous. Vader is simply too slow, not as agile, and not as skilled with a light saber.

So there's no proof it's a force ghost but you claim it was. We don't assume force ghost and who taught her that. When she is confirmed to be alive I'll rub your ignorant nose in it. You're a desperate fanboy.

Sidious begged for mercy on purpose as a ruse to appear weak.

Out of context. Sidious entered the room and straight up threw both Maul and Oppress against the wall, then let them go to indulge himself with some lightsaber combat. There he takes both Maul and Oppress on without trying.

Then Sidious disarms Maul and ragdolls him again. Maul can't compete with Sidious at all. Don't even try and give Maul credit for that.

It's certainly my opinion that it was a force ghost, but neither of us can definitively prove either point, so you can't say Tano outfought Vader after everyone had left.

I'm a fanboy of what? Who? Vader? Haha. Okay.

Originally posted by samappo
Sidious begged for mercy on purpose as a ruse to appear weak.

Out of context. Sidious entered the room and straight up threw both Maul and Oppress against the wall, then let them go to indulge himself with some lightsaber combat. There he takes both Maul and Oppress on without trying.

Then Sidious disarms Maul and ragdolls him again. Maul can't compete with Sidious at all. Don't even try and give Maul credit for that.

It's certainly my opinion that it was a force ghost, but neither of us can definitively prove either point, so you can't say Tano outfought Vader after everyone had left.

I'm a fanboy of what? Who? Vader? Haha. Okay.

The opening was there. Just as Dooku for owned Kenobi in rots because he had the opening. We see force attacks in the midst of a duel all the time, that doesn't mean whenever they want to they can force own an elite duelist only when the opening is there. Points at Maul force pushing Kenobi and disarming him in PM.

Nothing suggests Vader won. He was the only one injured and he gimped at the end of the episode. Tano didn't show any limp. Way to go Tano.

Vader and Sidious. The weak Sith who ruled a weaker galaxy. There were no Jedi to oppose them and just the emergence of Luke brought about their downfall.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Sidious knew he had to due to his vulnerable position and that he needed Anakin to intervene after he lost the saber duel. Sidious was still full of bluster until Windu redirected his fl and Sidious was out of options.

The opening was there. Just as Dooku for owned Kenobi in rots because he had the opening. We see force attacks in the midst of a duel all the time, that doesn't mean whenever they want to they can force own an elite duelist only when the opening is there. Points at Maul force pushing Kenobi and disarming him in PM.

Nothing suggests Vader won. He was the only one injured and he gimped at the end of the episode. Tano didn't show any limp. Way to go Tano.

Vader and Sidious. The weak Sith who ruled a weaker galaxy. There were no Jedi to oppose them and just the emergence of Luke brought about their downfall.

That was Sidious' plan from the start.

Yeah, there was an opening for Tano as Vader was pulling Ezra to him.

Again, speculative since we don't know what happened. So you can't say either won.

Weak Sith? Are you serious? There were no Jedi to oppose them because Sidious and Vader took them out. Sidious is also canonically the most powerful Sith Lord in galactic history. Your claims are really getting a bit out of hand.

Originally posted by samappo
That was Sidious' plan from the start.

Yeah, there was an opening for Tano as Vader was pulling Ezra to him.

Again, speculative since we don't know what happened. So you can't say either won.

Weak Sith? Are you serious? There were no Jedi to oppose them because Sidious and Vader took them out. Sidious is also canonically the most powerful Sith Lord in galactic history. Your claims are really getting a bit out of hand.

Yes, Vader was to blame for not being more aware of Tano since he didn't injure her at all and she was missing in the general vicinity.

When we see people moving we don't assume force ghosts unless there's evidence. We assume they are alive.

Quit lying. Sidious had an army and his still in his prime Vader assault them along with clones throughout the galaxy before they were even aware of their enemies. He was a hidden villain who always laid in wait because he knew he didn't stand a chance against the Jedi. He was the most powerful but let's not act like he wasn't some sneaky little woman at times. Masquerading around and being duplicitous while begging others to spare him along with trying to flee from Yoda. The manner in which he died was fitting since he was tricked and hurled by his own man with one hand no less. Embarrassing way to die for someone supposedly so smart and so powerful.

😂

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. All the stuff he showed ezra in visions and voices? "I have gathered many things" "These are artifacts from my past". Also, if the inqusitors are considering him, a shadow, and if he's coming to malachor looking for a shith holocron and a way to destroy the empire, and he's been generating a repuation within the empire which causes inqusitors to call him "a shadow", I think its fair to assume he was pretty active and any comments made otherwise when he was initially playing a ruse on ezra can be disregarded.

There were no Sith artefacts which he could learn/train from that I'm aware of.

He was looking for weapons (like the Sith temple) to challenge the Sith.

Speculation regarding the Inquisitors, and what they know of him. You seem to be forgetting that they only learned he was real when they met him.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang

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.

Lol, you're speculating that those abilities were new.

What hurts him is that he feels hopeless. He grew more powerful in TCW due to his hate for Kenobi, ambition of greater power, and taking on an apprentice. Only the first is still relevant.

He gained some hope when he found Ezra, but that never lead anywhere.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
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.

You do realise that people can grow in the way they fight, yet still not be a match for their younger, prime selves right?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
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.

Point which you're missing is that 7th Samurai fight was just justifying not requiring a long drawn out fight, especially not when they've fought each other so many time before.

It doesn't mean that they're both at their peak. But it does mean Kenobi was superior to Maul now.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
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).

I never claimed Rebels Maul was a match for Rebels Kenobi. Just that Rebels Maul doesn't seem to be Prime Maul.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
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.

Oh when Sidious called Maul a rival, Maul's growing power in the Force and training a Sith apprentice definitely contributed to that assessment of Sidious's.

He wanted to take them out before they both keep growing in Force Power AND keep growing their army.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
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.

He didn't lose to the dog or the Death Watch's greatest warrior going all out. So no, your comparison there is a fail.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
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

The person he fought evenly was confirmed by Filoni to be his superior in this time period. So temporarily fighting evenly with her is nothing beyond TCW/SOD Maul, whose gone toe to toe with Mace Windu.

But losing to Kanan certainly seems below a guy who was Uber Stomping Savage Opress back in the day. Just to remind you, Savage used to beat down Council members and the likes of Ventress.

No idea why you're bringing up the Florrum fight, but just so you know the commentary to that fight makes it clear that Kenobi was fighting at is best. And yet he still never actually beat Maul down in that fight. But like I said, that has no relevance to this debate whatsoever.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
There were no Sith artefacts which he could learn/train from that I'm aware of.

He was looking for weapons (like the Sith temple) to challenge the Sith.

Speculation regarding the Inquisitors, and what they know of him. You seem to be forgetting that they only learned he was real when they met him.

Lol, you're speculating that those abilities were new.

What hurts him is that he feels hopeless. He grew more powerful in TCW due to his hate for Kenobi, ambition of greater power, and taking on an apprentice. Only the first is still relevant.

He gained some hope when he found Ezra, but that never lead anywhere.

You do realise that people can grow in the way they fight, yet still not be a match for their younger, prime selves right?

Point which you're missing is that 7th Samurai fight was just justifying not requiring a long drawn out fight, especially not when they've fought each other so many time before.

It doesn't mean that they're both at their peak. But it does mean Kenobi was superior to Maul now.

I never claimed Rebels Maul was a match for Rebels Kenobi. Just that Rebels Maul doesn't seem to be Prime Maul.

Oh when Sidious called Maul a rival, Maul's growing power in the Force and training a Sith apprentice definitely contributed to that assessment of Sidious's.

He wanted to take them out before they both keep growing in Force Power AND keep growing their army.

He didn't lose to the dog or the Death Watch's greatest warrior going all out. So no, your comparison there is a fail.

The person he fought evenly was confirmed by Filoni to be his superior in this time period. So temporarily fighting evenly with her is nothing beyond TCW/SOD Maul, whose gone toe to toe with Mace Windu.

But losing to Kanan certainly seems below a guy who was Uber Stomping Savage Opress back in the day. Just to remind you, Savage used to beat down Council members and the likes of Ventress.

No idea why you're bringing up the Florrum fight, but just so you know the commentary to that fight makes it clear that Kenobi was fighting at is best. And yet he still never actually beat Maul down in that fight. But like I said, that has no relevance to this debate whatsoever.

1. Thats never stated and regardless it pokes a hole in your maul wasn;t active and was just some hermit argument

2. Yup which yet again, clearly indicates he was active

3. If he's generated enough of a reputaionv that they fear him even when they hgaven't actually met him, then clearly he wasn't just sitting around.

4. He's never demonstrated them before. But Rebels Maul has demonstrated any ability tcw maul has shown in his past, as tcw maul.
Also, since when the hell was hope a sith emotion? WHy would feeling hopeless make him weaker rather than stronger with the dark side?

There's still literally nothing being presented as evidence for maul as of sod being sueprior.

5. Yet again, maul is very good compared to isi tcw counterparts, never is it specified the quote is talking about a specific aspect of his dueling so its baseless to deny that the claim isn't about maul as a duelist overall.

And this whole sod maul is maul in his prime is completely and totally baseless. There is no eveidence for mau being superior as of sod to as he was as rebels, sos htere's no reason to think tcw maul would beat his sod incarnation who overall who has grwon as a duelist and who being very good is a reason for his shorter fights with kenobi

.You can't just argue that having grown doesn't make you superior unless you can actually give some sort of eveidence saying that the previous version of the dude was superior.

I'm fully aware of that, it doesn't change that feloni indicaed their growth as duelists was a reason(in addition to the others) why they changed the fighting style. The reasons you've listed for the fight don't at all contradict the specific reason we're discussing here

And regardless them being very good swordsman due to their growth is talking about them overall as duelists(the growth is implied even without it being included in the quote). So yes they are superior to their tcw versions and have grown since tcw. Unless you have some sort of basis for that growth up to their rots and sod versions halting, and that their growth as duelists over a couple of months(for maul) and less than a year(for kenobi) exceeded their growth over the course of a decade plus, logically that would put them at their primes in rebels.

6. No, it wasn't. Maul isn't a rival of sidious in power. Nothing about either statements indicate anything combative so there's no reason to assume it had to do with combat.

7. And he didnt actually lose to an amped kanan in a duel, he just got pushed a few feet, your lowballing not withstanding. And mandalorian's greatest warrior lost to a padawan, so I don't care. Cherry picking a single low end showing is a terrible way to guage characters and sin't a valid basis for your argument.

8. I don''t care, prove to me rebels maul can't replicae that or it doesn't matter. And oppress never beat down any council masters by virtue of the blade by the way/ He beat adi galia with force useand got his leg cut by koon's offensisive almost immediately befpre winning by taking koon's mask off when the fight was interuppted(similar to how tpm kenobi "beat down" maul)

9. Nope, the commentary of kenobi"gaining focus" s out of context. Late rin the same interview feloni denies the amplification being external. Furthermore Kenobi has focused himself numerous pre-tcw, post tcw, and as of his rots version so to say that was kenobi at his best is wrong. And yes, in the contxt of a lightsaber duel, he did beat maul as feloni confirms in the same interview once. In the interview he additionally states that maul and oppress couldn't beat him. So my statement stands.

Regardless unless you can show me rebels maul faling to replicate tcw kenobi's showings, beause rebels maul has grown as a duelist and has improved as a a swodsman overall, I'm going to assume that he can replicate or exceed any of tcw maul's showings untill you can present any solid eveidence that suggests otherwise.

Quan, one thing is putting your Maul fanboyism on full display by defending his performance against Obi-Wan relentlessly with convenient misinterpretation of statements and poor excuses, but saying Sidious was only 'supposedly' so smart and powerful as opposed to accepting it as the undeniable fact it is, is quite frankly crossing the line from denial and stupidity to full retardedness.

Originally posted by Petrus
Quan, one thing is putting your Maul fanboyism on full display by defending his performance against Obi-Wan relentlessly with convenient misinterpretation of statements and poor excuses, but saying Sidious was only 'supposedly' so smart and powerful as opposed to accepting it as the undeniable fact it is, is quite frankly crossing the line from denial and stupidity to full retardedness.

Sidious was lucky and in the end quite frankly retarded for dropping his guard while prolonging the torture of a son in front of his father. His death was really, really bad. Don't be upset the facts hurt your feelings.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He wanted to turn Anakin but didn't plan on losing the duel to Windu. There's simply no evidence and its contrary to common sense and anything you can prove.

Yes, Vader was to blame for not being more aware of Tano since he didn't injure her at all and she was missing in the general vicinity.

When we see people moving we don't assume force ghosts unless there's evidence. We assume they are alive.

Quit lying. Sidious had an army and his still in his prime Vader assault them along with clones throughout the galaxy before they were even aware of their enemies. He was a hidden villain who always laid in wait because he knew he didn't stand a chance against the Jedi. He was the most powerful but let's not act like he wasn't some sneaky little woman at times. Masquerading around and being duplicitous while begging others to spare him along with trying to flee from Yoda. The manner in which he died was fitting since he was tricked and hurled by his own man with one hand no less. Embarrassing way to die for someone supposedly so smart and so powerful.

😂

Regardless, his ultimate goals were achieved, the duel with Mace meant nothing to him. Mace and Sidious were dead equal, since Vaapad allowed Mace to use Sidious' power right back at him. What allowed Mace to win was a shatterpoint connected to Anakin. The shatterpoint came to him since Anakin was very close, as far as I know anyway. Just providing context there. So even if you want to say that Mace "beat Sidious' ass", the end result was Mace being pummeled by Sidious' lightning out the window and Sidious achieving his overall goal of converting Anakin. So....

Force ghosts can move? Because when I watch ROTJ and see Kenobi's ghost moving I assume he's alive. You're just pointing out stupid stuff now.

Obviously Sidious couldn't just walk into the Jedi Temple, kill them all himself then somehow make himself emperor. It doesn't happen like that. He was part of the rule of two, and the Bane Sith spent many years slowly acquiring resources and manipulating galactic events.

I've already addressed the begging with Mace. But it's confirmed that Sidious ran from Yoda because he lacked confidence. But who came out on top in the end? Sidious. Plus it's also confirmed that Yoda could not beat the most powerful Sith Lord in history (paraphrased).

Embarrassing? Darth Maul, one of the most highly trained of his order, was cut in half by a Jedi apprentice. Now that's embarrassing. Not including the fact that Kenobi also managed to break Maul's defenses and cut his saber-staff in two, especially since Kenobi was a sole practitioner of Form IV and was hindered by the small area of the room.

Oh and that a 60 year old Jedi stymied Darth Maul and made the Sith Lord uncertain about the outcome of the fight. Quite embarrassing. Especially since Maul let Jinn into that room as well to get an advantage but ended up barely escaping by jumping across the pit.

No response?

'Coward.'

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. Thats never stated and regardless it pokes a hole in your maul wasn;t active and was just some hermit argument

2. Yup which yet again, clearly indicates he was active

3. If he's generated enough of a reputaionv that they fear him even when they hgaven't actually met him, then clearly he wasn't just sitting around.

4. He's never demonstrated them before. But Rebels Maul has demonstrated any ability tcw maul has shown in his past, as tcw maul.
Also, since when the hell was hope a sith emotion? WHy would feeling hopeless make him weaker rather than stronger with the dark side?

There's still literally nothing being presented as evidence for maul as of sod being sueprior.

5. Yet again, maul is very good compared to isi tcw counterparts, never is it specified the quote is talking about a specific aspect of his dueling so its baseless to deny that the claim isn't about maul as a duelist overall.

And this whole sod maul is maul in his prime is completely and totally baseless. There is no eveidence for mau being superior as of sod to as he was as rebels, sos htere's no reason to think tcw maul would beat his sod incarnation who overall who has grwon as a duelist and who being very good is a reason for his shorter fights with kenobi

.You can't just argue that having grown doesn't make you superior unless you can actually give some sort of eveidence saying that the previous version of the dude was superior.

I'm fully aware of that, it doesn't change that feloni indicaed their growth as duelists was a reason(in addition to the others) why they changed the fighting style. The reasons you've listed for the fight don't at all contradict the specific reason we're discussing here

And regardless them being very good swordsman due to their growth is talking about them overall as duelists(the growth is implied even without it being included in the quote). So yes they are superior to their tcw versions and have grown since tcw. Unless you have some sort of basis for that growth up to their rots and sod versions halting, and that their growth as duelists over a couple of months(for maul) and less than a year(for kenobi) exceeded their growth over the course of a decade plus, logically that would put them at their primes in rebels.

6. No, it wasn't. Maul isn't a rival of sidious in power. Nothing about either statements indicate anything combative so there's no reason to assume it had to do with combat.

7. And he didnt actually lose to an amped kanan in a duel, he just got pushed a few feet, your lowballing not withstanding. And mandalorian's greatest warrior lost to a padawan, so I don't care. Cherry picking a single low end showing is a terrible way to guage characters and sin't a valid basis for your argument.

8. I don''t care, prove to me rebels maul can't replicae that or it doesn't matter. And oppress never beat down any council masters by virtue of the blade by the way/ He beat adi galia with force useand got his leg cut by koon's offensisive almost immediately befpre winning by taking koon's mask off when the fight was interuppted(similar to how tpm kenobi "beat down" maul)

9. Nope, the commentary of kenobi"gaining focus" s out of context. Late rin the same interview feloni denies the amplification being external. Furthermore Kenobi has focused himself numerous pre-tcw, post tcw, and as of his rots version so to say that was kenobi at his best is wrong. And yes, in the contxt of a lightsaber duel, he did beat maul as feloni confirms in the same interview once. In the interview he additionally states that maul and oppress couldn't beat him. So my statement stands.

Regardless unless you can show me rebels maul faling to replicate tcw kenobi's showings, beause rebels maul has grown as a duelist and has improved as a a swodsman overall, I'm going to assume that he can replicate or exceed any of tcw maul's showings untill you can present any solid eveidence that suggests otherwise.

Right most of this you're just regurgitating the same old nonsense about "growth".

Everyone grows over time, but that does not mean they are in their PRIME. That was only used to Justify that the fight won't be Exactly like they fought previously when they were younger.

Rebels Maul simply has Zero feats to put him above SOD Maul. The guy lost to Kanan! And yes, of course he lost the fight LOL Being thrown off a cliff IS Losing.

Savage beat down Adi and Plo Koon and Ventress, and he did so fair and square with each one, no amount of excuses is going to change that.

It's not for me to prove Rebels Maul is < SOD Maul. TCW/SOD Maul has some nice feats. Rebels Maul literally has Nothing. But oh wait he beat Inquisitors, and GROWTH, GROWTH Lol If Filoni wanted to SHOW Maul had grown stronger then he should have shown that. He's certainly shown that with Kenobi.. Maul not so much.

Screw Filoni's interpretation of the Maul vs Kenobi fights. Who went and made him George Lucas? If you had or had not noticed the guy can be a little biased.
Fact is though in TCW Kenobi never once got the beat down on Maul, in like 3 different fights.

Originally posted by samappo
Regardless, his ultimate goals were achieved, the duel with Mace meant nothing to him. Mace and Sidious were dead equal, since Vaapad allowed Mace to use Sidious' power right back at him. What allowed Mace to win was a shatterpoint connected to Anakin. The shatterpoint came to him since Anakin was very close, as far as I know anyway. Just providing context there. So even if you want to say that Mace "beat Sidious' ass", the end result was Mace being pummeled by Sidious' lightning out the window and Sidious achieving his overall goal of converting Anakin. So....

Anakin changing teams is what got him killed. Two against one. You use double standards and it's kind of nauseating. Immature you ignore Vader throwing the decrepit old man down the shaft to his death. He had one friggin hand. Idiot.

Force ghosts can move? Because when I watch ROTJ and see Kenobi's ghost moving I assume he's alive. You're just pointing out stupid stuff now.[/B]

Obviously Sidious couldn't just walk into the Jedi Temple, kill them all himself then somehow make himself emperor. It doesn't happen like that. He was part of the rule of two, and the Bane Sith spent many years slowly acquiring resources and manipulating galactic events.
[/B]

I've already addressed the begging with Mace. But it's confirmed that Sidious ran from Yoda because he lacked confidence. But who came out on top in the end? Sidious. Plus it's also confirmed that Yoda could not beat the most powerful Sith Lord in history (paraphrased).
[/B]

Embarrassing? Darth Maul, one of the most highly trained of his order, was cut in half by a Jedi apprentice. Now that's embarrassing. Not including the fact that Kenobi also managed to break Maul's defenses and cut his saber-staff in two, especially since Kenobi was a sole practitioner of Form IV and was hindered by the small area of the room.

Oh and that a 60 year old Jedi stymied Darth Maul and made the Sith Lord uncertain about the outcome of the fight. Quite embarrassing. Especially since Maul let Jinn into that room as well to get an advantage but ended up barely escaping by jumping across the pit. [/B]

Maul defeated the Jedi master. The same Jedi master who was attacking him with Kenobi. Maul despite being cut in half and falling hundreds of feet survived. Palpatine wasn't cut in half nor was he injured in any way but was just tossed. He died. Poor guy. He lost to a wounded and one handed Vader without a saber. What's even more embarrassing is the same mastermind didn't see a father coming to the aid of his son while Sheev tortured him. Dumb and pitiful weary to die for someone with galactic power to put himself in that position.

😂

Originally posted by samappo
No response?

'Coward.'

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Right most of this you're just regurgitating the same old nonsense about "growth".

Everyone grows over time, but that does not mean they are in their PRIME. That was only used to Justify that the fight won't be Exactly like they fought previously when they were younger.

Rebels Maul simply has Zero feats to put him above SOD Maul. The guy lost to Kanan! And yes, of course he lost the fight LOL Being thrown off a cliff IS Losing.

Savage beat down Adi and Plo Koon and Ventress, and he did so fair and square with each one, no amount of excuses is going to change that.

It's not for me to prove Rebels Maul is < SOD Maul. TCW/SOD Maul has some nice feats. Rebels Maul literally has Nothing. But oh wait he beat Inquisitors, and GROWTH, GROWTH Lol If Filoni wanted to SHOW Maul had grown stronger then he should have shown that. He's certainly shown that with Kenobi.. Maul not so much.

Screw Filoni's interpretation of the Maul vs Kenobi fights. Who went and made him George Lucas? If you had or had not noticed the guy can be a little biased.
Fact is though in TCW Kenobi never once got the beat down on Maul, in like 3 different fights.

2. Not an argument. I can easily just say SOD maul has no feats above matching rebels ahsoka. Rebels Maul not facing the same opponents tcw maul did doesn't= he doesn't have feats. And your need to use the kanan low showing(a character who none of sod's maul has any actual scaling from) while ignoring sid maul's lkow showing is just a double standard. And given statements of authority that maul has grown as a duelist, and him being active while having time to grow in power makes the assumption that he doesn't get any of the feats sod maul has illogical. You're ignoring authority for an arbitary comparison of incomparable showings and needing to define a character by one low showing. Maul getting thrown a couple of feet by an amped jedi doesn't sever as evdidence for your argument.

3, Oppress beat down adi via force use, and unfortunately for your comparison, maul did not beat oppress via force use, so that showing doesn't really prove much.

What kind of bs is that. I suppose people just make excuses when they say, tpm maul's loss to tpm kenobi isn't valid, or that sidious being "beat dowwn" by vader isn't valid? You ignoring context doesn't change that its there. What oppress can do to koon when the fight is interrupted is meaningless. On the other hand what happened when there were no interuptions is what holds value here because thats what would be applicable in a typical vs scenario. And there's no geting around that oppress got injured by koon's lightrsaber in one move(a wound he referred to right after the fight and then needed maul's help healing at the end of the comic. Argung as if that fight actually indicates anything impressive about oppress's ability as a fighter is laughable when it shows him as far less skilled than his opponent.

And with ventress, oppress "more or less stalemating" ventress when she had two blades despite a favorble enviorment per feloni who was pre prime and depiste a form advantage doesn't at all indicate superiority over her in a normal combative scenario,

And off course neither example really proves anything, because you've yet to give me any basis for the superior fighter in rebels maul not being able to replicate it aside from your head canon and how imprssive you make the feat out to be in comparison to rebe;s maul who faced different opponents. I can just as easily claim taht rebels ahsoka eould have effortlessly stomped all the opponents you have mentioned for sod maul, and you would have no way to deny that.
Your comparisons feat wise are meaningless when contradicted by the word of authority over the show he created, now has authority over as head of animation projects, and is still a producer off on rebels recon, a show officially released by starwars that regularly features the core story group member who control canon which has the purpose of giving info on rebels.

4, Actually it is, because I have authority(quite possible canonical givent that rebels recon is offically published star wars material) that says you're wrong and all you've presented is your own belief that rebels maul "hasn't shown that" he can handle sod maul. I can easil yjust argue, that stalemating a match for prime vader is better than anyuthing sod maul has shown and you have no basis to deny the claim.

Wow you guys are still arguing over maul. I don't know if that's impressive or just sad

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. Even if you ignore the context of the quote to act as if the "signs of growth" is vague, its not needed. Them being very good compaed to their tcw incarnations being a justification for their shorter fights is enough, There is no way to get past what the statement indicates, maul and kenobi progessed "as swordsman". Them getting weaker in a specific area doesn'r change that overall they were better which along with the other reasons given ended up in the fight being short.

Nope. If you insist on using Filoni's words as the Bible, then the justification for it being a short fight isn't that they were both better now. It's because the gap between Maul and Kenobi was just too large now:

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2017/03/28/star-wars-rebels-dave-filoni-discusses-kallus-arc-mauls-fate-and-more-of-season-3s-big-storylines?page=3

" I felt that with Maul, any moment that he parries Obi-Wan is saying that he’s as good as Obi-Wan and I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think Maul ever accepted a path of selflessness and enlightenment and in the end, never getting over his need for revenge, and his anger and the way his life worked out is what undid him."

So 3 things are clear from the above:

1) The fight was short because Maul and Kenobi are not equals, not because they've both grown so Uber now lol

2) Every time Maul was parrying him equally in the past in longer drawn out fights (i.e. TCW fights), they were more equal.

3) This is the umpteempth time it's been implied that Maul's life having gone nowhere has made him weaker, not stronger. So it's time you stop being disingenuous about that.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
2. Not an argument. I can easily just say SOD maul has no feats above matching rebels ahsoka. Rebels Maul not facing the same opponents tcw maul did doesn't= he doesn't have feats. And your need to use the kanan low showing(a character who none of sod's maul has any actual scaling from) while ignoring sid maul's lkow showing is just a double standard. And given statements of authority that maul has grown as a duelist, and him being active while having time to grow in power makes the assumption that he doesn't get any of the feats sod maul has illogical. You're ignoring authority for an arbitary comparison of incomparable showings and needing to define a character by one low showing. Maul getting thrown a couple of feet by an amped jedi doesn't sever as evdidence for your argument.

You mean the same Ahsoka who Filoni says can only be matched by Vader or Palpatine (amongst the baddies in this time period) Lmao

Lol what? Kanan never even completed his Jedi training. We already know Maul had been inactive for a long time in that episode, waiting for someone to help him unlock the Temple. We already know he was physically a lot older, and we already know he's lost all purpose in life, and it was only Ezra that gave him even a little bit of spark back.

It's frankly asnine to think Kanan could ever defeat Prime Maul. While it's pretty sensible to think TCW/SOD Maul could match Rebels Ahsoka while on a Dark Side Temple, or on even on a more neutral setting.

You're comparing the guy who engaged Mace Windu to the guy who lost to Kanan LMAO

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
3, Oppress beat down adi via force use, and unfortunately for your comparison, maul did not beat oppress via force use, so that showing doesn't really prove much.

WTF is this? Who made this a Sabers only contest? If Opress could have outmatched Maul via a Force push, he surely would have tried, but instead his response is "you've grown so powerful", i.e. there's nothing he can do to Maul at this point.

Hey guess what, Kenobi only beat Maul in Sabers, so maybe Maul would have won if he went for a Force contest instead! Makes so much sense right??

Not that Adi was doing spectacularly well against Opress in Sabers anyway LOL

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
What kind of bs is that. I suppose people just make excuses when they say, tpm maul's loss to tpm kenobi isn't valid, or that sidious being "beat dowwn" by vader isn't valid? You ignoring context doesn't change that its there. What oppress can do to koon when the fight is interrupted is meaningless. On the other hand what happened when there were no interuptions is what holds value here because thats what would be applicable in a typical vs scenario. And there's no geting around that oppress got injured by koon's lightrsaber in one move(a wound he referred to right after the fight and then needed maul's help healing at the end of the comic. Argung as if that fight actually indicates anything impressive about oppress's ability as a fighter is laughable when it shows him as far less skilled than his opponent.

Actually it's you whose talking BS. There was no grabbing a lightsaber his opponent wasn't aware of, or grabbing someone from behind while they were distracted in any of Opress's fights. So again you're being disingenuous trying to make out Opress cheated or cheapshotted any of his opponents. There's a reason I said he won all those fights "fair and square" which you seem to be ignoring.

That's great that Plo Koon injured Savage, it really is. But he still lost the fight. End of. The fight being "interrupted" as you disingenuously point out is another desperate excuse by you. Savage already had Koon booted to the floor. The fight being "interrupted" by Koon's own troop was a distraction for Opress, not Koon, and would have been a great time for Koon to cheapshot Savage. Yet he still lost, because he was already losing in the fight.

Fact is Plo Koon + his troops all lost to Savage. The nerve of you to try to twist that into "Koon only lost because his own troops distracted him" is pretty laughable to say the least.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And with ventress, oppress "more or less stalemating" ventress when she had two blades despite a favorble enviorment per feloni who was pre prime and depiste a form advantage doesn't at all indicate superiority over her in a normal combative scenario,

There was no "favorable environment" for Opress noted by your boy Filoni. Nor was there any mention of Ventress being Pre-Prime. You need to use more direct quotes, because you seem to be making stuff up.

Maul did just fine with a single blade (he in fact did better that way, and lost to Kenobi the first time he used his Saber Staff against him) and there's no reason Ventress shouldn't either. In fact that's how she fights in Dark Disciple.

There's also the previous fight where Dooku was involved, when Savage choked them both and sent them both flying. So Savage winning without even resorting to TK is very impressive.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And off course neither example really proves anything, because you've yet to give me any basis for the superior fighter in rebels maul not being able to replicate it aside from your head canon and how imprssive you make the feat out to be in comparison to rebe;s maul who faced different opponents. I can just as easily claim taht rebels ahsoka eould have effortlessly stomped all the opponents you have mentioned for sod maul, and you would have no way to deny that.
Your comparisons feat wise are meaningless when contradicted by the word of authority over the show he created, now has authority over as head of animation projects, and is still a producer off on rebels recon, a show officially released by starwars that regularly features the core story group member who control canon which has the purpose of giving info on rebels.
4, Actually it is, because I have authority(quite possible canonical givent that rebels recon is offically published star wars material) that says you're wrong and all you've presented is your own belief that rebels maul "hasn't shown that" he can handle sod maul. I can easil yjust argue, that stalemating a match for prime vader is better than anyuthing sod maul has shown and you have no basis to deny the claim.

Again it's for you to prove that the guy who lost to Kanan, and is no longer Kenobi's equal is a match for his younger Prime self who engaged the likes of Mace Windu, Darth Sidious and was a match for Kenobi.

Your out of context quotes from Filoni simply don't align with the numerous other quotes from him regarding this "broken" Maul who "can't let go" and simply doesn't have the enlightened mind set of Obi-Wan.

Stalemating a match for Prime Vader? Lol

Firstly Filoni made it clear that not only is Ahsoka not Anakin/Vader's equal, but that Rebels Maul isn't Rebels Ahsoka's equal either.
Oh and btw why wasn't the Vader vs Ahsoka a 2 second fight due to them both being such Uber Pros? Could it be that Filoni plays favorites? Nah, can't be. His preferences are the Ultimate Canon we must all adhere to 😬

1. All your quote(which i'm gonna be using now) proves is maul wasn't equal to kenobi, which we already know. This doesn't at all mean he decreased, it just means that rebels kenobi>rebels maul. Maul didn't "take the path of selflessness" in sod or tcw, so yet again your quote doesn't remotely indicate that maul decreased as a fighter.
The quote you've used doesn't invalidate or even contradict feloni's statement.

2. Ahsoka being superior("blow fo rblow"😉 doesn't change that they are near equals/on the sa,e level whihc is obvious by them fighting evenly for a minuite.

As Maul was causing trouble for the empire(gathering a reputation as a "shadow", collecting artifacts, was engaged in multiple duels during rebels, and was looking for holocrons, your claim taht he was inactive is baseless and contradicted by what is shown.

I don't care. Kanan was indicated to be "guided by the force" to being able to tak emaul. And kanan was amped. Prove an amped, guided by the force kanan, can't throw tcw maul who is, whethe ryou like it or not, a pre prime rebels maul.

All the feats you keep brining up for sod maul simply don't mean anything because barring specific circumstances, because rebels maul did grow as a fighter, and is better as a swordsman, he gets any feats sod maul gets.

3. Because maul stomped oppress with a saber, he didn't stomp oppress with the force. Anyway, irrelevant because you've yet to give me proof the superior duelist in rebels maul can't replicate maul's saber showing vs oppress

4. The troopers were taken out before the fight started, how they factor into this is ridiculous. And no, oppress never "booted oppress onto the ground". He landed a kick which is<<<<actually cutting someone's leg in one move.

Plo Koon's ability or inabillity to cheapsghot oppress doesn't matter here. Neither does oppress's ability to exploit an interruption in the fight(which had plo koon visibly let his guard down, and wher eoppress didn't have to turn around). Koon's failings when there's an interuption in the fight is meaningless in tthe context of a versus where there would be no interruptions.

5. There's nothing out of context, you're just using seperately listed reasons and trying to potrat them as contradictory. And are using evidence that would also apply to tcw maul

And Maul not matching ahsoka blow for blow doesn't change they fought evenly for about a minuite which would suggest they are near equals.

C'mon, this is logic 101. Feloni never stated anakin and ahsoka are equals. Vader "matching" ahsoka =/ he "can't beat ahsoka". In order to ebat someone, you have to be able to match them.

Your inability to accept authority aside, rebels maul is>sod maul and gets any feats sod maul has.
Edit: Feloni made clear ventress was hindered by the enviroment and that they were stalematign when ventress had two balaes. Furthermore Ventress would continue growing untill the end of dark desciple.

Anyway, doesn't matter, because rebels maul gets any of sod maul's feats and any scaling you try to give him from oppress

Originally posted by Rebel95
Wow you guys are still arguing over maul. I don't know if that's impressive or just sad

Quanchi always argues over Maul, and never ever accepts his [numerous] mistakes.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. All your quote(which i'm gonna be using now) proves is maul wasn't equal to kenobi, which we already know. This doesn't at all mean he decreased, it just means that rebels kenobi>rebels maul. Maul didn't "take the path of selflessness" in sod or tcw, so yet again your quote doesn't remotely indicate that maul decreased as a fighter.
The quote you've used doesn't invalidate or even contradict feloni's statement.

Have you seen me deny Rebels Kenobi > Rebels Maul? Lol, Filoni couldn't have made that more crystal clear in the episode. Anyone denying that has just lost the plot.

What I'm arguing is this "GROWTH" nonsense of yours.

You were arguing that the fight was 2 seconds because Maul AND Kenobi are Both so Uber now, far better than before. When the truth is it was 2 seconds because Maul is simply no match for Kenobi at this point in time.

The whole Samurai style is just justifying why a fight between pros doesn't have to last a long while. That the superior combatant can show that pretty quickly. That in addition to them having fought each other several times in the past, they weren't just gonna go over the same parries again.

As for "Growth", that doesn't mean they are both in their Prime (although Kenobi seems to be). Everyone grows over time.. Doesn't mean they are as formidable as they were at the peak of their youth and more active periods.

Maul didn't take the path of "selflessness" in TCW/SOD, but he certainly had more going for him in his life (the last part of Filoni's statement on Maul's undoing).

Fact is there's numerous statements suggesting Rebels Maul was broken and desperate and weak both physically and mentally, so stop clinging to "Filoni said GROWTH, GROWTH." Lmao