Originally posted by ares834
Yawn. The only point there even worth considering is that Maul was not at his best.
So, the fact that Ben was undefeatable in that specific instance, the fact Ben baited Maul into rushing the duel and using a move Obi-Wan specifically knew how to counter, and the fact Maul underestimated Ben+got cocky aren't even worth considering? Even though they heavily favor Ben and heavily hinder Maul?
It’s called poetic license. People take things way too literally. But no, I’m not inclined to agree that Ben was amped. Filoni is merely stating he has a purpose and he knows who he is (more on that in a moment). The rest is absolute nonsense. The whole baiting/form bullshit is a complete misunderstanding of the subtext of the fight. Kenobi switching his stance isn’t him trying to trick Maul into believing he is Ataru causing him to fight like he did against Qui-Gon. Rather it symbolized Kenobi’s ability to move on. He is switching from the energetic fighting he did in the prequels to a more “simple” form better suited to his age and abilities. Comparatively Maul’s inability to move on is his driving force in both TCW and Rebels and so he tries to fight the same way as he did in TPM despite the fact that he isn’t as spry or athletic as he once was.
With that said, even if you believe the “baiting” it still proves Kenobi is a significantly better duelist. Tricking your opponent is, after all, part of dueling.
Kenobi wasn't amped, stop making crap up.
Nowhere in the quote you used does it say Kenobi was externaly boosted. All that luke is ever mentioned is as a reason for Kenobi deciding to fight Maul even though he didn't want to.
And regardless, it's been outright confirmed that Kenobi's too good for Maul by Feloni whose word is still>yours
also, you realize Kenobi switched back to a soresu stance, BEFORE, Maul attacked?
Originally posted by thesithmaster
. He's done nothing to suggest that apart from getting super injured by an explosion which apparently disintegrated ships, but we need to believe that even though it isn't proven.
Given that Vader's cape hasn't completely disntergrated its obvious Vader made use of a telekentic barrier. Even if it withstood just a portion of an attack potent enough to dissolve freighters, it absolutely dwarfs anything you can provide for sod maul.
As for the rest, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
The question asked is why as the fight so short, one of the reasons given is they're very good fighters and that same explanation references the lengthy fights maul and Kenobi had in TCW.
In other words, Rebels Maul is very good compared to his tcw incarnation as a fighter.
That you find the above to be vague but then take voice actor opinions which never mention combative ability as worth mentioning is rather telling.
For anyone who wants an in depth explanation, here:
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/profile/kbroskywalker/blog/rebels-mauls-growth/131038/
It never has been proven to me before. You're assuming things. Assumption.
And Maul+Kenobi "had growth" while fighting each other due to fighting each other many times and knowing each other's styles, hence no need for a prolonged fight again.
And Kenobi tricked Maul. That isn't being a far superior duelist, that's Kenobi having knowledge of what Maul would do given his previous fights. He knew Maul would go for that move due to seeing him do so. No other combatant could have guessed it, given Kenobi was the only one who saw Maul smack Jinn. That's not being a far superior duelist.
And Ataru is an energetic form, unlike Soresu.
And Ben wasn't amped? Filoni outright stated he was undefeatable due to protecting Luke. Who's saying crap, now, huh?
And he never switched to Soresu stance.
Yeah, Ben wasn't amped, and I also don't think that he was intentionally trying to bait Maul (if he was trying to bait Maul, then that definitely doesn't speak too well to Maul's intelligence or tactical ability). The whole fight was symbolic and I don't think we should really read into it too much. What is apparent and what shouldn't be ignored, though, is that Maul used the exact same move-set he used in TPM, which Kenobi was prepared to defend against and dismantle given his familiarity with the moves. The fact Maul used the exact same moves, to me, indicates that he was expecting an easy victory, but unfortunately for him, Kenobi transformed into a much different and evolved fighter, and easily beat him. I think the main takeaway is that Maul vs. Kenobi on Tatooine is very circumstantial to the both of them, so using it to lowball Maul or highball Kenobi doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by thesithmaster
If denials are becoming ignoring what we saw in the show
Originally posted by thesithmaster
and statements from writers, then this isn't even worth my time.
]
Originally posted by thesithmaster
You want to debunk that, do it with proof.
Burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim, not on the dude trying to disprove it. You need to prove something first for me to disprove it.
Originally posted by thesithmasterSomething about rocks and glasses houses comes to mind
[B]These unsubstantiated fan-fictions are becoming pathetic.
]
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Yeah, Ben wasn't amped, and I also don't think that he was intentionally trying to bait Maul (if he was trying to bait Maul, then that definitely doesn't speak too well to Maul's intelligence or tactical ability). The whole fight was symbolic and I don't think we should really read into it too much. What is apparent and what shouldn't be ignored, though, is that Maul used the exact same move-set he used in TPM, which Kenobi was prepared to defend against and dismantle given his familiarity with the moves. The fact Maul used the exact same moves, to me, indicates that he was expecting an easy victory, but unfortunately for him, Kenobi transformed into a much different and evolved fighter, and easily beat him. I think the main takeaway is that Maul vs. Kenobi on Tatooine is very circumstantial to the both of them, so using it to lowball Maul or highball Kenobi doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Such as Ahsoka sending Maul flaling backwards and driving him back?How about a two-handed Ahsoka overpowering Maul in a bladelock which hardly is a showing of superiority?
Like Gilroy's implication of malachor being a nexus, Feloni's putting Ahsoka above Maul on even ground, and a canonical statement from Rebels Recon placing rebels maul above sod Maul?
I ignored Gilroy's implication because it doesn't imply in the least Malachor is a nexus. It is a nexus, yeah, because Hidalgo said so. That nexus, however, only "potentially" amped the Dark siders and wasn't a "single-game buff" as per Hidalgo.
Filoni was talking about the quote in a storytelling purpose. No one but Sidious and Vader could match Ahsoka FROM HER OPPOSITION, the GALACTIC EMPIRE. Is Maul an Imperial? Nope.
And Rebels recon never puts Rebels Maul above SOD Maul. You twisting quotes to suit your purposes is meaningless. It says they had growth. But it specifically referred to Maul vs Kenobi. They had evolved from prolonged fights due to having multiple prolonged fights before and knowing each other inside out.
As usual you don't even grasp the most basic concepts of debating while hypocritically trying to attack the credibility of the dude you're facing.
Hypocritically? Says the guy that twists quotes and sources at every turn to suit him? Lmao.
Burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim, not on the dude trying to disprove it. You need to prove something first for me to disprove it.
I have proven. Now you disprove it. I have had the burden of proof, but now I no longer have it given I have already proven it. Or do I have the burden of proof AFTER proving the statement?Something about rocks and glasses houses comes to mind