Darth Maul vs. General Grievous (Sabers)

Grievous stomps

Maul:
Deronn_solo
Darth Thor
relentless1
The Ellimist(?)
The Lost

Grievous:
Kurk
Freedon Nadd
Nephthys(?)
ILS(?)
carthage
Geistalt

Not including JMANGO or CuckedCurry; I refuse to include accounts made this January or later.

Sounds like good debating material 🙂

Originally posted by ILS
The main reason Obi-Wan did so well against him was the Force epiphany he had

Stover's flowery description aside, that's nothing special. It's how Jedi fight in general. It's how they are supposed to fight: by releasing all desire and letting the force flow through themselves as they fight.

Originally posted by ILS

A canon interpretation would heavily favour Maul

In TCW, Grevious faced superior versions of Kenobi and did significantly better than Maul did, with Kenobi either winning via the force or getting out dueled.

[/B][/QUOTE] Not including JMANGO or CuckedCurry; I refuse to include accounts made this January or later. [/B][/QUOTE]

Your staggering intelligence has been noted.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
How?

In TCW, Grevious faced superior versions of Kenobi and did significantly better than Maul did, with Kenobi either winning via the force or getting out dueled.

Ventress beat Grievous in a pure duel.

And given you cling to every word of Filonis so dearly when it comes to TCW/Rebels, you have to believe Canon Grievous is not on Canon Ventress Level.

And Maul is clearly > Ventress.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Ventress beat Grievous in a pure duel.

And given you cling to every word of Filonis so dearly when it comes to TCW/Rebels, you have to believe Canon Grievous is not on Canon Ventress Level.

And Maul is clearly > Ventress.

Ventress was amped against Grievous. Whether in Legends via Dathomir being a conventional DS Nexus

Or in Canon where Nightsisters share a specific connection with the planet. Remember Ventress was "baptised in dark side energy" and became a full Nightsister at the start of that episode.

So it was circumstantial no matter how you cut it.

Maul would obviously just pratfall and stab himself with his own lightsaber somehow. Nobody can deny it.

Too bad that Maul doesn't hello there General Grievous.

Ventress beat Grievous in a pure duel.

And given you cling to every word of Filonis so dearly when it comes to TCW/Rebels, you have to believe Canon Grievous is not on Canon Ventress Level.

And Maul is clearly > Ventress.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Guess Ventress>Maul

Feloni's statement specifically placed ventress above grievous by virtue of her ability to use the force.

Yes using the Force in a Saber fight. Not by virtue of TK.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Guess Ventress>Maul

Yeah clearly proven when she couldnt even beat Opress.

Your double standards and lowballing of Maul will never cease it seems.

Originally posted by Greysentinel365
Ventress was amped against Grievous. Whether in Legends via Dathomir being a conventional DS Nexus

Or in Canon where Nightsisters share a specific connection with the planet. Remember Ventress was "baptised in dark side energy" and became a full Nightsister at the start of that episode.

So it was circumstantial no matter how you cut it.

I doubt any amp she received put her beyond Mauls level.

So in Canon Maul clearly comes out on top.

We are talking about the guy who stomped Opress after all. Ventress is not even close to Mauls Level.

All Maul did was predict Savage's attack. He deflected maybe one strike from him and then pinned him by jumping onto his face.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
[B]I doubt any amp she received put her beyond Mauls level.

And let's ignore that Grievous had a cybernetic upgrade after season 5. After which he wrecked season 7 Kenobi.

Yes using the Force in a Saber fight. Not by virtue of TK.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Baseless conjecture is baseless conjecture.

Basless? Quite a logical assumption actually.

Not to mention Filoni (whose mere implications you take as word of God when it suits you), made it very clear, that she was just a superior duelist to Grievous.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
And let's ignore that Grievous had a cybernetic upgrade after season 5. After which he wrecked season 7 Kenobi.

LOL What?

Citation needed please. Again Filoni (word of God for you when convenient), made it clear Grievous wins when he catches Jedi off guard, and that hes not truly a match for the like of Ventress or Kenobi in Saber combat.

Talking Canon of course.

Oh and lets not forget the 3 fights between Maul and Grievous in SOD (S6/7), none of which showed or even implied Grievous to be superior in any way. 2 of which showed Maul as the clear superior, once Physically, and another time with TK).

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Nope. The specific example Feloni cited to demonstrate what he was saying was that of Grievous vs Eath Koth where Grievous was winning the saber duel but then lost the fight when Koth force blasted him.

I didnt say anything about Koth. I am talking about his commentary of Ventress vs Grievous, where he made it clear Ventress was just the superior duelist irrespective of any dark side amps.

You seem to be very selective on your use Filoni's commentaries.

Originally posted by Kurk
All Maul did was predict Savage's attack. He deflected maybe one strike from him and then pinned him by jumping onto his face.

Maul stomped Savage hard.

Not to mention Filoni (whose mere implications you take as word of God when it suits you)

You can either
A, decide the source material strongly suggests feloni is bsing.
B. Accept twhere the evidence leads, Ventress>Grievous>TCW Kenobi/Maul.

Also, there's a difference between Feloni saying "in my opinion", or Feloni outright explaining his own intent.

So again, I want to see the quote.

, made it very clear, that she was just a superior duelist to Grievous.

Oh and lets not forget the 3 fights between Maul and Grievous in SOD (S6/7)

Or do we only consider context when it favors a pro-Maul argument?

and another time with TK).

I'd be interested to see how you dance around Grievous being distracted, or is that only a viable explanation when we're trying to save Maul from padawan-endowed embarrassment?

Also, it's sabers only fam, try again.

once Physically

When Grievous kicked him back landing the only hit of their fights? (Note: a "hit of a fight" happens during a fight)

citation needed

Maul stomped Savage hard.

Way to not address Kurk's argument.

Also, thor, No evidence is definitive, it's up to us to weight evidence case by case to see which stances have more evidence. That's what debating is about. This "Feloni is the word of god" tangent is just a lazy non-sequitur.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I don't need the word of god vs an absence of evidence. It's a little different when the lore shows contradictory evidence. For example, Grievous has outright beat TCW Kenobi. Maul has never showcased superiority with a blade to Kenobi, so if Ventress can legit beat Grievous, why should we assume Kenobi or Maul is > Ventress?

Except Filoni already explained away any contradictory evidence by showcasing when and how Grievous can sometimes get the win over higher level Jedi.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Also, thor, No evidence is definitive, it's up to us to weight evidence case by case to see which stances have more evidence. That's what debating is about. This "Feloni is the word of god" tangent is just a lazy non-sequitur.

Urm thats how you treated his word growth, which wasnt even a definitive statement regarding Mauls overall power and duelling abilities.

Its also how you treated his mere implication that Rebels Ahsoka May be > Rebels Maul, even though he never actually made that direct comparison.

However when he clearly states in a Direct Comparison that Grievous isnt on Ventress Level in duelling, you simply choose to ignore that.

This is what we call Double Standards. And to a ridiculous degree.