Darth Maul vs. General Grievous (Sabers)

Originally posted by Rockydonovang

Way to not address Kurk's argument.

Lol there was no legitimate argument there.

Saying Maul simply anticipates Savages moves is like saying Maul is simply faster than Savage.

Anticipating moves is what the Force is used for in combat.

Plus as you would say:

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Baseless conjecture is baseless conjecture.

As for the rest of your points, can not address them from my phone. So will have to wait. But I know how you are with Maul, so know it will essentially be pointless.

Thor, I'm still waiting for that quote your whole argument is based around. Till you can provide it, refrain from making arguments based on it.

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

Digest this in your own time, your tangents are getting tiresome. For future posts, I'll be ignoring points like these. Stop wasting my time and stick to the topic at hand

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

Unfortunately tho, we're still left with Ahsoka driving Maul back on a DS Nexus. And so you don't go on another irrelevant tangent, Hidalgo never said Malachor being a nexus was "only a possiblity", he said "it's a possiblity". A possibility we can confirm by looking at the other evidence available.

This is the last time I'm entertaining a tangent. Stay on topic.

Lol there was no legitimate argument there.

It's not "baseless conjecture" when its explicitly shown by the source material. Maul anticipated an onrushing Oppress's movements and capitalized on his cybernetic leg . Now explain to me why Grievous, who has two cybernetic legs, and is faster than the Zebrak in question, wouldn't be able to replicate this?

Hell, Grievous blitzed Kenobi in season 7, Kenobi being a far more defensive(and hilariously more skilled) fighter who wouldn't give up an opening like Oppress did. Why is Maul leveraging his legs against Oppress more impressive?

Kurk's point was completely legitimate, it's just not convenient to address, so you dismissed it.

This is why I don't debate you thor.

But I know how you are with Maul, so know it will essentially be pointless.

Filoni*

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Thor, I'm still waiting for that quote your whole argument is based around. Till you can provide it, refrain from making arguments based on it.

Why would I refrain from using it when it's a well known quote of his I've posted may many times before?

All you had to do was ask, but it should be blatantly obvious I'm talking about his commentary over the Ventress vs Grievous fight and not the Koth vs Grievous fight LOL:

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/03/21/star-wars-the-clone-wars-looking-back-at-season-4?page=3

"I still don't believe that, at this point -- one-to-one -- that Grievous could really take out someone like Ventress in a lightsaber fight."

And here he explains how Grievous can sometimes beat Jedi of Ventress's or Kenobi's caliber:

"he's adept at using lightsabers, but I always thought his thing was fear. If you are afraid of the many swirling blades, then you'll parish staring at them. But if you can just focus through it, you can defeat that opponent "

Now this is Filoni giving his view of whose the greater swordsman between Grievous and Ventress, whilst doing commentary on their fight from TCW.

So given you take Filoni's mere "Implications" on Rebel Maul's sword abilities, or how Rebels Ahsoka stacks up to Rebels Maul (even though he never directly compared them) as some kind of canon fact simply because he's the one saying it, don't be all hypocritical now doing mental gymnastics ignoring this quote.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang

No matter how many times someone explains their are argument to you, you misrepresent it. The "growth" wasn't the crux of my argument, though the context of the quote explicitly refers to Kenobi and Maul's skill as fighters. I've never treated the quote as irrefutable, but it's yet to be refuted. Furthermore even if we dismiss the quote. The burden on proof is on you to prove Maul was post-prime. If you can't provide proof that Maul declined, I have no reason to treat TCW Maul any better than I would treat Rebels Maul.

Digest this in your own time, your tangents are getting tiresome. For future posts, I'll be ignoring points like these. Stop wasting my time and stick to the topic at hand

If that's not the crux of your argument, then I suggest you don't even use it, because it sure sounds like IT IS the crux of your argument the way you keep falling back to it.

Don't care if you're growing tiresome, as I think most will agree we are all tired of you misrepresenting the word "growth" in the context of that statement which was further explained by Gilroy and Witwer.

Well aside from the fact that both Maul and Witwer have flat out said they're past their prime?

Yeah I don't even claim he's massively past his prime. I've always maintained that all 3 (Peak) incarnations of Maul are approx on par (when fighting at their best). However Rebels Maul is certainly the most impatient, frustrated and hence clumsy in combat, which has lead him to a couple of the most embarrassing losses of his career.

Unsurprisingly Thor you've only responded to some of my points and are repeating arguments you've already made without considering how I've responded to them. This is my last response to you, you're welcome to have the last word.

or how Rebels Ahsoka stacks up to Rebels Maul (even though he never directly compared them)

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?

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

Fam, this isn't relevant. Imma do you a courtesy though, the quote doesn't prove anything regarding Maul because it was specifically talking about Feloni's intentions back at the start of season 2.

Unfortunately tho, we're still left with Ahsoka driving Maul back on a DS Nexus. And so you don't go on another irrelevant tangent, Hidalgo never said Malachor being a nexus was "only a possiblity", he said "it's a possiblity". A possibility we can confirm by looking at the other evidence available.

Yeah I don't even claim he's massively past his prime.

Well aside from the fact that both Maul and Witwer have flat out said they're past their prime?

Witwer: He has this ambition that still exists inside him and that ambition is eating him up –especially now that he’s past his prime and his glory years. Yeah, he’s a sadder character than we perhaps remember in Clone Wars.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
[B]If that's not the crux of your argument, then I suggest you don't even use it, because it sure sounds like IT IS the crux of your argument the way you keep falling back to it.

Now stop with the tangents.

All you had to do was ask,

Thankfully, I've already addressed this:

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.

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?

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

Fam, this isn't relevant. Imma do you a courtesy though, the quote doesn't prove anything regarding Maul because it was specifically talking about Feloni's intentions back at the start of season 2.

Unfortunately tho, we're still left with Ahsoka driving Maul back on a DS Nexus. And so you don't go on another irrelevant tangent, Hidalgo never said Malachor being a nexus was "only a possiblity", he said "it's a possiblity". A possibility we can confirm by looking at the other evidence available.

Try to keep up.