Matt Martin on ROTS Obi-Wan vs ANH Obi-Wan

Q: Does spiritual growth (like Obi-Wan's in his exile) also improve a Jedi's ability to fight?

A: Sure it could. But like I said, there are a lot of other variables. If you’re asking if I think ANH Obi-Wan could beat RotS Obi-Wan in a fight: no, I’d bet on RotS.

Insignificant opinion.

If anyone's curious, this is what he said regarding Vader vs Sheev when people came to him with the top 5 list from Absolutely Everything You Need To Know:

Wouldn't take any of this seriously. It's all a mess.

We already know his greater force connection is not enough to compensate for his physical augmentation and that he Is combatively inferior to his former self.

This is nothing new.

Originally posted by Azronger
If anyone's curious, this is what he said regarding Vader vs Sheev when people came to him with the top 5 list from Absolutely Everything You Need To Know:

Wouldn't take any of this seriously. It's all a mess.

Yeah but you (or whoever is in that conversation) kept saying the book says Vader > Palps. But it doesnt. It only says Vader > Palps in SABERS.

Matt kept replying theres lots of different factors in a fight.

From that conversation, I wouldnt take the list as FACT, but would certainly count it as 1 piece of evidence that needs to be weighed against all the other evidence.

Is this canon?

^ He is from the story group.

Basically he is saying the Ben Kenobi certainly has had spiritual growth which would increase his combat effectiveness, but that is just 1 factor to consider, but overall hed give ROTS Kenobi the win over ANH Kenobi.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yeah but you (or whoever is in that conversation) kept saying the book says Vader > Palps. But it doesnt. It only says Vader > Palps in SABERS.

Matt kept replying theres lots of different factors in a fight.

From that conversation, I wouldnt take the list as FACT, but would certainly count it as 1 piece of evidence that needs to be weighed against all the other evidence.

It's not me. I don't ask authors questions.

Originally posted by Azronger
It's not me. I don't ask authors questions.

Alrite cool.

Just pointing out the flaw in the question. Because the book never said Vader is overall better or that he would win a fight.

Originally posted by LordOfTheLight
We already know his greater force connection is not enough to compensate for his physical augmentation and that he Is combatively inferior to his former self.

This is nothing new.

Vader > Sidious makes no sense as to why he wouldn't overthrow him.

The ranking only has him superior in Sabers. Not in an all out.

Not saying its true, but the counter arguments here are not working at all.

I take those comments with a grain of salt, imo Obi Wans final fight with maul showed how Obi Wan had truly mastered form three as he had easily defeated Maul

Originally posted by DarthPlaguis12
I take those comments with a grain of salt, imo Obi Wans final fight with maul showed how Obi Wan had truly mastered form three as he had easily defeated Maul

He did not easily defeat Maul. Dave Filoni wanted the scene to be a homage to the seventh samurai by Kurosawa, which is what star wars was partially inspired by.

The instinct would be, and probably, I admit, the expectation, is for some kind of prolonged lightsaber battle. But I've done a lot of prolonged lightsaber battles over the years and I think what's most important about any kind of confrontation is what's riding on it. What's the tension going into it? It starts to matter less and less how you swing a sword or how creatively you do it if there's not a lot riding on it.

So that scene, it's an homage to the Seventh Samurai

And in real life, swordfights aren't very prolonged. The average fencing match lasts one minute, with 15 touches within. 1 touch happens every couple of seconds. One or two jabs (this is at the olympic level, let me remind you) is enough to get one touch. Which means that if you go for the kind of two handed attack that Maul went for, you have decided to end the fight. You either win, or you die in that circumstance.

So the fight wasn't short because Maul was bad, it was short because both fighters were so good.

Bro I’m not gonna argue with you, he beat maul in three moves, stop trying to make everything into this huge debate.

Maul looked so good dying so easily yet you’re the same guy who thinks Luke losing to a teenage nobody makes him a bad ass

F*** Filoni and his “Art” and “Realism” when it works against characters he doesnt care for.

Was a shit fight to end Maul with. And shit storytelling.

Pretty much, good fight though

This forum is like

I never thought we'd have more confusion than legends lol

Originally posted by DarthPlaguis12
Bro I’m not gonna argue with you, he beat maul in three moves, stop trying to make everything into this huge debate.

Maul looked so good dying so easily yet you’re the same guy who thinks Luke losing to a teenage nobody makes him a bad ass

Originally posted by Darth Thor
F*** Filoni and his “Art” and “Realism” when it works against characters he doesnt care for.

Was a shit fight to end Maul with. And shit storytelling.

Prove it or shut up