Originally posted by RealistRacism
Lmao, then Maul's superior does as well.
Well you have to firstly prove Kenobi is Mauls superior (looks like some want to count Canon only when it comes to that), and then justify to me how Grievous and Kenobi are equals.
The only parity I see between Grievous and Maul is in the missing genitals department. Where Vader has them both beat (just barely).
Originally posted by LordOfTheLight
The relaunched fact files are Disney canon. And no matter how hard you try to ignore it or twist around it or try to sideline it, it is canonical that Kenobi did not have his active barrier up when Dooku choked him.And no it's not retarded at all. In fact it has been made clear repeatedly across sources that he left himself open trying to bullrush him there On that note I should probably compile a list of all sources where someone who did not gesture to defend was choked, ragdolled or sent flying. Pretty sure all PT era material is consistent in at least this note, regardless who the opponents are or whether it is legends or canon
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Well you have to firstly prove Kenobi is Mauls superior (looks like some want to count Canon only when it comes to that), and then justify to me how Grievous and Kenobi are equals.The only parity I see between Grievous and Maul is in the missing genitals department. Where Vader has them both beat (just barely).
Grievous is his canonical equal; "Obi-Wan Kenobi and Grievous often fought to a stalemate when they clashed, so equally matched were they as warriors. Eventually though, Kenobi was to learn how to best the cyborg."
Originally posted by RealistRacism
Everyone here says that Lucas' word extends to the EU, Canon and all other material. So does his statement of "You have to be either Mace or Yoda to compete with the Emperor" still stand despite Luke defeating him, Plagueis would also logically be able to compete, then we see Maul do it briefly in TCW etc. If Lucas' word was actually treated as fact, we wouldn't see characters before and after his statement compete with Sidious. The Maul = Dooku = Vader garbage is exactly the same.We know that Dooku is way ahead of Maul, by virtue of being vastly superior to General Grievous, Kenobi's stated equal (who is Maul's solid superior). Not only do we have a line of scaling, but Dooku is said to have easily defeated Kenobi on the Invisible Hand - despite having the near-invincible Anakin Skywalker as backup - once again proving he's far better than Maul;
"After a short struggle, Dooku easily swatted Obi-Wan Kenobi aside, leaving him to duel with a frightened Anakin alone while the captive Chancellor Palpatine looked on." - From one of the Relaunched Fact Files. I can find the issue number if needed.If Lucas says something, and then we see that's demonstrably not the case... are we not supposed to believe our eyes? Or do we blindly follow what we know to not be true? His word is canon unless we see the converse, and that's what's going on here. Maul and Vader are Ventress-tier trash, and Dooku reigns supreme 👆
"From then on, he wasn't as strong as the Emperor – he was like Darth Maul or Count Dooku. He wasn't what he was supposed to become. But the son could become that."
We are all familiar with the quote above. I think this quote still holds true even today. He's saying Vader is closer to the level of Maul/Dooku than the emperor himself.
I for one believe Vader (Legends and especially canon) to be the most powerful of all Palpatine's apprentices. I think a majority of the star wars lore backs that up. That being said, Vader easily stomps Ventress, who is far <<< than Dooku.
This is a troll thread, right?
Originally posted by RealistRacismLmao, we don't have to use Canon only but this is when Maul's in his prime. Everyone always uses him as shown in TCW, after his power growth but now that that doesn't suit, you're a Legends guy Thor? You've always conceded Maul's inferiority to Kenobi be it Canon or Legends, but now that Grievous is above him, you've got to panic up some response. Just admit GG's better 🙂
Grievous is his canonical equal; "Obi-Wan Kenobi and Grievous often fought to a stalemate when they clashed, so equally matched were they as warriors. Eventually though, Kenobi was to learn how to best the cyborg."
Except Kenobi has only beaten down Maul in direct combat in Rebels 😬
You can say Kenobi grew between their last clash and ROTS, but so did Maul.
Lol Canonically Kenobi consistently had Grievous on the run every time he TKd him.
Even in Sabers Canon Greivous has gotten his limbs chopped off by both Fisto and Ventress, and fought evenly against Koth who had a wounded arm.
Theres literally nothing to put Grievous on par with Maul. Ventress is the better comparison tbh.
Originally posted by DarthCaedus77
Arguments that Maul can take peak Kenobi are worthless at this point tbh. Everyone knows Kenobi wins.
Because of Rebels, which is pure Disney Canon.
The rules are that the fall back position is Legends and Lucas canon only. No Disney Canon unless the OP states so.
And even if Legends/Lucas Prime Kenobi would take Prime Maul, its pretty clear from all the evidences that it would be a fight between near equals. To the extent that its not even worth bringing up Kenobi as Mauls superior.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Because of Rebels, which is pure Disney Canon.The rules are that the fall back position is Legends and Lucas canon only. No Disney Canon unless the OP states so.
And even if Legends/Lucas Prime Kenobi would take Prime Maul, its pretty clear from all the evidences that it would be a fight between near equals. To the extent that its not even worth bringing up Kenobi as Mauls superior.
No, not cause of Rebels and I'm talking about Legends lol.
ROTS Kenobi>Maul, it's not debatable.
Originally posted by RealistRacism
Thor's new radical turn of Maul > Kenobi is brilliant. Grievous is = Obi-Wan as per the New Fact Files, which covers Canon and Legends content, so stop pretending this is based solely on the TV programs.Grievous > Maul is fact now.
LOL What?
No the fact files state they fought equally on numerous occasions through TCW, as if Maul and Kenobi did not. Only difference being Maul did not repeatedly get TKd by Kenobi and repeatedly run from him.
Also nowhere have I stated Maul > Kenobi. They were clearly peers during TCW, and there's nothing to suggest that massively changed by ROTS.
Maul already beat Grievous twice in SOD. So that's some strange facts you're trying to convince others of.
Tell me about Ventress vs Grievous. Maul and Kenobi are simply a tier above them both.
They were equally matched as warriors, is what the Fact Files state. Maybe that’s because Grievous and Kenobi typically fight in tight spaces (there are quotes in the Fact Files that go into this) and the latter has no force defense.
Maul never defeated Grievous. He pushed him away once and tackled him the other time. Did Grievous win because he kicked him that one time? I didn’t think so. Sad to see you’ve stooped so low. Maul’s ****ing trash and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Originally posted by Realist
They were equally matched as warriors, is what the Fact Files state. Maybe that’s because Grievous and Kenobi typically fight in tight spaces (there are quotes in the Fact Files that go into this) and the latter has no force defense.
Ah so.. excuses for why Grievous lost and ran. Which is actually you acknowledging that Grievous lost and ran.
But somehow he performed better than Maul, who had Kenobi running the first time, stalemated the second time, and yes strategically fled ONE time, after smashing Kenobi against a cave wall.
Originally posted by Realist
Maul never defeated Grievous. He pushed him away once and tackled him the other time. Did Grievous win because he kicked him that one time? I didn’t think so. Sad to see you’ve stooped so low. Maul’s ****ing trash and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Oh funny how when Kanan pushes Maul off a cliff, then collapses himself, it's like OH LOOK MAUL IS TRASH BEATEN BY ANOTHER PADAWAN.
Yet when Maul pushes Grievous of a cliff, and even looks over to check if he's beaten, but can't stick around, that somehow means nothing.
Oh a random kick is equivalent now to Physically blitzing your opponent and having them surrender with a sword to the neck? Sure.
It's funny how the combatant whose supposedly equal to Kenobi and > Maul always seems to be on the losing end against both of them.
They aren't excuses Thor... they're circumstances stated in a Canonical source. Maul won via dun moch the first time, over a Kenobi who had just been bashed and knocked out multiple times, but it's nice to see you're still ignoring that fact. Lmao. No one honestly takes Kanan pushing him off a cliff as the reason why he's trash, it's just amusing to do so. The same way that we'll laugh at Anakin for being overpowered by Hondo.
Wtf? Maul did just that... pushed him off a cliff. On neutral ground - as these 'versus fights' typically take place on - Grievous would be pushed and he'd just get up. How convenient for Maul that there are some huge canyons he can hurl an opponent - with no force wall - in. This isn't a victory, lmfao.
Maul didn't blitz Grievous. Maul off-balanced him with a force-wave and then tackled him, hardly a blitzing. On neutral ground, Grievous would've just been pushed backwards and recovered fine. But again, he was limited in his movement, something that's stated to have hindered him in RotS and in his earlier TCW fights. If you're saying this to imply superior speed, Maul is roughly on par with Kenobi in that area in S4, whilst Grievous is faster than Kenobi in S7. But ignorance is bliss, I guess.
So when Grievous basically one-shots Kenobi in S7, that's not a clearer display of superior martial skill than Maul using cheap psychological tricks and pushing Obi-Wan against a wall? Grievous performs far better against late TCW Obi-Wan, than Maul did against his mid-TCW version.
S7 Grievous >> S7 Obi-Wan > S4 Obi-Wan = Maul
Originally posted by RealistRacism
They aren't excuses Thor... they're circumstances stated in a Canonical source. Maul won via dun moch the first time, over a Kenobi who had just been bashed and knocked out multiple times, but it's nice to see you're still ignoring that fact.
Oh please. You're talking about a Maul who hadn't even fought in 10+ years.
In fact if you want to refer to canon for a sec (by the same director no less), Kanan gave the Inquisitor his best fight yet AFTER being properly tortured for days. And you're whining about a Jedi Master being slapped around a bit before a fight against a combatant who just hasnt fought in 10+ years and just got put on these new chicken legs.
I mean really 😬
Originally posted by RealistRacism
Lmao. No one honestly takes Kanan pushing him off a cliff as the reason why he's trash, it's just amusing to do so. The same way that we'll laugh at Anakin for being overpowered by Hondo.
Good. So you agree Kanan never really beat Old Maul. As long as we are keeping things consistent 👆
Also its hard to keep up with whats a joke and whats serious. Like Im still half sure you're joking here calling Grievous > Maul. But refuse to give Grievous fanboys that ammunition for later on.
Originally posted by RealistRacism
Wtf? Maul did just that... pushed him off a cliff. On neutral ground - as these 'versus fights' typically take place on - Grievous would be pushed and he'd just get up. How convenient for Maul that there are some huge canyons he can hurl an opponent - with no force wall - in. This isn't a victory, lmfao.
Okay, but you need to be aware of your environment, and if nothing else Maul overpowered him right?
So best we can deduce from that is Maul >/= Grievous.
Originally posted by RealistRacism
Maul didn't blitz Grievous. Maul off-balanced him with a force-wave and then tackled him, hardly a blitzing. On neutral ground, Grievous would've just been pushed backwards and recovered fine. But again, he was limited in his movement, something that's stated to have hindered him in RotS and in his earlier TCW fights. If you're saying this to imply superior speed, Maul is roughly on par with Kenobi in that area in S4, whilst Grievous is faster than Kenobi in S7. But ignorance is bliss, I guess.
Thats a lot of WOULD HAVES you are using for Grievous. Surely with 3 different encounters there should not be this many COULD HAVE WOULD HAVE SHOULD HAVES.
Ill concede there was a level of parity between them, but Maul seemed to always have the edge. So like I said Ill give you Maul >/= Grievous, which Id accept if I was you, because you really have nothing to put Grievous standing higher than that against Maul.
Originally posted by RealistRacism
So when Grievous basically one-shots Kenobi in S7, that's not a clearer display of superior martial skill than Maul using cheap psychological tricks and pushing Obi-Wan against a wall? Grievous performs far better against late TCW Obi-Wan, than Maul did against his mid-TCW version.S7 Grievous >> S7 Obi-Wan > S4 Obi-Wan = Maul
You're doing too many mental gymnastics here comparing to Kenobi. Maul fought that same Grievous that one-shot Kenobi. So its amusing you're using his victory over Kenobi as some kind of measuring stick and not just Mauls direct confrontations against Grievous.
Like I said Im willing to give you SOD/ROTSMaul >/= Late TCW/ROTS Grievous. I would take that if I were you.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Oh please. You're talking about a Maul who hadn't even fought in 10+ years.In fact if you want to refer to canon for a sec (by the same director no less), Kanan gave the Inquisitor his best fight yet AFTER being properly tortured for days. And you're whining about a Jedi Master being slapped around a bit before a fight against a combatant who just hasnt fought in 10+ years and just got put on these new chicken legs.
You know muscle memory is a thing, right Thor? In any case, Karness Muur was able to wield a lightsaber just fine, and compete with Darth Krayt despite not having used the weapon for thousands of years. Maul's trained a lot longer and harder in that area - going by his "most efficiently trained" and other training-related accolades - than Muur, so how is 10 measly years going to be enough time off to diminish his combative prowess? There's also Sidious, who had no time at all to go practice during his time as Chancellor, yet was perfectly able to fight on par with Mace... Brilliant framing, but that's just not reality. Kenobi wasn't merely 'slapped around a bit,' he was bashed and knocked out twice... Let's go into it;
On Raydonia; Kenobi takes Savage's elbow and fist to the face. Dazed, Obi-Wan then gets up and is smashed by an annoyed Opress' all-out punch (in the head) with a combination of fist and lightsaber hilt. This is what knocks him out the first time. Keep in mind that Savage could already crack thick, rock slabs with his punches pre-transformation (which massively multiplied his strength, as you know).
On the Ship; Obi-Wan gets backhanded, thrown into crates, hurled onto the floor, and then punched in the face once more (all while still evidently dazed from the first K.O), knocking him out again.
We've already had the discussion about the legs before, with nearly everyone involved agreeing that if Maul wasn't a complete retard, he would've gotten used to them by the time of this fight. You've conceded this issue before, just give it up and save me the time of re-typing all of my points.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
I mean really 😬 Good. So you agree Kanan never really beat Old Maul. As long as we are keeping things consistent 👆 Also its hard to keep up with whats a joke and whats serious. Like Im still half sure you're joking here calling Grievous > Maul. But refuse to give Grievous fanboys that ammunition for later on.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Okay, but you need to be aware of your environment, and if nothing else Maul overpowered him right? So best we can deduce from that is Maul >/= Grievous.
Grievous was taken off guard... you know, like how Maul was with the dog, bounty hunter, Padawans etc. So it does happen Thor, as you know all too well. The 'overpowering' was due to what I said before; the surprise attack. Also, not being able to break free (if that's what you're alluding to) is not indicative of Maul's superiority. It's easier to keep someone against a wall than it is to break free from that position, and it's safe to say that had the situation been reversed, the result would've been the same for Maul.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Thats a lot of WOULD HAVES you are using for Grievous. Surely with 3 different encounters there should not be this many COULD HAVE WOULD HAVE SHOULD HAVES. Ill concede there was a level of parity between them, but Maul seemed to always have the edge. So like I said Ill give you Maul >/= Grievous, which Id accept if I was you, because you really have nothing to put Grievous standing higher than that against Maul.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
You're doing too many mental gymnastics here comparing to Kenobi. Maul fought that same Grievous that one-shot Kenobi. So its amusing you're using his victory over Kenobi as some kind of measuring stick and not just Mauls direct confrontations against Grievous.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Like I said Im willing to give you SOD/ROTSMaul >/= Late TCW/ROTS Grievous. I would take that if I were you.