Shouldn't Jedi be better duelists than Sith?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



zephiel7
If you consider what the Sith and Jedi rely on.

The Sith are actually permitted to use the force offensively. However the Jedi cannot use the force offensively, so how would they survive and defend the galaxy against the Sith Lords? The only real advantage I see a Jedi Knight would have against a Sith Lord would be superiour dueling skills.

w00t2112
They should and in general, your average Sith is weaker than your average Jedi, however, when it comes to terms as the greatest of both Sides, the Jedi are usaully overpowered in terms of lightsaber combat and force skills. Eg.

Exar Kun
Darth Revan

and so forth.

Wesker
Erm, actually the Sith are focused on FIGHTING and KILLING and DOMINATING, and are aggressive and ambitious in nature. They use everything to their advantage, while the jedi are all about keeping the peace. The idea of Jedi > Sith in combat is ridiculous.

kanis
vampire I agree the jedi are more defensive than the sith who are really agressive and would attack without warning, but really it depends how the jedi knight trains himself or how the sith allows himself to be trained.

Hello Friend
To be fair, the Jedi are alot more patient than the Sith. This patience should lead to more meditation, more practice and thus more skill.

Wesker
Originally posted by Hello Friend
To be fair, the Jedi are alot more patient than the Sith. This patience should lead to more meditation, more practice and thus more skill.

Erm... is everyone here not getting it?

EVERY sith in the series is worth a dozen or more average jedi. Even the really good, old jedi can't even compare with a Sith lord. Yoda... pwned. Vodo... pwned. Odan Urr... pwned. Sith are more aggressive, have far more offensive powers, and dedicate themselves to KILLING, which the jedi don't do.

who?-kid
That's a moot point. A Jedi doesn't mind killing if it's necessary.

Blaxican_Jedi
Mace Windu was stronger than Marka Ragnos.

Wesker
Right. This thread is strong with the idiot side of the force. I'll go somewhere else.

zephiel7
The Jedi Revan is an example of a very strong Jedi (after the Star Forge)
Luke is obviously a very powerful Jedi
Kyp Durron is no pushover, but I wouldn't put him above the other two.

I suppose these are the only two Jedi who could compete with the lords of the sith.

Wesker
And even then, they lack the dedication and training of true Sith.

Arker
Err... How many times must we say it?

Sith are stronger than the Jedi. The Jedi are more patient, who cares?

Let's look at this:
It usually took more than one person to kill a Sith lord. Either that or they were taken by suprise .

In simple words: Sith > Jedi.

Lörd Sorgo
In the end, A Jedi Knight with three years of training takes down two Sith Lords and their thousand year Empire.



Pr4w3d? I think so.

Wesker

Arker
Actually...

The Jedi Knight somehow flukes one Sith Lord who turns on his master and kills the other, and then dies, so...

Wesker
The Sith usually destroy themselves. It's -very- seldom that the jedi have the advantage and actually destroy a Sith lord in combat.

((The_Anomaly))
Yes, the Sith are supposed to be stronger then Jedi. Thats why they are always stronger then Jedi in almost every case. Qui-Gon was a seasoned Jedi master and a brilliant swordsman, he was far better then the average Jedi knight and he got pWned by Maul, who was a Sith Apprentice. Imagine what most Sith Lords, or a Sith Master would do to Qui-Gon (Palpatine for instance) then add "WTF" to Qui-Gon's "pWned" to get what a Sith master would do to regular average Jedi.

Hello Friend
In the Movies era, half of the Sith Lords died from a Jedi.

Another thing: in the movies era, the strongest Jedi can stand against (and even defeat) the strongest Sith.

Wesker
Originally posted by Hello Friend
In the Movies era, half of the Sith Lords died from a Jedi.

Another thing: in the movies era, the strongest Jedi can stand against (and even defeat) the strongest Sith.

Welcome to the EU subsection, btw.

And in the movie era, there's a whopping total of four sith.

Illustrious
Neither side is stronger than the other. It just so happens that many of the Sith were Jedi prodigies to begin with: Freedon Nadd, Exar Kun, Darth Revan.

The Sith believe in dominating, even against themselves. The Lightside wins because it believes in peace and balance, which is more lasting than the Sith ideals of power.

ESB - 1138
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Yes, the Sith are supposed to be stronger then Jedi. Thats why they are always stronger then Jedi in almost every case. Qui-Gon was a seasoned Jedi master and a brilliant swordsman, he was far better then the average Jedi knight and he got pWned by Maul, who was a Sith Apprentice. Imagine what most Sith Lords, or a Sith Master would do to Qui-Gon (Palpatine for instance) then add "WTF" to Qui-Gon's "pWned" to get what a Sith master would do to regular average Jedi.

That's saying far too much. Qui-Gon did not get pwned by Maul. And wasn't Mace able to defeat Sidious in saber combat?

But still the Sith seem to focus on power which usually leads to their own downfall. Plus you must see that the Sith train to face the Jedi and the Jedi of the PT hadn't seen a Sith in like a thousand years. But all in all it seems that the Sith are always their own worse enemy.

Blaxican_Jedi
Wesker I thought you were leaving? And Mace is stronger. MArka would be so afraid of getting analy raped By MAce he would s**t himself

zephiel7
Originally posted by Illustrious
Neither side is stronger than the other. It just so happens that many of the Sith were Jedi prodigies to begin with: Freedon Nadd, Exar Kun, Darth Revan.

The Sith believe in dominating, even against themselves. The Lightside wins because it believes in peace and balance, which is more lasting than the Sith ideals of power.

Canonically though, Revan turned to the light. Wouldn't that make him one of the strongest Jedi? You can't include him in the list of Sith Lords.

kanis
vampire Even though the sith are strong they don't as much rely on skill. Look how obi wan defeated anakin not with the force yeah it helped but he defeated him by experience anakin was strong in the dark side but he was arrogant and believed that he could defeat obi wan with out experiance in his abilities he was a jedi learning the p;ower of the dark side whereas obi was comfortable with his abilities.

Wesker
Originally posted by zephiel7
Canonically though, Revan turned to the light. Wouldn't that make him one of the strongest Jedi? You can't include him in the list of Sith Lords.

Even if Revan did turn and remain a jedi and become uber as shit, it would be the exception rather than the rule.

ESB - 1138
Originally posted by Wesker
Even if Revan did turn and remain a jedi and become uber as shit, it would be the exception rather than the rule.

Wasn't Revan this powerful Jedi before falling to the dark side?

Darth Vious
Originally posted by Hello Friend
In the Movies era, half of the Sith Lords died from a Jedi.

Another thing: in the movies era, the strongest Jedi can stand against (and even defeat) the strongest Sith.
Because in the movies, the good guys have to win.
Note how in the movies, a Jedi normally only beats a Sith Lord when they get pissed off (ie Obi-Wan v Maul and Luke v Vader)
If you take the Jedi-Sith debate outside of the concept of good-evil, the Sith are much more powerfull than the Jedi, because they use all the aspects of the Force and their emotions.

Darth Vious
Originally posted by ESB - 1138
That's saying far too much. Qui-Gon did not get pwned by Maul. And wasn't Mace able to defeat Sidious in saber combat?
Did Qui-Gon, or did Qui-Gon not have to rest in the middle of the duel with Darth Maul? Did Qui-Gon or did Qui-Gon not wind up getting a lightsaber rammed through his chest in a manaeuver even the most rudimentary swordsman could have blocked?
Mace was only able to defeat Palpatine in saber combat because he was using a form that actually uses the Dark Side.

Darth Subjekt
You also have to think about this...in the movies...EVERY Sith took out at least 1 Jedi before getting killed.

Maul>Qui-gon.....OB1>Maul

Dooku> OB1 AND Anakin....yoda chased him away...

Dooku>OB! AGAIN....Anakin> Dooku

Sidious> Kit and those other TWO.....and eventually Mace due to help from Anakin...PLUS, i think Palps was playing opossum to seem weak to Anakin so he'd help.

Ob1>young Vader...Vader> Old OB1...although he gave up, he knew he was fighting an uphill battle.

Ushgarak
Say what you likw about Qui-Gon, but the fact is that Nick Gilliard intended him and maul to be even (and the original sequence which had Qui-Gon knock Maul off of the ramp onto the Naboo ship was a part where QGJ get's the better of Maul).

All this babbling about how even a rudimentary swordsman should have been able to block is just horse manure, frankly. QGJ was a VERY good duellist; Maul just won on the day.

((The_Anomaly))
Originally posted by ESB - 1138
That's saying far too much. Qui-Gon did not get pwned by Maul. And wasn't Mace able to defeat Sidious in saber combat?

But still the Sith seem to focus on power which usually leads to their own downfall. Plus you must see that the Sith train to face the Jedi and the Jedi of the PT hadn't seen a Sith in like a thousand years. But all in all it seems that the Sith are always their own worse enemy.

Yes, OK Qui-Gon did OK against Maul, he was afterall said to be one of the best in the order with his saber, in the end he still got owned though. And yes Mace did defeat Palpatine, maybe (but I wont get into that). There are exceptions, like Mace, Yoda, Anakin (and Obi-Wan maybe) But thats not what this thread is effectively saying. Its asking "shouldn't ALL Jedi be superior to Sith in saber combat?". The answer is an obvious; NO. Look at Kit Fisto, he was supposed to be an extremely good duelist, far better then the average Jedi, and Palpatine pWned him.

Palpatine owned 3 Jedi Masters in under 30 seconds, and respected Jedi masters at that, imagine what he'd do to average Jedi Knights. Imagine what he could have done if he started using the force at the same time while dueling. There are always extremely powerful and skilled Jedi, but on average the Sith are far superior to Jedi in terms of Saber skill, not to mention force prowess.

Ushgarak
Hardly a fair comparison seeing as Palpatine is King Uber Sith.

By the time there are two Sith, the Sith are always going to be the finest examples of their kind. That's not a worthwhile comparison of 'average' Sith in the sense of which the question is asked.

I've never seen any reason to think anything other than Jedi and Sith being evenly matched.

Darth Vious
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Say what you likw about Qui-Gon, but the fact is that Nick Gilliard intended him and maul to be even (and the original sequence which had Qui-Gon knock Maul off of the ramp onto the Naboo ship was a part where QGJ get's the better of Maul).
In the final edit, who was the one that had to take a rest? It wasn't Darth Maul...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
All this babbling about how even a rudimentary swordsman should have been able to block is just horse manure, frankly. QGJ was a VERY good duellist; Maul just won on the day.
Really, have you ever trained in any kind of sword fighting? I've studied both European and Japanese fencing for just under 20 years, and I can guarantee you that any other swordsman could have blocked the attack that killed Qui-Gon. Okay, the blow to the face stunned him, but all he had to do was step backwards, and swing his saber from left to right, and he would have deflected the killing blow. It is a move that anyone can do. Even if it had been a blind swing while stepping back, rather than a controlled block, it still would have deflected the incoming blade and saved his life. Yes, Qui-Gon was a good swordsman (Liam Neeson has used swords before in films and knows how to use them) but this was simply a case of the character having to die. Had Qui-Gon not had to die, then he should have easily have been able to hold Maul off until Obi-Wan was able to re-join the duel.

Ushgarak
First of all... QGJ never took a rest. He decided to meditate during the lull; it was a rather neat piece of characterisation.

Secondly, yes, I have studied sword fighting, and I know people pretty darn good at this sort of thing who have watched that fight, and moreover, I trust Nick Gillard a hell of a lot more than I trust you to do this kind of thing right. He thinks the stun was too much for even a master swordsman, and that's all there is to it.

Darth Subjekt
Good logic...But i think it also depends on the individual. If one is more dedicated to their craft they'll be better. Like for instance, Dooku pwned OB1 twice, and Anakin killed Dooku, rather easily i might add, but OB1 beat Anakin. So it depends on styles and dedication. But when 2 Sith can overthrow, hundreds of Jedi, that should say something. I know I know, they had the clones help and that was a BIG help, sure, but more jedi died at the hands of the Sith than vice versa.

((The_Anomaly))
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hardly a fair comparison seeing as Palpatine is King Uber Sith.

By the time there are two Sith, the Sith are always going to be the finest examples of their kind. That's not a worthwhile comparison of 'average' Sith in the sense of which the question is asked.

I've never seen any reason to think anything other than Jedi and Sith being evenly matched.

This thread title is: "Shouldn't Jedi be better duelists than Sith?"

The answer is no. Jedi ARE NOT better duelist then Sith. Everything you said is correct, and I agree with you, but the thread is not asking shouldn't the BEST top jedi be better duelist then Sith, its just asking shouldn't the Jedi be better duelist then Sith.

It is a fair comparison, because its a true one. Just because there happens to only be 2 Sith doesn't mean that the Jedi should get some kind of linguistic handicap because of the numbers difference. Fact is, put either the Sith master or apprentice up against almost ANY Jedi in the order and they will more then likely mop the floor with them. That is what the thread is asking after all, I didn't make it, I'm just answering the question.

And what do you mean by "average" Sith? If your talking before the rule of 2, which you apparently are, then well this question changes. But that was not specified by the thread creator.

Ushgarak
Again... not a fair comparison- there were way more Jedi that COULD die, and again, the Sith are always the absolutley best they can produce.

((The_Anomaly))
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again... not a fair comparison- there were way more Jedi that COULD die, and again, the Sith are always the absolutley best they can produce.

Exactly, thats my point. The Jedi, are on average, NOT better duelist then the Sith. Your giving the Jedi a linguistic handicap (why?). The thread is asking "shouldn't Jedi be better then the Sith at dueling?"

The answer is no. Just because there are only 2 does not mean that its unfair. It just happens to be the only way it is, and thus the only way to answer the question.

Its "unfair" in its nature, but there is no other way to address it. Unless you can give me a way to compare the Jedi and the Sith (thousands vs. 2) fairly, but I doubt you can. So the apparently "unfair" answer is the only answer to give, except, "this thread is unfair by nature since its 2 vs. thousands". But to actually answer the question, you have to answer the question, not add to it, not change it.

So the answer(s) are either 1) this is an unfair comparison overall and this thread should be closed. or 2) the Jedi are not better duelist then the Sith.

Simple really.

Wesker
Why are we talking here like this is only post-Ruusan Sith anyways?

Fishy
Most popular times?

In other times the Jedi or the Sith were not necessarily better. It depends on the training and the will to fight. The sith were more aggressive however.

Darth Vious
Originally posted by Ushgarak
First of all... QGJ never took a rest. He decided to meditate during the lull; it was a rather neat piece of characterisation.
And just what did he decide to meditate upon? It certainly wasn't his saber technique. You call it meditating, I call it resting.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Secondly, yes, I have studied sword fighting, and I know people pretty darn good at this sort of thing who have watched that fight,
Then you should know that even the wildest of left to right swings would have deflected Maul's blade from a killing blow. In fact, had Qui-Gon swung his saber thusly and continued the pivot right around, he would most likely have decapitated Maul, who would have over-extended his thrust and been off balance.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I trust Nick Gillard a hell of a lot more than I trust you to do this kind of thing right. He thinks the stun was too much for even a master swordsman, and that's all there is to it.
Sorry, but this is a case of plot necessity taking precedence over character skill. Qui-Gon had to die, so that was how they chose to do so. In a real fight, the blow to the face should not have stunned him as much as it did and prevented him from blocking the thrust (even if it was with a wild swing)

Darth Subjekt
I understand what you're saying, but if you got hit in the face with a heavy piece of metal, you wouldn't be stunned long enough to have the guy who did it to simply turn around and stab you in the stomach/chest? I'm sure it was meant to be faster than it appeared on screen. Like they said the Mace/Palps fight was MEANT to be much faster than the actors could move. I know they could speed it up with computers, but then we wouldn't be able to see it...but whatever. He was only stunned dfor a brief moment, thats all it took.

Wesker
Regardless of how fast it was -meant- to look, it really isn't that fast. Maul did a half turn to stab, and I felt it was kind of pathetic.

Darth Vious
Originally posted by Darth Subjekt
I understand what you're saying, but if you got hit in the face with a heavy piece of metal, you wouldn't be stunned long enough to have the guy who did it to simply turn around and stab you in the stomach/chest?
To be honest, no. If I was hit in the face as Qui-Gon had been, then it would have knocked me back a step or so, but the 19 years of martial arts and sword training I've had would have made me at least swing my blade in front of myself to ward off any further attack while I regained my bearings. I understand that Qui-Gon had to die, and that was the easiest way of doing so, but it was unrealistic that a master swordsman like Qui-Gon would not have been able to block such a rudimentary attack, even while partially disorientated.

Hello Friend
Actually the only source I can think of where the Sith pwn the Jedi is TOTJ.

In both KOTOR(Jedi Exile/Jedi Revan) and the movies (Yoda, Mace), the strongest Jedi can stand against the strongest Sith

zephiel7
Revan was a powerful Jedi but fell to the darkside. Afterwards, the Jedi council memory wiped him, and Revan became Jedi again. He recovered his old memory, and became stronger than he ever was as the dark lord. Malak admits it in game.

zephiel7
True. All the Jedi exceptions though, were pretty uber for their time.

Fishy
Originally posted by zephiel7
Revan was a powerful Jedi but fell to the darkside. Afterwards, the Jedi council memory wiped him, and Revan became Jedi again. He recovered his old memory, and became stronger than he ever was as the dark lord. Malak admits it in game.

I really wouldn't trust Malak his opinion on this.

Malak was an arrogant fool when it came to Revan, and I would trust Revan his judgement on his and Malak his power more then I would trusts Malak his judgement, if Revan even for a moment would have thought Malak was more powerful he would have likely destroyed him in the same manner that Malak destroyed Revan.

I see no real reason to assume Revan became more powerful the second time, he had less time to learn and less things and people to learn from.

zephiel7
But didn't Revan recover his memory at that point? Including everything he learned as the dark lord?

Fishy
Originally posted by zephiel7
But didn't Revan recover his memory at that point? Including everything he learned as the dark lord?

Not until 6 months after Kotor...

w00t2112
Originally posted by Silent Carnage
Actually the only source I can think of where the Sith pwn the Jedi is TOTJ.

In both KOTOR(Jedi Exile/Jedi Revan) and the movies (Yoda, Mace), the strongest Jedi can stand against the strongest Sith

Thats because in Kotor YOU are playing as the best Jedi, therefore you have to win, or the game will not progress.

The Best of the Sith inclusive of the Ancient Sith, highly outclass the best of the Jedi.

In TOTJ, The most revered Jedi masters, such as Odan Urr were tooled and pwned by Exar Kun, and not only one but many of them, thereby meaning that the Sith are unaviodably more powerful in terms of combat and offensive force abilities.

Silent Carnage
Actually, Kavar put up a good fight with Malak and even cut off his jaw, didn't he?

Wesker
The rumor is Kavar did it, but we don't know for sure.

w00t2112
Originally posted by Gamblor
Actually, Kavar put up a good fight with Malak and even cut off his jaw, didn't he?

Except Malak, is a rather pathetic and weak Dark Lord, he failed to defeat a memory wiped Revan upon the Star Forge where he had every advantage, and he is certianly not in the top 20

Jack Daniels
Malak..lol...umm darth dumbass with red formans foot up his ass..LMAO!

Darth Subjekt
Well i was just watching the bonus disc of Ep3 the part thats about the stunts, "its all real". And Nick Gilliard said that Anakin has moved up to a level 9 whereas OB1 is still a level 8, and the difference is the Darkside and the Darkside is more aggressive. So by his own admission, the darkside has more "skill" in swordsmanship. So I think that Sith are typically better at sword fighting, but since they cant control their emotions and feelings, that gives the Jedi an advantage.

Fishy
Nick can hardly be called a Canon source... What he says is his opinion and moot in a debate really, unless we are debating Nicks opinion.

Akechi Misuhide
Originally posted by w00t2112
Except Malak, is a rather pathetic and weak Dark Lord, he failed to defeat a memory wiped Revan upon the Star Forge where he had every advantage, and he is certianly not in the top 20

How is Malak a "pathetic and weak Dark Lord"?


Bullshit.

zod69
Well Nick Gillard is an expert in the art of sword fighting. I think what he meant about the thing about the dark side giving Anakin the edge. It was because Anakin's form is very aggressive and once he was consumed by the dark side, there was no limit to his aggression. But this was not necessarily a great thing as though he was able to overwhelm Obi Wan to a high degree, it lead to him being arrogant and complacent.

Tangible God
Originally posted by Akechi Misuhide
How is Malak a "pathetic and weak Dark Lord"?


Bullshit. Comapred to the others he is.

Darth Traya
To others? Are you comparing him to Sadow or Kun?

Tangible God
Malak compared to any Dark Lord except Vader is weak and "pathetic."

Darth Traya
Erm, sure. I'd put him above any PT Sith...

Gamblor
Malak is IMO a bit better than Dooku and Sidious, a hefty chunk better than Vader and alot better than Maul.

Fishy
Originally posted by zod69
Well Nick Gillard is an expert in the art of sword fighting. I think what he meant about the thing about the dark side giving Anakin the edge. It was because Anakin's form is very aggressive and once he was consumed by the dark side, there was no limit to his aggression. But this was not necessarily a great thing as though he was able to overwhelm Obi Wan to a high degree, it lead to him being arrogant and complacent.

His oppinion still doesn't matter and he didn't invent the forms, I doubt he even really knew about them. What he thinks or says really does not matter...

zod360
However he is still an expert on sword fighting and would likely be able to interpret them better thab the average KMC member.

Fishy
Originally posted by zod360
However he is still an expert on sword fighting and would likely be able to interpret them better thab the average KMC member.

You have no idea on that, perhaps some of us here are master swordsman or have talked to them or whatever.

Besides the opinion of one fighter hardly means anything in a VS fight, unless you can prove that its a shared view by many (which you can't) or get statements from a canon source (which you can't) you have no case.

w00t2112
Zod360 aka Numan, here is advice

1) try to come up with debatable and worthwhile points
2) learn to not insult your elders, particular when you're disobeying a rule by being younger and entering this forum
3) try to make aliases that are believeable.

zod360
Maybe you should follow your own advice woot. Is that a worthwhile point? Also I was not insulting him. I explained why my aliases are obvious in the other thread.

redcaped
They were better duelists but not with a good old sith left.

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
Yes, the Sith are supposed to be stronger then Jedi. Thats why they are always stronger then Jedi in almost every case. Qui-Gon was a seasoned Jedi master and a brilliant swordsman, he was far better then the average Jedi knight and he got pWned by Maul, who was a Sith Apprentice. Imagine what most Sith Lords, or a Sith Master would do to Qui-Gon (Palpatine for instance) then add "WTF" to Qui-Gon's "pWned" to get what a Sith master would do to regular average Jedi.

What's the difference between "pWned" and "WTFpWned"? confused

Darth Subjekt
Originally posted by Fishy
Nick can hardly be called a Canon source... What he says is his opinion and moot in a debate really, unless we are debating Nicks opinion.

How can you possibly talk about canon in the EU section? Most of the characters mentioned in this thread are EU characters, thereby not canon. And as far as inventing the forms...who did? Without NG, the fights in the movies, would be nowhere near as good, and he choreographed the fights with his own knowledge and skill, so more than likely, he created the fights, and their styles, ensuring that each character keeps the same style thru the entire fight. But that statement was included on the movie extras, so couldn't that be considered canon in and of itself? Being as its with the movie? Point being, Anakin surpassed OB1 in saber skills when he joined the darkside. I think that speaks for something.

Gamblor
Alot of people don't like Nick Gilliard because he said Anakin was a tier above Obi-Wan, even when a blinded Anakin, overwhelmed by grief and clearly lacking control manages to keep Obi-Wan on the defensive until he's forced to take advantage of Anakin's arrogance.

zephiel7
Which is precisely why da lil' Ani got his torso caught off! Awwwww... poor baby must have wanted mommy then roll eyes (sarcastic)

Come on, Obi's style is all about defense. We can't say that Anakin was Obi Wan's superiour in dueling skill just because of the reason Obi was on the defensive. Its Soresu versus Shien, of course Obi was on the defensive.

Darth Vious
Originally posted by Darth Subjekt
Well i was just watching the bonus disc of Ep3 the part thats about the stunts, "its all real". And Nick Gilliard said that Anakin has moved up to a level 9 whereas OB1 is still a level 8, and the difference is the Darkside and the Darkside is more aggressive. So by his own admission, the darkside has more "skill" in swordsmanship. So I think that Sith are typically better at sword fighting, but since they cant control their emotions and feelings, that gives the Jedi an advantage.
I would take that as a reference to the power of the person, not their skill level. As for Sith not being able to control their emotions... If you read Darth Maul : Shadow Hunter, it shows many a time how someone can control and focus their emotions and feelings in order to increase their power. The problem is that Anakin has poor self-control and few social skills, Palpatine, on the other hand, is a prime example of how a Sith Lord can have perfect control over themself.

Darth Subjekt
Originally posted by zephiel7
Which is precisely why da lil' Ani got his torso caught off! Awwwww... poor baby must have wanted mommy then roll eyes (sarcastic)

Come on, Obi's style is all about defense. We can't say that Anakin was Obi Wan's superiour in dueling skill just because of the reason Obi was on the defensive. Its Soresu versus Shien, of course Obi was on the defensive.

no, i didn't say he was Superior because OB1 was defensive. But how defensive was it when Anakin was laying on the table, unarmed, and OB1 tried to hit him in the head with a saber blow? The only reason Anakin wasn't murdered is because he could get his saber in time to block.

And he was only defensive in that fight. He sure as hell wasn't too defensive against Maul. And look what happened, he almost died, but he benefited from Maul's arrogance. He could have killed him easily while he was hanging there. So he wasn't to in control of himself there. If he was smart and not so arrogant, he would have lopped of OB1's hands and sent him falling to his death.

Oh and for the record, Ani didn't get his torso cut off, he got his arm and legs cut off. roll eyes (sarcastic)

zephiel7
I don't know where you are getting this from. In the third movie.Where? Even if Anakin defended against Obi's blow, it doesn't mean that he is Obi's superiour.





Obi was still a padawan at the time, and not really a master of Soresu. After watching Qui gon die, I think that was the point when he began to perfect his skill in Soresu.



Meh. He still got PWNT royally.

Darth Subjekt
how did he get pwnt royally? He was in control of the entire fight until he got stupid and decided to jump really close to OB1, who got a lucky hit. All he did was put his lightsaber in the air. If Anakin had been thinking (which the darkside tends not to help with) he could have beaten OB1.

Darth Traya
In control? Obi-Wan uses a passive form, designed for defence. Anakin uses an agressive form, designed for offence. It would make far less sense if Kenobi did not start to backpeddle away from Skywalker...

Master Mawi
Personally I think the Sith are moer powerful than the Jedi because they don't give a damn about what they do, they just go ahead and cutting themselves free to "what horrible things one could imagine". They let themselves be emotional and use the Force to the full extent to complete what they want.

For the Jedi, they refrain from doing all that is evil and rely on the Force to help augment their skill and power to do the "right thing".

SO I think the Sith are more powerful.

chilled monkey
Originally posted by zephiel7
Obi was still a padawan at the time, and not really a master of Soresu. After watching Qui gon die, I think that was the point when he began to perfect his skill in Soresu.

At that point in his life, Obi-Wan knew nothing about Soresu. His style when fighting Maul was Ataro. He switched to learning Soresu after Qui-Gon's death.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.