1. I havn't seen cw cos they're gay. Films only for me.
2. Here was 2 questions in one and Sidious is better than all the sith. He's just old. Did you see ROTS?
3. He killed Qui-Gon strike one to the Dark Side
4. Mace by saber. Sids by force. Bye.
1. no they are one in the same.
yes obi would beat him since his chest was never crushed
2. i think sidious is better.
Better then 4995/5000 of the pt order.
3. about the cestus deception obi is where i put him.
sidious is actually the most powerful sithof all time..also i thought it was a force pike obi wan used..darth maul was 7th most powerful sith...wat u mean by lightsaber style?
__________________
Some men die under the mountain just looking for gold
Some die looking for a hand to hold
answer 1: yes, grievous did get much weaker, and i dont think obi wan could have beaten him
answer 2: this one is hard to answer. Mace beat sidious, but Dooku (according to starwars.com) says that dooku beat mace. judging by the movie, sidious is a good lightsaber duelist.
answer 3: i cant answer
answer 4: mace beat sidious fair and square. as i have said, mace lost to dooku
__________________
"Today was good. Today was fun. Tomorrow is another one." -Dr. Seuss
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Hiding from zombies
Re: just a few questions
Question #1: Does general grievous lose any power from the cw to rots?
Nope. If anything, he should be deadlier for the experience. His performance was similar to Hypori when he captured the chancellor, killing a few jedi. Of course, the theory has been put forth that Grievous owes much of his "prowess" to his exotic nature and the element of terror and/or surprise. To say his chest was crushed and he's somehow weaker for it is nonsense. His body is artificial as it is.
Or would obi whoop him crushed chest or not?
Actually, looking at the fight, Obi-Wan had the upper hand when they fought with lightsabers but I wouldn't say he whupped him. Grievous was surprisingly cocky and unaccustomed to Obi-Wan's style and he made a lot of errors that got him prematurely owned. Notice that after losing his hands he starts playing ti smart and retreats. After that he fights very unfairly.
Question #2: Is count dooku better than sidious?
As a force user? Debateable. Dooku only uses the Force for a whopping eight minutes or so in AOTC, while Sidious uses the Force for an entire epic battle in ROTS, showing feats like tossing multiple pods, etc. It seems like Sidious is the more powerful Force user, but the difference from say, Sidious to Dooku is pretty small compared to say, Sidious to Obi-Wan.
In lightsaber duelling Dooku is clearly better. In form, execution, and speed he bests Sidious.
And is sidious a good ligthsaber duelist?
Well, he has speed, but otherwise his skills are lacking. Despite what NG promised us, Sidious' style is... horrid. His clumsy stabs and awkward thrusts only make him look foolish and even his confirmed lightsaber kills were just nonsense in execution. He can contend with Yoda and Mace, but not for very long it seems. Obi-Wan or Anakin could possibly overcome in lightsaber combat but Sidious' control of the Force and lack of personal honor would prevent such a victory.
Question #3: Where does darth maul fall in the power scale?
Depends, really. He's below ROTS Anakin and Obi-Wan, since both would destroy him with their speed and precision. He could probably take Grievous. Asaajj? I say it goes either way. Asaaj is a battle prodigy. Since Darth Maul displays little in the ways of the Force visibly, I'll rank him based on perceived lightsaber ability:
But that's just a rough generalization, not exactly accurate to a point.
Question #4: Mace vs sidious who wins?
Well, Sidious was cocky and was never able to kill Mace nor use the Force or terrain to his advantage. It would depend on the location. In that office Mace had the edge, but in the senatorial room Sidious would defeat Mace.
and mace vs dooku who wins?
Dooku. Mace doesn't display the offensive (Or really any) Force powers to contend with Dooku and while his style is comparable with Dooku's, it does lack the precision and efficiency of the Count's style.