S7 Tano vs The Grand Inquisitor

TheNuisanceBird wrote:

Latham2000 wrote:Arrogance and CIS in general shouldn't even be considered on battle forums, and every single duel where Maul's arrogance got the better of him was due to the plot. Heck, Maul's persistent arrogance isn't even organic, it's not a natural progression of his character, it's actually really contrived and forced.

Maul's character since his revival as a whole hasn't been handled that well lol Realistically he wouldn't obsess over Kenobi and would've wanted to replace Dooku. They made him this pretentious idiot who had goals of taking the galaxy over within a week.

Maul's obsessive need for vengeance against Kenobi is actually a natural progression of his character though. Kenobi robbed him of his perceived purpose to destroy the Jedi order. Maul's persistent arrogance however, is contrived IMO.

Latham2000 wrote:

Nute_Chethray wrote:Saying that Maul > Ahsoka in an overall fight is wrong imo. While Fiolini confirmed that he was more skilled, he also confirmed that she won because of his permanent trait of arrogance. He's always arrogant, thats just how he is. If his person causes him to always make mistakes then that should be considered in every battle unless stated otherwise.

Arrogance and CIS in general shouldn't even be considered on battle forums, and every single duel where Maul's arrogance got the better of him was due to the plot. 

Ahsoka is explicitly stated to be able to compete with Maul as of ROS.

Latham2000 wrote:Maul's obsessive need for vengeance against Kenobi is actually a natural progression of his character though. Kenobi robbed him of his perceived purpose to destroy the Jedi order. Maul's persistent arrogance however, is contrived IMO.

I feel like he would've understood why Kenobi cut Maul in half for killing Qui-Gon and going by what was previously established with his character I feel like he would've went looking for Sidious first thing. Shadow Hunter and at least one other books describes how if Sidious ever ordered him to commit suicide he'd do it without question. I have a hard time believing the actual version of Maul would openly try to claim the galaxy for himself. 

His anger towards Kenobi in TCW makes more sense than it did in Rebels. I feel like Maul in Rebels was handled poorly since he had no reason to suddenly betray Ahsoka and Kanan and realistically he would've gotten over Kenobi. Especially with the context of the Mandalore arc it makes sense that Maul would realize that there are bigger issues than Kenobi.

freethedevil wrote:Ahsoka is explicitly stated to be able to compete with Maul as of ROS.

Being able to compete with someone isn't the same as being a dead equal to them. 

Ventress fighting Mace and all of the other Jedi. 

Or Vos fighting Dooku in DD which made no sense whatsoever.

Nute_Chethray wrote:Saying that Maul > Ahsoka in an overall fight is wrong imo. While Fiolini confirmed that he was more skilled, he also confirmed that she won because of his permanent trait of arrogance. He's always arrogant, thats just how he is. If his person causes him to always make mistakes then that should be considered in every battle unless stated otherwise.

what? 

That doesn't make any Sense at all. All Sith are Arrogance and Overconfident in battle.  That is why Vader Lost to Obi-wan...even those he was massively more powerful and Far Superior Duelist. 

CIS is pretty much a Trope in TV to progress the plot...and shouldn't really play a part in a debate forum outside of the plot of the Series. 


Like Grand inquisitor...he lost due to plot and that he needed to be defeated, to bring on the Next set of Big bads...Like Maul and Vader. 

I do think Ahsoka Beats the GI but it's by no means a stomp, and With both Ahsoka and GI working together they will make Maul Struggle big time but overall I think argument could be made for either side winning.

I'm not getting drawn into a silly game of semantics. Ahsoka, per Filoni and what we actually see from the episode can compete with Maul. That makes these assertions...

Maul is far above ahsoka according to filoni

Maul can steamroll ahsoka

'
Asinine.

You can't steamroll people who "compete" with you. That's not what 'compete' means.

as for maul vs ahsoka as a whole..

IDC. Regardless of what gymnastics you may employ when holding maul against ROS Ahsoka's "vastly" superior Rebels incarnation. ROS Ahsoka can compete with Maul.

How does the environment take away from him disarming her?

Non-sequitur. 


Disarming Ahsoka does not equate to 'beating' her, as established by earlier sections of the fight. Maul disarmed Ahsoka twice before, and neither instance granted him a victory. Both Ahsoka's h2h and her ability to jump back and retrieve her lightsaber have been established as viable counters for her losing one of her lightsabers. Both of which weren't possible due to the unusual characteristics of the place their fight ended. Furthermore,her ability to dodge lightsaber strikes and  intercept his lightsaber;s hilt grant Ahsoka viable counters on the off-chance Maul can disarm her of her second lightsaber before, as she did in the throne room, pulls back her other one.


Maul did not 'win' by virtue of his own skill. He 'won' because of a favorable environment where opportunities for BFR/death were unusually frequent. It would be like saying Ahsoka 'beat maul' if the window she'd kicked Maul out of happened to be as high as where they fought. Except that catapulting someone dozens of feet can grant a victory to a combatant in a far wider range of environments than Maul disarming Ahsoka.


The simple reality is that Maul was unable to decisively beat Ahsoka over a very lengthy battle, this is not something that happens when dealing with people who you can "steamroll."

Well even if that book isn't within canon those explanations do make sense.

What?
No they don't.


In the book the brothers get in each other's way as they are on the same side of Kenobi. In the show they are on opposite sides. We call that a retcon. Given that Maul is never shown using acrobatics to the extent Kenobi does in the cave, 'the cave was too narrow' doesn't make a lick of sense since Kenobi was able to make full use of ataru. There's simply no getting around what we've consistently seen. The person you're trying to scale to Mace can't sustain a defense against a fighter who makes his money playing d.


Furthermore, that book you're citing indicates Kenobi was controlling the 1 v1 section of the fight ala Duel of the Fates. Even non-canon scripts show Kenobi is superior. 

Kenobi clearly needed the second saber and had the fight been in a field it wouldn't have gone as well.

Yes, Kenobi wouldn't have done as well in a 2 v1. This isn't a 2v1, and Kenobi has repeatedly shown us he doesn't need a second saber to bypass Maul's martial defense, hence why he had maul dead to rights within 40 seconds during their first duel while utilizing soresu.

only that he didn't start trashing him and Savage until he went inside and had the second saber.

Kenobi doesn't need to trash maul and his brother to trash maul.

What about TK not mattering in a 1v1?

Maul has never used TK against Kenobi without the aid of extenuating circumstances in canon. If such showings are valid, then we should stop this discussion right now since Ahsoka rag-dolled Maul.

I think in either this or another Thread I said that while Sidious had to try at the end he wasn't going all out because having Maul land a kick on full capacity Sidious wouldn't make sense.

Or....Maul landed a kick on Sidious because Sidious wasn't trying? 
 

it probably lasted that long since the fight switches between Maul and Dooku's separate fights until the rocket breaks them up.

 Lightning and force pull takes a few seconds at most. So does launching a Rocket. If we're using what's shown in the meanwhile as reference, the fight was probably less 10 seconds. Furthermore. Aayla was ko'd  right after Dooku's lightning hit Kenobi's lightsaber meaning maul was dealing with Mace alone for the vast majority of that duel.

To Maul's credit he did fodderize secura, someone who ahsoka easily had outstripped in feats by season 3. 

Maul not dying to Mace in 10 seconds doesn't prove he's "far above ahsoka" which both the source material and Filoni seem to agree isn't even close to being true.

freethedevil wrote:I'm not getting drawn into a silly game of semantics. Ahsoka, per Filoni and what we actually see from the episode can compete with Maul. That makes these assertions...

Maul is far above ahsoka according to filoni

Maul can steamroll ahsoka

'
Asinine.

You can't steamroll people who "compete" with you. That's not what 'compete' means.

as for maul vs ahsoka as a whole..

IDC. Regardless of what gymnastics you may employ when holding maul against ROS Ahsoka's "vastly" superior Rebels incarnation. ROS Ahsoka can compete with Maul.

How does the environment take away from him disarming her?

Non-sequitur. 


Disarming Ahsoka does not equate to 'beating' her, as established by earlier sections of the fight. Maul disarmed Ahsoka twice before, and neither instance granted him a victory. Both Ahsoka's h2h and her ability to jump back and retrieve her lightsaber have been established as viable counters for her losing one of her lightsabers. Both of which weren't possible due to the unusual characteristics of the place their fight ended. Furthermore,her ability to dodge lightsaber strikes and  intercept his lightsaber;s hilt grant Ahsoka viable counters on the off-chance Maul can disarm her of her second lightsaber before, as she did in the throne room, pulls back her other one.


Maul did not 'win' by virtue of his own skill. He 'won' because of a favorable environment where opportunities for BFR/death were unusually frequent. It would be like saying Ahsoka 'beat maul' if the window she'd kicked Maul out of happened to be as high as where they fought. Except that catapulting someone dozens of feet can grant a victory to a combatant in a far wider range of environments than Maul disarming Ahsoka.


The simple reality is that Maul was unable to decisively beat Ahsoka over a very lengthy battle, this is not something that happens when dealing with people who you can "steamroll."

Well even if that book isn't within canon those explanations do make sense.

What?
No they don't.


In the book the brothers get in each other's way as they are on the same side of Kenobi. In the show they are on opposite sides. We call that a retcon. Given that Maul is never shown using acrobatics to the extent Kenobi does in the cave, 'the cave was too narrow' doesn't make a lick of sense since Kenobi was able to make full use of ataru. There's simply no getting around what we've consistently seen. The person you're trying to scale to Mace can't sustain a defense against a fighter who makes his money playing d.


Furthermore, that book you're citing indicates Kenobi was controlling the 1 v1 section of the fight ala Duel of the Fates. Even non-canon scripts show Kenobi is superior. 

Kenobi clearly needed the second saber and had the fight been in a field it wouldn't have gone as well.

Yes, Kenobi wouldn't have done as well in a 2 v1. This isn't a 2v1, and Kenobi has repeatedly shown us he doesn't need a second saber to bypass Maul's martial defense, hence why he had maul dead to rights within 40 seconds during their first duel while utilizing soresu.

only that he didn't start trashing him and Savage until he went inside and had the second saber.

Kenobi doesn't need to trash maul and his brother to trash maul.

What about TK not mattering in a 1v1?

Maul has never used TK against Kenobi without the aid of extenuating circumstances in canon. If such showings are valid, then we should stop this discussion right now since Ahsoka rag-dolled Maul.

I think in either this or another Thread I said that while Sidious had to try at the end he wasn't going all out because having Maul land a kick on full capacity Sidious wouldn't make sense.

Or....Maul landed a kick on Sidious because Sidious wasn't trying? 
 

it probably lasted that long since the fight switches between Maul and Dooku's separate fights until the rocket breaks them up.

 Lightning and force pull takes a few seconds at most. So does launching a Rocket. If we're using what's shown in the meanwhile as reference, the fight was probably less 10 seconds. Furthermore. Aayla was ko'd  right after Dooku's lightning hit Kenobi's lightsaber meaning maul was dealing with Mace alone for the vast majority of that duel.

To Maul's credit he did fodderize secura, someone who ahsoka easily had outstripped in feats by season 3. 

Maul not dying to Mace in 10 seconds doesn't prove he's "far above ahsoka" which both the source material and Filoni seem to agree isn't even close to being true.

Ok first of all you're again cutting out the rest of my posts. 

I'm not sure if you're pulling a LOTF by putting different quotes than what was said rather than using the original ones which comes off as rather rude. 






Not sure where Rebels Ahsoka comes into this. 



I'm not sure I follow. Maul disarming Ahsoka wasn't due to an environmental factor. Sure the fight didn't end there, but considering that it happened several times it's an indication that he's above her which has been stated. I will get to "steamrolling" later. 



Well if we go by the show Savage's saberstaff isn't practical in that space and on an open field that version of Maul probably wouldn't be using acrobatics to counter a duel wielding Kenobi the hallway still makes it so he can't maneuver around Kenobi.  

And if we're going by the show Kenobi clearly wasn't controlling the one on one engagement since before Adi died he constantly had to reposition himself to get away from Maul.

Also we're talking about SOD-ROTS Maul not Maul soon after his revival. 



After the turtle tanker and Floruum fight Kenobi never trashed Maul?



That's wasn't my point on TK. I was wondering why Maul's TK showings wouldn't matter against Ahsoka. 

When did Ahsoka ragdoll Maul? If you're referring to her catching him when he got flipped over Connor style that's not ragdolling. 



Or because Sidious was trying at least little bit which isn't completely unreasonable. 



Which is why I said it was likely lasted about 20 seconds. Even if Maul lasted just 10 against Windu who had no reason to hold back that's something I can't see Ahsoka doing. 



Well that's not saying much since Aayla doesn't do much in canon compared to her Legends version. 



Overall, due to Maul's showings in SOD I have a hard time believing Ahsoka as of ROTS and before Rebels is anywhere near Maul's level.

Yes, because multiple people have complained about it being a slog to read everything, hence I'm using excepts as logistical reference points. If you feel I'm misrepresenting your stance you are welcome to say so. On the other hand, I think it would be beneficial if you quoted excepts you're responding to, that way I know what you're addressing and you're going to be less likely to miss key details and nuances in the posts of whoever you're responding to.

by putting different quotes than what was said rather than using the original ones which comes off as rather rude.

The filoni quote was taken verbatim from a copy and paste earlier on this thread. You said "maul is far above ahsoka according to filoni", that's laughable for obvious reasons, but that doesn't change you said it. Similarly you said that Maul would steamroll ahsoka and the grand inquisitor at the same time. If "maul>>>ahsoka" isn't the spirit of these comments, feel free to clarify your stance.

I'm not sure I follow. Maul disarming Ahsoka wasn't due to an environmental factor. 

Not sure I follow what you're responding to. I said Maul "winning" was circumstantial. Maul disarming or not disarming Ahsoka doesn't change that.




 

Sure the fight didn't end there, but considering that it happened several times it's an indication that he's above her which has been stated

How? The objective of a fight is to win. If all maul can achieve with disarming her is getting kicked out of a window, then I fail to see how Maul disarming her implies superioirity. Ahsoka has established that her h2h and agility is good enough that she can land more hits and more impactful hits while being deprived of one of her blades. Maul disarming ahsoka means nothing inofitself. Furthermore, your original stance was not "maul is better than ahsoka", your stance was "maul can steamroll ahsoka." If you accept ros ahsoka as close to ros maul, we have nothing to argue over. If you don't, then saying "filoni said maul was better" does nothing for you.

Well if we go by the show Savage's saberstaff isn't practical in that space

https://youtu.be/oINgvdXXQX0?t=100
Oppress is able to utilize the full range of the lightsaber without coming close to it hitting one of the walls. Oppress fights exactly how we usually see him fight. I don't see why he would be more restricted by the enviroment than Kenobi.

Maul probably wouldn't be using acrobatics to counter a duel wielding Kenobi the hallway still makes it so he can't maneuver around Kenobi.  

The hall also makes it so that Kenobi can't maneuver around Maul. Given that Kenobi is relying far more on agility for his offense than Maul is, that should affect Maul more than it affects Kenobi. Doubly so since it's Kenobi who has to worry about a second fighter and would hence have incentive to put maul in between himself and Oppress. 

And if we're going by the show Kenobi clearly wasn't controlling the one on one engagement since before Adi died he constantly had to reposition himself to get away from Maul.

Kenobi practices soresu, Maul practices juyo, Kenobi, a defensive fighter, gradually giving ground to Maul, someone who is aggressive as fuck in every duel we see him. This does not necessitate that he's lost control or that Maul is getting the better of him. That kind of interpretation especially doesn't hold up to snuff when we consider what happens when Kenobi decides to break off the engagement to try and save Galia:
https://youtu.be/aE_CVWMWK74?t=114

Kenobi lands a kick to Maul's chest that disorientates him for several seconds, long enough for Kenobi to jump down and nearly kill Savage.


IOW, when fighting defensively, he gradually gives Maul ground. When he needs Maul to fuck off, he makes Maul fuck off. I don't know about you, but that seems like control to me.  

Also we're talking about SOD-ROTS Maul not Maul soon after his revival.

And I suppose you have proof of some sort that Maul's bridged the gap between himself and Kenobi?

That's wasn't my point on TK. I was wondering why Maul's TK showings wouldn't matter against Ahsoka.

Because they didn't end up mattering when they fought? 


Also, appealing to an absence of evidence doesn't really work anymore since, well, you know, Ahsoka can do this:
https://youtu.be/jVulI-6u9ZU?t=18

No prep, engine running, Ahsoka can hold a freighter in place and presumably pull it down if it's pilot isn't trying to fly. Maul doesn't have any showings that this can't be argued against. I'm inclined to think the reason Maul didn't try to abuse tk against the ship pulling telekinetic is that he can't.

When did Ahsoka ragdoll Maul? If you're referring to her catching him when he got flipped over Connor style that's not ragdolling.

Ahsoka holding maul in place for a dozen seconds despite maul wanting to fall is most definitely ragdolling. It's actually far more impressive taken at face value than anything we've seen maul do to Kenobi, given the length of time she's able to hold it. Ahsoka taking control of maul is circumstantial, but then again, so is each and every one of Maul's canon uses of tk against the general. Usages that are mysteriously absent from their 1 v1 fights.


At any rate, what it does show us is that Maul's force defenses can't overpower ahsoka's, something we've seen canon vader do to much less powerful jedi. I don't really need it, given Ahsoka's established contention with maul, and combat applicable showings, but there's a degree of relativism implied there.

Or because Sidious was trying at least little bit which isn't completely unreasonable.

"Completely unreasonable" isn't good enough for you to use this as a feat. Just because its possible Maul exerted x amount of effort doesn't mean he did. You're making a positive claim. If it's just a 'possibility' there's zero reason to use it to try and scale maul outside of ahsoka's league.

Overall, due to Maul's showings in SOD I have a hard time believing Ahsoka as of ROTS and before Rebels is anywhere near Maul's level.

This is an appeal to incredulity. You're using speculation of what ahsoka would acheive vs certain opponents and in certain circumstances despite ROTS Ahsoka not having established limits beyond being "below" Maul. And even then, you can't say there's an absence of evidence because ROTS Ahsoka has feats that compare to maul's best, is stated to be able to compete with him, and showcased near parity when they actually fought.

MyGod000 wrote:

Nute_Chethray wrote:Saying that Maul > Ahsoka in an overall fight is wrong imo. While Fiolini confirmed that he was more skilled, he also confirmed that she won because of his permanent trait of arrogance. He's always arrogant, thats just how he is. If his person causes him to always make mistakes then that should be considered in every battle unless stated otherwise.

what? 

That doesn't make any Sense at all. All Sith are Arrogance and Overconfident in battle.  That is why Vader Lost to Obi-wan...even those he was massively more powerful and Far Superior Duelist. 

CIS is pretty much a Trope in TV to progress the plot...and shouldn't really play a part in a debate forum outside of the plot of the Series. 


Like Grand inquisitor...he lost due to plot and that he needed to be defeated, to bring on the Next set of Big bads...Like Maul and Vader. 

I do think Ahsoka Beats the GI but it's by no means a stomp, and With both Ahsoka and GI working together they will make Maul Struggle big time but overall I think argument could be made for either side winning.

I disagree. If arrogance is a staying trait of a character then it should always be considered unless specifically stated otherwise. There are instances where it is purely PIS or CIS, but if Maul's arrogance is present in every fight he's ever had, then it definetly should be considered. 

Per SI rules, characters are supposed to fight in-character unless stated otherwise: 

Suspect Insight Administrator wrote wrote:(3) The combatants will fight in-character, 

"Yes, because multiple people have complained about it being a slog to read everything, hence I'm using excepts as logistical reference points." 

The sentences aren't that long so I don't see the problem. It's not like me and LOTF quoting the entire argument during the Anakin debate. 

Maul being far above Ahsoka and being able to steamroll her under normal circumstances I'll get to at the end. 

"Not sure I follow what you're responding to. I said Maul "winning" was circumstantial. Maul disarming or not disarming Ahsoka doesn't change that."

Well the environment was and the fight itself had bigger context which is why I brought up Maul holding back until the very end where he disarmed her twice on the beams. Filoni said the fight should take all of her focus so even if you wanna go by her wanting to take Maul in alive it visibly took all of her ability just to stay alive during the part where she had to catch her breath. 

"How? The objective of a fight is to win. If all maul can achieve with disarming her is getting kicked out of a window, then I fail to see how Maul disarming her implies superioirity. Ahsoka has established that her h2h and agility is good enough that she can land more hits and more impactful hits while being deprived of one of her blades. Maul disarming ahsoka means nothing inofitself. Furthermore, your original stance was not "maul is better than ahsoka", your stance was "maul can steamroll ahsoka." If you accept ros ahsoka as close to ros maul, we have nothing to argue over. If you don't, then saying "filoni said maul was better" does nothing for you."

Lol What? So Obi-Wan disarming Cad Bane wasn't him winning? Ok sure he got tazed after and the Ahsoka and Maul fight was longer than three strikes but it still shows superiority over Bane. Ahsoka managed to land a kick to give her room to call her saber back where Maul instead of continuing to attack decides to just stand there. This also happens after where she's disarmed of both blades Maul decides to break off. How is Ahsoka landing more impactful hits when her kicking Maul staggers him back where Maul kicking Ahsoka sent her flying?

Saying someone can steamroll another person is basically saying they're better so I'm not sure how those have different meanings. 

Well I don't have ROTS Ahsoka close to ROTS Maul which is why this debate exists. 

"The hall also makes it so that Kenobi can't maneuver around Maul. Given that Kenobi is relying far more on agility for his offense than Maul is, that should affect Maul more than it affects Kenobi. Doubly so since it's Kenobi who has to worry about a second fighter and would hence have incentive to put maul in between himself and Oppress." 

For both Savage and Maul while they have room to execute wide swings they still can't move as much as they could've and if you're using a weapon as long as Savage's in an area like that even if you can swing it around doesn't mean you can maneuver as well which is why neither of them could get around Obi-Wan. Sure being in an open space means Obi-Wan could be more mobile as well but he'd still be on the defensive.

"Kenobi practices soresu, Maul practices juyo, Kenobi, a defensive fighter, gradually giving ground to Maul, someone who is aggressive as fuck in every duel we see him. This does not necessitate that he's lost control or that Maul is getting the better of him. That kind of interpretation especially doesn't hold up to snuff when we consider what happens when Kenobi decides to break off the engagement to try and save Galia:"

There's a difference between someone being able to defend against someone while stationary and having to constantly retreat. It wasn't just Obi-Wan moving back he constantly had to jump to different locations so I'm not sure how it doesn't hold up. Obi-Wan landing a single kick on Maul doesn't indicate superiority by itself. 

"And I suppose you have proof of some sort that Maul's bridged the gap between himself and Kenobi?"

Well SOD Maul is clearly stronger than his earlier TCW version and his feats show that he can at the very least challenge ROTS Kenobi.

"No prep, engine running, Ahsoka can hold a freighter in place and presumably pull it down if it's pilot isn't trying to fly. Maul doesn't have any showings that this can't be argued against. I'm inclined to think the reason Maul didn't try to abuse tk against the ship pulling telekinetic is that he can't."

That feat while impressive took all of Ahsoka's focus where's Maul has pulled down a shuttle off a cliff after he'd been shot twice. Sure it was his mechanical legs but he visibly screams and Talzin's magic leaking from it implies some sort of felt pain. Maul in SOD sends back waves of droids which is a combative showing and given the context of the Mandalore fight I'm inclined to think that he didn't do it because he was holding back. 

"Ahsoka holding maul in place for a dozen seconds despite maul wanting to fall is most definitely ragdolling. It's actually far more impressive taken at face value than anything we've seen maul do to Kenobi, given the length of time she's able to hold it. Ahsoka taking control of maul is circumstantial, but then again, so is each and every one of Maul's canon uses of tk against the general. Usages that are mysteriously absent from their 1 v1 fights."

That's not ragdolling lol That's having a telekentic grip on someone. Ragdolling it when you pick someone up with TK and thrash them around continuously. Kanan was able to get a TK grip on the GI despite at that point at least not being anywhere near his power with the GI.

How is catching a falling person and holding them in a TK grip more impressive than Kenobi knocking down trees the size of buildings while holding on to the outside of a ship or matching a hindered Anakin on Mustafar? 

While it's apparently Maul can't ragdoll Kenobi instantly he still has used TK against him such as after Savage lost his arm. So it's not like Maul can't use TK against Kenobi.

"At any rate, what it does show us is that Maul's force defenses can't overpower ahsoka's, something we've seen canon vader do to much less powerful jedi. I don't really need it, given Ahsoka's established contention with maul, and combat applicable showings, but there's a degree of relativism implied there."

For this see above points.

""Completely unreasonable" isn't good enough for you to use this as a feat. Just because its possible Maul exerted x amount of effort doesn't mean he did. You're making a positive claim. If it's just a 'possibility' there's zero reason to use it to try and scale maul outside of ahsoka's league."

What? Maul was clearly going all out during the end and from what it seems there's no reason for either he or Savage to hold back during their fight with Sidious. 

While Maul at the end was clearly going all out I'm trying to argue that Sidious while not doing the same at least had to put in SOME effort.

"This is an appeal to incredulity. You're using speculation of what ahsoka would acheive vs certain opponents and in certain circumstances despite ROTS Ahsoka not having established limits beyond being "below" Maul. And even then, you can't say there's an absence of evidence because ROTS Ahsoka has feats that compare to maul's best, is stated to be able to compete with him, and showcased near parity when they actually fought."

Lol No it's not. I'm going by what ROTS Ahsoka has been shown to do and saying that given Maul's showings in SOD there's a lot pointing to that had the two fought on even ground with them both going all out Maul would win and rather decisively. 

Yo hold up the yellow quotes disappeared hold on

EDIT: I put the quotes in red text because the yellow highlight wouldn't work.

You may not see a problem, but other people do.

Well the environment was and the fight itself had bigger context which is why I brought up Maul holding back until the very end where he disarmed her twice on the beams.

The environment was what? I have no clue what you mean there. And as Joker's already brought up, Ahsoka was also holding back with the explicit objective of capturing Maul because of the extenuating circumstance that he happened to hold potentially relevant knowledge to the sith lord the council was chasing. Both of these are red herrings. You know why? Because when they fought under typical conditions, neither was presented with an opportunity to cripple, incapacitate or kill the other. 
https://youtu.be/kDblfz9pZHg?t=40



Maul disarms Ahsoka. His next move? Aggressively, press her.  Ahsoka stays in contention, not because Maul is holding back, but because, she is able to 


A. withstand a sustained assault with a single blade
B. Land a staggering kick to his head


Maul is unable to hurt ahsoka despite disarming her. This is not a result of extenuating circumstances. It is entirely a result of Ahsoka's own martial skill. r.

Filoni said the fight should take all of her focus

 to compete at his level, not to stay alive. Don't make shit up. Ventress couldn't compete at Mace's level, but she didn't die. Ahsoka fighting at full focus is not an extenuating circumstance. If she can compete on Maul's level making full use of her own martial ability, then she can compete on maul's level, period. Overconfidence is used to explain maul "losing" since Ahsoka "needs to beat maul", it does not explain Ahsoka competing with her.
 

So Obi-Wan disarming Cad Bane wasn't him winning?

Nope. Kenobi does fuck all after disarming him. Your example is especially bad since bane doesn't primarily use lightsabers.

Ahsoka managed to land a kick to give her room to call her saber back where Maul instead of continuing to attack decides to just stand there.

You're misremembering.
https://youtu.be/kDblfz9pZHg?t=43

Maul doesn't "just stand there". He takes a split second to recover from ahsoka kicking him in the head and when he realizes Ahsoka is using force pull he jumps out of the way to avoid getting cut in half. At no point does Maul take it easy on Ahsoka. The second Ahsoka loses her blade Maul presses the fuck out of her and he only stops pressing her when Ahsoka forces him to.

 How is Ahsoka landing more impactful hits when her kicking Maul staggers him back where Maul kicking Ahsoka sent her flying?

Well actually, Ahsoka sends Maul flying first, and she does so under typical battle conditions:
https://youtu.be/kDblfz9pZHg?t=79
Maul is fortunate that 
A. There wasn't something sharp there
B. The fall wasn't steep enough to kill him
C. He didn't get kicked into a hard surface


All of which are far more common than abandoned construction sites where your opponent, one who relies heavily on acrobatics has little to no room to maneuver. If Maul force pushed Ahsoka off that plank, it wouldn't have been a victory achieved through martial superiority, there is no fundamental difference between ahsoka hypothetically killing maul at the linked time frame and Maul killing Ahsoka at the end of their duel.

Saying someone can steamroll another person is basically saying they're better so I'm not sure how those have different meanings. 

Well I don't have ROTS Ahsoka close to ROTS Maul which is why this debate exists.

The second thing I quoted makes arguing over the first sentence pointless. I will however accept your concession that this was bullshit:

Maul is far above Ahsoka according to Feloni

For both Savage and Maul while they have room to execute wide swings they still can't move as much as they could've and if you're using a weapon as long as Savage's in an area like that even if you can swing it around doesn't mean you can maneuver as well which is why neither of them could get around Obi-Wan

Remember this is a comparison. You need to show oppress and maul were limited more than Kenobi was. 

Sure being in an open space means Obi-Wan could be more mobile as well but he'd still be on the defensive.

Bizarre claim. the ataru user who is using acrobatics would benefit less from open space? This isn't even speculative. Do you know why Kenobi had to interrupt his individual assaults of Maul and Oppress? Because he had to worry about another attack on his opposite side. Your excuse here is nonsensical.

There's a difference between someone being able to defend against someone while stationary and having to constantly retreat.

Kenobi didn't "constantly retreat", there were multiple stretches where he was stationary. More importantly, Maul "making kenobi retreat" didn't lead to anything. Kenobi didn't show exhaustion, he didn't get hurt, he wasn't incapacitated, he wasn't cut, and at no point did Maul have an oppurtunity to do anything to Kenobi. You have this obsession with observing everything except for the results, and I'm not sure why. Maul does nothing to Kenobi. Kenobi goes on the offensive and disorientates Maul for several seconds. You know why he doesn't press that advantage? Because Maul has a brother whose about to stab his friend.

Obi-Wan landing a single kick on Maul doesn't indicate superiority by itself.

Kenobi incapacitating Maul,consistently hurting him under a variety of circumstances and environments, while successfully preventing Maul to respond in kind indicates superiority.

Well SOD Maul is clearly stronger than his earlier TCW version and his feats show that he can at the very least challenge ROTS Kenobi.

How? Has Kenobi ever fought Windu, Secura, or Sidious? How are you even quantifying the amount of effort Sidious put into stomping him. How can you possibly guess that sids would require comparable effort vs Kenobi? How can you guess how long it would take Windu to beat Maul and/or Kenobi respectively?


This is the problem, you're not making arguments based on evidence, you're making arguments based on speculation. You speculate Ahsoka can't do comparable things. You speculate Kenobi can't do better things. Why should your speculation hold any weight to what we've actually seen happen when Ahsoka and Maul faced off? 

That feat while impressive took all of Ahsoka's focus where's Maul has pulled down a shuttle off a cliff after he'd been shot twice.

Maul did not pull down a shuttle. He, fully strained, pulled a freighter a few feet and then let gravity do the rest. Ahsoka's feat is far more impressive taken at face value. She had to contend with gravity and an engine running, and she did this for far longer. Now I'm willing to cut Maul some slack due to his leg getting shot off and holding oppress, but  Maul has nothing that clearly outstrops this showing, and remember, you're trying to argue that Ahsoka isn't even close to the zabrak in question.

Maul in SOD sends back waves of droids which is a combative showing

He sends back a vague number of droids with a force wave. It's hardly applicable in the heat of a duel, comes against no resistance(like a frieghter engine or gravity) and it doesn't require continuous effort. Ahsoka applying the power she used on the freighter would literally only take reaching out with her arm. It's far more battle applicable.

 given the context of the Mandalore fight I'm inclined to think that he didn't do it because he was holding back.

That makes absolutely zero sense. Why would "teaching Ahsoka a lesson" preclude Maul from force use? Surely pushing, and ragdolling are useful for "lesson-teaching" and are a far more effective way to incapacitate someone then trying to overcome them in a lengthy lightsaber duel.


Maul "holding back" doesn't explain shit.  If he could wreck her in the force, he would have. Furthermore, your baseless "maul can dominate ahsoka" head canon doesn't really fit with Ahsoka being able to "compete on maul's level" when she fully focuses. How would that make a lick of sense if Ahsoka's contention with maul hinges on Maul not using force power? There's no need to over complicate this. Maul's didn't beat her with TK because he can't.
 

Ragdolling it when you pick someone up with TK and thrash them around continuously.

Maul has never trashed kenobi "continuously". He's only ever held him for a few seconds or unleashed a super uber push. If you can suspend someone in air for a dozen seconds you can throw them, come the ---- on.

Kanan was able to get a TK grip on the GI despite at that point at least not being anywhere near his power with the GI.

Lmao.
This:
https://youtu.be/BT6Sd0qfR-Y?t=184

Comes far closer to your definition of ragdolling then this:
https://youtu.be/oINgvdXXQX0?t=150



No, the actual reason why Kanan is able to do this is because Ezra is in danger and hence he gets an emotional buff that allows him to perform outside of his usual abilities. You know, the same reason  oppress is able to go from getting curbstomped by dooku to choking ventress and the count(and then blasting anakin an kenobi), or why Ventress when injured is able to choke two people who can stomp her 1 v1. Protecting someone can amp a lightsider. Rage/Desperation amps darksiders. This is why Maul goes from being entirely unable to do anything to Kenobi during a fight to suddenly blasting him a million miles while screaming.


Maul has never continuously done anything to Kenobi. The only example of that would be what Sidious did to Maul.

How is catching a falling person and holding them in a TK grip more impressive than Kenobi knocking down trees the size of buildings while holding on to the outside of a ship or matching a hindered Anakin on Mustafar?

The first thing you mentioned isn't canon. Maul gets zero scaling from the second. 

I meant sidious.

And I'm sure Yoda put "some" effort when he fought Ahsoka in forces of destiny. For you to use this vs ahsoka, you need to quantify


A. How much effort sidious used when kicking Maul's ass


and then you need to prove that


B. Ahsoka would have done far worse


It's several posts and you've yet to prove B for anything you've provided for maul. At the very least, provide a please.

I'm going by what ROTS Ahsoka has been shown to do

The absence of evidence =/ not equal evidence of absence. You need to showcase what Ahsoka can't do, that's what the entirety of your case for maul relies on. Per their actual fight and per filoni ahsoka is close to maul. Per your baseless speculation on Ahsoka's upper-limits, she isn't. You are not using what "ahsoka has been shown to do", you are using what "she hasn't been shown to do". Just because one hasn't been showing doing things doesn't preclude her from being able to do them. Her contention with maul is well-established. Saying "ahsoka can't do things maul did" is just speculation.

"You may not see a problem, but other people do."

You're the only one who's said it so far. 

"The environment was what? I have no clue what you mean there. And as Joker's already brought up, Ahsoka was also holding back with the explicit objective of capturing Maul because of the extenuating circumstance that he happened to hold potentially relevant knowledge to the sith lord the council was chasing. Both of these are red herrings. You know why? Because when they fought under typical conditions, neither was presented with an opportunity to cripple, incapacitate or kill the other."


You were talking about circumstance. You bring up later how Maul didn't land on something sharp or that he didn't fall endlessly. The same could be said about Ahsoka being lucky her saber didn't fall off a cliff the first time she was disarmed. 

"Maul disarms Ahsoka. His next move? Aggressively, press her.  Ahsoka stays in contention, not because Maul is holding back, but because, she is able to 

A. withstand a sustained assault with a single blade
B. Land a staggering kick to his head

Maul is unable to hurt ahsoka despite disarming her. This is not a result of extenuating circumstances. It is entirely a result of Ahsoka's own martial skill. r."

I'm not sure what you're point is because the same could be said about Maul disarming Ahsoka being due to martial skill. Which it was.

 "to compete at his level, not to stay alive. Don't make shit up. Ventress couldn't compete at Mace's level, but she didn't die. Ahsoka fighting at full focus is not an extenuating circumstance. If she can compete on Maul's level making full use of her own martial ability, then she can compete on maul's level, period. Overconfidence is used to explain maul "losing" since Ahsoka "needs to beat maul", it does not explain Ahsoka competing with her."

That's not making anything up since that referring to Ahsoka having to use all of her focus to contend with Maul isn't something I went against. Seems like that claim was made up. 

Well obviously if Ahsoka did that unamped she could do it anyways but that doesn't mean it was easy. 

"Nope. Kenobi does fuck all after disarming him. Your example is especially bad since bane doesn't primarily use lightsabers."


I brought that up because you said Maul disarming Ahsoka wasn't him winning. By that logic Cad Bane being disarmed shouldn't mean anything. 

"Maul doesn't "just stand there". He takes a split second to recover from ahsoka kicking him in the head and when he realizes Ahsoka is using force pull he jumps out of the way to avoid getting cut in half. At no point does Maul take it easy on Ahsoka. The second Ahsoka loses her blade Maul presses the fuck out of her and he only stops pressing her when Ahsoka forces him to."

Pretty sure I'm not since Maul visibly recovered as soon as Ahsoka landed and stopped to TK her saber to her hand. He clearly had time to press her rather than wait to evade it.

"Well actually, Ahsoka sends Maul flying first, and she does so under typical battle conditions:
https://youtu.be/kDblfz9pZHg?t=79
Maul is fortunate that 
A. There wasn't something sharp there
B. The fall wasn't steep enough to kill him
C. He didn't get kicked into a hard surface"

I was referring to her other hits but I'll address this anyways. This happened during a bladelock and not during an attack sequence. As I mentioned earlier it could also be said that Ahsoka was lucky her saber didn't go off of a cliff.

"All of which are far more common than abandoned construction sites where your opponent, one who relies heavily on acrobatics has little to no room to maneuver. If Maul force pushed Ahsoka off that plank, it wouldn't have been a victory achieved through martial superiority, there is no fundamental difference between ahsoka hypothetically killing maul at the linked time frame and Maul killing Ahsoka at the end of their duel."

That can also apply to the saber thing. Maul and Ahsoka were both on the beams so it goes both ways. This segment is what I've been saying about battlefield circumstance.

"The second thing I quoted makes arguing over the first sentence pointless. I will however accept your concession that this was bullshit:"


What?  

Where was the a concession.

"Remember this is a comparison. You need to show oppress and maul were limited more than Kenobi was."


The segment this was responding to answers your own question.

"Bizarre claim. the ataru user who is using acrobatics would benefit less from open space? This isn't even speculative. Do you know why Kenobi had to interrupt his individual assaults of Maul and Oppress? Because he had to worry about another attack on his opposite side. Your excuse here is nonsensical."

That doesn't mean he'd be able to use it more effectively since both Maul and Savage would be able to engage him together.

"Kenobi didn't "constantly retreat", there were multiple stretches where he was stationary. More importantly, Maul "making kenobi retreat" didn't lead to anything. Kenobi didn't show exhaustion, he didn't get hurt, he wasn't incapacitated, he wasn't cut, and at no point did Maul have an oppurtunity to do anything to Kenobi. You have this obsession with observing everything except for the results, and I'm not sure why. Maul does nothing to Kenobi. Kenobi goes on the offensive and disorientates Maul for several seconds. You know why he doesn't press that advantage? Because Maul has a brother whose about to stab his friend."

Really? He kept relocating and backtracking. 

Well obviously Kenobi wouldn't get exhausted that fast because he was a bigger threat to Maul in that fight than Ahsoka was in theirs. As for Maul not landing hits that doesn't mean he wasn't a threat. 

I'd hardly call it an obsession but if it's been forgotten you often have to analyze what leads up to victories and defeats in Star Wars. I don't agree with the way the Forcecast does things but the fights are very rarely on even ground and it's sometimes important to look at character motives examples being Sidous VS Mace or ROTJ Luke VS ROTJ Vader.

"Kenobi incapacitating Maul,consistently hurting him under a variety of circumstances and environments, while successfully preventing Maul to respond in kind indicates superiority."


Kicking Maul back isn't Maul being incapacitated. Maul TKing Kenobi at the end of the fight was since it's implied he briefly got knocked out while Maul was helping Savage up. He's even holding his head. The fight also has Maul picking up Kenobi with TK but it's cut and not clear what lead up to it. 

"How? Has Kenobi ever fought Windu, Secura, or Sidious? How are you even quantifying the amount of effort Sidious put into stomping him. How can you possibly guess that sids would require comparable effort vs Kenobi? How can you guess how long it would take Windu to beat Maul and/or Kenobi respectively?"

I think you're confused. I'm saying SOD Maul > Maul earlier in TCW. 

I'm not sure where you're going with Kenobi's performance vs Maul. I don't think he'd do that much better against Sidious. Possibly worse. 

"This is the problem, you're not making arguments based on evidence, you're making arguments based on speculation. You speculate Ahsoka can't do comparable things. You speculate Kenobi can't do better things. Why should your speculation hold any weight to what we've actually seen happen when Ahsoka and Maul faced off?   "

How is it speculative? Ahsoka's Force feats aren't as impressive as Maul's which I'll get to. 

Kenobi can't do better things than who? He certainly can do better things than Ahsoka and in his prime he can at least do just as well as Maul.

ROTS Maul VS ROTS Kenobi is a more even fight than ROTS Maul than ROTS Ahsoka. Let's not get silly. 

"Maul did not pull down a shuttle. He, fully strained, pulled a freighter a few feet and then let gravity do the rest. Ahsoka's feat is far more impressive taken at face value. She had to contend with gravity and an engine running, and she did this for far longer. Now I'm willing to cut Maul some slack due to his leg getting shot off and holding oppress, but  Maul has nothing that clearly outstrops this showing, and remember, you're trying to argue that Ahsoka isn't even close to the zabrak in question."

Lol Don't pull an Evannova. First off I said that Maul pulled it off the cliff so you're stating something I already said. 

Fully strained? Speculative. He pulled it way more than a few feet probably a few meters and it was a valid showing of TK strength. 

Gravity? I think it's just the engines. 

Sure Ahsoka did it far longer against a running ship but as I mentioned it clearly took all her focus and Maul in that same episode has a large scale TK feat as well. Sure you can argue it's may not be as impressive but there's no indication Maul can't do what Ahsoka can telekinetically. 

"He sends back a vague number of droids with a force wave. It's hardly applicable in the heat of a duel, comes against no resistance(like a frieghter engine or gravity) and it doesn't require continuous effort. Ahsoka applying the power she used on the freighter would literally only take reaching out with her arm. It's far more battle applicable."

It's shown to be a decent amount and it's during a battle in combat as an offensive Force attack. I'm not sure how that's not applicable in a duel. 

Ahsoka using all of her focus to stop a Republic shuttle wouldn't be applicable in battle if she has to lower her defenses. 

That makes absolutely zero sense. Why would "teaching Ahsoka a lesson" preclude Maul from force use? Surely pushing, and ragdolling are useful for "lesson-teaching" and are a far more effective way to incapacitate someone then trying to overcome them in a lengthy lightsaber duel.

"Maul "holding back" doesn't explain shit.  If he could wreck her in the force, he would have. Furthermore, your baseless "maul can dominate ahsoka" head canon doesn't really fit with Ahsoka being able to "compete on maul's level" when she fully focuses. How would that make a lick of sense if Ahsoka's contention with maul hinges on Maul not using force power? There's no need to over complicate this. Maul's didn't beat her with TK because he can't."

But he didn't need to nor wanted to? Maul prefers blade to blade combat where he's superior to Ahsoka. I'm not sure how it's head canon when he quickly disarmed her and at the end of the fight when he had enough he quickly took her apart. 

Because Maul doesn't need to use TK to win against her? 

"Maul has never trashed kenobi "continuously". He's only ever held him for a few seconds or unleashed a super uber push. If you can suspend someone in air for a dozen seconds you can throw them, come the ---- on."


That's not was I was saying. I was making a point of how Ahsoka never ragdolled Maul like you said she did. Maybe the reason Ahsoka held onto Maul was because she prevented him from falling. It's not like she could instantly pick him up with TK and do what Sidious eventually did to him. Arguing that would be silly.

"Lmao.
This:
https://youtu.be/BT6Sd0qfR-Y?t=184

Comes far closer to your definition of ragdolling then this:
https://youtu.be/oINgvdXXQX0?t=150"

I'm confused on you saying this because of the next segment.

"No, the actual reason why Kanan is able to do this is because Ezra is in danger and hence he gets an emotional buff that allows him to perform outside of his usual abilities. You know, the same reason  oppress is able to go from getting curbstomped by dooku to choking ventress and the count(and then blasting anakin an kenobi), or why Ventress when injured is able to choke two people who can stomp her 1 v1. Protecting someone can amp a lightsider. Rage/Desperation amps darksiders. This is why Maul goes from being entirely unable to do anything to Kenobi during a fight to suddenly blasting him a million miles while screaming."

I brought up that example because it's an instance of someone having a telekinetic grip on someone when they're not as powerful as them. 

What about a million miles screaming?

"Maul has never continuously done anything to Kenobi. The only example of that would be what Sidious did to Maul."

Lol What? I think your argument just shot itself in the foot.

"The first thing you mentioned isn't canon. Maul gets zero scaling from the second.   "

Wasn't it from a TCW comic? Even if it's not canon Kenobi being able to match Mustafar Vader in TK shows that he probably could anyways. 

I wasn't trying to scale Maul I was asking how Ahsoka holding Maul is more impressive than that. Unless you want to argue that ROTS Ahsoka could equal out Anakin's Force push. 

"And I'm sure Yoda put "some" effort when he fought Ahsoka in forces of destiny. For you to use this vs ahsoka, you need to quantify

A. How much effort sidious used when kicking Maul's ass

and then you need to prove that

B. Ahsoka would have done far worse"

It's several posts and you've yet to prove B for anything you've provided for maul. At the very least, provide a please.


LOL Now you're getting silly.

Let's break this down. 

Yoda knocks Ahsoka flat on her ass with one strike at the beginning than casually dodges and trips her. I highly doubt their following exchange was Yoda putting in any effort. Technically him going through any moveset requires some effort because he physically has to move but there's absolutely nothing pointing to Ahsoka being able to challenge Yoda.

A. Probably not that much. 

B. Point to one thing that suggest Ahsoka could do as well as Sidious. Replace Maul with Ahsoka in that fight and convince me she'd do anywhere near as well. 

"The absence of evidence =/ not equal evidence of absence. You need to showcase what Ahsoka can't do, that's what the entirety of your case for maul relies on. Per their actual fight and per filoni ahsoka is close to maul. Per your baseless speculation on Ahsoka's upper-limits, she isn't. You are not using what "ahsoka has been shown to do", you are using what "she hasn't been shown to do". Just because one hasn't been showing doing things doesn't preclude her from being able to do them. Her contention with maul is well-established. Saying "ahsoka can't do things maul did" is just speculation."

Filoni said Maul's the stronger swordsman and that Ahsoka can compete with him. That doesn't mean Ahsoka's close. 

I'm bringing up what she hasn't done because she's done nothing to convince me that she's close to Maul's level.

TheNuisanceBird wrote:You're the only one who's said it so far. 

Latham and 3aa said it

You were talking about circumstance. 

You never finished your sentence so I have no clue what you were saying with the environment.
[wuote] You bring up later how Maul didn't land on something sharp or that he didn't fall endlessly. The same could be said about Ahsoka being lucky her saber didn't fall off a cliff the first time she was disarmed. [/quote]
No, no it really can't. Maul is thrown far further than ahsoka's saber is.

I'm not sure what you're point is because the same could be said about Maul disarming Ahsoka being due to martial skill. Which it was.

You can't, because Maul disarming Ahsoka didn't achieve anything. Again, stop equating process to results. Maul disarming Ahsoka of her lightsaber was effectively countered by Ahsoka's defensive chops and h2h, so it doesn't make any sense giving maul a point for disarmament when he didn't achieve anything.

That's not making anything up since that referring to Ahsoka having to use all of her focus to contend with Maul isn't something I went against.

Then we have nothing to discuss since if "competing on his level" is within her abilities, then she is close to Maul.

Well obviously if Ahsoka did that unamped she could do it anyways but that doesn't mean it was easy.

Did I argue it was easy? Why is it being "easy" relevant?

 By that logic Cad Bane being disarmed shouldn't mean anything.

You're right it doesn't.

Pretty sure I'm not since Maul visibly recovered as soon as Ahsoka landed and stopped to TK her saber to her hand.He clearly had time to press her rather than wait to evade it. 

Rewatch the scene. There's only a split second between his 'recovery' and him realizing ahsoka is pulling her second blade. Furthermore, it isn't even clear exactly "when he recovered" because we don't see Maul's face until the blade starts flying in mid-air. You're, again, making a positive claim on speculation.

This happened during a bladelock and not during an attack sequence. 

And? Is this supposed to mean something? Bladelocks are as much part of a fight as attack seqiences. Maul tries to overpower Ahsoka, and he ends up smashing through a window.
 

That can also apply to the saber thing. 

It can't because the saber went nowhere near as far as Maul did.

Maul and Ahsoka were both on the beams so it goes both ways.

One of whom uses ataru, and the other of whom fights linearly.

Where was the a concession.

Do I really have to drill you for this? You said "maul is well above ahsoka according to filoni." Filoni never suggested the gap was big, so that statement of yours was bullshit. If you can't even concede that I'm done here.

The segment this was responding to answers your own question.

What question? 

That doesn't mean he'd be able to use it more effectively since both Maul and Savage would be able to engage him together.

They were already engaging him together. This is why Kenobi had to break off his attacks.

Really? He kept relocating and backtracking. 

Well obviously Kenobi wouldn't get exhausted that fast because he was a bigger threat to Maul in that fight than Ahsoka was in theirs. As for Maul not landing hits that doesn't mean he wasn't a threat.  

1. You have zero clue if Maul or Kenobi was getting exhausted faster, so meaningless claim is meaningless.
2. It doesn't matter if you speculate he was a threat. Since Maul failed to achieve anything, there's zero reason to give him any points for making Kenobi "relocate and backtrack", especially since Kenobi is a defensive fighter, and Maul is not.

I'd hardly call it an obsession but if it's been forgotten you often have to analyze what leads up to victories and defeats in Star Wars.

Yes you analyze, what leads up to victories and defeats not thing that happened but doesn't lead anywhere. The former includes cuts, hits, physical strain, exhaustion, getting hurt, being staggered, being sent far away. Someone disarming someone and then getting kicked in the head? That falls into the latter, and hence is irrelevant. The only thing you have is that Ahsoka needed a few seconds to catch her breath, something she would have had anyway given how fa she kicked Maul.

and it's sometimes important to look at character motives examples being Sidous VS Mace or ROTJ Luke VS ROTJ Vader.

Ahsoka and Maul had identical objectives. Their objectives never came into play during the throne room fight, hence its a moot point.

Kicking Maul back isn't Maul being incapacitated. 

I was analyzing things holistically. Incapacitation references their first duel where Maul was incapacitated in 40 seconds. And no, Maul didn't outright lose in their 1 v1, that doesn't change that getting disorientated can "lead to victories and defeats", and hence is noteworthy. Kenobi's fights with Maul are filled to the brim with the first category i listed, and these events occur far more frequently for kenobi than for Maul who basically only ever achieved anything when Kenobi was screaming like a lunatic, something which Maul was able to make happen do to a personal history with Kenobi that has no application to Ahsoka. In fact as far as canon is concerned, Maul has never successfully used dun moch against opponents who haven't been tortured beforehand.



 

But he didn't need to nor wanted to? Maul prefers blade to blade combat where he's superior to Ahsoka.

This is a baseless assertion. CW Maul has consistently abused the force when provided the opportunity. 
https://youtu.be/7tbnBw6X3AU?t=108

https://youtu.be/KaqUVn1az4w?t=165
If Maul can abuse the force against someone, he does. Him limiting himself to sabers is completely inconsistent with all of his other appearances in canon where he frequently uses the force in conjunction with his blade. Finally, Ahsoka's ability to "compete on maul's level" was made in the context of comparing them as "fighters", not merely duelists. There's no need to overcomplicate this, Maul has nothing to suggest he's way more powerfyl than ship-pulling telekinetic and there's zero reason to think he would be able to ragdoll someone who "can compete on his level." 

Fully strained? Speculative. He pulled it way more than a few feet probably a few meters and it was a valid showing of TK strength. 

Gravity? I think it's just the engines. 


Sure Ahsoka did it far longer against a running ship but as I mentioned it clearly took all her focus and Maul in that same episode has a large scale TK feat as well. Sure you can argue it's may not be as impressive but there's no indication Maul can't do what Ahsoka can telekinetically.

You're shifting goalposts. What you claimed was that Maul is far more powerful than Ahsoka. Him replicating that wouldn't make him close to powerful abuse her with the force, even if I subscribed to this silly, "ahsoka hasn't done x, so ahsoka obviously couldn't do x!!!" logic.

It's shown to be a decent amount and it's during a battle in combat as an offensive Force attack. I'm not sure how that's not applicable in a duel.

Because he isn't doing it when facing pressure from a combatant. He comes out of nowhere and hits opponents that 
A. aren't aware of his presence
B. can't really jump high
Additionally, performing the feat requires him to gather his energies for multiple seconds in the air, something, he wouldn't necessarily be able to get off if an opponent knows he's there.
Finally, it's a multi-directional attack, so whoever he uses it against would only have to tank a fraction of what is shown.


Ahsoka pushing her arm out is a far quicker gesture and given she was immediately slowing the ship, she would only need a second to get off that level of force. Maul's feat takes a longer period of time, is far easier to prepare for, and is far easier to avoid. Ahsoka's showing is easily the more combat applicable one. And finally, this is besides the point. You're trying to prove that Maul is far more powerful than someone who can pull a ship. How the hell does destroying a "decent amount of droids" do that?

That's not was I was saying. I was making a point of how Ahsoka never ragdolled Maul like you said she did.

No, now you're backtracking. Here's what you said:

How is catching a falling person and holding them in a TK grip more impressive than Kenobi knocking down trees the size of buildings while holding on to the outside of a ship or matching a hindered Anakin on Mustafar?

You've repeatedly tried to use Maul tking kenobi with extenuating circumstances to scale him above Ahsoka.(while ignoring Ahsoka's contention scales her to whatever you want to scale maul over)

I brought up that example because it's an instance of someone having a telekinetic grip on someone when they're not as powerful as them.

Did you even read what I said? Your example is bunk because Kanan was operating on a heightened level of emotion. Kanan was able to pin the grand inqusitor because hod powers got amped the fuck up. At that moment Kanan's powers came close enough to the inqusitor's to pin him to the cieling. Just like how Oppress was able to temporarily operate at a similar level of power of Dooku and Ventress collectively, and just like how Maul was able to blast Kenobi when "desperate to save his brother." Extreme moments of emotion can amplify your power to the point you operate beyond your usual abilities. Kanan was powerful enough to pin the inqusitor when Ezra was about to die. Ezra was powerful enough to call a massive beast when he was about to lose everything. Ventress was powerful enough to choke out Anakin and Kenobi when betrayed by Dooku. This doesn't prove your point. You're just ignoring obvious circumstance that wasn't present with Ahsoka and Maul.




 

But he didn't need to nor wanted to? Maul prefers blade to blade combat where he's superior to Ahsoka.

This is a baseless assertion. CW Maul has consistently abused the force when circumstance has provided him the opportunity. 
https://youtu.be/7tbnBw6X3AU?t=108

https://youtu.be/KaqUVn1az4w?t=165
If Maul can abuse the force against someone, he does. Him limiting himself to sabers is completely inconsistent with all of his other appearances in canon where he frequently uses the force in conjunction with his blade. Finally, Ahsoka's ability to "compete on maul's level" was made in the context of comparing them as "fighters", not merely duelists. There's no need to overcomplicate this, Maul has nothing to suggest he's way more powerful than ship-pulling telekinetic and there's zero reason to think he would be able to ragdoll someone who "can compete on his level." 

Yoda knocks Ahsoka flat on her ass with one strike at the beginning than casually dodges and trips her. I highly doubt their following exchange was Yoda putting in any effort. Technically him going through any moveset requires some effort because he physically has to move but there's absolutely nothing pointing to Ahsoka being able to challenge Yoda.

Sidious has Maul on the wall in one move, then he casually knocks maul the fuck out a second time  and there's absolutely nothing that points to him being able to challenge Sidious. My non-feat is as valid as yours.

B. Point to one thing that suggest Ahsoka could do as well as Sidious. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFC8woFkTA


I think Ahsoka can get stomped just fine 

I think you're confused. I'm saying SOD Maul > Maul earlier in TCW. 

I'm not sure where you're going with Kenobi's performance vs Maul. I don't think he'd do that much better against Sidious. Possibly worse.

I think you're confused. You have zilch to make a positive claim on where sod maul stands compared to tcw kenobi. You have zilch to assert how much Maul grew by. And it doesn't really matter how you think Kenobi would fare vs Maul's opponents because you have no way to prove it. Does Sidious require 2% effort? 3% effort? 5% effort? How do you know? You are making a positive claim and are refusing to meet the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if you think Ahsoka couldn't perform comparably to Maul, if you can't prove it, I don't care. And from hereon out, when you make baseless assertions about what Ahsoka can't do by using "an absence of evidence", I'm not even going to bother addressing it. 

Filoni said Maul's the stronger swordsman and that Ahsoka can compete with him. That doesn't mean Ahsoka's close.

He said she can compete on his level. You keep butchering the quote and its obvious why.

I'm bringing up what she hasn't done because she's done nothing to convince me that she's close to Maul's level.

She's already done the only thing she needs to do to prove she's near maul's level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFC8woFkTA

Compete on Maul's level.

"Latham and 3aa said it "

Well I must've missed that and neither of them have directly interfered in our debate but they're welcome to do so. Not sure what happened to the quoting here.


"No, no it really can't. Maul is thrown far further than ahsoka's saber is."

How? Maul being lucky he didn't get impaled on something is the same as Ahsoka being lucky the saber didn't fall off of a cliff? 

"You can't, because Maul disarming Ahsoka didn't achieve anything. Again, stop equating process to results. Maul disarming Ahsoka of her lightsaber was effectively countered by Ahsoka's defensive chops and h2h, so it doesn't make any sense giving maul a point for disarmament when he didn't achieve anything."


It still could've. Maul disarming Ahsoka to the extent he did is a clear showing of superior swordsmanship. Maul grappled with Ahsoka as well and his kick sent her back rather than hers just knocking him back a few steps.


"Then we have nothing to discuss since if "competing on his level" is within her abilities, then she is close to Maul."

This brings us back to being able to compete with someone but not being near their level. And this is going by if Maul wasn't holding back which we're still debating on. 

"Did I argue it was easy? Why is it being "easy" relevant?"


Because her competing with Maul isn't easy whether Maul was holding back or not.


"You're right it doesn't."

I said that hypothetically. Cad Bane being disarmed does mean something. It means he's inferior to Kenobi. I don't think anyone's gonna argue on that. Hopefully not.

"Rewatch the scene. There's only a split second between his 'recovery' and him realizing ahsoka is pulling her second blade. Furthermore, it isn't even clear exactly "when he recovered" because we don't see Maul's face until the blade starts flying in mid-air. You're, again, making a positive claim on speculation."


I did. Maul clearly has enough time to do something. They both regain their footing at the same time. Far from speculating.


"And? Is this supposed to mean something? Bladelocks are as much part of a fight as attack seqiences. Maul tries to overpower Ahsoka, and he ends up smashing through a window."



Because bladelocks are a pause in combat. Sure there are ones that are strength contentions but Maul and Ahsoka's didn't seem like that. If he wanted to overpower her there are multiple other things he could've done rather than a bladelock.


"It can't because the saber went nowhere near as far as Maul did."


As I mentioned above she's lucky it didn't go off of a cliff.


"One of whom uses ataru, and the other of whom fights linearly."


Dooku's fights linearly but still displays footwork not being able to be used while on a beam. It was hindering both of them regardless of their styles. 

"Do I really have to drill you for this? You said "maul is well above ahsoka according to filoni." Filoni never suggested the gap was big, so that statement of yours was bullshit. If you can't even concede that I'm done here."


That also isn't saying that she's near him. My take on it was that it implies he's noticeably above which is why I brought up how Maul has previously better feats


"What question?" 



Go back and read it. 


"They were already engaging him together. This is why Kenobi had to break off his attacks."



I meant on the same side as you kept pointing out they weren't doing. 


"1. You have zero clue if Maul or Kenobi was getting exhausted faster, so meaningless claim is meaningless.
2. It doesn't matter if you speculate he was a threat. Since Maul failed to achieve anything, there's zero reason to give him any points for making Kenobi "relocate and backtrack", especially since Kenobi is a defensive fighter, and Maul is not."


Well it's pretty obvious Kenobi fighting Maul takes less strain than Ahsoka fighting Maul. 


So Anakin on Mustafar constantly driving Kenobi back and forcing Obi-Wan to put himself in danger doesn't mean anything because he didn't win? Sure Kenobi didn't get any cuts with a blade but that doesn't mean he wasn't in any danger. 

"Yes you analyze, what leads up to victories and defeats not thing that happened but doesn't lead anywhere. The former includes cuts, hits, physical strain, exhaustion, getting hurt, being staggered, being sent far away. Someone disarming someone and then getting kicked in the head? That falls into the latter, and hence is irrelevant. The only thing you have is that Ahsoka needed a few seconds to catch her breath, something she would have had anyway given how fa she kicked Maul."


I'm still not sure how Ahsoka being disarmed is irrelevant when it could've ended the fight had it taken place somewhere else. The end of the fight does take place somewhere else where Ahsoka loses her sabers and while she still won that doesn't mean Maul disarming her doesn't mean anything. I highly doubt Ahsoka folding back and launching Maul would make her run out of breath when she's done better things physically than that. Jedi are able to use their legs to launch themselves to jump up buildings pushing someone over them doesn't require as much. 

"Yes you analyze, what leads up to victories and defeats not thing that happened but doesn't lead anywhere. The former includes cuts, hits, physical strain, exhaustion, getting hurt, being staggered, being sent far away. Someone disarming someone and then getting kicked in the head? That falls into the latter, and hence is irrelevant. The only thing you have is that Ahsoka needed a few seconds to catch her breath, something she would have had anyway given how fa she kicked Maul."

What? Those are the same thing. 

Again, how is Ahsoka being legitimately disarmed several times irrelevant? 

"I was analyzing things holistically. Incapacitation references their first duel where Maul was incapacitated in 40 seconds. And no, Maul didn't outright lose in their 1 v1, that doesn't change that getting disorientated can "lead to victories and defeats", and hence is noteworthy. Kenobi's fights with Maul are filled to the brim with the first category i listed, and these events occur far more frequently for kenobi than for Maul who basically only ever achieved anything when Kenobi was screaming like a lunatic, something which Maul was able to make happen do to a personal history with Kenobi that has no application to Ahsoka. In fact as far as canon is concerned, Maul has never successfully used dun moch against opponents who haven't been tortured beforehand."

Kenobi sending Maul into the crates isn't incapacitation since he got back up. 

This is confusing since you just criticized me for focusing on what leads up to victories and defeats. 

I don't think Maul would've had to torture Kenobi at first to use that. 

Maul achieved driving him back during Florumm which brings us back to the above points. 

"This is a baseless assertion. CW Maul has consistently abused the force when provided the opportunity. 

https://youtu.be/7tbnBw6X3AU?t=108

https://youtu.be/KaqUVn1az4w?t=165
If Maul can abuse the force against someone, he does. Him limiting himself to sabers is completely inconsistent with all of his other appearances in canon where he frequently uses the force in conjunction with his blade. Finally, Ahsoka's ability to "compete on maul's level" was made in the context of comparing them as "fighters", not merely duelists. There's no need to overcomplicate this, Maul has nothing to suggest he's way more powerfyl than ship-pulling telekinetic and there's zero reason to think he would be able to ragdoll someone who "can compete on his level.""

This is why I'm saying he didn't use TK because he didn't need to. Unless you wanna argue Ahsoka > Kenobi in the Force. 

Maul's sent back entire armies. Sure he had Savage's help one time but considering his showings in SOD I'd say he's able to do it better than Ahsoka can. 

Maul sending back armies, pulling a shuttle off of a cliff, and straining the Venators engine room shows that he probably could stop the shuttle. 

Well you said Ahsoka ragdolled him so I'm not sure what you're point is. 

"You're shifting goalposts. What you claimed was that Maul is far more powerful than Ahsoka. Him replicating that wouldn't make him close to powerful abuse her with the force, even if I subscribed to this silly, "ahsoka hasn't done x, so ahsoka obviously couldn't do x!!!" logic."

How did I "shift goalposts"? The only thing shifting here is your grammar.  

I'm saying that because Ahsoka hasn't shown any TK feats that Maul can't do. I just mentioned why I think he could stop the shuttle. 

"Because he isn't doing it when facing pressure from a combatant. He comes out of nowhere and hits opponents that 
A. aren't aware of his presence
B. can't really jump high
Additionally, performing the feat requires him to gather his energies for multiple seconds in the air, something, he wouldn't necessarily be able to get off if an opponent knows he's there.
Finally, it's a multi-directional attack, so whoever he uses it against would only have to tank a fraction of what is shown.




Ahsoka pushing her arm out is a far quicker gesture and given she was immediately slowing the ship, she would only need a second to get off that level of force. Maul's feat takes a longer period of time, is far easier to prepare for, and is far easier to avoid. Ahsoka's showing is easily the more combat applicable one. And finally, this is besides the point. You're trying to prove that Maul is far more powerful than someone who can pull a ship. How the hell does destroying a "decent amount of droids" do that?"


Force users have been shown across Star Wars to implement TK into attack sequences which is what Maul has done. There are examples of Maul implementing Force based attacks into his movesets even if we go by TPM. If he was fighting Ahsoka going all out he'd be more than capable than using TK against her. 

For Ahsoka's ship feat VS if Maul can do it see above. 

"No, now you're backtracking. Here's what you said:"


That was in response to you saying that Maul never continuously trashed Kenobi which was something I never claimed. 


"You've repeatedly tried to use Maul tking kenobi with extenuating circumstances to scale him above Ahsoka.(while ignoring Ahsoka's contention scales her to whatever you want to scale maul over)"

I said that because you said Ahsoka has more impressive Force showings than Kenobi. 

"Did you even read what I said? Your example is bunk because Kanan was operating on a heightened level of emotion. Kanan was able to pin the grand inqusitor because hod powers got amped the fuck up. At that moment Kanan's powers came close enough to the inqusitor's to pin him to the cieling. Just like how Oppress was able to temporarily operate at a similar level of power of Dooku and Ventress collectively, and just like how Maul was able to blast Kenobi when "desperate to save his brother." Extreme moments of emotion can amplify your power to the point you operate beyond your usual abilities. Kanan was powerful enough to pin the inqusitor when Ezra was about to die. Ezra was powerful enough to call a massive beast when he was about to lose everything. Ventress was powerful enough to choke out Anakin and Kenobi when betrayed by Dooku. This doesn't prove your point. You're just ignoring obvious circumstance that wasn't present with Ahsoka and Maul."


So now you're speculating again. If you wanna get into emotions increasing Force power throughout TCW how do you know Ahsoka wasn't amped when halting the shuttle that had Maul on it? 

The next part you repeated yourself. 

"Sidious has Maul on the wall in one move, then he casually knocks maul the fuck out a second time  and there's absolutely nothing that points to him being able to challenge Sidious. My non-feat is as valid as yours."


When Maul isn't expecting Sidious to fling him. At the end when Maul dual wielding I have the opinion that Sidious at the very least had to try a little bit. I don't see how that's as invalid as Yoda trashing Ahsoka.


"I think Ahsoka can get stomped just fine  "

There was a typo in that but your response still confuses me. 

"I think you're confused. You have zilch to make a positive claim on where sod maul stands compared to tcw kenobi. You have zilch to assert how much Maul grew by. And it doesn't really matter how you think Kenobi would fare vs Maul's opponents because you have no way to prove it. Does Sidious require 2% effort? 3% effort? 5% effort? How do you know? You are making a positive claim and are refusing to meet the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if you think Ahsoka couldn't perform comparably to Maul, if you can't prove it, I don't care. And from hereon out, when you make baseless assertions about what Ahsoka can't do by using "an absence of evidence", I'm not even going to bother addressing it."


Well SOD Maul is clearly > Early TCW Maul. 

Do we really have to wonder on how Kenobi VS Sidious would go though? Not very well for Kenobi I can imagine. 


What proof? I don't think we can prove that Sidious wasn't trying at the end. 


So you're saying that it's not worth going over how Ahsoka would do in Maul's position when you're trying to argue she's near his level? 

"He said she can compete on his level. You keep butchering the quote and its obvious why."


What you quoted isn't butchering the quote at all. I said what Kenobi said and added on to it. 


"She's already done the only thing she needs to do to prove she's near maul's level."



This isn't a good closing statement since we've been debating on Maul holding back or not with me saying that being able to compete with someone doesn't mean you're on their level or close to it.

I'm thinking about making a Thread in the canon Forum on Maul's fight with Ahsoka later this week. I think it's needed. While he had a goofy moment at the end the fight wasn't as bad of a showing for him as people make it out to be.

TheNuisanceBird wrote:I'm thinking about making a Thread in the canon Forum on Maul's fight with Ahsoka later this week. I think it's needed. While he had a goofy moment at the end the fight wasn't as bad of a showing for him as people make it out to 

Yeah, if you do that, I might end up making a counter analysis granted I get the time. Your tisms cannot be allowed to stand uncontested.

I think you're confused. You have zilch to make a positive claim on where sod maul stands compared to tcw kenobi. You have zilch to assert how much Maul grew by. And it doesn't really matter how you think Kenobi would fare vs Maul's opponents because you have no way to prove it. Does Sidious require 2% effort? 3% effort? 5% effort? How do you know? You are making a positive claim and are refusing to meet the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if you think Ahsoka couldn't perform comparably to Maul, if you can't prove it, I don't care. And from hereon out, when you make baseless assertions about what Ahsoka can't do by using \"an absence of evidence", I'm not even going to bother addressing it. wrote:"I think you're confused. You have zilch to make a positive claim on where sod maul stands compared to tcw kenobi. You have zilch to assert how much Maul grew by. And it doesn't really matter how you think Kenobi would fare vs Maul's opponents because you have no way to prove it. Does Sidious require 2% effort? 3% effort? 5% effort? How do you know? You are making a positive claim and are refusing to meet the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if you think Ahsoka couldn't perform comparably to Maul, if you can't prove it, I don't care. And from hereon out, when you make baseless assertions about what Ahsoka can't do by using "an absence of evidence", I'm not even going to bother addressing it."

^^^^
I'm a man of my word. 

How?

What do you mean "how"? The lesser distance means there's far fewer environments where Ahsoka's lightsaber isn't retrievable than where Maul isn't dead. How was that even confusing? I'm getting the sense you're asking questions to avoid addressing my points. There was nothing vague about "ahsoka's lightsaber went a lesser distance than Maul."
pquote]It still could've[/quote]
What do you mean it "could have." This isn't a hypothetical. Maul disarmed Ahsoka, and nothing came of it.

superior swordsmanship.

No more than Ahsoka displayed superior agility, unarmed fighting, and anticipation. We are assessing a fight holistically, not whatever moments make Maul look good. And to assess the former you need to be able to distinguish between outcomes(things you do the other person) and process(things that make it easier for you to do something to the other person). Maul achieved the latter when he disarmed Ahsoka. As he was unable to achieve the former, using that he disarmed her as proof he's superior is missing the forest for the trees.

Maul grappled with Ahsoka as well and his kick sent her back rather than hers just knocking him back a few steps.

Ahsoka sent maul the furthest.

This brings us back to being able to compete with someone but not being near their level. 

And again you're butchering the quote. Again it was "compete on his level."

They both regain their footing at the same time. [./quote]
Regaining footing does not prove he fully recovered. Maul was pressing a frantic assault until he got kicked in the head. Find proper proof or I'm ignoring any and all arguments you make regarding that split second where he wasn't charging like a maniac.

Because bladelocks are a pause in combat. Sure there are ones that are strength contentions but Maul and Ahsoka's didn't seem like that. 

https://youtu.be/kDblfz9pZHg?t=76
Maul is growling as he tries to push Ahsoka down, but yes, this thing that happened in the heat of a duel obviously "isn't combat" since it ends up with Maul getting catapulted dozens of feet. 

How did I "shift goalposts"?

Yet again asking a question to avoid addressing an obvious point.


You: Ahsoka is nowhere near maul per feats
Me: Maul has no feats that clearly outstrip this one
You: Maul can do this feat.


I shouldn't have to explain to you why Maul being able to "do this feat" doesn't help your argument. So I won't.

 It was hindering both of them regardless of their styles.

Cool, my point was it would hinder an acrobatic fighter more. Given your refusal to dispute this, should I assume you would agree?

That also isn't saying that she's near him.

You said

However Maul who not only has been put far above Ahsoka by Filoni

 What you think he didn't say doesn't change you were either 
A. Lying
B. Wrong

 My take on it was that it implies he's noticeably above

"You said "well above" not noticeably. 

What you quoted isn't butchering the quote at all.

Given you've specifically said "ahsoka isn't near his level", and that you tried to compare maul v ahsoka with ventress v mace, not including the "on his level" is pretty curious. 

The end of the fight does take place somewhere else where Ahsoka loses her sabers and while she still won that doesn't mean Maul disarming her doesn't mean anything.

Sure, A very small minority of scenarios, but sure.

What? Those are the same thing.

 

Here, let me highlight the difference for you.
what leads up to victories and defeats not thing that happened but doesn't lead anywhere.

When Maul isn't expecting Sidious to fling him.

And ahsoka isn't expecting yoda to attack her. 

holding back

Both of them are holding back.
pquote]being able to compete with someone doesn't mean you're on their level or close to it.

Being able to "compete on someone's level" means you're close yeah.

This will be continued in the next Thread but I'm not sure what happened to the quoting there.