Darth Maul vs Rey Palpatine - Force Battle

Those guys aren't even inquisitor level lol.

@ubercoffeetime:

its stated multiple times that he has incredible force potential on account of his heritage and for Rey:

Yes, but it is not stated that they have the same potential, which is what I asked.

Kylo wasn't knocked off his feet, he lost his footing and was staggered backward a grand total of a foot

And? I never contended otherwise. What I've been saying this whole time is that the Knights staggered him. If he was much more powerful, he would have no-sold it. But he wasn't, so he didn't.

The collective power of 2 Knights was sufficient to give Kylo's telekinetic defenses grief, proving that they are comparable.

Kylo has ragdolled all the Knights at once whilst being 100 feet below them on another level of the mine shaft:

A) Hang on buddy, last I checked you were arguing against the concept of ragdolling being a sign of superiority. By your logic, unless you can prove that the Knights had raised their defenses, Kylo ragdolling them is a perfectly meaningless snowing that proves nothing in regard to who is more powerful.

B) Sorry, but the movies overrule lesser EU material like the comics, so either the Knights got a ton stronger, or it's just a contradiction in which the movie takes precedence, and Kylo ~ 2 Inquisitor-tiers.

also Juxtaposed to the knights barely making Kylo stagger,

You mean battering Kylo with a push that sent him reeling.

Kylo effortlessly lifted his hand and sent one to its death. clean off its feet.

Saying he did so "effortlessly" is baseless speculation. But yes, he did ragdoll one of them, because he is more powerful than them on an individual basis. He's more powerful than two of them as well, given that they couldn't breach his telekinetic defenses.

However, by your logic, there's no evidence that Kylo is the strongest KoR. Ragdolling doesn't mean anything unless you can prove that they were actively defending themselves.

@lord_tenebrous:

A laughable assertion given that showings are the foundation of my argument, while yours is speculation. You impose your predetermined narrative on the lore, I take the raw showings for what they directly imply, and nothing more.

Showings can't be the foundation of your argument when there are showings that disprove your speculation. There is none that disproves my theory, so it is superior.

As in, you say theories need to fit data, yet cling to theories that do not fit the data.

So you agree that theories need to fit data? Because yours doesn't fit some.

That's blatantly false, given that Ahsoka is a teenager, and Vebb is a newly-graduated Knight. Even Kenobi couldn't replace their performances.

Kenobi has done better than them.

And we're back to this. Again, ragdolling/hurling someone with the Force -- someone who is not actively defending themself, by your standards -- is universally used as a firm demonstration of superior power:

You showed a bunch of examples of stronger characters successfully using the Force on weaker characters, but none of those showings contradict my claim, which is that a stronger, non-defending character can be Force pushed by a weaker one. So my claim has not been refuted. Your claim that using the Force successfully proves superiority is disproven by Ezra & Kanan pushing Vader, Ahsoka pushing Ventress, Ventress pushing Dooku (even if he was weakened he was still superior to her), Savage/Ventress/Dooku pushing each other, etc. So your theory doesn't fit all data, while mine does.

I just did that but I'm not sure it worked. In anycase, I'll be sure to do so in the future.

@rgr:

Showings can't be the foundation of your argument when there are showings that disprove your speculation.

That doesn't even logically follow. The existence of inconsistent outliers doesn't magically alter the rest of lore.

There is none that disproves my theory, so it is superior.

You have a grand total of 2 showings that allegedly support your speculation. I have presented well over a dozen.

So you agree that theories need to fit data? Because yours doesn't fit some

Precisely, it doesn't align with some information. Which is completely and utterly irrelevent because it aligns with the vast majority of information.

Kenobi has done better than them

Oh that's funny. When exactly? Was it here?

Or here?

Maybe here?

There are more instances it could be, but I won't clog this page with gifs.

You showed a bunch of examples of stronger characters successfully using the Force on weaker characters, but none of those showings contradict my claim, which is that a stronger, non-defending character can be Force pushed by a weaker one.

Wrong. I showed numerous examples of characters successfully using the Force on people who were not actively defending themselves. All of these instances were clearly meant to showcase superiority on the part of the person successfully hurling/ragdolling with the Force. If your ludicrous speculation was correct, not a single instance I showed would qualify as a genuine supremacy showing.

The fact of the matter is, when you successfully use the Force on someone, that means you are more powerful than them -- this is portrayed in the overwhelming majority of lore. If you are not as strong as someone, you cannot successfully ragdoll/hurl them -- this is also portrayed in the majority of lore. If anyone could ragdoll anyone as you contend, successfully using the Force on someone would not be showing of undeniably clear power, which is where you and the writers differ. Guess who I'll side with.

Your claim that using the Force successfully proves superiority is disproven by Ezra & Kanan pushing Vader, Ahsoka pushing Ventress,

Contradicted by, but not disproven by. Inconsistent outliers are inconsistent outliers.

Ventress pushing Dooku (even if he was weakened he was still superior to her),

Never happened, she slid a weakened Dooku. We've been over this.

Savage/Ventress/Dooku pushing each other,

Savage repeatedly ragdolling the combined force of Dooku and Ventress, and only being pushed back by the concussive force of lightning, which is not the same thing*

etc.

There is no etc. That's all you've got, and it's nothing.

@lord_tenebrous:

That doesn't even logically follow. The existence of inconsistent outliers doesn't magically alter the rest of lore.

It doesn't alter it, but you have to account for those other showings or else your theory is incomplete, just like Classical Mechanics was incomplete in light of some showings and thus had to be replaced by the Theory of Relativity.

Precisely, it doesn't align with some information. Which is completely and utterly irrelevent because it aligns with the vast majority of information.

See above.

Oh that's funny. When exactly?

Here.

I showed numerous examples of characters successfully using the Force on people who were not actively defending themselves.

Superior characters successfully using the Force on weaker people has nothing to do with my claim that a stronger, non-defending Force user can be Force pushed by a weaker one. You showed what superior characters can do, but did nothing to address what inferior characters can. Ezra & Kanan Force pushed Vader, Ahsoka pushed Ventress, Ventress pushed a weakened -but still superior to her- Dooku, Cere pinned Vader.

@lord_tenebrous: Just one thing I’d like to note here. In Disney canon, there’s no canonical hierarchy, per Matt Martin (him or Hidalgo, can’t remember which). He explicitly contrasts it with the old EU.

@lord_tenebrous:

I don't see how this disproves the idea of Grievous being Council-tier. Fisto is also Council-tier, in fact among the higher ones.

You're right, it doesn't. Looking back idk why I used that example. There's really not much that disproves him being council tier because he is council tier, that's the point really. That's the only instance I would say he legitimately started losing against a council member though. I already covered why I think the Eeth Koth fight is not a good example.

Rey's only large force feats are lifting a bunch of those boulders without much struggle I suppose? And also accidentally destroying the cargo/prisoner ship.

All of these prove she can't really pull op shit with the force on the whim though. It just happens sporadically. I feel like more times than not Maul can pull a win here.

@rgr: @lord_tenebrous

That's blatantly false, given that Ahsoka is a teenager, and Vebb is a newly-graduated Knight. Even Kenobi couldn't replicate their performances.

Yes, like I've said before his showings against characters can be stupidly inconsistent at times. Unless Nahdar is now = to Adi Gallia and late TCW Ahsoka = Dooku lmfao.

Here.

They both outfought each other in this battle so it doesn't really change anything. Grievous got the first point landing a kick but then he decides to gloat instead of attacking Kenobi while he's down. In the unfinished clip of Grievous beating Obi-Wan that Tenebrous sent, when he actually does attack or pin Kenobi while he's down he takes the win instantly and that's against a much stronger Kenobi than the one in the fight you posted. Later during the fight Obi-Wan finds an opening to throw a commando droid at Grievous.

They are tied. Grievous just decided to run away as he does quite often. Almost every fight between Kenobi and Grievous results in Grievous trying to escape despite outfighting Kenobi. The reason being he gets force attacked because of his gloating and because he doesn't want to finish Kenobi outright instead. Like I said before, when he actually does pin Kenobi when he gets the Jedi in a downed position he instantly wins.

@void_reborn: Agreed that Grievous often got the upper hand, my point was merely that Kenobi did better than Ahsoka and Vebb.

@rgr: Ahsoka actually does better than Kenobi's majority showings in her last fight with Grievous. Obi-Wan definitely > Nahdar though. Clearly.

Grievous only had success using his legs and extra arms. He's a great brawer with a huge size advantage, who doesn't always abuse them unless the plot requires him to - he didn't use his legs or arms against Fisto or RotS Kenobi which can chalked up to CIS and early instalment weirdness. He's never gotten the better of even a half way decent Jedi in pure sabers in TCW. Whenever Grievous relies solely on his saber technique against a council level opponent he gets schooled. Filini already confirmed Grievous is a mediocre duelist relative to Ventress level opponents.

@void_reborn: I disagree, Ahsoka was also physically dominated the way Kenobi was in those fights, but Kenobi actually made Grievous flee a couple of times. Only time he did worse is in the unfinished episode.

@rgr:

It doesn't alter it, but you have to account for those other showings or else your theory is incomplete, just like Classical Mechanics was incomplete in light of some showings and thus had to be replaced by the Theory of Relativity.

That's not how this works, because Star Wars isn't reality. It's a collection of stories existing in the same universe, involving the same characters & events, all written by a host of fallible writers. Contradictions and outlying showings are inevitable, that's just what happens in fiction.

The overwhelming majority of material supports my position. Consistently speaking, my position is that of current continuity. Yours relies on a measly 2 outlying instances, and conflicts with everything else.

Here

Kenobi is definitely outperformed by Nahdar & Ahsoka in this instance. Grievous matched Nahdar for around 15 seconds:

Grievous engages with Ahsoka, she evades his initial attack, drives him away, then tags him, all in 4 seconds:

In their next exchange, Grievous is pushed back a bit, locks Ahsoka into a saber bind, and breach her own guard, all in 8 seconds:

Ahsoka then pushes him back, ducks under a blow and outmanuevers him:

By comparison, Kenobi was floored in 6 seconds:

Following several bladelocks that aren't worth mentioning, a desperate Kenobi holds his own against Grievous for 9 seconds, before using the Force on him:

"Kenobi desperately dodges Grievous' whirlwind attacks. He uses the Force to hurl the shattered body of a MagnaGuard droid directly into Grievous."

-- StarWars.com: Episode Gallery

"Kenobi desperately dodges Grievous' whirlwind attacks. He uses the Force to hurl the shattered body of a MagnaGuard droid directly into Grievous."

-- StarWars.com: Episode Guide(old)

People like to talk about how seemingly impressive it is for an armed Maul to tackle an unarmed and distracted Grievous, but here's an unarmed Grievous tackling not only an armed Kenobi, but a Kenobi who was literally holding him at bladepoint in close quarters:

Later on, they engage in swordplay that spans 9 seconds too, then the tunnel shakes, and Grievous adapts to the situation quicker than his opponent, and knocks Kenobi away:

Kenobi's most impressive showing in this episode would be inconclusively dueling Grievous for 9 seconds, when Grievous' focus was on trying to escape, not fight. This is not as impressive as matching Grievous over the course of a fierce fight for 15 seconds, as Nahdar did, or actually outfighting Grievous, as Ahsoka did.

The overwhelming majority of lore portrays Grievous as an elite Council-tier fighter. A handful of outliers do not change this. It's the same case with passive barriers.

Superior characters successfully using the Force on weaker people has nothing to do with my claim that a stronger, non-defending Force user can be Force pushed by a weaker one.

Like I said, you're just repeating yourself, without offering any counters. So I'll just repeat my counter:

I showed numerous examples of characters successfully using the Force on people who were not actively defending themselves. All of these instances were clearly meant to showcase superiority on the part of the person successfully hurling/ragdolling with the Force. If your ludicrous speculation was correct, not a single instance I showed would qualify as a genuine supremacy showing.

The manner in which the writers wanted to portray one character as superior, was to have them hurl/ragdoll someone who wasn't actively defending themself. If passive barriers weren't a thing, performing such an action would not portray a character as more powerful. But they are, so it does.

You showed what superior characters can do, but did nothing to address what inferior characters can.

I have gone over this multiple times. Inferior characters can stagger or shove a stronger character, but not hurl them. This is what is consistently shown in lore.

Ezra & Kanan Force pushed Vader, Ahsoka pushed Ventress,

2 outliers that conflict with the rest of existing material.

Ventress pushed a weakened -but still superior to her- Dooku,

For the millionth time, Ventress slid a weakened Dooku, she did not hurl him. It's not at all the same. And, there's no evidence that he was still superior to her, from your point of view at least. In reality, her inability to successfully ragdoll or hurl him demonstrates that she isn't as powerful.

Cere pinned Vader.

Because in her momentary outburst of rage, she was more powerful. Like any rage amp, it didn't last, and because Vader is more powerful, he eventually broke free.

Im really confused how any of the points made have to do about Maul and Rey. Why are people talking about Greivous and Ahsoka ?

@void_reborn:

You're right, it doesn't. Looking back idk why I used that example. There's really not much that disproves him being council tier because he is council tier, that's the point really.

Exactly. The overwhelming majority of lore portrays Grievous as within the tier of the Council, who by statements are generally the Order's 12 best fighters. Examples being:

- Grievously wounding and defeating Depa Billaba sometime before 19 bby(canon)

- Outfighting Adi Gallia(composite)

- Outclassing an exhausted Shaak Ti(legends)

- Defeating Shaak Ti in a duel(canon)

- Competing with Ki-Adi Mundi(legends)

- Competing with 19 bby Depa Billaba(canon)

- Competing with Eeth Koth(canon)

- Competing with ROTS Kenobi while environmentally hindered(composite)

That's the only instance I would say he legitimately started losing against a council member though. I already covered why I think the Eeth Koth fight is not a good example.

I find myself differing on this particular topic. It's my belief that Koth genuinely held the upper hand in that fight.

Also you might say Eeth Koth was beating Grievous but I don't think the general was fighting seriously. Situation was totally in his control and he could've ordered the guards to kill Koth whenever he wants. In contrast, Koth would die or be captured if he did not fight to 100% of his ability

I definitely see where you're coming from, but there are several things to consider:

A) Dave Filoni was heavily involved with this episode

B) Dave doesn't think that Grievous is capable of defeating any Force sensitive in lightsaber combat

C) Dave really likes Eeth Koth, and is the reason he's not dead

Grievous has the cards stacked heavily against him in this case regarding creator intent. I highly doubt that Filoni made Grievous capable of toying with a leading member of the Council like Koth.

In addition, Koth is described as "valiantly" defending himself. While this isn't exactly a confirmation that the fight was a struggle, I don't really think you'd those terms when describing a match wherein one opponent is being toyed with:

"General Grievous and his droids slaughtered the clones on board the Republic Star Destroyer and engaged the outnumbered Eeth Koth. While the Jedi Master fought valiantly, he was eventually rendered unconscious by the cyborg general."

-- The Official Star Wars Fact Files Relaunched

"Koth valiantly defends himself, but he is outnumbered and injured, and Grievous inevitably overpowers him."

-- StarWars.com: Episode Gallery

"Backed by his bodyguards, Grievous enters the fray. Koth valiantly defends himself, but he is outnumbered and injured, and Grievous inevitably overpowers him."

-- StarWars.com: Episode Guide(old)

They also kind of imply that Grievous only "overpowered" him due to his injuries and being outnumbered. This implication is echoed in the following source:

"Grievous rarely fought fairly when he could avoid it. He captured Master Eeth Koth so easily only with the help of his MagnaGuards."

-- The Official Star Wars Fact Files Relaunched

It's also worth noting that Grievous is still displeased about his combat abilities being diminished in the eyes of Count Dooku, and he's out to prove himself in this episode against Eeth Koth:

"After his humiliating 'test' at the hands of Count Dooku, General Grievous redoubled his efforts to prove his abillties. The results were mixed."

-- The Official Star Wars Fact Files Relaunched

This underlying mindset could also be linked to when Grievous informed Koth that he'd been looking forward to their encounter.

All in all, I really don't see any reason why Grievous wouldn't try to truly outduel Koth in combat. He's in complete control of the situation, so it's relatively safe for him. He can afford to enjoy a real fight. Considering that even Vader was losing to an out-of-practice Koth -- though, this was Vader 5 years after ROTS iirc, so probably around ROTS Anakin level skill-wise -- it doesn't seem like Grievous should be capable of playing around with someone of Koth's calibre.

@lord_tenebrous: Rey is stronger than Kylo....

Rey was holding the ship against it’s repulsers and Kylo’s own force. Kylo was aided by the ships repulsers and he was still only matching her strength

Kylo is more skilled with a blade

@zr2011:

The argument here is whether or not passive barriers exist. Like, if Character A uses the Force to ragdoll Character B, does this make A more powerful? If Force users have a passive shield around them, then yes it does make A more powerful, since he overpowered their defenses. If passive shields don't exist, then it doesn't make A more powerful unless it can be proven that B was actively defending himself.

Kylo was telekinetically staggered by 2 Knights of Ren, who are at best Inquisitor level. They didn't overpower his defenses, but they did pressure them, which means that they are comparable to him in power. But only if passive barriers exist. If true, then Maul is more powerful than Kylo since the latter is scaled down to the Inquisitors.

The argument in favour of passive barriers is that in the majority of Star Wars lore, when writers want to portray A as more powerful than B, they do so by showing A ragdolling/hurling B with the Force. B in these instances does not actively defend himself. If passive barriers didn't exist, then showing A ragdolling B wouldn't portray A as more powerful -- except that's what the writers believed would show A as more powerful, so clearly passive barriers exist.

The argument against passive barriers existing is that on 2 occasions, weaker Force users have hurled stronger ones, so clearly passive barriers don't exist.

The whole Grievous & Ahsoka thing is a counter to the idea that a measly 2 showings overrule like 15. Grievous is consistently portrayed as an elite Council tier fighter, but there are 1 or 2 outlier showings that portray him as much weaker. Such as struggling against teenage Ahsoka.

@lord_tenebrous:

Man, we're really clogging the thread, so let's set aside the Grievous argument (which doesn't belong here) and strip this down to the basics:

• Your theory is that successfully using the Force on an opponent shows superiority. This is not compatible with Ezra & Kanan pushing Vader, Ahsoka pushing Ventress, Ventress pushing a weakened -yet still superior to her- Dooku, Cere pinning Vader, Second Sister and Cal pushing each other, Infil'a pushing Vader off a cliff.
• My theory is that weaker characters can successfully use the Force on stronger, non-defending characters. This is fully compatible with stronger characters successfully using the Force on weaker ones, which is the only evidence you have brought.

Your theory fits most showings, while mine fits all and is therefore superior.

Kylo brought it towards him with the thrusters on as well and he' clearly winning the battle which forces Rey to go dark side for a boost leading to the force lightning scene.

Kylo also recovered first from Palps force drain & jumped higher than her on the damaged death star.

@ubercoffeetime: Rey with no training was equal to Kylo in the force. She’s always been slightly above after training it was shown clearly in the movie. Rey is working against thrusters and Kylo...Kylo is being amped by the thrusters and only has to go against Rey

Rey also grabbed it first, so when Kylo finally grabs it he is more juiced up

@emmafrostxmen:

Rey was equal in TLJ after she stole Kylo's training from the mind merge so she had pseudo training than according to the Novel was just as good.

Both of them went through a power boost during the time jump between TLJ so the gap between them before that point doesn't really matter. In the force battle its obvious he's winning, she goes dark side for the extra power boost which is exactly what he wanted:

When the ship flips Kylo is still bringing down the ship against Rey whilst the thrusters are flipped towards him. Also the other evidence of his superiority throughout the film:

• Recovers first from Palps force drain
• Could force jump higher than Rey during their fight

@void_reborn:

Oh yes, I almost forgot. There's also the fact that Grievous regarded Koth's blade as one of his four best:

Which strongly implies that Koth was not only a worthy adversary, but one of Grievous' most formidable wins.

Maul is a better swordsman than Grievous, but Grievous is a better hand to hand fighter.

Noting this thread because there are a couple of posts I have yet to reply to.

@yousufkhan1212: There is nothing suggesting Maul > Grievous as a swordsman. In SOD, Maul was dismissed by Grievous after a bladelock which you could say is superior h2h and Grievous abusing his physicals but it doesn't change the breach of guard performed here. This also doesn't put Grievous > Maul as a duelist but nothing suggests Maul > Grievous either.

I'll tell you why I think Grievous > Maul as a swordsman though.

Composite versions: Grievous overwhelmed ROTS (prime) Obi-Wan and overloaded his defenses even while having an environmental disadvantage. Pure sabers in quad wielding. Maul has never done anything of the sort. No character has, actually. Maul has never even performed this well with only sabers against a weaker version of Kenobi in TCW. He has only ever BFRd Kenobi during a rage amp and toyed with him while Kenobi was enraged (lost focus and swung wildly instead of fighting with composure and skill). Grievous, on the other hand, has outfought Kenobi on 6 occasions during TCW with no environmental or situational disadvantage for either of them and with Kenobi fighting at his 100% mentality wise.

I'm leaning Rey, but it could go either way.

@void_reborn:

There is nothing suggesting Maul > Grievous as a swordsman

In Legends Dooku remarks Grievous and his guards have no concept of finesse and that swordsmen with advanced technique as Kenobi and Drallig would be a hard counter for his current approach. In TCW we have Filini's statement Grievous could never aspire to be as proficient as a Jedi or Sith could be without the Force. Nexus or no he made it clear he can't beat Ventress in a real duel and feats don't contradict this.

In SOD, Maul was dismissed by Grievous after a bladelock which you could say is superior h2h and Grievous abusing his physicals but it doesn't change the breach of guard performed here.

Grievous did the same thing to Ventress it means nothing in relation to his lightsaber skills as you said. The diffrence is that unlike Maul she was allowed to resume the action and take him to school.

Composite versions: Grievous overwhelmed ROTS (prime) Obi-Wan and overloaded his defenses even while having an environmental disadvantage.

Grievous wasn't at an environmental disadvantage in the novel. The only time I've ever seen him use lateral movement was when he side stepped an overhand strike from Maul. Pretty much everytime he fights it's either stationary or follows you in a straight line. He's not an agility based fighter. What would he have done differently had it been a spacious environment?

Maul has never done anything of the sort. No character has, actually.

Yes he overloaded Kenobi's capacity to rely on sheer defense with sheer volume work but again his lack of finesse allowed him to be easily countered. Maul has lesser physicals but better technique.

Grievous, on the other hand, has outfought Kenobi on 6 occasions during TCW with no environmental or situational disadvantage for either of them and with Kenobi fighting at his 100% mentality wise.

If Grievous uses the extra arm trick I can see him overpowering Maul like he did to Kenobi, it's an overpowerd ability writers only allow him to use when he's allowed to win. If he relies on sabers he loses as he did to Ventress, Fisto, and RotS Kenobi.

The fact that Grievous quickly breached Maul's guard doesn't automatically preclude Maul from making a recovering from his initial disadvantage and making a comeback to continue their fight, and putting up a much better fight, possibly even winning in the end because he'll have a better idea what to expect from Grievous. But Maul ran off because Grievous had an army of droids backing him up, and Maul isn't foolish enough to try duelling Grievous and legions of droids at the same time.

Grievous only initially overloaded Obi-Wan's defenses in the RotS novel, and Kenobi recovers from that and proceeds to cutting off Grievous's hands. The environmental disadvantage only comes from the Fact Files depiction, other depictions of the fight such as Sith Wars and Jedi Battles say that Grievous was simply no match for Kenobi. Whether Kenobi had the environmental disadvantage or not, Grievous is still not a master swordsman:

"The droid general had been trained in lightsaber combat by Count Dooku. Grievous lacked the finesses of a master swordsman, and instead used brute and whirlwind tactics against Kenobi. Grievous' artificial anatomy allowed him to wield four lightsabers at once, and spin them like deadly buzzsaws. But, since he could not use the Force, Kenobi was able to anticipate his blows, and counter them. Obi-Wan sheared off several of Grievous' lightsaber hands, and forced the General to flee." -- StarWars.com Databank: Obi-Wan Kenobi (old)

This is from the old databank, it dates back to 2005, saying Grievous lacked the finesses of a master swordsman, but relied on brute and whirlwind tactics against Kenobi i.e. he isn't a master swordsman at all (Kenobi definitely is though), but relies on his extremely unconventional fighting style and constantly spam it at Kenobi i,e. "brute and whirlwind tactics" rather than pure lightsaber skills. Kenobi however, as a Force user, was still able to anticipate Grievous's attacks and counter them with his own. This is also evidence of the saying styles make fights, as opposed to blindly clinging onto ABC logic as the gold standard for dictating fights, because Grievous relies on "brute and whirlwind tactics" because he lacks the finesses of a master swordsman. Maul however is one of the "most skilled" Sith warriors in Galactic history.

And comparing their performances against Kenobi is pure ABC logic. TCW Magazines say that one of Maul's shortcomings is especially blinded by vengeance against Kenobi, meaning that Kenobi has a special mental advantage over Maul that is unique to their specific fights. Not to mention, Maul has never had his double bladed lightsaber when fighting TCW Kenobi, and he's better with that weapon. Grievous has gained the upper hand over TCW Kenobi in their several fights, but last time I checked, all of that happened because he kept abusing his reach advantage and his unconventional four arms. That's not lightsaber skill, that's hand to hand combat, and I've already said that Grievous is a better hand to hand fighter than Maul anyway.

@yousufkhan1212: @kilius:

In Legends Dooku remarks Grievous and his guards have no concept of finesse and that swordsmen with advanced technique as Kenobi and Drallig would be a hard counter for his current approach.

Well clearly Dooku is wrong, since Grievous has pressured nearly every Council member -- the "advanced" duelists Dooku was referencing -- he's come up against, be it Adi Gallia, Eeth Koth, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Depa Billaba, Ki-Adi Mundi, or Shaak Ti, who is probably the most incredibly refined duelist of all the people I just mentioned. Forgive me if I take Grievous' actual showings over Dooku's subjective musings.

Whether Kenobi had the environmental disadvantage or not, Grievous is still not a master swordsman:

"The droid general had been trained in lightsaber combat by Count Dooku. Grievous lacked the finesses of a master swordsman, and instead used brute and whirlwind tactics against Kenobi. Grievous' artificial anatomy allowed him to wield four lightsabers at once, and spin them like deadly buzzsaws. But, since he could not use the Force, Kenobi was able to anticipate his blows, and counter them. Obi-Wan sheared off several of Grievous' lightsaber hands, and forced the General to flee." -- StarWars.com Databank: Obi-Wan Kenobi (old)

This is from the old databank, it dates back to 2005, saying Grievous lacked the finesses of a master swordsman, but relied on brute and whirlwind tactics against Kenobi i.e. he isn't a master swordsman at all (Kenobi definitely is though), but relies on his extremely unconventional fighting style and constantly spam it at Kenobi i,e. "brute and whirlwind tactics" rather than pure lightsaber skills.

If Grievous was all brute strength and spinny blades, he would have lost to every single Jedi Knight he ever faced since all fully-trained Jedi are stated to be master swordsmen.

Grievous has consistently pressured almost every Council member he's dueled, which directly conflicts with the idea that he's undone against any refined duelist. That is what Dooku was arguing in the mentioned passage:

"But I pity you should you have to face off against any of the Council Masters."

After which he goes on to mention the others:

"Do I need to demonstrate what responses you can expect from Cin Drallig or Obi-Wan Kenobi? From Mace Windu or, stars help you, Yoda? Finesse. Artfulness. Economy. Otherwise, my friend, I fear that you will end up beyond the repair of even the Geonosians. Do you take my meaning?"

Dooku may prefer pure fencing, but not every duelist is a Makashi or Ataru stylist. He mentions Mace, and you are arguing for Maul, yet Juyo is an extremely chaotic and unpredictable form, which is what makes it so difficult to master. Stylistically speaking, Grievous is no different from them.

Capoeira is more elegant and refined a technique than Krav Maga, but that doesn't make it superior. Grievous is brutal, practical, and efficient. He attacks until he overwhelms you, and that's that.

In TCW we have Filini's statement Grievous could never aspire to be as proficient as a Jedi or Sith could be without the Force.

Good thing Filoni is only one of many TCW directors, and Grievous has the benefit of expansive programming + extensive training, which accounts for his lack of Force talent.

Nexus or no he made it clear he can't beat Ventress in a real duel

Grievous was repeatedly dismissing her within seconds, and Ventress only made progress in the end.

and feats don't contradict this.

Ventress losing to Kenobi contradicts the idea of her being a superior fighter.

Grievous has gained the upper hand over TCW Kenobi in their several fights, but last time I checked, all of that happened because he kept abusing his reach advantage and his unconventional four arms. That's not lightsaber skill, that's hand to hand combat, and I've already said that Grievous is a better hand to hand fighter than Maul anyway.

Grievous did the same thing to Ventress it means nothing in relation to his lightsaber skills as you said.

Lightsaber combat isn't pure swordplay. It's much more physical. Real life fencing matches rarely contain physical strikes because not only getting past your opponent's guard but doing so without getting killed is next to impossible.

Kenobi, Maul and Ventress don't just allow themselves to be smashed around. Grievous has to actively breach their guard in order to do it, and if they fail to protect themselves, or evade and counter, then that's just their failing as swordfighters. Grievous' reach advantage is balanced out by the fact that he's a much more cumbersome target and easier to hit.

What caused Kenobi to realise he was outmatched against Maul aboard the Turtle Tanker? Maul was repeatedly smashing through his guard with kicks and outmanuvering him, and Kenobi simply wasn't skilled enough to stop it. What makes people think that Kenobi stomped Savage on Florrum? He repeatedly smashed through Savage's guard with physical hits, and Savage simply wasn't skilled enough to stop it. Why do people say Anakin bested Dooku? He reached past Dooku's guard and physically grabbed his arms. Why did the ROTJ script say Luke took the advantage? Because he pierced Vader's guard and kicked him down.

Even Dooku isn't a pure fencer, and relies on physical hits, because that's a fundamental aspect of lightsaber combat and absolutely representative of one's ability as a lightsaber fighter.

@kilius:

Also, about this:

Grievous wasn't at an environmental disadvantage in the novel. The only time I've ever seen him use lateral movement was when he side stepped an overhand strike from Maul. Pretty much everytime he fights it's either stationary or follows you in a straight line. He's not an agility based fighter. What would he have done differently had it been a spacious environment?

Remember, you reversed your position on needing logic to back sources:

"Call it contrived if you want it's still official. Star Wars isn't known for it's logic."

-- You

Void doesn't need to explain anything, because an official source stated Grievous was environmentally hindered:

"Jedi and cyborg fought briefly along a catwalk suspended over the lower levels of the hangar. By limiting Grievous' movement to the catwalk, Obi-Wan was able to neutralise the General's usually more ranging fighting style."

-- The Official Star Wars Fact Files Relaunched

So that's just how it is.

No I said use of logic is fine in the absence of more concrete data. It's how it's always been for fictional debating not just for Star Wars but Marvel and DC as well.

Sith Hunters and Shadow Conspiracy are main sources, not minor cereal box quotes I mined from some obscure out of date sourcebook no author building upon the lore gives a damn, like that worthless in-universe cereal box quote.

The Fact Files are in-universe, it's not a binding OOU source. Fact is Kenobi wasn't environmentally hindered in the novel and Kenobi still schooled him. Fact is Grievous isn't a movement based fighter and fights either stationary or follows you in a straight line.

Since Void wants to use the novel to prove Kenobi's defenses were overloaded he also has to acknowledge in the same novel Kenobi beat Grievous in a stationary position on perfectly neutral ground.

Secondary sourcebooks can go to hell. They don't influence the narrative in the same way novels do.

@yousufkhan1212:

And comparing their performances against Kenobi is pure ABC logic.

There's nothing inherently wrong with ABC logic. If A defeats B, and B defeats C, then logically, A is superior to C.

ABC logic is only faulty if there were circumstances to A's battle that make it not representative of A's usual abilities, and thus, unusable. Or, if A is uniquely equipped to handle B in a way that C is not. You have to prove why a certain fight isn't legitimate, otherwise scaling is fine.

TCW Magazines say that one of Maul's shortcomings is especially blinded by vengeance against Kenobi, meaning that Kenobi has a special mental advantage over Maul that is unique to their specific fights.

Which would explain why Kenobi is always beating him in their 1v1 encounters. This is not however, a significant disadvantage, and doesn't account for the clear disparity between Grievous & Maul's respective performances against Obi-Wan.

Not to mention, Maul has never had his double bladed lightsaber when fighting TCW Kenobi, and he's better with that weapon

A) If you accept that TCW Maul is superior to TPM Maul, that would mean he surpassed his double blades iteration with a single blade, so this is irrelevent. Maul doesn't get his saberstaff until the end, and that was very recent in terms of production.

B) There's no evidence to suggest that Maul is superior with a saberstaff, and if he was, it would be negligible.

@kilius:

No I said use of logic is fine in the absence of more concrete data. It's how it's always been for fictional debating not just for Star Wars but Marvel and DC as well.

There is no absence of concrete data. We have an official source making a statement, and that's that.

Sith Hunters and Shadow Hunters are main sources, not minor cereal box quotes I mined from some obscure out of date sourcebook no author building upon the lore gives a damn, like that worthless in-universe cereal box quote.

That's not how this works. It's all C-canon, and thus, factually equal in terms of authority. Your own reasoning doesn't change the fact that this is official.

The Fact Files are in-universe, it's not a binding OOU source.

The old Fact Files were partially in-verse, there's no evidence that the 2014 Relaunched Fact Files are subjective.

Fact is Kenobi wasn't environmentally hindered in the novel and Kenobi still schooled him.

Irrelevant, Kenobi didn't school Grievous in the movie, and the Fact Files elaborate that Grievous was hindered in the fight.

Fact is Grievous isn't a movement based fighter and fights either stationary or follows you in a straight line.

Call it contrived, but It's official. Grievous was environmentally hindered.

Since Void wants to use the novel to prove Kenobi's defenses were overloaded he also has to acknowledge in the same novel Kenobi beat Grievous in a stationary position on perfectly neutral ground.

By altering his style, yes.

Secondary sourcebooks can go to hell. They don't influence the narrative in the same way novels do.

Irrelevant, since it's all official and the same level of canon.

@lord_tenebrous:

That's not how this works. It's all C-canon, and thus, factually equal in terms of authority. Your own reasoning doesn't change the fact that this is official.

Not all C-Canon is equal:

"Wizards:Let's say that you come across two or more contradictory sources while chasing down a reference. How do you decide which one to accept as "canon"?

Leland:Everything is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Among the factors we consider: In how many sources does this particular fact appear? Which source has the largest audience?Which explanation is the coolest? Have we been told by George Lucas to avoid this topic? If, after weighing all those variables, the answer isn't yet clear, the issue is presented to an internal group that makes the final determination as to which source is ”correct.”

The novelization has a higher audience and overall influence than the fact files.

The old Fact Files were partially in-verse, there's no evidence that the 2014 Relaunched Fact Files are subjective.

Still a useless cereal box quote no one gives two shits about.

Irrelevant, Kenobi didn't school Grievous in the movie, and the Fact Files elaborate that Grievous was hindered in the fight.

Yeah he did he sliced two of his arms off in seconds. He only pressured Kenobi with his strength and sheer volume. In terms of the technique he's garbage. Secondary sources of the same worthless grade as Khan provided elaborates it was Grievous's lack of finesse that was his downfall. But unlike your source this is actually backed up by one of the main novels Labyrinth of Evil.

Call it contrived, but It's official. Grievous was environmentally hindered.

According to a worthless cereal box source. Another worthless cereal box quote says Grievous's lack of finesse let him down. I guess "officially" you can go with either explanation if you rely on worthless obscure cereal box quotes. Just like worthless ceral box quotes state Sidious outright too strong for Yoda when the main sources make it clear he was even with Sidious.

@kilius:

Not all C-Canon is equal:

"Wizards:Let's say that you come across two or more contradictory sources while chasing down a reference. How do you decide which one to accept as "canon"?

Leland:Everything is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Among the factors we consider: In how many sources does this particular fact appear? Which source has the largest audience?Which explanation is the coolest? Have we been told by George Lucas to avoid this topic? If, after weighing all those variables, the answer isn't yet clear, the issue is presented to an internal group that makes the final determination as to which source is ”correct.”

The novelization has a higher audience and overall influence than the fact files.

That's not explicitly referencing C-canon, and there is no contradiction. You're grasping at straws.

Still a useless cereal box quote no one gives (expletive omitted) about| According to a worthless cereal box source. Another worthless cereal box quote says Grievous's lack of finesse let him down. I guess "officially" you can go with either explanation if you rely on worthless obscure cereal box quotes.

It doesn't matter what you think of an official C-canon source. It's still an official, C-canon source that is perfectly legitimate source material and on par with the rest of C-canon material. You may not like it, but Grievous was factually environmentally hindered in ROTS.

Just like worthless ceral box quotes state Sidious outright too strong for Yoda when the main sources make it clear he was even with Sidious.

The top canon sources -- the movie & script -- make it clear that he was overwhelming Sidious, and because they are top canon, they overrule lesser canon sources.

Yeah he did he sliced two of his arms off in seconds.

Nope, Kenobi removed one arm after 10 seconds of swordplay, which is a good length, and the script confirms that he was struggling immensely:

"His arms seperate and grab all four lightsabers on his belt. His four arms create a flashing display of swordsmanship. OBI-WAN: 'You forget I trained the Jedi that defeated Count Dooku!' OBI-WAN is hard-pressed to defend himself against the deadly onslaught."

-- Revenge of the Sith: Official Script

An environmentally hindered Grievous ~ ROTS Kenobi. As for the second hand, this was removed in 9 seconds, which is around the same time and also a respectable stint. Plus, Grievous at this point had become enraged and subsequently made mistakes:

"Grievous was incensed. He launched a blistering attack, but his focus was gone. A matter of seconds later, he lost another hand and weapon."

-- The Official Star Wars Fact Files Relaunched

On a regular day, Kenobi just isn't as good a swordsman as Grievous.

He only pressured Kenobi with his strength and sheer volume.

Baseless speculation.

In terms of the technique he's garbage. Secondary sources of the same worthless grade as Khan provided elaborates it was Grievous's lack of finesse that was his downfall. But unlike your source this is actually backed up by one of the main novels Labyrinth of Evil.

Grievous' technique is no more garbage than Juyo, which is the most advanced lightsaber form and the most formidable as well. It's no less chaotic and disconnected than Grievous' style.

If Grievous couldn't handle refined duelists, he would have lost terribly to all the people Dooku said he would, and especially to Shaak Ti and Ki-Adi Mundi, who are cut from the same cloth as Dooku in terms of style. But he didn't, because he can.

@lord_tenebrous:

He mentions Mace, and you are arguing for Maul, yet Juyo is an extremely chaotic and unpredictable form, which is what makes it so difficult to master. Stylistically speaking, Grievous is no different from them.

Maul and Mace are far more refined than Grievous.

Lightsaber combat isn't pure swordplay. It's much more physical. Real life fencing matches rarely contain physical strikes because not only getting past your opponent's guard but doing so without getting killed is next to impossible.

Then why are you making such a big deal out of landed unarmed strikes? Grievous kicked Ventress yet it's his lightsaber guard that is pierced by her. If unarmed skill scaled to lightaber skill she would have been the one who's guard was pierced.

. This is why Ventres kicking Maul isn't an indication she's better. Grievous kicked her yet she still beat him.

Kenobi, Maul and Ventress don't just allow themselves to be smashed around.

Irrelvent as Maul wasn't injured and Ventress was still able to come back and kick Grievous's ass.

Grievous has to actively breach their guard in order to do it,

It's easy to kick someone in a headlock with a reach and durability advantage.

and if they fail to protect themselves, or evade and counter, then that's just their failing as swordfighters.

No because as you admitted kicking has nothing to do with swordfighting. And it's irrelevant because he still failed to beat Ventress despite being able to kick her in a blade lock. Her superior saber skill was superior to his ablity to kick her in a blade lock.

Grievous' reach advantage is balanced out by the fact that he's a much more cumbersome target and easier to hit.

No it isn't. Reach is by far a more important advantage in any combat scenario. The ability to hit your opponete at a range you can't strike back. Kenobi can't even kick Grievous without hurting himself, same goes for Ventress, Maul likely not much better. Only his head is vulnerable and Adi only did that when she had the high ground.

What caused Kenobi to realise he was outmatched against Maul aboard the Turtle Tanker?

He was mentally unbalanced.

What makes people think that Kenobi stomped Savage on Florrum? He repeatedly smashed through Savage's guard with physical hits, and Savage simply wasn't skilled enough to stop it.

Because Kenobi is a better fighter than Savage all around. Ventress was a better duelist than Grievous all around.

Why do people say Anakin bested Dooku? He reached past Dooku's guard and physically grabbed his arms.

Becaue he's a better fighter. Dooku's saber skill wasn't enough to save him. Ventress's and Kenobi's was against Grievous.

Why did the ROTJ script say Luke took the advantage? Because he pierced Vader's guard and kicked him down.

No one is saying you can't get an advantage with unarmed strikes. If Vader's saber skill was superior it wouldn't have mattered.

Even Dooku isn't a pure fencer, and relies on physical hits, because that's a fundamental aspect of lightsaber combat and absolutely representative of one's ability as a lightsaber fighter.

Then why didn't Grievous pierce Ventresss's lightsaber guard after he kicked him in a blade lock if unarmed skill scales exactly to lightsaber skill.

@lord_tenebrous:

That's not explicitly referencing C-canon, and there is no contradiction. You're grasping at straws.

No it's saying more popular sources are worth more than tertiary sources. Kind of obvious and universally agreed anyways.

It doesn't matter what you think of an official C-canon source. It's still an official

We both dismiss official sources that we belivve is inconsistent with the wider lore. Shatterpoint is an official C-Canon but you don't acknowledge it's existence. This goes way back to my saying canon policy is just a guideline, no one here is a fundementalist. Fact is you and I only care about consistency with the wider lore.

, C-canon source that is perfectly legitimate source material and on par with the rest of C-canon material.

I'll take novels over cereal box quotes any day of the week. I follow the narrative presented by mainstream novels and comics. You think of cereal box quotes as the bible. Difference in ideology I guess.

You may not like it, but Grievous was factually environmentally hindered in ROTS.

Then he's always voluntary hindered himself by not using his lateral movement even in spacious envorimoent. He hindered himself against Dooku and Fisto too.

The top canon sources -- the movie & script -- make it clear that he was overwhelming Sidious, and because they are top canon, they overrule lesser canon sources.

No Yoda was officially overpowered. Doesn't matter that Yoda came out on top in the final lightning battle. Offically he was overpowered. Random sourcebook quotes are the way to go.

Nope, Kenobi removed one arm after 10 seconds of swordplay, which is a good length, and the script confirms that he was struggling immensely:

Never said he didn't struggle. He didn't struggle with his skill he struggled with the sheer volume of blows coming in.

Baseless speculation.

Nope one of those handy dandy cereal box quotes says he did and since they're the bible what they say goes. Even without it, it's how it happened in the novelization. The script doesn't contradict this. It just says he was hardpressed to defend himself, it doesn't impile his skill was what was pressuring him.

Grievous' technique is no more garbage than Juyo, which is the most advanced lightsaber form and the most formidable as well. It's no less chaotic and disconnected than Grievous' style.

Grievous's technique is nothing like Maul's Juyo which actually has finesse. Mau isn't just flailing his lighsaber in random wild patterns which is what Grievous is doing.

@lord_tenebrous:

There's nothing inherently wrong with ABC logic. If A defeats B, and B defeats C, then logically, A is superior to C.

ABC logic is only faulty if there were circumstances to A's battle that make it not representative of A's usual abilities, and thus, unusable. Or, if A is uniquely equipped to handle B in a way that C is not. You have to prove why a certain fight isn't legitimate, otherwise scaling is fine.

If ABC logic is end all be all when who do lightsaber forms exist? It's really overrated.

Which would explain why Kenobi is always beating him in their 1v1 encounters. This is not however, a significant disadvantage, and doesn't account for the clear disparity between Grievous & Maul's respective performances against Obi-Wan.

If anything it should a significant factor because Maul is heavily reliant on Form VII variant, Juyo. Juyo as a lightsaber form, requires a lot of mental discipline, Darth Bane even says that to not completely succumb to emotion otherwise you're an animal rather than Sith Lord, Maul being blinded by vengeance "especially" against Kenobi diminishes his mental mastery of Juyo, which thematically speaking, makes sense given that he falls for Kenobi's fake Ataru bait when they're old men. Maul won't have that mental disadvantage against Grievous.

A) If you accept that TCW Maul is superior to TPM Maul, that would mean he surpassed his double blades iteration with a single blade, so this is irrelevent. Maul doesn't get his saberstaff until the end, and that was very recent in terms of production.

B) There's no evidence to suggest that Maul is superior with a saberstaff, and if he was, it would be negligible.

A) I don't accept the idea that TCW chicken legs Maul is superior to TPM Maul in every facet, in Force power yes, but not in duelling because these legs are very hit and miss, in a podcast that got deleted on youtube, Filoni says that Maul's chicken legs diminished his ability to perform acrobatics and martial arts in his fighting style (something that TPM Maul really liked), whereas his mandalorian legs didn't diminish that at all, which makes sense because the moment Maul recieved his mandalorian legs according to Star Wars Fact Files, they reduced him to his former height, meaning that these legs have the same proportions as his pre-bisection legs. This makes sense when you think about it, because the build that those mandalorian legs gives to Maul is something he's far more used to than the chicken legs.

B) 2010 and 2018 edition of Lightsabers: A Guide to Weapons of the Force says that Maul finds a single blade "far too limiting" in combat, and in Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter, Maul says that a single blade has limitations in offense and defense, meaning that the saberstaff gives Maul more options in offense and defense. The Dark Side sourcebook also says that Maul's preferred weapon is the saberstaff.

If Grievous was all brute strength and spinny blades, he would have lost to every single Jedi Knight he ever faced since all fully-trained Jedi are stated to be master swordsmen.

Grievous isn't all brute strength and spinny blades because he's not a purely swordsman. In OCW, Dooku tells Grievous to have fear, surprise and intimidation tactics on his side, but if he lacks any of them, it's better for him to retreat, because he has to break them before engaging them. Not to mention, he's also heavily reliant on his unconventional hand to hand combat skills, George Lucas says that Grievous was the best hand to hand combat fighter during the Prequel era time period IIRC.

Rey is about equal to Kylo in the Force (pre-power up), and Kylo can resist this with his Force barrier:

Man people will do anything to discredit the new era, I don't even like the movies but I can respect the power. Maul's best feats are choking an inquisitor out and sliding a ship off a cliff. Rey was able to stop a ship going full thrusters. Her force defenses are comparable to kylo's and the fact the knights could stagger him as ben is a feat for them over anything else. Kylo's shield allowed him to survive being eaten by a giant monster, his tie fighter crashing (in a very dramatic fashion), and the crash of a star destroyer that was eviscerated by the crash (he came out without any damage). Even if you don't want to scale her to Kylo's shielding, she was able to not get force wrecked by him and he could collapse a jedi temple (or at least the giant statues outside) as well as ragdoll 5-6 force sensitives while not even fighting them. Maul's got nothing that says he is getting through her shielding and doesn't get ragdolled. If he pushes her to anger she might also dust him with lightning.

@kilius:

Maul and Mace are far more refined than Grievous.

Not in the slightest. Their chosen techniques are basically the same as those of Grievous, if not more randomized:

"Form VII is difficult to master. Its movements are sharp and chaotic, and occur in quick bursts."

-- The Jedi Path

"And unlike the graceful, linked movement sequences of Form II, Form VII tactics overwhelm opponents with seemingly unconnected staccato sequences. This combination of traits makes Form VII highly unpredictable in battle."

-- Jedi vs Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force

"Juyo is based on quick strikes and unpredictable attacks..."

-- Book of Sith

"In addition to very advanced Force-assisted jumps and movements, Form VII tactics overwhelm opponents with seemingly unconnected staccato sequences, making the Form highly unpredictable in battle. This trait makes for a much more difficult execution than the graceful, linked move sequences of Form IV."

-- Insider #62

"Form VII employs bold, direct movements, more open and kinetic than Form V but not so elaborate in appearance as Form VI. In addition to very advanced Force-assisted jumps and movements, Form VII tactics overwhelm opponents with seemingly unconnected staccato sequences, making the Form highly unpredictable in battle. This trait makes for a much more difficult execution than the graceful, linked move sequences of Form IV."

-- StarWars.com: Fightsaber

Even setting aside the objective sources, we have not one, but two different Jedi Battlemasters stating that Juyo is randomized and inelegant, plus the musings of Darth Bane. I'd side with the Battlemasters alone over Dooku, as they have a greater level of expertise in this area. Grievous being a frenzy fighter as opposed to a graceful fencer doesn't make him a poor lightsaber duelist, that's just his chosen style of fighting. And it's an effective one.

If you and Dooku were correct, Grievous would have lost badly to every master swordsman he came across -- which would be every fully trained Jedi Knight. Council members would have dismantled him. Instead, Grievous' skills make him more than a match for most, and he's killed a boatload of exceptional Jedi. In particular, Grievous' duels with Shaak Ti, Ki-Adi Mundi and Foul Moudama should have ended in spectacular failure. Worse than what you think Kenobi did to him, as they are more refined duelists. They resemble Dooku's style more than Kenobi does:

"Foul Moudama was a gifted and graceful Jedi though his origins are known to few. He possessed a fluid lightsaber technique and agility that stood out even among the extremely skilled combatants of the Jedi ranks."

-- StarWars.com: Databank(old)

"There is an understated elegance in Obi-Wan Kenobi's lightsaber technique, one that is quite unlike the feel one might get from great swordbeings of the Jedi Order. He lack entirely the flash, the pure bold elan of an Anakin Skywalker; there is nowhere in him the penumbral ferocity of a Mace Windu or a Depa Billaba, nor the stylish grace of a Shaak Ti or a Dooku, and he is nothing resembling the whirlwind of destruction that Yoda could become..."

-- Revenge of the Sith: Senior Novelization

"Shaak Ti is a master of the Makashi and Ataru forms in addition to her legendary strength in the Force."

-- Clone Wars Adventures

But this didn't happen, because Grievous isn't a poor swordsman, and consistently performs well against the elite Jedi swordmasters, since he is a nearly unrivaled fighter with an efficient lightsaber technique.

Then why are you making such a big deal out of landed unarmed strikes?

Nothing I said contradicted the idea of them being noteworthy in a lightsaber duel. I said physical strikes aren't a part of real life dueling because it's essentially impossible to breach your opponent's guard in such a way and not be killed. Lightsaber combat is evidently much more open and physical, since said strikes are a regular aspect of the fight.

Grievous kicked Ventress yet it's his lightsaber guard that is pierced by her.

Rage amp, like with Luminara -- who, coincidentally, is another refined duelist that Grievous dueled.

If unarmed skill scaled to lightaber skill she would have been the one who's guard was pierced.

Her guard was torn through, on multiple occasions, and in short fashion. Just like Maul and Kenobi.

This is why Ventres kicking Maul isn't an indication she's better. Grievous kicked her yet she still beat him.

The difference is, Ventress' fight with Grievous continued. Her fight with Maul did not, and it ended with her having taken the upper hand by breaching his guard, which is an indication of superiority. Just like slashing someone with your blade. So the point goes to her. Comparable fighters can tag each other, such as with Qui-Gon & Maul, but the superior fighter will achieve the most decisive breach of guard, or simply land more hits.

Irrelvent as Maul wasn't injured

Nope, it's not irrelevent. What's irrelevent is Maul's durability, which has absolutely nothing to do with his skill as a fighter, which is what's being discussed.

Like I said, Maul doesn't just allow himself to be smashed around. Grievous had to actively tear through his guard, which is an indication of superiority. The degree to which one is superior would be determined based on how quickly it was accomplished, or how easily.

and Ventress was still able to come back and kick Grievous's ass.

Because she was the superior fighter in that circumstance, and thus she came out on top, just like with Qui-Gon and Maul. But Grievous was still able to challenge her, as shown by his ability to pierce her guard as well. That is, of course, going from the fictional point of view that Ventress genuinely outfought him, which she did not.

It's easy to kick someone in a headlock with a reach and durability advantage

A) Grievous' own durability has nothing to do with his ability to kick someone in a bladelock.

B) Nope, it's probably harder. Grievous is much easier to hit due to his size, much easier to evade, and much easier to counter.

No because as you admitted kicking has nothing to do with swordfighting.

Nowhere did I say this. It has as much to do with swordfighting as decapitation. Both are breaches of guard, and thus, indications of superiority, and both are essentially non-existent in real life dueling because it's next to impossible to accomplish such a feat without getting yourself killed.

And it's irrelevant because he still failed to beat Ventress despite being able to kick her in a blade lock.

Nope, it's completely relevant, as always. Even if Ventress legitimately outdueled him in the end, his ability to breach her guard with a kick demonstrates that they are comparable. But she didn't, and so he was the one repeatedly and swiftly ripping through his opponent's guard, and thus he is the superior combatant.

No it isn't. Reach is by far a more important advantage in any combat scenario. The ability to hit your opponete at a range you can't strike back.

In boxing, maybe, but definitely not in fencing. The reach of your weapon is important, but not your body. That just makes you more vulnerable, harder to protect and easier to outmanuever.

Kenobi can't even kick Grievous without hurting himself,

And he didn't know that until ROTS, after their lightsaber duel.

same goes for Ventress,

And she doesn't know that, so it's irrelevent.

Maul likely not much better.

Same as above.

He was mentally unbalanced

No, being mentally unbalanced caused him to lose. That's not what I asked. I asked what made Kenobi realize he was losing. Which would be the fact that Maul was dodging his attacks and repeatedly smashing through his guard with kicks, and Kenobi wasn't able to stop it.

Because Kenobi is a better fighter than Savage all around.

And Grievous is a better fighter than TCW Kenobi, Ventress and Maul. Much better.

Ventress was a better duelist than Grievous all around.

If she was a better duelist, Grievous wouldn't have repeatedly pounded through her guard within moments of engaging her in combat.

Becaue he's a better fighter. Dooku's saber skill wasn't enough to save him.

No he's not, by your logic. Anakin's breach of guard isn't an different than Savage against Plo or Qui-Gon against Maul. He got his non-swordarm through his opponent's guard. That's the skill showing. Anything that follows would fall under the physicals department, or external circumstances, which are unrelated. Anakin was strong enough to hold Dooku's arms in place, and Savage's opponent had a breathing mask he could pull off. Qui-Gon lacked the latter circumstance, and didn't have the strength to hold Maul's arms in place. So he didn't end the fight there, like the others did. These showings are all the same in terms of skill. Grievous kicking Jedi mid-fight is basically identical as a skill showing to Anakin's breach of guard.

Ventress's and Kenobi's was against Grievous.

Ventress' rage saved her, and Grievous wasn't able to pierce Kenobi's guard in ROTS. Kenobi slipped through his, and because the fight ended there, the point goes to Kenobi.

No one is saying you can't get an advantage with unarmed strikes.

You are trying to separate physical strikes from skill as a lightsaber fighter, when that's just not how Star Wars works. Physical hits are a fundamental aspect of lightsaber fights, and Luke piercing Vader's guard with a kick being considered taking the advantage in their lightsaber fight is just further proof.

If Vader's saber skill was superior it wouldn't have mattered.

If Vader's lightsaber skill was superior it wouldn't have happened. Luke wouldn't have been able to breach his guard.

Then why didn't Grievous pierce Ventresss's lightsaber guard after he kicked him in a blade lock if unarmed skill scales exactly to lightsaber skill

Because Ventress is the superior fighter, so she comes out on top, though Grievous is close enough to tag her. They can both pierce each other's guard, but since Ventress is the better, she will do so either more frequently, or in more impressive fashion. Assuming that Ventress genuinely outdueled him, of course. And she didn't.

No it's saying more popular sources are worth more than tertiary sources.

It's saying that the people in charge of determining canon when contradictions arise take into consideration the prominence of the material in question. Because they aren't obligated to abide by the canon guidelines, and can do pretty much anything they want. We aren't them. To promote more financially profitable sources over more obscure ones makes perfect sense for them, and that's their prerogative. But we aren't them. We can't come from the same perspective as them, because we aren't them. We have to abide by the canon guidelines they set out. G-canon > T-canon > C-canon > S-canon > N-canon. Simple as that.

Kind of obvious and universally agreed anyways.

Lol no. I have never, ever seen anything even resembling this view expressed by anyone in any forum, any app, anywhere, until now, and it's solely from you. That doesn't make it wrong, but it's not some universally agreed concept.

And, obvious? In what world does it make sense to judge a source's canonical authority based on how many people see the product and think "hmm, I'll buy this"? That's illogical, from the perspective of a fanbase.

We both dismiss official sources that we belivve is inconsistent with the wider lore. Shatterpoint is an official C-Canon but you don't acknowledge it's existence.

Except there is no contradiction here. The Fact File merely adds detail, it doesn't conflict with any other material, unlike your example.

This goes way back to my saying canon policy is just a guideline, no one here is a fundementalist.

People can do what they want, but that doesn't change what's official lore and what's not. What you're advocating is the equivalent of those guys who always comment "I don't care what Disney says, [insert favorite character) is still canon." You guys are free to debate with whatever material you like, and you can regard it as legitimate, but that doesn't make it so. There's a word for that: headcanon.

I'll take novels over cereal box quotes any day of the week.

That's your prerogative, but it's headcanon.

I follow the narrative presented by mainstream novels and comics. You think of cereal box quotes as the bible. Difference in ideology I guess.

No, I think of C-canon sources as... C-canon sources.

Then he's always voluntary hindered himself by not using his lateral movement even in spacious envorimoent. He hindered himself against Dooku and Fisto too.

I've gone into how it hinders him in other threads with you, but ignoring that, again, the source says he's hindered in a cramped environment. Thus, he is not hindered when the environment is not cramped. By your reasoning, official source >>>> logic.

No Yoda was officially overpowered. Doesn't matter that Yoda came out on top in the final lightning battle. Offically he was overpowered. Random sourcebook quotes are the way to go.

And that's just a strawman. I'm surprised you even tried that, you know better. G-canon > C-canon. G-canon shows that Yoda overpowered Sidious. C-canon sources are inferior, and subsequently overruled. Like I said before.

Never said he didn't struggle. He didn't struggle with his skill he struggled with the sheer volume of blows coming in.

That's baseless speculation, do you have a quote from Lucas saying that's what he meant when he wrote that part? When you write that someone struggles in a duel, the norm is that they are struggling because of their opponent's skill. You're jumping to the most unlikely explanation.

Nope one of those handy dandy cereal box quotes says he did and since they're the bible what they say goes. Even without it, it's how it happened in the novelization. The script doesn't contradict this. It just says he was hardpressed to defend himself, it doesn't impile his skill was what was pressuring him.

See above. The novel has nothing to do with this, since I was referring to the script and the script is not the novel. You can't use a completely separate source to determine the authorial intent of a different writing.

Grievous's technique is nothing like Maul's Juyo which actually has finesse.

It's 100% like Juyo. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Grievous is thoroughly programmed in that form. Attack ferociously and relentlessly, with randomized, disconnected and chaotic sequences.

Maul isn't just flailing his lighsaber in random wild patterns

Yes, he is. That's Juyo. Highly unpredictable. Chaotic. Unconnected staccato velocities.

which is what Grievous is doing

Well, going back to lateral movement point, Grievous' duel movements aren't choreographed as randomized, unorthodox attacks. They are basically the same as anyone elses'. In order to keep this point, you'll have to sacrifice another.

@kilius:

No it isn't. Reach is by far a more important advantage in any combat scenario. The ability to hit your opponete at a range you can't strike back.

This is irrelevant because the advantage is not from weapon reach. Grievous' reach advantage comes from his own physical height and the length of his legs. It IS balanced out by the fact he is made a bigger target. Whereas weapon reach would mean you could attack from where your opponent cannot hit you without putting yourself at danger, Grievous is endangering himself whenever he goes for this sort of blow yet manages because he can hold his enemies in the blade-lock better due to his physicals.

back. Kenobi can't even kick Grievous without hurting himself, same goes for Ventress, Maul likely not much better.

This has nothing to do with reach and everything to do with durability.

Bump post Clone Wars season 7, in case that isn't being considered in the above posts

Maul still wins. This time it is even more decisive because of the hyperdrive feat. Rey has accomplished nothing in the force even close to it.

Maul stomps

Pretty sure Rey doesn't scale to anyone outside of her Era, so going by feats alone - Maul stomps.

Maul stomps, due to feats.

Rey solos the prequel characters.