Sith Apprentices vs Jedi Strike Team

@killbilly:

They're not "vague modifications." The quote I posted literally states:

"Grievous made alterations and improvements to his cybernetic body."

Why are you trying to challenge the meaning of something when the quote itself clarifies what it means?

They very much are "vague modifications." You're forcing an argument where there is none. Grievous vaguely modified his body, for the better. No one challenged anything. Just another way of phrasing what was stated in the scan.

This can be said about literally any Jedi in existence...

Yes, that's the point...

The difference is, Grievous went from losing to Gungans and Ventress midway through the Clone Wars to fighting evenly with Windu whilst hindered:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/star-wars-misconceptions-mace-vs-grievous-2075709/

Again, you're mixing things that cannot be mixed. The Grievous who lost to Gungans and Ventress on a nexus is not the same Grievous who dueled Mace in 2005.

Furthermore, pre-2008 Ventress has a similar feat in almost defeating Mace Windu:

"Yes. She had clashed with Jedi. Killed many. Faced Master Windu and come within a hairbreadth of defeating him."

~ The Cestus Deception

As TCD is dated at the start to be well over a year after AOTC, this could have happened anywhere in between. Likely toward the later end of that time period.

There is no evidence that Adi Gallia grew to the extent that Grievous did.

You haven't proved that Grievous experienced abnormal rates of growth, and you've yet to specify which Grievous you're arguing for. All you've managed to back up thus far is that Grievous improved, which is matched by Gallia also working to improve herself.

It's up to you to prove that if you want to scale her to a Grievous with improved cybernetics and far more training under Dooku.

The burden of proof is on you, not me, to demonstrate that Grievous experienced unusually high growth rates that would not only eclipse Gallia's three years of constant lightsaber training, but vastly surpass them to the point where Gallia isn't anywhere near him by ROTS.

I didn't think I needed to bring this up since they're rather obvious but Dooku continued to train with and instruct Grievous well into the Clone Wars only days before the Battle of Coruscant as shown in both Labyrinth of Evil and the CW miniseries:

You're attacking a strawman. I never denied that Grievous advanced his skills with time, and I even contended the opposite in the very portion of my post that you're responding to:

Of course, I don't doubt that Grievous did in fact continue to sharpen his skills.

I simply pointed out that the sources you say supported that position, did not. You should have lead with what you posted after the fact.

Now, as to this:

Not only that, Grievous's abilities as a lightsaber combatant improve independent of any training per Mace:

"He must have been trained by Count Dooku," Mace had said, "so you can expect Makashi as well; given the number of Jedi he has fought and slain, you must expect that he can attack in any style, or all of them. In fact, Obi-Wan, I believe that of all living Jedi, you have the best chance to defeat him." - Revenge of the Sith.

This is backed up by the fact that after dueling Mace, Grievous is able to nearly replicate a form that had taken Mace and several other masters renowned for their lightsaber knowledge years to develop:

"Mace had told him how the computers slaved to Grievous's brain had apparently analzyed even Mace's unconventionally lethal Vaapad and had been able to respond in kind after a single exchange.

-

Successful at analyzing Mace's lightsaber style, those same computers suggested that Grievous alter his stance and posture, along with the angle of his parries, ripostes, and thrusts. The result wasn't Vaapad, but it was close enough." - Labyrinth of Evil.

Nitpick, but that is really just an inconsistency. If Grievous' computers are advanced enough to essentially figure out/construct an entire lightsaber style based solely on analyzing the select velocities of one practitioner in a short amount of time, logically Grievous could replicate their skill levels at will and fight on par with Dooku, Yoda or Mace simply by having watched them fight. This is the only time he exhibits such an ability, across the board.

And thus he would have utterly obliterated Ventress, ROTS Obi-Wan, Ki-Adi, Shaak Ti, Foul Moudama & Roron Corobb, Puroth, etc, with Yoda/Mace/Dooku level attacks.

More realistically speaking, Grievous' knowledge of the Jedi arts comes from having been programmed in them, Matrix-style. And then he sharpens said knowledge in sparring bouts with Dooku, as well as battles with Jedi.

Again, this applies to every single Jedi.

That's not even a counter. As a general rule, Jedi are constantly training to improve their skills with both the Force and a lightsaber. Gallia included. It's not like she faces Grievous once and sits dead in the water while he speeds ahead.

No, she faces him twice -- in season 2, and season 4 -- and would also be in a continual state of growth. Flaunting the fact that Grievous improved doesn't mean anything, since Gallia too would have improved. You would need to demonstrate that Grievous vastly, vastly surpassed her own growth rate. And you would have to explain why Grievous only started experiencing such miraculous growth after season 4, since he accomplished nothing of the sort since season 2.

You neglected to mention the context for the scan you posted. That being that Grievous had just dealt with Durge and had suffered extensive damage from lightsabers along with physical and electrical attacks

I neglected nothing, I deliberately left that out, because it's irrelevent to the point you were arguing, that I was addressing. Your claim was that Grievous "handily" bested Ventress at this point in time -- my scans showed that in regard to lightsaber combat, this wasn't the case. Grievous being disadvantaged doesn't change the fact that he didn't handily outduel Ventress, blade-to-blade.

Not to mention, Ventress never showed superiority in lightsaber combat.

Forcing someone back in a swordfight is generally an indication that you are winning. Under those circumstances, Ventress was the superior swordfighter.

If you're arguing that leaning back or giving ground constitutes superiority then I have bad news for you:

Lucky for you, I do not believe such things qualify as evidence of "superiority." Unfortunately for you, I do believe instances where a character pierces their opponents defenses and lands a physical blow do:

To begin with, you're attacking a strawman: I never claimed, nor do I believe, that Adi Gallia is superior to post-2008 Grievous. I've never held that position. My argument has always been that she is comparable to Grievous -- and she is. Post-2008, like every Council member Grievous has battled, outside of pre-ROTS Obi-Wan. Pre-2008 Grievous, probably. But that would be based on hype/accolades, rather than raw showings.

In regard to Grievous pushing Adi back, that's meaningless in this instance as Adi is a practitioner of Soresu & Shien:

Both being defensive styles, when translated to lightsaber combat. Giving ground is her way, as it is for Obi-Wan. If she could stonewall his attacks, that would reflect poorly on Grievous.

I'm not mixing continuities.

Yes, you are. TCW came in and decimated what the CW multi-media project had been building up, and continued to produce content without regard for anything already established in the EU. Grievous and Ventress were handled the way Filoni & Lucas saw them on their own, not how they were shown beforehand. They even have different backstories. To pretend they are the same characters with the same abilities just doesn't click.

You're taking what TCW Ventress did, then comparing it to what the old EU Ventress did, and you're trying to connect them. But they aren't connected.

Per the OP, the characters are "composite."

Composite means taking into account both continuities. It doesn't mean you can mix things that are diametrically opposed. You can't say Dooku was defeated by Quinlan Vos in canon, and it's composite, so Aayla Secura is Dooku tier because she could compete with Quinlan in legends. They aren't the same character, and shouldn't be treated as such. You have to take into account the context behind each piece of material.

It's directly stated that Ventress and Grievous have crossed blades before and implied Ventress came off the better in their duel:

"I hope, for your sake, you received an upgrade since we last crossed swords." - The Clone Wars: Lightsaber Duels.

Taking that game's dialogue seriously, Kit, Plo, and early-war Obi-Wan can each near-equal Mace Windu on an individual basis:

Ah, and who could forget Plo challenging Dooku, Plo defeating Yoda, and early-war Anakin defeating the combined force of Kit & Obi-Wan?

A-grade source. Overruled by T-canon, wherein early-war Ventress was casually played around with by Obi-Wan, who cannot stand up to Grievous:

"It was a lot of fun to do this scene with James. Kenobi, most of the time has to play the serious one. But here we get to see him relax and just have a bit of fun banter with Ventress. He's very relaxed, he ultimately is in no danger from her. He's just buying time for Anakin..."

~ Dave Filoni, TCW dvd commentary

Knowing you, you're likely to suggest that the encounter being referenced there is Grievous's fight against her and Durge.

Obviously you don't know my style, then. There's no reason to think that their fight in Rogues Gallery is what's being referred to in a game for hypothetical versus matches. We aren't shown every fight that's ever happened in Star Wars.

Ignoring the fact that that would be hypocritical given your stated view of continuity, it also wouldn't make any sense since Ventress herself ended up being physically choked out by Grievous. It would be rather strange to reference such an instance in order to taunt Grievous given how the encounter ultimately concluded

Colossal strawman.

Nothing in the quote you provided suggests that Ventress did not grow as a Force user up to YDR. It only suggests that Dooku did not teach her actual Sith secrets which is in line with 2008 as Sidious mandated that she not be taught as a Sith apprentice but instead be used as a tool to carry out the Sith's ends.

Post-2008, Dooku is confident enough to try and kill Sidious, and trains several apprentices for that purpose. Ventress' power was booming, uninhibited, all the time, to the point where she became dangerous to Sidious' rule. Pre-2008, Dooku is terrified of Sidious, and feeds Ventress crumbs of knowledge, deliberately keeping her powers down. Suppressing her growth, stifling it.

I'm sorry? How does Grievous making the choice not to engage an ally in combat after being presented with new information invalidate Dooku's belief? Very interested in hearing your "justifications" for this one.

That's reaching. Ventress challenges Grievous to a fight, and he backs down. You can even see his hand opening up for battle, until she confronts him. He hasn't been presented with new information either. Ventress & Skorr answer to Grievous now -- he commands them:

Grievous ordered them back:

Ventress openly defies his command and challenges him to a fight, and he backs down. Skorr on the other hand is cowed & submissive. Are you seriously trying to deny what happened here?

Again, you conveniently forget to mention the context for this interaction. That being that Dooku was pissed off by Grievous's rote responses:

"Grievous and his guards were dancing. Going through their programmed motions. An Ataro attack answered by Shii-Cho; Soresu answered by Lus-ma... Dooku couldn't suffer another moment of it.

"No, no, stop, stop," he yelled, coming to his feet and striding to the middle of the training circle, his arms extended to both sides. When he was certain that he had their attention, he swung to Grievous.

"Power moves served you well on Hypori against Jedi such as Daakman Barrek and Tarr Seir. But I pity you should you have to face off against any of the Council Masters." - Labyrinth of Evil.

He was scolding Grievous because he was annoyed at him.

...To be clear, you're contending that Dooku trying to instruct & correct Grievous' form means his opinion is less reliable? What?

Dooku's ACTUAL thoughts in the same novel have him wondering whether any Jedi was capable of defeating Grievous:

"Grievous had been a delight to train, as well. No need to coax him to release his anger and rage, as Dooku had been forced to do during the training of his so-called Dark Jedi disciples. The Geonosians had arranged for Grievous to be nothing but anger and rage. And as to the general’s combat skills, few, if any, Jedi would be capable of defeating him." - Labyrinth of Evil.

And we are informed that that the Council & Cin Drallig are these few who have a chance. More than a chance, in fact.

@lord_tenebrous: Grievous did face off against two Council Masters on Hypori though. What Dooku is saying doesn't actually make sense.

Somewhere between Sith win and Sith win barely. It's not super close, but it's a tough fight.

None of the Jedi can take Grievous or Ventress by themselves. Not even sure a 2v1 would let them win against Ventress, and Grievous is another matter entirely.

Sith win in a decent to good fight.

You asked me for proof that Grievous improved and I provided you with a quote that stated exactly that. I never claimed the quote specified how much Grievous improved, only that he was stated to have improved with his varying performances across the Clone Wars indicating as much even if there hadn't been quotes that confirmed it outright.

Your point is irrelevant then. We have no idea the extent to which Gallia grew. If at all.

With Grievous, we know he went from handily defeating both Ventress and Durge near the start of the Clone Wars to being ~< Ventress midway through to Dooku placing Grievous above her as a combatant by the end of it.

Or you can simply look at his performance against Mace in LoE and compare them to his fights against far inferior opponents like Nahdar Vebb. Hell, you can even point out that he was beaten handily by Fisto in that same episode despite Ventress defeating the same opponent not long after AotC. There's a million ways we can show that Grievous's abilities as a combatant increased significantly between the start of the Clone Wars and the end of it.

I'm not mixing anything. C canon material like the miniseries remained apart of continuity unless otherwise stated. Unless you have evidence suggesting otherwise, your personal opinion has no bearing on the matter.

I imagine the quote is referring to this instance if it fits within the timeline:

Though I'll admit I'm unaware of when her duel with Mace in the "Jedi: Mace Windu" comic actually takes place.

I have actually. The fact that Grievous went from handily defeating the likes of Durge and Ventress to losing to somebody who lost badly to Ventress to being her superior as a combatant per Dooku is more than enough proof of that.

You yourself even argued for it, inadvertently. By suggesting Ventress had the upper-hand on Grievous in their first encounter you're admitting that Grievous's own improvement as a combatant outpaced Ventress's throughout the Clone Wars.

Firstly, Gallia didn't live for three years after facing Grievous. She died to Savage in 20BBY, a year before RotS.

Secondly, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that Gallia would have grown to the extent that Grievous did as I've already proved that Grievous's own.

I suppose it was my way of addressing and admonishing you for making such a pointless statement tbh. For, if you were aware of the fights I brought up, what was the point of even bringing it up at all?

The ability to replicate the move-set of an individual does not Grievous an innate knowledge of lightsaber combat on the level of these individuals. It simply gives him access to highly advanced techniques not normally available to him, which is what Windu himself is commenting on his conversation to Kenobi.

To put it more bluntly; your personal contradictory interpretation of what the quote means is irrelevant.

Not to mention, Grievous actively did obliterate most of the opponents you mentioned.

Every Jedi eventually hit a point of diminishing returns wherein they've achieved the majority of their Force potential and have reached the limit of what they can achieve as a lightsaber combatant. Qui Gon Jinn being a great example. Adi Gallia's being around his age btw. My point is that you saying "She's a Jedi so she's constantly training" as a rebuttal to Grievous's insane growth as a combatant is utterly laughable.

I already have. And so have you. It's one of your better arguments despite making it unintentionally.

I don't have to explain why Grievous grows at the rate he does. I simply have to show the disparity that exists between different incarnations of Grievous and show that he has methods to achieve this growth ( which I did in my first post ). Any existing disparity can then be explained as a result of the aforementioned methods.

Glad you admitted to attempting to deceive people. That's the first step.

First off, it wasn't my claim. It was the literal description of a C canon quote:

Secondly, I never mentioned anything about lightsaber combat in particular. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Thirdly, how is Grievous being plowed through multiple stone structures, electrocuted and slashed with lightsabers not relevant to his ability to fend off Ventress? Of course it's relevant.

Except Grievous never moved from his position. He was shown to have leaned back, likely so that he wouldn't be taking the full force of Ventress's blow. I'm not seeing how this constitutes superiority as a swordfighter, especially given the aforementioned circumstances ( the fact that Grievous's armor had suffered extensive damage ).

I was not attacking anything. I was simply pointing out that Adi Gallia being inferior to Grievous at the point she fought him makes it so that your assertion that she is "comparable" to Grievous makes such a claim rather improbable given the extensive growth Grievous underwent after that point.

And Grievous is a practitioner of ALL forms of lightsaber combat. Why couldn't he have simply been using a defensive form at the time when he simply leaned back during one of Ventress's attacks?

Also, is it a Shien or Soresu technique to allow opponents to land physical blows on your person and send you flying across the room?

I am simply informing you of how continuity worked under the previous system. Everything that was C canon remained apart of continuity unless otherwise stated. Do you have proof showing otherwise?

They're literally connected by the fact that both were considered "C canon" and thus apart of the same continuity...

There is no "both" continuities within Legends. It's all one continuity. There are only two continuities in total. Disney Canon, which is everything made after the Disney buyout, TCW and the movies and the previous continuity under Lucasfilms, which was G canon and C canon that wasn't contradicted by newer/higher canon.

Vos defeating Dooku occurred within Disney Canon. Not the previous continuity under Lucasfilm.

Disney Canon and the previous continuity are irreconcilable. If that's what you think the OP was suggesting then they've made a mistake and there's no point even debating this. If you're talking about TCW and other CW era material being irreconcilable then you are incorrect for the reasons already stated.

Considering you seem to believe Adi Gallia is on his level, I don't see why such implications would be so offensive to you.

But actually addressing these:

>Mace Windu states he expects Fisto to challenge him.

>Mace Windu states that Kenobi tested him to the limits.

>Mace Windu states that Koon is the best.

All of the above statements are complimentary exchanges between friends. Where is it stated that these quotes must be treated as facts and, aside from the quote about Koon, what's so egregious about Fisto challenging Windu or Kenobi testing him?

Similarly for the Plo quotes:

>Dooku states Plo Koon is one of the greatest Jedi.

We have quotes stating the exact same thing:

"Plo Koon is a member of the Jedi High Council and a Jedi General in the Clone Wars. Koon is one of the most powerful Jedi ever, with awesome fighting ability, strong telekinetic powers and superb piloting skills." - Star Wars: Character Encyclopedia

What exactly do you find problematic about this quote?

>Anakin states that he heard Koon challenged Yoda.

Anakin is stating that he has heard this. Nothing necessitates that this is a factual rumor.

>Fisto states that, at one point in time, he beat Anakin and Kenobi.

Considering Fisto stomped Kenobi in Cestust Deception:

"Obi-Wan and Kit had been engaged for an hour now, each seeking holes in the other’s defense. Obi-Wan swiftly discovered that Kit was the better swordfighter,astonishingly aggressive and intuitive in comparison with Obi-Wan’s more measured style. But the Nautolan gave himself deliberate disadvantages, hampered himself in terms of balance, limited his speed, emphasized his nondominant side to force himself to full attention, the kind of full attention that can be best accessed only when life itself is at risk. To relax and feel the flow of the Force under such stress was the true road to mastery." - The Cestus Deception.

What's so unbelievable about the idea that Fisto defeated the two of them at some unspecified point in time?

@lord_tenebrous said:

Overruled by T-canon, wherein early-war Ventress was casually played around with by Obi-Wan, who cannot stand up to Grievous:

"It was a lot of fun to do this scene with James. Kenobi, most of the time has to play the serious one. But here we get to see him relax and just have a bit of fun banter with Ventress. He's very relaxed, he ultimately is in no danger from her. He's just buying time for Anakin..."

~ Dave Filoni, TCW dvd commentary

I'm sorry? How exactly does Kenobi being superior to Ventress not long after AotC ( a few weeks if I'm remembering correctly ) make it so that she could not have overcome Grievous at some point in the Clone Wars when we know that her, Kenobi and Grievous were all constantly growing and all very likely at different rates. Grievous specifically very likely growing in spurts as he defeated new Jedi and gained their skills or made some sort of improvement to his cybernetics.

Well color me surprised. I wouldn't have expected such downright reasonableness from you. I'm proud of you.

Ah, you ARE talking about the differences between Disney Canon and Legends continuity. These are irreconcilable due to the fact that they are separate fictions entirely. What exactly do you think the OP meant by "composite?"

The new information he's been presented with is that Ventress has put a homing beacon on Vos's ship and intends to track him down:

Ventress presents him with an ultimatum. Fight her, or allow her to continue on with her plan that has a reasonable chance at success.

Grievous opts to go with the latter. Nothing here contradicts Dooku's assessment of their respective capabilities.

How did you get that from me pointing out that Dooku's statement to Grievous doesn't line up with his personal thoughts on the matter when he was notably angry by the way Grievous was fighting?

... So let me get this straight.

Dooku going from thinking:

"Grievous's combat skills are such that I am unsure if any Jedi would be capable of overcoming him."

To telling Grievous that he pities him should he face any member of the council ( despite Grievous having faced and defeated multiple members of the Council prior to this point ), doesn't suggest to you that Dooku might be saying such a thing to scold him? Perhaps the things that Dooku thinks to himself have more merit than the things he says when he's notably annoyed? Just a thought.

Summary for those reading:

- Tenebrous believes that Dooku thinking that it's possible no Jedi may be a match for Grievous and telling Grievous that he would pity him were he to face off against any member of the Council are not contradictory statements.

- Tenebrous believes that Dooku thinking Grievous is a superior combatant to Ventress is invalid because Grievous chose not to fight her when he had the choice between doing so or letting her go to hunt down Vos instead.

- Tenebrous believes that Adi Gallia ( who was already an adult when she taught a padawan the same age as Obi Wan ) training as a Jedi provides her similar growth to Grievous ( and thus, Ventress ) throughout the Clone Wars.

- Tenebrous believes that Adi Gallia could contend with the Grievous that fought evenly with Mace Windu whilst hindered. He believes this because he refuses to acknowledge that Grievous has grown to any significant degree.

This'll be my last post on the subject tbh. From this point, the debate will only go in circles with Tenebrous using his subjective interpretations as "proof" that actual canonical statements are invalid or circumstantial dialogue to prove a character believes one thing when their literal thoughts on the subject are already directly described to us.

@killbilly:

I have actually. The fact that Grievous went from handily defeating the likes of Durge and Ventress to losing to somebody who lost badly to Ventress to being her superior as a combatant per Dooku is more than enough proof of that.

One thing to remember is that Fisto's loss to Ventress and victory over Grievous are apparently attributed to his mastery of Shii Cho. The ABC logic doesn't work which is in favor of Grievous. He is as stylistically challenged as going up against Obi-Wan meanwhile Ventress was taught Makashi techniques directly under Dooku and that's majority of all she knows regarding lightsaber combat, which would've given her a definitive edge in her own duel against Kit. You know what else this tells us? It shows that he hasn't yet become a master or close to it of all the 7 forms during the start or early in the clone wars, which makes a lot of sense if we look to the fact that he's improved over the course of the war and especially leading into ROTS. If Grievous was already a master or extremely skilled with all of the forms he would be able to warp his style into Makashi with ease in order to handle Fisto, and that's ignoring the fact that his medical droid specifically told him he wasn't in shape for fighting.

I agree that Ventress had an advantage over Fisto, but consider that weeks after AotC Kenobi was casually beating her and months later Fisto who intentionally hindered himself was casually beating Kenobi. That's not the kind of gap that can be overcome via a form advantage imo. She underwent significant growth between those two points and continued to grow afterwards. I completely agree with your assessment of Grievous not having mastered the seven forms as of his fight with Fisto.

@killbilly@void_reborn: IIRC, I remember Fitso was also injured, and Ventress had spent time studying his form.

So a Plo Koon situation (injury) but Fisto lost instead because of the form disadvantage and Ventress having prepared for a fight against him in particular. That doesn't go very well to her name. Her best feat right now is coming very close to beating Mace, which implies she lost, meaning Grievous already performed better despite hindered in 3 ways.

If we add this with Dooku's statement of wondering if any Jedi at all would be able to defeat him, alongside the fact that he already refers to him as more powerful than Ventress, I see no reason to believe Grievous backed down from the fight with Asajj because he was afraid or anything. He's factually better and should know that. Grievous is tactically brilliant, especially in his EU incarnation. He would see no reason for such trivial nonsense when Vos is on the run. Skorr also mentioned a little before that that Grievous enjoys Dooku's trust because he COMPLETES his missions. Why? Because he doesn't let any internal conflict spark out of envy, frustration or distaste for his underlings in the CIS command circle. He is efficient and gets the prioritised task done.

The notion that Gallia is a practictioner of force lightning is pure idiocy and should be a bannable offence.

@killbilly:

You asked me for proof that Grievous improved and I provided you with a quote that stated exactly that. I never claimed the quote specified how much Grievous improved, only that he was stated to have improved with his varying performances across the Clone Wars indicating as much even if there hadn't been quotes that confirmed it outright.

You've posted this statement in response to something that has nothing to do with it:

They very much are "vague modifications." You're forcing an argument where there is none. Grievous vaguely modified his body, for the better. No one challenged anything. Just another way of phrasing what was stated in the scan.

There's a consistent record of mistakes throughout your post in its entirety, so I'll chalk this up to you struggling to see through red.

Your point is irrelevant then. We have no idea the extent to which Gallia grew.

My point completely cancels out the one I was addressing. You've done a lot of backtracking & flailing about, so what's say we refresh things and go back to your earlier assertions:

You claim that Gallia's multiple showings against General Grievous are meaningless here because he grew. And you confirm that such was your meaning when, upon being asked to back up your claims, you respond with the following:

@killbilly said:

@lord_tenebrous said:

@killbilly said:

@lord_tenebrous said:

Gallia on her own can already keep up with Grievous, though she's still inferior.

A pre-prime Grievous considering his later performances and Gallia's lack of other feats to put her on his level.

You need to back up what you're asserting.

That Grievous underwent improvements throughout the Clone Wars? Sure.

Physical Improvements:

Improvements as a Lightsaber Combatant:

Dooku had taught Grievous well, and Grievous had taught his elite well. Coupled with Dooku’s coaching, their programming in the seven classic forms of lightsaber dueling-in the Jedi arts-made them lethal opponents.

-

Benefiting from Grievous’s own programming, as well as from the instruction Grievous had received from Count Dooku, the elite were trained in the Jedi arts, and more than a match for most." - Labyrinth of Evil

Setting aside your appallingly inadequate sourcing for the latter statement, the gist of what you lead with is that Grievous advanced his body, and was engaged in routine lightsaber training. Logically, he would improve.

Now, my counter to that area of your argument was to produce quotes firmly establishing that Adi Gallia would be constantly honing her lightsaber skills & Force abilities:

"Members of the Jedi Order study the secrets of the Force and use their wisdom to protect the galaxy..."

~ Battle for the Galaxy

"Jedi constantly seek self-improvement, new skills, and fresh comprehension of old lessons. Though training is less formal after graduating from the guided life of a Padawan, it is no less vital. However great a Jedi's knowledge, there is always more to learn."

~ The Old Republic Encyclopedia

"Jedi learned how to wield lightsabers in childhood in the Old Republic, and continued to practice with the weapons throughout their lives."

-- Star Wars: The Ultimate Visual Guide

"As soon as [Jedi] are old enough to stand, they are instructed in the proper handling of a lightsaber, and this instruction never truly ends until a Jedi has become one with the Force."

-- The Jedi Path

You posted sources demonstrating that Grievous modified his body and was trained by Dooku as evidence that he would improve, period. In turn, I posted sources demonstrating that Gallia would be constantly training in all of her skills, both alone and with other Jedi.

Your attempts at attacking this have, thus far, ranged from babbling on about how this applies to all Jedi:

This can be said about literally any Jedi in existence

Again, this applies to every single Jedi.

...To mixing showings from entirely different continuities, such as the pre-2008 Clone Wars Multi-Media Project, and the 2008+ Star Wars: The Clone Wars tv series, headed by George Lucas & Dave Filoni, which completely disregarded the former lore and set about creating a new story:

The difference is, Grievous went from losing to Gungans and Ventress midway through the Clone Wars to fighting evenly with Windu whilst hindered:

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/star-wars-misconceptions-mace-vs-grievous-2075709/

There is no evidence that Adi Gallia grew to the extent that Grievous did. It's up to you to prove that if you want to scale her to a Grievous with improved cybernetics and far more training under Dooku.

The former, of course, has positively nothing to do with anything. You were the one who flaunted training as evidence of improvement in the first place -- and it is -- and I demonstrated that Gallia would also be training. Tell me, why would the fact that most every Jedi would also be training somehow negate the fact that Gallia was constantly training, in answer to Grievous training?

Simply put, it doesn't.

If at all.

Intriguing... According to you, Grievous undergoing training is evidence that he improved as a lightsaber fighter:

@killbilly said:

@lord_tenebrous said:

@killbilly said:

@lord_tenebrous said:

Gallia on her own can already keep up with Grievous, though she's still inferior.

A pre-prime Grievous considering his later performances and Gallia's lack of other feats to put her on his level.

You need to back up what you're asserting.

That Grievous underwent improvements throughout the Clone Wars? Sure.

Physical Improvements:

Improvements as a Lightsaber Combatant:

Dooku had taught Grievous well, and Grievous had taught his elite well. Coupled with Dooku’s coaching, their programming in the seven classic forms of lightsaber dueling-in the Jedi arts-made them lethal opponents.

-

Benefiting from Grievous’s own programming, as well as from the instruction Grievous had received from Count Dooku, the elite were trained in the Jedi arts, and more than a match for most." - Labyrinth of Evil

However, Gallia undergoing training is not? You really must do better at masking your hypocrisy. You let it slip a few times here.

Of course, I'm not going to bother arguing why engaging in constant training would improve your skills in that specific field. You know why, and that is the reason you argued as much earlier. After all, practice makes perfect.

With Grievous, we know he went from handily defeating both Ventress and Durge near the start of the Clone Wars to being ~< Ventress midway through to Dooku placing Grievous above her as a combatant by the end of it.

Or you can simply look at his performance against Mace in LoE and compare them to his fights against far inferior opponents like Nahdar Vebb. Hell, you can even point out that he was beaten handily by Fisto in that same episode despite Ventress defeating the same opponent not long after AotC. There's a million ways we can show that Grievous's abilities as a combatant increased significantly between the start of the Clone Wars and the end of it.

I have actually. The fact that Grievous went from handily defeating the likes of Durge and Ventress to losing to somebody who lost badly to Ventress to being her superior as a combatant per Dooku is more than enough proof of that.

This nonsense falls under the same umbrella. What happened in the EU prior to 2008 has positively no connection to what happens after 2008, where TCW rewrites everything, and the accompanying EU builds around it. You're shutting out context, viewing these showings with tunnel vision. Deliberately, too.

Fact is, TCW is TCW and CW MMP is CW MMP. Different worlds. When examining any piece of material you need to look at the context and adjust for author opinion. All of the pre-2008 CW lore was developed in a vacuum, mapping out an era previously unexplored. The EU writers were reasonably coordinated, keeping things unusually consistent -- because it was a closed community, and they had a blank canvas. Almost every new story added to the others, connected to them. Over the years, they filled up the era, bridging Episode II to III. Characters like Ventress & Grievous were fleshed out, and battled with the heroes, who were also developed in consistent fashion.

The different combatants clashed with each other and were established as being on such and such a level of ability. The pre-2008 CW EU developed the characters for that era, including how good they were compared to one another. Created their own version of things, and that was how it was.

2008 and beyond, Lucas decides to write his own stories. And that manifested in TCW. Lucas & Filoni set about crafting a new timeline, with no regard for the previous EU. They did not say "Oh, such and such material portrays so and so as better than so and so, we gotta remember that in this fight we're making between those characters." No, they decided how they wanted things, and made it that way. They developed characters the way they wanted, including how they compared to one another as fighters.

TCW General Grievous slowly, slowly became a cyborg over time, gradually modifying and replacing his organic parts. He wasn't set up by Dooku, all in one fell swoop. Adi Gallia was killed by Savage Opress, not General Grievous. Eeth Koth was resurrected. Sora Bulq did not defect. Dooku's acolytes, as well as Durge, are ignored altogether. Asajj Ventress grows too powerful, Sidious forces Dooku to abandon her, she tries to assassinate him multiple times and is eventually killed by him. She spends a stint as a bounty hunter and Dooku leaves her alone. She isn't simply dismissed by Dooku because he doesn't think she's worth the effort, she doesn't become a cyborg, she doesn't survive the war, and Ventress mused that if she ever left Dooku's service, he would keep her on the run for the rest of her life with endless assassins. Anakin is knighted shortly after Geonosis, rather than toward the later stages of the war.

And so forth.

They aren't even developed around each other. TCW did not exist, the pre-2008 EU had no higher canon to structure around bar what the movies themselves established -- which they only selectively followed. The CW MMP had already created mounds of lore when TCW came into play, but it meant nothing. Neither took into account the other, because they weren't connected.

Rather than acknowledge that these two worlds are diametrically opposed, with feats that don't connect because they were never meant to, you try to mash them together like cardboard puzzle pieces that aren't supposed to fit, but if you bend and twist them just enough... ah, wait -- still no.

I imagine the quote is referring to this instance if it fits within the timeline:

That is unsubstantiated speculation. There's no reason to believe that Ventress is referring to her duel with Mace on Ruul, anymore than one would assume Ventress is referring to her bout with Grievous in Rogues Gallery in the quote from Clone Wars Lightsaber Duels. As I said before, we aren't shown every lightsaber battle that's ever occurred in the mythos.

Especially considering that Ventress certainly didn't come "within a hairbreadth" of defeating Mace on Ruul. They dueled a bit, she acknowledged that he was obviously better and fled.

You yourself even argued for it, inadvertently. By suggesting Ventress had the upper-hand on Grievous in their first encounter you're admitting that Grievous's own improvement as a combatant outpaced Ventress's throughout the Clone Wars.

You're not even being consistent with yourself at this point. You yourself were the first to point out that Grievous was damaged in that encounter -- to the point where he was in flames -- so, pray tell, how does Ventress outfighting him in that condition reflect favourably upon how she would fare against him in an even match, at that point in time?

It doesn't, as you well know.

Firstly, Gallia didn't live for three years after facing Grievous. She died to Savage in 20BBY, a year before RotS.

I'm afraid you're rather mistaken, which is hardly surprising. Death Sentence takes place three years into the war, and Gallia is still alive at that point:

Both Gallia & Grievous trained for 3 years following Episode II, fact.

Secondly, the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that Gallia would have grown to the extent that Grievous did as I've already proved that Grievous's own.

In light of the fact that you've failed spectacularly to demonstrate why Grievous' growth rate is anything truly special, and outright ignored the fact that Gallia's growth rate has already been shown to be similar to his, as their standing from season 2 to season 4 did not change in any noticeable fashion, I fail to see why I need to prove a negative.

I suppose it was my way of addressing and admonishing you for making such a pointless statement tbh. For, if you were aware of the fights I brought up, what was the point of even bringing it up at all?

Pointing out your failure to back up a claim, whether or not I support the underlying position, is hardly "pointless". You tried to pass off statements as meaning something they did not, and I simply called you out on it. Your response was to strawman me.

The ability to replicate the move-set of an individual does not Grievous an innate knowledge of lightsaber combat on the level of these individuals. It simply gives him access to highly advanced techniques not normally available to him, which is what Windu himself is commenting on his conversation to Kenobi.

You contradict yourself, a running theme by now. You claim that Grievous cannot copy attacks he's seen, yet endorse the notion that Grievous can effectively and dangerously duel with any lightsaber style simply by having observed it being used by others in limited fashion.

Lightsaber velocities are executed in sequences, it's all deconstruction. If Grievous can more or less piece together an entire technique based solely on having watched another fighter practice it, simply replicating a sequence he's just seen performed would be small potatoes.

Dooku defends himself a certain way, Grievous can replicate that defense in another fight. Mace or Yoda attack, Grievous can attack the exact same way. He doesn't have to possess their skill -- he can merely watch them display it. The Star Wars version of Taskmaster, in Labyrinth of Evil.

To put it more bluntly; your personal contradictory interpretation of what the quote means is irrelevant.

Seems to me you're trying to downplay just how dangerous LoE Grievous has shown himself to be, because we both know it's an outlying ability.

Not to mention, Grievous actively did obliterate most of the opponents you mentioned.

Grievous lost to Obi-Wan, failed to breach an exhausted Shaak's guard, and the same case with Ki-Adi, only following a much more lengthy duel. He abused his brute stength to disarm them in the end. Ventress forced him to retreat. Puroth was one of his greatest challenges. Foul & Roron held their own in the 2003--2005 microseries.

Every Jedi eventually hit a point of diminishing returns wherein they've achieved the majority of their Force potential and have reached the limit of what they can achieve as a lightsaber combatant.

One's potential in the Force has a solidly attainable limit, but how far you can progress as a duelist doesn't vary from person to person. It comes down to individual circumstance. Fighters in real life plateau or decline for any number of reasons, be it mental blocks, physical atrophy, or lack of consistency. Talent gives you a boost, but even the slowest learner can achieve mastery with the proper training & focus.

Qui Gon Jinn being a great example.

Dooku being one in the other direction.

Adi Gallia's being around his age btw.

And nowhere near Dooku's.

My point is that you saying "She's a Jedi so she's constantly training" as a rebuttal to Grievous's insane growth as a combatant is utterly laughable.

Truly, you make a mockery of yourself. Anyone can look back and see that I've never contended any such thing. As a matter of fact, I'll simply post it all right here.

Explicitly, my quotes as to Gallia constantly training were in direct response to your quotes about Grievous undergoing training, which you flaunted as initial evidence for Grievous improving:

@lord_tenebrous said:

@killbilly said:

@lord_tenebrous said:

@killbilly said:

@lord_tenebrous said:

Gallia on her own can already keep up with Grievous, though she's still inferior.

A pre-prime Grievous considering his later performances and Gallia's lack of other feats to put her on his level.

You need to back up what you're asserting.

That Grievous underwent improvements throughout the Clone Wars? Sure.

Physical Improvements:

So, vague modifications to his body. Alright. Adi would have made vague improvements to her Force abilities:

"Members of the Jedi Order study the secrets of the Force and use their wisdom to protect the galaxy..."

~ Battle for the Galaxy

"Jedi constantly seek self-improvement, new skills, and fresh comprehension of old lessons. Though training is less formal after graduating from the guided life of a Padawan, it is no less vital. However great a Jedi's knowledge, there is always more to learn."

~ The Old Republic Encyclopedia

@killbilly said:

Improvements as a Lightsaber Combatant:

Dooku had taught Grievous well, and Grievous had taught his elite well. Coupled with Dooku’s coaching, their programming in the seven classic forms of lightsaber dueling-in the Jedi arts-made them lethal opponents.

-

Benefiting from Grievous’s own programming, as well as from the instruction Grievous had received from Count Dooku, the elite were trained in the Jedi arts, and more than a match for most." - Labyrinth of Evil

Not quite. All those sources make reference to Grievous having been trained by Dooku in the past.None state that Grievous received continual training throughout the war. Of course, I don't doubt that Grievous did in fact continue to sharpen his skills.

Irrelevent, still, as Adi would also be constantly honing her lightsaber skills:

"Jedi learned how to wield lightsabers in childhood in the Old Republic, and continued to practice with the weapons throughout their lives."

-- Star Wars: The Ultimate Visual Guide

"As soon as [Jedi] are old enough to stand, they are instructed in the proper handling of a lightsaber, and this instruction never truly ends until a Jedi has become one with the Force."

-- The Jedi Path

My response to your attempts at picking cherries, then apples, and pretending they're all oranges, in an attempt to prove that Grievous experienced "insane" growth, was to challenge the material you're using:

@lord_tenebrous said:

@killbilly said:

The simple fact that Grievous went from defeating both Ventress and Durge "handily" early on in the Clone Wars to Ventress disarming him midway through to Grievous being placed above Ventress by the end of the Clone Wars with Ventress having been constantly growing in power to a significant degree should give you an idea of how significant Grievous's own growth was.

Though often thwarted by the Jedi, there was no doubt that Asajj Ventress was not only a powerful dark side Force user, but that she was growing in power all the time.

-

He knew her power was growing, and was beginning to contemplate the path to becoming Sith Lord. - Star Wars Fact File 67

"He had a meeting scheduled with the formidable General Grievous, who was even more powerful than Ventress, but a great deal less interesting as a dinner-table conversationalist." - Yoda: Dark Rendezvous.

First of all, in terms of lightsaber combat, it was hardly "handily". When Ventress & Grievous clashed in lightsaber combat, she held the upper hand:

Second, and most importantly, you're mixing continuities. The pre-2008 world is not the TCW, post-2008 world, and let's not pretend otherwise. What happened in one does not connect to what happened in the other. Filoni & Lucas came in with TCW and proceeded to bulldoze the CW multi-media project. It's like Disney canon vs old continuity. Perhaps even worse, in regard to the prequels. So, who are we discussing here? Pre-2008 Grievous, or his post-2008 incarnation?

It was not to point out that Gallia had been engaging in constant training throughout the war, as you just attempted to claim. Spare me such theatrics, you're just wasting my time.

I don't have to explain why Grievous grows at the rate he does. I simply have to show the disparity that exists between different incarnations of Grievous and show that he has methods to achieve this growth ( which I did in my first post ). Any existing disparity can then be explained as a result of the aforementioned methods.

Ah yes, very convenient. Any seeming contradiction can be waved away by contending that everyone magically underwent random, massive growth spurts throughout the war. And in this way, you can dismiss every showing you don't like. A stomped B, who matched C, yet C stomped A 5 seconds later? Why, C simply experienced vast amounts of growth during those 5 seconds, for no reason whatsoever! You see, it's not a contradiction!

Fact is, you asked for evidence that Gallia's growth rate could keep pace with Grievous' own -- despite failing to back up the idea that Grievous' rate of growth is truly extraordinary -- and I provided it. From season 2 to season 4, Gallia's standing remained more or less the same. Nearly defeating him with an environmental advantage, to keeping up with him for a respectable amount of time on even ground:

Season 2

Season 4

IGN: It was on one hand obviously a nod to the opening of A New Hope, but there was a great sort of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern thing going with the whole storyline. Especially when they're walking by a huge lightsaber battle and we don't even really get the context of what's happening.

Filoni: Right. I call that my Star Tours moment actually. When I was talking to Steward Lee, the episodic director, I said, "I want this directed like Star Tours." Like, we're following the droids right behind them, and they're like, "No, we're not going that way!" Because Star Tours always had those awesome moments where you get a glimpse of something, and you go, "Wow! I wonder what that's -- Oh, we're not going there. The door just shut." So it's a fun thing. We've often discussed doing an episode where we're with the clones and we never really see the Jedi, but they just kind of leap over us -- lightsabers flashing and then run off ahead and we're like, "Wow, what was that all about?" It's a great perspective also. Because when I was a kid, the Jedi were a much bigger mystery than they are now. We never really saw one except Obi-Wan, and he was old. And then we got to meet Yoda, but he was old. And Luke, let's face it, he was never really the best. I have a notion that anyone on the Council could really kick his butt.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/21/star-wars-the-clone-wars-looking-back-at-season-4

And that's that. Gallia also shares the exact same "methods" of achieving growth, as I demonstrated in my earlier posts.

Glad you admitted to attempting to deceive people. That's the first step.

See, this right here. Rather curious. What motivates you to put effort into typing up such a thing, Billy? You know full well, that I go on to explain why it didn't need to be included, and thus was left out. Does throwing out these little barbs induce some sort of pleasure? Did someone slight you earlier, tipping your mood? Are you simply attempting to mask how discomfited you are by the views you've been pitted against?

Enlighten me. Help me understand the thought process behind you going out of your way to needlessly make such an inimical statement.

First off, it wasn't my claim. It was the literal description of a C canon quote:

Once more, you are forcing an argument where there is none -- cycling through the semantics of phrasing. Did you, or did you not claim that Ventress was "handily bested" by Grievous?

@killbilly said:

The simple fact that Grievous went from defeating both Ventress and Durge "handily" early on in the Clone Wars to Ventress disarming him midway through to Grievous being placed above Ventress by the end of the Clone Wars with Ventress having been constantly growing in power to a significant degree should give you an idea of how significant Grievous's own growth was.

Yes, you surely did.

Secondly, I never mentioned anything about lightsaber combat in particular. I dare you to prove otherwise.

Given that I never said you brought up the fact that Grievous was losing in regard to lightsaber combat -- I did -- I'll have to decline your challenge.

Thirdly, how is Grievous being plowed through multiple stone structures, electrocuted and slashed with lightsabers not relevant to his ability to fend off Ventress? Of course it's relevant.

Who said it wasn't? You really are fond of those strawmen. This is what, your fifth fix in this argument alone? And counting...

Except Grievous never moved from his position. He was shown to have leaned back, likely so that he wouldn't be taking the full force of Ventress's blow.

My goodness, how far you're willing to reach. Full fight, out in the open, for all to see:

You can see, clear as day, she pushes him back and eventually pins him against the tank, before using the Force. Their surroundings change, Grievous is visibly on his back foot -- and leaning away in this format absolutely does indicate that he was retreating. It shows that he is moving away from her attacks, and leaning away is what precedes stepping away regardless.

I was not attacking anything.

You're getting into semantics, yet again.

I was simply pointing out that Adi Gallia being inferior to Grievous at the point she fought him makes it so that your assertion that she is "comparable" to Grievous makes such a claim rather improbable given the extensive growth Grievous underwent after that point.

You pointed out no such thing. You blatantly tried to act like I believed Gallia wasn't inferior to Grievous:

If you're arguing that leaning back or giving ground constitutes superiority then I have bad news for you:

Lucky for you, I do not believe such things qualify as evidence of "superiority." Unfortunately for you, I do believe instances where a character pierces their opponents defenses and lands a physical blow do:

Typical of your arguments.

And Grievous is a practitioner of ALL forms of lightsaber combat. Why couldn't he have simply been using a defensive form at the time when he simply leaned back during one of Ventress's attacks?

Because Grievous is a primarily aggressive fighter. If he was forced on the defensive when faced by Ventress' attacks, the point goes to her, because she was the one who seized the initiative.

Also, is it a Shien or Soresu technique to allow opponents to land physical blows on your person and send you flying across the room?

How much shorter would your post be if you simply stayed on point and didn't slather it over with all these useless statements implying or outright stating things we both know to be false?

I am simply informing you of how continuity worked under the previous system. Everything that was C canon remained apart of continuity unless otherwise stated. Do you have proof showing otherwise?

They're literally connected by the fact that both were considered "C canon" and thus apart of the same continuity...

There is no "both" continuities within Legends. It's all one continuity. There are only two continuities in total. Disney Canon, which is everything made after the Disney buyout, TCW and the movies and the previous continuity under Lucasfilms, which was G canon and C canon that wasn't contradicted by newer/higher canon.

I already addressed this. It all being part of the legends canon hierarchy is no different than a thread being composite. You need to look at the context behind pieces of material, rather than blindly taking things at the surface. As I pointed out before:

You can't say Dooku was defeated by Quinlan Vos in canon, and it's composite, so Aayla Secura is Dooku tier because she could compete with Quinlan in legends. They aren't the same character, and shouldn't be treated as such. You have to take into account the context behind each piece of material.

The writers were writing characters in their own separate worlds. Disconnected, without taking into account the other. Written in distinct fashion, as each individual author saw things in their own way. And that's why they're different. Pre-2008 lore vs post-2008 lore is exactly the same in principle.

Well, I suppose there isn't a contradiction after all. I mean we can just say Quinlan magically & massively jumped up several levels in the interim ;)

Vos defeating Dooku occurred within Disney Canon. Not the previous continuity under Lucasfilm.

There is zero difference between the two, beyond surface labeling. It'd be no different than if Disney didn't scrap the post-ROTJ legends EU, but went ahead and made the sequel trilogy and all its accompanying lore anyway. Diametrically opposed, incomparable.

Disney Canon and the previous continuity are irreconcilable.

In actuality, Disney's CW lore aligns vastly more with the post-2008 CW lore than the latter does with pre-2008 CW lore.

Considering you seem to believe Adi Gallia is on his level, I don't see why such implications would be so offensive to you.

Where have I ever endorsed the notion that in the post-2008 verse, Adi Gallia is anywhere near Mace Windu? That's ludicrous.

But actually addressing these:

>Mace Windu states he expects Fisto to challenge him.

>Mace Windu states that Kenobi tested him to the limits.

>Mace Windu states that Koon is the best.

All of the above statements are complimentary exchanges between friends.

The obvious underlying meaning is that they can hardpress him in a fight, as I already articulated.

Where is it stated that these quotes must be treated as facts

...You are treating Ventress' quote from that game as fact.

and, aside from the quote about Koon, what's so egregious about Fisto challenging Windu or Kenobi testing him?

Obi-Wan at this point in the war can't even trouble Grievous, much less test Windu to the limit. As for Kit, George Lucas explicitly compared Windu to Kit & company in how they stacked up to Sidious:

Mace can compete with Sidious, Kit, Agen & Saesee cannot.

Oh, hang on, I forgot -- Mace could simply have undergone random massive growth spurts during the few years between those all those fights. Obi-Wan too. Or maybe Kit randomly weakened during that time, to vast degrees.

Similarly for the Plo quotes:

>Dooku states Plo Koon is one of the greatest Jedi.

We have quotes stating the exact same thing:

"Plo Koon is a member of the Jedi High Council and a Jedi General in the Clone Wars. Koon is one of the most powerful Jedi ever, with awesome fighting ability, strong telekinetic powers and superb piloting skills." - Star Wars: Character Encyclopedia

What exactly do you find problematic about this quote?

If you had clicked the link, you would have seen that Dooku only says as much upon being floored by Plo. It's his way of admitting that Plo is a challenge.

>Anakin states that he heard Koon challenged Yoda.

Anakin is stating that he has heard this. Nothing necessitates that this is a factual rumor.

Righto, the Jedi spread lies, and the people in charge of the game decided to create such controversial statements they didn't endorse.

>Fisto states that, at one point in time, he beat Anakin and Kenobi.

Not only did you not click the link, but you didn't even bother reading what I said:

Ah, and who could forget Plo challenging Dooku, Plo defeating Yoda, and early-war Anakin defeating the combined force of Kit & Obi-Wan?

Anakin, not Kit.

Considering Fisto stomped Kenobi in Cestust Deception:

"Obi-Wan and Kit had been engaged for an hour now, each seeking holes in the other’s defense. Obi-Wan swiftly discovered that Kit was the better swordfighter,astonishingly aggressive and intuitive in comparison with Obi-Wan’s more measured style. But the Nautolan gave himself deliberate disadvantages, hampered himself in terms of balance, limited his speed, emphasized his nondominant side to force himself to full attention, the kind of full attention that can be best accessed only when life itself is at risk. To relax and feel the flow of the Force under such stress was the true road to mastery." - The Cestus Deception.

What's so unbelievable about the idea that Fisto defeated the two of them at some unspecified point in time?

You must have missed the part where it says they'd been battling for hours, while trying to pierce each other's guard:

Kit may have been comfortably superior, but Obi-Wan can still hold his own. Even the disadvantages Kit gave himself were intended to help him focus, as though it was a life or death scenario.

I'm sorry? How exactly does Kenobi being superior to Ventress not long after AotC ( a few weeks if I'm remembering correctly ) make it so that she could not have overcome Grievous at some point in the Clone Wars when we know that her,Kenobi and Grievous were all constantly growing

It's not "at some point". Clone Wars Lightsaber Duels was released in 2008, approximately 3 months after the Clone Wars animated film. These are the early stages of the war,

and all very likely at different rates.

Indeed. Ventress with the fastest, and Obi-Wan & Grievous splitting until the end of the war.

Grievous specifically very likely growing in spurts as he defeated new Jedi and gained their skills

Now hold up a minute -- I was under the impression that Grievous was incapable of absorbing the skills of someone he dueled:

"The ability to replicate the move-set of an individual does not Grievous an innate knowledge of lightsaber combat on the level of these individuals."

~ Killbilly the Consistent

Ah, you ARE talking about the differences between Disney Canon and Legends continuity. These are irreconcilable due to the fact that they are separate fictions entirely.

And yet you attempt to reconcile them:

@killbilly said:

The simple fact that Grievous went from defeating both Ventress and Durge "handily" early on in the Clone Wars to Ventress disarming him midway through to Grievous being placed above Ventress by the end of the Clone Wars with Ventress having been constantly growing in power to a significant degree should give you an idea of how significant Grievous's own growth was.

Though often thwarted by the Jedi, there was no doubt that Asajj Ventress was not only a powerful dark side Force user, but that she was growing in power all the time.

-

He knew her power was growing, and was beginning to contemplate the path to becoming Sith Lord. - Star Wars Fact File 67

"He had a meeting scheduled with the formidable General Grievous, who was even more powerful than Ventress, but a great deal less interesting as a dinner-table conversationalist." - Yoda: Dark Rendezvous.

If I had a nickel for every time you've contradicted yourself here...

The new information he's been presented with is that Ventress has put a homing beacon on Vos's ship and intends to track him down:

Ventress presents him with an ultimatum. Fight her, or allow her to continue on with her plan that has a reasonable chance at success.

Grievous opts to go with the latter. Nothing here contradicts Dooku's assessment of their respective capabilities.

Perhaps you've never read a comic, but it goes left to right, Billy. You're mixing panels incorrectly. The dialogue is as follows:

Skorr: General Grievous! I... did not expect the Count to send you to pick us up!

Grievous: The Count did not send me. I was in the vicinity and heard your distress signal. You must explain your failure to the Count yourselves.

Ventress: We haven't failed. I hid a homing device on Vos' ship...

Grievous: An accounting must be made to Count Dooku.

Ventress: Then take Skorr. I do not take orders from you, General!

(Grievous indicates he's about to fight, angling out his hand)

Ventress: Stop me if you think you are able. But I am taking a ship and I'm going after Vos!

Skorr & Ventress are out of favour with Dooku, and currently answer to Grievous. They are ordered by him to come back and debrief Dooku, but Ventress insists that they haven't failed. Grievous then repeats his order, asserting that an accounting must be made to Count Dooku. Her information was irrelevent.

Ventress then outright defies Grievous' authority, telling him to take the weaker Skorr(acknowledging that he still wants them to return), and stating that she doesn't take orders from Grievous(acknowledging that she was defying his orders).

He clearly makes an threatening gesture with his hand, then Ventress dares Grievous to stop her if he's capable of it. He submits, and takes Skorr.

But sure, Grievous was just being a cooperative chap, allowing himself to be walked all over by defiant underlings, ranging from completely ignoring his orders, to smearing his combat abilities. For the greater good, because Grievous is a selfless character, and he certainly cared about her "new information" despite not actually caring about it.

I shouldn't have to spell this out.

How did you get that from me pointing out that Dooku's statement to Grievous doesn't line up with his personal thoughts on the matter when he was notably angry by the way Grievous was fighting?

You claimed that because Dooku was annoyed with Grievous' technique -- which lead him to lecture Grievous -- this somehow invalidated Dooku's advice:

Again, you conveniently forget to mention the context for this interaction. That being that Dooku was pissed off by Grievous's rote responses:

"Grievous and his guards were dancing. Going through their programmed motions. An Ataro attack answered by Shii-Cho; Soresu answered by Lus-ma... Dooku couldn't suffer another moment of it.

"No, no, stop, stop," he yelled, coming to his feet and striding to the middle of the training circle, his arms extended to both sides. When he was certain that he had their attention, he swung to Grievous.

"Power moves served you well on Hypori against Jedi such as Daakman Barrek and Tarr Seir. But I pity you should you have to face off against any of the Council Masters." - Labyrinth of Evil.

He was scolding Grievous because he was annoyed at him

A positively ridiculous assertion.

So let me get this straight.

Dooku going from thinking:

"Grievous's combat skills are such that I am unsure if any Jedi would be capable of overcoming him."

To telling Grievous that he pities him should he face any member of the council , doesn't suggest to you that Dooku might be saying such a thing to scold him? Perhaps the things that Dooku thinks to himself have more merit than the things he says when he's notably annoyed? Just a thought.

To clarify, in chapter 22, Dooku muses that few, if any Jedi, are capable of besting Grievous. In chapter 32, after watching Grievous fight, Dooku contemplates Grievous' weaknesses, openly corrects him, then muses afterward that Grievous is hopeless:

I'll take Dooku's more recent, detailed analysis of Grievous' abilities after having watched him fight for a time over some passing thought much earlier on in the story, thank you very much.

despite Grievous having faced and defeated multiple members of the Council prior to this point

Well obviously Luceno as of 2005 was either ignorant of those showings, or outright chose to ignore them, as he explicitly had Dooku reference the Hypori battle, then exclude the fact that Grievous battled two Council members there.

Well color me surprised. I wouldn't have expected such downright reasonableness from you. I'm proud of you.

How disappointing, behaving in such a way. I expected better than this. Your rapid decline in politeness is reminiscent of the older days. Maybe you missed your morning coffee, maybe you had an especially unpleasant day, but this sort of attitude has no place in a mature discussion. Cool off.

@lord_tenebrous: At least someone else other than me gets that you can't mix TCW T-Canon with C-Canon works, causes a lot of headaches with trying to jam a timeline into a timeline, so thanks for that.

You are ahead of the times. It took awhile for my views to evolve to that degree.

@lord_tenebrous: I mean I didn't really think I was ahead, I just thought it was obvious. But I dunno, maybe cause I look more at deeper things within SW so I noticed quicker how TCW didn't align up to...basically anything prior 08, obvious red flags aside and looking at such things as time period placement and what not.

I don't think it's impolite to point out the obvious. That's simply the way you choose to "debate."

@killbilly:

I don't think it's impolite to point out the obvious. That's simply the way you choose to "debate."

Ah, the classic "I'm not being rude, I'm just stating a fact" excuse.

Dooku believes that Grievous's performance against him in their spars suggests that his abilities are on that level.

Why would simply observing Grievous's moves at a later point cause him to shift his opinion so drastically?

Isn't the more reasonable conclusion that the things Dooku said weren't necessarily things he meant as opposed to Dooku completely altering his opinion on the matter?

-

Choosing not to fight Ventress when it would have served no purpose should not invalidate Dooku's assessment.

-

It's inherently ridiculous based off what's already been pointed out. Since you seem determined to ignore the comparisons between Ventress and Grievous though, let's go to one of the million other comparisons we can make. Grievous and Kenobi clashed many times throughout the Clone Wars until their final fight, remaining, for the most part, evenly matched throughout it. What does Gallia have to suggest she underwent even close to the same level of growth as the likes of Kenobi throughout the Clone Wars?

I assume you'll now talk about how Kenobi only performed as he did against various opponents throughout the Clone Wars because of "form advantages/disadvantages." Quite the convenient explanation I must admit.

-

Tenebrous believes this because Dooku said something to Grievous when he was angry at him that completely contradicted his prior thoughts on the matter*

I'm aware that Puroth is a Jedi Grievous slew as he's mentioned briefly in the RotS novelization but I could not find anything detailing the fight between them. I assume it comes from Insider 86? That being the case, I'd appreciate you providing evidence for your claim. I'd also appreciate you providing evidence that Adi Gallia is above Puroth. And just to clarify, when I say evidence, Adi Gallia being a "Council Member" and Puroth not being one does not constitute such.

Plo Koon is viewed as one of the most powerful Jedi of all time. Fisto likewise is stated to be among the best lightsaber combatants in the history of the Jedi Order. Them being on Mace's level isn't unreasonable.

Do you find something wrong with it? I wouldn't go out of my way to tell somebody who I thought was ugly:

"Hey, I think your ugly."

But given the unflattering fact about yourself was relevant to why I was choosing not to respond to you, I thought it was reasonable for me to speak about it. I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt as a result.

@killbilly:

Do you find something wrong with it? I wouldn't go out of my way to tell somebody who I thought was ugly:

"Hey, I think your ugly."

And yet it was you who couldn't handle the discussion and, entirely unprovoked, lashed out.

I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt as a result.

I understand that you were triggered by my arguments Billy, but let's not pretend that it excuses your immaturity and pettiness. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Rather than simply state that you believe continued discussion would be futile, you went out of your way to antagonize your opponent, in addition to the barbs you already tossed.

Like I said, disappointing. I expected better.

Dooku believes that Grievous's performance against him in their spars suggests that his abilities are on that level.

Dooku, having just witnessed Grievous fight, makes the observation that the latter's abilities aren't well-suited to taking down a member of the Council. Recent assessments are more accurate than past ones.

Why would simply observing Grievous's moves at a later point cause him to shift his opinion so drastically?

As you say, I apparently don't have to explain anything. I simply have to show it, and demonstrate that he has the means to alter his position:

I don't have to explain why Grievous grows at the rate he does. I simply have to show the disparity that exists between different incarnations of Grievous and show that he has methods to achieve this growth ( which I did in my first post ).

But I will anyway. Dooku's knowledge of Grievous' style has just been refreshed. He could have forgotten certain things. Maybe he's making new observations he hadn't picked up on before, or hadn't given much thought to. Maybe they are simply flaws that have been pushed to the center of his attention once again. For any number of reasons, Dooku can have changed his opinion after having just watched Grievous fight.

Isn't the more reasonable conclusion that the things Dooku said weren't necessarily things he meant as opposed to Dooku completely altering his opinion on the matter?

And conveniently, the things he didn't mean are the things you don't want him to mean. But no.

Choosing not to fight Ventress when it would have served no purpose should not invalidate Dooku's assessment.

Being submissive to Ventress when she dared him to enforce his orders and stop her cancels out Dooku's assessment.

Grievous made as though he was going to fight, but backed down when she challenged him to one. He ordered her to do something and she flipped him off. Grievous could do nothing about it.

It's inherently ridiculous based off what's already been pointed out. Since you seem determined to ignore the comparisons between Ventress and Grievous though let's go to one of the million other comparisons we can make.

I'm interested to see one argument that doesn't involve forcing together entirely disconnected continuities.

Grievous and Kenobi clashed many times throughout the Clone Wars until their final fight, remaining, for the most part, evenly matched throughout it.

"Evenly matched"

What does Gallia have to suggest she underwent even close to the same level of growth as the likes of Kenobi throughout the Clone Wars?

She doesn't need to have anything, since she started out far ahead of him to begin with. Gallia could keep up with Grievous, Kenobi could not until ROTS.

I assume you'll now talk about how Kenobi only performed as he did against various opponents throughout the Clone Wars because of "form advantages/disadvantages." Quite the convenient explanation I must admit.

You and your strawmen.

Tenebrous believes this because Dooku said something to Grievous when he was angry at him

Dooku wasn't angry, and yes, I'm more inclined towards siding with an assessment of Grievous' abilities that Dooku made after having just watched him fight, rather than Dooku's musings to himself in the past, privately and in passing.

I'm aware that Puroth is a Jedi Grievous slew as he's mentioned briefly in the RotS novelization but I could not find anything detailing the fight between them. I assume it comes from Insider 86? That being the case, I'd appreciate you providing evidence for your claim.

Simple enough.

I'd also appreciate you providing evidence that Adi Gallia is above Puroth. And just to clarify, when I say evidence, Adi Gallia being a "Council Member" and Puroth not being one does not constitute such.

Saying "no it doesn't" is not an argument, Billy. As it stands, Gallia > Puroth simply by virtue of her Council status:

"The Council was made up of the wisest and best of the Jedi Masters."

~ Jedi Apprentice: The Captive Temple

Plo Koon is viewed as one of the most powerful Jedi of all time.

Those accolades are from 2011 & 2015.

Fisto likewise is stated to be among the best lightsaber combatants in the history of the Jedi Order.

Subjectively, but yes.

Them being on Mace's level isn't unreasonable.

Apparently, anyone but Gallia being on Mace's level isn't unreasonable. Fact is, Council members have a consistent record of being top tier. It goes with their station. Kit was up there, Plo was up there, Shaak was up there, Mundi was up there, even non-Council Jedi like Puroth or early war Obi-Wan are up there.

Pre-2008 Gallia has the hype & statements to place her in Grievous' level, and an appeal to credulity here carries no weight when you've already admitted that you have no problem with Kit, early-war Obi-Wan, Plo, etc, being up there.

Then there's your penchant for expanding what should be a couple sentence answer to dozens of multi-paragraph sections... I hope that you know using subjective interpretations of unmeasurable factors to muddle issues and creating walls of text doesn't give your arguments any more validity or convince people of your stances.

Let's take your first response for example. The key point of my statement was that I wouldn't have commented on your debating style normally, but I did in so in these circumstances specifically because it was relevant to me not responding to you in the future. You completely ignored that part so you could rant about me saying something you didn't like without addressing it in any way.

I address your arguments point by point. Nothing more, nothing less. If you have a problem with that, so be it.

I hope that you know using subjective interpretations of unmeasurable factors to muddle issues and creating walls of text doesn't give your arguments any more validity or convince people of your stances.

I hope that you know deliberately examining feats that are completely disconnected with tunnel vision and repeatedly refusing to acknowledge the contextual difference between eras of lore in a desperate attempt to preserve an ever-crumbling argument won't alter reality.

See, I can do it too. That is, claim my opponent's arguments are trash instead of actually refuting them. You're just slinging mud, and pretending anyone should care about it.

Let's take your first response for example. The key point of my statement was that I wouldn't have commented on your debating style normally, but I did in so in these circumstances specifically because it was relevant to me not responding to you in the future. You completely ignored that part so you could rant about me saying something you didn't like without addressing it in any way.

I ignored nothing, as anyone and everyone can go back and see, so let's reiterate. If you genuinely believed that you weren't going to get through to me -- and I have openly responded to each point you've made -- and thus did not want to waste further time on what you thought was a pointless endeavor, then you could simply have articulated as much in polite fashion, keeping things civil.

To spell it out, something along the lines of "I believe I'm right, you believe you're right, and I don't think I'm going to change your opinion. Therefore I see no reason in continuing this discussion."

And left it at that. I can emphasize with your position, I understand where you're coming from. I think you're wrong, and I've explained why. You have explained your position, but you weren't content with that.

No, you deliberately went out of your way to be rude, taking potshots on your way out:

@killbilly said:

You cheaply insult my arguments, then attempt to pass it off as simply stating facts. Petty, and predictable given the unprovoked hostility you displayed in your exiting rebuttal.

There was no need for any of this, and yet you chose to swing at me. What does this say about you, Billy?

The rest of your responses amount to the following:

>Dooku's recent assessment trumps his earlier assessment

This completely ignores the fact that the assessments both occur within a similar time-frame and are drastically different from one another and does not take into account the possibility that Dooku's second assessment may not even be something he actually believes.

>You seem to not understand that the fact that it doesn't actually matter how much Grievous has grown in his skill or his physical capabilities, only that those areas have improved ( which I showed above )

Grievous has grown as a combatant for a variety of reasons but we cannot ascertain how much he has improved in each area specifically, only that they he has improved in them ( something we know as a result of the quotes that I provided earlier ) and that we can measure his overall improvement as a combatant. How much he has grown in each of those areas is irrelevant to the discussion.

Whether or not Dooku's statement to Grievous in an annoyed/angry state is accurate or not however is EXTREMELY relevant to the discussion we were having.

>You make a case for why Dooku might have changed his mind

You don't address why Dooku's previous assessment would have been so inaccurate or the more likely alternative, that Dooku simply wasn't telling Grievous what he actually believed.

>You claim that "no." Dooku's could not have been telling Grievous something that was false.

You provide no explanation for why you believe this.

>You reiterate that Grievous chose not to fight with Ventress

Nobody ever denied this. What is being asked is why this invalidates Dooku's assessment when Grievous has no reason to fight her outside of a pointless display of dominance.

>You post a series of gifs that show Grievous gaining the upperhand over Kenobi

There are a similar number of gifs I can post that depict Kenobi "gaining the upperhand" over Grievous:

Yet again, you conveniently "forgot" to mention that Grievous had two magnaguards with him in one of his fights against Kenobi where you showed Kenobi "gaining the upperhand."

You also questioned me suggesting that the two were "evenly matched" by showing Grievous landing kicks on Kenobi, yet when I pointed out that Grievous landed a kick on Adi Gallia, you stated that she was still on his level.

You then go on to claim that you believe Ventress showed herself to be a superior lightsaber combatant to Grievous in their first encounter, yet claim that Obi Wan showed casual superiority to her early in the Clone Wars and that Grievous showed superiority to Kenobi across their fights. You can't believe all of these things and not acknowledge significant growth on Grievous's part as a combatant.

>Claims Gallia started off superior to Kenobi, so he doesn't need to prove she's grown

Grievous landed a kick on Gallia just as he did against Kenobi in their fights. How is she above him?

>Claims Dooku wasn't angry/annoyed when he made his statement to Grievous

The text literally states otherwise:

"Grievous and his guards were dancing. Going through their programmed motions. An Ataro attack answered by Shii-Cho; Soresu answered by Lus-ma... Dooku couldn't suffer another moment of it."- Labyrinth of Evil.

>Claims Puroth was a Jedi who challenged Grievous greatly

The quote you provided doesn't say Grievous struggled with her. It only illuminates that she was among the more challenging opponents that he'd faced up to that point. It does not state how much he struggled with her, if at all.

>Claims that every single member of the Jedi Council is above every non Council Member

This is despite there being tons of known exceptions such as Qui Gon Jinn, Anakin Skywalker, Jedi Master Fay, Dooku and plenty of others.

>Claims that simply being on the Council is reason enough to have proximity with the likes of Mace Windu

Does this mean you believe that Coleman Trebor is on Windu's level as well?

I'm simply abiding by the canon system as it was under previous continuity. We fit in C canon events that aren't contradicted. Not throw them away because we don't like what they imply.

I said what I said to you out of the hope that you'd take the advice to heart and improve yourself as a debater.

I wanted people to understand why I did not want to engage further. I thought the way I presented my reasons was the most effective way to get that point across. Again, I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my assessment of you.

How is it an insult when it's the literal description of what you do? You've denied the literal description of the quote about Grievous's encounter with Ventress and Durge because you believe that the lighting switching back and forth on some panels means they were traversing through different areas. You stated that Dooku's statement to Grievous invalidates previous thoughts he had on the subject despite Dooku being specifically annoyed/irritated at the way Grievous was fighting at the time he made the statement.

If you're insulted by my assessment, perhaps you should take a look at the way you debate? Just a thought.

@killbilly:

This completely ignores the fact that the assessments both occur within a similar time-frame and are drastically different from one another and does not take into account the possibility that Dooku's second assessment may not even be something he actually believes.

You've dropped even the pretense of attempting to make sense at this point. Both assessments occurring within a loosely similar timeframe has nothing to do with the fact that the more recent one occurred during & after having watched Grievous fight.

The "possibility" that Dooku is for some reason lying to Grievous when trying to correct his technique is ludicrous.

Grievous has grown as a combatant for a variety of reasons but we cannot ascertain how much he has improved in each area specifically, only that they he has improved in them

Irrelevent, I've already demonstrated that Gallia also improved in her combat-relative categories.

How much he has grown in each of those areas is irrelevant to the discussion.

Yet another inconsistency with yourself. The whole foundation of your argument is that Grievous vastly grew, and thus Gallia does not scale to him. Now you claim that how much Grievous grew is irrelevent?

You don't address why Dooku's previous assessment would have been so inaccurate

Nope, I did:

Dooku's knowledge of Grievous' style has just been refreshed. He could have forgotten certain things. Maybe he's making new observations he hadn't picked up on before, or hadn't given much thought to. Maybe they are simply flaws that have been pushed to the center of his attention once again.

or the more likely alternative, that Dooku simply wasn't telling Grievous what he actually believed.

Given that there's absolutely zero reason to believe that Dooku isn't telling the truth, it's not even an alternative, much less a likely one.

>You claim that "no." Dooku's could not have been telling Grievous something that was false.

You provide no explanation for why you believe this.

You claim that Dooku is lying to Grievous when trying to correct his form, and provide no evidence to support such a claim.

At one point, Dooku in passing muses that only a small amount of Jedi, if any, could defeat Grievous. Much later, Dooku watches Grievous actively fight. He recognizes how formidable Grievous is, but inwardly bemoans the flaws of his technique. He then gets up and lectures Grievous about said flaws. Grievous fights again, but fails to overcome them.

There is no contradiction here. You're stretching things to salvage a preconceived narrative.

>You reiterate that Grievous chose not to fight with Ventress

Nobody ever denied this.

Instead, you're reaching for the most unlikely explanation imaginable despite the writers going out of their way to have Grievous placed in authority over Ventress, and craft an entire scene where she essentially spits in his face, defies his orders and dares him to stop her. Grievous initially moves to stop her, but backs down once she challenges him.

Rather than acknowledge what the writers were obviously trying to get across, you attempt to argue that Grievous allowed himself to be walked all over and shyed away from battling Ventress because he just didn't want to fight, or cared more about her new information.

>You post a series of gifs that show Grievous gaining the upperhand over Kenobi

There are a similar number of gifs I can post that depict Kenobi "gaining the upperhand" over Grievous:

Incorrect. Your first clip conveniently leaves out the fact that Kenobi & Grievous weren't actively fighting. Grievous was making his way across the train when Kenobi used the environment to hurl himself at his opponent:

This is in no way comparable to straight-up dueling someone blade-to-blade, and piercing their guard during active combat.

The second clip is Kenobi's one truly favourable showing against Grievous in all of TCW. But it's an outlier, one of a kind.

As for the third, really? Grievous & Kenobi aren't serious in that scene. With Grievous he is visibly at ease, neglecting to press, taking his time with his strikes. Immediately after that clip he stops fighting altogether and just talks with Kenobi, who holds off the MagnaGuard until he decides to get serious, and stomps the droid:

After which, Grievous then fights for real, and floors Kenobi within seconds:

Try again.

Yet again, you conveniently "forgot" to mention that Grievous had two magnaguards with him in one of his fights against Kenobi where you showed Kenobi "gaining the upperhand."

In absolutely none of the fights I brought to bear are MagnaGuards aiding Grievous.

You also questioned me suggesting that the two were "evenly matched" by showing Grievous landing kicks on Kenobi, yet when I pointed out that Grievous landed a kick on Adi Gallia, you stated that she was still on his level.

Grievous landed a kick on Gallia just as he did against Kenobi in their fights. How is she above him?

The obvious difference being it took Grievous around 20 seconds to pierce Gallia's defenses. Against Kenobi, the longest it ever took was 6.

You then go on to claim that you believe Ventress showed herself to be a superior lightsaber combatant to Grievous in their first encounter,

Superior to a damaged Grievous, yes.

yet claim that Obi Wan showed casual superiority to her early in the Clone Wars and that Grievous showed superiority to Kenobi across their fights. You can't believe all of these things and not acknowledge significant growth on Grievous's part as a combatant.

Yes I can, and you already know why. I don't mix the pre-2008 CW continuity, and the post-2008 CW continuity.

>Claims Gallia started off superior to Kenobi, so he doesn't need to prove she's grown

I don't need to prove that her growth rate matched Obi-Wan's*

>Claims Dooku wasn't angry/annoyed when he made his statement to Grievous

The text literally states otherwise:

"Grievous and his guards were dancing. Going through their programmed motions. An Ataro attack answered by Shii-Cho; Soresu answered by Lus-ma... Dooku couldn't suffer another moment of it."- Labyrinth of Evil.

That's flowery phrasing used for a "sophisticated" character like Dooku. You're interpreting this hyper-literally, which is completely erroneous. It just means he's not going to watch Grievous fight incorrectly any longer, he's had his fill and it's time to intervene. So Dooku gets up and admonishes Grievous about his style, seeking to correct his pupil's weaknesses.

>Claims Puroth was a Jedi who challenged Grievous greatly

The quote you provided doesn't say Grievous struggled with her. It only illuminates that she was among the more challenging opponents that he'd faced up to that point. It does not state how much he struggled with her, if at all.

It explicitly says that Puroth was not only a challenge for Grievous, but one of his greatest. Period.

>Claims that every single member of the Jedi Council is above every non Council Member

Never did I make such a claim. You pretend to know me, yet if you had any clue, you would be well acquainted with how this all works.

This is despite there being tons of known exceptions such as Qui Gon Jinn, Anakin Skywalker, Jedi Master Fay, Dooku and plenty of others.

A handful of exceptions do not displace the rule, you know better than this.

>Claims that simply being on the Council is reason enough to have proximity with the likes of Mace Windu

Post quotes definitively leveling Adi Gallia above someone who challenged Grievous*

Does this mean you believe that Coleman Trebor is on Windu's level as well?

I don't view Coleman's death any differently than I do Ki-Adi's. Within the pre-2008 world, yes. Anyone who is comparable to Grievous is by default comparable to Windu.

I'm simply abiding by the canon system as it was under previous continuity. We fit in C canon events that aren't contradicted.

I'm simply looking at material by taking into account the surrounding context. We don't try and connect events that aren't supposed to connect.

Funny how that works -- people have reasons for their positions.

Not throw them away because we don't like what they imply.

Billy, now where did I ever respond to your sources by saying I don't like them, therefore I will discard them?

You've denied the literal description of the quote about Grievous's encounter with Ventress and Durge because you believe that the lighting switching back and forth on some panels means they were traversing through different areas.

You've repeatedly lied about and misconstrued my positions throughout this argument, and this is yet another example. I denied nothing, I pointed out that in regard to lightsaber combat, Ventress wasn't "handily bested". Nor did I ever cite the lighting as evidence of an environmental shift. Allow me to spell things out.

Glass panels in the background to their side at the beginning, no longer there by the end:

We are shown Grievous from behind, and nothing is located immediately behind his body:

By the end, Grievous is right up against a glowing tank, larger than himself:

This isn't complicated.

You stated that Dooku's statement to Grievous invalidates previous thoughts he had on the subject despite Dooku being specifically annoyed/irritated at the way Grievous was fighting at the time he made the statement

I assert that Dooku privately musing that only a handful of Jedi could possibly take Grievous does not conflict with -- and would take precedence over regardless -- Dooku making a fresh analysis of Grievous much later on in the story, having just watched him fight, and listing a handful of Jedi who can take Grievous due to style.

I wanted people to understand why I did not want to engage further.

By blindly contending that your opponent's arguments were garbage, a very original claim.

How is it an insult when it's the literal description of what you do

"You're fat and ugly!"

"How rude."

"It's just the literal description of you, so it's fine."

Only in this case, you were just slinging mud, rather than actually pointing out flaws. Either way, it's childish and arrogant.

I said what I said to you out of the hope that you'd take the advice to heart and improve yourself as a debater.

That's rich. You became hostile, threw insults, posted a "summary" that deliberately mischaracterized my positions, and finished by saying you're no longer going to respond because my arguments were atrocious, out of the goodness of your heart. The genuine desire to encourage objectivity and improvement. Laughable.

There's a difference between constructive criticism and trash talking.

Again, I'm sorry if you felt insulted by my assessment of you.

It's not merely an assessment, and we both know it. You just couldn't keep it polite.

If you're insulted by my assessment, perhaps you should take a look at the way you debate? Just a thought.

Non sequitur. I have no reason to consider vague accusations from you as to the quality of my arguments following debate , especially given your repeated misconstrual of my statements. Simply saying something does not make it so -- I have explained my positions, and you understand them. I understand yours, because we both have reasons. Most importantly, I have countered each point you made.

If it makes you feel better about leaving to lash out at my positions, you do you. But whether or not you're going to own up to it, this was undeniably and unnecessarily antagonistic:

And it was a disappointment from someone like yourself, who should know better.

team 1 wins in a slaugther not just by having superior combatants,scaling and abilities on the like team 2 suffers major loses do to having masters that in compare fall short to most other jedi members or either way its based on most fodder besides gallia and luminara if you give them better teammates they may have a chance but for now sith acolytes triumph.

You accuse me of misconstruing your points yet you repeatedly state that I don't care how much Grievous grew when what I actually said was:

Grievous has grown as a combatant for a variety of reasons but we cannot ascertain how much he has improved in each area specifically, only that they he has improved in them ( something we know as a result of the quotes that I provided earlier ) and that we can measure his overall improvement as a combatant. How much he has grown in each of those areas is irrelevant to the discussion.

The point ( which you ignored ) was that we know Grievous is improving his skill vs his training with Dooku and we know his physical abilities are increasing because of the improvements he is making to his cybernetics.

We can't know the extent of those physical and skill improvements but we know how much he has grown overall. The fact that we know he's improving in these areas and that he's grown to the extent he has means the extent to which he's improved in skill or in terms of his physical capabilities is irrelevant.

Again, I don't see the point in debating with somebody who won't even engage with what I'm actually saying, so I won't be responding to you from here on out.

Edit: Btw, another official description of continuity outright states that Grievous and Kenobi stalemated eachother often throughout the war:

"Obi-Wan Kenobi and General Grievous often fought to a stalemate when they clashed, so equally matched were they as warriors. Eventually tough, Kenobi was to learn how to best the Cyborg." - Fact File 69

Grievous's growth as a combatant is equivalent to Kenobi's canonically ( whether this is because your interpretation of their fights are invalid or they had other fights wherein they "fought to a stalemate" ). Until you can prove that Gallia grew anywhere near the the same extent that Kenobi did throughout the Clone Wars ( hint: you can't since she has no evidence of having improved as a combatant ), your position is invalid.

@killbilly: @lord_tenebrous:

Not to interject on a discussion which already seems to be over, but I think it's obvious that Grievous did in fact go through some improvements throughout the clone wars leading up till ROTS.

In both Canon and Legends, Grievous's resistance to electrical weaponry hasn't been the best. He is usually visibly shaken, hurt, stunned and disoriented when attacked with them throughout the early to mid Clone Wars.

Durge's electrical bolars:

Gungan electrostaff:

Whereas in ROTS he shrugs off several hits and a concentrated shock to his chassis from a Magnaguard's electrostaff, which is arguably more powerful and has higher voltage. He is even able to fight back and launch a powerful kick against his attacker (Obi-Wan) while in a more vulnerable position than the other two scenarios above (instead of standing upright he is pinned to the ground):

This is just one of a few examples I could find where I think it's clearly portrayed that his cybernetic body has been upgraded.

@void_reborn:

Good catch, no disagreement there. My stance from the start has been that Grievous did not improve at an abrnomal rate.

Your stance is that he did not improve at a rate that exceeds a Jedi as old or older than Qui Gon Jinn who himself was facing diminishing returns by the time of TPM despite being one of the most powerful Jedi in Order's history*

This is despite the fact that we have quotes confirming Grievous and Kenobi's parity as combatants across the Clone Wars. You have not given anybody any reason to think Adi Gallia improved at a rate similar to Kenobi's own which is why you haven't seen anybody buy your placement of Gallia.

@killbilly:

Your stance is that he did not improve at a rate that exceeds a Jedi

Vastly exceeds*

as old or older than Qui Gon Jinn

And much younger than Dooku.

who himself was facing diminishing returns by the time of TPM despite being one of the most powerful Jedi in Order's history

Personal struggles are personal struggles. Dooku is an example on the other end.

This is despite the fact that we have quotes confirming Grievous and Kenobi's parity as combatants across the Clone Wars.

Blatantly contradicted and overruled by Grievous repeatedly demonstrating that he is much better than Obi-Wan throughout the war.

You have not given anybody any reason to think Adi Gallia improved at a rate similar to Kenobi's own which is why you haven't seen anybody buy your placement of Gallia.

You've failed to prove why Grievous' growth rate is anything special, that he experienced any major growth whatsoever, and why Gallia would keep up with said growth rate from season 2 to season 4, but then magically fall considerably behind afterwards.

@killbilly:

Just to be clear, how many "final responses" are you going to post?

Not really a response. Just clarifying your positions as you've presented them. It's you who seems to want to turn it into a debate. Unfortunately for you, I am no longer responding to posts that are simply wastes of my time., simply summarizing your points to people in these threads and explaining why they're incorrect.

Your own "responses" amount to denying statements of canonical fact to suit your own personal interpretation of things. Unfortunately for you ( yet again ), the quotes are actually relevant to continuity unlike your opinion.

@killbilly:

Not really a response. Just clarifying your positions as you've presented them.

You deliberately reframed my stances in a way that favours you, complete with your own arguments interwoven throughout the post.

It's you who seems to want to turn it into a debate.

I allowed you the final word, and you've come in here arguing once more. Either quit, or embrace what you're doing.

Unfortunately for you, I am no longer responding to posts that are simply wastes of my time,

For the third time now.

simply summarizing your points to people in these threads and explaining why they're incorrect.

Ah yes, that's what it was.

Your own "responses" amount to denying statements of canonical fact to suit your own personal interpretation of things. Unfortunately for you ( yet again ), the quotes are actually relevant to continuity unlike your opinion.

Your arguments are inadequately sourced, deliberately ignore context, and blatantly contradict sources of superior canonity. All in some ever-crumbling attempt to justify your refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of Grievous showings you don't like. See? I can do it too. That is, talk a lot yet say very little.

@lord_tenebrous: I'd love nothing more than to never have to interact with a vile little goblin like yourself again. But in order to ensure you don't spread information I feel obligated to address the fact that things like your claim that the quotes I brought up are "contradicted by sources of superior canoncity" are false.

You say my posts are misleading when I literally post the exact description of the canonical statements and yet you claim things like "they're contradicted by sources of superior canon" which actually means "my interpretation of higher canon sources doesn't align with the sources you've provided thus invalidating them in my mind."

If you want, we can ask people which actions they think is more dishonest.

@killbilly:

I'd love nothing more than to never have to interact with a vile little goblin like yourself again.

As good-natured as ever I see.

But in order to ensure you don't spread information I feel obligated to point out things like you claim that the quotes I brought up are "contradicted by sources of superior canoncity" are false.

Righto.

You say my posts are misleading when I literally post the exact description of the canonical statements

Where have I claimed you've been misleading by posting the exact description of a source?

and yet you claim things like "they're contradicted by sources of superior canon "which actually means "my interpretation of higher canon sources doesn't align with the sources you've provided thus invalidating them in my mind."

Lashing out at me won't change what is shown in TCW, Billy. You aren't new to this game, and should be well aware of the fact that secondary sources often conflict with what is shown on-screen. One of the most basic facts in this arena of information.

I have contended that your source conflicts with what TCW shows. If I really was wrong, you should have attacked my "interpretation" of what TCW shows, and argued that they do in fact align. But you haven't. Rather, you've simply dismissed the evidence presented as a subjective interpretation born of personal bias.

Which makes it clear that even you know what's actually the case, and you're simply sticking to your guns out of stubbornness.

@killbilly:

Almost missed the edit.

If you want, we can ask people which actions they think is more dishonest.

Do you require outside validation? I, for one, am satisfied, comfortable with my views. In how I've acted here. Are you?

I don't require it myself since the things I argue tend to be based in factual statements that are relevant to topic but I figured since your arguments are based in arguing backwards towards a conclusion you'd already adopted, whether people actually bought anything you were saying would be a topic of more interest to you.

@killbilly:

I don't require it myself since the things I argue tend to be based in factual statements that are relevant to topic but I figured since your arguments are based in arguing backwards towards a conclusion you'd already adopted,

Stating that your own arguments are factual, and your opponent's are not? Knockout blow, I concede on all points.

You admitted it yourself in your response to me. You even acknowledged my point from earlier. That your entire argument is based in promoting an interpretation of higher canon sources that trumps sources you disagree with.

Glad you've seen the error of your ways though.

I'm starting to believe there's actually some issue with you, rather than this stemming from dishonesty. How on earth is me contending that a higher source contradicts yours admitting that my arguments are not factual?

Your interpretations of higher canon sources does not have any bearing on the validity of canonical statements.

You have no authority/legitimacy with which to determine the intent of these sources and therefore your views are completely and utterly irrelevant. Do you understand? That was rhetorical btw.

You take the most absurd routes. I am not assuming the authority to determine the intent of TCW anymore than you are over what the fact files say. It's what is shown.

Grievous has consistently thrashed Obi-Wan in TCW, fact. Season 2:

Season 3

Season 5

Season 6

Suck it up.

@lord_tenebrous: And you take whatever route you believe will allow you to argue your beliefs.

I am not assuming anything about the fact files. I used the same terminology as the quotes I cited in my analysis in my conclusion about the topic. You use specific instances where Grievous may have gained a momentary advantage in one of his many fights with Kenobi throughout the Clone Wars ( not all of which were necessarily depicted within the show ) to come to a conclusion about higher canon sources that invalidates what other canonical sources have to say on that matter.

That's the difference between you and I.