Considering you've been on this site for so long, I was expecting a competent, challenging reply. Instead, I got outdated YouTube-tier arguments that defeat themselves. Most disappointing.
Now, I'll ignore the useless filler statements and cut to the actual "arguments," since replying to such obvious trash is already a waste of time without responding to each barb and regurgitated assertion:
"She did no such thing. They dueled, she managed to cut off two hands at most, clone interrupted the fight, and then when we see them engage in the fight, Billaba is seen on her back and the Clone needed to save her while Grievous runs away. How one can even come to the conclusion that she 'outdueled' him is beyond me| Then we have Billaba. Billaba did the best out of these Jedi so far by being the only one to cut off at most two of Grievous's arms, but still can't defeat him. Nowhere does she prove to be the better fighter and nowhere does she outduel him, evidence enough by her being on her back in the last scan and having the Clone chase off Grievous. Failing to defeat and being saved from death by Clones =/= Billaba is a better fighter than Grievous."
What? Depa tagged him with the Force and cut off two of his hands. By comparison, Grievous only landed one hit, which was a slice to the back. She was only losing because she was organic and getting carved in the back will actively hinder her while Grievous losing two of his hands would not simply because he's a cyborg. It's hilarious that you claim she didn't outfight him yet post scans that debunk your claims.
"It literally doesn't matter. Kenobi is the only person in this whole list who has actually killed Grievous. Everyone else you mentioned only fought him, none of them proving better."
Kenobi killing Grievous is completely worthless whe he did so under extremely favourable circumstances, was still hardpressed to defend himself, and wasn't convincing enough in his performance to persuade Grievous that he couldn't win.
"Obi-Wan having advantages in the fight doesn't make his win less impressive or suddenly mean that his actual defeat of Grievous is <<<< other characters who only ever managed to fight Grievous and nothing else. That's some plain stupidity if you think so."
Yes, it literally does. Are you trolling at this point? Winning a fight with advantages isn't representative of your actual abilities because you didn't win the fight purely based on your own skill. Circumstances were in play that caused the win. And in Kenobi's case, he didn't even win. He gained the upper hand with max effort, and Grievous still thought Kenobi was going to lose. By comparison, all the other characters have performed in a way that would indicate that they are better than Grievous. Kenobi has done zero to suggest that.
In fact, if a heavily disadvantaged Grievous is still only slightly below a prime Kenobi, who is also inferior to people who struggle against Grievous' noticeable inferiors, it's clear that under even circumstances, Grievous is just better.
"I guess Maul isn't actually more skilled than Qui-Gon because he had advantages over him during their fight. Good to know."
At what point? In the final part? Yes, duh, that's not concrete proof that Qui-Gon was inferior, because Maul did not win in an even contest. Qui-Gon was exhausted, and Maul had a form advantage. What IS proof that Maul is more skilled, is that he was beating Qui-Gon+Kenobi earlier and was rapidly driving Qui-Gon back on Tatooine.
"Which means absolutely nothing. Not even gonna bother responding to the other quotes if this is what you choose to end on| Why should the subjective views of a cyborg who sees himself as above all Jedi be taken seriously at all? That's right, it shouldn't. Listing that as a reason for why Kenobi's defeat of Grievous is less impressive is, again, false and asinine."
The fact that Kenobi's circumstantial performance against Grievous wasn't good enough to convince Grievous that he was going to lose, speaks volumes. By Comparison, Grievous on Vassek openly acknowledged the fact that he was losing to Fisto, when MagnaGuards arrived and surrounded Fisto:
"How quickly power can change hands. Surrender and I promise you will die quickly."
-- Star Wars: The Clone Wars: Lair of Grievous
The combination of all the other facts + this statement from Grievous indisputably paint a poor picture for Kenobi.
"Wrong. In three of their main fights out of what, four total, Grievous didn't beat Kenobi once. The idea that he creamed him, let alone creamed him repeatedly, is both false and asinine. Watch the show if you don't believe me| I guess we're gonna ignore the many times Grievous couldn't defeat Obi-Wan in TCW| What evidence is that? The times Grievous "repeatedly creamed" Obi-Wan in TCW but was on the losing end of most of their fights and had to run away"
Again, the sheer ignorance in your arguments is astounding. These are garbage assertions, have you even seen TCW?
In season 2, Grievous floors Kenobi after a grand total of 6 seconds of fighting. Then after allowing Kenobi to recover, he has him pinned down in another 5 seconds of on-and-off fighting(by comparison, Koth was able to maneuver himself out of being backed into a wall by Grievous, as was Kenobi against Vader on Mustafar). Then, Kenobi holds his own for 9 seconds in extreme close quarters(which hinders Grievous), but is in desperation while doing so(according to the episode guide). After using the Force to disarm Grievous, the latter tackles Kenobi despite being completely unarmed, while Kenobi is combat-ready and indeed has him at bladepoint. Later, Kenobi matches Grievous for 12 seconds(3 of which was spent in a bladelock, so actually 9) before getting slammed away:
https://youtu.be/JeuZz6J5tvc
In season 2, Kenobi deprives Grievous of one blade but then loses the duel after 9 seconds of fighting, despite Grievous having been caught off-guard to begin with:
https://youtu.be/WYREb_-EXuc
In season 3, Grievous floors Kenobi in 6 seconds, then proceeds to physically ragdoll him. Afterwards, Kenobi Force Pushes Grievous when his guard is down and he runs away:
https://youtu.be/6m5VvMJFbRE
In season 5, Grievous legit two-shots Kenobi:
https://youtu.be/m1BqZzIWSW0
Consistently, when Grievous isn't hindered, caught off-guard, or trying to escape, he either stomps Kenobi or takes him down in under 7 seconds. As usual, you're wrong. Grievous creamed Kenobi throughout TCW. In ROTS, Kenobi with max effort only gained the upper hand over an extremely disadvantaged Grievous and still wasn't convincing enough to make Grievous think he would lose.
"Ahsoka managed to defeat three Magnaguards. Ahsoka > Anakin confirmed. Thanks for that. Nahdar Vebb was able to defeat many Magnaguards with ease. Vebb > Anakin and Obi-Wan confirmed. Common sense right there."
Nope. Ahsoka defeated 2 MagnaGuards, and cheapshotted the 3rd. Collectively, they were forcing her back. Moreover, these are TCW MagnaGuards, which are notoriously nerfed. In fact, they're not even Jedi Knight level:
"IG-100 droids serve as bodyguards for top Separatist leaders. These deadly droids are fast, tough, and can keep fighting even after their heads are cut off. Battling them is a tough task even for an experienced Jedi Knight."
-- The Clone Wars Character Encyclopedia
"These implacable droids guarded key Separatist leaders and proved tough opponents for the Jedi Knights, striking with their deadly electostaffs."
-- StarWars.com: Databank
In TCW, they're incredibly weak. Single commando droids have performed better against Anakin than MagnaGuards. Comparing them to the ROTS guards is extremely disingenuous, and in no way invalidates the fact that ROTS Kenobi is inferior to ROTS Anakin who struggled to overcome IG-102.
"Not only are you wrong, I'm gonna go through and tell you why you're wrong. Mundi only ever fought Grievous in Legends continuity. You can't scale Canon Plo Koon, which this thread is using, to be better than him because those events never happened in Canon. Not only that, Mundi never in their fight proved he was the better fighter. Here's the entire fight. If Mundi had proved better, we would have actually seen him defeat Grievous. An inconclusive fight =/= Mundi is a better fighter than Grievous."
Not only am I right, but you failed spectacularly in trying to explain why I'm wrong. This isn't canon Plo, and yes Mundi did. You prove your narrowness of mind with the statement that not winning a fight means you can't prove a better fighter therein. Reality is, Mundi held off Grievous for well over 2 entire off-screen minutes while the ARC troopers were on their way, despite being considerably disadvantaged. If it took that long for Grievous to overcome Mundi while the latter was both exhausted, holding an unfamiliar blade, and had a form disadvantage, then it logically follows that an unhindered Mundi would perform far better under even circumstances. And if he was already close to Grievous under negative circumstances, then with those heavy disadvantages removed, he will be better.
"Next is Koth. Not only does Koth not beat Grievous, he's immediately forced on the defensive and only is able to launch a Force Push once grievous relented and backed away. Landing a single Force Push once the enemy stops fighting =/= Koth is a better fighter than Grievous."
It's the same case here. Koth fought Grievous for 18 seconds, despite being injured, using only the injured arm the entire time, being limited in movement by the MagnaGuards who surrounded him, and having his focus distracted by them. To top it off, Koth started the duel off at a disadvantage, as Grievous attacked him when he was off-guard. Koth wasn't losing either, he was winning. He dodged a total of 10 blows, and maneuvered himself out of being pressed against a wall. Him being driven back is not indicative of anything, since for all we know, Koth could use a passive form like Makashi or Soresu.
If a disadvantaged Koth is already better than Grievous, Koth under even circumstances would perform that much better.
"Finally we have Kit Fisto. The only one of these Jedi to actually perform well against Grievous. Despite this, despite only cutting off one hand, despite Force Pushing him to the ground, Kit still didn't defeat Grievous."
Fisto didn't defeat him when Grievous was floored because he clearly wasn't worried. After sending Grievous to the ground, making him completely vulnerable, Fisto just stands there and grins, even allowing Grievous to get back up and mount a counter-attack. In fact, the entire first portion of the fight that ensued afterwards was simply Grievous repeatedly attacking Fisto who was defending himself WHILE MOVING FORWARD. Simply standing absolutely in place, not giving any ground when someone is attacking you is indicative of superiority. Fisto went above and beyond that.
"This, coupled by the fact that Kit's style is a clear advantage going against multiple weapons and blades, means that his 'victory' over Grievous isn't impressive, according to you. Having advantages against an opponent and winning via those advantages is less impressive than just fighting someone and nothing else. Not winning or losing, simply fighting them. So Kit not defeating Grievous but doing well via his advantages =/= a better fighter than Grievous."
Wrong, Shi-Cho is at a disadvantage in lightsaber combat:
"Because the ancient Jedi did not have lightsaber-wielding enemies, Form I does not address the lightsaber-to-lightsaber combat."
-- Jedi vs Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force
A disadvantaged Fisto was casually beating Grievous. The first quote clearly refers to when Grievous received his MagnaGuards as reinforcements, and the second contradicts the actual film, plus the episode guide:
"Fisto shears off one of Grievous' hands, reclaiming that lightsaber. He then begins to overpower the general, at which point Grievous' bodyguards enter the fray. Fisto is outnumbered. But just then, Arsix arrives in the Jedi starfighter. Kit leaps aboard the fighter as it flies away."
-- Lair of Grievous: Episode Guide
"Tell that to Coleman Trebor and Even Piell"
What? Ignoring the fact that both these Jedi were taken off-guard at the time of their death, even if they were weak(which, they're not), that would make them the exception, not the rule. While we're on the topic, both of these Jedi are better than Anakin and Obi-Wan. They scale off of AOTC Fisto, who is better than Grievous who is better than Anakin and Obi-Wan.
"To say Vader is weaker than Prime Kenobi who is weaker than Fisto who is weaker than Koon is more then ludicrous and utterly baseless. You can't find one feat for the Jedi that would allow them to survive being oneshot with the Force by a morals off Vader, you'll just sit and hide behind your quotes that don't support your position and your scaling that doesn't work and is based on nothing but headcanon, baseless claims, and the clear absence of common sense and logic."
You've failed again. I know these facts will make you angry, and refute your preconceived narrative, but that won't alter reality. According to all the valid evidence, Vader cannot solo. In fact, he'd probably lose to either Jedi. Logic, facts and scaling just don't agree with you, no matter how long you deny it.
Tenebrous solos, Vader is unnecessary.
Log in to comment