Question about Jedi

Question about Jedi

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:23 am

So as mentioned, I'm not that big a Star Wars fan, so I don't know much about the lore of the Jedi and what might have been established about them. But I read something in another forum that got me wondering...

Is it necessarily the case that when a Jedi who is stronger with the force fights a Jedi (or Sith or whatever) who is weaker, that the one with the most Force ability will be the victor?

Now I'm not talking here about silly accidents intervening. Sure, two Jedi might be fighting only to have a big rock drop onto the most force-capable guy and distract him or something.

Rather, what I'm talking about is a Jedi who is weaker than the other, but makes up for it in other ways.

So say two guys are sabre fighting and one is much bigger/stronger than the other. Is that a factor in the fight? IIRC, the force can give you super physical abilities like running at super speed and jumping huge distances. So Luke Skywalker might arm-wrestle a big muscular guy and win because he has N force strength, sure. But if that guy is just as strong with the force as Luke, does that mean they both have N strength, so it's a draw?

Or does your force ability multiply your actual muscle ability, so the muscular guy with equal force power is that much stronger? And the same for speed, agility, etc.

What about other factors? I mean, does having force ability just automatically make you a great sabre fighter, or is there actual skill involved as well? So could there be a Jedi who has, say, half of Luke's force ability but is three times better with a light sabre, and thus able to win?

Or what about attitude? Could a weaker force used win because he had more self confidence, more aggressiveness, or just chose a style better suited to the terrain?

See, in a discussion about who is the strongest Jedi, I see people using arguments like "Luke beat Vader, so he is stronger." Whereas it seemed to me that Vader actually all but beat Luke, and it was only when he threatened Leia that Luke rage-beat him, winning on sheer aggressiveness and adrenaline.

So what say those who know way more about this than I do?
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11160
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby Captain Seafort » Sat Dec 19, 2015 10:18 am

Graham Kennedy wrote:See, in a discussion about who is the strongest Jedi, I see people using arguments like "Luke beat Vader, so he is stronger." Whereas it seemed to me that Vader actually all but beat Luke, and it was only when he threatened Leia that Luke rage-beat him, winning on sheer aggressiveness and adrenaline.


The easiest counter to this is the reason Vader is in the suit to start with. It's universally agreed that, in terms of raw power, Anakin Skywalker was a lot stronger than Obi-Wan Kenobi. Nonetheless, when they fought on Mustafar, Kenobi was able to avoid a rapid defeat because he kept retreating throughout the battle, trading space for time, until eventually he was able to gain a tactical advantage, applied his sound knowledge of Anakin's personality to wind him up, and Anakin got impatient (for the umpteenth time time). Result: one flame-grilled limbless Sith.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15478
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:19 pm

That makes a lot more sense than "I have the high ground!"

But it's the kind of thing I mean - using psychology and clever tactics to beat an opponent, rather than "Winner = stronger with force".
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11160
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby sunnyside » Sat Dec 19, 2015 5:43 pm

While the force allows lifting of substantial quantities with telekinesis, force users haven't exibited particular super strength in general. Nor do they seem to be moving with super speed, rather the predictive nature of the force allows a greater ability to make the right movement (I.e. blocking a blaster or firing a spaceship weapon).

So I'd think one's inherant physicality would still matter. Though while a larger stronger body might usually be a benefit in combat, that mass seems to work against you if you try to use the force to move yourself around.

And as mentioned strategy is significant. Also the very mental aspect if force use means that ones mental state at that instant is very significant.
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby Captain Seafort » Sat Dec 19, 2015 6:55 pm

sunnyside wrote:While the force allows lifting of substantial quantities with telekinesis, force users haven't exibited particular super strength in general. Nor do they seem to be moving with super speed, rather the predictive nature of the force allows a greater ability to make the right movement (I.e. blocking a blaster or firing a spaceship weapon).


They are, however, insanely tough. Look at this. Anakin was in free-fall for about 14 seconds before he hit the speeder. Under Earth-normal gravity he would therefore have been moving at about 300 mph when he hit. Under Legends-canon Coruscant gravity (calculated here), which may or may not remain the case under D-canon, he would have been going at over 430 mph. Either way, he should have gone splat.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15478
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby sunnyside » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:55 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:They are, however, insanely tough. Look at this. Anakin was in free-fall for about 14 seconds before he hit the speeder. Under Earth-normal gravity he would therefore have been moving at about 300 mph when he hit. Under Legends-canon Coruscant gravity (calculated here), which may or may not remain the case under D-canon, he would have been going at over 430 mph. Either way, he should have gone splat.


I figured he used the force to slow his fall Heh, maybe an on screen velocity estimate is something the Kennedy's could pull off. It didn't seem like the speed took that kind of an impact.

In general Jedi don't give the flavor of other superheros in terms of toughness where they get slammed into things and it's the things they hit that break. Also, while it isn't easy to hit one, they don't seem to have been any more resilient to a blaster once a shot finally connects. I just never got the impression from on screen Jedi that they were much tougher than a normal version of whatever their species is.
User avatar
sunnyside
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2707
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby IanKennedy » Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:17 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:
sunnyside wrote:While the force allows lifting of substantial quantities with telekinesis, force users haven't exibited particular super strength in general. Nor do they seem to be moving with super speed, rather the predictive nature of the force allows a greater ability to make the right movement (I.e. blocking a blaster or firing a spaceship weapon).


They are, however, insanely tough. Look at this. Anakin was in free-fall for about 14 seconds before he hit the speeder. Under Earth-normal gravity he would therefore have been moving at about 300 mph when he hit. Under Legends-canon Coruscant gravity (calculated here), which may or may not remain the case under D-canon, he would have been going at over 430 mph. Either way, he should have gone splat.

Except, of course, that human terminal velocity on earth is 120mph, no matter how far you fall.
email, ergo spam
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5296
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby Captain Seafort » Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:20 pm

Fair enough. It's not going to make much of a difference when he hits - that velocity should be terminal in more ways than one.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15478
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby McAvoy » Sat Dec 19, 2015 11:28 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:
Graham Kennedy wrote:See, in a discussion about who is the strongest Jedi, I see people using arguments like "Luke beat Vader, so he is stronger." Whereas it seemed to me that Vader actually all but beat Luke, and it was only when he threatened Leia that Luke rage-beat him, winning on sheer aggressiveness and adrenaline.


The easiest counter to this is the reason Vader is in the suit to start with. It's universally agreed that, in terms of raw power, Anakin Skywalker was a lot stronger than Obi-Wan Kenobi. Nonetheless, when they fought on Mustafar, Kenobi was able to avoid a rapid defeat because he kept retreating throughout the battle, trading space for time, until eventually he was able to gain a tactical advantage, applied his sound knowledge of Anakin's personality to wind him up, and Anakin got impatient (for the umpteenth time time). Result: one flame-grilled limbless Sith.


Well in the final battle Luke was taking it easy. He didn't really go full out on Vader. You could also say Vader wasn't either because he didn't have the heart anymore.

Luke has been said to be as powerful as Anakin was supposed to be.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 5234
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby Mikey » Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:44 pm

Another example: Qui-Gon Jinn was stronger in the Force, to all accounts, than Darth Maul - however, Maul killed Jinn in lightsaber combat. Subsequently, Kenobi (who was younger and less experienced than Jinn, if not weaker) killed Maul even after having been at quite a disadvantage. Reasons? None are stated explicitly, but by appearances:

a) martial artistry. Maul was a very skilled "swordsman," which fact was the reason Ray Park was chosen to play him.
b) the physical descriptors of the weaponry involved. Maul had that two-bladed saber, which gave him an advantage in reach, flexibility, and parrying.
c) in the case of Kenobi, creativity/improvisation. Kenobi killed Maul not by superior strength or feats of arms, but by an innovative and surprising move.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:10 pm

Mikey wrote:in the case of Kenobi, creativity/improvisation. Kenobi killed Maul not by superior strength or feats of arms, but by an innovative and surprising move.


Personally, I'd put Maul's defeat down to the same issue that caused Vader to come unstuck - arrogance. He thought he'd already won, so he got cocky, wasn't paying enough attention, and Kenobi took advantage of that. Sith seem prone to thinking they're a lot more capable than they really are - even the Emperor fell victim to the same thing in the end.

On the subject of Maul vs Jinn, I've never seen anything about their relative strengths either way. Where are you getting your information from?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15478
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:08 pm

So here's a question... could an ordinary person be so skilled with a lightsabre that they could defeat a Jedi?
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11160
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Dec 20, 2015 10:17 pm

Graham Kennedy wrote:So here's a question... could an ordinary person be so skilled with a lightsabre that they could defeat a Jedi?


No, because they'd be restricted to reacting to what's already happened. Since Jedi reflexes are a product of being seeing a short time into the future they'd be at least a move or two ahead of them. This assumes that they even bother lighting their sabre, and don't just smack the non-Jedi into a wall from twenty feet away.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15478
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby Graham Kennedy » Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:24 pm

Makes sense.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11160
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK

Re: Question about Jedi

Postby Mikey » Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:25 am

Graham Kennedy wrote:So here's a question... could an ordinary person be so skilled with a lightsabre that they could defeat a Jedi?


Supposedly, an ordinary (non-Force-sensitive) person can't wield a lightsaber at all. Sure, Greivous used four, but the longtime rap is that a person has to be Force-sensitive in order to use a lightsaber. From my limited understanding, the lack of any weight or mass to the blade necessitates Force-user reflexes - this may explain Greivous' ability to use them, as his cyborg reflexes could probably be handwaved as being far superior to baseline human (or baseline whatever he was before his cyborg-ification.)

Captain Seafort wrote:Where are you getting your information from?


I've never seen any information directly presented, I just deduce from the extant sources. To wit:
a) Heirarchical standing. Qui-Gon = master; Maul = apprentice. Not a perfect representation, as Maul's master was more powerful than many of Qui-Gon's heirarchical peers, but it's something.
b) Qui-Gon was spoken of as being quite powerful, even for one of his rank in the Order, and that he would have been a peer of such personages as Yoda and Windu save for his maverick attitude. Maul, OTOH, was simply a stopgap pawn in Sidious' grand scheme.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Next

Return to Star Wars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest