Talk:Lightsaber combat/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Query

What are the sources for these styles of combat? It sounds like fan-generated bantha-poodu to me. Drhaggis 04:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added the sources, sorry that they weren't there, but you may also want to see [1] --qrc 03:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Warning

Would it be possible to add a more detailed Spoiler Warning? The generic spoiler remark is useless given the fact that this article isn't linked to a particular movie or computer game, but rather a whole universe across a massive timeframe. The article then goes on to spoil Episode III amongst other things. I can imagine that other people like myself, might not be a happy bunny after reading some of the lines contained in the article.

Indeed, should these spoilers really be included in a discussion about lightsabre styles? Individual character deaths and battles might not always be appropriate, as characters will have different mastery of a given style and extenuating factors might come into play. General tactical weaknesses and advantages might be useful. The idea that style Y is worse than style X solely because A lost to B at C is a bit silly.

  • I think it brings out each one's weakness and exposes it. It's also seemed to be big enough of a reason for Obi-wan to switch from Ataru to Soresu.
    • I don't think people understand what a "Spolier" is, because it's all over everything. These concepts, well very wonderful, do not come into direct reference in the movies, and hardly spoil any great secrets in the books or anything else. Most laughable of all (though still valid... barely) is having a "Spoiler Warning" on Star Wars (Ep IV) itself - as if most people have not seen it!
      • Agreed. There also has to be a 'statue of limitations' on spoilers. If certain people haven't seen the movie/read the book/played the video game within a reasonable time period (often a very generous time period, by the way some site spoiler policies are worded), sorry -- the rest of the world is moving on.
        • I dont think there is a limitation on spoilers, nor should there. The point of the warning is there to let people know that if they haven't seen it then information they are about to read could ruin the experience. Does it matter if the media is 100 years old? Does that change the fact that a person may not want to have it ruined for them and "accidentally" stumbles onto it becuase nobody posted a warning to that effect? Whenever specific plots, interactions, relationships or situations are being given a warning should be included. Simple as that. Enigmatical 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vfd

On 28 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep and move to Lightsaber combat. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Seven forms of lightsaber combat for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 01:59, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maneuvers and marks of combat

A few of these I know to be completely official, as I read in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones The Visual Dictionary, but the sources supporting some of the others I don't completely trust. I've listed those maneuvers/marks anyway, but if someone could help me find additional, more official sources, to support anything other than jung, jung ma, sai, shun, and kai-kan, all of which are listed officially in the Visual Dictionary for Episode II, that'd be very helpful. --qrc 04:29, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Where did this stuff about the forms of lightsaber combat originate? Was it first mentioned in one of the Star Wars Universe books, did it come from a Star Wars Video game, etc? I'd like to know and I think it'd be worth adding to the article if somebody wants to hunt down that info :) -Cookiemobsta

[edit] Double-bladed?

Is there a place for the double-bladed style of combat used by Exar Kun and Darth Maul?

  • My opinion is that the double-bladed style of combat was a Sith variant of Jar-Kai...

Darth maul used a form of Vaapad though a doulble-bladed lightsaber may have a unique form. It seems to me the style depends on how aggressive the sith/Jedi wishes to be.

He does use the Vaapad form in combination with Ataro. The double-bladed lightsaber is not a style of combat but a style of lightsaber that is considered a "Sith Lightsaber".

[edit] Ataro

Matthew Stover uses the spelling with the 'o' instead of the 'u' in other sources in his novelization of Episode III, and this is more canon than the assorted reference books, so it is my opinion that this spelling should be used here. M412k 00:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The possibility exists that he simply spelled it wrong and no one cared. "Ataru" seems to be the accepted spelling. —qrc 01:16, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
but even Labyrinth of Evil used the spelling Ataro also.
In Knights of the Old republic II : The Sith Lords, the spelling is Ataru.
I stay Ataru, as it yields more relevant results when searched for.
Ataro may have been used occasionally, but ataru is definitely the accepted spellling. --Tim (talk), (contribs) 11:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Form II

Nick Gillard, the stunt coordinator for the Star Wars films, stated that Dooku's fencing style is based on Egyptian swordplay, hence, the scimitar-like handle. Currently the article says that the fighting technique has Spanish influences. 24.253.120.206 19:13, 3 June 2005 (UTC)

Source? From where did you get that information? —qrc 17:18, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kai-kan-Moved from article page

This article seems to be incomplete) I assume that this is in fact the action of stabbing backwards between the arm and torso. I moved this material here but forgot to sign. Rx StrangeLove 02:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

So Kai-kan is a reenactment of a famous battle? Can someone quote a source for this and explain it more?

[edit] British versus American spelling

It's obvious that British spellings of words and American spellings are duking it out on this article. I think the American spelling would be more appropriate. Examples are: 'manoeuvres' should be 'maneuvers'; 'favour' should be 'favor'; etc.

English is English, don't be hatin'!

Altough I agree that the american spelling should be employed here, I find amusing that you mentioned "english is english" as to say: "english is american english". English comes from England, and it is the basis of the language. Quase 03:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jar'Kai

This is apparently an ancient form of combat using two swords that is in X-Wing Alliance, and has been further referenced in The New Essential Guide to Characters in Darth Maul's entry as a form of combat he uses, and in a Wizards of the Coast Star Wars D20 online supplement. Here's the URL: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/sw20050526a

It is about the Dark Forces game, the entry in question about Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight. The character Boc uses two lightsabers in tandem to fight, and the entry states he uses Jar'Kai. So should this be added to this page? Naked Snake 20:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Medstar I: Battle Surgeons, Bariss Offee refers to another Jedi Knight to Jar'Kai in relation to a Jedi Knight and martial arts mater who used two sabers.

  • If Jar-Kai is the art of dual sabers then what is the name of the art of a staff aka double-sided lightsaber? I think that perhaps Jar-Kai is the dual saber art and that the staff saber art is a variant. ~Grand Master Ravion

The inventer of the saberstaff never used Jar'kai any link between them may just be that they are both fairly unorthodox.

[edit] Darth Sidious

It apperas that Darth Sidious used Form IX: Shien in Revenge of the Sith. I can't confirm this but if you notice his fighting style when he battles Mace Windu that Palpatine has a unique fighting style compared to anyone else. Does anyone have any more info on his Light Saber fighting style? Supercoop 18:57, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Actually, ,ost of not all of the animal-related nicks for the forms (way of the Rancor etc) came from the former Combat Master of our SW online club, the Dark Brotherhood, and are not in any way canon. The club is going to get rid ot it though, as they kinda suck in the eyes of most of the members.

  • Darth Sidious's lightsaber combat form was, perhaps, Dun Moch, the Sith combat form. Just an idea, no source but my own logic. ~Grand Master Ravion

I notice someone has listed Sidious (Palpatine) under Form VII as well as IV. I think VII's the right call - he doesn't seem nearly as acrobatic as Yoda, but he does use a number of oddly positioned and paced strikes, like Windu.

[edit] Did Sula Burq co-create Vaapad?

In 'Shatterpoint', by Matt Stover, Mace says that Sula used Vaapad, but Depa Bilaba was the only Jedi (besides Mace himself) to master it. I don't recall mention that Sula helped in the style's creation, though I have seen that referenced here and on some fansites.

it was Sora Bulq who co-created Vaapad with Mace Windu. Starwars.com databank has stated that.

[edit] Accuracy

"In the time near the Clone Wars, the Jedi Order seldom practices this technique. There is, if at all, so little lightsaber-to-lightsaber combat involved in a Jedi's life that Jedi Masters have found it impractical. However, Makashi was very common during the older years, before the advent of blasters, when melee weapons were abundant." - from the article

I've always thought the blaster was invented before the lightsaber. Your sources or references? Also, even if lightsabers came before the blasters, there were always bullets. So that statement above doesn't seem to make much sense. Of course, this is assuming that bullets actually got invented in the Star Wars universe. But it wouldnt' make sense to evolve from metal melee weapons, then to lightsabers, and finally to blasters.

Maybe it should be discussed in this article why storm troopers just don't bring back bullet-rifles; that way, Jedi cannot dodge or deflect beams of laser; they will be forced to outrun bullets (which is improbable). Maybe the combat style of Jedi are good enough to battle bullets as well? This odd scenario could be discussed. Or maybe it's better to not mention it at all.

Jedi can use the force to stop bullets in much the same way as seen in the matrix.

  • Bullets would be disintergrated in the lightsaber's blade, if you think logically about it. About the blasters "before" the lightsaber, Ben Kenobi stated that the lightsabers were remienscent of an older, more civilized age. ~Grand Master Ravion of the CJO

Also, I've noticed that the lightsaber styles shown in the films (kendo & iaido) are developed around the katana sword. Lightsabers are NOTHING like katanas; they have little to no weight in the blade section, the are not one-edged, and katanas require much force and power to cut a torsil in half. With a lightsaber, that requires little to no effort. So I guess my question is, which of the lightsaber styles best reflects the lightsaber, and not the katana or any other metal sword for that matter? One explanation for using the Japanese sword styles may be because jedis often fight against other peoples wielding lightsabers; so strikes require more strength in those cases.

Are these combat styles considered canonical (or at least, originating from the Expanded Universe)?

please read the very first part of the article: They are never mentioned directly in the released Star Wars films, but the details of the saber styles are explored in novelizations as well as expanded universe sources such as the novels, magazines, comic books, the Star Wars Role-playing Game and "Visual Dictionaries." As for the blaster VS saber problem, I will quote the passage from Star Wars Insider, Issue 62 (One of the very first source detailing the seven forms) : Today Form II is an archaism studied by almost no one in the Jedi Order, because it is not relevant to current tactical situations, in which Jedi enemies rarely fight with lightsabers. Even with the resurgence of the Sith, confrontation of an enemy with a lightsaber is an exceedingly rare prospect for a Jedi, so they continue to focus on more practical Forms. Sith expecting to battle lightsaber-wielding Jedi, however, find Form II a powerful technique. AND The third great lightsaber discipline was first developed in response to the advancement of blaster technology in the galaxy. As these weapons spread widely into the hands of evil-doers, Jedi had to develop unique means of defending themselves. Darth Kevinmhk 15:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shien / Djem So

What about this form? Is Shien, is it Djem So? is it both? In the game KotOR 2 it is known as "Shien", that's all I know for sure. So where does the "Djem So" come from? Any official source?

  • I believe that this form is more accurately known as Shien based both on KOTOR's naming and the ROTS novelization which states that Anakin uses Shien, Form V. I think that perhaps, Djem-So was developed as the name because at one time Sokan was misnamed Shien. Therefore, it would be another Niman and Niman confusion. Does that help clear it up? ~Grand Master Ravion
    • Yes it does, however I do believe that the confusion comes from this page, where the Shien technique is described as "unique, with a Jedi holding their lightsaber horizontally. The tip of the blade was pointed at the opponent, and was swung in a quick arc as the Jedi punched their sword-hand at their opponent." This is surely a clumsy and inaccurate attempt to describe the real Form V / Shien described in more details in this article. Therefore Form V was rename Shien/Djem So to avoid confusion allthough it appears these are two different yet very close styles (like Vaapad and Juyo). I think this Form IX should be removed anyway, just by looking as it's description, which Jedi would use such a technique?

[edit] Anakin Skywalker's form

If I remember correctly it is said in the Visual Dictionnary of Episode II that Anakin Skywalker is learning (or has learned I'm not sure) form IV, why is it said here that he is a practitionner of form V?

  • ROTS novelization says that Anakin practices Shien Form V...

[edit] copyright

According to User:JuJuJuJu, the material he is removing is directly copied from a book called "Power of the Jedi", published by Wizard of the Coast. I'm in no position to verify that assertion, so before reverting, please take this into consideration. --Spangineeres (háblame) 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I assume he's referring to this book, but it's not showing up on google print. The text he is removing has not changed significantly over the past month (see [2]), so I we should take this at face value and do a rewrite of the material he has removed. -Spangineeres (háblame) 17:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll do a rewrite, based on available content. If he removes again, I'll revert to my re-write. I hope he notices the talk page. AKismet 17:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that trivially changing text still constitutes plagiarism. It must be a substantial rewrite and avoid using Product Identity. My congratulations on your arrogant attitude, by the by. Otherwise, I hope you notice the court orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuJuJuJu (talk • contribs) 18:35, 15 December 2005

We're not trying to be arrogant, we're trying to write a good article. Please, unless you wish to help us re-write it, legal threats are pointless... AKismet 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I've temporarily restored content with the copyright notice up. If you wish to remove the content again, feel free, but leave the copyright notice intact so we can resolve this quickly. AKismet 17:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying you'll revert any changes to your rewrite is nothing but pure arrogance. As far as legal threats go, I am just pointing out the obvious. If you continue to plagiarize you will find that it brings stiffer penalties than the detention you would recieve at school. In the real world, where Wikipedia is for better or for worse, plagiarism is a serious legal matter. You and the other editors here need to be aware of this fact and learn to respect copyright and Product Identity. There is in fact a notice on the editing page that Content must not violate copyright. So feel free to quote whatever you like to me, your own Wikipedia is making the very same "legal threat" to you every time you edit. A good thing too, it is better to learn the harsh reality now that plagiarism will land you in hot water, than to find out later when you are sharing a cell with a serial rapist awaiting trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuJuJuJu (talk • contribs) 18:48, 15 December 2005

I'll ignore your direct threats against my person, and the fact that you have ignored the 'no legal threats' policy of wikipedia yourself: I did not write the content you find questionable. However, I was attempting to help you by removing the copyrighted content and re-writing to a form that is acceptable and non-copyright infringing. I claimed I would revert to my re-write if you attempted to delete it wholesale once more, without speaking to us. Since you've been polite enough to communicate your wishes, I won't do that. Please try to be helpful, instead of issuing threats. Is there any temporary compromise we can come to that allows us to retain the information about Lightsaber combat, without citing your copyrighted material wholesale? AKismet 17:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bluster as much as you like, I have made neither direct threats against your person, nor any legal threats. If you choose to percieve my statement of the logical consequences of ignoring copyright law as a threat, then I doubt you will fare well in society. If a friend tells you to stop speeding or you'll get a ticket, this isn't a legal threat nor is it in some bizarre fashion a threat against your person. It is a statement of fact. Perhaps you are a sociopath, so I will not hold your inability to understand normal human conversation against you, but will instead chalk it up to your youth and the ill treatment you have recieved from your peers at school. Regardless, you need to set aside your personal confusion and address the issue at hand. If you wish to rewrite, feel free to do so, but you must make sure you understand what constitutes plagiarism. I suggest a reference such as the APA handbook, not Wikipedia. You cannot be sure of the veracity of any statements made here, so seek the definition in printed media. Is there a temporary compromise? Of course not, without a good rewriting the materail CAN NOT BE INCLUDED HERE. It would constitute a violation of copyright. Furthermore, I seriously doubt the community at large will suffer from it having been removed while an alternative is found. This article is pure fiction and full of original "research". Such drivel has no importance in the immediate sense of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuJuJuJu (talk • contribs) 19:22, 15 December 2005

I agree the content of the article is not important - after all, it's just lightsaber combat and not the symptoms of a heart attack. I've left the copyright notice up, the content is removed. I have ceased any attempts at re-writing said content, and you claim there is no possible alternative without continued legal threats. If you wish to address this further, you'll have to speak to the community at large instead of myself. In the mean time, is there any way you can prove your claim directly? You have yet to indicate yourself where the copyrighted content has been taken from, and your ownership of/relation to the copyright. AKismet 18:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never claimed ownership of the copyright, I have previously indicated where it was from, and that information has been relayed here already under this topic by another user. I will not indulge your laziness and point out what has already been shown here. You have the ability to read this small section and see it for yourself. As I said, a rewrite is fine, just make sure it is substantial.

Just a comment: Searching through the text "Power of the Jedi Sourcebook" on Amazon.com reveals nothing of the disputed context. Looking through the index, it doesn't seem to discuss "The seven forms of lightsaber combat" at all. Rasmus (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My apology, it is in "Hero's Guide", I mispoke.

I was unduely uncivil in my comments, and I apologize for that. I was having a bad day, and amusing myself at the expense of the people here. I apologize for my behavior and ask for your forgiveness. I do believe the text *may* infringe, but after another reading I am no longer certain and recommend it be added back in. -JUJUJUJU

[edit] Surreal

I just want to point out that this is one of the most surreal articles I've seen on Wikipedia. Well done!


[edit] Stass Allie's Source

Which source indicate that Jedi Master Stass Allie practice Form I ?

[edit] Non encyclopedic opening

The article starts with : "Lightsaber combat is real. They've invented them, but the FDA has outlawed them because they are too dangerous! I've managed to obtain a few for me and my gang. Here are some rad techniques you can use if you manage to get your hands on one too!" I don't know how to mark it for vanity / style / vandalism (or which it falls under for that matter). FlyHigh 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite disgusted by today's events. (A similar sequence of events happened over on Sith too, which I was forced to semiprotect as well). It seems a bunch of anons and newly registered users staged a prolonged and intermixed number of vandalisms, hoping, as happened, that the individual editors would not see the full extent of the vandalism and leave thinking they'd caught it all. I had to do no less than two long term reverts today to catch all of the vandalism (I think).
To stop a repetition of that, I've semiprotected the page. --maru (talk) Contribs 23:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ki-Adi-Mundi & Stass Allie

Can anyone confirm the source of Ki and Stass? If so let's add the source into the article to make it looks more reliable, if not please delete their names from Shii-Cho. Darth Kevinmhk

Because from what i could gather, only Kit Fisto was a confirmed Form I master thanks to The Cestus Deception and ROTS Visual Dictionary. Darth Kevinmhk 03:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source of Zero, IIX to X?

actually, what is the source of Form Zero, Form IIX, Form IX and Form X? -Darth Kevinmhk 03:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Expanded Universe. But I think they missed something on one of the forms. It states that keeping the lightsaber switched off saves on the energy it takes to keep it on; however, lightsabers only expend energy and heat when they hit something(like another lightsaber).

[edit] Sidious and Niman????

If anyone can paste the source of "Nick Gillard stated that Sidious was a master of Form VI", it would be nice. Otherwise that part of the article would better be removed. Darth Kevinmhk 13:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Nick Gillard knows any of the "form" stuff anyway, he always stated that each Jedi and Sith has its particular style.

[edit] Speculatory

"As well, it has been stated that Darth Maul was a practitioner of Juyo (as well as kind of Vaapad technique). So it is only logical that Sidious himself would be proficient in the Juyo form as he instructed Darth Maul."

Sidious didn't train Tyranus or Vader, as they were both fallen Jedi, so what reason is there to assume he trained Maul? Maybe this should be removed?

--W0lfkin 08:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


1. Sidious indeed trained Maul. We can see the training session in EU comic / books (Darth Maul Comic series / EP1 Adventure The Fury of Darth Maul / etc) 2. Sidious train Tyranus on dark side and Sith teaching. Dooku mentioned it during Labyrinth of Evil. --Darth Kevinmhk 04:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Maul was literally raised from childbirth by Sidious to become a Sith.

[edit] Completed some revisions on 7 forms section

I just completed a fairly decent number of edits on the 7 forms section. Some statements are no longer in the current version (esp. in the Form VII section) as these appeared to border on copyvio, so I erred on the side of caution. Some redundant statements were also removed. Please let me know if anyone objects. --BinaryTed 19:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly chart

I say we delete the chart. No forms of combat in any world are that simple and it looks like an expanded form of rock, paper scissors. Mithridates 15:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. IMHO that is more about tactics than about rock, paper, scissors: first you must understand, which form your opponent is using and then adjust to it accordingly. --Koveras 20:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
!? Which chart are you guys talking about? Darth Kevinmhk 03:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I hid it, but here's what it looked like:

Form Countered by
I: Shii-Cho All, except Form VI
II: Makashi Form V
III: Soresu Form II
IV: Ataru Form VII
V: Shien / Djem So Form III ¹
VI: Niman All Forms
VII: Juyo / Vaapad So far unknown

¹ Form III cannot defeat Form V but blocks all its attacks.

Mithridates 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This chart is one of the most meaningless thing i have ever seen in the history of Wikipedia and Star Wars. It should never appear in the article. Darth Kevinmhk 13:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not 100% reliable and depend on many things (the degree of mastery mostly), but I think it's quite correct ; actually I kinda like it.

Delete. Definitely not worth including. Fighting styles don't really "counter" each other; that's a very naive view of things, IMO. --GenkiNeko 05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Form VIII

Is there really a form 8? - plau

Sokan can be found in Hero's Guide Web Enhancement Material from WOTC. Whether it belongs to Form VIII is debateable. But still a form known as Sokan exists. Darth Kevinmhk 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The Unofficial Form numbers were removed some time ago as they were pure fan conjecture. The Forms that were numbered VIII-X are now simply listed by their names under "Other Forms".

[edit] reference from Wookieepedia

  • Honestly, suggest we infuse elements from Wookieepedia into this article.. recently the lightsaber combats and the seven forms in Wookieepedia are greatly expanded with all the canonical proof from trustworthy sources. (recently, i contributed on Wooki's lightsaber combat section much) Maybe later I would select the gd parts from Wookiee and put them here. Darth Kevinmhk 03:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exar Kun is NOT a Makashi user

  • Darth Kevinmhk 03:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC) as titiled. Thus his name will be removed.
  1. Proof (Scan of Insider 62): http://www.dmeb2.org/darthmaulsection/swinsider62.html
  2. Site who said he is: http://swg.stratics.com/content/gameplay/professions/jedi/lightsaber_combat.php
I'm not following your proof. That article, as far as I could make out from the scans never even mentioned Exar Kun. --maru (talk) contribs 06:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe my last post was confusing, let me explain: There was a site (2nd URL in the last comment) who claimed "Exar is a Form II Master", and the site claimed that (at the bottom of their page) the info came from Insider #62, in the article "Fightsaber: Jedi Lightsaber Combat". So, i attached another site (1st URL), with the scan of #62, to prove that Insider62 said nothing about "Exar Kun = Form II Master". Thz for yr kind attention. Darth Kevinmhk 14:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, exposing your logic backwards can be confusing sometimes... Quase 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gibberish

"Emotional control is key, as is letting one's emotions fly free. This is not a contradiction, as displayed by Yoda's firm control despite his screams and grunts."

This sounds suspiciously like the 4 day time cube type of writing. I think this is silly, but no it is not silly. This is not a contradiction because you have to understand that what is and what is not is at the same time is. --Ignignot 20:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It still could be stated better, like, "Emotional control is key. Without knowing when and, more importantly, how, to let out one's emotions, one could easily be killed in battle with another." Billvoltage 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think this article should mention which form the star wars kid used. --Ignignot 13:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He used a form? 0.o --maru (talk) contribs 06:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if he does use a form, I believe that it should be with-held from the article, as that has nothing to do with cannonical Lightsaber forms. Also, who is with my revision? ("Emotional control is key. Without knowing when and, more importantly, how to let out one's emotions, one could easily be killed in battle with another.") Billvoltage 18:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with it; in fact, I'm so with it that I'm going to put it in the article.

[edit] Huge page

this page seems WAY too long and detailed for its own right on wikipedia and seems better suited to a seperate fan-based star wars wiki.

Seems fine to me. And Wookieepedia already has a page on this. --maru (talk) contribs 06:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit large, however, I wish to ask you (and asking I am) what do you suggest we take out? Billvoltage 01:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I won't care about the size, but I hardly find it useful (except when you are looking for these "fan-generated-bantha-poo-doo") as I'm not only looking for these information, but also the moves of each style. You know, the stances, parries, ripostes and whatever.
Its true, there is nothing that can be taken out because it is important to be encyclopedic about an unofficial aspect of a fictional universe. --Ignignot 16:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ataru and death of Qui-Gon Jinn

In the section on the Ataru form it mentions the following:

This weakness was demonstrated in The Phantom Menace, when Qui-Gon Jinn was killed by Darth Maul in a confined space

Maybe my recollection of the film was a little fuzzy but wasn't he killed out in the open? I distinctly remember Qui-Gon fighting Darth Maul near an open pit, Maul out-maneauvered him and while Qui-Gon raised his lightsaber above his head to strike a downward blow, maul came up and under to pierce him through the chest. The space was not confined and in fact was wide open. Enigmatical 04:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It was pretty narrow, IMO. The sides wasn't more than 8 or so feet wide, and around a big gaping hole (so one would need to keep one's distance). The fight around the hole and the fight amidst the openair reactor looked quite different to me- much less moving around and jumping. --maru (talk) contribs 05:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And the Gung Fu (Kung Fu) that was actually used to create Yoda's moves?

If you watch the animatic (like a moving storyboard) for Yoda's first on screen battle you will see a simplified digital Yoda bouncing around Dooku only whenever he pulls a move he becomes a diminutive Michelle Yeoh as cut directly from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon".

Whether Yeoh recieved credit or payment for her contribution I don't know, but I do know that Yoda knows Gung Fu, I am absolutely sure that it didn't start and end there. When I see a picture of any Jedi in one of the classic stances I see Gung Fu, and that is the art form I tell my students they used to make the Jedis' sword fights look so good.

The origin of true martial arts, the source: Gung Fu. --Mark Somerville 03:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any references for this, or is this just your impression? --maru (talk) contribs 05:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I haven't even looked for the animatic online as I'm sure that things like that are under pretty tight control. I would like to see it again because it's darn funny, I'd like to show it to friends to make them laugh.

I am still thinking that it was some kind of oversight that it was shown in a Siggraph meeting whose guest speaker was also able to give us a peek at Yoda-facial-muscle software.

The bit about the origin and source of martial arts is pretty speculative, though, that was blustery. It was a long time ago, many schools, many stories, most of them fantastic in every sense.

Mark Somerville 06:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There's really no real account of the origin of true Martial Arts. The Greeks developed Pankration on their own, and the Egyptians had Martial Arts separate from Gung Fu. This is true for Weapon Arts, although there is a claim made on another webpage about the giants that can be considered a speculation of the beginnings of martial arts in the Cacasus. Here, at Mysterious World: the Wars of Gog and Magog section. The article tells of the divide between East and West. [3] -- Elton Robb 08:39, 1 Jan 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References and Original research

Folks, given the the deletion discussion is likely to result in keep/no consensus, I've tagged this article as {{Unreferenced}} and {{Original research}}. There are no references at all in this long article and it reads as Fancruft from a Star wars Fanzine. We need reliable sources referenced in the text, preferably with <ref> tags, else this article'll be up for deletion again in the near future- Peripitus (Talk) 09:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] clean up

  • Just did a clean up: Plo Koon, Agen Kolar, Shaak Ti, Stass Allie and Even Piell were NEVER confirmed of knowing any form; while Insider 87 confirmed Cin Drallig knowing Forms I to VI and teaching them to thousands of students. Darth Kevinmhk 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] However,!

Is it just me, or is 'however' used too much? It seems that it is used too often, even in sentences where it does not belong. --Soetermans 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merging with Trispzest

I think that Trispzest should be merged with this article, because it is a small lightsaber combat variation, with litte or no canon backup. I already created a mergeto link from that page. --Joachim Grissom. 11 July 2006

Trispzest has plenty of canon backup. Don't confuse not being widespread or common with having "little or no canon"icity. --Rhwawn (talk to Rhwawn) 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "canon backup" is in this conversation unless you two are talking about information. If yes, then there is enough information about the style but I do like the idea about Trispzest being merged with the lightsaber combat page as one of the "Other forms of lightsaber combat." It makes sense in my opinion because then, you would have another style to look at instead of not knowing that Trispzest even existed unless you looked it up.

I would disagree that Trispzest should be included in this article because it is not a style in and of itself. It is simply an indigenous name given to the strategic advantage of a flying lightsaber dualist vs. a grounded one. --John Brainard 21 December 2006

I support the merger on the grounds that the "Other Forms" section is not about the strictly defined "forms" (i.e.: I-VII) but about other methods and techniques of lightsaber use outside of the proper forms, such as throwing, Tràkata, Dun möch, and combinations of forms. Dun möch, for example, is simply a name given to non-lightsaber techniques used in a saber battle. Perhaps the problem is the word "form" in the section title, and that should be changed to "uses," "methods," "tactics," or the like. --Jack Enneking. 17 January 2007

[edit] This Page is Getting Unwieldy

This page is so long I'm having trouble navigating it. Can we start putting a summary of each style on this page, combined with a link to a page devoted that style? I think Makashi, Ataru, etc. are plenty big for their own pages. I'm not sure what should be done with Cho mak, Cho sun, etc. I guess leave them unlinked until they become multiple paragraphs. I would also like to see carefully chosen screenshots demonstrating the most important move for each style discussed in the text. -- Peregrinefisher 06:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that splitting this article into multiple pages is a good idea (But not I, said the duck). However, pictures for each style subsection might be too much for some viewers to download; I think the information itself is fine. --The Edit0r 01:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Honorable Marks of Combat?

Alright, so stabbing, decapacitating, and slicing someone's torso from their legs are all dishonorable ways of killing one's opponent. What would be an honorable way? The only thing left is maybe a diagonal chop from an opponent's shoulder or collar bone down into their vital organs? I think something about this should be added to the page. Inferno 04:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anakin Picture

Just as a suggestion, I think that a better picture of Anakin can be showed under the title "Form V: Shien / Djem So," possibly one that shows him in actual combat. The Editor 22:40, 29 July 2006

[edit] Opening Section

The article reads, "The stage combat used in the films are a combination of Kendo, Iaido, and occidental sword work such as fencing, and the names resemble Japanese to reflect this." How does it follow that the names resemble Japanese if the stage combat includes "occidental sword work"? --S Roper 19:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arret Tiv

An anon (151.xxx apparently) is repeatedly inserting "Arret Tiv" in Star Wars related articles here and on it.wiki. The anon claims this character was a padawan who was trained by Cin Drallig. I'd like to know whether this is fanon or not, since i found nothing about this on Wookieepedia and on the SW Databank. Google only returns a few hits. --Canderous Ordo 19:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jedi infomation

Top Known Masters of lightsaber combat:

  • Yoda (Mastery all forms, greatest Ataru master)
  • Count Dooku (Trained all forms, greatest Makashi master)
  • Cin Drallig (Master form I, VI, trained in all other forms)
  • Obi Wan Kenobi (Trained in forms I, IV, VI, the Soresu master)
  • Anakin Skywalker / Darth Vader (Form V Master, very advanced Ataru)
  • Darth Maul (Master of Juyo, highly trained Ataru acrobatics)
  • Mace Windu (Knowledgable in all forms, Vaapad master and creator, form V practitioner)
  • Darth Sidious (Trained all forms, Juyo, and Ataru Master)
  • General Grievous (Trained in all forms), amazing four style combat


I like this. But shouldn't there be a list of Top Known Masters of lightsaber combat from before the time of Dooku and Yoda and from Luke's time.