Dual Lightsaber Combat vs. Single Lightsaber Combat

You're really reaching there, strawman

Tell that to the Jedi who got killed by Order 66, or got outfought by sword wielding Manndalorians, Or the Echani who can beat multiple Jedi in hand to hand alone. The Force does not make the user an invincible combatant, even in universe.

 

Knowing a martial art doesn't make one invincible, just more of a challenge.

 

All one has to do is look at the sword masters...Rarely do you see in a martial arts exhibition, kung fu movie, or whatever, the supposed "masters" wielding 2 swords...You see them with a single one. Given that lightsabers are really only technologically advanced swords, we can take the lessons from swords. Masters use one sword over two for a reason.

 

As has been stated, a single blade gives a swordsmans advantages in precision and power that a lunatic swinging two blades about will never have. However, the "I can cut just about anything" power of a lightsaber allows dual wielders to really clean house when faced with groups of blaster-firing thugs/stormies (see: Dark Forces:Jedi Academy).

As used in the Star Wars universe, a saberstaff can be useful when engaging multiple lightsaber wielders (however, it would be nearly useless deflecting blaster bolts). By cutting at an enemy constantly and keeping them moving (compare the amount of space Dooku uses in his fights to how much distance Maul travelled on Naboo), one can keep the enemy off-balance while holding them at range (as has ben mentioned, the staff leaves alot open at close range). But even then, it's a speciality weapon, and Maul seems to prefer a single blade unless the second is really called for.

P.S. Rumsmuggler, what weapon did you fence? I'm a saberist, myself.

 

I did saber, foil, and a bit of epee, but saber is my favorite as far as fencing goes.

I'm ambidextrdous,but I prefer to saber with my right hand and do foil and epee left-handed. One of my former roommates was the president of my university's fencing club and he got me into it after he found out that I was a sword nut like he was. It was fun dueling him because eventually we knew each other's moves and it took forever for either of us to land a hit. It was sorta like playing chess, but with swords. He took Kendo at the same time as I did, so we were pretty decent swordsman after a while.

If I only took the time to improve my gun skills, i'd be pretty bad*** for a civilian.

 

One Lightsaber would allow for greater control and finesse.

However, a lightsaber doesn't really weigh anymore than the handle does. So, control shouldn't be an issue.

For example, in LIGHTSABERS Jacen and Tenel Ka were fighting one handed. Now, Jacen should be able to control a lightsaber with his off hand just as well. The principle is the same.

 

What about wielding dual double-bladed lightsabers?!

 

That's just asking for trouble.

 

Actually, i dont think it is a bad handle just a diffrent one. It would be almost like a katana. Whereas the normal single lightsaber would be like a european sword.

 

I wouldn't go as far as calling it the deadliest martial art in the universe.

 

I think it's been described that way from the beginning hasn't it?

 

Maybe the deadliest in the gffa, but not in the universe.

edit: I don't know if it was described to be the deadliest martial art or not

 

Why not?

Presumably with 1,000,000 cultures and 25,000 years there's no reason it shouldn't be.

 

For once I've got to agree with Goku-boy.

 

Because the art in itself isn't deadly unless it was the intent of the founders to make a killing art. The user is the one that makes it deadly. Tera Kasi just seems to be a variant of intergalactic kung fu, And anyways there is no "ultimate" martial art in my opinion.

 

A one-handed style is also faster than two hands.

Of the 9thcentury, maybe. By the Middle Ages most European swords were made to be gripped two-handed, whether they were intended to be used mainly in two hands or not, and some of the true two-handers had tremendously long grips.

Try to bear in mind that we're talking about Star Wars and not Challemge of the Super Friends, would you?

 

I'm pretty sure it's long been established that "real world" fighting sense doesn't apply to the GFFA. It's supposed to be cinematic, not realistic. No, the Jedi aren't invincible, but within the rules of the setting itself, they aren't complete idiots for fighting the way they do. Or if they -are-, then the vast majority of the galaxy are even -bigger- idiots for not figuring out those weaknesses and exploiting them.

No one's trying to claim that Jedi-fighting (along the Prequel lines) is a practical real-world combat form, but within the setting it's a deadly and effective means of fighting.

 

Security holo-cam got his attention.

 

Well a single blade has pretty much never been an effective combat tool save under special circumstances, namely the question of what the other hand is doing. A single blade weilded in a single hand has only ever been the province of sportsmen or those that fought in highly ritualized situations.

1. Sword and Shield
-Defense coupled with Offense

2. Sword on Horse back
-The other hand has to guide the horse

3. Sword and second short short.
-Even the era when a single blade was stylish paired the Rapier with a Main gauche for the most effective combination.
-This is perhaps the best paralell to the light saber as the combatents fought with little armor.

4. A large two handed sword
-Extra reach and more weight means more power, but you need another hand to keep the speed up.
-No star wars equivalent

The real problem with the two handed saber grip is that capitalizes on none of the strengths of the blade, namely its weightless nature and near impossible sheering edge. You don't need force save for a saber cross, and even then, if you have a short second saber you can match force with a dual block, or you can hold the opponent via force redirection and then gut him with a second attack.

A double saber is an intersting idea but it eventually boils down to being a more limited version of two sabers. Though Exar Kuns variable length.

IT all boils down to two blades being better than one in all logical circumstances, and the double saber being impractically bad. However if you are going to hold the blade with one hand and then use the other to do something, like attack with the force, assuming you need it to do that, then fine. But against two attacking blades having one weightless blade is the height of stupidity.

You have two hands and you should always use them. Now a long handle like that of Darth Nihil is a good plan as there you actually get to use leverage on a saber to saber clash and can use the extended reach.

 

A swordsman using a two-handed grip is faster and stronger than someone using a blade in each had. The user has greater control of the blade, and can easily maneuver around a one-handed defense. He can also overwhelm the defender's block, and thrust with greater precision, as well as put more force behind the stab. It's also easier to block/cut in the same motion with a two-handed grip, essentially making the sword a shield/blade combo. Watch Dooku in the movies. He tends to start off single-handed, but once it gets fast and furious, he goes to a twin grip. The single grip is good at a distance, but up close, a two-handed attacker is faster and much stronger.

 

Yep

 

also have to take impact force into consideration. While the blade is weightless, lightsaber blades collide with force. the impact will be transfered. You can absorb a much stronger strike with a two handed grip than you can with one. Try playing baseball while only holding the bat one handed. Yeah, you might even be able to hit it...but, not very far. Switch to two hands, not only can you swing faster and with more power, but you are also far less likely to have the bat knocked out of your hands from the impact of a very fast pitch. Same theory applies...with a two handed grip, I can hold on to my hilt and absorb harder strikes than I could with only one hand...