CT Is Luke stronger than Vader?

I was wondering if Luke actually has the strenght to beat him or if he just got lucky? did Vader want to lose? Vader does have better control of the force right? Why did he not use that much in return of the jedi i.e force choke?

 

I assume your talking about "The Force" as I seem to remember Luke handing Vader's ass to him on a plate in the lightsaber duel. Then I would probably say at the end of ROTJ that Vader was stronger, but only by a little. Luke still had to learn how to control the force better.

The point of the fight was to convert him to the dark side NOT to kill him. Sidious set up what he thought was two options. A) Luke Kills Vader and becomes his new apprentice or b) Vader kills Luke and every thing carries on as normal. Of course Sidious never realized that Vader would betray him and that ultimately it would mean his demise.

 

No, Vader was stronger.

 

Vader was weakened by the point of A New Hope because of his injuries sustained on Mustaafar. So, this is a difficult question to answer since Vader isn't at his peak when he faces Luke on Bespin and the Second Death Star, yet he beats him on Bespin but he is beaten on the Second Death Star. Thus, I think that this can only be answered if we saw both in combat with each other at the peak of their age and powers, which of course we do not see. Rather, we saw a Padawan, inexperienced Luke versus a weakened Vader on Bespin; and then a Luke at the peak of his powers versus a weakened Vader on the second Death Star.

 

I think Vader was stronger.

 

Vader seems to be stronger with the force, or at least he displays it more.

As for combat, I dunno. I don't think there was a point in either the Bespin or Death Star 2 duels in which Vader was outright trying to kill Luke. Luke, on the other hand, I feel would have killed Vader at Bespin if he'd had the chance. On the Death Star 2, I think they were both conflicted up until Vader really ticked off Luke with the Leia comment and he went on the attack.

I don't think there was any point in either duels in which both characters were all-out trying to kill each other. That complicates things.

 

I think if Anakin didn't get burned or lost most of his potential, he would outright just own Luke, that Luke wouldn't even stand a chance.

 

I agree. Obi-Wan crippling Vader on Mustafar probably saved the saga for the good guys.

 

Yep.

 

He only lost his ability with a lightsaber not with the force. I think over time Luke would have been equal and maybe overtaken Vader at some point regards as actual force ability.

 

Exactly. OT Vader's force power > PT Vader which is apparent when you ignore what George says and simply compare the feats displayed in the trilogies.

 

Like many I always thought Vader was just more powerful. The West End games D6 RPG did nothing to disuade me from this as their stats had vader more powerful in Force abilities and lightsaber skills and such.

But does ROTJ really support this?

People say that Vader was not fighting to win. NEWS FLASH: Neither was Luke. How many times did he say he woudl not fight him? When push came to shove and Luked got pissed he handed Vader's ass to him.

 

You know I think the only fight in the whole Star Wars films that they where actually going for the kill was Maul vs Obi-Wan & Qui-Gon, the rest I think are open for debate. But your right it's only when Vader brought up Leia that Luke started to really go for it.

I am purely going from the first fight between them in which Vader clearly had the advantage with the force, he knew how to control it better then Luke. After that I think Luke just concentrated on improving what he had already learnt. This is why I believe that Vader was the better when it came to the force.

 

Well, power doesn't have to mean the same thing as potential. I think Lucas tends to use those words somewhat interchangeably when discussing Vader, but if we take Lucas' statements to refer to ultimate potential rather than actualized power, they can still be seen as consistent. Whatever he says, we still have Vader's boasting on DS 1, which ( unless completely discounted ) implies he has gained in actualized ability, and it stands to reason that he should have seen at least some kind of benefit from 19 more years of experience with the Force.

 

I think actually killing him instead of crippling him might have been more helpful to the galaxy.

 

Oddly, maybe not. Even though I had not thought about it this way when I typed that post, Sidious didn't really need an especially powerful apprentice by the time Vader and Kenobi met on Mustafar. He had already accomplished what he needed to do to eradicate the Jedi and create the Empire. By ROTJ, Luke was not powerful enough to destroy Sidious. It took Vader (and his sympathy for Luke, which some other Sith apprentice certainly would not have shared) to take down Sidious by surprise.

If Vader had killed Kenobi, then perhaps he would have overtaken Sidious by ANH and Luke never would have been powerful enough to beat him in a healthy state. So yeah, I think the crippled Vader suit state was the only way Luke was able to take down the Sith. He would have had no chance in a straight up battle with Sidious or a healthy Vader after just a couple of years (at most) of Jedi training.

 

This notion that Luke is a half-trained noobie is wrong and in no way supported by the OT.

"Only a fully trained Jedi knight with the force as his ally is a match for Vader and the Emperor."
"All you have learned that you need."
Blablabla could probably find more Yoda quotes if I wanted.

It's not the OT's fault that the PT later states force training would take decades. I don't see why the OT should adhere to the PT's presentation of Jedi training.

Luke is probably the better sabermaster. I don't know why Vader is put into the "Sith warrior" class so much in games when his force powers are so much more efficient than his lightsaber skills.

 

Then we wouldn't have the Original Trilogy

 

Yeah. I mean... Yeah! There wouldn't be an OT if Obi-Wan had killed Vader. So why would it be better, janstett? Do you not like the OT or somethin'? Huh? Huh?

 

I always saw it as Vader holding back. He was clearing goading Luke, and Luke exploded and brushed with the Dark Side. Vader, who was surprised by Luke's rage, could not keep up with the sudden change in Luke's strategy and thus, fell down and lost his hand and lightsaber.

 

Yes, and that is the point of the Emperor pitting them against each other. The one who comes out on top is the one who will continue as his apprentice, it's a way of weeding out the weak. At least from Palpatine's point of view. He didn't bank on Luke choosing to show compassion. And especially for Vader to.

 

Of course it's needed for the story, but I always thought it was illogical for Obi-Wan to hack off all of Anakin's limbs and watch him burn... It's not even remotely compassionate to watch him suffer like that and leave him to die. In AOTC Obi-Wan puts the crab monster out of his misery by driving his light saber through his brain after he chops off his claws. Yet he leaves Anakin to die

 

I always thought that the battle should have ended with Vader falling off a ledge or the ground breaking beneath him, something like that where Kenobi thinks Vader dies in the lava. Because I agree, leaving him there made no sense.

 

I agree. He should have finished him off in that scenario.

 

Obi-Wan left him cause he thought the Force would decide Anakin's fate.