Former Heavyweight Boxer, Systems Architect In The Making, Advocate For Authentic and Realistic/Sim Boxing Games
Q: Before we get into video games, tell us about your boxing background.
Poe:
I boxed for over 12 years. I came up as a heavyweight in the amateurs, competed in tournaments, trained in serious gyms, and eventually had two professional fights. I was not a hobbyist. Boxing was structure, discipline, and identity for me.
I am from Newark. Newark has a real boxing culture. It is not glamorous. It is gritty. You earn respect through rounds, not talk. Being shaped in that environment changes how you see the sport.
When you have prepared for fights, cut weight, pushed through exhaustion, and stood across from someone trying to impose their will on you, you develop a deep understanding of what boxing actually is.
Q: You have mentioned sparring with high-level professionals. How important was that experience?
Poe:
It was education under fire.
I worked as a sparring partner for fighters like:
Shannon Briggs
Ray Mercer
Jameel McCline
Imamu Mayfield
Each one had a different identity.
Briggs brought pressure and physical intimidation.
Mercer had composure and veteran timing.
McCline was calculated and sharp.
Mayfield had rhythm and intelligence.
When you are in there with fighters like that, you learn that boxing is not just about punches. It is pacing. It is distance control. It is reading small tells. It is mental resilience.
That understanding directly informs how I critique boxing games.
Q: When you say boxing games feel incomplete, what specifically feels off?
Poe:
Most boxing games capture visuals but miss structure.
They animate punches well enough. They create stamina bars. But they do not systemize identity.
Real boxing includes:
Energy management over rounds
Tactical adjustment between rounds
Damage accumulation changing behavior
Style matchups affecting strategy
Psychological reactions under pressure
If a pressure heavyweight does not naturally cut off the ring through AI logic, that is a missing layer.
If fatigue does not alter punch selection, defensive reactions, and risk tolerance, that is a missing layer.
If training camps do not impact long-term career durability, that is a missing layer.
Boxing is layered. Most games flatten it.
Q: You were part of an indie development team. What did that teach you?
Poe:
I was a team member at a now-defunct indie company. It did not survive, but I learned a lot about development pipelines, budgeting constraints, and team communication.
I also helped some companies connect with boxers and potential sponsors. I understand licensing conversations. I understand how brand partnerships factor into decisions.
That experience humbled me. Development is hard. Funding is fragile. Timelines are tight.
But it also reinforced something. Complexity is not impossible. It requires vision and prioritization.
Q: You talk about building systems brick by brick. What does that mean in practice?
Poe:
It means building foundations before surface features.
Start with:
1. Movement Architecture
Physics-based footwork. Momentum shift logic. Ring cutting algorithms.
2. Fatigue Modeling
A mathematical curve tied to punch output, defensive sharpness, and reaction time.
3. Damage Mapping
Specific zones tied to specific hurt states. Not just health bars.
4. Identity Systems
Hundreds of tendencies shaping behavior. Traits influencing risk tolerance. Psychological sliders affecting composure.
5. Validation Tools
AI vs AI dashboards to confirm identities exist without player control.
If two CPU-controlled boxers fight the same, the system is cosmetic.
Q: Why are you so adamant about AI vs AI testing?
Poe:
Because it reveals whether mechanics are authentic or scripted.
AI vs AI is not about watching computers fight for entertainment. It is about stress testing the architecture.
If a counterpuncher does not naturally wait and react, that is a flaw.
If a volume puncher does not increase output at the right moments, that is a flaw.
If fatigue does not visibly slow footwork, that is a flaw.
Realism should exist independent of player skill.
Q: You have pushed for structured surveys from developers. Why?
Poe:
Because guesswork leads to compromise.
A third party survey provides measurable data. Investors respect data. Publishers respect data. Developers are protected by data.
Discord conversations are opinions. Surveys are documentation.
When I trained for fights, everything was tracked. Rounds. Weight. Conditioning. Development should respect metrics as well.
Q: Some critics say you gatekeep realism. How do you respond?
Poe:
I am not trying to exclude anyone.
Casual fans should enjoy boxing games. Accessibility matters.
But authenticity should not be watered down to make ignorance comfortable. Boxing is strategic and technical. That complexity deserves representation.
When you have fought, sparred elite heavyweights, and trained in Newark gyms where every mistake costs you, you understand that realism is respect.
Q: You constantly write boxing and gaming ideas. What drives that?
Poe:
It never stops.
I write tendency matrices. Camp compatibility algorithms. Career decline graphs. Damage to cinematic KO mapping systems. Commentary trigger frameworks.
I treat boxing like an ecosystem, not just a match simulator.
My goal is simple. Someday, I want to be part of a team building a truly realistic boxing video game.
Not as a spectator. As a contributor.
Q: If a studio reads this interview, what should they understand about you?
Poe:
I understand the sport from the inside.
I understand development challenges from experience.
I understand business realities like sponsorship and licensing.
I am not advocating chaos. I am advocating structure.
Boxing shaped me. Newark shaped me. The amateurs shaped me. The professional experience shaped me.
If I join a team building a boxing game, it will not be about ego. It will be about honoring the sport properly.
Boxing deserves to be built like it matters.
Because it does.
