Ash Habib Keeps Saying “Authentic.” But Where Is the Authenticity That Matters Most?
Ash Habib and Steel City Interactive continue to use the word “authentic” when talking about Undisputed.
Authentic presentation.
Authentic boxing atmosphere.
Authentic licenses.
Authentic organizations.
Authentic equipment.
Authentic fighters.
Authentic experience.
At some point, though, boxing fans need to ask a much more important question:
What exactly does “authentic” mean if the boxers, boxing mechanics, movement, defensive behavior, inside fighting, clinching, reactions, strategy, and individuality do not consistently resemble real boxing?
That is where I believe the word starts becoming more of a marketing shield than a meaningful description.
Authentic Cannot Just Mean Licensed
Putting a real boxer in a videogame does not automatically make that boxer authentic.
Scanning his face does not make him authentic.
Giving him the correct tattoos does not make him authentic.
Putting the correct brand of gloves on his hands does not make him authentic.
Giving him his real trunks, height, weight, reach, nickname, record, and entrance music does not make him authentic.
Those things contribute to authenticity, but they are only the exterior.
The boxer himself is much deeper than that.
If you remove the face, tattoos, name, trunks, HUD, commentary, ring introduction, and licensed equipment, could an experienced boxing fan still recognize the boxer simply by watching him fight?
That should be one of the ultimate tests of authenticity.
Can I recognize Muhammad Ali by the way he moves?
Can I recognize Joe Frazier by the way he pressures?
Can I recognize Floyd Mayweather Jr. by the way he defends, counters, controls distance, changes rhythm, and manipulates opponents?
Can I recognize Canelo Alvarez by the way he applies pressure, slips punches, attacks the body, sets traps, and counters?
Can I recognize Oleksandr Usyk through his footwork, angles, rhythm, work rate, adjustments, and positioning?
If the answer is no, then what exactly are we calling authentic?
Likeness Is Not Boxer Authenticity
This distinction needs to be made very clearly.
There is a difference between:
Visual authenticity
and
Behavioral authenticity.
Visual authenticity means the boxer looks like himself.
Behavioral authenticity means the boxer fights like himself.
And for a boxing videogame, behavioral authenticity should be the higher priority.
The boxer should have his own stance.
His own posture.
His own guard.
His own rhythm.
His own foot positioning.
His own punching mechanics.
His own defensive habits.
His own reactions.
His own preferred range.
His own tactical tendencies.
His own strengths.
His own weaknesses.
His own mistakes.
His own decision-making patterns.
His own mannerisms.
His own way of dealing with pressure.
His own way of applying pressure.
His own way of reacting when hurt.
His own way of conserving energy.
His own way of changing strategy.
That is what makes a boxer feel authentic.
A face scan does not accomplish that.
The Movement Should Be One of the First Places Authenticity Is Proven
Movement is one of the biggest giveaways in a boxing videogame.
Boxers do not all move the same.
They do not have the same rhythm.
They do not place their feet the same way.
They do not pivot the same way.
They do not retreat the same way.
They do not close distance the same way.
They do not react to punches the same way.
They do not transfer weight the same way.
They do not carry their upper bodies the same way.
They do not maintain balance the same way.
They do not reset after combinations the same way.
Yet videogames repeatedly create universal locomotion systems where fighters begin feeling like different character models attached to the same underlying boxer.
That is the opposite of true boxer authenticity.
A realistic/sim boxing game should have enough movement variables that two elite fighters can behave completely differently before either fighter even throws a punch.
You should be able to recognize certain fighters from silhouette and motion alone.
Boxing Mechanics Have to Be Authentic Too
This is another area where the word “authentic” should face scrutiny.
Where is authenticity without proper inside fighting?
Where is authenticity without meaningful clinching?
Where is authenticity without framing, hand fighting, smothering, forearm control, shoulder positioning, and working out of close range?
Where is authenticity without proper slips, rolls, catches, parries, blocks, pivots, and angle changes?
Where is authenticity if fighters cannot realistically fight off the ropes?
Where is authenticity if positioning, weight transfer, balance, and momentum have limited consequences?
Where is authenticity if fighters can repeatedly perform movements that would leave a real boxer badly out of position?
Boxing is not simply two athletes standing at striking distance exchanging punches.
The sport includes layers of physical and tactical interaction.
That includes:
distance management,
inside positioning,
clinch control,
feints,
tempo manipulation,
guard manipulation,
ring cutting,
counter positioning,
defensive responsibility,
balance,
fatigue,
adaptation,
and situational decision making.
If those systems are shallow, then the sport itself becomes shallow regardless of how many authentic brands are visible around the ring.
“Authentic” Is Convenient Because It Can Mean Almost Anything
This is why I believe the repeated use of the word deserves more scrutiny.
“Realistic” can be challenged.
“Simulation” can be challenged.
Those terms create expectations that can be evaluated.
If a developer claims realistic movement, players can compare that movement with actual boxing footage.
If a developer claims realistic stamina, players can examine punch volume, recovery, fatigue, movement degradation, and energy management.
If a developer claims realistic inside fighting, players can evaluate how fighters behave chest-to-chest and at short range.
If a developer claims realistic boxer individuality, players can compare virtual boxers directly with their real-world counterparts.
But “authentic” is much more flexible.
Authentic could mean:
a WBC logo.
A licensed pair of gloves.
A real boxer.
A scanned arena.
A ring announcer.
A television presentation package.
A championship belt.
A walkout.
A tattoo.
A sponsor.
Those things can all be called authentic without proving that the actual boxing is authentic.
That is exactly why the word can become dangerous when it is allowed to describe everything without being defined.
I Want Ash Habib to Define Authenticity
This is the question I would ask directly:
What does “authentic” mean when Steel City Interactive uses the word?
Does it mean visually authentic?
Mechanically authentic?
Tactically authentic?
Historically authentic?
Statistically authentic?
Behaviorally authentic?
Physically authentic?
Strategically authentic?
Biographically authentic?
Broadcast authentic?
Licensed authentic?
Because those are not the same thing.
You cannot point to authentic equipment and use it as evidence that the boxing mechanics are authentic.
You cannot point to facial scans and use them as evidence that fighter behavior is authentic.
You cannot point to licensed organizations and use them as evidence that movement is authentic.
Those are completely different categories.
The Boxer Should Be the Center of the Entire Authenticity Claim
A boxing videogame should begin with the boxer.
Not the branding.
Not the presentation.
Not the licenses.
The boxer.
Every licensed boxer should be treated almost like his own fighting system.
That fighter should have a deep identity profile covering hundreds of variables.
For example:
stance tendencies,
guard tendencies,
movement behavior,
punch preferences,
combination preferences,
defensive reactions,
counter tendencies,
pressure behavior,
ring positioning,
inside tendencies,
clinch tendencies,
risk tolerance,
adaptability,
rhythm,
pace,
body punching tendencies,
head hunting tendencies,
feints,
range preference,
recovery behavior,
fatigue characteristics,
balance,
durability,
accuracy,
timing,
reflexes,
athleticism,
boxing IQ,
and much more.
That identity should influence both human-controlled and AI-controlled behavior.
Then fighters would stop feeling like skins.
They would start feeling like boxers.
Give Me Anonymous Models and Let Me Identify Them
Here is the test I would challenge any boxing videogame developer to perform.
Take two licensed boxers.
Remove their names.
Remove their faces.
Remove their tattoos.
Remove their trunks.
Remove their entrances.
Remove their commentary.
Remove their HUD identification.
Put them in generic equipment.
Now let experienced boxing fans watch them fight.
Can those fans identify the fighters?
Not because one is taller.
Not because one is southpaw.
Not because one has a recognizable body shape.
Can they identify them because of:
their movement,
their rhythm,
their stance,
their defensive habits,
their punching style,
their preferred combinations,
their counters,
their footwork,
their positioning,
their ring IQ,
and their tactical behavior?
If boxing fans can consistently identify the fighters, you have built authentic virtual boxers.
If they cannot, then the authenticity may be mostly cosmetic.
This Is Why I Keep Saying Realistic/Sim
I prefer the term realistic/sim because it establishes a measurable objective.
And notice something important:
I am not saying every player should be forced to play a realistic/sim boxing videogame.
I have consistently advocated for options.
Realistic/sim can be the foundation.
Hybrid can be an option.
Arcade can be an option.
Sliders can be available.
Difficulty can be adjustable.
Gameplay assists can exist.
Players can customize the experience.
But the game should contain enough underlying depth that those options are possible.
You cannot create deep realistic boxing from shallow arcade systems simply by adjusting difficulty.
You can, however, build deep systems and simplify them for players who want something faster or easier.
That is the direction boxing videogames should be moving.
Boxing Fans Should Stop Allowing Marketing Language to End the Conversation
When a developer says “authentic,” the community should respond:
Authentic in what way?
Show us.
Measure it.
Demonstrate it.
Let boxing trainers evaluate it.
Let experienced fighters evaluate it.
Let longtime boxing fans evaluate it.
Let players compare virtual fighter behavior to fight footage.
Let us see exactly how one boxer differs mechanically and behaviorally from another.
That is not nitpicking.
That is asking a videogame claiming boxing authenticity to demonstrate boxing authenticity.
There is nothing unreasonable about that.
Authenticity Should Be Felt Before It Is Seen
A truly authentic boxing videogame should communicate authenticity even with the television turned to a generic arena.
You should feel it when you move.
You should feel it when you punch.
You should feel it when you defend.
You should feel it when you get trapped against the ropes.
You should feel it when somebody cuts the ring off.
You should feel it when a pressure fighter closes distance.
You should feel it when a slick boxer creates an angle.
You should feel it when a tired fighter begins losing his legs.
You should feel it when a boxer changes strategy.
You should feel the difference between fighting an elite counterpuncher, a pressure fighter, a boxer-puncher, a defensive specialist, a swarmer, and a raw knockout artist.
Most importantly, you should feel that you are controlling or fighting that specific boxer.
Not a generic boxing avatar wearing his face.
That is the standard.
So whenever Ash Habib says authentic, my question is simple:
Where is the authenticity in the part that matters most?
The boxing.
The boxer.
The movement.
The mechanics.
The strategy.
The individuality.
The behavior.
Because licensed gloves can be authentic.
A championship belt can be authentic.
A venue can be authentic.
A face scan can be authentic.
But ultimately, this is a boxing videogame.
The boxing itself should be the most authentic thing in it.
