Undisputed’s Pattern of Dismissal: Loose Footwork and the Discrediting of Hardcore Fans

Introduction:

When it comes to building a boxing video game, authenticity isn’t optional—it’s the core of the sport. Yet, Steel City Interactive’s Undisputed has repeatedly shown a troubling pattern: compromising realism for short-term “balance,” while discrediting the very fans who’ve been carrying the community for decades.

This isn’t just about design choices. It’s about how a studio treats its most passionate supporters, and whether they want to build a legacy or just chase temporary engagement.

The Loose Footwork Problem

In a JayMMA interview with Ash Habib, the Undisputed owner explained (3:33–4:22) why every boxer in the game has loose, bouncy movement, regardless of their real style.

Flat-footed legends like Rocky Marciano or George Foreman would be at a “gameplay disadvantage” if recreated authentically.
To “level the playing field,” the developers gave all boxers the ability to glide around the ring like Muhammad Ali.

“We had to balance authenticity with gameplay fairness.” —Ash Habib (3:33–4:22)

The result? A distorted version of boxing where styles clash less, and boxers lose their unique identities. Hardcore fans see this as alienating, while casual fans may enjoy it briefly before moving on to other titles.

Authenticity wasn’t balanced—it was erased.

The “Small Group” Narrative

In another interview with TheKingJuice, Ash Habib addressed criticism by referring to a “small group of people who think they’re so smart” (1:18–1:21).

On the surface, this seems like a throwaway comment. But in practice, it’s a calculated dismissal of long-time community leaders and historians who’ve spent years fighting for realism in boxing games.

Who This Targets

Poe: With years of receipts—emails, forums, podcasts, direct developer Q&As—Poe has consistently pushed for real boxers, authentic mechanics, and transparency. He personally helped bring Shannon Briggs and others into conversations with game studios, not for profit, but for love of the sport.
DeBeas and others: Veteran voices who’ve long championed realism, called out stripped-down mechanics, and challenged SCI’s shifting narratives.

“There’s this small group of people who think they’re so smart…” —Ash Habib (1:18–1:21)

Instead of respecting these contributions, SCI framed them as arrogance.

The Tactics of Deflection

The language SCI uses shows a pattern:

Critics as Elitists: Turning veteran fans into nuisances makes it easier to dismiss their feedback.
Big Publisher Deflection: Mentioning outreach to EA and 2K distracts from the fact that Undisputed itself is missing promised features like referees and clinching.
Casuals as a Shield: Casual audiences are used to justify simplified mechanics, even though they won’t sustain the game long-term.

The Bigger Issue: Short-Term Thinking

Both the loose footwork excuse and the “small group” dismissal reveal the same problem: SCI prioritizes quick fixes and temporary engagement over long-term authenticity.

Casual fans are catered to first—but they won’t be here in five years.
Hardcore fans are sidelined, even though they’re the ones who’ll keep playing, testing, and advocating for the game.
Trust erodes every time receipts and real contributions are brushed aside in favor of slick excuses.

Why This Matters Beyond Undisputed

This isn’t only about one studio. It’s about the industry’s approach to legacy sports:

Dialogue vs. Dismissal: Hardcore fans don’t demand miracles overnight—they demand honesty and collaboration.
Receipts vs. Denial: Fans like Poe and DeBeas have tangible proof of their contributions. Ignoring that history discards invaluable community knowledge.
Legacy vs. Flash: Fight Night Champion is still played a decade later because it embraced realism. Undisputed risks are fading quickly if it keeps chasing “balance” over authenticity.

What Fans Deserve

Loose footwork wasn’t just a design choice—it was a signal that realism could be sacrificed. The “small group who think they’re smart” line wasn’t just a remark—it was a warning that invested fans would be treated as a problem rather than a partner.

For boxing, a sport defined by contrasting styles, respect for history, and authenticity, this approach alienates the very people who keep its legacy alive. Casuals may come and go, but hardcore fans will remember who listened—and who dismissed them.

Bottom Line: Authenticity is not a liability—it’s the lifeline of boxing games. The hardcore community isn’t arrogant. They’re invested. They’re the foundation. And without them, no boxing game can last.

Poe’s Think Tank

Tuesday, September 16, 2025