Why I’m Stepping Away From Undisputed: Exhaustion, Deflection, and Lost Potential
Since the Creator League Championship Event videos that the Content Creators posted of interviews of Ash, people have been sliding into my DMs asking me one question after another:
“Why are you going to stop supporting and talking about Undisputed?”
The truth is simple—I’m exhausted. For decades I’ve been waiting on the boxing video game I’ve always wanted, and for a brief moment it felt like we had it. The ESBC version of the game was right there—all it needed were a few tweaks. Instead of staying the course, Steel City Interactive (SCI) and Ash Habib chose to move the goalposts.
The “12-Round Chess Match” Deflection
Ash Habib keeps repeating that a boxing game has to go twelve rounds to be realistic or sim. His words sound good, but his actions tell another story.
The original ESBC design allowed for strategic, “chess match” style fights—fights where you could pace yourself, use ring IQ, and set up knockouts methodically. At one point, even SCI admitted that early feedback was the game felt too much like a “12-round chess match” with not enough finishes (10:00–10:21). Their response? Dial up the action (10:50–10:52).
But here’s the truth: you can knock someone out using strategy. That’s the beauty of boxing. Finishes don’t need to come from arcade-like spamming—they can come from setting traps, exploiting weaknesses, and making smart adjustments. Instead of doubling down on that authenticity, SCI pivoted.
The “5% of the Discord” Narrative
Another favorite SCI deflection is dismissing hardcore fans as a “small portion”—the supposed “5% in the Discord.”
But what about online boxing forums? What about Reddit, Twitter, YouTube comments? What about the million-plus views ESBC pulled before the shift? Are we supposed to pretend those fans don’t exist?
It’s not about 5% versus 95%. It’s about choosing to strategically devalue one base over another. SCI leans on content creators to push their talking points, yet claims the online community isn’t representative. That’s not just inconsistent—it’s calculated.
I’m Not Supporting Something Just Because It’s Boxing
This part is personal. I refuse to support something just because it carries the boxing label. That goes against everything I stand for.
You’ve got certain people out there saying I’m not a boxing fan because I won’t blindly support Undisputed. But let’s be honest: Undisputed is a glorified arcade fighter in a boxing disguise. Supporting that just because it has gloves and a ring would mean betraying my own values, my own decades of love for the sport.
Being a true boxing fan means demanding authenticity. It means holding the line against companies that try to water the sport down for quick profits.
Accountability Matters
And please—don’t read this post and start telling me what he really meant. He said what he said. He had plenty of rehearsal time, plenty of chances to clarify. When someone repeatedly chooses to deflect instead of stand firm on the original vision, that’s not a mistake—it’s a direction.
Exhaustion of a Lifelong Boxing Fan
This constant back-and-forth, these deflections, the refusal to honor the original vision—it wears you down. As someone who’s lived boxing inside and outside the ring for decades, I wanted a game that respected the sport, the boxers, and the fans.
Instead, what we’re left with feels like a company that doesn’t trust boxing to be entertaining on its own terms. They keep trying to redesign the sport for casual tastes, under the guise of “balance” and “accessibility.”
Closing Thoughts
I’m not leaving because I don’t love boxing games. I’m leaving because I love them too much. Watching something that had the potential to be the first true boxing simulation in decades get watered down into something unrecognizable—it’s exhausting.
The ESBC version was right there. A few tweaks, and it could have been revolutionary. Instead, SCI chose deflection over direction. And that’s why—for now—I’m done supporting Undisputed.
No comments:
Post a Comment