“Balancing” as a Shield: How Undisputed Abandoned Strategy, Chose a Knockout Simulator, and Removed Key Boxing Systems to Cater to Casual Players

“Balancing” as a Shield: How Undisputed Abandoned Strategy, Chose a Knockout Simulator, and Removed Key Boxing Systems to Cater to Casual Players

When ESBC first appeared, it captured the imagination of boxing fans around the world. It promised a strategic game. It promised ring IQ. It promised footwork, rhythm, tendencies, pacing, real fatigue, and real weaknesses. Ash Habib spoke confidently about crafting a game that was “chess, not checkers.”

But as ESBC became Undisputed, the design philosophy went through a dramatic — and deliberate — transformation.

Ash now leans heavily on the word “balancing.”
He repeats it in every major interview and developer update, often without explaining what is actually being balanced.

And the reason he repeats it so much is because “balancing” is no longer about fair gameplay.

It’s about justifying why Undisputed abandoned boxing depth, slowed down development of core systems, and transformed itself into a casual-friendly knockout simulator.

---

The Knockout Simulator Direction Was Not an Accident

Undisputed’s current gameplay loop rewards:

• reckless output

• walk-forward pressure

• constant trading

• fast stamina recovery

• hyper-accelerated pacing

• limited defensive nuance

This is not how boxing works.
This is not strategy.
This is not ring generalship.

This is arcade pacing, by design.

Many of the missing features people keep waiting for were not cut due to lack of time or budget.

They were removed or avoided on purpose because they benefit casual players and arcade fighting fans.

And nothing exposes that truth more clearly than what SCI did with referees and clinching.

---

The Referee and Clinching Systems Were Gutted Because SCI Thought They Would “Slow the Action Down”

This is one of the most revealing and frustrating decisions.

In real boxing:

• The referee controls the pace

• The clinch IS a defensive tool

• Clinching allows fighters to recover strategically

• Breaking the clinch resets distance

• Referee warnings shape behavior

• Illegal punches create tension

• Foul systems force discipline

These are not small details.
These are core pieces of boxing.

But SCI made an internal judgment call:

“Referees and clinching will slow the action down too much.”

That statement alone proves their directional shift.

Because slowing the action down is the entire point of real boxing.

• Clinching is how boxers break pressure.

• Clinching is how they reset rhythm.

• Clinching is how they prevent brawling.

• Clinching is how they neutralize inside fighters.

• Clinching is how tired fighters survive.

Removing these mechanics is not balancing; it is removing realism so casual players can button-mash without interruption.

It is pure nonsense from a boxing perspective.

It’s also an open admission that SCI fears strategy because strategy exposes weak arcade design.

---

Why Referee and Clinch Removal Proves SCI Targeted Arcade Fans

Removing referee behavior and reducing clinching to a cosmetic animation makes perfect sense only if your design priorities are:

• uninterrupted action

• fast exchanges

• no rhythm resets

• no slow tactical battles

• constant danger

• simplified defense

• instant payoff

These are knockout simulator traits.

These are arcade traits.

These are not boxing traits.

SCI didn’t remove these systems because they were “unfinished.”
They removed them because real boxing tactics slow the game down, and slowing down exposes the flaws in a system built around pressure fighting and reckless output.

If a real clinch system existed:

• brawlers would be countered

• pressure fighters would need setup

• volume punchers would be punished

• inside fighters would need timing

• fatigue would matter

• footwork would matter

In other words:

strategy would return to the game.

SCI deliberately avoided that.

---

Casual Fans Became the Priority, Not Boxing Fans

The pivot is clear:

ESBC Target Audience

• hardcore boxing fans

• students of the sport

• real fighters and trainers

• sim-minded gamers

• strategic players

Undisputed Target Audience Now

• casual brawlers

• arcade fighting fans

• button mashers

• short-session players

• people who want highlight-reel knockouts

• players who get bored if a fight lasts too long

This is why Ash now claims “players don’t want to go 12 rounds.”

He is not talking about boxing fans.
He is talking about the casual audience SCI pivoted toward.

And he justifies every design choice with “balancing,” even when the decision has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with simplifying the game.

---

What “Balancing” Really Means Now

When Ash says “balancing,” he means:

• removing mechanics that require IQ

• weakening defensive styles

• discouraging footwork

• keeping brawling effective

• toning down asymmetry

• limiting style identity

• making knockouts easy and frequent

• avoiding pacing adjustments

• reducing boxing to constant action

This is not balance.
This is design-by-fear.

Fear of complexity.
Fear of realism.
Fear of hardcore players.
Fear of asymmetry.
Fear of boxing itself.

---

DEVELOPER-FACING CRITIQUE

Why Removing Referee Logic and Clinching for Pace Is a Fundamental Design Failure

1. It destroys the boxing ecosystem.

Referees and clinches are not optional in boxing. They are structural pillars.

Removing them is like:

• removing corners in a racing game

• removing grappling from MMA

• removing stamina from soccer

• removing gravity from a shooter

You eliminate the very systems that define the sport.

---

2. It makes one style (brawling) overwhelmingly dominant.

When clinching doesn’t exist:

• pressure fighters gain unfair advantages

• outboxers lose survival tools

• defensively slick fighters lose half their repertoire

• pacing becomes unrealistic

• body work becomes less meaningful

The entire meta collapses.

---

3. It reduces depth to protect casual players.

Removing referee warnings and clinches makes the game easier for:

• players who never learned boxing

• players who rush forward nonstop

• players who panic under pressure

• players who want action with no consequences

But it punishes players who understand:

• setups

• defensive timing

• range control

• pacing

• survival instincts

• tactical resets

• ring generalship

---

4. It exposes the game as an arcade hybrid pretending to be a sim.

No true boxing game would remove referee mechanics and clinching for the sake of “pace.”

But a knockout simulator would.
A casual brawler would.
A highlight generator would.

---

Conclusion: SCI Removed Strategy to Protect Pace, Not to Balance the Game

The truth is undeniable:

SCI didn’t cut referee logic and real clinching because of time, polish, or engine limits. They removed them because those systems slow the fight down — and slowing down weakens the arcade knockout simulator they pivoted toward.

Everything reflects this shift:

• missing footwork tools

• missing tendencies

• missing IQ systems

• missing defensive depth

• weakened clinching

• minimal referee involvement

• flat stamina systems

• high-pressure meta

• constant trading

All of it was done to benefit casual players and arcade fighting fans, not the boxing community.

Undisputed lost the identity ESBC once promised because the studio became terrified of authenticity, terrified of asymmetry, and terrified of giving players the tools that make real boxing strategic.

Until SCI faces that truth, Undisputed will remain what it feels like now:

A flashy, shallow, artificially paced knockout simulator dressed up as a boxing game.