---

ASH HABIB INTERVIEW BREAKDOWN WITH DEBUNK AND DECEPTION ANALYSIS

(Based on timestamps from “Ash Habib Talks EVERYTHING Undisputed!” and clipped segments from “Undisputed Boxing will NEVER be good…”)

---

1. Balancing Authenticity and Gameplay (3:35–4:25, 8:28–8:45)

What Habib Says

• Realistic boxing movements, especially footwork, are hard to implement in a way that “feels good.”

• Overly realistic movement can hurt gameplay.

Debunk + Deception

• Footwork realism was promised in 2020–2021 promotional content. Their own early trailers showcased elite movement, pivots, lateral steps, stop steps, subtle pressure steps, and angles. None of this survived release.

• Saying realism “can cause issues” ignores the fact that most sports games (UFC, Fight Night 2004, Fight Night Round 3, NBA 2K, MLB The Show) use realism as the foundation but refine it through proper animation, foot IK, and input buffering.

• He frames realism as the problem instead of acknowledging the removal of mechanics already shown.

• This comment is the new SCI message:
  “Realism is risky, arcade is safe.”
  This is the opposite of what SCI marketed originally.

---

2. “First Stab” at a Boxing Game (11:47–12:45)

What Habib Says

• This is their very first attempt. Other studios had decades of iteration.

Debunk + Deception

• Undisputed has been in development since 2019–2020 with four years of early access and over two years of full community feedback.

• Calling this the “first stab” downplays accountability while simultaneously defending every missing mechanic as unavoidable.

• They marketed ESBC as a revolutionary, industry-changing sim built by passionate boxing experts. You cannot sell a dream of being the “NBA 2K of boxing” and later act like this is their first practice run.

---

3. Visual Damage and Licensing (18:06–19:00)

What Habib Says

• Early versions had stronger visual damage.

• It was toned down because the British Boxing Board of Control did not want to “glorify violence.”

Debunk + Deception

• Other licensed boxing games have had severe swelling, cuts, hematomas, and bruising with no issue.

• UFC games showcase extremely graphic damage and have athletic commissions involved.

• This is likely not a licensing rule, but a design choice disguised as regulatory pressure.

• Also:

  • Why did they advertise heavy damage systems in earlier trailers?

  • Why didn’t they disclose at the time that licensing forced a downgrade?

  • Why does the current damage system not even match Fight Night Round 3 from 2006?

---

4. Unique Fighter Animations (21:34–22:00)

What Habib Says

• They would love unique animations but team size limits it.

Debunk + Deception

• When signing boxers like Ali, Fury, Canelo, Crawford, and many others, unique styles were a major selling point in their marketing.

• SCI promised individualized animations by default.

• Now the message is:
  “We will pick and choose only a few to get signature styles.”

• This contradicts earlier claims that the game would have “the most authentic boxer styles ever created.”

---

5. “Game Designed To Be Played Realistically” (24:05–24:41)

What Habib Says

• The game was intended to be played like real boxing.

• People playing “terribly” make the game look bad.

Debunk + Deception

• Real boxing requires:

  • footwork

  • clinching

  • referee interaction

  • ring control

  • stamina pacing

  • defensive responsibility

  • hit reactions

  • realistic evasion

  • timing windows

• Most of these mechanics do not exist in Undisputed.

• Blaming players for “making the game look bad” is misleading when the design encourages spam, unrealistic movement freedom, and reward systems that ignore boxing logic.

• If the game genuinely punished bad habits, there would not be a “terrible playstyle” meta in the first place.

---

6. Fighter Ratings and Tiers (28:47–30:06)

What Habib Says

• Ratings may need adjustment.

• Boosting stats makes fighters too similar.

• They considered removing ratings entirely and using tiers.

Debunk + Deception

• Ratings have been wrong for two years despite community feedback.

• The rating system currently hides fundamental mechanical sameness. Fighters do not feel different because the underlying animation logic, movement system, and punch variation system are nearly identical.

• Switching to a tier system “to differentiate fighters” is backwards.

  • Tiers hide individuality.

  • Ratings reveal individuality.

• This suggestion exposes how limited their internal systems are.

---

7. Pacing Complaints (“Chess Match” Issue) (31:38–32:29)

What Habib Says

• They once had too much realism and not enough finishes.

Debunk + Deception

• Early access had a “chess match” style because:

  • punch commitment existed

  • foot planting existed

  • stamina drop-offs existed

  • hit reactions were stronger

• They removed these systems instead of refining them.

• This is not a balance correction; this is a pivot away from realism.

---

8. Casual vs Hardcore Modes (33:07–34:52)

What Habib Says

• They tried to find a balance.

• Casual and hardcore modes were considered.

Debunk + Deception

• SCI originally promised a simulation-first boxing game for boxing enthusiasts.

• Casual modes were never requested by the core fanbase.

• Casual mode talk only appears now that the game is trending more arcade-like.

• This is another rewrite of history.

---

9. Missing Mechanics: Parry, Lean Back, etc. (37:10–38:38)

What Habib Says

• They ran out of buttons.

• Implementing parries would require redesigning controls.

Debunk + Deception

• UFC 4, Fight Night Round 4, Fight Night Champion, and even Wii boxing had parry systems with fewer buttons.

• SCI removed lean-back mechanics, parries, and advanced defensive layers that were advertised early.

• The “ran out of buttons” excuse makes no sense when they control their own input architecture.

• They could implement:

  • double tap inputs

  • hold inputs

  • modifier buttons

  • directional parries

• This is not a limitation. This is a decision.

---

10. “We Made Mistakes” and “We Nailed the In-Ring Experience” (39:01–39:16; sarcastic clip 0:20–0:26)

What Habib Says

• They made many mistakes.

• He sarcastically says they “nailed” the in-ring experience.

Debunk + Deception

• The sarcasm underscores awareness of criticism but does not address the real issue:
  The game is worse in 2025 than in the original alpha footage.

• Mechanics that made it look like a true sim were removed or simplified.

• The comment attempts to soften backlash with humor, not transparency.

---

THE OVERALL DECEPTION PATTERN

Across the interview, a theme emerges:

Step 1: SCI markets an ultra-realistic boxing simulation.

Step 2: Mechanics shown in the alpha footage are toned down, simplified, or removed.

Step 3: The narrative shifts to:

• “Too much realism hurts gameplay.”

• “This is our first stab.”

• “Licensing prevented damage.”

• “We ran out of buttons.”

• “Players make the game look bad.”

• “We are balancing for casual fans.”

Step 4: The current game resembles an arcade hybrid.

Step 5: SCI blames constraints instead of acknowledging a design pivot.

---

WHERE THE CONTRADICTIONS STACK UP MOST CLEARLY

Below is the simple “receipts ledger” —

Topic	What Was Promised	What Was Delivered	The Excuse	The Actual Issue
Footwork	Full simulation, realism, unique styles	Extremely limited, arcade-like	Realism hurts gameplay	They cut mechanics to simplify development
Damage	Brutal realism with swelling and cuts	Mild, inconsistent	Licensing	Development scaling and performance constraints
Boxer Styles	Unique animations for everyone	Mostly shared	Too small team	Overpromising during marketing
Pacing	Chess match realism	Speed-boosted arcade pacing	Community wanted more KOs	They balanced for casual players
Defense	Lean back, parries, slips	Missing or gutted	Ran out of buttons	Poor control design and animation coverage
Ratings	Deep boxer identity	Inconsistent and shallow	Considering removing ratings	Underlying system does not differentiate boxers

---

FINAL VERDICT: WHAT THIS INTERVIEW ACTUALLY REVEALS

1. SCI shifted the game from realistic/sim to a hybrid arcade direction.

2. Most limitations are design choices, not technical impossibilities.

3. The team repeatedly reframes missing features as unavoidable instead of acknowledging that they were removed or deprioritized.

4. SCI is now positioning realism as the problem despite using realism to sell the game.

5. Large contradictions appear between original promises, current messaging, and the final gameplay direction.

---