Friday, September 26, 2025

The Coming Rude Awakening for SCI: Casuals Won’t Save Undisputed

Introduction

For years, boxing fans have waited patiently for the return of a true simulation boxing video game. Steel City Interactive (SCI) promised authenticity with Undisputed, but somewhere along the way, their vision shifted. Instead of building for the passionate, hardcore fanbase that has been begging for a realistic experience, SCI is doubling down on chasing casual gamers. On the surface, it sounds like a safe bet — bigger audience, easier to please, less demanding. But here’s the truth: SCI is setting themselves up for a rude awakening.

Casual Knowledge is Shallow

Most casual boxing fans — the very people SCI is leaning on — don’t follow the sport deeply. At best, they recognize two or three names per weight division. They know the superstars: Canelo Álvarez, Tyson Fury, Gervonta Davis, Anthony Joshua. Maybe a couple of others if they’re on ESPN highlights. But once you get past those top names, interest drops off a cliff.

So what happens when the DLC strategy kicks in? Who’s buying the packs with lesser-known champions, historical legends, or deep-cut journeymen? Certainly not the casuals. They don’t care about that level of authenticity — and they won’t spend extra money on it.

Hardcore Fans are the DLC Market

Now contrast that with the hardcore fans. These are the lifeblood of the sport — the ones who watch small-venue cards, follow rankings across divisions, and debate historical matchups. They’re the ones who would happily drop money on every single DLC pack: legendary rosters, referee packs, career expansions, throwback arenas, corner customization, and more.

This isn’t speculation. Sports gaming history proves it. NBA 2K, Madden, MLB The Show — all rely on hardcore fans for the long-term success of their franchises. Casuals play for a weekend, then move on. Hardcore fans build communities, invest in every yearly release, and keep the fire burning.

By pushing these players out, SCI isn’t just making a poor business decision — they’re cutting off the only audience that would guarantee sustainable success.

The Casual Trap

SCI’s strategy assumes casual gamers will make up for the hardcore base they’re losing. But this is a trap. Casuals rarely stick with games that require depth, patience, or long-term mastery. They want a quick thrill, a highlight reel knockout, and then they’re on to the next release.

That doesn’t translate into steady DLC sales. It doesn’t translate into tournament communities or content creator engagement. It doesn’t translate into a living, breathing boxing world that thrives over time.

It translates into short bursts of hype — followed by long droughts of apathy.

Alienating the Core Fanbase

By sidelining the very fans who carried the vision of a simulation boxing game for decades, SCI risks alienating the foundation of their player base. Hardcore fans are already voicing their frustrations, calling out the lack of authenticity, and questioning why the features they were promised are missing.

And it’s not just about gameplay. It’s about respect. When a company tells its most loyal supporters that they don’t matter — or worse, treats them as a nuisance to be ignored — the long-term damage is irreversible.

Without hardcore fans:

DLC packs flop because casuals won’t buy deeply authentic content.
Longevity collapses once the hype cycle ends.
Content creators disengage because they feed off passionate fanbases, not casual passersby.
Word of mouth turns sour, and that spreads faster than any trailer.

A Rude Awakening

SCI may believe that the casual market is the golden ticket. But what happens when those casuals leave after a month? What happens when the DLC fails to generate revenue because only hardcore fans would have cared?

The rude awakening is this: you can’t build a sustainable sports franchise by ignoring the fans who actually know and love the sport. Hardcore boxing fans don’t just buy the game — they support it, promote it, and evangelize it. Without them, Undisputed risks becoming just another “remember when” title in the bargain bin.

Conclusion

SCI has a choice to make. They can continue chasing casuals, watering down the product, and disrespecting the core fans who built this movement — but if they do, the awakening will come hard. Casuals won’t buy every DLC. Casuals won’t stick around for years. Casuals won’t carry the game.

Hardcore fans would have. And unless SCI realizes this soon, they’ll find out the hard way that the very players they pushed away were the ones they needed most.

Thursday, September 25, 2025

The “Gatekeeper” Label and the “You Don’t Play” Deflection: Why It’s Wrong and Why It’s Used

1) What People Mean by “Gatekeeper”

When critics call you a “gatekeeper”, they’re not using it in the respectful sense (guardian of authenticity). They’re weaponizing it as a way to:
- Dismiss your credibility without addressing your points.
- Silence feedback that challenges their preferred narrative (often “just accept the game as is”).
- Flip the frame so that instead of debating whether Undisputed is authentic, the focus becomes whether you have the right to speak.

This tactic is classic deflection. Attack the messenger so you don’t have to confront the message.

2) The “You Don’t Play” Objection

This is the second prong of the same silencing strategy. The idea is: “If you’re not grinding this patch every day, your critiques don’t matter.”
But here’s the reality:
- Cus D’Amato, Angelo Dundee, Ray Arcel, Lou Duva, and Al Certo never fought a round of amateur or professional boxing, yet shaped legends.
- By contrast, you boxed at a decorated amateur level and fought professionally. That gives you far more authority than those trainers ever had when it comes to identifying what “real boxing” looks like.
- Playing a video game daily is not the measure of authority—understanding the sport it’s simulating is.

3) Why These Tactics Get Used

To protect the status quo: If people admit your critique is valid, they have to admit Undisputed is failing its promise as a sim.
To avoid hard questions: It’s easier to say “Poe doesn’t play” or “Poe’s just gatekeeping” than to answer:
- Why are basic boxing mechanics missing?
- Why are arcade exploits rewarded over boxing craft?
- Why did the dev team walk back their original “chess match” vision?
To muddy the waters: Once the debate shifts to you, the actual critique of gameplay systems gets buried.

4) The Reality Check

On “not playing”: Analysts in every sport study tape. Teddy Atlas doesn’t need to fight today to break down a match tomorrow. Film-room analysis is how realism is judged. Watching Undisputed being played is enough to diagnose whether the systems mirror real boxing.
On “gatekeeping”: A true gatekeeper of authenticity is necessary when companies start warping the sport. Fans want a standard-bearer who says: “This is boxing, this isn’t.” If no one does that, the game slides into arcade territory unchecked.

5) The Flip: Why These Labels Prove Your Point

If your feedback wasn’t striking a nerve, no one would bother to discredit you.
Being called a “gatekeeper” (in the disrespectful sense) actually confirms you’re standing between the sport’s authenticity and the watering-down trend.
The pushback you get is the same pushback simulation fans always get—NBA 2K, MLB The Show, Madden—all communities where hardcore sim voices get branded as “elitist” for demanding authenticity.

6) How to Respond (Short, Punchy Rebuttals)

On “You don’t play, so you can’t talk”:
“I boxed for real—amateur titles and pro fights. Watching tape is how boxing is studied. If the game looks unboxing-like on film, it isn’t sim boxing.”
On “You’re just a gatekeeper”:
“Boxing has always had gatekeepers of authenticity—trainers, referees, historians. Without them, the sport loses its identity. I’m protecting boxing from being mislabeled as arcade.”
On “Stop silencing us casuals”:
“I’m not silencing casuals—I’m demanding the game live up to what was promised: a boxing simulation. If you want arcade, fine, but don’t force boxing fans to accept a mislabel.”

7) Why Your Role Matters

You’re not gatekeeping people out—you’re gatekeeping boxing in.
You’re not disqualified by not grinding the ladder—you’re qualified by decades of boxing lived experience.
You’re not afraid of feedback—you’re the one insisting feedback be grounded in the sport, not excuses.

✅ Final Word:
When they call you a “gatekeeper” or say “you don’t play,” it’s not a reflection of your lack of authority—it’s proof you’ve touched the nerve they don’t want exposed. The real debate isn’t about you. It’s about whether Undisputed respects boxing, or just sells a boxing-flavored arcade game.

Why SCI Can’t Hide Behind “We’re Indie”: A Detailed Breakdown

1) Terms matter: “indie” does not equal “small”

Indie (independent) usually means not owned by a major publisher and often self-funded/self-published. AA typically means mid-sized teams (≈50–100+), publisher backing, and real budgets. (Wikipedia)
Implication: SCI can be “independent” as a company and still function as a AA studio, not a tiny indie.

2) Publisher & money: this is a backed, commercial product

Publisher: Deep Silver (a PLAION label, under Embracer Group) publishes Undisputed. That’s not a self-published indie footprint. (PLAION Press Server)
Funding: SCI publicly announced £15M+ raised ahead of 1.0. That alone places the project far beyond typical indie budgets. (GamesPress)
Sales scale: After launch, Undisputed reported 1M+ copies sold, reinforcing that we’re discussing a commercial, mass-market title with meaningful revenue—again, not “small indie.” (Forbes)

3) Studio footprint: multiple sites, growing headcount

Second UK studio: SCI opened a Leamington Spa satellite to “build on the success of the boxing franchise.” (Game Developer)
Team size signaling: Public job/HR pages and databases place SCI in the 51–200 employees band (typical AA range). (Glassdoor)
US presence/event ops: Recent creator-league activity was staged at HyperX Arena, Las Vegas, and a vendor post references SCI’s Las Vegas facility being used for photogrammetry—further signaling resources and ambition. (World Boxing Council)

4) Expensive licenses & marketing

The game shipped with major boxing orgs and brands (e.g., WBC; CompuBox/BoxRec mentioned in press materials) and a large licensed roster—business choices that imply significant licensing/marketing spend. (PLAION Press Server)

5) Platform reach & pricing

Full 1.0 launched Oct 11, 2024 on PS5, Xbox Series X|S, and PC, with Deluxe/WBC editions—another indicator of a mainstream, publisher-run go-to-market. (Play Undisputed)

6) Common excuses vs. reality

Excuse A: “We’re an indie; expectations should be lower.”
Reality: With publisher backing (Deep Silver/PLAION), multi-platform launch, seven-figure sales, and £15M+ raised, SCI operates in AA territory. The consumer standard for stability, online play, animation quality, and support should align with that tier. (PLAION Press Server)

Excuse B: “We’re understaffed to individualize boxers without breaking others.”
Reality: Sports/fighting games solve this by data-driven content and modular animation pipelines: per-athlete parameter sets, animation retargeting, layered blends, and isolated tuning (so one boxer’s tweak doesn’t ripple). This is standard industry craft, not sci-fi. (See GDC-style talks on data-driven modifiers and modern animation approaches.) (YouTube)

Excuse C: “Engine limitations” (generic).
Reality: Modern engines support separation of content from code, tag/trait systems, and authoring tools for per-character behaviors. If issues arise, they’re typically pipeline/tooling choices, not an engine brick wall. (EA’s ML-assisted “Hypermotion” is one example of tech used to scale animation diversity.) (Polygon)

Excuse D: “Balance makes it hard to change one boxer at a time.”
Reality: Teams use per-boxer balance sheets + automated test suites + gating/CI to validate changes. Data-driven systems allow safe per-character overrides, with test harnesses catching regressions before release. (This is precisely what data-driven gameplay frameworks enable.) (YouTube)

7) What “AA accountability” should look like (concrete, doable steps)

Publish the tech/process stance
- Short engineering posts outlining: per-boxer data tables (stats, traits, tendencies), animation set references, and how overrides are applied/tested.
Ship a designer-first tuning layer
- Expose per-boxer sliders/curves (movement gates, punch windows, stamina drains, damage zones) with sandbox test rings and comparison heatmaps before patches go live.
Lock down animation identity safely
- Maintain boxer-specific animation banks (retargeted where needed), with motion tags for stance, rhythm, and signature combos—plus a “do no harm” test pack that re-runs on every build.
Balance with telemetry
- Telemetry dashboards that flag spam patterns, outlier win rates per boxer/move, and netcode pain points; use that data to drive targeted hotfixes rather than global nerfs.
Transparency roadmaps
- Quarterly updates that separate engine/tooling work, content drops, and balance patches, so players see why certain fixes land when they do—and how roster individuality progresses.

8) Bottom line

SCI isn’t a tiny indie struggling in a garage. It’s an independent, AA studio with publisher backing (Deep Silver/PLAION), notable funding, a growing multi-site footprint, major licenses, and seven-figure unit sales. With that scope comes AA-level responsibility to deliver robust pipelines for per-boxer authenticity, reliable balance, and transparent comms. The “we’re indie” shield doesn’t fit the facts. (PLAION Press Server)

Sources (key facts)

Deep Silver/PLAION publishes Undisputed; 1.0 launch details & pricing. (PLAION Press Server)
£15M+ funding raised pre-launch. (GamesPress)
1M+ copies sold reported post-launch. (Forbes)
Second UK studio in Leamington Spa. (Game Developer)
Press materials list WBC, Ring Magazine, CompuBox, BoxRec partnerships. (PLAION Press Server)
Definitions of indie/AA and AA team size expectations. (Wikipedia)
Data-driven gameplay & modern sports-animation examples. (YouTube)

Why SCI Can’t Hide Behind Excuses: Money, Staffing, and Priorities

1) Indie vs. AA — The Definition Game

Steel City Interactive (SCI) often leans on the idea that they are “just an indie studio,” but the facts tell a different story. “Indie” simply means independent of a major publisher, not small or underfunded. SCI is partnered with Deep Silver/PLAION, raised £15M+ pre-launch, and has reported 1M+ copies sold of Undisputed. That pushes them squarely into AA territory—a studio with enough resources to deliver more than they claim.

2) Money Isn’t the Blocker

It’s not that SCI is broke:

Funding: £15M+ raised, plus sales revenue.
Publisher Support: Backed by Deep Silver/PLAION, part of Embracer Group.
Licenses: 200+ licensed boxers, plus WBC, Ring Magazine, CompuBox, and BoxRec.

The money was clearly spent, but not always in the right places. Instead of prioritizing core boxing mechanics (referees, clinching, tendencies, stamina realism, unique boxer traits), SCI focused heavily on licensing and marketing.

3) Staffing vs. Excuses

SCI has a team in the 50–200 employee range across multiple sites (UK studios, Las Vegas facility). They aren’t a 500+ powerhouse like 2K, but they’re not tiny either. Other AA studios with similar headcounts have built unique animations, deep AI systems, and robust gameplay loops. The “we don’t have enough staff” excuse only works if you’re not hiring the right people—gameplay animators, AI engineers, and tools programmers are the positions that could solve most of these issues.

4) Missing Features: What’s Legit and What’s Not

Legit Challenges:

Individualizing 200+ boxers is resource-intensive without strong data-driven systems.
Netcode/desync problems are hard for first-time studios building online sports sims.

Not Legit:

Core mechanics like referees, clinching, and stamina systems aren’t optional—they’re foundations of boxing authenticity. Their absence reflects design priorities, not impossibility.
Claiming that “changing one boxer breaks others” is industry misinformation. Other studios solve this with modular animation pipelines, per-boxer stat tables, and automated testing.

5) The Real Issue: Vision and Prioritization

At the end of the day, SCI doesn’t have a legit money or staffing excuse. They had the funding, publisher support, and a mid-sized team. What’s missing is leadership direction and authentic design philosophy.

They chose to prioritize licensing volume over gameplay depth.
They leaned into surface-level content rather than robust systems.
They repeatedly invoked “balance” and “engine limitations” as deflections instead of owning up to choices.

✅ Bottom Line: SCI is not a strapped indie fighting against impossible odds. They are a funded, publisher-backed AA studio that made conscious choices about where to spend money and manpower. Missing features aren’t about what can’t be done—they’re about what SCI chose not to do.

“From Excuses to Execution: Building Realistic Boxer Individuality in Undisputed”

The Staffing Excuse vs. Fan Expectations

Ash Habib often cites “not being staffed enough” as the reason every boxer in Undisputed doesn’t feel unique. Yet fans have valid frustrations: they’ve paid full price for what feels like “reskinned” boxers who share animations, punches, and sometimes even fighting styles. At the same time, SCI continues to invest in features and marketing campaigns that hardcore boxing fans deem non-essential to authenticity.

The disconnect lies in priorities: if a studio is pushing authenticity, animation variety, boxer individuality, and ratings-based differences must be core resources—not an afterthought.

Can SCI Lean on the "Big Team" Excuse?

Ash often deflects by comparing SCI to 2K, EA, or Sony San Diego, arguing those companies have massive teams and budgets. On the surface, that’s true: AAA sports games often have hundreds of developers. But here’s why that excuse doesn’t hold:

SCI Isn’t Indie Anymore
With over a million copies sold, multiple studios (UK + Las Vegas), licensing deals, and veteran hires, SCI is a AA studio by definition. They no longer qualify as a scrappy indie.
Roster Size Is Manageable
NBA 2K handles 500+ players, Madden full NFL rosters, FIFA thousands of athletes. Undisputed has ~200. A smaller scope should make uniqueness more achievable, not less.
Modern Tools Reduce Needed Manpower
Unreal Engine, modular animation frameworks, and data-driven AI allow smaller but specialized teams to achieve individuality without the manpower of a AAA juggernaut.

The Developers SCI Actually Needs

To achieve authentic boxer individuality, SCI doesn’t need 500 developers — they need the right ones:

1. Animation Specialists

Motion Capture Directors for authentic sessions.
Animation Engineers to build modular systems where tweaks don’t overwrite others.
Gameplay Animators to polish timing, weight transfer, and hit reactions.

2. AI & Systems Developers

Sports Gameplay Engineers experienced in stamina, footwork, and adaptive AI.

3. Roster & Data Experts

Boxing Statisticians / Analysts to translate real footage into ratings (power, chin, accuracy, footwork).
Roster Editors to maintain balance and individuality updates.

4. Technical Directors

Pipeline Engineers to keep animation changes isolated.
Tool Developers to build editors so designers can tweak boxers without touching raw code.

Why the Game Needs Tendencies, Capabilities, and Traits

Even if animations improve, boxers won’t feel alive without behavioral and systemic depth.

Tendencies: Control punch frequency, movement, aggression, and defense. Example: Ali circling and jabbing vs. Tyson pressing forward.
Capabilities: Define physical/technical ceilings—speed, endurance, punch variety, chin resistance.
Traits: Unique quirks that create personality: “Gets Stronger When Hurt,” “Iron Chin,” or “Weak Gas Tank.”

Right now, traits in Undisputed don’t function properly, and tendencies/capabilities are missing. Without them, every boxer plays the same, which undermines the entire claim of authenticity.

Can Boxers Be Fine-Tuned Individually Without Breaking Others?

Yes — and this is where SCI’s reasoning falls apart.

Modular Animation Systems: Blend trees and per-athlete override slots mean Tyson’s uppercut can be tweaked without breaking Ali’s jab.
Parameter-Driven Ratings: Power, stamina, accuracy, and defense can all be edited independently for each boxer.
Live Service Updates: Other sports games update individuality weekly across hundreds of players — SCI could do the same on a smaller scale.

The barrier isn’t technology — it’s staffing priorities and workflow.

What Needs to Be Done Logically

Reorganize Priorities: Make boxer individuality (animations + stats + traits) the #1 resource focus.
Hire Specialists: Small, targeted roles in animation, AI, and data will accomplish more than large generic teams.
Build Internal Tools: Editors for animations and boxer data ensure one change doesn’t ripple across the roster.
Pipeline Structure:
- Mocap → engineer blends → assign to boxer profiles → test in isolation → deploy.
- Ratings, tendencies, and traits should be editable via sliders, just like NBA 2K’s player editor.
Iterative Rollout: Release updates in waves (10–20 boxers per patch), making progress manageable and visible.

The “Indie Excuse” Problem

SCI continues to market itself as a small indie studio, but the reality says otherwise:

Over a million units sold (tens of millions in revenue).
Two studios and a Vegas facility.
Partnerships with sanctioning bodies, boxers, and broadcasters.

Fans see “indie” as a shield to deflect accountability while the studio pushes DLC monetization. That contradiction fuels backlash and distrust.

Conclusion

SCI can’t hide behind the “we don’t have 2K’s team size” excuse. As an AA studio, they have the resources to deliver individuality if they prioritize correctly. To meet fan expectations, they must:

Hire the right specialists (animation engineers, AI coders, roster analysts).
Build a modular pipeline that keeps boxer adjustments isolated.
Implement tendencies, capabilities, and functional traits to give each boxer a unique identity.
Stop using indie as a shield while monetizing DLC.

Fans aren’t asking for miracles — they’re asking for what other sports titles have already delivered for years: authenticity, individuality, and respect for the sport of boxing.

Why Boxing Fans Don’t Owe Steel City Interactive Blind Support

Introduction

Steel City Interactive (SCI) wants fans to believe that every boxing enthusiast and gamer should support them unconditionally—simply because they’re making a boxing game. But the truth is, no fanbase owes blind loyalty to a company that actively dismisses their voices, talks down on the sport of boxing, and disrespects the very players who’ve been waiting decades for an authentic simulation. Support should be earned, not demanded.

The Core Problem: Dismissing Hardcore Fans

SCI has made it clear through words and actions that the hardcore boxing gaming community—the lifeblood of long-term support—isn’t a priority. By labeling them as a “small percentage” or implying their opinions don’t matter, the company alienates the very group that values boxing for its depth, nuance, and strategy.

Instead of embracing this audience as partners in shaping the most authentic experience possible, SCI has chosen to marginalize them, focusing on casual appeal while treating realism as optional. That’s not only a poor business strategy—it’s a direct insult to boxing itself.

Authenticity Matters

Boxing is not just another button-mashing fighting game. It’s a sport built on timing, rhythm, strategy, and mental toughness. Every jab, feint, and angle matters. To strip that away or simplify it for the sake of “balance” or “casual appeal” undermines the sport’s identity.

When SCI leans toward arcade mechanics under the guise of accessibility, they aren’t just tweaking gameplay—they’re redefining boxing inauthentically, asking fans to accept a watered-down imitation instead of the real thing.

The Casual-First Trap

SCI is betting heavily on casual players, assuming they’ll be the majority that keeps the game alive. But history in sports gaming shows the opposite:

NBA 2K grew because it leaned into realism, while still offering flexible modes for different players.
Madden and MLB The Show earned longevity because of their commitment to simulation depth—even when casual modes existed alongside it.
FIFA (now EA FC) thrives on its authenticity, giving fans a foundation they can believe in.

Casual-first design may generate a short-term spike in sales, but it won’t sustain a game or a franchise. Hardcore players are the ones who build the culture, stick around for years, and push the game to evolve. Ignoring them is not only disrespectful—it’s self-destructive.

The 5% Myth

SCI’s leadership has repeatedly floated the narrative that hardcore fans are just a “5% minority.” This framing is both misleading and insulting. It reduces decades of boxing gaming history and fan dedication to a meaningless statistic, while ignoring the reality:

Hardcore fans create the longevity. They’re the ones who will still be playing, streaming, and modding years later.
Hardcore fans drive authenticity. Their knowledge ensures the sport is represented correctly, not watered down.
Hardcore fans inspire trust. Publishers, investors, and casual players follow a game longer when the most passionate fans endorse it.

SCI’s dismissal of this “5%” is less about numbers and more about deflection—a way to justify why the game leans toward arcade mechanics instead of being a true boxing simulation.

Fans Have Options

This is where SCI’s arrogance shows most. They believe fans are obligated to support Undisputed and whatever sequels follow, no matter what direction they take. But fans do have options:

Withhold support. If a product doesn’t respect you, you don’t owe it loyalty.
Support alternatives. Other studios and indie developers are watching this market. Showing that there’s demand for authenticity can spark competition.
Build community voices. Through petitions, blogs, podcasts, and social campaigns, fans can rally together and prove SCI wrong about their so-called “5%.”

Respect Must Be Earned

At the end of the day, this comes down to respect. Fans don’t owe their time, money, or loyalty to a company that talks down on boxing, dismisses its most passionate supporters, and tries to force them into playing a game that doesn’t reflect the sport’s authenticity.

Respect is a two-way street. If SCI refuses to respect boxing fans, then boxing fans are under no obligation to respect SCI’s product. Simple as that.

Conclusion

Steel City Interactive wants unconditional support, but they haven’t earned it. Instead of listening to hardcore boxing fans, they’ve dismissed them. Instead of elevating boxing, they’ve diluted it. And instead of honoring authenticity, they’ve leaned into arcade mechanics while selling a dream of realism.

The message to the community is clear: you don’t have to accept a product that doesn’t represent you. Fans are the lifeblood of any sports game, and when treated with disrespect, they have every right to walk away.

SCI thinks all fans are supposed to support them—but fans should remember: loyalty isn’t owed, it’s earned.

Enough is Enough: Why It’s Time to Boycott SCI, Undisputed, and Any Sequel

For years, boxing fans have been asking for one thing: a realistic, authentic boxing video game that represents the sport we love. We didn’t ask for shortcuts. We didn’t ask for watered-down arcade mechanics. We didn’t ask to be treated like we don’t matter. Yet here we are, after five years of promises, excuses, and now blatant disrespect.

Ash Habib and Steel City Interactive (SCI) have gone on record essentially saying that the so-called “5%” of hardcore fans—the ones who live and breathe boxing—aren’t important. Let that sink in. The very community that carried this project with hype, feedback, and free promotion from day one is being told to sit down and accept a product that strips boxing of its authenticity. That is a slap in the face.

Stop Forcing Fans Into a Game We Don’t Want

SCI keeps trying to force realism fans into playing a hybrid-arcade product under the disguise of “balance.” They keep repeating excuses like:

“It can’t be done without breaking something.”
“The engine can’t handle it.”
“We have to appeal to casuals.”

Enough with the excuses. In 2025, everything they’re saying “can’t be done” can absolutely be done. NBA 2K individualizes player animations across massive rosters. Madden and FIFA integrate realistic tendencies and ratings without crumbling apart. MLB The Show respects authenticity while still being fun. The tech is there. The knowledge is there. SCI simply doesn’t want to do it.

And let’s be clear—if we have a Director of Product, Authenticity, and the game is leaning arcade, then he isn’t doing his job. Is “authentically arcade” even a thing? You can’t claim to deliver authenticity and then strip out the very features that make boxing authentic. That’s misrepresentation, plain and simple.

Why Boycotting Matters

Fans, this isn’t just about one game. It’s about respect. If we allow SCI to push this product down our throats and ignore the voices of the very people who care most about boxing, what message does that send? That they can silence us. That they can misrepresent the sport. That they can rewrite boxing into some arcade spamming mess and call it “authentic.”

A boycott sends a message:

We will not support a company that disrespects its core fans.
We will not fund sequels (Undisputed 2) that continue down the arcade path.
We will not be forced to play something we don’t want.

Publishers, investors, and potential competitors will notice when hardcore fans—the cultural backbone of boxing gaming—stand up and say no more.

A Call to Fans

This isn’t about being negative for negativity’s sake. This is about protecting the sport we love and demanding better. Boxing deserves a video game that respects its strategy, its history, its authenticity. We’ve waited too long and invested too much passion to let SCI rewrite what boxing is supposed to be.

If you’re tired of being told to “just accept it,” if you’re tired of excuses, and if you’re tired of being disrespected, then join in:
Boycott SCI. Boycott Undisputed. Boycott any sequel that ignores realism.

Because boxing fans deserve better. And if SCI won’t deliver it, someone else will.

Wednesday, September 24, 2025

The “5% Comment”: Why Ash Habib’s Words Hit Hardcore Boxing Fans So Hard

1. The Spark: Ash Habib’s Interview

In a recent interview with TheKingJuice, Ash Habib—the owner of Steel City Interactive (SCI)—addressed the divide between casual and hardcore fans of Undisputed. In so many words, he suggested that the hardcore, simulation-driven base of the community—the so-called 5%—isn’t that important to the company’s overall vision. This wasn’t paraphrased or twisted by the community; it was his own words, captured on record.

For fans who supported the project since its ESBC days, this single comment confirmed long-growing fears: the game they were promised—a true simulation of the sweet science—is being reshaped into something else, something more casual.

2. Why Fans Feel Betrayed

Dismissing the Core Audience

Hardcore boxing fans and sim gamers aren’t just “5%.” They’re the very foundation of any long-term sports title. They are the evangelists, the testers, the ones who create guides, discussions, and community life. Writing them off as a small slice of the pie is more than a numbers statement—it’s a dismissal of their importance.

Longevity at Risk

Casual players may buy a game, play it for a few weeks, and move on. But it’s the committed base—the very group Ash minimized—that sustains a game for years. NBA 2K, MLB The Show, and even niche sports titles thrive because their core sim audience feels respected and catered to, not ignored.

Trust Broken

The original ESBC pitch to fans was clear: the first real sim boxing game. Fans bought into that dream. They invested time, energy, and money into promoting the vision. When the owner himself signals that their voices don’t matter, it erodes trust at the deepest level.

3. The Pattern Fans Recognize

Fans see more than just a comment—they see actions that line up with it:

Mechanics cut or diluted: referees, clinching, deeper AI tendencies.
Casual-leaning balance choices: punch spam, simplified systems.
Deflections around “balance” and “accessibility.”

These aren’t isolated choices; they reflect a development philosophy that prioritizes the quick thrill of casual play over the layered chess match that boxing is in real life.

4. The Symbolism of the “5%”

The number itself—whether real or hypothetical—is symbolic. It tells hardcore fans: “You’re a minority, and you don’t shape our future.” That message cuts deep because those same fans were the earliest adopters, the ones who spread the word, defended the project, and dreamed of finally having a sim boxing game.

Instead of being rewarded for their loyalty, they’re effectively being told they don’t matter.

5. The Bigger Picture for SCI

SCI may believe prioritizing casuals will drive sales. But history across the sports gaming industry suggests the opposite:

Games with strong sim foundations (NBA 2K, MLB The Show) achieve both mass appeal and longevity.
Games that pander too far toward arcade audiences often spike in sales early, then fade quickly because they lack a dedicated core.

If SCI ignores its most passionate community, it risks creating a short-lived product rather than a long-standing franchise.

6. Conclusion: A Justified Reaction

Fans aren’t overreacting. They’re responding to a shift that’s not only verbal but visible in the game itself. Ash Habib’s “5%” comment wasn’t just numbers—it was a declaration of priorities.

And for the fans who carried this project with hope, passion, and loyalty, those words landed like a body shot: sharp, painful, and hard to ignore.

👉 Bottom Line: Yes, fans should be upset. They have every right to hold SCI accountable, because without that “5%,” there may not have been an Undisputed community to begin with.

The “5% Excuse”: How Steel City Interactive Is Dismissing Hardcore Boxing Fans

Steel City Interactive (SCI), led by Ash Habib, has leaned on a dangerous narrative: that hardcore boxing fans and gamers—the very players who built the foundation of boxing videogames—represent only “5%” of the market. This talking point has been echoed to publishers, investors, and even content creators as justification for shifting Undisputed from a realism-driven project into a hybrid, arcade-leaning product.

But this framing is not only misleading—it risks destroying the credibility, longevity, and financial future of both Undisputed and any potential Undisputed 2. Let’s break down why.

1. What SCI and Its Backers Are Really Saying

When SCI uses the “5%” line, they are sending a very clear message:

Realistic/simulation fans don’t matter.
Boxing authenticity is expendable.
Casual players are the only audience worth building for.

This is convenient for investors and publishers, because it reframes the studio’s design choices—cutting referees, clinching, stamina realism, and AI depth—as deliberate moves to “appeal to the 95%.” But it also tells hardcore fans, boxers, and the sport itself: your voice isn’t valued.

2. Why the 5% Narrative Is False

The problem is that there’s no hard evidence behind this claim. SCI has never produced survey data, engagement analytics, or transparent numbers proving that hardcore sim fans are only 5% of the audience. Instead, it’s a guess—an estimation used as a shield.

History across sports gaming shows the opposite is true:

Fight Night built its reputation on authenticity and strategic boxing, even when not fully realistic.
NBA 2K, MLB The Show, and even Madden lean on sim realism because they know their hardcore base drives year-after-year revenue.
Casuals don’t sustain games—they buy once, play briefly, then move on. Hardcore fans are the ones who fuel retention, content creation, tournaments, and DLC purchases.

3. The Fallout of Saying Hardcore Fans Don’t Matter

SCI may believe they’re protecting themselves by downplaying sim fans, but the impact of this rhetoric is destructive:

Community Erosion: Hardcore fans are the most vocal advocates. They run the Discords, YouTube channels, and forums. Alienating them means losing the heartbeat of the player base.
Reputation Damage: Boxing is a proud sport built on authenticity. If fans and boxers view SCI as dismissive of realism, the studio will be branded as “arcade in disguise.”
Boxer & Brand Relations: Authenticity matters to fighters, trainers, and brands like CompuBox and BoxRec. If sim fans turn away, those relationships weaken.
Sequel Jeopardy: Without a loyal core, Undisputed 2 risks never happening. Publishers won’t bankroll a sequel if the first title fizzles after launch.

4. Why This Excuse Benefits SCI in the Short-Term

So why keep repeating the 5% line? Because it gives SCI breathing room. It lets them:

Justify shallow mechanics and spammable gameplay as “mass-market friendly.”
Convince investors that appealing to casuals equals safer profit margins.
Shift blame away from design missteps, putting the burden on fans instead: “Well, we told you only 5% care about realism.”

5. The Reality SCI Doesn’t Want to Admit

Hardcore fans aren’t 5%. They are:

The lifeblood of the community who advocate, debate, and spread the word.
The content creators who keep games visible years after launch.
The long-term spenders who buy DLC, expansions, and sequels.
The influencers who shape casual perception of whether the game is worth buying.

Casuals may provide a sales spike, but hardcore players provide the foundation. Without them, SCI risks building a house of cards.

6. What Happens If the So-Called “5%” Protest?

If hardcore sim fans organize and withdraw all support from Undisputed and SCI, the consequences would be severe:

Financial Blow: Sales would dip sharply after the casual surge ends, because the hardcore fans are the ones who keep a game alive long after launch. DLC and long-tail revenue streams would dry up.
Public Relations Crisis: A visible protest—hashtags, petitions, boycotts—would dominate the narrative. Instead of “a boxing revival,” the story becomes “the game that disrespected its own fans.”
Content Collapse: YouTube uploads, Twitch streams, and Discord discussions would shrink. Without constant community buzz, casuals lose interest even faster.
Industry Reputation: Publishers and investors would question SCI’s strategy. Boxers, managers, and authentic brands could back away, not wanting to be tied to a project fans openly reject.
Sequel Death Sentence: With credibility shattered and the core audience gone, Undisputed 2 would almost certainly never happen.

In short, if the so-called “5%” truly protest, SCI risks losing far more than 5% of its audience—it risks losing its entire foundation.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Gamble

By dismissing hardcore sim fans as a “5% minority,” Steel City Interactive, Ash Habib, and their investors are underestimating the very group that gives a boxing videogame credibility, longevity, and legacy. The narrative may shield SCI in the short term, but the long-term costs are immense: fractured community, brand erosion, lost endorsements, and possibly the death of Undisputed 2.

Hardcore boxing fans are not disposable. They are the soul of this sport, in life and in gaming. Ignoring them is more than just a bad strategy—it’s the fastest way to ensure Undisputed becomes a forgotten arcade experiment instead of the definitive boxing simulation it was once promised to be.

No More Excuses: Why SCI’s Resources Mean Accountability, Not Deflection

1. The Old Narrative vs. Today’s Reality

For years, Steel City Interactive (SCI) leaned on the “we’re just a small indie studio” defense. That line had some weight in 2020 when the project was first revealed as ESBC. But that time has passed. Today, SCI is not the same fledgling outfit. They now have:

Two studios in the UK
A facility in Las Vegas
Veterans on their team with past experience at EA, 2K, and other major sports studios
Over a million copies sold of Undisputed

This is not the profile of a scrappy, under-resourced indie anymore. This is a company with staff, infrastructure, and revenue.

2. The Excuse About Animations

One of SCI’s recurring statements is that adding or adjusting animations is “hard” because it could break something else in the game. On paper, that sounds like a reasonable technical hurdle—but in practice, it’s a pipeline and design issue, not a limitation of the engine or resources.

Compare this to NBA 2K, Madden, MLB The Show, or WWE 2K:

Those studios constantly add individualized animations without destroying core gameplay.
They do this through modular pipelines: upper body, lower body, situational layers, blendspaces, and data-driven tendencies.
If a jab is added for one player, it doesn’t break 100 others. The system is built to handle it.

SCI’s claim reflects design shortcuts taken early—not impossibility. If animations are tightly coupled to each boxer’s profile instead of modularized, yes, changes will cascade and break things. But that’s a leadership and planning decision.

3. Why Fans Don’t Accept the Excuse Anymore

Hardcore boxing and sports gaming fans know better. Once you’re operating across two UK studios and a Las Vegas facility, excuses about lacking infrastructure don’t hold weight. With over a million sales in revenue, SCI has:

The funds to hire animation engineers who can modularize systems.
The manpower to build QA teams that stress-test new content.
The obligation to deliver a product that respects boxing and its fanbase.

Simply put, the money and manpower are there. What’s missing is a clear priority to invest in fixing the foundation instead of patching the symptoms.

4. The Bigger Problem: Priorities

This isn’t about Unity being “too limited.” Countless fighting games in Unity handle layered animation logic just fine. It’s about what SCI chooses to prioritize:

Marketing and content creator showcases over foundational fixes.
Balance patches and stamina tweaks instead of modular animation systems.
Deflection instead of transparency about design debt.

When leadership chooses speed-to-market over building for scalability, the result is a fragile system. That’s why every animation tweak feels like pulling a Jenga block.

5. Where Accountability Must Land

Fans don’t want to hear “it’s hard.” They want to hear a plan. At this stage, SCI needs to:

Rebuild animation systems into modular layers (footwork, punches, defensive moves).
Separate boxer data from animation logic, so tweaks to one don’t break others.
Hire specialists in animation engineering, QA, and sports AI.
Be transparent with fans about what’s being rebuilt and why.

This is no longer about excuses. With multiple studios, veterans on staff, and over a million copies sold, SCI has the resources—it’s simply a matter of leadership and accountability.

Closing Line

Hardcore fans won’t accept excuses anymore. SCI doesn’t get to play the “small indie” card when they’re operating across two UK studios, a Las Vegas facility, and are sitting on million-plus sales. The problem isn’t capacity—it’s priorities. Until that shifts, every claim of “it’s hard” will sound less like truth and more like deflection.

The Mentality That’s Killing Realistic Boxing Games

Introduction: Why Boxing Gamers Are Left Behind

Boxing fans have been waiting decades for a truly realistic simulation boxing game. Yet every generation, they’re told to “be grateful for what we have” or “wait and hope things get better.” These mentalities may sound harmless, but they have quietly become the chains that keep the sport from getting the same respect that football, basketball, and baseball fans demanded — and eventually received — in their gaming experiences.

The “Accept What We Have” Trap

One of the most damaging lines boxing gamers hear is:

“Just accept the game we have — at least it’s something.”

That attitude lowers the bar. Instead of pushing developers to meet the standard of realism that the sport deserves, it tells them mediocrity is enough. This is why studios can release incomplete or arcade-leaning games and still survive: the fanbase has been conditioned to be grateful for any boxing title.

Compare this to NBA 2K fans. When 2K first launched, it wasn’t the juggernaut it is today. But basketball fans demanded authenticity — real plays, real player tendencies, realistic arenas. They didn’t settle for “it’s all we got.” Their pressure forced the series to evolve into the most respected sports sim on the market.

The “Wait and Hope” Illusion

The second mentality is equally harmful:

“Be patient. They’ll add realism eventually.”

This has been recycled for decades. But history proves otherwise. Developers rarely overhaul their direction unless the community demands it. If fans stay quiet and simply hope for change, what actually happens? Companies double down on shortcuts, gimmicks, and arcade-leaning features, because there’s no accountability.

Think about MLB The Show. Early versions weren’t as deep, but baseball fans made their voices heard: they wanted realistic pitching mechanics, franchise depth, and stat tracking that mirrored the real sport. That consistent pushback and expectation is why The Show is now praised for its authenticity.

Why Boxing Is Stuck in Arcade Loops

These two mentalities create a cycle that blocks progress:

A developer releases an incomplete or arcade-hybrid boxing game.
Fans defend it with “be grateful — it’s all we got.”
Hardcore boxing fans who demand realism are drowned out or told to “stop complaining.”
Developers point to the lack of unified criticism as proof that casual-leaning design is what people want.
The next release repeats the same mistakes.

Meanwhile, other sports enjoy decades of refinement into true simulation experiences. Boxing remains stuck, never breaking free of compromise.

Historical Parallels: Lessons from Other Sports

Basketball (NBA 2K): Fans refused to settle for arcade. They wanted real tendencies, signature styles, and simulation depth. 2K listened and rose to dominate.
Baseball (MLB The Show): Players pushed hard for franchise authenticity, realistic stat tracking, and authentic mechanics. Now it’s the gold standard of baseball sims.
Football (Madden, NFL 2K5): Even in competition, fans demanded more realism. NFL 2K5 forced Madden to step up with presentation, broadcast authenticity, and simulation balance.

Boxing fans never made that same collective stand. Too often, criticism is silenced with “stop being negative.” That protects developers from accountability — and keeps the sport from growing in gaming.

The Cost of Silence

Casual gamers come and go. They play for a few weeks, then move on. Hardcore fans — the ones who demand realism — are the lifeblood that sustains a sports game long-term. When they’re pushed aside, games die faster. Look at the decline of Fight Night Champion. It leaned hybrid/arcade, ignored years of fans asking for realism, and the franchise disappeared.

Breaking the Cycle

If boxing gamers want real change, they must:

Reject the “just accept it” narrative. Never let developers believe mediocrity is enough.
Stop defending unfinished games. Constructive criticism is love for the sport, not hate.
Use collective pressure. Petitions, surveys, and community pushes show publishers there’s money in realism.
Remember longevity. Casuals don’t keep games alive — hardcore sim fans do.

Conclusion: It’s Time to Demand Better

Boxing has always been called “the sweet science.” Yet in gaming, it’s treated like a shallow arcade spectacle. That’s not just a developer issue — it’s a fan mentality issue. As long as the community keeps repeating “accept what we have” or “wait and hope,” companies will never feel the urgency to deliver authenticity.

Football, basketball, and baseball fans refused to settle, and their games became true simulations. Boxing fans must do the same. Otherwise, we’ll be left waiting another generation, still hoping, still settling, and still without the realistic boxing game the sport deserves.

Pretending Isn’t Playing: Why “Just Play as Sim as Possible” Fails Boxing Games

Deep-dive analysis and a practical blueprint for doing it right.

Executive summary

“Play as sim as possible” is not a fix—it’s a coping mechanism. If the underlying systems don’t model boxing, player self-restraint won’t conjure realism. This piece breaks down which systems must exist (and how they should interact), why pretend-sim collapses, and a concrete remediation roadmap that can satisfy both hardcore and casual audiences without diluting authenticity.

1) The myth of “Play Sim”

Shifts responsibility: It asks players to role-play around missing mechanics instead of holding the game accountable for them.
Breaks parity: In competitive play, the player who role-plays loses to the player who fully exploits the engine.
Masks telemetry: Devs read “engagement” stats polluted by spammy meta and think the pace is correct.
Undermines trust: If a game markets authenticity but requires pretending, the brand promise is broken.

Reality check: No setting, slider, or gentleman’s agreement can substitute for referees, footwork physics, punch economy, clinch, scoring integrity, and boxer identity working together.

2) What authentic boxing requires (12 pillars)

Referee & Rules Engine
Live detection of holding, excessive clinching, low blows, rabbit punches, late punches, break commands, warnings, point deductions, and DQ logic—by context (round, momentum, prior fouls).
Punch Economy (Stamina + Accuracy + Recovery)
Output must be gated by cost curves: base stamina, short-term fatigue, long-term depletion, posture disruption, accuracy decay, and recovery that depends on ring pace and defensive responsibility.
Footwork & Ring Geometry
Momentum, planting vs gliding, cut-off angles, rope dynamics, cornering pressure, balance checks on over-extension, and traction differences (canvas wear, sweat).
Clinch System
Intentional vs survival clinches, referee break timing, inside-hand fighting legality windows, and stamina/tempo reset behaviors.
Damage/Vulnerability Model
Target-zone multipliers (chin, temple, liver, solar plexus), cumulative damage, stun/KD/K0 ladders, recovery rolls, posture/guard degradation.
Defense Layers
Guard integrity (opening/closing lanes), head movement with commitment windows, parry/slip counters, shoulder rolls, catch-and-shoot, and risk if you guess wrong.
Boxer Identity (Ratings + Tendencies + Traits—NOT tiers)
Same overall ≠ same boxer. Identity emerges from attribute shapes, tendency weights, signature animations, and trait procs (e.g., “body snatcher,” “late-round surge,” “glass body/iron chin”).
Animation–Stat Coherence
No stat should claim “elite footwork” if locomotion blends, pivots, and cut steps don’t reflect it. Timing windows and animation lengths must match the numbers.
Judge Scoring Authenticity
Per-judge bias profiles (aggression vs ring generalship vs clean effective punching), close-round variance, swing-round logic, and transparency.
Corner & Cutman
Swelling/cuts, end-round treatment, advice affecting tendencies next round (e.g., “go to the body,” “slow the pace”).
AI Styles & Adaptation
Real styles (pressure, outfighter, counterpuncher, switch-hitter, spoiler) with in-fight adaptation and tendency drift under stress.
Online Rulesets & Integrity
Ranked “Sim” playlists with referee on, full foul set, stamina costs, clinch, injuries/cuts, and server-side validation so exploits can’t bypass realism.

3) Why “pretend-sim” collapses (8 failure modes)

Spam-friendly TTK: Time-to-kill and stun windows reward volume over placement.
Flat stamina curves: Linear costs + generous regen = permanent 70% output.
No posture disruption: Windmilling doesn’t compromise balance or accuracy.
Missing clinch/referee: No systemic way to reset pace or punish ugliness.
Homogenized boxers: Tier lists replace identity; every “A-tier” feels the same.
Hit registration vs defense: Defensive commitment isn’t rewarded versus mash.
Animation lies: Pretty punches with timing windows that don’t align with stats.
Telemetry illusion: High APM looks like “fun” in analytics—until churn spikes.

4) Lessons from other sports sims (without naming and shaming)

Layered Rulesets: Casual defaults + true simulation sliders/playlists that are first-class citizens, not afterthoughts.
Tendencies over tiers: Player/team identities come from granular weights and signature packages, not an overall number.
Telemetric tuning: Pace, foul rates, stamina decay, and outcome distributions tuned against real-world baselines (per weight class in boxing).
Skill + Knowledge funnels: Onboarding and mastery paths teach why real tactics work—then the engine rewards them.

5) Design remedies that won’t alienate casuals

A. Mode Matrix (declare the contract)

Sim Core (ranked & unranked): full rules, stamina, clinch, damage, judges.
Hybrid: gentler stamina decay, wider timing windows, referee lite.
Arcade: spectacle, short bouts, power fantasy.

Crucial: Sim Core must be preserved—no hidden arcade assist bleeding into it.

B. Assist Layers (not cheats)

Footwork assist (path smoothing), defense timing assists (larger windows), visual tells (subtle HUD cues) for novices—disabled in ranked Sim.

C. Teaching the Sim

Coach Challenges: “Cut the ring and trap a mover,” “Win a round with 35% lower output.”
Film Room: Show how body work changes the fight by Round 7.
Referee Clinic: Learn how fouls/warnings work and why.

6) Anti-spam blueprint (systemic, not punitive)

Punch Tax: Marginal cost rises with burst length; accuracy and damage decay in flurries.
Burst Windows: Short explosiveness allowed, but enforced recovery frames and posture wobble if you overextend.
Footwork Fatigue: Constant dashes drain short-term stamina and skew balance—leading to whiffs and counters.
Counter-priority: Well-timed slips/parries trigger high-reward counters only when you commit defensively.
Referee Pace Checks: Excessive holding/spam? Warning → deduction.
Guard Integrity: Blocks degrade; “turtle” becomes leaky under sustained pressure.
Targeted Damage: Liver/solar plexus investment slows output later—create real incentives to work the body early.
Netcode-aware Design: Timing windows sized for online latency in ranked Sim to protect counterplay.

7) KPIs to prove it’s working (per weight class)

Punches per round: Median, IQR; convergence toward realistic ranges.
Accuracy spread: Clean shot vs spam delta widens in Sim.
Clinch frequency & ref actions: Healthy but not excessive.
KD/KO distribution by punch type & round: Body-shot KDs exist; late KOs rise when pace management matters.
Scorecard variance: Fewer identical 30-27s; real swing rounds.
Boxer pick diversity: Higher unique-pick rate; fewer S-tier monopolies.
Tendency conformance: Outfighters actually win on control/accuracy; pressure boxers win on volume and body attrition.

8) 90-/180-day remediation roadmap

First 90 days (foundation)

Ship Sim Core playlist with referee, clinch, full stamina/damage.
Implement punch tax + accuracy decay + recovery frames.
Add body-shot vulnerability ladder + long-term stamina drain.
Release Sim Tuning Telemetry blog: targets, current metrics, deltas.
Hotfix animation-stat mismatches for top 15 used boxers.

Next 90 days (depth)

Expand referee behaviors (break timing, warnings, deductions).
Roll out tendency & trait passes for full roster; kill tier lists.
Introduce judge bias profiles + post-fight transparency.
Add Coach Challenges and Film Room onboarding for Sim.
Publish quarterly Sim Integrity Report (KPI dashboard).

9) Community partnership without spin

Form a Hardcore Sim Council (boxers, coaches, analysts) with veto on Sim Core rule changes.
Run A/B test weekends for stamina/damage profiles; publish results—no cherry-picking.
Survey correctly: Screen respondents (years watching boxing, competition experience) so data isn’t dominated by casual baselines.

10) The Sim Litmus (quick self-test)

Can I stop spam with systemic counters, not self-restraint?
Does sustained body work change rounds 7–12?
Do referees actually control the fight’s legality and pace?
Is footwork a resource with risk/reward, not a teleport?
Do boxers with the same overall still fight differently?
Does online ranked Sim feel meaningfully different from Hybrid/Arcade?
Can I win with chess—feints, traps, and ring control—not just APM?
Do judges sometimes disagree on close rounds (for legitimate reasons)?
Are stamina and accuracy the currencies of decision-making?
Do telemetry and patch notes show movement toward real-world distributions?

If you can’t answer “yes” to most of these, you’re not playing a sim—you’re pretending.

Closing: Respect the sport, respect the player

Boxing is a discipline of choices under fatigue. A true sim lets boxers’ strengths and weaknesses manifest under pressure while the referee, judges, and ring matter. “Just play as sim as possible” is an admission that those systems aren’t in place. Build them—and both hardcore and casuals win: one gets authenticity, the other gets clarity, fairness, and a path to mastery.