Customer Reviews Jockey Pouch Brief 3-Pack

I have always like the pouch as I find it most comfortable. I'd give these 5 stars except that I had one that the seams started unraveling after 6 months or so. Also they are way smaller than you'd think. According to the size chart I should wear a small, but I always size up to medium. These latest ones are even way tight in the medium size. I would order a large next time even though my waist is only 30 inches.

Elastic waistband tends to roll. Thought Jockey was aware of this problem in the past and had corrected it--acording to flier I received "no roll waistband."

I didn't like the fit of these briefs. I need full rise brief and these didn't cut it. Very tight fitting.

Just got these to go along with my Microfiber Pouch Boxer Briefs (which Jockey didn't have in stock at the time). Well-made, but size (L) is much closer to M (unlike the Microfiber version, which is spot-on for me in L). I'm making them "work", but they'd be much better in XL.

Always ordered large in this product. However, after washing these briefs were extremely yoo small

I ordered a 32-34 waist. My waist is a 32. These briefs are a little snug for the 32-34 size.

I always order the same type of boxer brief but the latest pair are super short, not as long as all my others. Boxer briefs are boxer briefs, isn't that right?

I don't know why I bought these. I have a drawer full of them in white that I haven't worn in a long time. I do like the H-fly but performance microfiber sport is definitely the way to go. They are much more comfortable and way more durable.

I, like many others who have reviewed these, agree with the comment that this style is about 3" too tall/high. The model used to show this style must be 6'4" at least as it shows the waistband land several inches below his navel. Take us average guys, me I'm 5'11" and this style is really about 3" above the navel! I, otherwise, love the fit and the comfort. Please, Jockey, read these reviews to see the common thread in the messages are all the same.....they're built too high!

I made a mistake and ordered the wrong style. I prefer the brief that comes down the leg a little. If it came in a 3 pack instead of a 6 pack I would have ordered them.

Waist to leg ratio in not very good--tight around the waist and loose on the legs--I must have thinner legs or the design is off. Height from crotch to waist is great--so many others are too short.

Just an average type of boxer brief. I do not find much support. Not very comfortable.

I really like the pouch brief, but the rise is too high. Should offer a lower rise for this day and age.

The fabric is not what it used to be. It's very thin in comparison. Not as soft. Otherwise okay.

I like them but the waistband rolls and become very uncomfortable

I just bought 2pair of the Pouch Boxer Briefs and 2 pair of the Pouch briefs. They are both comfortable but the waistband rolls on all of them. I may have to go back to Calvins.

I've bought these pouch Boxers for a long time but the waist bands have folded over the last few years of purchases. The synthetic blend boxers waist bands don't do this. Please go back to the way you made them five years ago. Very comfortable except at the waist band.

They aren't cheap, but they do hold up well and stay in place. Jockey, it's time to step up and offer these in more bold colors like the rest of your briefs. the plain old boring versions of blue aren't gonna cut it! Bold colors are everywhere - how about a REDS collection with orange, bright red, etc? Time to get away from the same old boring colors.

My husband's normal size is M (34) These leave an indentation so I will choose a different style.

I've been buying these for years and am glad I have. The consistency of the product is erratic in the waistband. Sometimes it gives and doesn't roll, and then in the next batch, the elastic is so unforgiving, I'm in a constant state of tugging and adjusting.

The reviews don't matter because the company isn't listening. Pouch used to be perfect and I liked the heather gray. The fit is off and you can't get the heather gray. I'm moving on.

I was excited to try this product. I had purchased a similar product - (Style #8095 mid-rise and full coverage - 66% cotton/ 30% polyester/ 4% spandex. Mesh: 86% polyester/ 14% spandex - no-gap H-fly - but Jockey has discontinued this style. These are the MOST COMFORTABLE briefs I've ever worn! I own 7 pairs and use them from October thru April. Although the the product is 66% cotton, the briefs have the feel of polyester. I wanted the same style in cotton for wearing in the summer, so I tried style 1146. I prefer cotton for its sweat absorption qualities. But, there are several troubling disconnects between these styles. The waistband rolls and creases and is uncomfortable. In fact after wearing a pair twice, the waistband is permanently creased. Style 1146 does not account enough for shrinkage. After the first washing, the brief shrunk, and after the second time the brief was tight. There is a difference between the distance between the top of the brief and the bottom of the crotch. The waist line fits higher on my body and is much less comfortable. Unfortunately I won't buying additional pairs.

BOTTOM LINE: These are the best H-fly cotton (97%) boxer briefs you can find anywhere! They are also garbage compared to the low-rise H-fly's that Jockey stopped selling. So I recommend these to anybody looking for cotton Horizontal-Fly underpants, only because the competitors' H-fly underwear is even worse. I used to buy the now discontinued Jockey low-rise horizontal fly boxer-briefs (or was it trunks?), and they were the perfect underpants for my preferences. I guess not enough people shared my preferences, and Jockey stopped selling the low-rise version, so I bought these instead. The waist-band on these uncomfortably rolls up frequently, unlike the discontinued low-rise version. The fabric quality is much worse, with corner-seams splitting much sooner than the discontinued version (especially around crotch, also sooner than other brands). I also like low-rise waist better than high-rise, but that's a question of personal taste, UNLIKE the shamefully inferior product quality of these splitting seams and rolling waistbands. So why do I rate these 3-stars instead of 1, after dissing their miserable quality so brutally? Because all the competing companies' cotton (or mostly cotton) horizontal-fly underpants are even worse, much worse. The competitors also tend to have much higher prices (but I wouldn't even buy them at a lower price than Jockey). After buying the first set of these lousy H-fly boxer-briefs, i vowed to never buy any more. I desperately searched for alternatives, but they were all even worse then these Jockey's. I faced reality - however much worse than Jockey's earlier product, these are the best cotton h-fly underpants available (at least if you prefer cotton). Normally I'd rate 4 or 5 stars for the best product available, or 1 star for the lousy product quality of these, but since both apply I'll compromise at 3 stars. BTW, medium size on these is a JUST A LITTLE TIGHTER waist than I normally feel with medium underpants. You might want to buy these a size up, but I stayed with my usual Medium to avoid an even higher Granny-pants waistband.

I have only cycled the gray pair into my wardrobe.

The waist line is too high and the pouch does not extend up high enough.