Customer Reviews Under Armour The Original 9" Boxerjock®

I would stick to the black and red; they have a better fit than the grey and green.

These run much larger than size chart, sending back for 2 sizes smaller.

I purchased the original UA 9" boxers a few years ago from my local sports store. I really liked the quality and feel. Recently (past year or so), I have purchased a few of the UA 9" boxers from the UA online store and unfortunately the quality & comfort are not the same as the prior UA boxers I acquired. Please reconsider the type of materials used for this particular item. Thank you, B.

I have to agree with a majority of the reviewers here that the sizing is OFF. Too large in the waist and a bit snug around the thighs....disappointed but will keep them since i wear them primarily for tennis.....Why did UA mess with a perfectly good fit????

So after reading the reviews I decided to purchase for myself (all 3 colors). I have never brought Under Armour underwear before or tired them on. I liked the colors and the fell on my thighs. The underwear was very comfortable in the thigh area as that is a major issue I have. The issue I found with all 3 pair of underwear is that the butt area is small (tucked in) and the band in the back area pulls down. Therefore my butt is hanging out of the pants and this is standing up. So sitting down, bending over, or excising is out the question. If this issue could be fixed the underwear would be the best!

This underwear is ok. It fits kind of funny, almost like its too short in the back end somewhere... doesnt fit as well and the Tommy Hilfiger or Jockey. Nice material though.

I have been a huge fan of UA boxers for many years and sworn up and down they were the best and 100% worth the cost. I have been very disappointed recently with the quality of the 9" boxer jock. It feels like all th colors fit differently now, all my black ones fit perfect by the waistband on other colors constantly is falling and feels uncomfortable. My biggest concern has been the longevity. When I first started purchasing UA underwear they seemed to last forever. I currently have 4 pair of black boxerjock that have all ripped in the exact same spot. They were no longer able to be worn and had to be thrown away after what I felt was too short of a time frame. I wish these were made to be as durable as they used to be.

Bought the original 6" boxers in 2012 and 5 years later needed a new pair and what happened? The fit was not even close to the original! I wear a large and the "new" originals didn't fit close to the original size. So, I tried an XL and to baggy. I'm stuck with trying the 9" for a better fit but would rather have the Old Original instead. Why did you change! Please don't send me the same canned response that I see on other reviews with the same compliant....

Raved about my first set of UA 9" boxers but these new ones do not fit the same. I don't need to go in to too much detail after reading the trend of the other reviews... my complaints are about where they sit (too low) and how the waistband feels (too weak). My five year old pair of 9" fit better than these brand new ones. No excuse at this price point. I'm disappointed.

Totally have to agree with TravisC15 and his detailed review, as well as many previous reviews of this new iteration of the Boxerjock. I own pairs of what I believe are the 2010 and 2011 versions of the Original 9". I know that I own the two versions where the only big change between the two was the design in the waistband - from the double red line to the current big red font and single red line. I'm 5'11", 160lb, lean, and I wear size L. After a year or two of wearing them, I was so impressed that I wanted more - this was around 2013/2014. I went online but read the reviews - they had changed, and for the worse. Well, maybe it's only worse for those that know the older iterations and enjoyed them. I'm still wearing mine - five years + and they're still going strong. So when this new new iteration came out a few months ago I had my hopes that UA had acknowledged the wishes of its previous base of customers (like they said they might with their review replies) and adjusted the fit - but when I think about it, that's impossible. And when I tested out the new pairs after receiving them a few weeks ago from today, I then knew that it was impossible. UA, yes, you are not trying to achieve a 'one size fits all' design. Great. But you are trying to achieve a 'one size fits MOST' design, and that philosophy is only SLIGHTLY better. You may have collected enough statistical data and done the research of getting somewhere close to a fit that works for a sizeable customer base of active men between the ages of 15-40 (which I imagine is the target market), but this is underwear we are talking about. This design philosophy may work for shoes, for t-shirts, but it doesn't work for underwear, nor does it work for the customer base that is responsible for growing your company to the size it is today. Heck, I don't even want to believe that it works for people in general. People come in all shapes and sizes and I think underwear is a place where those differences show the most. By making the waistband 2" longer, and the rise higher (two changes which I feel completely contradict each other), you achieve a pointlessly sagging fit. The lift of the rise has more or less removed the 'pouch' feature in the cup area of previous iterations, which served well in keeping my thing in place and from getting pulled into my pant leg when I walk. *Clears throat*. Owners of previous iterations will understand this concept. Well, they're different. Under Armour, you've abandoned your previous customer base, to put it heavily. Sad, but true. Solution? Sell the previous designs! Mark them up if you have to. We'll still buy them. We'll remain faithful. Acknowledge that different people need different fits of underwear, and produce them all - the Original '11, the '12, the 13', the 14', ETC. That would be so, so, so great. Oh yeah, and forget the huge white tags. Use an appliqu like last time. Sure, the three large front tags are 'tear away' (hassle), but the QR Code tag in the back? It's not. So that's, well, dumb. The material itself is still good, I feel, so two stars. Yay. If you got this far, thanks for reading! Now don't just give this the standard 'thanks-forwarded to dev team-contact us for bla bla' reply. Hire people that think like I do! Maybe not just for your design/development teams, but your marketing teams too. For all we know, it's only one person's fault (probably some actually smart person's boss) that made all these changes happen. Your customers will appreciate thoughtful changes, if none at all. That's a little harsh, but do know that we (customers) still think you make some super great products.

I've been wearing 9" original boxer jocks for years. However, as others have said, the fit has changed. The rise is too short - feels like they're always falling down - unacceptable.

The seam comes in within 2-3 weeks. This is one of the most expensive brands & you think they would have one of the best quality out there. I have a problem finding underwear, I want the material to stay tight and these do. But after a month, the band get a horrible smell to them & they are just worn out. My wife uses top of the line laundry detergent, and its not like I just flip them and wear them twice. Its disappointing not having many options.

I'm a big fan of UA products, but I felt I had to write a review for the Boxerjock underwear. I'm a triathlete and long distance runner and the seam along the waist in the back digs into your skin during long runs. It was so bad I started bleeding and it doesn't get better until a scab is formed and you have to wait for it to heal. I threw all these away and don't plan to buy more.

These were near perfect for me. The fit was good, they are very cool (temperature wise), and seemed to be exactly what I've been searching for for quite some time. There's just one problem. The tag. The tag is long, obtrusive, and sewn directly into the waistband. It's uncomfortable when it's there, it's even worse if you cut or tear it off, as it leaves a chunk behind that can't be removed with a seam ripper, because it is sewn directly into the main stitching. It's not made of a soft material like some tags are, rather it is a scratchy material that really makes wearing these uncomfortable. I would have bought several pairs of these, but now the search continues. Under Armour, why would you place the tag in such a terrible spot? In a day and age when most boxers are tagless or use a printed tag, you've taken a near perfect pair of boxers and placed a scratchy tag directly on the waistband with no way to remove it. Even if it was shifted down so that it was in between the layers and could be then cut off, that would be better, but there's no reason not to just go tagless. It would certainly make a lot of potential or current customers happy, judging by similar comments online. Have to return my order unfortunately. Would buy several pairs if this issue was corrected.

Do you wear skinny jeans? These could be great underwear for you! Do you have what could be described as thunder thighs? Then steer clear. These babies are tight. In my actual waist size, I couldn't even pull them all the way up. Had to go up to a size that was 4 inches too large in the waist, which makes them functionally useless.

Wouldn't purchase, had to return

Unfortunately these are once again different from the previous version, the torso section is much shorter. I can't pull them up high enough to cover my butt! Old version was wayyyyy better. My Need to find new underwear once old ones wear out. Hard to find comfy underwear and by changing the size they continue the challenge.

I've been wearing UA underwear for several years now. I've tried to purchase several new pairs of underwear and found the the legs are extremely too tight and the waist was floppy and would slide down if i bent over. I thought it was because I gained wait and my old pairs were just worn and stretched out or the different colors were made different. After reading the reviews on this page I realized that it wasn't me, it was the company. They must have redesigned the underwear. I'm extremely disappointed the old product was awesome, comfortable and lasted years, now I have to find another company to switch to that fits properly and comfortably.

I have to agree with many of the reviews on this product. I have been wearing these since they first started making them in the mid-2000s. I still have pairs I own pre-2010 and the waistband elastic holds up and fits snug around the waist with little to no movement. Recent purchases of this "same" product have left me disappointed due to the drop in quality on the waistband. Current models waistbands are much looser and do not fit nearly as well. While I understand the lower quality may have increased revenue for now, you will gradually lose your loyal customers if this is how you wanna play it. Makes me sad, because I genuinely loved these. The only underwear for me for nearly a decade.

As many have said, the fit is very different than in previous versions and the waistband rides really low and has to be constantly pulled up. I still use the last set that I purchased in 2009 and wish I could get the same ones again. I put the new set of 3 into my storage box but I won't be wearing them anytime soon.

I have been wearing your underwear for sometime now. The recent purchases of the so call original underwear are no where close to previous cotton 9" that I once bought. They do not fit right and the waistband is terrible. Please bring back the 9' inseam cotton underwear. Thanks

Everyone is willing to pay more for the REAL original if it means we actually get THE original. These are a tighter fit with a bad waist band and no glute room. Butt crack shows doing simplest things and always have to mess with them while working out. Listen to your customers and bring back THE ORIGINAL. Thanks

If you are trying to purchase the "REAL" Original 9" Boxerjock do not order these. The waistband is very poor quality and the fit is not good. The "REAL" Original 9" Boxerjock from several years ago was the best underwear I have ever owned. I came back to order more and got this junk instead. I don't understand why you would change an already fantastic product. It's not just me saying this, it's most of the reviewers here. Under Armour PLEASE bring back the "REAL" Original 9" Boxerjock you used to make. Those underwear prompted me to buy more of your products and become an Under Armour fan. Unfortunately, I will have to look elsewhere to spend money on underwear until this problem is fixed.

The 9" Boxerjock of years past used to be very comfortable. This product is uncomfortably tight in the thigh. The waistband is loose and low-cut. This causes the underwear to ride so low on the waist that this product is practically unwearable. I WILL NOT be buying this product again.

I bought 3 pairs of the original 9 inch boxerjock. I LOVED THEM. Soft and fit perfect. Ive ordered 5 more sporadically since then. NONE fit the same. I have no idea what or why UA did this but they ruined a good thing. I wasted my money on trying to order more of what I thought was the same item. Hey UA, it's not the original boxerjock if you decide to change something in it.