Customer Reviews Under Armour The Original 9" Boxerjock®

I agree with all of the other negative reviews, bring back the originals!! I have been wearing the 9 inch boxer jocks for years now and like everyone else said, the fit is totally different now, too tight in the legs and too loose in the waist. I've narrowed it down to where they were manufactured. All of the one's that were made in Cambodia are the best ones and fit perfectly, the one's made in Bangladesh, are wrong and fit different than the originals! Please correct this before you lose a lot of business!

I usually order medium extra long but there isn't a fabric preference. I have very skinny legs yet these are tight in more than the leg area. Plus the shiny silky material isn't to my taste at all. What happened to the breathable more forgiving material of the extra long I bought years ago. I work construction and need comfortable, not wicking or tight snug less enjoyable wear. I really just want to wear the same brand, same fit, same length always. Like my button up jeans and pocket tee. The same always.

I still have several pair of the original 9" XL from years past and they fit beautifully. After several years, they're just now showing wear. A few months ago I bought two new ones, same size, color, and style. They're right on my waist but incredibly tight on my thighs, to the point of being unwearable without having to constantly pull them up. Since then I've tried L and XXL to see if it helped. The L are too small all over, the XXL even looser on waist but the thighs are still just as tight. I've tried competitors, and while some are comfortable for everyday life, non feel as good as these real originals in the gym/outside and active. Please fix these :(

I am an avid UA fan/customer with multiple pairs of shoes, shirts and underwear. Last purchase completely disappointed me; The 9" Boxerjocks ordered are completely loose at the waist, always falling... Lately, sadly disappointed with your products UA !!

I have worn an XL for years in these and purchase a few new ones recently at an outlet. I have to say the new fit is very different in a negative way. Way bigger around the waist and tighter in the legs. Why such a huge white tag with additional writing on the fabric? I'm sure most customers know how to wash underwear and don't care where it is made. The waistband seems to be a lot stiffer than before. I agree with lots of other reviews in saying that this boxerjock was a dream and now a nightmare.

I'm used to the old original 9" boxer briefs in mesh. Since you have discontinued the best underwear you made I purchased the "new" original 9" boxerjock. Quality is terrible, feel is cheap!!! And the tag, really?!?! Since my initial review was rejected for some reason I am trying to let someone in a position of authority that you have fallen far from the top of the "premium" athletic wear market.

The fir, comfort and material have changed for the worse. I've moved on to other brands as UA keeps getting worse. These are horrible. UA products used to be good quality and conformable, now they are overpriced and low quality.

I have been a Loyal UA customer for years and used to Love these Boxer Jock underwear but the last three pairs have only lasted a few months each whereas the ones I purchased years ago are still in good wearable order. The stitching on the new ones began to come apart within months and the fit is always inconsistent! what's up UA! You just lost a good customer.

Same feedback as everyone else: UA changed the product to use cheaper material, and changed the fit to accommodate guys with big bellies and tiny thighs. Terrible underwear. If you're going to pass this feedback along to your design team, tell them that customers can tell the difference between a brand for athletes and a brand that's only pretending to be.

When i got my under amour Boxer jock i expected them to be good quality. They where okay but if you sit down at all your butt digs into the fabric and i gets relay annoying.

The original 9" that I bought a few years ago fit perfect and I've been wearing them several times a week and they've held out well. I have been wearing XXL. I ordered several new pairs of XXL and the waistband was way too big so I ordered several XL after that. They are so tight on my legs they don't pull all the way on and then the waist is about 2" bigger still than the XXL ones from a few years ago. Not sure what is going on but I thought it was maybe a bad batch and went to a store to purchase more with same poor results. Go back to however you were making them a few years ago. Doesn't look like there will even be a size I can wear.

I logged on to see if there was any different versions of the 9". I too had bought a pair in about 2010 and started to replace some last year and have found that these are already beginning to ride up and loosen up. If UA decides to improve on the product I'd like to know; otherwise since there doesn't appear to be any other 9" version I will have to look elsewhere.

Made an UA account just to review this. Like everyone else, the waist band is just too loose. When sitting down I feel it loosen up in the back. Definitely did not have this problem with the old version. It stayed put at the waist comfortably. Also the thigh area is now are way too tight. Not sure why.. Anyways will be returning these. I will be waiting for UA to improve its quality. Til then I probably will hold back from buying any Under Armour underwear.

The boxer jock, one of the most important pieces of gear for athletes, has steadily gone downhill. The jocks from 2010-ish lasted many years, were extremely comfortable, and had working flies. These shorts do not measure up. The material is abrasive and smothering.

I bought a pair of these a year ago in XL and they were ok. They wore out quickly, but while they lasted they worked. I bought some more in the same size, and the fit is totally different and inconsistent. The black ones and the grey ones, both labeled XL are vastly different size. The grey ones are also made out of a material that doesn't stretch laterally. More like a compression short. Horrible experience. Avoid.

My most recent purchase of this underwear was disappointing. The last pairs I received were looser than pairs I've had for over 18 months. The legs roll up and bunch. The waistband was surprisingly loose. I've had many pairs of this underwear for last 10 years and this most recent version was completely different (and not for the better) than any I've had in the past.

Wow, can't believe how low quality UA is making these now. I knew as soon as I took them out of the box that they've made some serious changes, for the worse. Cheap material and cheap stitching...and what's with the sewn on tag now?!?! Very low quality compared to the originals, and yet still the same price. Well it's the last dollar UA will ever get from me, I'd never buy these again or recommend them to anyone.

Nothing like the originals, all has already been said. Thinner, constant butt crack exposure, tags???, nothing like the ua I have purchased in the past. Bring back the "ORIGINAL" UA!

I'm 5' 9" 170 lbs and pretty lean. I have large thighs and a 31" waist and wear Mediums. I bought 2 pairs of these underwear in 2007 and another 3 in 2013. The old version of these underwear were perfect. They were tight in all the right places and kept people with big thigs from chafing. The waistband and cut of the fabric were perfect for an athlete that regularly does squats and deadlifts. They are also very durable. I'm still wearing my 5 pairs every week putting them through the ringer. Army field rotations, lacrosse games, sprints, sled pulls, squats, weightlifting, swimming, and crawling in mud. I do everything in the old sets that I own and they are just starting to break down years later. I have since tried to buy some replacements in 2014 and very recently (DEC 16). The design has changed for the worse where any pair I buy to try on and check the fit, I have to resale. They are unwearable. The waistband is about 2 inches looser than previously and thighs are 3-4 inches tighter. Additionally fabric was taken out near the glutes. This leaves the wearer with a floppy low rise waistband that shows the top of the butt crack with only the slightest amount of leaning over. If this wasn't bad enough the thighs are painfully tight and leave a low saggy crotch area since they cannot be pulled up high enough. If UA will go back to their original fit and cut then it's a good buy. Otherwise save your money. I'd easily pay $30 for the old cut and materials. I have tags and receipts for my latest pair that the store won't let me return. I would appreciate it if I can mail them back to UA for a refund.

This product now ships with tags which are double sewn into the fabric. When you try to remove the tags, the threads become loose and/or ripped. The tags are a terrible idea and ruin this otherwise great product. I returned my order immediately after opening the first box.

I just purchased 6 new pair have worn these for years and while I've noticed a deterioration in the product over the years this is the last I will buy. I wished i would of tried a pair on before I cut out the ridiculous tags i would of sent them back. The fit has changed, it is like low riders in the back and they don't stay up like all of mine before. Why did you start putting tags? My last order had it embossed in the back. You should go back to the design that got you here!

I read the reviews about the comfort of these underwear and then the subsequent complaints about the tags. I figured UA would have wised up and ceased sewing tags into the back (double sewing to be precise; the tag is sewn, folded over, and sewn again to ensure you'll damage the garment if you try to remove the tag). I ordered several pair on this assumption and was sadly disappointed when I found the tag in the first pair. Didn't even remove the cardboard inside the folded garment; put it back in the box and sent the package back for return. Encourage others to do the same so we'll know when the tags are gone (provided you get free shipping).

I have been wearing Under Armour boxer briefs for over 10 years, but not any longer. I read the reviews that talked about the low rise and the plumber butt problem, but I rolled the dice, thinking that maybe they were just unused to the fit of the boxers. Unfortunately, the reviews were right on. these were the most uncomfortable boxers that I have ever bough from Under Armour. I will check up on reviews and hope that the older, much better fit returns, but in the meantime, I will have to find a new brand.

I have been a loyal customer for years buying the 6 inch version of this series. But I thought I'll try the 9 inch. Bad decision the cut is different and the material is thinner cheaper. Very disappointing. Not sure I going to buy anymore Under Armour. Don't ruin a good brand with poor performance.

not for me