Buy from OutdoorBunker:
|
|
Product Features
|
![]() |
Product Details
Would you like to give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
31 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Pleasant Surprise,
By Paul Holmes (USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Men's M Series 9" Boxerjock® Bottoms by Under Armour (Apparel)
I saw all the glowing reviews and I have found Under Armour shorts to be a bit over-rated in the past. I am from Maryland originally, and that's where UA was founded so my friends have been using their gear for a decade now. In the past, the gear I have purchased made by UA tended to be ill-fitting and the fabric was incredibly easy to tear and not durable (made in Guatemala). I bought both a boxerjock and a compression short recently and I like both. Yes, they do fit tight and always have. Like really tight. They are supposed to. For one, some American apparel makers size a medium as a 34 waist and others as a 32 waist. There is no standardized sizing in the U.S., unlike most countries. U.A. Gear size medium is DEFINITELY sized for a 32 waist. In fact, if you have a 30 inch waist, I'd still go with a medium unless you really want a tight fit. On the plus side of this, the boxerjock is supportive of your muscles and makes exercising do a lot less damage to your muscles by cradling them. I personally prefer the compression short over the boxerjock for athletics. Its definitely not comfortable enough for everyday wear but the compression fit is a must if you are doing serious athletics. If you just want nice (though expensive) everyday underwear though, the boxerjock is a good choice if you are looking for something made out of synthetic fabrics to deal with heat or sweat. I wish it was clearer before purchase about the difference between the various inseam lengths available on the boxer-jock. A 6 inch inseam is VERY short and I know that surprises some people. If you have not worn trunks before I'd suggest starting out with the 9-inch version and seeing how you like it. A 6 inch inseam is going to give you more freedom of movement, but less support for your thighs and is going to ride up a bit more. The "long" boxerjock I assume provides better leg support but I personally find underwear that long to be somewhat uncomfortable, especially if you have thick athletic legs, unless you are going to just wear it for sports competitions in which case support probably matters more than comfort.
9 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
These are great,
By
This review is from: Men's M Series 9" Boxerjock® Bottoms by Under Armour (Misc.)
I live in Houston where it is hot and humid. These are very comfortable in hot weather as they prevent chafing. When I travel and walk around alot, I also have problem with chafing and these are indispensable. Great product.
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
GREAT!,
By
This review is from: Men's M Series 9" Boxerjock® Bottoms by Under Armour (Apparel)
This is must have. They are great for activity use but I love mine so much I bought more and wear them everyday. The soft front pouch gives you support but also allows you to breath while the legs area little tighter and run up your legs. AWESOME
2115|R3T2G3VQMHCJCL;2115|R3UCRJRX1AWEKN;2115|R1W4ZOA5S5YSRD;
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|