Under Armour Tech BoxerJock Shorts - are sizes a bit small?

New Topic
Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 BruceM 13 May 2022

I want to try some of these UA tech things but published sizes around the Small/Med range seem a little small compared to normal UK clothing sizes.

They say (waist size):

S 28-29"  M 30-32"  L 34-36"

Whereas in UK generally:

S < 31"   M~32-34"  L 34+

If you are about 30-31" waist and can often squeeze into a UK S (need snug to be supportive), it seems Under Amour recommend M.  But don't want to go with that and end up baggy and unsupportive.  Also don't want to strangle certain parts if their S is too small.

Does anybody wear these things and know if they are generally a bit small for the size?

Can't really send them back if they don't fit.

 benp1 13 May 2022
In reply to BruceM:

who doesn't love a thread on pants?

I wear boxerjocks in size M. Am a medium in normal clothes and a 32" waist

 Tigger 13 May 2022
In reply to BruceM:

I'm a 31" waist and wear them in a medium.

Though I've since moved onto BAM "Jersey Sport Trunks" in a medium, they're much better for long days on the hill, breath much better and don't have that horrible synthetic feel + they've lasted for years.

Their 'Air' and 'Hipster' Boxers are a bit naff but Sport Trunk and Regular Boxers are excellent.

Post edited at 16:02
OP BruceM 13 May 2022
In reply to benp1:

Ahh, but you are a fatty at 32.  If you were a 30-31 would those Ms still fit as Under Armour say?  Or would they be a bit loose.

OP BruceM 13 May 2022
In reply to Tigger:

Thanks Tigger.  And also for the bamboo recommendation.

Man that muscle guy in that BAM ad is trying to look so cool, and seems oblivious to the fact that he is standing there in his jocks!

Post edited at 16:10
 Glyno 13 May 2022
In reply to BruceM:

I'm a 29"-ish waist and small fit me perfectly. UA Boxerjocks are brilliant btw.

...thinking of trying Stepone undies if anyone has opinions?

Post edited at 16:25
OP BruceM 13 May 2022
In reply to Glyno:

Cheers. If I wasn't so fat I could just go with S too then and it would be easy. 

 nathan79 13 May 2022
In reply to BruceM:

I find them on the large side. I'm a 36-38 roughly and large fits me well. I have a couple of pairs in XL and find them too loose at the waist, not to the point where they're unwearable but less comfortable than the smaller size.

 Tigger 14 May 2022
In reply to BruceM:

I just want to add that with a 31" wasit I'd find the Boxer Jocks and a small way too tight. Though I have certainly got some thighs on me so ymmv.

OP BruceM 14 May 2022
In reply to Tigger:

Cheers.  I'm pretty puny in the thighs, which is probably why I'm a bit scared of just jumping into Meds.  Even though 31".

And Nathan79 you seem to be in between their size guide for L and XL so can see the problem.

 Moacs 14 May 2022
In reply to BruceM:

Obvious humblebrag is obvious

 nathan79 14 May 2022
In reply to BruceM:

If you're puny-thighed definitely go for small. I'm rather generously thighed. In the longer leg styles I go for XL as I find the L too snug on the legs 

OP BruceM 16 May 2022
In reply to nathan79:

I've just realized why maybe the Under Armour size chart appears to run smaller than normal UK stuff.  (UA Med=30-32"whereas UK Med usually about 32-34")

They say the waist measurement is actually taken way up high at the narrowest part of your trunk, and not lower where you trousers waist normally sit.  And this "true" waist is actually a few inches smaller than the waist measurement where the pants elastic band actually sits.

They also specify a hip measurement which maybe closer to the mark, but other manufacturers don't seem to use that.

If I go by their Hip measurement, I'm at the very bottom of their Sml range, not their Med.

New Topic
Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Loading Notifications...