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 appliqué 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.
