32033401277240
Images The Original 9" Boxer Jock
Hover to Zoom | Click to Enlarge

Under Armour® The Original 9" Boxer Jock

Details
$20.00
Promotions
Buy 3 For $50
View Details
Variations
Add to cart options
Product Actions
1
  • 1
FREE SHIPPING ON ALL ORDERS!
We’re sorry, you have too many items in your shopping bag. To add this item to your bag, please remove previously added items.
The maximum purchase quantity of this item is 24.
We're sorry. This item is currently out of stock.
Additional Information
These must-have briefs wick moisture to keep you cool, dry and light all day long. Elevated by four-way stretch performance and anti-odor protection, this pair is ideal for your collection.
  • 9-in. inseam
  • Elastic logo waistband
  • Tear-away tag
  • Machine Washable
  • Polyester,Elastane
  • Import

California Residents

For orders being shipped to California, please click here for Proposition 65 WARNING.

Shipping Details
Shipping Details

Shipping your purchase is easy at belk.com. Depending on your shipping method and the destination of your package, you can expect it to arrive within 4-7 business days Shipping Information .

Return Details

Returns are easy at belk.com. Easy returns

Offers Available:
Offers Available:
Buy 3 For $50
Buy 3 The Original 9" Boxer Jock For $50
The Original 9" Boxer Jock is rated 2.1 out of 5 by 57.
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Tags? How retro! 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).
Date published: 2016-11-18
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Does not fit like the same size did from a few years ago. 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.
Date published: 2017-05-01
Rated 1 out of 5 by from "Original" 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 :(
Date published: 2017-06-14
Rated 3 out of 5 by from different fit compared to previous version; the giant tag needs to go As others have said, these fit differently compared to the previous version. The leg openings are smaller, the waistband is slightly larger, and the rise (distance from waistband to crotch seam) is shorter. Whether this is a good or bad thing will depend on your own proportions. The other major change compared to the previous version is the giant tag in the back that must be cut out. UA seems to have added these tags to all of their shorts/pants/underwear, and I'm not sure why. They are a huge pain to remove and are a giant step backward in design. Even my UA underwear from 10 years ago were tagless. Please UA, remove the giant tags from everything and go back to the tagless design.
Date published: 2016-09-02
Rated 3 out of 5 by from Getting worse by the year I have been wearing under armour underwear for about 11 years now and it seems they are getting worse by the year. I do like them because they are more comfortable than others that I have purchased. But, the ones I received today were measured at 8.25in. inseam and were suppose to be 9in. Also, it's 2017 and I think tagless technology has been out for awhile now. I don't need a 3 layer 5 inch tag which shows 100 different languages on where it is made. Yes, I there is a tear away on the tag but I would still have to somehow cut the rest of it off to stop it from bothering me. Other than those things, not to bad.
Date published: 2017-04-25
Rated 1 out of 5 by from When is UA going to fix these? I've been periodically purchasing the 9" boxerjock hoping to find the old version, or that UA went back to the original design. Thus far no luck. I tried again today, and they still have all of the same problems (tight thighs, sit lower on the waist, fall down way too easily). Please UA, fix these. Go back to the original design. They were perfection. I want to give you money for the rest of my life for these boxerjocks, but you guys have to get the design fixed first. Until then know that you're leaving a lot of loyal customers frustrated.
Date published: 2017-06-25
Rated 2 out of 5 by from Go Back To The Original Original! I should have checked on this website before purchasing elsewhere (lower price). These have been the perfect underwear for all around wearing. Work, working out, hiking, etc.. The fit was good, quality was good and I especially liked the printed "tag" - all of the past. Now, there are tags! Why? Yes, they are "tear off", but there's still a tag remaining for no reason. The fit is just "weird" now. The whole point was to not have "things" moving around and getting out of place. With this new design, things do. I never had to "adjust things" with UA boxerjocks. Never. Now, I do. In some cases, change is good and needed. But the original boxerjock was fine the way it was. They fit, they worked the way they should and all was fine. Please bring back the original "original" design.
Date published: 2017-01-22
Rated 1 out of 5 by from Make them in Cambodia again!! 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!
Date published: 2017-07-04
  • y_2017, m_10, d_15, h_22
  • bvseo_bulk, prod_bvrr, vn_bulk_2.0.3
  • cp_1, bvpage1
  • co_hasreviews, tv_0, tr_57
  • loc_en_US, sid_32033401277240, prod, sort_[SortEntry(order=RELEVANCE, direction=DESCENDING)]
  • clientName_belknew
  • bvseo_sdk, dw_cartridge, 16.1.0, p_sdk_3.2.0
  • CLOUD, getContent, 33ms
  • reviews, product