Anyone have the UmpSkins??? Thoughts....

I think they'd serve a soccer shin guards better!

Buy the GD shins! Only two straps, supper light!

Under $60

UMPSkins not UMPShins.

I can't speak from personal experience since I wear McDavids or UnderArmor. But a buddy of mine wears them and loves them.

I LOVE Under Armour's stuff, but I have one major complaint about their ankle-length under item: no cup pocket. The McDavid Interawear has a built-in cup pocket, and since I wear the original, yellow banana cup, this is a big asset. I hate to wear a separate jockstrap, and the McDavids are great for this. I've Emailed an Under Armour rep. about this, especially since the UA thigh-length under item has this cup pocket, and the rep. said he'd pass the info along.

If the McDavid ankle-length product suits your need why care about what UA does? I use McDavid ankle-length also, and therefore could care less that UA does not have a similar product.

Because I personally like UA much more. I believe it is a superior product and like the feel much better than that of the McDavids. That's why.

Snippy tonight, aren't we? :rolleyes:

Six of one, half dozen of another. It is apparently not a superior product if it does not meet the need for a place for the cup.

It's clear he finds the UA material superior, and so do I. For the same reason, I still use McDavids -- once UA comes out with the full tights with cup pockets IN GRAY, I'll likely switch.

Hardly. There is a clear difference between the two. UA far and away is the superior product, up and down the line. They're just lacking this one important feature with their ankle-length tights.

I know at least a half-dozen fellow umpires, including the two MLB umps who turned me on to UA--not to mention Rich here--who'd get the UA ankle-length tights in a heartbeat if they came with the built-in cup pocket.

BTW, Rich, I opt for the grey ones, too. :)

I am with ya. Not sure why but I like the feel of the UA material better than the McDavids, tho I use both (UA for shirts and McDavids for bottoms.) I'm still fuming over one of my UA shirts coming up missing. Those are not cheap.

If you say the under armour thigh-lenght under item has a built in cup pocket, I believe you. Trouble is, I have never found one in all my searching on the internet (including UA's website) or in stores.

I would love to wear the product you describe. Could you please point me to where you found it and where it may be purchased?

They have a few different types of undergear items with cup pockets, including what they call "hockey shorts." One guy I know uses these.

Here are some of their mid-length items with cup pockets.

http://www.underarmour.com/ua2/ua/de...0126G&mscssid=

http://www.underarmour.com/ua2/ua/de...=0223&mscssid=

http://www.underarmour.com/ua2/ua/de...=0222&mscssid=

Ahhh, yes, I have found those as well. But none are just straight up compression shorts. I don't play hockey and I'm not sliding into a base anytime soon. I had contemplated using those, but I want them to put a cup pocket in the regular old compression shorts!

Well, my buddy who uses the so-called hockey shorts swears there really isn't any difference; he loves them. I really don't need compression per se; I just like an ankle-length item to have a cup pocket.

I'll tell you one thing--ever since I went to the McDavid ankle-length w/ built-in cup pocket, I haven't had the constant "wandering" of my cup, something I experienced all the time with a jockstrap and cup. Now, if I for some reason do experience a wandering cup, it's my own fault, because it's a result of my not putting the cup all the way down into the pocket. Once I do, it's set for the game and I never have a problem.