In the crowded market of combat sports equipment, where manufacturers constantly promise peak performance, elite wrist support, and durable multi-layer foam, critics and gear reviewers occasionally encounter products that fall desperately short of basic safety standards. Such is the verdict delivered in a recent critical gear evaluation targeting Sidekick, a United Kingdom-based boxing equipment brand that manufactures its products in Pakistan.
The evaluation, published by combat sports analyst and reviewer Johnny DuC Duarte, cuts straight to the point with an uncompromising assessment that advises athletes, hobbyists, and casual fitness enthusiasts to bypass the brand entirely. For those seeking a short summary before diving into the details, the reviewer offers a succinct piece of advice: do not buy them, do not read further, and forget the brand even exists. However, for fighters and consumers demanding a thorough breakdown of why these budget-friendly mitts fail to meet the grade, the review provides an unvarnished look at the realities of low-cost combat gear.
Poor Quality and Protection
Opening the assessment with a candid acknowledgement of his provocative promotional imagery, the reviewer explains that he agreed to evaluate two pairs of Sidekick gloves after being contacted by the company. True to his independent stance, he warned the manufacturer beforehand that if the equipment performed poorly, his review would reflect that reality without hesitation. As it turned out, the gloves delivered entirely on their lacklustre performance.
Describing the equipment with a mix of blunt honesty and dark humor, the reviewer notes that Sidekick manufactures roughly what one would expect from ultra-budget gear, ranking them at the very bottom of a functional quality scale. On a performance and safety scale ranging from one, representing the absolute worst gear on the market, to five, representing top-tier professional equipment, the Sidekick lineup struggles to score between a one and a two.
The pricing structure of the brand reflects this economy positioning. Entry-level models retail for approximately twenty British pounds, translating to roughly twenty-five US dollars. Meanwhile, the higher-end offerings from the brand reach around fifty-five British pounds, or about sixty US dollars. The items submitted for this particular evaluation were selected from the upper tier of the brand’s catalogue, marketed as their high-end models. Even at this elevated price point relative to the rest of their inventory, the reviewer found the gloves to be completely unacceptable for serious training, leaving little doubt about how poorly the cheaper models must perform.
The core issue highlighted throughout the evaluation is not merely aesthetic or related to minor cosmetic stitching flaws, but rather a fundamental failure in basic hand protection and material integrity. Combat sports involve high-impact forces directed through the small bones of the hands, wrists, and knuckles against heavy bags, focus mitts, and training partners. When gloves lack proper internal padding density, ergonomic alignment, and wrist stabilization, the shock absorption fails, transferring the kinetic energy directly into the user’s joints.
For this reason, the reviewer issues a blanket warning against using these gloves under any circumstances, explicitly stating that they cannot be recommended even for absolute beginners taking their first tentative steps into a boxing or kickboxing gym. While a novice might assume that cheap entry-level equipment is acceptable for someone who does not hit hard, the review emphasizes that safety standards should never be compromised based on experience level.
According to the analysis, a consumer might theoretically manage to use these gloves if they deliberately restricted their punching power to a mere twenty-five percent of their maximum capacity, rendering them marginally better than bare-knuckle striking. Outside of such extreme and impractical limitations, however, athletes are firmly advised to invest their money in alternative brands that prioritize structural integrity and safety.
The rationale underpinning this strict stance is rooted in the long-term health and functionality of the human body. As the reviewer points out, hands are essential tools utilized across every aspect of daily life, professional work, and personal independence—not merely inside the boxing ring or fitness studio. Compromising hand safety to save a nominal amount of money on budget equipment imported from overseas manufacturing hubs like Pakistan ultimately poses a risk that far outweighs any short-term financial savings.
