Under Armour Charged Draw 2 SL Review: comfy spikeless golf shoes that are great on dry days, less so in the wet

I’ve been playing in the Under Armour Charged Draw 2 SL spikeless golf shoes (size 10 UK, white/black) for a few rounds now, plus a few sessions on the range and putting green. I’m not sponsored, I paid for them myself, and I mainly picked them because I wanted something lighter and more casual than my chunky waterproof FootJoy spikes. On paper, these tick a lot of boxes: spikeless outsole, Charged cushioning, leather upper, and not too expensive compared to big-name rivals.

In practice, they feel like a shoe made for golfers who care more about comfort and walking 18 holes without sore feet than about total stability in wet, muddy conditions. The first thing that stood out for me was how comfortable they are out of the box. No real break-in, no hot spots on the heel, and the cushioning feels closer to a running shoe than a classic stiff golf shoe. If you walk a lot and hate that brick-like feeling, this is a big plus.

But they’re not perfect. Depending on where you look, the product page is a bit confusing: one place talks about Never-Wet treatment and waterproof warranty, another line says "not water resistant". On the course, that confusion kind of shows: they handle light dew okay, but they’re not the pair I’d trust for a full round in steady rain or on soaked fairways. You can feel moisture creeping in if the grass is properly wet, especially around the toe area and where the upper flexes.

So overall, my first impression is: very comfortable, decent grip for a spikeless, fine for spring/summer and dry days, but I wouldn’t rely on them as my only pair if you play a lot in the rain. If you accept that, they’re pretty solid. If you’re expecting a fully waterproof tank of a shoe, you’ll probably end up disappointed like one of the 1-star reviews on Amazon.

In terms of price, these usually sit in the mid-range for golf shoes – not bargain-basement cheap, but well below the top-tier tour models. For that money, you’re getting a very comfortable, lightweight, spikeless shoe that works well on dry or mildly damp courses. If that matches how you mostly play, then the value is actually pretty good. You’re basically paying for comfort and easy wear rather than bulletproof waterproofing and rock-solid stability.

Compared to some Adidas and FootJoy options at a similar price, I’d say Under Armour holds up on comfort but lags a bit on perceived quality and waterproof confidence. My older Adidas spikes feel more solid and supportive, but they’re also heavier and less pleasant to walk in all day. So it really depends what you prioritise. If I were buying a main all-weather shoe, I’d probably lean back towards Adidas or a more premium model. As a second, summer-focused pair, these make sense and feel fairly priced.

The Amazon rating of 4.4/5 with nearly 500 reviews also tells you most people are satisfied overall. The positive comments line up with my experience: light, comfy, look good, good for the price. The negative one about them being the worst shoes ever is a bit extreme, but he has a fair point about the support and waterproofing not being great. If you go in thinking these are a full-on waterproof tour shoe, you’ll be disappointed. If you treat them as a comfy spikeless option for better weather, they feel like decent value.

So for value, I’d say: good buy for casual golfers and summer rounds, less convincing as your only pair if you play in all conditions. If you can grab them on sale, they’re an easy recommendation as a comfortable second pair. At full price, they still make sense if comfort is your top priority and you’re realistic about the limits on durability and waterproofing.

Design-wise, these shoes sit right in that middle zone between classic golf shoe and casual trainer. The white/black/black colourway is pretty simple: mostly white upper, black details and outsole, no wild patterns. On the course they look neat and modern, but not flashy. If you like simple, clean shoes that go with pretty much any outfit, they do the job. If you’re after something that screams "premium tour shoe", this isn’t it. They look like exactly what they are: mid-range Under Armour golf shoes.

One thing I noticed is that the shoe profile is fairly low and streamlined. The toe box isn’t super bulky, and the overall shape is a bit more athletic than some chunky golf shoes. When I looked down at address, they didn’t distract me. No weird bulges or overbuilt heel cup – just a basic rounded toe and a smooth upper. I prefer that over some of the really busy designs with tons of overlays and colours. It also means they don’t look too out of place if you wear them from the car park to the clubhouse and back.

The outsole design is practical rather than pretty. You see a mix of small rubber nubs and shapes meant to give rotational grip. It’s not as aggressive as a full spike system, but you can tell it’s made for the course, not for streetwear. Off the course, you can walk on pavements without feeling like you’re wearing ice skates, which is nice. I walked across the car park and into the clubhouse and they felt like normal trainers, no loud clacking or sliding around on tiles.

Overall, I’d call the design simple, functional, and inoffensive. It doesn’t scream "cheap", but it also doesn’t look high-end. For the price range and the Under Armour brand, that’s about what I expected. If you care more about neutral looks and blending in, you’ll probably like them. If you want something that looks premium and really stands out, you might be a bit underwhelmed.

This is the main reason I’d consider these shoes: they’re genuinely comfortable straight out of the box. The Amazon reviews saying "so comfortable" and "lightweight and durable" line up with my experience, at least on the comfort side. I wore them for a full 18-hole round on a relatively flat course plus some time on the range, and my feet felt fine at the end. No blisters, no sore arches, and no cramped toes. For a golf shoe, that’s already a win.

The Charged Cushioning midsole does its job. It’s not pillow-soft, but it gives enough bounce and impact protection when you’re walking on hard paths or hitting off mats on the range. Compared to my older, stiffer Adidas spikes, these feel much kinder on the knees and lower back after a long walk. If you like the feel of running shoes and hate that rigid golf shoe sensation, you’ll probably like this setup. The weight also helps – they just don’t feel heavy on your feet, which makes a difference by hole 15 or 16.

Fit-wise, I’d say they run pretty true to size with a slightly generous forefoot. I have a slightly wide foot and these didn’t pinch at all. Under Armour’s E sizing for wider feet seems to translate into a bit more room without feeling sloppy. The heel grip is okay – not race-car tight, but I didn’t feel my heel lifting noticeably during the swing. If you like a very locked-in feel, you might want to wear slightly thicker socks or play with lacing tension. The tongue is padded enough that you can tighten the laces without cutting into the top of your foot.

If I had to summarise, I’d say comfort is the strongest point of these shoes. They feel more like wearing a sporty trainer than a classic golf shoe. For someone who walks a lot and values comfort over absolute stability, they make sense. If you’re a big hitter who really digs into the turf and wants a super secure, stiff platform, you might consider something more supportive. But for the average amateur doing weekend rounds, comfort-wise they’re pretty solid.

The upper is sold as "breathable & durable microfiber leather" with a Never-Wet treatment. In the hand, it feels like coated synthetic leather rather than thick natural leather. The upside: it’s light, flexible, and very easy to wipe down after a round. Mud and grass come off with a damp cloth, and the surface doesn’t stain easily. For someone who doesn’t want to baby their shoes, that’s handy. The downside is that it doesn’t feel very substantial. When you press on the sides, there isn’t much structure, which matches the one-star review calling the uppers "like thin cardboard".

The sole is rubber with a TPU (plastic) outsole plate for flexibility. Under Armour’s Charged cushioning is basically a compression-moulded foam midsole. In practice, it feels like a slightly firm running shoe midsole – not marshmallow soft, but definitely more forgiving than a traditional hard golf sole. I liked that for walking 18 holes, but if you’re used to really stiff, stable shoes, it might feel a bit too soft. The insole is basic foam, nothing special, but it’s comfortable enough. You can swap it out for your own orthotics if you want more arch support.

Inside, the lining is listed as leather in the specs, but in reality it feels more like a synthetic textile with some smoother sections. It’s comfortable against the foot and didn’t rub for me, even when I wore thin socks. The heel counter has some padding, but it’s not super rigid. You get a bit of heel lock, but it’s more "trainer-like" than "full-on golf boot". For casual players, that’s probably fine. For very aggressive swingers or people with unstable ankles, you might want something more supportive.

Overall, the material choice clearly aims at lightness and comfort over tank-like durability and support. I can see these lasting a couple of seasons for an average golfer who plays once a week in mixed conditions, especially if you mostly avoid heavy rain and don’t abuse them. But if you’re playing multiple times a week in all weather, I’d be a bit skeptical about long-term upper support and water resistance. Compared to something like a full-grain leather FootJoy or Adidas Tour shoe, they feel more like a sporty compromise than a long-term workhorse.

Durability is where I’m a bit on the fence with these. After several rounds and practice sessions, mine still look in good shape: no peeling, no sole separation, and only minor creasing in the upper where the foot bends. The synthetic leather is easy to clean, and because the shoes are white, that’s important. A quick wipe with a damp cloth after each round keeps them looking decent. So for short-term use, build quality seems fine. The stitching around the sole looks tidy, and I haven’t seen any glaring weak spots yet.

However, the thin feel of the upper makes me question how they’ll hold up after a season or two of heavy use. The Amazon review calling the uppers "like thin cardboard" is a bit harsh, but I get what they mean. There’s not a lot of structure, and if you twist the shoe in your hands, the upper flexes pretty easily. That’s nice for comfort but not a great sign for long-term support. If you’re playing once a week in mixed conditions, I think they’ll be okay for at least a season, maybe longer if you rotate with another pair. If you’re playing three times a week, I wouldn’t expect them to age like a premium leather model.

The waterproofing claim is the biggest question mark. The product description mentions Never-Wet and even a 1-year waterproof warranty in one place, but the specs say "not water resistant". In real use, they behave like a shoe with light water-repellent treatment, not a fully sealed waterproof boot. Fine in morning dew and short grass, but once I went through thicker, wet rough and some soggy areas, the dampness found its way in. Not instantly soaked, but enough to feel it. I wouldn’t call them ruined by any means, but they’re not what I’d label "waterproof".

So on durability overall, I’d say: fine for casual and fair-weather golfers, questionable if you’re hard on your shoes or often in wet conditions. If you treat them as your dry/summer pair and have something more robust for winter or heavy rain, you’ll probably be happy. If you expect one pair to do everything, all year, in all weather, there are sturdier options out there, especially from Adidas, FootJoy, or even higher-end Under Armour models.

On dry and slightly damp fairways, the performance is honestly pretty decent for a spikeless shoe. The UA Rotational Resistance outsole gives enough grip for a normal amateur swing. I’m not a tour pro, but I do swing reasonably hard with the driver, and I didn’t feel my feet slipping on dry tees or fairways. The traction nubs bite into the turf just enough. On the range mats, they feel stable and predictable. If most of your golf is in summer or on well-drained courses, you’ll be fine from a grip point of view.

Where things start to drop off is when the ground gets really wet or muddy. On a damp morning with proper dew on the grass, I could feel the occasional small slip, especially on sidehill lies or in the rough. Nothing dramatic, but enough to notice compared to full spikes. In the rough or on wet slopes, you have to be a bit more careful with your stance. This is pretty normal for spikeless shoes, so I’m not shocked, but if you play a lot in the rain or on soft ground, you might want something with real spikes instead.

As for water behaviour, I’d call it "resistant enough for light dew, not good for proper wet rounds". The Never-Wet treatment seems to help with beading water off the surface at first, but after walking through longer wet grass, I started to feel a bit of moisture around the toe flex area. Not soaked, but enough to notice my socks weren’t totally dry. That matches the conflicting info in the product specs: some bits talk about waterproof, others say not water resistant. Based on my use, I’m siding with the "not fully waterproof" camp. The one-star review about them losing waterproofing after under 20 uses doesn’t surprise me.

In terms of stability, they’re fine for casual play but not rock solid. The flexible outsole and softer upper mean your foot can move a little more than in a proper tour-level shoe. For most mid-handicappers, that’s probably acceptable and even more comfortable. But if you like that locked-in, planted feeling, especially in windy conditions or on uneven lies, you may feel they’re a bit too soft. Overall, performance is good enough on dry days, average in the wet, and clearly leaning toward comfort-first rather than performance-first.

On paper, the Under Armour Charged Draw 2 SL is a pretty straightforward golf shoe: spikeless outsole, synthetic/microfiber leather upper, Charged Cushioning midsole, and a low-top cut. The model I tried is the "100 White Black Black" colour, size 10 UK. It’s listed as an athletic-style golf shoe, not a dressy one, which matches how it feels in the hand – more like a sporty trainer that happens to have golf traction. Weight-wise, they’re around 278 grams per shoe according to the specs, and they do feel light compared to some heavier leather golf shoes I’ve worn.

The outsole uses UA’s Rotational Resistance pattern, which basically means a mix of small nubs and traction shapes instead of classic plastic spikes. The idea is to give decent grip when you rotate during your swing without digging into the ground like full spikes. On the upper, they talk about a breathable and durable microfiber leather with a "Never-Wet" treatment. In reality, it’s more of a coated synthetic leather than thick traditional leather. It wipes clean easily, which I liked, but it doesn’t feel super thick or super supportive.

Inside, you’ve got a foam insole and moderate cushioning. It’s not crazy plush, but for a golf shoe it’s on the softer side. Under Armour also mentions E sizing for wide feet – mine are slightly wide, and I’d say the fit is forgiving in the forefoot but not sloppy. The laces are standard eyelets with plastic aglets, nothing fancy there. There’s no BOA or quick-lace system, just normal laces that you double-knot and forget.

So in terms of feature list, you’re basically getting: lightweight spikeless golf shoe, moderate cushioning, synthetic leather upper with some water-repellent treatment, and a flexible rubber outsole. No hidden tech beyond that. If you go in expecting a modern, trainer-style golf shoe for fair-weather rounds, the description lines up with what actually arrives in the box. If you read "leather" and imagine a thick, supportive, premium-feeling upper, you’ll probably feel like the one-star reviewer who said the uppers feel like thin cardboard.