Classic and equipped powerlifting in the International Powerlifting Federation: Participation and performance trends from 2010 to 2025

Abstract

Classic and equipped powerlifting are the two main competition formats within the International Powerlifting Federation (IPF), but their comparative long-term development has not been described systematically. This study examined participation and performance trends in both formats using two complementary datasets: an IPF-restricted extract of OpenPowerlifting for federation-level analyses and IPF world championship result files for championship-level analyses. The federation-level dataset included 702,731 eligible entries from 242,572 lifters between 2010 and 2025. Participation growth was driven almost entirely by classic lifting, which increased from 11.6% of all entries in 2010 to 93.5% in 2025, whereas equipped participation declined substantially. By 2025, yearly mean IPF Goodlift points were higher in classic than equipped lifting (74.9 vs 68.1), and classic exceeded equipped lifting on yearly top-end values from 2023 onward. Comparable patterns were observed at world championship level, particularly in the Junior and Sub-Junior divisions. These findings indicate that classic lifting has become the dominant competitive format within the contemporary IPF, whereas equipped lifting persists at a substantially smaller competitive scale.

Introduction

Powerlifting is a strength sport in which performance is determined by the maximal loads lifted in the squat, bench press, and deadlift under standardized competition rules. Within the International Powerlifting Federation (IPF), athletes compete in either classic or equipped powerlifting. Classic lifting permits only minimal supportive equipment, whereas equipped lifting allows additional gear such as supportive suits, shirts, and knee wraps, which can substantially increase the loads lifted when used effectively.^1–3 Equipped powerlifting is the traditional IPF format, whereas classic powerlifting was introduced at world championship level only in 2013 and has expanded markedly since then.

However, although recent investigations have examined long-term development in classic powerlifting, the comparative long-term development of classic and equipped powerlifting has rarely been examined using competition data.^4,5 This reflects a broader literature that has focused mainly on applied sport science and medicine, often without clearly distinguishing competition formats. ⁶ Comparing participation and performance trends between formats is practically relevant because it places current classic and equipped lifting within their broader competitive context. Such information may help athletes, coaches, and governing bodies understand where each format is expanding or contracting and where development, coaching, and competition resources may be most appropriately directed. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to quantify participation and performance trends in classic and equipped powerlifting within the IPF using federation-level and world championship data.

Methods

This retrospective trend analysis examined participation and performance trends using two complementary datasets: an IPF-restricted extract of the OpenPowerlifting database for federation-level analyses and individual IPF world championship result files for championship-level analyses. Data were processed and summarized using custom Python scripts.

For the federation-level analysis, an IPF-restricted OpenPowerlifting file downloaded on 23 March 2026 was filtered to retain only full powerlifting competitions held between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2025. The start date was chosen to include a pre-2013 baseline before classic lifting was introduced at IPF world championship level. Entries with missing body mass, missing totals, disqualifications, or no-shows were excluded. The analysis was further restricted to Raw and Single-ply entries, which were relabeled as classic and equipped, respectively. Yearly participation was summarized as the number of eligible entries per calendar year after these exclusions. Performance was quantified using IPF Goodlift (IPF GL) points, a coefficient-based relative score intended to compare strength performance across sex, body mass, and competition categories; importantly, the IPF GL formula applies separate equipment-specific coefficients for classic and equipped lifting. ⁷ For each year-by-equipment subgroup, the mean, first quartile, third quartile, and mean of the top 1% were calculated. Year-by-year differences in mean IPF GL points between classic and equipped entries were evaluated using Welch tests, with Benjamini–Hochberg correction applied across years. The same procedure was repeated within female and male entries as a sex-stratified sensitivity analysis. Descriptive federation-level summaries are reported as means, whereas championship-level summaries are reported as medians to reduce sensitivity to smaller subgroup sizes and extreme performances. Inferential tests were conducted on individual eligible entries with non-missing IPF GL values within the relevant year-by-equipment, sex-by-year-by-equipment, or year-by-division-by-equipment subgroup, rather than on aggregated summary values.

For the championship-level analysis, IPF world championship result files downloaded on 26 March 2026 were analyzed for 2013–2025. An overview file was used to link each year and competition category to the corresponding championship file. The Open, Junior (19–23 years), and Sub-Junior (14–18 years) divisions were examined separately; Masters divisions were excluded because participation was comparatively small, particularly in the older Masters categories. Equipment labels were standardized to classic and equipped, and participation counts excluded disqualifications and no-shows. For each year-by-division-by-equipment subgroup, the median, first quartile, third quartile, and mean of the top 1% of IPF GL points were calculated. Year-by-year classic–equipped differences in championship-level IPF GL distributions were evaluated within each division using Mann–Whitney U tests, with Benjamini–Hochberg correction applied within divisions.

For all Welch and Mann–Whitney U tests, statistical significance was defined as a Benjamini–Hochberg-adjusted p value < 0.05. Complete test statistics, unadjusted p values, and adjusted p values are provided in the online repository. ⁸

Results

The cleaned federation-level dataset included 702,731 eligible entries from 242,572 unique lifters. This represented 95.4% of 736,572 candidate entries from the defined timeframe, event type, and equipment formats. Exclusions were mainly due to missing totals or disqualifications/no-shows (33,456 entries; 4.5%), whereas missing body mass was rare (1210 entries; 0.2%). Exclusion reasons were not mutually exclusive. Retention was 96.5% for classic and 91.7% for equipped entries, 96.2% for female and 95.0% for male entries, and ranged from 91.5% in 2011 to 96.8% in 2025. Total eligible entries increased from 15,380 in 2010 to 69,740 in 2019, dropped to 24,040 in 2020, and recovered to 68,732 in 2025. This growth was driven almost entirely by classic powerlifting: classic entries increased from 1780 (11.6%) in 2010 to 64,280 (93.5%) in 2025, whereas equipped entries declined from 13,600 to 4452. Performance trends also shifted in favor of classic lifting. Mean IPF GL points were similar in 2010 (66.9 classic; 66.3 equipped), but by 2025 had risen to 74.9 in classic versus 68.1 in equipped. Year-by-year Welch tests showed that classic mean IPF GL points were significantly higher than equipped in 2011, 2012, and 2014–2025 after Benjamini–Hochberg correction (all adjusted p < 0.001), with the largest observed difference in 2025 (mean difference: 6.81 IPF GL points; 95% CI: 6.32–7.30). The differences in 2010 and 2013 did not meet the adjusted significance threshold (adjusted p = 0.0788 and 0.0501, respectively). Sex-stratified sensitivity analyses showed significantly higher classic mean IPF GL points in male entries in every year (adjusted p ≤ 0.0117). In female entries, classic was significantly higher in 2014–2020 and 2023–2025, equipped was significantly higher in 2010 and 2013, and no significant differences were observed in 2011, 2012, 2021, or 2022, with all significant comparisons having adjusted p ≤ 0.0462. The interquartile range likewise shifted upward more clearly in classic. At the elite end, equipped showed the higher yearly top 1% mean through 2022, but classic moved ahead from 2023 onward; in 2025, the top 1% mean was 112.4 in classic and 109.4 in equipped (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Participation and performance trends in IPF-affiliated full power competitions from 2010 to 2025 for classic and equipped lifting. The upper panel shows yearly mean IPF GL points, interquartile range, and top 1% mean; the lower panel shows yearly eligible entries. Asterisks indicate years with statistically significant classic–equipped differences in mean IPF GL points after Benjamini–Hochberg correction.

A similar pattern was observed at world championship level (Figure 2). In the Open division, classic participation exceeded equipped from 2017 onward and reached 378 versus 165 entries in 2025. Median IPF GL points increased from 88.8 to 100.1 in classic and from 91.8 to 94.6 in equipped between 2013 and 2025. Classic also held the higher top 1% mean in every Open championship from 2019 onward. Mann–Whitney U tests showed that, after Benjamini–Hochberg correction, classic IPF GL distributions were significantly higher from 2021 to 2025, whereas equipped was significantly higher in 2013. Differences from 2014 to 2019 were not significant. All significant Open-division comparisons had adjusted p values ≤ 0.00567.

Figure 2.

Participation and performance trends in IPF world championships from 2013 to 2025 for classic and equipped lifting in the Open (2A), Junior (2B), and Sub-Junior (2C) divisions. Within each division, the upper panel shows yearly median IPF GL points, interquartile range, and top 1% mean; the lower panel shows yearly eligible entries. Asterisks indicate years with statistically significant classic–equipped differences in IPF GL distributions after Benjamini–Hochberg correction within each division. No world championship data were available for 2020.

In the Junior division, classic overtook equipped in participation in 2015 and remained larger thereafter, reaching 284 versus 81 entries in 2025. Median IPF GL points increased from 81.0 to 95.2 in classic and from 85.2 to 88.1 in equipped, with classic descriptively higher in every championship from 2017 onward. Top-end performance also increasingly favored classic, particularly in the final championships. Mann–Whitney U tests showed that, after Benjamini–Hochberg correction, classic IPF GL distributions were significantly higher in 2018 and from 2021 to 2025, whereas equipped was significantly higher in 2013 and 2015. Differences in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2019 were not significant. All significant Junior-division comparisons had adjusted p values ≤ 0.0461.

The Sub-Junior division showed the same overall shift, with greater year-to-year variation. Classic became dominant from 2017 onward and reached 199 versus 58 entries in 2025. By 2025, median IPF GL points were 85.6 in classic and 75.2 in equipped, and top-end values also favored classic in the later championships. Mann–Whitney U tests showed that, after Benjamini–Hochberg correction, classic IPF GL distributions were significantly higher in 2016, 2018, and from 2021 to 2025, whereas equipped was significantly higher in 2013. Differences in 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2019 were not significant. All significant Sub-Junior-division comparisons had adjusted p values ≤ 0.0306.

Overall, the findings indicate a consistent shift from equipped to classic powerlifting. Classic accounted for nearly all long-term participation growth and showed increasingly favorable performance trends in the federation-level dataset and in recent Open, Junior, and Sub-Junior world championships. No world championship data were available for 2020, producing the gap in Figure 2.

Discussion

The findings indicate a clear structural shift in competitive powerlifting within the IPF. Across the federation-level dataset, long-term growth was driven almost entirely by classic lifting, whereas equipped lifting declined and, after the drop in participation around 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, did not return to its previous scale. Performance trends broadly mirrored this pattern: classic lifting showed a clearer upward trajectory in both overall and top-end IPF GL points, whereas equipped lifting showed less consistent upward change. This is consistent with recent work showing a rise in classic powerlifting participation and performance. ⁴ The same general pattern was evident at world championship level across the Open, Junior, and Sub-Junior divisions. Classic lifting became the larger format at senior and youth levels and, in recent years, also exceeded equipped lifting in terms of IPF GL points, which may be a result of the larger classic athlete pool and the equipment-specific structure of IPF GL scoring. Because the IPF GL formula applies equipment-specific coefficients, higher classic scores do not necessarily indicate higher loads relative to body mass than in equipped lifting. ⁷ Together, these findings suggest that classic and equipped lifting no longer occupy comparable positions within the contemporary IPF competition structure.

At the same time, equipped lifting did not disappear from IPF competition. Especially in the Open division, equipped lifting retained Open world championship entries and competitive IPF GL values. A plausible interpretation is therefore that the two formats now occupy different positions within the same competition system. Classic lifting appears to function as the broader participation and growth format, whereas equipped lifting persists at a smaller competitive scale. Thus, the decline in equipped participation was not paralleled by an equivalent decline in top-end IPF GL values. The temporary increase in equipped median performance in 2021 and 2022 may reflect the smaller equipped fields in those years, although this remains speculative.

The participation asymmetry may also reflect differences in accessibility between formats. Sport participation is shaped not only by interest, but also by constraints such as cost, time, fatigue, motivation, and access to facilities and equipment.^9,10 Sport-for-All perspectives likewise emphasize the importance of lowering barriers to entry within organized sport systems. ¹¹ Although these factors were not measured directly, the substantially larger current participation base of classic lifting is consistent with the possibility that it represents a lower-barrier entry route than equipped lifting, partly due to lower equipment cost and fewer format-specific technical demands. This interpretation also aligns with broader evidence showing that muscle-strengthening activity remains uncommon and that accessible sporting opportunities may be important for wider uptake and retention across the lifespan.^12–14 The youth-level findings are particularly relevant in this respect, because they suggest that the future Open equipped field may depend on a relatively narrow recruitment stream beginning already at the Junior and Sub-Junior levels. If few new athletes enter equipped lifting at these stages, Open participation may decline further over subsequent years as existing Junior lifters age into the senior category without being replaced by a comparable new cohort. However, this interpretation should be made cautiously because powerlifting may not follow a strictly linear youth-to-senior recruitment pathway, and many athletes may enter the sport directly as adults. If participation and spectatorship are positively related, the much larger classic participant base may also strengthen its future visibility within the sport. ¹⁵

Taken together, these findings suggest that classic and equipped powerlifting now occupy distinct positions within the contemporary IPF. Classic lifting appears to function as the primary participation and development pathway, whereas equipped lifting persists at a smaller competitive scale. The comparatively small Junior and Sub-Junior equipped fields further suggest a narrower long-term developmental pipeline.

Limitations

This study was descriptive and restricted to IPF-affiliated competition data; it therefore cannot identify the causal mechanisms underlying the observed shift between classic and equipped lifting. Although the analysis scripts included internal consistency checks and championship-file audit outputs, these checks can only assess coherence within the processed datasets and cannot independently verify the completeness or accuracy of the underlying public competition records. The analyses also did not directly assess athlete motives, dropout, cost, injury perceptions, coaching ecology, audience behavior, or whether the shift toward classic lifting differed between powerlifting nations. Accordingly, this study did not directly address accessibility, specialization, visibility, or the mechanisms underlying athlete movement between formats.

Conclusion

Classic lifting now appears to be the primary competitive format within the contemporary IPF, whereas equipped lifting persists at a smaller competitive scale. Whether the narrower youth pipeline in equipped lifting is sufficient for its long-term sustainability remains to be seen.