One of the most controversial topics in powerlifting has always been the battle of classic versus equipped lifting. In the last couple of years, the powerlifting community experienced a dynamic shift in popularity on the classic side of the sport. Five years ago, there was rarely an opportunity to compete in a classic division for most federations. Today, most lifters compete raw. There are several factors that have played a major part in the growing popularity of classic powerlifting. One of the most obvious factors is the ease of access to the sport. Equipped powerlifting can be time consuming and almost always requires some sort of referral or mentor to newcomers. These barriers are reduced in the classic division and all that a competitor requires to compete is a singlet, belt, and pair of shoes. The internet also has an unlimited amount of resources for a new lifter to pick up the sport without ever having professional training to begin.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the two divisions: Classic and Equipped. We will compare the results from the 2016 IPF Open World Championships for both Classic and Equipped. Readers should take note that this article is written without bias as I am a competitor in both the equipped and classic divisions. Furthermore, when reading this article the Classic competition results are based on the International Powerlifting Federation’s (IPF) definition of classic – being a belt, singlet, wrist wraps and knee sleeves. The Equipped division is also based on IPF rules, which allow only approved single-ply polyester equipment, along with only two-meter knee wraps .
The article will focus on analysis from several different aspects of a competition, which are:
Interestingly, the Equipped World Championships had more competitors than the classic division – almost 10% more. Although the equipped division has never lacked in terms of the total number of competitors, this year was a qualifier year for the World Games which most definitely brought the best of the best out to fight for an invitation . (The World Games take place every four years in the year following the Olympic Games. The event showcases more 25 sports – Wroclaw, Poland 2017)
For me, when competing equipped, one of the biggest stressors I experienced was how your equipment felt that day and managing to get successful opening attempts. In cases where you either had to cut or gain weight to make a weight class, your gear could fit completely different than it did in training. This could cause many lifters to compensate their regular movement patters or restrict range of motion to a point where the lift was not passed based on technicalities. When we look at the No Lift ratio (Total # of no lifts / Total # of lifts) we can clearly see how this impacts lifters between each division. In the equipped division, lifters are missing 1 out of every 3 lifts while in the classic division lifters are making 7% more attempts and only missing 1 out of every 4 lifts. With more missed attempts in the equipped division over the classic division, we can only expect more bomb outs – and this is exactly what happened. We saw almost double the amount of bomb outs in the equipped division, of which 74% of these were caused during their squat attempts. On the classic side, most of the bomb outs were caused from their deadlifts attempts. We had several lifters in both divisions bomb out on more than one lift, therefore the sum of the percentages for the disqualified (Dsq.) Squat, Bench and Deadlift will add up to more than 100%. The graphs below display a more detailed analysis on attempt selection that highlight these statistics.
The first analysis we will look at when comparing equipped versus classic is the percentage of lifters that made various successful attempts out of 9. This graph displays an almost perfect bell curve of the number of successful attempt that a lifter has made. The majority distribution for equipped lifters (green bars) is between 5-8 successful lifts, while the classic lifters’ majority distribution is between 6-9 successful lifts. From this graph, you can also see that only 1% of equipped lifters went 9 for 9, while 10% of Classic lifters went 9 for 9.
The purpose of the next analysis is to gain a better understanding of which attempts are being missed by lifters and the comparison between equipped and classic lifters. The bars on the graph below represent the percentage of total lifters that missed each attempt and the color of the bars differentiate the type of lifter – green being equipped and orange being classic. As mentioned earlier, the biggest difference for me when competing equipped was the stress factor related to making successful opening attempts. We can see in this graph, that the equipped lifters on squat and bench press have a significantly higher percentage of missing their opening attempts over the classic division. The percentage of missed attempts on the deadlift are relatively invariable; the reason for this will be more clear when we compare the deadlift results later in this article.
The following shows which countries brought the strongest teams to the Championships (Referenced in IOC country codes).
The analysis above displays the average Wilks score of the top 10 Nations for each division. I excluded any disqualified lifters from the analysis to eliminate skews in the averages. In simple terms this analysis allows us to look at the quality of the lifters on each team and not their performance as a team at the Championships. Alternatively, we look at the IPF point system rankings or medal count to determine the performance of a National team, but with countries that do not have a full team, their probability of winning a medal is much lower, putting them at a disadvantage.
The results of this analysis puts Russia at the top of the average Wilks leader board for almost every division apart from the Women’s Classic team. Although Russia only sent two lifters on the Men’s classic and equipped team, their average Wilks was 557.1 and 646.2 points respectively. When we compare this to the IPF Point system rankings we can see that the USA National team in 2016 lead the way on team performance. This disconnect between the two different systems comes from the USA having sent full teams in all four divisions and claiming a top placing in most of the weight classes. Although their team Wilks average was around the middle of the pack for each division, their breadth of performance was enough to crown them as the overall National Team winners.
See below for the winning Top 3 Nations for each division, based on the IPF points system.
Since we are on the topic of National teams, it would be interesting to look at the various demographics of each country in terms of the number of lifters they had in each division. Below is a table of all the National teams that attended the IPF World Championships in 2016 which lists the number of lifters on each team. Attendance of National teams could deviate from their normal levels year to year for several reasons such as the location or timing of the Championships.
As we discovered in the first analysis, some National teams performed better in certain divisions than others. Below are some various statistics that show how some National teams favor equipped or raw lifting, or are dominated by only one gender. For simplicity, I only reference the 5 top countries for each statistic (where applicable).
Remember, that the above statistics are only a representation of the 2016 Open World Teams and don’t represent what happens at the National level.
The above table represents the results of the 1st place winners at the 2016 IPF World Championships for both the classic and equipped divisions for each weight class. A positive variance represents the amount of weight as a percentage the equipped division lifted over the classic division.
On average the equipped men lifted:
On average the equipped women lifted:
Although the squat on average between the men and women shows that equipped lifters can squat around 28% more than the classic lifters, we can see a clear correlation for both genders that reduces this percentage as a lifters bodyweight increases. Both the super heavy weight men and women are lifting significantly less as a percentage as compared to the average; 6% and 13% respectively. The ability of the lighter weight classes to leverage the use of equipment more as a percentage than a heavier lifter, could be simply because the equipment they use would be the same material and thickness as that of a heavier lifter, but is supporting lighter absolute weights. Another reason could be that a heavier lifter has support from the famous ‘squat belly’ that helps maintain position during a classic squat, when a lighter lifter would have to rely solely on their core strength.
Analyzing the bench press results in contrast to the squat, we have identified an opposite trend. As a lifters body weight increases, the percentage that an equipped lifter can incrementally lift over a classic lifter increases. This is likely due to the amount of muscle mass that a lifter in a heavier weight class would have over a lighter weight class. Having more muscle mass would allow them to handle more absolute weight and benefit a lifter more in areas where a bench shirt would not, such as the lockout portion of the bench press. On average an equipped lifter can handle 39% more weight than a classic bench press, however, a lifters total realizes the most benefit from the squat in terms of absolute weight.
When comparing the deadlift results, we see a much different story. Although the trend-line on the graphs is slightly angled, if we look at the scale of the axis for the ‘% Variance Equipped vs. Classic’ we can see that it is much narrower than that of the other two lifts. As already outlined, the average percentage that classic lifters can incrementally deadlift over an equipped lifter is only 4%. This tells us that the use of a deadlift suit provides a lifter with significantly less support than that of a squat suit or bench press shirt.
With the equipped squat and bench press correlations offsetting each other and the deadlift being relatively flat, this provides us with a good indication of why there is no correlation for a lifters’ total as they move up in a weight class. The equipped variance percentages are static throughout each weight class at an average of 19% over that of a classic lifter.
The pie charts above represent the percentage of a lifters’ total that each lift accounts for. This first chart is based on the total equipped lifter population from the 2016 World Championships and is an average of all lifters. The second chart represents the same analysis, however, is based on the entire population of lifters from the Classic World Championships. If you recall from the previous analysis, there was only a marginal percentage variance for the equipped deadlift over the classic deadlift. In other words, an equipped deadlifter on average cannot lift much more than a classic deadlifter. This theory is supported in these charts as it would make sense that since an equipped lifter can squat and bench press more than a classic lifter, but deadlift the same, their deadlift would contribute less to their equipped total. In this case, we can see a 5% drop from classic to equipped (39% – 34%). For the same reasons, we would expect to see an increase in the squat and bench press contribution in an equipped lifters total compared to a classic lifter.
The Wilks score is simply a coefficient based on a person’s bodyweight applied to the lifters total. Knowing that an equipped lifter can total 17% more than a classic lifter, we would obviously expect to see higher Wilks scores across the board. The question we are trying to answer from this analysis is by how much can an equipped lifter Wilks more than a Classic lifter. Looking at the scatter plots below, I have graphed every lifter from the 2016 IPF Open World Championship for both the equipped (blue dots) and classic (red dots) divisions and calculated the average.
• Equipped men averaged 88.40 Wilks points higher than the Classic men
• Equipped women averaged 112.46 Wilks points higher than Classic women
As classic lifting is still in the early stages of its ‘boom’, the comparisons between classic and equipped should change overtime. Classic lifters are becoming stronger each year and catching up to equipped levels of strength. That said, we could certainly see many of our top classic lifters make the transition to the equipped division, learn the technique and set a whole new standard of lifting. Exciting times ahead in the world of powerlifting. Let the games begin!
Join our Facebook Page or Instagram and please leave any feedback or analysis that you would like to see in future competition analysis blogs. Did you like this post? Signup for a free trial of our software in order to be notified about future blogs as well as updates to the MyStrengthBook software application.
It’s a web application that allows powerlifters to build workouts, plan training programs, and assess training metrics that lead to better performance.
Sign-up today for a FREE TRIAL.
Subscribe to our blog for valuable updates and insights.
Sign up for a 21-day free trial. All the tools necessary
to achieve your strength goals.