IPF GL Points
Also known as: IPF GL Coefficient, IPF Goodlift Points, IPF GLP, IPF Wilks Replacement
The International Powerlifting Federation's official bodyweight-adjusted scoring formula since 2020, developed by Sébastien Mathieu and Rebecca Gordon to replace the IPF's earlier IPF Points (which itself had replaced Wilks in the IPF in 2019). Unlike Wilks and DOTS, which are 5th-order polynomials in bodyweight, IPF GL Points uses an exponential functional form and separate coefficient sets for equipped vs. raw lifting and for men vs. women. It's now the sole scoring system used at IPF-sanctioned meets worldwide — including national championships in most European federations, USA Powerlifting (as of 2021), and the World Championships.
Formula
IPF GL Points = totalLifted (kg) × ipfGLCoefficient(bodyweightKg, sex, equipmentClass)
The coefficient uses an exponential form:
C(bw) = 100 / (a − b·e^(−c·bw))
Four parameter sets, chosen by (sex, equipment class):
Men, raw (classic): a=1199.72839, b=1025.18162, c=0.00921
Men, equipped: a=1236.25115, b=1449.21864, c=0.01644
Women, raw (classic): a=610.32796, b=1045.59282, c=0.03048
Women, equipped: a=758.63878, b=949.31382, c=0.02435
Quick examples:
Male raw, 83 kg bodyweight, 600 kg total → IPF GL ≈ 88.7
Male raw, 105 kg bodyweight, 700 kg total → IPF GL ≈ 91.9
Female raw, 63 kg bodyweight, 380 kg total → IPF GL ≈ 96.6
Note the very different scale from Wilks and DOTS: IPF GL Points are typically 60-125, not 300-500. A score of 100 approximates 'world-record level' for the reference lifter; the scoring bands are 60 (novice), 75 (competitive), 90 (national elite), 100+ (world-class).Example
The same two lifters from the Wilks and DOTS examples: Lifter A: 83 kg bodyweight, total 620 kg → Wilks ≈ 424, DOTS ≈ 418, IPF GL ≈ 91.7 Lifter B: 120 kg bodyweight, total 780 kg → Wilks ≈ 451, DOTS ≈ 462, IPF GL ≈ 100.4 Under IPF GL Points, Lifter B wins by 8.7 points on a 100-point scale — roughly the same competitive gap DOTS produces, but on a completely different numerical range. This makes IPF GL Points not directly comparable to Wilks or DOTS by number, only by rank. In practice: 'I scored 92 IPF GL' and 'I scored 425 Wilks' mean roughly the same competitive tier (strong regional-level), but the numbers can't be converted between formulas.
How Afitpilot Uses This
Afitpilot does not currently compute or display IPF GL Points on the session card or progress view — the cross-session strength metric remains e1RM trended on the anchor exercise. IPF GL Points is on the same roadmap candidate as Wilks and DOTS: the planned `/calculators/wilks` page (Tier 1.2 in the SEO plan) will likely surface all three scores side by side, letting athletes see how they compare across formulas without needing separate calculators. For IPF-affiliated athletes today, the practical rule is straightforward: IPF meets score in IPF GL Points, so that's the number that matters for national and international ranking; use Wilks or DOTS only for informal comparison against athletes in non-IPF federations. And, as with the other formulas: IPF GL Points describes the meet outcome, not the training stimulus — e1RM is the training-decision metric.
IPF GL Points in practice
| Who / Context | Value | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Solid intermediate lifter | IPF GL ~75 | Roughly Wilks ~350 or DOTS ~350 in cross-formula tier |
| Competitive local-meet lifter | IPF GL ~85 | Reliable podium contention at national qualifier meets |
| National-elite lifter | IPF GL 90-95 | Top-10 nationally in most IPF federations |
| World-class lifter | IPF GL 100+ | IPF World Championship medal range; records approach 110 |
| Federations using IPF GL Points | IPF and all IPF-affiliated national federations | USA Powerlifting, France FFForce, GBPF, and roughly 100 more |
| Federations not using IPF GL Points | USAPL (uses DOTS), USPA, IPL, WPC | The non-IPF open circuit largely runs on DOTS or legacy Wilks |
| Formula developers | Sébastien Mathieu, Rebecca Gordon (2020) | Published methodology available on the IPF website |
| Functional form vs. Wilks/DOTS | Exponential vs. 5th-order polynomial | One reason the numerical scales don't line up |
Known Limitations
- •IPF GL Points is scale-incompatible with Wilks and DOTS. A '92 IPF GL' looks very different from a '425 Wilks' or '420 DOTS' but represents similar competitive standing. Cross-formula comparisons via the numerical values alone are meaningless; only rank order is comparable.
- •The four separate coefficient sets (men-raw, men-equipped, women-raw, women-equipped) mean IPF GL Points is really four formulas that share a functional form. Cross-equipment comparisons within the same athlete are baked into the coefficient split, which is a coaching convention rather than a physiological derivation.
- •The IPF GL fit uses IPF-only meet data, which under-represents non-IPF federations and gym-lifter populations. Compared to DOTS's ~700k OpenPowerlifting-based fit, the IPF GL dataset is smaller and biased toward drug-tested IPF results — appropriate for IPF competition but less generalisable.
- •As with Wilks and DOTS, IPF GL Points is a descriptive polynomial-family fit, not a physiologically derived metric. The Vanderburgh & Batterham 1999 argument for allometric bodyweight^0.67 scaling applies here as well; the IPF chose an exponential form for continuity and smoothness, not for first-principles reasons.
- •The equipment split (raw vs. equipped) can shift year-to-year as federations adjust rules — e.g. bench-shirt regulations, wraps-vs-sleeves rules. A coefficient set fitted in 2020 will drift slightly as the equipment landscape evolves, and the IPF has already revised the parameters at least once.
- •The 100-point 'world-record level' anchoring assumes 2019-2020 elite performance as the reference. As records fall, scores of 100+ become more common; the top of the scoring range is not a hard ceiling.
Science Context
IPF GL Points was developed by Sébastien Mathieu and Rebecca Gordon in 2020 as the IPF's second attempt at a Wilks replacement, after the short-lived IPF Points (2019) proved to have its own biases. The methodology chose an exponential functional form C(bw) = 100 / (a − b·e^(−c·bw)) instead of the 5th-order polynomial used by Wilks and DOTS, motivated by two arguments: (1) exponential fits produce smoother curves at the weight-class extremes where polynomials tend to swing, and (2) an exponential form is easier to constrain against a single reference performance ('100 GL Points ≈ world-record level for the reference lifter') than a polynomial. The four-coefficient-set structure (men-raw, men-equipped, women-raw, women-equipped) means IPF GL Points is really four separate formulas that happen to share a functional form — a pragmatic choice given the very different performance distributions across those groups. Like Wilks and DOTS, IPF GL Points is descriptive rather than physiologically derived: it is fitted to observed meet data, and inherits the biases of that data (in this case, drug-tested IPF-federation meets from roughly 2015-2019). Whether an exponential fit is fundamentally better than a polynomial fit for cross-weight-class comparison is not settled — Vanderburgh's allometric-scaling critique applies to both. Afitpilot's calculator-led plan for IPF GL Points parallels its plan for Wilks and DOTS: surface the number for athletes who need it, cover the meaningful limitations, and don't confuse a competition-day scoring formula with a training-programming metric.