When Mathematics Decides Medals: The Hidden Science Behind Para Powerlifting at the Commonwealth Games

When most people watch a strength sport, they assume the athlete who lifts the heaviest weight wins.

At the 2026 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, that will not necessarily be true.

Unlike the Paralympic Games and World Championships, where athletes compete within ten bodyweight categories, the Commonwealth Games has condensed para-powerlifting into just two medal events for men and two for women: lightweight and heavyweight.

It is a practical solution to a reduced competition schedule—but it creates an interesting scientific challenge.

How do you fairly compare an athlete weighing 49 kg with another weighing 88 kg?

Why weight classes exist

Weight classes exist for good reason.

Larger athletes generally have more muscle mass and can therefore lift greater absolute loads. Asking athletes from vastly different bodyweights to compete directly would almost always favour the heavier competitor.

That is why strength sports have traditionally separated athletes into weight categories.

However, when multiple weight classes are combined—as they will be in Glasgow—another solution is needed.

Enter the algorithm

Rather than awarding medals based solely on the weight lifted, performances are adjusted using a mathematical scoring system.

These algorithms attempt to estimate how impressive a lift is relative to an athlete's bodyweight, allowing performances from different-sized athletes to be compared on a common scale.

Powerlifting has used bodyweight coefficients for decades. Olympic weightlifting uses the Sinclair coefficient. Traditional powerlifting has used Wilks, IPF Points and DOTS. These systems all attempt to answer the same question: How do we compare athletes of different sizes as fairly as possible?

The concept is not unique to strength sports.

Cricket uses the Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method to recalculate targets after rain interruptions. Golf relies on handicap systems. Sailing, rowing and cycling all use mathematical models in different contexts to create fairer competition.

In modern sport, mathematics has become another official.

But are algorithms ever completely fair?

Every scoring system is built on assumptions.

The challenge is that strength does not increase perfectly in proportion with bodyweight. If an algorithm over-corrects, lighter athletes may receive an advantage. If it under-corrects, heavier athletes may benefit.

This is not simply a theoretical concern.

Research examining bodyweight-adjusted scoring systems in both powerlifting and para-powerlifting has shown that different formulas can favour different parts of the bodyweight spectrum. While these systems generally perform well, no scoring method has yet been shown to eliminate bodyweight-related bias entirely.

That does not mean the current system is flawed.

It means fairness is something that should be continually measured rather than assumed.

Why Glasgow matters

Under normal circumstances, imperfections in a scoring algorithm have relatively little impact because athletes compete only against others in their own weight category.

The Glasgow Commonwealth Games are different.

With just two combined weight divisions, the scoring algorithm becomes the mechanism that determines medal winners.

In effect, mathematics becomes part of the judging process.

For athletes who have spent years preparing for the Commonwealth Games, even a small systematic bias has the potential to influence who stands on the podium.

A bigger conversation

This is not really a story about para-powerlifting.

It is a story about the growing role of algorithms in sport.

We already trust technology to determine line calls in tennis, offside decisions in football and rain-adjusted targets in cricket.

Increasingly, mathematics is being asked to solve problems that were once left to rules, officials or separate competitions.

Most of the time, these systems work remarkably well.

But as sport becomes more reliant on algorithms, we should continue asking an important question:

How do we know they are fair?

Not because we expect perfection—but because athletes deserve confidence that medals are decided by performance rather than unintended mathematical bias.

As sport continues to embrace technology and data-driven decision-making, transparency and ongoing evaluation of these algorithms will become just as important as the performances they measure. After all, if mathematics is helping decide medals, we need to be confident it is giving every athlete an equal opportunity to win.