Competition results are pulled after the event concludes.
Problem difficulties are calculated based on the Elo of athletes that did/didn't climb them.
If a competition has been fully analysed problem features will also be shown for semi-finals and finals.
Problems Zones/Tops (success count) difficulty
S2
Z: (20) 1964 ■ T: (11) 2187 ■
SLOPER■, SLOPER (1451.0)MANTLE■, MANTLE (1447.9)PRESS■, PRESS (1456.3)DYNAMIC■, DYNAMIC (1473.4)POWERFUL■, POWERFUL (1454.2)DYNAMIC■, DYNAMIC (1839.9)MANTLE■, MANTLE (1828.7)PRESS■, PRESS (1836.3)POWERFUL■, POWERFUL (1836.3)SLOPER■ SLOPER (1828.4)
S4
Z: (01) 2438 ■ T: (00) 2463 ■
PRESS■, PRESS (1869.7)DELICATE■, DELICATE (1866.0)PRESS■, PRESS (2362.4)DELICATE■ DELICATE (2362.3)
S1
Z: (04) 2382 ■ T: (00) 2477 ■
FINGERS■, FINGERS (1799.0)POWERFUL■, POWERFUL (1821.2)FINGERS■, FINGERS (2371.1)POWERFUL■ POWERFUL (2373.7)
S3
Z: (10) 2262 ■ T: (01) 2448 ■
DYNAMIC■, DYNAMIC (1752.2)COORDINATION■, COORDINATION (1739.4)COORDINATION■, COORDINATION (2289.4)DYNAMIC■ DYNAMIC (2292.4)
Each athlete's attempts, zones and tops have been converted into Elo match-ups with the problem. This will lead to either a gain or loss in Elo.
The problem receives the opposite effect.
The expected position is based on the athlete Elo going into the competition.
| Athlete | Pre-Elo | 1 2382 | 2 2187 | 3 2262 | 4 2438 | Event Score | Post-Elo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 J GARNBRET SLO Top 10 ▬ | 2069 | 5Z ▼ 25 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 19 Elo | 1Z 3T ▲ 21 Elo | - ▼ 30 Elo | 59.4 | 2058 |
| 2 J PILZ AUT at home ▲ 9 better than predicted | 1810 | 5Z ▲ 8 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 29 Elo | 7Z ▼ 10 Elo | - ▼ 14 Elo | 43.8 | 1824 |
| 3 J E.BUCKLEY SLO ▲ 3 better than predicted | 1748 | - ▼ 16 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 48 Elo | 5Z ▲ 4 Elo | - ▼ 15 Elo | 34.6 | 1771 |
| 4 M NAKAMURA JPN ▲ 4 better than predicted | 1923 | - ▼ 22 Elo | 1Z 2T ▲ 15 Elo | - ▼ 37 Elo | 4Z ▲ 7 Elo | 34.6 | 1892 |
| 5 O BERTONE FRA Top 10 ▼ 1 worse than predicted | 2074 | - ▼ 30 Elo | 2Z 2T ▼ 11 Elo | 4Z ▼ 21 Elo | - ▼ 28 Elo | 34.5 | 1989 |
| 6 F GIBERT FRA ▲ 9 better than predicted | 1817 | - ▼ 16 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 29 Elo | 7Z ▼ 9 Elo | - ▼ 12 Elo | 34.1 | 1812 |
| 6 A APEL GER ▲ 6 better than predicted | 1691 | - ▼ 5 Elo | 2Z 2T ▲ 24 Elo | 7Z ▲ 8 Elo | - ▼ 5 Elo | 34.1 | 1713 |
| 6 A SANDERS USA Top 10 ▼ 5 worse than predicted | 1998 | - ▼ 34 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 19 Elo | 7Z ▼ 33 Elo | - ▼ 22 Elo | 34.1 | 1932 |
| 9 O MACKENZIE AUS Top 10 ▼ 7 worse than predicted | 1971 | 3Z ▲ 7 Elo | 2Z ▼ 42 Elo | 4Z ▼ 1 Elo | - ▼ 16 Elo | 29.4 | 1920 |
| 10 K DEBEVEC SLO ▼ 3 worse than predicted | 1968 | 4Z ▲ 5 Elo | 2Z ▼ 51 Elo | 5Z ▼ 3 Elo | - ▼ 15 Elo | 29.2 | 1906 |
| 11 N MEIGNAN FRA ▼ 6 worse than predicted | 2016 | - ▼ 30 Elo | 1Z 2T ▲ 7 Elo | - ▼ 46 Elo | - ▼ 20 Elo | 24.9 | 1936 |
| 12 M SEKIKAWA JPN Top 10 ▼ 3 worse than predicted | 1844 | - ▼ 10 Elo | 1Z 3T ▲ 13 Elo | - ▼ 21 Elo | - ▼ 10 Elo | 24.8 | 1820 |
| 13 S YOKOYAMA SUI ▲ 7 better than predicted | 1748 | - ▼ 7 Elo | 4Z 4T ▼ 1 Elo | - ▼ 11 Elo | - ▼ 7 Elo | 24.4 | 1724 |
| 14 A CALLIET FRA ▼ 2 worse than predicted | 1844 | - ▼ 11 Elo | 4Z ▼ 36 Elo | 4Z ▲ 9 Elo | - ▼ 7 Elo | 19.4 | 1800 |
| 15 A BESTVATER GER ▲ 3 better than predicted | 1738 | - ▼ 7 Elo | 3Z ▼ 9 Elo | - ▼ 11 Elo | - ▼ 4 Elo | 9.8 | 1709 |
| 15 G MEDICI ITA ▲ 3 better than predicted | 1758 | - ▼ 6 Elo | 3Z ▼ 13 Elo | - ▼ 11 Elo | - ▼ 6 Elo | 9.8 | 1724 |
| 15 A MORI JPN ▼ 7 worse than predicted | 1896 | - ▼ 14 Elo | 3Z ▼ 25 Elo | - ▼ 20 Elo | - ▼ 8 Elo | 9.8 | 1832 |
| 18 A KEREM ISR ▼ 4 worse than predicted | 1892 | - ▼ 14 Elo | 4Z ▼ 36 Elo | - ▼ 17 Elo | - ▼ 9 Elo | 9.7 | 1820 |
| 19 S E.MIMOUNE FRA Top 10 ▼ 2 worse than predicted | 1864 | - ▼ 11 Elo | 6Z ▼ 43 Elo | - ▼ 13 Elo | - ▼ 7 Elo | 9.5 | 1793 |
| 19 F STERRER AUT at home ▼ 4 worse than predicted | 1904 | - ▼ 13 Elo | 6Z ▼ 45 Elo | - ▼ 16 Elo | - ▼ 9 Elo | 9.5 | 1825 |