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
F4
Z: (06) 1982 ■ T: (01) 2411 ■
POWERFUL■, POWERFUL (1441.9)DYNAMIC■, DYNAMIC (1429.7)PRESS■, PRESS (1406.4)DYNAMIC■, DYNAMIC (2303.4)POWERFUL■, POWERFUL (2310.9)PRESS■ PRESS (2301.6)
F1
Z: (05) 2114 ■ T: (05) 2124 ■
POWERFUL■, POWERFUL (1505.5)DYNAMIC■, DYNAMIC (1498.2)POWERFUL■, POWERFUL (1959.8)DYNAMIC■ DYNAMIC (1952.6)
F2
Z: (06) 2057 ■ T: (04) 2246 ■
COORDINATION■, COORDINATION (1452.8)COORDINATION■ COORDINATION (2081.9)
F3
Z: (06) 2024 ■ T: (02) 2358 ■
TECHNICAL■, TECHNICAL (1453.2)DELICATE■, DELICATE (1446.4)DELICATE■, DELICATE (2212.6)TECHNICAL■ TECHNICAL (2210.8)
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 2124 | 2 2057 | 3 2358 | 4 2411 | Event Score | Post-Elo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Z AVEZOU FRA Top 10 ▲ 2 better than predicted | 1983 | 1Z 2T ▲ 20 Elo | 1Z 2T ▲ 23 Elo | 4Z 5T ▼ 14 Elo | 1Z ▼ 8 Elo | 84.1 | 2004 |
| 2 A SANDERS USA Top 10 ▬ | 2041 | 4Z 4T ▼ 19 Elo | 7Z ▼ 66 Elo | 1Z 2T ▲ 27 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 29 Elo | 83.7 | 2012 |
| 3 E MCNEICE GBR Top 10 ▲ 2 better than predicted | 1971 | 1Z 1T ▲ 26 Elo | 1Z 3T ▲ 18 Elo | 1Z ▼ 8 Elo | 2Z ▼ 11 Elo | 69.7 | 1996 |
| 4 N GROSSMAN USA ▼ 3 worse than predicted | 2147 | 1Z 1T ▲ 8 Elo | 2Z 4T ▼ 10 Elo | 1Z ▼ 16 Elo | 1Z ▼ 8 Elo | 69.6 | 2121 |
| 5 M NONAKA JPN ▼ 1 worse than predicted | 2025 | 1Z 2T ▲ 14 Elo | 3Z 7T ▼ 20 Elo | 3Z ▼ 24 Elo | 1Z ▲ 3 Elo | 68.9 | 1998 |
| 6 A CALLIET FRA ▬ | 1981 | - ▼ 85 Elo | 3Z ▼ 14 Elo | 3Z ▼ 6 Elo | 4Z ▼ 13 Elo | 29.3 | 1869 |