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
S1
Z: (12) 2208 ■ T: (04) 2415 ■
MANTLE■, MANTLE (1609.2)TECHNICAL■, TECHNICAL (1621.7)MANTLE■, MANTLE (2204.5)TECHNICAL■ TECHNICAL (2205.1)
S4
Z: (18) 2017 ■ T: (04) 2411 ■
DELICATE■, DELICATE (1391.9)DELICATE■ DELICATE (2237.3)
S2
Z: (13) 2230 ■ T: (07) 2392 ■
POWERFUL■, POWERFUL (1701.6)DYNAMIC■, DYNAMIC (1645.4)DYNAMIC■, DYNAMIC (2072.3)POWERFUL■ POWERFUL (2088.7)
S3
Z: (20) 1806 ■ T: (19) 1866 ■
SLOPER■, SLOPER (1195.3)POWERFUL■, POWERFUL (1212.9)MANTLE■, MANTLE (1189.7)DYNAMIC■, DYNAMIC (1184.4)SLOPER■, SLOPER (1490.6)POWERFUL■, POWERFUL (1500.2)MANTLE■, MANTLE (1484.9)DYNAMIC■ DYNAMIC (1481.4)
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 2415 | 2 2392 | 3 1866 | 4 2411 | Event Score | Post-Elo |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 M NONAKA JPN ▲ 4 better than predicted | 1957 | 2Z 2T ▲ 28 Elo | 2Z 3T ▲ 21 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 22 Elo | 1Z ▼ 3 Elo | 84.5 | 2025 |
| 1 N GROSSMAN USA ▼ 1 worse than predicted | 2144 | 1Z 1T ▲ 13 Elo | 2Z 5T ▼ 7 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 6 Elo | 1Z ▼ 9 Elo | 84.5 | 2147 |
| 3 Z AVEZOU FRA Top 10 ▲ 1 better than predicted | 1902 | 3Z ▲ 4 Elo | 3Z 3T ▲ 22 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 25 Elo | 1Z 2T ▲ 30 Elo | 84.3 | 1983 |
| 4 A CALLIET FRA ▲ 12 better than predicted | 1933 | 1Z 1T ▲ 33 Elo | 2Z 7T ▲ 14 Elo | 1Z 2T ▲ 11 Elo | 2Z ▼ 10 Elo | 83.9 | 1981 |
| 5 A SANDERS USA Top 10 ▼ 2 worse than predicted | 2049 | 1Z 3T ▲ 23 Elo | 7Z ▼ 54 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 19 Elo | 3Z 3T ▲ 4 Elo | 83.0 | 2041 |
| 6 E MCNEICE GBR Top 10 ▬ | 1925 | 1Z ▲ 6 Elo | 3Z 7T ▲ 13 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 23 Elo | 1Z ▲ 4 Elo | 69.2 | 1971 |
| 7 O MACKENZIE AUS Top 10 ▼ 5 worse than predicted | 2099 | - ▼ 72 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 29 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 15 Elo | 3Z ▼ 27 Elo | 59.8 | 2051 |
| 8 A MORI JPN ▲ 5 better than predicted | 1893 | 1Z ▲ 10 Elo | - ▼ 38 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 25 Elo | 4Z 4T ▲ 13 Elo | 59.4 | 1906 |
| 9 F ITO JPN ▲ 6 better than predicted | 1899 | 3Z ▼ 1 Elo | 6Z 6T ▲ 10 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 22 Elo | - ▼ 44 Elo | 58.8 | 1891 |
| 10 A MATSUFUJI JPN ▼ 3 worse than predicted | 2058 | 2Z ▼ 11 Elo | 6Z ▼ 36 Elo | 2Z 2T ▼ 8 Elo | 3Z ▼ 17 Elo | 54.0 | 1986 |
| 11 M NAKAMURA JPN ▼ 2 worse than predicted | 1988 | - ▼ 50 Elo | - ▼ 42 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 21 Elo | 1Z 2T ▲ 31 Elo | 49.9 | 1956 |
| 12 M SEKIKAWA JPN Top 10 ▼ 2 worse than predicted | 1956 | - ▼ 30 Elo | 1Z ▲ 3 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 18 Elo | 2Z ▼ 3 Elo | 44.9 | 1948 |
| 12 Z LUO CHN ▲ 6 better than predicted | 1738 | 2Z ▲ 15 Elo | - ▼ 14 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 29 Elo | 1Z ▲ 14 Elo | 44.9 | 1783 |
| 12 K DEBEVEC SLO ▼ 6 worse than predicted | 2001 | 2Z ▲ 1 Elo | 1Z ▲ 0 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 14 Elo | - ▼ 59 Elo | 44.9 | 1964 |
| 15 J PILZ AUT ▼ 1 worse than predicted | 1894 | 1Z ▲ 11 Elo | - ▼ 29 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 20 Elo | 3Z ▼ 1 Elo | 44.8 | 1897 |
| 16 G TESIO ITA ▼ 4 worse than predicted | 1901 | - ▼ 29 Elo | 4Z ▲ 1 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 20 Elo | 1Z ▲ 9 Elo | 44.7 | 1906 |
| 17 Y ZHANG CHN ▲ 1 better than predicted | 1819 | - ▼ 15 Elo | 7Z ▲ 2 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 23 Elo | 6Z ▼ 8 Elo | 43.6 | 1823 |
| 18 M RICHARDSON CAN ▼ 1 worse than predicted | 1838 | - ▼ 19 Elo | - ▼ 20 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 22 Elo | 1Z ▲ 13 Elo | 35.0 | 1839 |
| 19 C SEO KOR at home ▼ 8 worse than predicted | 1958 | - ▼ 26 Elo | - ▼ 32 Elo | 1Z 1T ▲ 16 Elo | 2Z ▲ 1 Elo | 34.9 | 1924 |
| 20 L ABRIAT FRA Top 10 ▬ | 1714 | - ▼ 7 Elo | - ▼ 9 Elo | 2Z ▼ 23 Elo | 1Z ▲ 16 Elo | 19.9 | 1693 |