2026 Worlds Women’s All-Around: Nemour’s Lead and the Scores Behind Her Challengers
Kaylia Nemour led women’s all-around qualification at the 2026 Gymnastics World Championships with 55.999. Skye Blakely followed on 55.465, with Liudmila Roshchina and Elena Colas separated by just 0.066 in third and fourth.
Contents
Nemour’s bars advantage was central to her lead, but the standings were built across four apparatus. Vault was the biggest single difference between Roshchina and Colas, who finished only 0.066 apart, while Zhang Qingying’s 15.100 on beam showed how much one event can add to an all-around total.
This article compares the completed qualification scores. The official event schedule places the women’s all-around final on October 23, when the medal contenders begin with new scores.
The Four Scores Behind the Leading Totals
The women’s all-around adds vault, uneven bars, balance beam and floor exercise. Every apparatus counts. A gymnast cannot substitute a second strong bars routine for a weaker floor result.
The following numbers come from the official women’s all-around qualification report, completed on October 19. These are the top eight in the qualification standings, all marked as qualified for the final.
| Qualification rank | Gymnast | Vault | Uneven bars | Balance beam | Floor | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kaylia Nemour, Algeria | 14.033 | 14.933 | 14.133 | 12.900 | 55.999 |
| 2 | Skye Blakely, United States | 14.000 | 14.333 | 14.166 | 12.966 | 55.465 |
| 3 | Liudmila Roshchina, Russia | 14.000 | 14.266 | 13.566 | 13.266 | 55.098 |
| 4 | Elena Colas, France | 13.233 | 14.533 | 14.133 | 13.133 | 55.032 |
| 5 | Ke Qinqin, China | 14.266 | 14.133 | 13.900 | 12.400 | 54.699 |
| 6 | Zhang Qingying, China | 13.133 | 13.766 | 15.100 | 12.566 | 54.565 |
| 7 | Claire Pease, United States | 14.033 | 14.066 | 13.000 | 13.333 | 54.432 |
| 8 | Naomi Visser, Netherlands | 13.000 | 14.466 | 13.266 | 13.233 | 53.965 |
Roshchina competes for Russia: World Gymnastics’ official results and the final start list use the code RUS, while the USA Gymnastics copy of the qualification report prints WG2.
The gap from Nemour to Colas was 0.967. The first four were therefore within one point of each other in this round, but their strengths were spread differently across the apparatus. That distribution is more useful for following the final than assuming qualification order will repeat.
How Bars Gave Nemour Her Lead Over Blakely
Nemour outscored Blakely by 0.600 on bars. Their overall difference was smaller: 0.534. Across vault, beam and floor combined, Blakely actually earned 0.066 more.
| Apparatus | Nemour’s score minus Blakely’s |
|---|---|
| Vault | +0.033 |
| Uneven bars | +0.600 |
| Balance beam | −0.033 |
| Floor exercise | −0.066 |
| Total | +0.534 |
The bars scores show why difficulty and execution need to be examined separately. Nemour received 7.1 for difficulty and 7.833 for execution. Blakely received 6.2 and 8.133 respectively. Nemour’s 0.9 difficulty advantage outweighed Blakely’s 0.300 execution advantage, leaving the 0.600 difference in their apparatus scores.
A higher difficulty score reflects more difficulty points awarded by the judges. A higher execution score reflects fewer execution deductions. The D-score guide explains the first calculation without treating it as the same thing as performance quality.
Blakely’s qualification profile was particularly close to Nemour’s on the other three apparatus. Their vault scores were separated by 0.033, their beam scores by the same amount, and their floor scores by 0.066. That makes bars the clearest explanation of the opening-round lead.
It does not make the final a one-apparatus contest. Those small differences can grow or reverse, and the finalists must perform again on all four events. Qualification supplies a comparison, not points that remain in the bank.
Roshchina and Colas Reached Similar Totals by Different Routes
Roshchina and Colas finished on 55.098 and 55.032. That 0.066 separation conceals much larger differences within the four-event totals.
Roshchina earned 0.767 more on vault and 0.133 more on floor. Colas recovered 0.267 on bars and 0.567 on beam. Their advantages nearly canceled each other out.
Vault is particularly revealing because the report gives Roshchina 9.000 for execution and Colas 9.033. Colas’s slightly higher execution score could not offset the difference in vault difficulty: 4.2 against Roshchina’s 5.0. The resulting scores were 13.233 and 14.000.
That is a reminder to check the component scores before describing a lower total as a less clean performance. On this apparatus, Colas had the higher execution mark but performed the lower-valued vault.
Colas and Nemour also provide a useful comparison. Their beam totals were identical at 14.133. Colas led Nemour by 0.233 on floor, but Nemour gained 0.800 on vault and 0.400 on bars. Those differences produced Nemour’s 0.967 overall advantage.
The equal beam totals did not come from identical ingredients. Colas received 5.8 for difficulty and 8.333 for execution; Nemour received 6.2 and 7.933. One had four tenths more difficulty, the other four tenths more execution. Their totals matched exactly.
For readers comparing score components, the execution-score explanation shows why a large skill value and a clean performance answer different judging questions.
China’s Beam Strength and Pease’s Floor Advantage
Zhang Qingying’s 15.100 on beam was the highest beam qualification score. It exceeded Nemour’s beam mark by 0.967 and gave Zhang a substantial contribution from one apparatus.
Across vault, bars and floor, however, Zhang totaled 39.465 to Nemour’s 41.866. That 2.401 difference was larger than the beam advantage, leaving Zhang 1.434 behind in the all-around.
The comparison helps explain why the top beam scorer still finished sixth, 1.434 behind the all-around leader. A spectacular beam score counts fully, but it still represents one quarter of the required event set.
Ke Qinqin, Zhang’s Chinese teammate, finished one place above her with 54.699. Ke earned 14.266 on vault, the highest vault score among the eight athletes in this table. Zhang’s much larger beam total did not overcome Ke’s combined advantage on the other apparatus.
Pease’s strongest relative event was floor. Her 13.333 was the highest floor score among these eight all-around qualifiers, and it placed fifth in the separate floor qualification standings. Her all-around total finished 0.133 behind Zhang’s because of a 2.100 deficit on beam, and 0.267 behind Ke’s because her beam (−0.900), vault (−0.233) and bars (−0.067) deficits outweighed her 0.933 floor advantage.
Pease’s first-vault score of 14.033 included a 5.6 difficulty value, 8.533 execution and a 0.1 separate penalty. Her vault-qualification score was 14.283: the average of her two vaults (14.033 and 14.133) plus a 0.2 bonus. These numbers serve different competitions; the all-around uses the first vault rather than the two-vault result.
Visser completed the leading eight with 53.965. Her 14.466 on bars was higher than Blakely’s, Roshchina’s, Ke’s, Zhang’s and Pease’s corresponding scores. Her remaining three events kept her below those gymnasts in the overall standings, another example of why bars rank alone cannot describe the all-around race.
Read the Final Field Separately From the Ranking
The all-around final has 24 qualifying places, subject to a maximum of two gymnasts per federation under the 2026 Technical Regulations. A score within the first 24 positions does not always produce a final place.
Charleigh Bullock provides a clear example. She scored 53.499 and ranked 14th, but Blakely and Pease were the two higher-ranked U.S. gymnasts. The official report therefore identifies Bullock as an NOC reserve rather than a qualified finalist.
The same report sets out replacement procedures if a qualified gymnast withdraws. The official start list, published on October 20, includes all 24 qualifiers with no replacements so far; withdrawals can still change it before the final. The 2026 Worlds guide has the final’s start time.
An apparatus-final place is also separate from an all-around place. Rebeca Andrade led the two-vault qualification standings, but that result does not establish an all-around total or make her an all-around qualifier. The four-event contest requires its own qualifying performance.
The all-around versus event-finals guide explains these separate pathways. In this analysis, every total is drawn from the all-around report, while individual apparatus ranks are identified separately.
Questions About the Women’s All-Around
Is Nemour already the 2026 all-around world champion?
No. She led qualification. The all-around title is decided in the October 23 final, and this article was prepared before that competition.
Why does a lower floor score not necessarily prevent a high all-around ranking?
The ranking uses the sum of all four apparatus. A gymnast can recover ground elsewhere, as Nemour’s bars score and Zhang’s beam score demonstrate. The floor score still counts in full.
Does qualifying first give a gymnast a scoring bonus?
No. Qualification determines access to the final and its organization. The medal-round total comes from the routines performed in that final.
Are the qualification gaps predictions?
No. They describe an observed set of routines. Planned upgrades, deductions and changes in execution can all affect later scores, so the table should not be read as a forecast of the podium.
Final Thoughts
Nemour’s qualification lead over Blakely came primarily from bars. Roshchina and Colas combined different strengths to finish almost level, while China’s leading all-around qualifiers and Pease showed how beam, vault and floor could change the order.
The final will reward the strongest new four-event total. The qualification scores explain the contenders’ starting story, not its ending.