The future of US Fencing is at stake!

For transparency, fairness, and athlete support, VOTE NOW for:
(1) Maria Panyi, (2) Andrey Geva, (3) Igor Chirashnya, and (4) Sue Moheb.

Take Action

Division I and Parafencing Nat'l Championships & April NAC

Junior Women's Foil

Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:00 PM

Charlotte, NC, USA

Probability density of pool victories

Reset

Explore the pool victory probability density for each fencer, with their actual victories highlighted in a box. Learn more.

# Name Number of victories
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 GUO Jessica Zi Jia - - - - - 7% 93%
2 LUNG Katerina - - - 6% 36% 58%
3 QIAN Crystal - - - 3% 18% 43% 35%
3 CHEN Jia P. - - 2% 12% 32% 38% 16%
5 WANG Ellen - - - 2% 14% 43% 41%
6 LEE Alina - - 1% 15% 45% 39%
7 JING Emily - - - 2% 15% 42% 40%
8 GEBALA Gabrielle Grace A. - 1% 9% 32% 40% 17%
9 FANG Sabrina - - - - 6% 34% 60%
10 PARK Rowan M. - - 1% 10% 32% 41% 16%
11 SHEN Sophia H. - - 1% 7% 26% 43% 24%
12 LESLIE Ryanne T. - - - 1% 10% 37% 52%
13 ZHANG Alina C. - - 1% 8% 31% 44% 16%
14 KIM Rachael - - - 2% 16% 44% 38%
15 PEVZNER Victoria - - 6% 37% 43% 13%
16 SOOD Ishani S. - - 1% 10% 34% 43% 12%
17 HE Elizabeth W. - - - 1% 8% 37% 55%
18 GRIFFIN Emma G. - - - 4% 20% 45% 31%
19 JING Alexandra - - - 4% 27% 46% 22%
20 CAO Arianna L. - - - 5% 24% 44% 27%
21 PETROVA Kristina - - - 1% 8% 37% 54%
22 KOROL Neta - 2% 11% 30% 37% 18% 3%
23 ZHENG Ivy - - - 1% 13% 45% 40%
23 TAN Kaitlyn N. - - 1% 10% 30% 41% 18%
25 JANG Kimberley - - 1% 12% 38% 40% 8%
26 LEE Allison (Allie) - - - 2% 13% 42% 44%
27 SHAW Kayla M. - 1% 7% 28% 42% 20% 2%
28 LEE Brianna J. - - - 4% 21% 44% 31%
29 LIU Jaelyn A. - - 5% 28% 50% 16%
30 CHUSID Mikayla - - 1% 5% 21% 43% 31%
31 LEE Lavender 1% 13% 33% 34% 15% 3% -
32 FEDELI Caterina S. - 2% 12% 34% 38% 14%
33 CHEN Allison V. - - 3% 17% 39% 34% 7%
34 KOENIG Charlotte R. - 1% 10% 33% 40% 16%
34 OH Erin H. - 4% 18% 36% 32% 10%
34 CHEN Jessie S. - - 2% 18% 47% 33%
37 CASTANEDA Erika L. - 1% 7% 32% 43% 17%
38 BATRA Chaahat - 4% 18% 35% 31% 11% 1%
39 APELIAN Katherine - - - 2% 13% 41% 44%
40 LOCKE Savannah - - 5% 21% 39% 28% 6%
41 ZHENG Vivian - - - 4% 27% 46% 23%
42 XUE Alanna L. - - 3% 17% 38% 33% 8%
43 FREEDMAN Miranda W. - - 1% 10% 31% 40% 17%
44 ZHAO Sophie L. - 1% 5% 22% 39% 27% 5%
45 KNIGHT Skylar - - 1% 8% 27% 42% 22%
46 KOO Rachel A. - - - 4% 22% 49% 26%
47 SEO IRENE Y. - 5% 25% 40% 25% 5% -
48 CONWAY Josephina (JoJo) J. - - 3% 19% 45% 33%
49 KONG Chin-Yi - - - 2% 15% 42% 41%
50 YU Lauren C. - 2% 13% 33% 36% 14% 2%
51 RANDOLPH Piper - - 8% 29% 40% 20% 3%
52 NEWHARD Zelia "Zizi" - - 5% 21% 40% 28% 6%
53 HOOSHI Erica S. - - - 7% 34% 43% 16%
54 EYER Hailey M. - - 3% 14% 35% 36% 12%
55 GALAVOTTI Claire Teresa - - 3% 16% 41% 39% 2%
56 TALAVERA Daena - - 2% 13% 34% 38% 12%
57 REN Olivia Y. - - 5% 34% 46% 16%
58 HALL Velma - 2% 13% 33% 37% 15%
59 LIU Joy Zhaoyi - - 2% 19% 48% 31%
60 KONG Olivia 3% 17% 36% 31% 12% 2%
61 SHEN Lydia - 3% 16% 35% 34% 12%
62 CHO Cameron S. - - 4% 23% 44% 26% 3%
63 MILLER Naomi E. - 1% 9% 28% 38% 21% 3%
64 WANDJI Anais - 1% 10% 30% 38% 18% 3%
65 SENIC Adeline - - 1% 8% 31% 44% 17%
66 CHENG Evelyn - - - 1% 9% 36% 55%
67 LEE Ji Ahn 12% 33% 35% 16% 4% < 1% -
68 DE LA CRUZ Eden - 1% 7% 28% 40% 21% 3%
69 JO Mia C. - - 1% 9% 28% 40% 20%
70 ZHAO Aileen Y. - 4% 23% 46% 23% 3%
71 LI Grace Q. - - 1% 9% 30% 42% 18%
72 KIM Katherine - - 1% 9% 30% 43% 16%
73 LUO Sandra J. - 4% 18% 36% 31% 10% 1%
74 FUNG Emma 1% 12% 33% 35% 16% 3% -
75 CHO Gracie L. - 2% 10% 28% 36% 20% 4%
76 HO Brianna W. - - 1% 6% 27% 44% 22%
77 LI Rachel Y. - 1% 7% 27% 41% 21% 3%
78 KHOO Lauren A. - 1% 6% 23% 38% 26% 6%
79 MI Aileen - 6% 25% 39% 24% 5% -
80 PENG Amber L. - 3% 15% 37% 34% 10% 1%
81 GU EMILY - 4% 29% 43% 20% 3% -
82 SHIM Grace 1% 12% 40% 34% 11% 2% -
83 CHEW Alexis T. 3% 22% 46% 24% 4% -
84 SUN Ruoxi - - 4% 27% 43% 22% 3%
85 DAVIS Bonnie Z. - 4% 22% 40% 28% 6% -
86 LIAO Lu Jia (Lucy) - 4% 22% 38% 27% 8% 1%
87 GOOR Viviene E. - 2% 15% 36% 34% 11% 1%
87 ORVANANOS Anice - 4% 26% 41% 24% 5% -
89 DU Hannah 1% 13% 33% 34% 15% 3% -
90 SHITAMOTO Audrey F. 1% 6% 22% 36% 26% 8% 1%
90 OUYANG Bridgette Z. - 1% 7% 25% 39% 24% 5%
92 COOPER Piper W. 4% 25% 43% 23% 5% - -
93 COSTELLO Angeline S. - 1% 9% 36% 39% 14% 2%
93 SHENG Chuxi 2% 17% 37% 32% 11% 1% -
95 ROY Layla - 8% 38% 41% 11% 1% -
96 ASCHETTINO Aurora 12% 34% 34% 15% 3% - -
97 PAHLAVI Dahlia - 2% 14% 36% 34% 12% 1%
98 WU Julianna Y. - 3% 15% 34% 33% 13% 1%
99 TALWALKAR Apoorva - 7% 28% 40% 21% 4% -
100 XIANG Emma 7% 29% 38% 20% 5% - -
101 MORADI Raiyan N. 5% 25% 38% 24% 7% 1% -
101 KOROL Dana 1% 8% 26% 38% 22% 5% -
103 SARTORI Taylor M. - 1% 7% 27% 40% 22% 4%
104 MI Anning 8% 30% 37% 20% 5% - -
105 KANG Jiyoon 4% 34% 41% 17% 3% - -
106 DRAGNE Alexis D. 2% 17% 38% 30% 11% 2% -
107 DEBACK Greta I. - 1% 9% 29% 38% 20% 3%
108 ZHANG Eunice - 40% 44% 14% 1% -
109 FERNANDES Thea - 11% 61% 24% 3% -
110 HE Fenghuan - 1% 13% 40% 36% 9%
111 WEBB Ella - 18% 47% 30% 5% -
112 CHEN Chloe I. - 6% 27% 40% 22% 4% -
113 CANNON Lira J. 1% 9% 28% 37% 20% 5% -
114 FU Qihan 1% 8% 24% 36% 24% 7% 1%
115 BRADFORD Meeah - 1% 10% 34% 37% 16% 2%
116 CHO Rebecca H. - 1% 5% 21% 39% 29% 6%
117 CHOW Annabelle 1% 11% 32% 37% 17% 3% -
118 SONG Yuqiao Aprille - 6% 27% 41% 21% 4% -
119 WU Irene M. - 4% 25% 41% 24% 5% -
119 OLIVEIRA Lavinia M. 6% 27% 41% 22% 5% - -
121 MANIKTALA Prisha 1% 12% 35% 35% 14% 2% -
122 LI Phoebe J. - - 2% 11% 31% 40% 16%
123 SOLDATOVA Maria - 8% 36% 39% 14% 2% -
124 FERRETTI Anna Rebecca - 6% 24% 38% 24% 6% -
125 MARKOVSKY Nina 36% 42% 18% 3% - -
126 HUANG NATALIE 2% 14% 34% 34% 14% 2% -
127 ZHENG Julie 2% 21% 42% 27% 7% 1% -
127 LONG Madeline M. 7% 26% 36% 23% 7% 1% -
129 O'NEIL Neve - 5% 22% 38% 26% 8% 1%
130 NIKOLIC Alexandra 4% 39% 39% 15% 3% - -
131 YE Eileen - 7% 33% 44% 15% 1%
132 LIU Angel(Daying) 6% 28% 41% 21% 4% -
133 MU Allison 12% 45% 35% 8% 1% -
134 MEI Sarah 12% 39% 35% 12% 2% -
135 CHANG Elizabeth 2% 22% 42% 26% 6% 1% -
136 HAYES Alyssa R. 16% 37% 32% 13% 2% - -
137 MICHAELSEN Emily - 6% 27% 38% 23% 6% -
138 WONG Sophia M. 1% 10% 41% 39% 9% 1% -
139 QIAN Zhiyan 4% 27% 49% 18% 2% - -
140 ROHRING Anna 82% 17% 1% - - - -
141 SLASKI Caroline O. 22% 45% 26% 6% 1% - -
142 WELBORN Calissa 12% 38% 35% 13% 2% - -
143 KO Claire 25% 44% 24% 6% 1% - -
144 KETTELLE Molly 33% 44% 19% 3% - - -
145 LEE Fiona E. 20% 43% 29% 8% 1% - -
146 LIN Ju-An Adrianne 2% 26% 41% 24% 6% 1% -
147 MEYER Claudia 36% 43% 17% 3% - - -
148 RASO Olivia 22% 49% 24% 4% - -
149 HOBSON Ava 4% 27% 46% 20% 3% -
150 LAI Sophia 7% 74% 18% 1% - -
151 HSIEH Rebecca 10% 39% 36% 13% 2% - -
152 NISSINOFF Alexandra 1% 11% 32% 36% 17% 3% -
153 KOSTELNY Alexis - 4% 21% 40% 28% 6% -
154 WANG Celine S. 52% 37% 10% 1% - - -
155 LI Sophia M. 5% 27% 39% 23% 6% 1% -
156 SHA Yi Ling 10% 32% 35% 17% 4% - -
157 HSIEH Sabrina 49% 42% 9% - - - -
158 PHILLIPS Hattie 45% 45% 9% 1% - - -
159 PAULUS Isabella 55% 37% 8% 1% - - -
160 HAN Ashley 22% 42% 27% 8% 1% - -
161 YANICELLI Sloane 22% 51% 24% 3% - - -
162 SIMONOV Dasha 2% 17% 37% 31% 11% 2% -
162 WANG Jasmine 15% 41% 32% 10% 1% - -
162 HAFEZ Tahiyah 25% 56% 17% 2% - - -
165 ZHENG Zoe 40% 48% 12% 1% - - -
166 LIN Victoria T. 25% 47% 22% 4% - - -
167 HWANG Alison 4% 26% 39% 24% 6% 1% -
168 PAULUS Sloane 55% 35% 8% 1% - - -
169 SHAH Suhani 36% 49% 14% 1% - - -
170 LIPKOVITZ Rivka 11% 42% 36% 10% 1% - -
171 HUBERT AVA CLAIRE 37% 50% 12% 1% - - -
172 TAN Clarisse 11% 36% 35% 15% 3% -
173 LEVY Avery 44% 43% 11% 1% - -
174 VAUGHAN Norah 15% 38% 33% 12% 2% - -
175 HAN Crystal 39% 43% 15% 2% - -
176 LUH Mia P. 30% 52% 16% 2% - - -
176 BAWA Sahana 30% 43% 22% 5% - - -
176 SCHMIDT Victoria 29% 45% 22% 4% - - -
179 BOLES Amanda X. 37% 43% 17% 3% - - -
179 PARK Leah 27% 45% 23% 5% - - -
181 MCLANE Katherine 36% 49% 14% 1% - - -
182 MULLER Van 99% 1% - - - -
182 KUNDU TRISHA 57% 36% 7% - - -
184 JIANG Claire 37% 45% 15% 2% - - -
184 SA Milla 78% 20% 2% - - - -
186 CASTANEDA Keira 14% 36% 34% 14% 3% - -
187 GAO Anna 54% 37% 8% 1% - - -
187 ZAMELIS Madelyn 70% 27% 3% - - - -
189 HE Katherine 90% 10% - - - -
190 FULIGNI Isabella 56% 39% 5% - - - -

Explanation

The heatmap in this table provides a visual representation of the victory probability distribution for each fencer in their respective pools:

This heatmap visualization offers an immediate understanding of each fencer's expected performance compared to their actual results.