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.

Division 1/Parafencing National Championships + April NAC

Div I Men's Foil

Friday, April 26, 2024 at 8:00 AM

Salt Palace Convention Center - Salt Lake City, UT, 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 KUMBLA Samarth - - - 3% 16% 41% 40%
2 OLIVARES Marcello G. - - - 1% 8% 34% 57%
3 BOURTIS James S. - - - 2% 12% 39% 46%
3 CULLIVAN Justice - 2% 12% 33% 38% 15%
5 EMMER Chase T. - - - - 4% 26% 70%
6 GRAHAM Roy J. - - 4% 18% 36% 32% 10%
7 CHEN Allen - - 5% 23% 43% 28%
8 ONIK Elijah T. 1% 8% 27% 38% 22% 4%
9 LI Richard - - 1% 5% 23% 44% 27%
10 LEWIS Paul D. - - 4% 16% 33% 34% 13%
11 BAS Liam - - 1% 6% 24% 45% 24%
12 BRUK Peter J. - 1% 7% 24% 38% 25% 5%
13 LOUIE Bryce - - - - 4% 29% 66%
14 DAI Jonathan T. - 2% 10% 28% 36% 21% 5%
15 STANLEY Mason B. - - 1% 9% 28% 41% 21%
16 KIM Nicholas W. - - - 2% 12% 39% 47%
17 KELLY William J. - - 1% 8% 38% 53%
18 GASSNER Ethan I. - - - 1% 10% 38% 50%
19 SISINNI Riccardo - 1% 9% 27% 37% 22% 4%
20 ROSE Ben 1% 6% 24% 37% 25% 7% -
21 SINGH Dayaal - 1% 10% 33% 43% 12%
22 LO Conrad - 6% 23% 37% 26% 7%
23 WANG Brian S. - 1% 7% 26% 42% 24%
24 YANG Luao - - 2% 14% 41% 42%
25 WU Alexander - 2% 14% 35% 37% 12%
26 RUSADZE Nickolas - - 3% 14% 32% 36% 15%
27 GUERRA Gabriel H. - 5% 21% 36% 28% 9% 1%
28 GRIFFITH JACK - 2% 14% 36% 36% 12%
29 DICKSON Farr R. - 1% 8% 26% 38% 23% 4%
30 TRAUGOT Owen G. 4% 23% 40% 26% 7% 1%
31 LIN James G. 2% 16% 38% 32% 11% 1%
32 TIYA BIAYA K. 1% 10% 27% 34% 21% 6% 1%
33 WOO Christian 1% 7% 25% 38% 24% 5%
34 XIAO EDWARD 1% 5% 20% 34% 29% 11% 1%
35 DESHMUKH Arjun - 3% 15% 32% 33% 14% 2%
36 GOOR Julian - 1% 8% 26% 36% 23% 5%
37 MIALL Steven A. 4% 21% 37% 27% 10% 1% -
38 LIN Michael - 4% 18% 34% 31% 12% 1%
39 GATRELL Mitchell E. 20% 39% 29% 10% 2% < 1% -
40 MITBERG Gregory W. - 1% 6% 25% 43% 26%
41 BANERJEE ANUP - - 3% 16% 36% 35% 10%
42 DESERANNO Jeidus - - 4% 16% 34% 34% 12%
43 WYMAN Julian 2% 14% 36% 33% 13% 2% -
44 KIM Ryan Y. - 2% 12% 28% 34% 19% 4%
45 JANG Jaewon - 1% 8% 25% 38% 25% 4%
46 RASMUSSEN Sage 8% 27% 35% 22% 7% 1% -
47 HOOSHI Jayden C. - - 4% 17% 35% 32% 10%
48 MEJIA MATTHEW D. 11% 31% 34% 18% 5% 1% -
49 BURKE Spencer W. - 3% 15% 33% 35% 14%
50 SADOVSKY Leor B. - 3% 18% 39% 32% 8%
51 SIMA Congyu Josh 8% 32% 39% 18% 3% -
52 JAIN Aditya 1% 6% 20% 34% 29% 10% 1%
53 KAO Castor T. - - 4% 18% 35% 32% 11%
54 LEE Jacob J - - 3% 13% 33% 37% 15%
55 ZHENG Alan H. - 2% 10% 29% 38% 18% 3%
56 SONG Aiden S. - 1% 10% 30% 37% 19% 3%
57 MATSAKH Philip 13% 36% 34% 14% 2% -
58 LIANG Lixi (Henry) - 4% 20% 39% 29% 7%
59 JOSEPH Dominic (Dom) - - 4% 18% 38% 33% 7%
60 KLOTZ Isaiah 7% 27% 37% 22% 6% 1% -
61 FUKUDA Renzo K. - 1% 5% 21% 38% 29% 5%
62 DIERKS Kian 1% 6% 22% 36% 26% 8% 1%
63 BING Charles 1% 7% 23% 35% 26% 8% 1%
64 LI Eric 1% 10% 29% 37% 20% 3%
65 HOLMES Stuart S. - - - 2% 14% 41% 43%
66 GRIFFIN John O. - - 4% 21% 41% 29% 4%
67 HUTH Jacob - 1% 7% 24% 37% 25% 6%
68 QIAN Jason H. 2% 15% 34% 33% 14% 2%
69 SONG Leonardo T. - 4% 19% 39% 30% 8%
70 SONG Noel 48% 39% 12% 2% < 1% -
71 CHENG Jonathan 5% 23% 36% 26% 8% 1% -
72 LEWIS Akhil 1% 7% 24% 36% 25% 7% -
73 SENIC Lucas 3% 16% 34% 31% 13% 2% -
74 LI Matthew 1% 6% 21% 36% 27% 9% 1%
75 LING Eddie 3% 16% 34% 32% 13% 2% -
76 CHEN Raymond - 1% 6% 25% 42% 24% 3%
77 CO Dylan - 5% 19% 35% 30% 10% 1%
78 CHEN James P. - - - 1% 11% 38% 50%
79 LI Arvin 8% 32% 39% 18% 3% - -
80 LEE Aidan - 1% 9% 29% 37% 20% 3%
81 WU Trevor 21% 40% 28% 9% 2% - -
82 GONG Benjamin 4% 19% 35% 29% 11% 2% -
83 GATZA Logan 8% 28% 37% 22% 6% 1% -
84 LIU Ethan 7% 28% 38% 21% 5% 1% -
85 KIM Yonjae - - 2% 11% 31% 38% 17%
86 YOON DYLAN 5% 23% 37% 26% 8% 1% -
87 WU Alber Y. 14% 36% 34% 14% 3% -
88 STRUGAR Marcus A. 23% 43% 26% 6% 1% -
89 LEE Eugene 30% 45% 21% 4% - -
90 TANG Albert 25% 42% 25% 6% 1% -
91 OH SEAN 2% 14% 37% 34% 12% 1%
92 KIM Daniel Y. 24% 45% 25% 5% 1% -
93 TEMPLE Jackson - 6% 24% 40% 25% 4%
93 SIU Aiden - 6% 22% 37% 28% 8%
95 YAO Bradley 42% 43% 14% 2% - -
96 NICOLETTI Luca 8% 31% 39% 19% 3% -
97 ELWOOD Sebastian F. 5% 23% 38% 26% 8% 1%
97 LI Owen 1% 12% 31% 35% 18% 3%
99 OURSLER Jack - - 3% 17% 42% 37%
100 PARK Rion 13% 35% 34% 15% 3% - -
101 KRYLTSOV Michael 16% 38% 32% 12% 2% - -
102 DAVIDSON Elliot 13% 37% 34% 13% 2% - -
103 TIKHAEV Alexander 4% 20% 36% 28% 10% 1% -
104 WONG Antonio 26% 44% 24% 5% - - -
105 MARTINEZ Donavyn E. - 1% 10% 30% 37% 18% 3%
106 PO Oliver - 3% 14% 31% 34% 16% 2%
107 ZHAI Jeffrey - 4% 16% 34% 33% 12% 2%
108 LEE Jonah 10% 33% 36% 17% 4% - -
109 GODZHIK Zachary - 5% 19% 35% 30% 10% 1%
110 DERRICK Blake 7% 28% 37% 21% 6% 1% -
111 CHOI Ethan 10% 33% 36% 17% 4% - -
112 ELKOUSY Laith H. 4% 22% 37% 27% 9% 1% -
113 YI William 24% 46% 24% 5% 1% - -
114 AUGUSTINE Aaron A. 22% 43% 27% 7% 1% -
115 TANG Owen S. 2% 14% 35% 36% 12% 1%
116 RADOSLAVOV Ivan-Asen 23% 42% 26% 8% 1% -
117 CHEN Kyle P. 16% 41% 32% 9% 1% - -
118 WONG Garrick G. 6% 23% 35% 26% 9% 2% -
119 MIN Eric 1% 11% 29% 35% 19% 5% -
120 KEE Andrew L. 3% 16% 32% 31% 14% 3% -
121 FENG Michael 27% 42% 24% 6% 1% - -
122 JIANG Owen 7% 27% 36% 22% 6% 1% -
123 TANG August L. 15% 38% 32% 12% 2% - -
124 LI Raphael C. - 4% 20% 39% 28% 7% -
125 LEUNG Chu Ming Aiden 8% 29% 36% 20% 5% 1% -
126 LIPPMAN Sam 22% 41% 28% 8% 1% - -
127 DINSAY Kristjan 17% 38% 31% 12% 2% - -
127 LI Aaron 31% 45% 19% 4% - - -
129 FUKUDA Diego 22% 41% 27% 9% 1% - -
130 WANG Mason 15% 35% 32% 14% 3% - -
131 MA Andrew 7% 26% 36% 23% 7% 1% -
132 TALASILA Arush 22% 40% 28% 9% 1% - -
133 MCISAAC Finn 20% 40% 29% 10% 2% - -
134 LEE Christopher T. 30% 43% 22% 4% - -
135 CANLAS Nathan 4% 23% 37% 26% 8% 1%
136 LEE Jacob 12% 32% 34% 17% 4% - -
137 NGUYEN Martin 16% 43% 31% 9% 1% -
138 CORTRIGHT Skipper 14% 37% 33% 13% 3% - -
139 KIM Jackson 23% 42% 27% 8% 1% - -
139 GUO Justin 16% 39% 31% 12% 2% - -

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.