Southern Connecticut State University (James Moore Fieldhouse) - New Haven, CT, USA
Color shade indicates the magnitude of a surprise (positive or negative). Grey means no suprise. Read more.
| # | Name | Bout Difficulty vs. Outcome * | Pool Victories | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pool | DE | Exp. | Act. | Diff. | ||
| 1 | ATKINS Benjamin | V V V D V V | V V V V V | 4.5 | 5 | +0.5 |
| 2 | WHEELER Daniel | V V V D V V | V V V V D | 5.1 | 5 | -0.1 |
| 3 | PRIHODKO Andrew | V D D V V V | V V V V D | 4.6 | 4 | -0.6 |
| 3 | LAWLOR Lee | V V D V V V | V V V D | 2.4 | 5 | +2.6 |
| 5 | ZUCKER Noah L. | D V V V V V | V V D | 4.6 | 5 | +0.4 |
| 6 | BUSH Thomas | V V V V D V | V V D | 3.1 | 5 | +1.9 |
| 7 | YAKIMENKO Andrei | V D V V D | V V D | 3.0 | 3 | - |
| 8 | GERSEN Jacob | V V D V V D | V V D | 4.0 | 4 | - |
| 9 | BELLIVEAU Shane | V V V V V V | V D | 2.6 | 6 | +3.4 |
| 10 | STEWART Robert | D V V V V V | V D | 4.7 | 5 | +0.3 |
| 11 | COETZEE Frans M. | V V D V V V | V D | 4.2 | 5 | +0.8 |
| 12 | PHO Eric | D D V V V V | V D | 5.4 | 4 | -1.4 |
| 13 | CHENG Thomas | V V V D V D | V D | 4.5 | 4 | -0.5 |
| 14 | HARRIS Robert S. | V V D D D V | V V D | 4.7 | 3 | -1.7 |
| 15 | FIEDERLEIN Andrew M. | V D D D V | V V D | 2.3 | 2 | -0.3 |
| 16 | HUGHES Michael D. | D D D V V D | V V D | 4.3 | 2 | -2.3 |
| 17 | SPRINGER Michael | V V V V V V | D | 5.0 | 6 | +1.0 |
| 18 | ELBAG Mark H. | V V D V V | D | 3.5 | 4 | +0.5 |
| 19 | LIU Kun | V V V D V V | D | 2.3 | 5 | +2.7 |
| 20 | VIEDERMAN Matthew (Matt) | D D V V V | D | 2.4 | 3 | +0.6 |
| 21 | MCDONNELL Michael | V V D V V D | V D | 4.2 | 4 | -0.2 |
| 22 | FROLICH Grant | V V V D D V | V D | 2.0 | 4 | +2.0 |
| 23 | CHOI Paul S. | V V V V D D | V D | 3.9 | 4 | +0.1 |
| 24 | HARRELL D. Fox | D V V D V | V D | 2.5 | 3 | +0.5 |
| 25 | NEMAZIE David A. | D V D D V V | V D | 3.4 | 3 | -0.4 |
| 26 | RUGGLES William R. | D D V D V V | V D | 2.8 | 3 | +0.2 |
| 27 | CHU Brandon A. | D D V V V D | V D | 3.1 | 3 | -0.1 |
| 28 | ZHANG Qing | D V V D D D | V D | 1.2 | 2 | +0.8 |
| 29 | WU Robert | V D D V D D | V D | 1.6 | 2 | +0.4 |
| 30 | DREYER Matthew W. | D D D V V D | V D | 2.3 | 2 | -0.3 |
| 31 | WALTING Paul J. | V D D V D D | V D | 2.9 | 2 | -0.9 |
| 32 | ANDERSON Eric | D D D V D D | V D | 1.4 | 1 | -0.4 |
| 33 | WARD Carrington R. | V D V D V D | D | 2.1 | 3 | +0.9 |
| 34 | HEKMAT Sina R. | D D V D V V | D | 3.1 | 3 | -0.1 |
| 35 | TARDIFF Seth | D D V D V V | D | 1.0 | 3 | +2.0 |
| 36 | GAO "George" Xiaojiang | V D D V D D | D | 2.5 | 2 | -0.5 |
| 37 | LESINSKI Jason J. | D V V D D D | D | 1.6 | 2 | +0.4 |
| 38 | LEE Kevin | D D D V D V | D | 2.2 | 2 | -0.2 |
| 39 | ROMERO Javier | V D D V D D | D | 3.0 | 2 | -1.0 |
| 40 | PARTE Aidan | V D D D D D | D | 2.5 | 1 | -1.5 |
| 41 | HANSEL Roy | D D D D D | D | 1.3 | 0 | -1.3 |
| 42 | MILES Ronald D. | D D D D D V | D | 2.5 | 1 | -1.5 |
| 43 | CUFF Joe | D V D D D D | D | 0.6 | 1 | +0.4 |
| 44 | O'BRIEN Timothy S. | D D V D D D | D | 2.9 | 1 | -1.9 |
| 45 | LUNIEVICZ Joseph P. | V D D D D D | D | 2.0 | 1 | -1.0 |
| 46 | BERDICHEVSKY Steven | D D D V D D | D | 2.1 | 1 | -1.1 |
| 47 | PIERRO Roger | D D D D D D | D | 2.7 | 0 | -2.7 |
| 48 | LONADIER Robert | D D D D D D | D | 0.2 | 0 | -0.2 |
Color coded boxes represent the outcome against opponents of varying difficulty levels from the perspective of the fencer. Letters inside the boxes indicate victory (V) and defeat (D).
| Color | Outcome | Opponent's Difficulty | Probability of Victory |
|---|---|---|---|
| Victory | Very Hard | 0% to 20% | |
| Victory | Hard | 20% to 40% | |
| Victory | Roughly Even | 40% to 60% | |
| Victory | Easy | 60% to 80% | |
| Victory | Very Easy | 80% to 100% | |
| Defeat | Very Hard | 0% to 20% | |
| Defeat | Hard | 20% to 40% | |
| Defeat | Roughly Even | 40% to 60% | |
| Defeat | Easy | 60% to 80% | |
| Defeat | Very Easy | 80% to 100% |
The visual cues provided in this table highlight bouts that may be considered surprises based on the relative strengths of the competitors:
This visualization is designed to give both fencers and spectators an immediate sense of the unexpected outcomes of the competition. While every bout has its unique circumstances, these indicators can help highlight moments where a fencer overcame the odds or where there was an unexpected turn of events.