Suffern, NY - Suffern, NY, 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 | SZAPARY Tristan B. | V V D V V V | V V V V V | 4.8 | 5 | +0.2 |
| 2 | MILLER Finn S. | V V V D V V | V V V V D | 4.2 | 5 | +0.8 |
| 3 | DELANEY Alexander D. | V V V D V D | V V V V D | 4.0 | 4 | - |
| 3 | YU Colin | V V V D V V | V V V D | 4.0 | 5 | +1.0 |
| 5 | MERCHANT Reza H. | V V D V V V | V V D | 4.2 | 5 | +0.8 |
| 6 | ZHANG Joshua | D V V V V V | V V D | 2.8 | 5 | +2.2 |
| 7 | DANZIG Jacob S. | D V V D D | V V V D | 3.6 | 2 | -1.6 |
| 8 | KUMAR Anitya | D D V D V D | V V V D | 1.7 | 2 | +0.3 |
| 9 | SHENG Patrick Y. | V V V V V | V D | 2.0 | 5 | +3.0 |
| 10 | ZUCKER Noah L. | V D V V V | V D | 3.5 | 4 | +0.5 |
| 11 | INSLER Gabriel C. | V V D V V | V V D | 2.5 | 4 | +1.5 |
| 12 | DOLGONOS Mark | D V V V V | V V D | 2.3 | 4 | +1.7 |
| 13 | BASOK Daniel | V D V V V D | V D | 2.8 | 4 | +1.2 |
| 14 | LAVENSTEIN Kinley V. | D V V D V V | V V D | 3.2 | 4 | +0.8 |
| 15 | ZHANG Matthew | V D V V D D | V V D | 3.0 | 3 | - |
| 16 | CHA Russell W. | D V V D V D | V V D | 4.4 | 3 | -1.4 |
| 17 | MARAKOV Allen B. | V D V V V V | D | 4.6 | 5 | +0.4 |
| 18 | WOLOSINSKI Peter | V D V V V V | D | 3.0 | 5 | +2.0 |
| 19 | GHAZALEH Thomas Xavier | V V V V V D | D | 5.0 | 5 | - |
| 20 | LEIGH David A. | V V V V D V | D | 4.1 | 5 | +0.9 |
| 21 | INSLER Ethan C. | D V V D V V | V D | 2.7 | 4 | +1.3 |
| 22 | DIDASKALOU Ilias L. | D D V V V | V D | 1.7 | 3 | +1.3 |
| 23 | KRONROD Tal | V D D V V | V D | 2.8 | 3 | +0.2 |
| 24 | TABLEMAN Doug S. | V V D D V | V D | 4.1 | 3 | -1.1 |
| 25 | HAO Jerry | V V D D V | V D | 3.0 | 3 | - |
| 26 | SHINE Peter C. | D V D V D V | V D | 2.8 | 3 | +0.2 |
| 27 | RA Jr. Daniel M. | V V D V D D | V D | 4.1 | 3 | -1.1 |
| 28 | KOKENGE Clark | D D V D V | V D | 2.9 | 2 | -0.9 |
| 29 | GIBSON Nowell L. | V D V D D | V D | 2.7 | 2 | -0.7 |
| 30 | KIM William M. | D V V D D D | V D | 1.5 | 2 | +0.5 |
| 31 | ELAMURUGAN Kavin | D V D D D | V D | 2.1 | 1 | -1.1 |
| 32 | KANG Michael H. | D V D D D | V D | 3.1 | 1 | -2.1 |
| 33 | CHILANA Savitoz (Savi) | D V V V D | D | 1.6 | 3 | +1.4 |
| 34 | OLIVERIUS Joseph W. | V D V V D | D | 2.7 | 3 | +0.3 |
| 35 | SLAVINSKIY Alan | D D V V D V | D | 4.8 | 3 | -1.8 |
| 36 | BORATIN Daniel I. | D D D V V V | D | 2.5 | 3 | +0.5 |
| 37 | SPANO Gideon S. | D D V V D V | D | 1.6 | 3 | +1.4 |
| 38 | HANXU Richard A. | V V D D V D | D | 3.7 | 3 | -0.7 |
| 39 | LUKANYUK Lorence | V V D V D D | D | 3.2 | 3 | -0.2 |
| 40 | BHATNAGAR Nishay V. | V D D V D V | D | 3.5 | 3 | -0.5 |
| 42 | SOOMRO Adam A. | D V V D D D | D | 2.0 | 2 | - |
| 43 | SIDDIQUI Humza K. | D V D D V D | D | 1.8 | 2 | +0.2 |
| 44 | SMITH Nicholas S. | V D D D D V | D | 2.2 | 2 | -0.2 |
| 45 | ZHANG William | V D D D D | D | 0.6 | 1 | +0.4 |
| 46 | RODE Damian E. | D D D V D | D | 2.0 | 1 | -1.0 |
| 47 | MRAK Michael R. | D D D D D V | D | 1.5 | 1 | -0.5 |
| 48 | RITCHIE Mark T. | D D D V D D | D | 2.1 | 1 | -1.1 |
| 49 | MORSE Tyler | D D D D D | D | 1.8 | 0 | -1.8 |
| 50 | RHYU Kozmo | D D D D D D | D | 2.4 | 0 | -2.4 |
| 51 | RITCHIE Patrick Q. | D D D D D D | D | 2.4 | 0 | -2.4 |
| 51 | LEE Tae Hee | D D D D D D | 0.3 | 0 | -0.3 | |
| 53 | KWONG Jason | D D D D D D | D | 1.8 | 0 | -1.8 |
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.