ArticleScientific reports2026
Hierarchy and ranking in fencing and tennis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ranking athletes by their performance in competitions and tournaments is common in every popular sport and has significant benefits that contribute to both the organization and strategic aspects of competitions. Although rankings are perhaps the most concise and most straightforward representation of the relative strength among the competitors, beyond this one-dimensional characterization, it is also possible to capture the relationships between athletes in greater detail. Following this approach, our study examines the networks between athletes in individual sports such as fencing and tennis, where the nodes are associated with the contestants and the edges are directed from the winner to the loser. We demonstrate that the connections formed through matches arrange themselves into a time-evolving hierarchy, with the top players positioned at its apex. The structure of the resulting networks exhibits detectable differences depending on whether they are constructed purely from round-robin data or from purely elimination-style tournaments. We find that although elimination tournaments lead to networks with strong hierarchical networks due to their organisational concept (structural hierarchy), the dominance differences between players (competing hierarchy) are less effective in this format, which is manifested in the increased probability of circular win-loss situations (cycles). The position within the hierarchy, along with other network metrics, can be used to predict match outcomes. In the systems studied, these methods provide predictions with an accuracy comparable to that of forecasts based on official sports ranking points or the Elo rating system. A deeper understanding of the delicate aspects of pairwise contest networks enhances our ability to model, predict, and optimise the behaviour of many complex systems, whether in sports tournaments, social interactions, or other competitive environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.