Teams

YMCA Fulks

2026 OH OV Tri-Level Charleston · Summer 3.5

12 players · average NTRP 4.10 / OHIO VALLEY

View scouting list →
Schedule2 played
2026-08-07vs YMCA RitchieWon 20
W#1 DoublesJaymes Haggerty / Noah Fulks vs Brian Delcotto / Joshua Lawson6-2, 6-1
W#2 DoublesMatthew Sutton / Tanner Whipkey vs Otmer Elmore / Domenick Hoh7-5, 6-2
2026-06-30vs YMCA RitchieWon 20
W#1 DoublesNoah Fulks / Jaymes Haggerty vs Christopher Ritchie / JJ Casto6-2, 6-2
W#2 DoublesGrant Knapp / Brian McCutcheon vs Jon Hoh / Domenick Hoh4-6, 7-5, 1-0
A tie can be incomplete. Tell us if someone is missing.
i
Grouped by tie — one fixture, several lines. A line shows only when a player on it is someone we have indexed, so an early-season tie for a newly-added team can look short. This also means the line count here will not match the header, which counts individual player appearances.
Flight standings2 teams · Summer 3.5
TeamWLInd. WInd. LSets lostGames lost
1YMCA Fulks2051226
2YMCA Ritchie02151061

Ordered by team wins, then losses, then sets lost — the order USTA uses to seed a flight. Individual wins are lines, not ties.

See the full flight, with every team’s record

ScoutingWhere each opponent usually plays

Signed-in extra: whether this captain plays strict strength order or mixes it up, from every doubles line they have put out. Create a free account to see it.

Roster averages 3.82 estimated across 8 rated players. No lineup is published in advance, so the column below is where each player has actually been used — a captain's habits are the best available forecast. Sign in and claim your record to see who you have played.

Grayson Millette
published 4.5
4.16
Grant Knapp
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4.5
4.05
Jaymes Haggerty
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
4.02
Brian McCutcheon
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published 4
3.97
Noah Fulks
usually #1 Doubles 100% · published
3.84
Bryan Mabe
published 4
3.63
Tanner Whipkey
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.50
Matthew Sutton
usually #1 Doubles 67%, also #2 Doubles 33% · published
3.40
Andrew Elliot
published 3.5
Joseph Nassif
published
Tanner Moy
published
Thomas Orcutt
published
Established pairs

Doubles pairs from this roster with three or more matches together anywhere — ordered by performance against what the rating gap predicted, not by record.

Matthew Sutton + Tanner Whipkey4163% gamesnot enough data
Matthew Sutton + Thomas Orcutt404 matchesnot enough data
Brian McCutcheon + Tanner Whipkey123 matchesnot enough data
Roster

Ordered by our estimated dynamic rating, which is why two players at the same published level are not tied — a published 4.0 says nothing about where inside the band someone sits. Lines played in this team’s season are shown beside each name.

4.5
Grayson Millette
2W–4L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
4.5
Grant Knapp
9W–1L career · type D · 3 lines in 2026
12%88%<1%
4.16
Jaymes Haggerty
15W–1L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
4.05
4
Brian McCutcheon
17W–11L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%45%55%
4.02
Noah Fulks
24W–2L career · 2 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.97
4
Bryan Mabe
15W–0L career · no lines in 2026
<1%88%11%
3.84
Tanner Whipkey
57W–26L career · 3 lines in 2026
0%<1%>99%
3.63
Matthew Sutton
71W–32L career · 3 lines in 2026
<1%<1%>99%
3.50
3.5
Andrew Elliot
12W–19L career · no lines in 2026
<1%78%21%
3.40
Joseph Nassif
31W–32L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Tanner Moy
11W–9L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data
Thomas Orcutt
42W–17L career · no lines in 2026
not enough data

Three percentages are where each player stands right now: the chance they are below their band, inside it, or above it, on the way they are playing this season. The number on the right is our estimated dynamic rating, which USTA never publishes. This is today rather than a forecast of December, because a forecast has to assume future matches and cannot know whether someone will even be offered them. Percentages are blank where a player has too few matches this season, or at a level where the model does not yet beat a base-rate guess; the estimate is a weaker claim than a probability and survives where those do not.

Not affiliated with or endorsed by the USTA. Ratings labelled as published are USTA year-end figures; anything we describe as an estimate is ours, not USTA’s. Match data is from USTA TennisLink.