Columbus, OH - Columbus, OH, USA
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 | LAURON Sean M. | - | - | 3% | 13% | 31% | 36% | 17% |
| 2 | CULLEN Daniel F. | - | 6% | 33% | 40% | 18% | 3% | |
| 3 | FULLERTON Houston T. | - | - | 6% | 23% | 39% | 26% | 5% |
| 5 | KARAUSKY Joshua C. | - | - | 4% | 16% | 34% | 34% | 11% |
| 6 | MARTIN Nathan C | - | - | - | 4% | 18% | 43% | 34% |
| 7 | GUINAN Joseph | - | - | - | 4% | 23% | 49% | 24% |
| 8 | FREDERIKSEN Ean L. | 2% | 11% | 29% | 35% | 19% | 4% | |
| 9 | MASON Alexander T. | - | - | - | 2% | 12% | 40% | 46% |
| 10 | STENCEL Andrew E. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 34% | 22% | 5% |
| 11 | BENACK Steven M. | - | - | 4% | 20% | 43% | 32% | |
| 12 | MALYSZ Anthony J. | - | 1% | 11% | 35% | 39% | 14% | |
| 13 | HAYENGA Gary M. | - | 4% | 19% | 37% | 31% | 8% | |
| 14 | PEDERSEN Trevor | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 21% | 5% |
| 15 | SZABO Benedek H. | - | 3% | 14% | 31% | 33% | 16% | 2% |
| 16 | MARTIN Liam N. | - | 3% | 14% | 32% | 36% | 15% | |
| 17 | YI Kyle | - | 2% | 12% | 30% | 35% | 17% | 3% |
| 18 | LI Jesse | - | 2% | 15% | 38% | 36% | 9% | |
| 19 | WOJCIECHOWSKI Matthew | - | - | 2% | 13% | 40% | 45% | |
| 20 | DAVIES Morgan | - | 4% | 20% | 40% | 29% | 6% | |
| 21 | RODACHY Jeffrey M. | 10% | 32% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 22 | RUSSELL Ben | 1% | 9% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 7% | 1% |
| 23 | KIM Minjun | 1% | 8% | 25% | 37% | 24% | 6% | - |
| 24 | NORTH Gary S. | - | - | 5% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 9% |
| 25 | HANXU Richard A. | - | 2% | 11% | 29% | 36% | 19% | 3% |
| 26 | VAN TASSEL Schuyler | 1% | 7% | 27% | 37% | 22% | 6% | - |
| 27 | FREDERIKSEN Elijah L. | - | 1% | 10% | 34% | 40% | 15% | |
| 28 | ANEZ Daniel A. | 2% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 29 | UKOLOV Dimitri | 1% | 8% | 22% | 31% | 25% | 11% | 2% |
| 30 | MU Lejia | - | - | 5% | 20% | 38% | 29% | 8% |
| 31 | CLINGSHOFF Christopher | 3% | 23% | 41% | 26% | 6% | - | |
| 32 | PARK Minchan | 4% | 23% | 38% | 26% | 8% | 1% | |
| 33 | RESHEIDAT Shadi | - | 1% | 10% | 32% | 40% | 17% | |
| 34 | BEATTY Brendon J. | 2% | 11% | 29% | 35% | 20% | 4% | |
| 35 | DITTEL Aaron K. | 2% | 19% | 36% | 29% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 36 | LAVENSTEIN Kinley V. | - | 1% | 6% | 24% | 38% | 26% | 6% |
| 37 | OCHS Bradley C. | 2% | 12% | 31% | 35% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 38 | LARTZ John A. | 1% | 5% | 18% | 33% | 30% | 13% | 2% |
| 39 | TOPAZ Nicholas | 1% | 12% | 33% | 36% | 15% | 2% | |
| 40 | TOOMEY Brian L. | - | 5% | 19% | 36% | 31% | 10% | |
| 41 | KLINE R. Jay | 10% | 31% | 36% | 18% | 4% | - | |
| 42 | TATE Leon J. | 19% | 60% | 19% | 2% | - | - | |
| 43 | HANE Matthew J. | 11% | 33% | 35% | 17% | 4% | - | |
| 44 | EVANS Allen L. | 1% | 11% | 31% | 36% | 17% | 3% | - |
| 45 | MCDONNELL Michael | 22% | 44% | 27% | 6% | 1% | - | - |
| 47 | SOKOLOV Andrii A. | 8% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 48 | CLARK Carson | - | 3% | 14% | 33% | 36% | 14% | |
| 49 | SCHNUR Matthew P. | 20% | 40% | 29% | 9% | 1% | - | |
| 50 | HINGSBERGEN Ryan | 21% | 43% | 28% | 7% | 1% | - | |
| 51 | JUSCINSKI Michal | 9% | 32% | 38% | 18% | 3% | - | |
| 52 | KELSEY Ryan | 7% | 25% | 36% | 24% | 7% | 1% | |
| 53 | BRENNAN Charles F. | 14% | 36% | 33% | 14% | 3% | - | |
| 54 | YANG Brandon | 22% | 39% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - | |
| 55 | DICKSON Tim | 6% | 26% | 39% | 23% | 5% | - | |
| 56 | KNOWLES Ethan | 61% | 33% | 5% | - | - | - | |
| 57 | MCNICHOLAS Evan M. | 13% | 36% | 34% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 58 | BACKOS Ryan P. | 1% | 14% | 34% | 34% | 15% | 2% | - |
| 59 | NOCERINO Nicholas T. | 7% | 26% | 35% | 23% | 8% | 1% | - |
| 60 | YU Kevin | 14% | 35% | 33% | 15% | 3% | - | - |
| 61 | WANG Albert | 4% | 22% | 38% | 26% | 9% | 1% | - |
| 62 | O'BRIEN Timothy S. | 26% | 54% | 18% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 64 | MORRIS Alex K. | 2% | 11% | 30% | 35% | 18% | 4% | - |
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.