Salt Lake City, UT - Salt Lake City, UT, 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 | LICHTEN Keith H. | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 42% | 43% |
| 2 | O'LOUGHLIN Chris S. | - | - | - | - | - | 6% | 94% |
| 3 | HUDSON Jeffrey (Jeff) A. | - | - | 1% | 12% | 40% | 47% | |
| 3 | LOEFFLER Carl E. | - | - | 4% | 20% | 38% | 30% | 8% |
| 5 | LANG Markus | - | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 28% | 8% |
| 6 | LEE Tobias (Toby) T. | - | 1% | 7% | 22% | 35% | 27% | 8% |
| 7 | HAYENGA Gary M. | - | 2% | 15% | 37% | 36% | 10% | |
| 8 | TAYLOR Daryl J. | - | - | 1% | 6% | 28% | 44% | 22% |
| 9 | SUVEG Bela | - | - | 1% | 8% | 31% | 45% | 16% |
| 10 | ROSTAL Scott E. | - | - | - | 1% | 12% | 41% | 46% |
| 11 | MECHKOV Iliya | - | - | 1% | 7% | 24% | 40% | 27% |
| 12 | HITCHCOCK David | - | - | - | 1% | 8% | 35% | 55% |
| 13 | FANGMAN Daniel L. | - | 4% | 17% | 36% | 32% | 10% | 1% |
| 14 | SKOPIK Jr August | - | - | 4% | 28% | 49% | 18% | 2% |
| 15 | SCOTT George R. | - | 1% | 6% | 23% | 37% | 26% | 7% |
| 16 | KURITZ Marc M. | 2% | 12% | 29% | 32% | 19% | 6% | 1% |
| 17 | PERKA Michael | - | - | 1% | 7% | 26% | 41% | 24% |
| 18 | MAZZOLI Julio C. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 31% | 38% | 17% |
| 19 | MARSH Timothy G. | - | 1% | 4% | 17% | 34% | 32% | 12% |
| 20 | BRUCE II Ommer E. | 4% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 1% | |
| 21 | SNIDER Jeffrey H. | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% |
| 22 | POULIQUEN Benoit (Ben) | - | - | - | 2% | 13% | 39% | 46% |
| 23 | STEWART Robert | - | 5% | 26% | 45% | 22% | 3% | - |
| 24 | NEALE James H. | - | 1% | 10% | 28% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
| 25 | WHEELER Mark C. | 1% | 7% | 25% | 35% | 24% | 7% | 1% |
| 26 | MCTIGUE J. Michael | - | 4% | 21% | 38% | 28% | 8% | 1% |
| 27 | NGUYEN Cuong T. | - | 2% | 11% | 27% | 34% | 21% | 5% |
| 28 | SWANSON Dave | - | 5% | 19% | 33% | 29% | 12% | 2% |
| 29 | BAILEY Creston P. | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 37% | 17% | 2% |
| 30 | WATRALL Rick | 1% | 6% | 22% | 36% | 27% | 7% | |
| 31 | GUMAGAY Paul | - | 1% | 10% | 29% | 36% | 20% | 4% |
| 32 | OCHS Bradley C. | 1% | 9% | 25% | 35% | 23% | 6% | 1% |
| 33 | PHO Eric | - | 1% | 9% | 28% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
| 34 | KING Charles M. | - | 2% | 13% | 31% | 34% | 17% | 3% |
| 35 | DOWNEY Gerard C. | - | 1% | 7% | 30% | 43% | 19% | - |
| 36 | ALTMAN Jeff H. | - | - | 2% | 11% | 30% | 39% | 18% |
| 37 | BARREIRO Darren | - | 1% | 9% | 27% | 37% | 21% | 4% |
| 38 | FOLEY Kevin | - | 1% | 6% | 20% | 35% | 29% | 9% |
| 39 | FRANK Fred | - | 2% | 10% | 27% | 35% | 22% | 5% |
| 40 | LIPP Robert (Bob) J. | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 29% | 11% | 1% |
| 41 | FLINT James E. | 5% | 26% | 37% | 23% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 42 | ABELE Chris | 3% | 21% | 36% | 28% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 43 | BLAKLEY Dwain | - | - | 5% | 25% | 43% | 25% | 1% |
| 44 | DYER CJ | - | 5% | 19% | 34% | 28% | 11% | 2% |
| 45 | TRIFILETTI Lawrence T. | 4% | 22% | 37% | 26% | 9% | 2% | - |
| 46 | DESAMOURS Georges H. | - | 2% | 13% | 32% | 34% | 16% | 3% |
| 47 | SCHULTZ Douglas B. | 8% | 29% | 36% | 21% | 5% | - | |
| 48 | YAO Shun | 6% | 24% | 36% | 25% | 8% | 1% | |
| 49 | SUMLER Jeffery | - | 1% | 8% | 28% | 38% | 21% | 4% |
| 50 | WALLACE Patric | - | - | - | 2% | 18% | 57% | 23% |
| 51 | BECK Brian C. | - | 3% | 16% | 38% | 33% | 9% | - |
| 52 | KAUFMAN Joel H. | 4% | 25% | 40% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 53 | PARY Theodore | 1% | 6% | 20% | 33% | 27% | 11% | 2% |
| 54 | TOOMEY Brian L. | - | - | 5% | 21% | 37% | 29% | 8% |
| 55 | KUHN Jeffrey | 10% | 30% | 34% | 20% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 56 | CLINEFELTER Dennis S. | 19% | 43% | 29% | 8% | 1% | - | |
| 57 | JOHNSON Jeff | - | 1% | 5% | 20% | 42% | 32% | |
| 58 | ROUSE Joseph (Joe) T. | 2% | 15% | 37% | 31% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 59 | TYSON Julian F. | - | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 35% | 14% |
| 60 | ROOD Alex | - | 1% | 7% | 23% | 36% | 26% | 7% |
| 61 | NEWSOME James L. | 1% | 12% | 34% | 38% | 14% | 1% | |
| 62 | PARTE Aidan | 10% | 35% | 39% | 14% | 2% | - | - |
| 63 | SIMMONS Matthew C. | 2% | 12% | 28% | 33% | 20% | 6% | 1% |
| 64 | WALKER William H. | 9% | 31% | 37% | 19% | 4% | - | |
| 65 | DAVIS Andrew | 1% | 11% | 36% | 35% | 15% | 3% | - |
| 66 | GELNAW William (Gypsy) H. | 2% | 14% | 36% | 34% | 13% | 1% | |
| 67 | KLEIN Johannes | 4% | 20% | 37% | 29% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 68 | WEINGARTEN Solomon (Sol) | - | 3% | 15% | 32% | 32% | 14% | 2% |
| 69 | ZHENG Brian | 4% | 27% | 39% | 23% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 70 | SWANN William A. | 3% | 17% | 35% | 32% | 12% | 2% | - |
| 70 | KRUGER Mark | 5% | 25% | 39% | 24% | 6% | 1% | - |
| 72 | SPAHN Jeff | 1% | 8% | 27% | 36% | 22% | 6% | 1% |
| 73 | SNYDER John W. | 45% | 39% | 13% | 2% | - | - | - |
| 74 | LIPTON Michael D. | 10% | 41% | 34% | 12% | 2% | - | - |
| 75 | RESS Michael A. | 10% | 31% | 35% | 19% | 5% | 1% | - |
| 76 | DUFFY Gerald | 4% | 22% | 39% | 27% | 7% | 1% | - |
| 77 | GROSS Louis A. | 3% | 39% | 41% | 15% | 2% | - | - |
| 78 | RYAN Christopher | 11% | 38% | 36% | 13% | 2% | - | - |
| 79 | JEFFERIES Jonathan J. | - | 2% | 10% | 26% | 36% | 23% | 4% |
| 80 | WEBER Dick | 4% | 21% | 36% | 27% | 10% | 2% | - |
| 81 | KAIN Brad | 43% | 40% | 15% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 82 | RIFKIND Neil | 35% | 41% | 19% | 4% | - | - | - |
| 83 | SCHWARY Irv | 2% | 26% | 49% | 20% | 2% | - | - |
| 84 | THORESON Gary C. | 2% | 13% | 32% | 33% | 16% | 4% | - |
| 85 | POMPIAN Mark | 79% | 20% | 2% | - | - | - | - |
| 86 | REID Michael | 14% | 46% | 30% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 87 | LEONARDINI Barry M. | 31% | 46% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 88 | KING Richard (Dick) M. | 22% | 40% | 27% | 9% | 2% | - | - |
| 89 | BARAFF David | 29% | 44% | 22% | 5% | - | - | |
| 90 | CAAMANO Leo P. | 14% | 43% | 32% | 10% | 1% | - | - |
| 91 | SATTERWHITE William W. | 39% | 42% | 16% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 91 | KRICK Jon | 55% | 36% | 8% | 1% | - | - | - |
| 93 | KLUCZYNSKI Mike k. | 34% | 44% | 19% | 3% | - | - | - |
| 94 | WILLIAMS Richard | 25% | 46% | 23% | 5% | - | - | - |
| 95 | CHUANG Kenneth H. | 23% | 42% | 27% | 8% | 1% | - | - |
| 96 | KATOPES Peter | 58% | 36% | 6% | - | - | - | - |
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.